Year: 2001
Type: dissertation
Abstract: It is no longer easy to adopt deterministic explanations of scholarly communication,\ntechnology or the information chain. Complex and reflexive relations have built up\nbetween the substantive and methodological literatures relevant to these topics. This\nthesis aims to explore these relations with reference to two sets of interviews, one with\nacademicr esearchersa nd the other with information professionals. These interviews\nwere conducted in 1998-9 during the FIDDO Project, a part of the UK Joint Information\nSystems Committee `Electronic Libraries Programme'.\nTwo major theoretical perspectives are employed to support two analytic methodologies.\nThe first is social constructivism, which is representedm ethodologically in the thesis by\ndiscourse analysis. The second is actor-network theory, which is represented\nmethodologically by co-word analysis. Both of these approaches are engaged in\nquestions of relativism and realism in social explanation.\nThe implementation of each of the methodologies involves innovative moves. The\ndiscourse analysis is focused on personal deixis (self-reference) located by pronoun-use,\nand on interest management. The co-word analysis is adapted from a scientometric\ntechnique and supplemented by the use of categorical definitions of the three topics.\nEach methodology is employed to analyse both sets of interviews. The four resulting sets\nof findings are presented in terms of the boundaries apparent between the three topical\nconcepts.\nThe boundaries between scholarly communication, technology and the information chain\nare found to vary, for example according to the identities of the interviewees responsible\nfor the data. They also vary according to the methodology employed. Discourse analysis of interviews with information professionals suggests that the idea of technology is\ndeployed as a dual repertoire, consisting of empowerment and automation, and that the\npattern of this deployment is one constituent of the contested boundaries between the\nthree topics. Co-word analysis of the same interviews suggests that an important focus of\nthe boundaries is around the idea of electronic journals. Discourse analysis of interviews\nwith academicr esearchersa lso reveals use of the dual technology repertoire, but in\naddition suggests that the category of formal scholarly communication acts to legitimate\nthe interests of researchers. Co-word analysis of the same interviews suggests that a\nnumber of models of document access were in play, including those based on the library,\non paper and on documents. The implications of these substantive analyses include that\nstudies based on `user needs' or the `impact of technology' could benefit from an analysis\nof how such topics are constructed in particular accounts.\nFinally, the question is addressed as to the extent that the results of the discourse and the\nco-word analyses (of the same data) are compatible so that they can be meaningfully\nsynthesised. That is, do the two approaches give rise to outcomes that have similar\nepistemological status? The question is answered `empirically' with reference to the\nissueo f reflexivity as it is configured in the two approachesa, nd it is confirmed that the\ntwo types of outcome are not compatible due to profound differences in the positions\nadopted by their respective informing theories. The methodological implications of this\ninclude that those engaged in relativist research practice need to be aware the ways in\nwhich epistemological and reflexive issues are relevant to their actions.
Author: Neil Jacobs
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2130888478