1. Epistemology matters! Panel: Uncovering Epistemological Assumptions in Information Studies Tuesday, Nov. 5., 8:30am
Birger Hjørland,
Royal School of Library and Information Science
(RSLIS)

2. Introduction
The concepts paradigm and paradigm shift became prevalent in science, scholarship and everyday language following the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The structure of scientific revolutions in Kuhn’s theory is mostly known for its claim that science develops in stages of normal science interrupted by crises and revolutions.

3. Paradigm theory: Core issues
Science is not just the mechanical adding of new elements to the building of knowledge, and scientific revolutions let us see the world in fundamentally new ways. Epistemology is very much about how we see things, and Kuhn’s view is about how we learn to see things during training in scholarly communities.
and after a revolution concepts have got new meanings (“mass” is, for example, not the same by Newton and Einstein). The question posted by researchers changes as does the way empirical research is carried out.

4. Paradigm theory: Core issues
“Perhaps the greatest advance in understanding the nature of explanation made in the post-positivist and post-Kuhnian era is the general realization that methodologies, theories, and explanations are related to each other via extralogical, historically variable constellations variously described as "background knowledge," "traditions," paradigms," "research programmes," "fields," or "domains." We can call all of these "framework concepts””. (Christopher Lloyd 1993)

5. Definition of the term ”paradigm”
“A paradigm is a superindividual structure of meaning, which is formed and reproduced in disciplinary socialization, teaching and scientific communication. I distinguish between the following components of paradigms: …

6. Definition of the term ”paradigm”
… 1) ideals and beliefs about science, such as epistemic goals, methods and criteria in the production and evaluation of scientific results inside the discipline 2) world view hypotheses, including basic social ontological assumptions about the part of the world studied inside the discipline, and 3) ideals concerning the extra-scientific significance of knowledge produced inside the discipline, such as significance for society and culture, for practical use, and for enlightenment.” (Andersen, 1999, p. 89)

7. Information science
Information science / LIS is itself influenced by different research traditions, paradigms and more or less implicit goals, values and interests. When we study some problems in LIS we should consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. To know about “paradigms” in LIS seems important in order to make an informed choice.

8. Hjørland (2013a) about citation analysis,
Information science
What are the important ”paradigms” and research traditions in information science? For years, I have been working with paradigms and research traditions in information science in general and in knowledge organization in particular. I have recently published:
Hjørland (2013a) about citation analysis,
Hjørland (2013b) about facet analysis,
Hjørland (2013d) about user based and cognitive approaches and
Hjørland (2013c) as a preliminary overall discussion of approaches to KO .”
(more analyses of IS paradigms in the pipeline)

9. Pragmatism/critical theory
Information science
In my work, I have found it extremely fruitful to distinguish between four basic classes of theories of knowledge:
Empiricism
Rationalism
Historicism
Pragmatism/critical theory
Knowing the basic arguments for and against these four epistemological schools provides powerful tools for analyzing information science!

10. Information science
Facet analysis, for example, seems mainly based on rationalism and thus to be without empirical, historical and pragmatic basis! It consider itself the best system without realizing that any classification will always serve some interests at the expense of other interests. Similar criticism is raised towards other traditions. Anybody is of course welcome to question my analysis of facet analysis, cognitive, user based, citation based and other paradigms in information science. The important thing is to improve our understanding in order to be able to make an optimal informed choice.

11. Information science
Information science may have been based on the view that a library or an information system is a neutral, objective tool that does not involve questions of values, policies, or subjectivity. Paradigm theory, pragmatism, critical theory and related epistemologies challenge this “positivism” and, in my opinion, provide a fruitful and much needed theoretical frame for considering problems in information science. Any information system or –service is a tool that should be evaluated in relation to what is supported by it.

12. Epistemologies make important differences in relation to, for example:
Information science
Epistemologies make important differences in relation to, for example:
Information needs / the concept “relevance”
Information literacy
Information retrieval
Google
Indexing / the concept “subject”
Browsing
Fiction/music/art/medicine/zoology… organization and retrieval

13. Information science
In Hjørland (2011b) I argue that computer-based indexing and human indexing is not a fruitful distinction because both humans and computers (programmed by humans) may index in many different ways according to the paradigms of the human indexer and the human programmer.
Alternatively I see empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism as basic theories of indexing! (And generally for information science).

14. Information science
What about eclecticism? Don’t we need both empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism? Would it be “epistemological purism” to exclude some positions?
It is important to realize that Kuhn (for example), did not argue that physics should avoid experiments and mathematics (empirical and rational studies). What he claimed was that the way you do empirical studies and logic is partly determined by historical background constellations that are influenced by values.
The four epistemological schools should be considered competing - rather than supplementary - approaches.

15. Thanks for your attention!

16. References
Andersen, H. (1999). Political attitudes and cognitive convictions among Danish social science researchers. Scientometrics, 46(1), 87–108. Hjørland, B. (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), Hjørland, B. (2011a). Evidence based practice. An analysis based on the philosophy of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), Hjørland, B. (2011b). The Importance of Theories of Knowledge: Indexing and Information retrieval as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1),

17. References
Hjørland, B. (2013a). Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge Organization. Information Processing and Management, 49(6), 1313–1325. Hjørland, B. (2013b). Facet analysis: the logical approach to knowledge organization. Information processing & management 49: Hjørland, B. (2013c). Theories of knowledge organization — theories of knowledge. Knowledge Organization, 40(3), Hjørland, B. (2013d). User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization: a theoretical analysis of the research literature. Knowledge organization 40:

18. References
Kuhn, T.S. (1962, 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lloyd, Christopher (1993). The Structures of History. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Törnebohm, H. (1974). Paradigm i vetenskapernas värld och i vetenskapsteorin. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg.