Fundamental research questions in Information Science
Sachi Arafat
School of Computer Science
University of Glasgow,
Scotland
Sachi.Arafat@glasgow.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
What is the function of foundations research in any
discipline, and in IS? It is claimed that it is to produce a
fundamental dialectic, a particular type of intellectual
culture. This panel aims to flesh-out this culture by means
of a dialectic, by addressing four inter-related zones of
inquiry,
concerning
the
historical,
ontological,
epistemological (and scientific), and socio-ethical aspects –
which include acts such as the creation of technology or
policy.
Keywords
Foundations, History, Philosophy, Culture, Phenomena.
INTRODUCTION
In the spirit of last year’s ‘Reorienting Information Science’
panel, the proposed panel, hopefully one of a series of
panels for the coming years, aims to further explore
fundamental notions and assumptions in IS. Owing to the
vast landscape that is IS then, the strategy employed is to
construct the fundamental research questions, and this
strategy is framed by the key question: what indeed are the
relevant questions that IS ought to address? The questions it
did/does/is-expected-to address are not less important, but
assessing what it ought to address suggests that there is a
socially constructed or ‘natural’ need for ‘it’ somewhere
among the disciplines – and prepares a (strongly) generative
orientation for inquiry. IS “consists” of (1) general concepts
(e.g. information, document, query, and refers to ontology);
(2) ways of understanding these concepts, making
propositions about them and of structuring those
propositions (i.e. an epistemology and science); a craft: (3)
techniques and technology for mediating our experience of
the objects the concepts refer to, and (4) a ‘practical sense’
(i.e. socio-ethical concerns) that conditions the craft. These
different aspects, as a (culturally, and perhaps logically)
coherent collective, are referred to as IS.
The purpose of the panel is to attempt to answer the key
question by a dialectic, framed by four areas that reflect the
above description of IS: (A) historical context, (B) relevant
phenomena (including ontology, and general concepts), (C)
This is the space reserved for copyright notices.
ASIST 2011, October 9–13, 2011, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Copyright notice continues right here.
ways of knowing and speaking about these phenomena (or
epistemology and ‘science’), and (D) the role of the
information scientist (or socio-ethics and ‘practical sense’).
The purpose of the dialectic, in particular, is not to produce
complete answers, but to further refine already present
questions (or discard them), and to produce further
questions. This is with the aim of meeting the long-term
goal of a stable discursive map/complex/framework or
conversation, which can be engaged with, whether one is in
IS or out-with. A conversation which links to past tradition
through dialectics of type A, and to other disciplines and
concerns through types B/C. It is through such a
conversation that there can be an intellectual culture (as
method) that, as the foundations or ‘hard-core’ of IS, acts to
renew and maintain IS in varying contexts (pertaining to
concerns of type D). To summarise these purposes as a
question: what is the function of foundations research (in
any discipline, and) in IS? And, to summarise the answer,
which the panel discussion is expected to elucidate, it is to
produce a fundamental dialectic, a particular type of
intellectual culture.
MOTIVATION AND STRATEGY
Given the diverse range of disciplines associated with IS,
multiple sets of technical vocabulary, theoria and praxis,
where one such entity may not easily be spoken about in
terms of the other, the strategy of developing a
comprehensive set of research questions offer an effective
way to frame the discipline. It is effective as questions are
the substance of communication; if suitably worded, they
enable cross-communication within the discipline and with
other disciplines. Communication is purposeful, three
modes of communication are relevant here: dialectical,
rhetorical, and pedagogical; corresponding to criticalthinking, research-presentation and academic discourse, and
teaching – these being deeply related.
What is the place of ‘the fundamental research questions’,
in what way are they to be ‘used’? Practice of IS (in the
context of IR for example) can proceed without asking
these questions explicitly, but without a forum in which to
ask these questions – by which is meant an acceptable
intellectual culture and a way in from the particulars
(applications, say) to the general – the different areas of IS
tend to incline towards being disconnected from one
another. The intention behind the proposal is to develop a
sustainable form of dialectic, so that the debate (as a
fundamental dialectic) is something that can be a
continuous part of research in IS, and in the collective
consciousness of its practitioners. It ought to form a
‘connective glue’ between different aspects of IS and
between IS and other disciplines. And for that to happen,
there needs be a discursive framework or ‘complex’, at
once pedagogical, dialectical and rhetorical.
