Exploring trends and patterns of theory use in library and information science research in Tanzania, 1990–2024

This study aimed to analyze the trends in library and information science (LIS) research in Tanzania from 1990 to 2023. A descriptive research design utilizing a content analysis approach was employed to analyze data sourced from Google Scholar during the specified period. The study identified an overall fluctuating trend in LIS research, with a shift in research focus from information-seeking to other areas within the LIS domain. The predominant methodologies observed in most LIS studies were descriptive research design and a mixed methods approach. The study further highlighted a dynamic pattern in research collaboration, albeit with limited international collaboration. Additionally, there was a noticeable underrepresentation of female researchers in the LIS field, as evidenced by the scarcity of publications authored solely by women. The University of Dar es Salaam, Sokoine University of Agriculture, and Mzumbe University emerged as the top three institutions contributing to LIS research. While most LIS researchers published their work in the University of Dar es Salaam Library journal, there was a growing tendency to also publish in other similar international journals. Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature on LIS research trends, emphasizing the evolving nature of LIS research in Tanzania. It also underscores the importance of Tanzanian LIS researchers to actively seek international collaborations to enhance the impact of their research and further advance the field on a global scale.

Using a content analysis approach, this study assessed the application of theories in Library and Information Science (LIS) research in Tanzania. The study’s specific objectives encompassed the analysis of the utilization patterns of theories in LIS research conducted in Tanzania, the identification of predominant theories, the highlighting of specific areas within LIS research where theories have been extensively applied, and the assessment of the level of integration of theories into research. While Kalervo and Vakkari’s classification scheme of LIS research areas was used to identify specific research areas where theories have been applied most, seven categories of theory talk were utilized to evaluate the degree to which these theories have been incorporated into LIS research. The study’s findings reveal a growing inclination towards the use of theories among LIS researchers, albeit at a slow pace. The study has also shown that TAM and UTAUT theories are the most frequently utilized, with information-seeking research being the primary area incorporating theories among all identified research areas. The findings also suggest that while a significant portion of the analyzed articles fall under the major category of the Continuum of Theory Talk, implying substantial incorporation of theories, a small number of them encountered difficulties in effectively integrating theories. The study, therefore, suggests that LIS educators should also prioritize the theoretical aspect of research in their curriculum. This will help researchers improve their understanding of the subject matter, leading to more reliable and precise research.

PurposeThis paper aims to highlight the research output of library and information science of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) nations during the ten year period, i.e. 2005-2014, as reflected through the Web of Science database.Design/methodology/approachThis study used Social Science Index (SSCI) of Web of Science (WoS) citation database to collect data for the ten year period. All records indexed in SSCI were refined by subject area of “Information Science and Library Science” and selected countries. The downloaded results were analyzed by using specific parameters.FindingsWoS indexes different kinds of documents, such as articles, conference proceedings, biographical items, book reviews, corrections, editorial material, letters, reprints and reviews. Out of the BRICS output, almost 90 per cent of papers were articles. Other types of documents included conference papers, review papers and book reviews. China contributed nearly half of the documents followed by Brazil, South Africa, India and Russia. On an average, a document had cited 34 references. More than one-third of records did not receive any citations. It has been observed that the titles that had 11-16 words attracted the most number of citations. The top ten publishers in whose journals the researchers published included Emerald, Elsevier and Springer. The primary subject areas were information science and library science, information systems, interdisciplinary applications and management. About 85 per cent of the documents were published in English. Around 93 per cent of the non-English research publications were in Portuguese, the official language of Brazil.Originality/valueThere are not many studies on BRICS countries and that too about Library and Information Science (LIS) research output. This study may reveal insights into how LIS researchers interact with local and global issues in a specific spectrum of the world community.

