Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons for the gradual extinction of reading scholarship in Library and Information Science (LIS) departments and to identify three problematic areas accounting for its dropping prestige: paradigmatic conflicts, the influence of the corporate university and low awareness of the potential of reading research. It also proposes possible solutions to each problem.
Design/methodology/approach
– Close reading and analysis of an extensive selection of sources with novel conceptualization and critical perspectives.
Findings
– The information science paradigm, which has dominated LIS, is not sufficient to accommodate reading research. The information science model has a detrimentally restrictive effect on reading scholarship. Library science, which should be considered an autonomous discipline rather than an appendix of information science, is more conducive to the study of reading. Non-specialization-based academic hiring to increase values-based diversity in LIS through a larger influx of reading scholars is advocated.
Originality/value
– Reading scholarship, unduly deemed “old-fashioned”, or euphemistically “traditional”, is one of the most potent areas of academic inquiry, to which LIS scholars are perfectly positioned to make a unique contribution. Reading research in LIS has great merit irrespective of its connection to information and technology; a set of evaluative questions to determine the quality of reading scholarship is introduced. Using a case study, the paper illustrates the potential of reading research for interdisciplinary connections, community partnerships and the enrichment of LIS education and professional practices. An honest look at one of the most exciting academic fields, regrettably neglected by LIS.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences
Reference79 articles.
1. Adams, S.
and
Rice-Lively, M.L.
(2009), “Personality and research styles: why we do the things we do”,
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 50-58.
2. Al-Haj, M.
(2002), “Identity patterns among immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel: assimilation vs. ethnic formation”,
International Migration
, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 49-70.
3. Bates, M.J.
(1999), “The invisible substrate of information science”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science
, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 1043-1050.
4. Bates, M.J.
(2007), “Defining the information disciplines in encyclopedia development”, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science – “Featuring the Future”, Information Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, available at: www.informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis29.html (accessed 27 December 2014).
5. Bates, M.J.
(2011), “Birger Hjørland’s Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates’ work”,
Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology
, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 2038-2044.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献