more on subtexts in LIS: theoretical sociological frameworks

D’you recall when I was burbling on about how there seemed to be no subtext behind many LIS articles (Sept. 28 and Oct. 22, 2006 posts)? I’ve been reading about research methods and discovered the following statement which speaks to my comments on a lack of subtext (meaning an historical perspective of ideas and theory) from a sociological point of view:

“Usually a discipline has a dominant paradigm, although this can and often does change over time. Because of the diverse nature of information science there is no truly dominant paradigm today, although it is fair to say that at the time of writing ‘interpretivist’ research is without doubt the newest paradigm and is only just beginning to emerge as a significant force in research and communication (Pickard: 2007, xvii).”

This author further states that there are only three major research paradigms in information science (LIS) today: positivist, postpositivism, and interpretivist. Very brief, simplistic explanations that require more context than is currently available in this space are:

Positivism: “…assumes the existence of an objective, independent and stable reality, which is available for discovery and analysis.” These “[s]ocial facts are seen to exist independently of human interaction just as natural laws exist (8).”

Postpositivism: “[o]bjective social facts do exist independently of and external to human beings, but these facts are subject to uncertainty and probability.” “…all discovery is subject to interpretation; it is the responsibility of the researcher to demonstrate objectivity during the discovery process…and is demonstrated by external validity (10).”

Interpretivism: Empirical interpretivism “…deals with investigation in natural settings of social phenomena; …[and critical theory] engages in ideologically oriented investigation, examining current thought and social structures.” Interpretivists believe “…that realities are multiple, constructed and holistic. There is no single, tangible reality, instead there are only the complex, multiple realities of the individual (11).”

So where does this leave us/me? Within the sociological context, which subtext/paradigm am I most interested in and wish to promote in my work? Or perhaps I am flexible enough to change approaches, though consistency in approach is implicitly preferred within a research environment. Plus, what about the science subtexts? Remember the “is LIS a sociology or a science” question? Are the science subtexts still relevant in the field or was there a mix-up of positivism with science in LIS’ inception?

Alison Jane Pickard. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet Publishing.