This paper has a dual character dictated by its twofold purpose. First, it is a speculative historiographic essay containing an attempt to fix the present position of library and information science within the context of the probabilistic revolution that has been encompassing all of science. Second, it comprises a guide to practitioners engaged in statistical research in library and information science. There are pointed out the problems of utilizing statistical methods in library and information science because of the highly and positively skewed distributions that dominate this discipline. Biostatistics are indicated as the source of solutions for these problems, and the solutions are then traced back to the British biometric revolution of 1865‐1950, during the course of which modern inferential statistics were created. The thesis is presented that science has been undergoing a probabilistic revolution for over 200 years, and it is stated that this revolution is now coming to library and information science, as general stochastic models replace specific, empirical informetric laws. An account is given of the historical development of the counting distributions and laws of error applicable in statistical research in library and information science, and it is stressed that these distributions and laws are not specific to library and information science but are inherent in all biological and social phenomena. Urquhart’s Law is used to give a practical demonstration of the distributions. The difficulties of precisely fitting data to theoretical probability models in library and information science because of the inherent fuzziness of the sets are discussed, and the paper concludes with the description of a simple technique for identifying and dealing with the skewed distributions in library and information science. Throughout the paper, emphasis is placed on the relevance of research in library and information science to social problems, both past and present.

This research concerns determining authors’ scientific influence in library and information science research and their impact on the intellectual structure of the discipline by means of integrative indicators of the Scholarly Capital Model and co-authorship patterns. Research records comprised articles published from 1945 to 2016 in library and information science core journals and indexed in Web of Science. CiteSpace (software for visualization of scientific patterns and trends) was employed to map the intellectual structure of library and information science research based on co-authorship patterns. The results showed that the top 10 authors of library and information science research with the highest scores in terms of influence indicators (except for one person) were mostly concerned with the field of scientometrics which can be considered as the special impact of scientometric authors on the intellectual structure of library and information science research especially in recent years. Based on the results of the research, integrative use of scientometric indicators for measuring authors’ level of scholarly influence may grant a more precise perspective for decision makers in the field of library and information science.

PurposeThis study aims to reveal the topic structure and evolutionary trends of health informatics research in library and information science.Design/methodology/approachUsing publications in Web of Science core collection, this study combines informetrics and content analysis to reveal the topic structure and evolutionary trends of health informatics research in library and information science. The analyses are conducted by Pajek, VOSviewer and Gephi.FindingsThe health informatics research in library and information science can be divided into five subcommunities: health information needs and seeking behavior, application of bibliometrics in medicine, health information literacy, health information in social media and electronic health records. Research on health information literacy and health information in social media is the core of research. Most topics had a clear and continuous evolutionary venation. In the future, health information literacy and health information in social media will tend to be the mainstream. There is room for systematic development of research on health information needs and seeking behavior.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the topic structure and evolutionary trends of health informatics research based on the perspective of library and information science. This study helps identify the concerns and contributions of library and information science to health informatics research and provides compelling evidence for researchers to understand the current state of research.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria.FindingsThe number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given.Practical implicationsIt is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad.Originality/valueThis work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Previous articleNext article No AccessReframing the Paradigm DebateJana Bradley and Brett SuttonJana Bradley Search for more articles by this author and Brett Sutton Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Library Quarterly Volume 63, Number 4Oct., 1993Symposium on Qualitative Research: Theory, Methods, and Applications Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/602618 Views: 17Total views on this site Citations: 16Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1993 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Brett Sutton Qualitative Research Methods in Library and Information Science [ELIS Classic], (Jul 2016): 4380–4393.https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044785 References and additional reading, (Jan 2009): 183–203.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-372-1.50016-6Tamara Sheppard Intellectual gambling: betting on the future public library, New Library World 107, no.11/1211/12 (Nov 2006): 512–522.https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800610713325Patrick Ngulube Research procedures used by Master of Information Studies students at the University of Natal in the period 1982–2002 with special reference to their sampling techniques and survey response rates: A methodological discourse, The International Information & Library Review 37, no.22 (Jun 2005): 127–143.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2005.04.002Patrick Ngulube Research procedures used by Master of Information Studies students at the University of Natal in the period 1982–2002 with special reference to their sampling techniques and survey response rates: A methodological discourse⋆, International Information & Library Review 37, no.22 (Dec 2013): 127–143.https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2005.10762673Kirsty Williamson, Frada Burstein, Sue McKemmish The two major traditions of research, (Jan 2002): 25–47.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-876938-42-0.50009-5 Glossary of terms used in research, (Jan 2002): 331–335.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-876938-42-0.50030-7Michelynn McKnight Beyond Surveys, Journal of Hospital Librarianship 1, no.22 (Jun 2001): 31–39.https://doi.org/10.1300/J186v01n02_03Nigel Ford Improving the “darkness to light” ratio in user‐related information retrieval research, Journal of Documentation 56, no.66 (Dec 2000): 624–643.https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007134Andy Crabtree, David M. Nichols, Jon O'Brien, Mark Rouncefield, Michael B. Twidale Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51, no.77 (Jan 2000): 666–682.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<666::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-5Sanna Talja Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data, Library & Information Science Research 21, no.44 (Nov 1999): 459–477.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(99)00024-9Nigel Ford The growth of understanding in information science: Towards a developmental model, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, no.1212 (Jan 1999): 1141–1152.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1141::AID-ASI19>3.0.CO;2-XJana Bradley Applied information quality: A framework for thinking about the quality of specific information, Journal of Urban Health 75, no.44 (Dec 1998): 864–877.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02344514Deborah S. Davis, Alan M. Bernstein From Survey to Service, Technical Services Quarterly 14, no.33 (Mar 1997): 47–62.https://doi.org/10.1300/J124v14n03_05Mark A Spivey Feminist scholarship: Implications for information management and research, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, no.33 (Jan 1995): 159–166.https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(95)90034-9Bernd Frohmann Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information science, Library & Information Science Research 16, no.22 (Mar 1994): 119–138.https://doi.org/10.1016/0740-8188(94)90004-3

