- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: Thoughts on the journal
LISR 16, 197-199 (1994)
Editorial: Thoughts on the Journal Upon publication of the last issue of the 1993 volume, we surveyed Editorial Board members and contributors--authors and reviewers-about the appearance and contents of the volume. The purpose of this editorial is not primarily to report the responses to all 10 questions of the survey; rather, we want to share suggestions for forthcoming editorials and sample topics that prospective authors might pursue. EDITORIALS It is our intention to encourage Board members and readers to prepare editorials, for some of these we might even ask selected persons to respond. The resulting “pro and con” symposia or point-counterpoint editorials would offer a more complete and balanced perspective on particular issues, including the opinions and thoughts of a mixture of individuals, within and outside library and information science (LIS). The following topics were suggested for consideration: l
Restructuring in LIS and its possible impact on research productivity;
l
Instances in which LIS research really has informed and shaped practice;
l
The role of qualitative research,
l
The view from outside LIS, for example, government or higher education administrators, on funding opportunities and other topics;
l
The view from the international front on methodological and other issues;
l
The state of research in addressing the needs of minority groups;
l
The role of LIS research within developed and developing countries; and
l
The extent to which there might be unifying visions regarding approaches studying information phenomena.
to
ARTICLES Needless to say, LISR encourages the use of different research designs and methodologies--those appropriate to the problem and the rest of the reflective inquiry. Generally, those surveyed expressed satisfaction with the mix of experimental, practical, and introspective (i.e., looking at LIS research) articles, although there was a feeling that the last category should not be overplayed. It is our hope that research of an introspective nature will yield to methodological studies and to substantive 197
198
Editorial
problems having a cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary impact. Some expressed a desire for a greater use of figures and tables to present visual encapsulations of data. Some of the topics suggested for articles included: l
The impact of electronic networking on LIS research and practice;
l
The role and use of focus groups and other qualitative methods;
l
The role of policy research within LIS;
l
The impact of the economy on the information industry and professions;
l
The role of listservs in scholarly communication;
l
Reviews of research pertinent to particular library types, for example, school libraries and public libraries;
l
The life cycle of researchers: Is there a progression from “empirical number crunching to big picture and ex carhedra as one ages?“;
l
The implications of merging science and technology in federal funding;
l
Review of research into limiting search output;
l
The role of research within master’s level LIS programs; and
l
The information needs of culturally diverse populations. REVIEWS
Two themes emerged in responses to questions about the Reviews section. Several people called for more reviews of research texts outside of LIS, especially in social science methodology. Other desired areas included historical studies, records management, and more software reviews. On the matter of dissertations, there was disagreement. Some felt that dissertation reviews were essential and should even be expanded. Others felt, equally strongly, that there were too many dissertation reviews, or that dissertation reviews should not be included at all, as they are the result of a committee process, unless the names of advisors and other parties involved in the process were also included. GENERAL COMMENT!3
Several respondents pointed out that the lack of research instruction in LIS programs means that many practitioners are not interested in articles exploring methodological questions, regardless of what important knowledge they might convey. Another problem was well expressed by one of the respondents:
Editorial
199
I thoroughly enjoy the journal, but much of the research is more sophisticated than I can handle. Having been trained in the old-style library school which was long on practice and short on theory and research methods, I often have a hard time understanding the research methodologies that are represented in your pages. Nevertheless, LISR plays a key role in serving as a forum for sophisticated library and information science research and must maintain its commitment toward promoting solid research accompanied by clear writing. Although this does not indicate that LZSR should change its focus, it does serve to remind us of the necessity for clarity of thought and expression in any editorial, article, or review. We wish to thank the respondents for taking the time to help us in shaping the future of LZSR, and to call upon our readers to consider taking up the topics mentioned earlier. Peter Hernon and Candy Schwartz
Editorial: Thoughts on the Journal Upon publication of the last issue of the 1993 volume, we surveyed Editorial Board members and contributors--authors and reviewers-about the appearance and contents of the volume. The purpose of this editorial is not primarily to report the responses to all 10 questions of the survey; rather, we want to share suggestions for forthcoming editorials and sample topics that prospective authors might pursue. EDITORIALS It is our intention to encourage Board members and readers to prepare editorials, for some of these we might even ask selected persons to respond. The resulting “pro and con” symposia or point-counterpoint editorials would offer a more complete and balanced perspective on particular issues, including the opinions and thoughts of a mixture of individuals, within and outside library and information science (LIS). The following topics were suggested for consideration: l
Restructuring in LIS and its possible impact on research productivity;
l
Instances in which LIS research really has informed and shaped practice;
l
The role of qualitative research,
l
The view from outside LIS, for example, government or higher education administrators, on funding opportunities and other topics;
l
The view from the international front on methodological and other issues;
l
The state of research in addressing the needs of minority groups;
l
The role of LIS research within developed and developing countries; and
l
The extent to which there might be unifying visions regarding approaches studying information phenomena.
to
ARTICLES Needless to say, LISR encourages the use of different research designs and methodologies--those appropriate to the problem and the rest of the reflective inquiry. Generally, those surveyed expressed satisfaction with the mix of experimental, practical, and introspective (i.e., looking at LIS research) articles, although there was a feeling that the last category should not be overplayed. It is our hope that research of an introspective nature will yield to methodological studies and to substantive 197
198
Editorial
problems having a cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary impact. Some expressed a desire for a greater use of figures and tables to present visual encapsulations of data. Some of the topics suggested for articles included: l
The impact of electronic networking on LIS research and practice;
l
The role and use of focus groups and other qualitative methods;
l
The role of policy research within LIS;
l
The impact of the economy on the information industry and professions;
l
The role of listservs in scholarly communication;
l
Reviews of research pertinent to particular library types, for example, school libraries and public libraries;
l
The life cycle of researchers: Is there a progression from “empirical number crunching to big picture and ex carhedra as one ages?“;
l
The implications of merging science and technology in federal funding;
l
Review of research into limiting search output;
l
The role of research within master’s level LIS programs; and
l
The information needs of culturally diverse populations. REVIEWS
Two themes emerged in responses to questions about the Reviews section. Several people called for more reviews of research texts outside of LIS, especially in social science methodology. Other desired areas included historical studies, records management, and more software reviews. On the matter of dissertations, there was disagreement. Some felt that dissertation reviews were essential and should even be expanded. Others felt, equally strongly, that there were too many dissertation reviews, or that dissertation reviews should not be included at all, as they are the result of a committee process, unless the names of advisors and other parties involved in the process were also included. GENERAL COMMENT!3
Several respondents pointed out that the lack of research instruction in LIS programs means that many practitioners are not interested in articles exploring methodological questions, regardless of what important knowledge they might convey. Another problem was well expressed by one of the respondents:
Editorial
199
I thoroughly enjoy the journal, but much of the research is more sophisticated than I can handle. Having been trained in the old-style library school which was long on practice and short on theory and research methods, I often have a hard time understanding the research methodologies that are represented in your pages. Nevertheless, LISR plays a key role in serving as a forum for sophisticated library and information science research and must maintain its commitment toward promoting solid research accompanied by clear writing. Although this does not indicate that LZSR should change its focus, it does serve to remind us of the necessity for clarity of thought and expression in any editorial, article, or review. We wish to thank the respondents for taking the time to help us in shaping the future of LZSR, and to call upon our readers to consider taking up the topics mentioned earlier. Peter Hernon and Candy Schwartz