Whether a question ought to be relevant to IS is not given apriori; the four zones of inquiry are generic and can
potentially apply to any discipline, and are expected to
bring-forth relevant questions. They are points of
engagement, points of the discursive ‘complex’. The initial
questions in each zone, and the further questions derived
from panel discussion, would ideally not only be met with
answers from a fundamental-philosophical perspective, but
there must also be a path to the particulars: the conditions
for intellectual (and ‘scientific’) discourse, technology
designs, and ethical concerns. The task for the panelists is
then to suggest further questions that range over these
aspects.
MAJOR LINES OF INQUIRY
A. Historical Context
Is IS the historical continuation of disciplines such as the
memory arts? Does it make sense to go back further than P.
Otlet and S. Briet, prior to documentation as such, to
traditions that resemble the modern practices that IS thinks
it ought to study?
Where does information science as a discipline fit into other
disciplines, or where ought/can it fit in; or, in light of it
having particularly employed the mathematical and natural
sciences (e.g. for crafting techniques and devices), and the
humanities (e.g. for fleshing out its concepts); is it in a
category of its own – is it particularly, peculiarly, and
perhaps formally, ‘between’ the natural sciences and
humanities?
B. Relevant aspects of reality and phenomena therein
Are the traditional notions of basic objects and processes:
information, retrieval, document, query, interaction,
interface, user (subject), institution, `technology/device',
etc., still relevant given the ubiquity of devices and modern
contexts? Are different aspects of IS using different
conceptions thereof?
To what extent can we forego addressing these objects
rigorously (as socio-cultural objects)?
C. Ways of knowing and interpretation, and their
particulars.
Given the objects and phenomena in B, what type of
statements can be made about them, and hence what kind of
contribution do/could/ought information scientists make to
knowledge?
Given the above, does it make sense to formally specify
research programmes for IS? What types of facts (about
phenomena from B) are ‘interesting’ for IS – and hence,
when would an IS research programme become
degenerative, i.e. require a replacement? Given that the
same IS research project can seek to craft technology (e.g.
through IR) as well as make disinterested analysis of social
phenomena, does IS require a particular fusion of different
(types of) philosophies of science? This would tell us what
sorts of `explanation' and mathematical modelling are
(supposedly) relevant, and it would bring up further
questions pertaining to assumptions made about social
objects from a physical point of view as opposed to a social
one, for example, in IR.
D. Role of Information Scientists as intellectuals,
scholars and researchers
IS covers grounds that can have immediate public interest
(depending on how A-C are conceived). In this respect, it is
more than disinterested intellectual activity. It is about
making things – e.g. through IR applications, institutional
policy, academic practice – that can generate new cultural
elements. There are ethical imperatives for that which
especially influences the public sphere, but does/ought it
affect IS or the role of the information scientist – e.g. are
the social ‘dangers’ associated with social networking (in
that it may partially cause a detriment in real-life
socializing) to be of concern to IS practitioners involved in
making software, information policy, etc.?
GOALS AND PARTICIPANTS
The inquiries are broad and require broad range of experts
and expertise, certainly not realizable in one panel sitting,
Thus the aim this year, in the spirit of the greater goal of
renewing (or maintaining) a sub-culture of dialectic on
foundations, is to (1) verify that such a dialectic is indeed
necessary and discuss in what way it is so, (2) discuss what
the bounding box of inquiry is for IS (i.e. is it A-D?), and
(3) to identify a good set of initial questions for a discursive
complex that can be built upon.
John Budd has written on Phenomenology for IS, relevant
for specifically addressing B and C. Ronald E. Day has
written on the historical contexts of the notion of
information, and on the role of the information scientist,
relevant for addressing A and D. Jonathan Furner has
written on the history, theory and philosophy of
documentation, relevant especially for connecting A and B.
Robin Hunt has written on the history and culture of
information, relevant for connecting A, B and C. Julian
Warner has written on IR from a labor-theoretic
perspective, relevant for discussions about B and C in the
context of A.
MODERATION
There will be communication with panelists prior to the
panel in order that there is a ‘common sense’ of what is
expected
as
the
style
of
discussion.