This study investigated the trends in the scope and subject classifications of library and information science research from authors that are affiliated with institutions in Africa. Library and information science journal articles and conference proceedings from the 54 African countries that were published between 2006 and 2015 and indexed in the Web of Science were retrieved for the study. After the removal of non-relevant articles and articles that were not available online, the library and information science publications were classified based on subject and scope. Results from the analysis of author keywords, country of affiliation, subject and scope classification were also visualized in network maps and bar charts. Frequency analysis shows that though computer science had the most profound influence on Africa’s library and information science research, its influence came to prominence in 2004. Furthermore, North African countries exhibited features that are different from the rest of Africa; they contributed most on core computer classifications while other African countries focused more on the social science-related aspects of library and information science. Unlike other regions in Africa, the North African countries also formed a dense collaboration cluster with strong interests in subjects that are conceptual and global in scope. The collaboration clustering analysis revealed an influence of some colonial languages of as a basis for forging strong collaboration between African and non-African countries. On the other hand, African countries tend to collaborate more with countries in their regions. Lastly, human computer interaction and library and information science history subject classifications were almost nonexistent. It is recommended that further studies should investigate why certain subject classifications are not well represented.

The only book currently available that comprehensively integrates research and evaluation for evidence-based library and information science practice. Numerous books cover research and evaluation in general, but not within the context of library and information science. Many others cover the field of library and information science overall but with little focus on research. Knowledge into Action: Research and Evaluation in Library and Information Science offers in a single volume, an expert introduction to these two distinct, yet deeply interrelated, phases of information-gathering as they are practiced in the information sciences. Knowledge into Action takes readers through the core principles, working processes, and practical tools for conducting and evaluating research in library and information science, enhancing the presentation with examples, informational graphics, study questions, and exercises directly relevant to this field. It is a welcomed resource for students and scholars who want to use appropriate techniques for gathering and assessing research, as well as information professionals looking to improve services at their libraries or information centers. The book is also designed to educate practitioners as consumers of the research and evaluation literature and as active participants in professional conferences, meetings, and workshops.

A Review of:
 Chilimo, W. L., & Onyancha, O. B. (2018). How open is open access research in library and information science? South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 84(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.7553/84-1-1710
 Abstract 
 Objective – To investigate the open access (OA) availability of Library and Information Science (LIS) research on the topic of OA, the relative openness of the journals in which this research is published, and the degree to which the OA policies of LIS journals facilitate free access.
 Design – Bibliometric, quantitative dataset analysis.
 Setting – African academic library and information science department.
 Subjects – 1,185 English-language, peer-reviewed articles published between 2003 and 2013 on OA and published in journals indexed by three major LIS databases, of which 909 articles in the top 56 journals received further analysis.
 Methods – Authors first searched LIS indexes to compile a dataset of published articles focusing on OA. They then manually identified and evaluated the OA policies of the top 56 journals in which these articles were found. The openness of these journals was scored according to a rubric modified from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic resources Coalition’s (SPARC’s) 2013 OA spectrum. Finally, authors manually searched Google Scholar to determine the OA availability of the articles from the dataset.
 Main Results – Of the 909 articles published in the top 56 journals, 602 were available in some form of OA. Of these, 431 were available as gold copies and 171 were available as green copies. Of the 56 journals evaluated for openness, 13 were considered OA, 3 delayed OA, 27 hybrid/unconditional post-print, 2 hybrid/conditional post-print, and 11 had unrecognized OA policies.
 Conclusion – The increasing amount and significance of LIS research on OA has not directly translated to the comprehensive adoption of OA publishing. Although a majority of the articles in the dataset were available in OA, the authors indicate that some measures of OA adoption and growth assessed in this study are only somewhat higher than in other disciplines. The authors call upon LIS professionals to become more conversant with journals’ OA policies. An acknowledgement that not all LIS scholars researching OA are necessarily advocates thereof led the authors of this study to recommend further investigation of OA research not available in OA to shed light on those scholars’ perceptions and preferences.

ABSTRACTThe panel will explore the challenges and opportunities for bridging the library and information science (LIS) research practice gap in Australia. The panel brings together participants from the Research Assistance and Development for Australian Researchers (RADAR) Grant, an initiative of the Library and Information Science Research Australia (LISRA) project. The LISRA project is a three‐year project aimed at encouraging and enabling research culture and practice within the Australian LIS sector.

Between 2009 and 2012 considerable investment was made in three UK projects related to library and information science (LIS) research: (1) the Library and Information Science Research Coalition; (2) the AHRC-funded Developing Research Excellence and Methods (DREaM) project; and (3) the Research in Librarianship Impact Evaluation Study (RiLIES). This article presents the main features of each project, and discusses their value with reference to maximizing the relevance and impact of research to LIS practitioners. It outlines plans for the support of LIS research in the UK beyond 2012.

There are limited funding sources available for research in library and information science. In 1999 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. and the Association of Library and Information Science (ALISE) partnered to promote and publicize the Library and Information Science Research Grant Program (LISRGP) to encourage faculty research in library and information science. From 1985 through 1987 OCLC provided computer workstations to support library and information science faculty research. A maximum amount of $10,000 per research project was allocated from 1988 through 2002. Since 2003 the OCLC/ALISE LISRGP has funded three research projects up to $15,000 per project. Grant proposals should be written in accordance with the submission guidelines included in the call for proposals. The projects should be completed within a twelve-month period and the grant recipients are required to submit a final report. Priority will be given to those research proposals related to the research agenda that was developed from the OCLC research project priorities and the literature.

This entry illustrates there are many ways that uncertainty is defined, depicted and represented in library and information science research. As a central concept in information science, the evolution of our understanding of uncertainty mirrors the maturing of our appreciation of the complexity of information practices of people and systems in different contexts. This entry aims to give an appreciation of some of this conceptual complexity in relation to discussion of the concept within two core areas of library and information science: information retrieval and information seeking. The decades of debate and discussion surrounding uncertainty and its interrelationships with other core library and information science concepts demonstrates that it holds an enduring significance for library and information science research and practice.