Content area
Full text
1. Introduction
Information science (IS) is a multi-metatheoretical, multi-paradigmatic discipline. Since 1980s, the development of paradigm research has witnessed the progress and prosperity of the foundation of IS (Belkin, 1990; Miksa, 1992; Ellis, 1992; Bates, 2005; Hartel, 2019). The institutional paradigm, information movement paradigm, physical paradigm and cognitive paradigm, etc. compete in IS. Among paradigm competition, the domain analytic paradigm emerged as a new force in 1995 and matured in a relatively short period. The domain analytic paradigm states:
The best way to understand information in IS is to study the knowledge-domains as “discourse communities”, which are parts of the society's division of labor. Knowledge organization, -structure, cooperation patterns, language and communication forms, information systems and relevance criteria are reflections of the objects of the work of these communities and of their role in society. The individual person's psychology, knowledge, information needs, and subjective relevance criteria should be seen in this perspective. (Hjørland and Albrechtsen, 1995)
Since the domain analysis was put forward, there has been an increasing interest in the various aspects of this new thought, including its concept definitions, metatheories and philosophies, methodologies and methods, and application scopes, etc. The past quarter century has seen the rapid development of domain analysis research in many subfields of IS (Hjørland, 1997, 1998a; 2010a, 2015b). Especially in the knowledge organization (KO) field, Smiraglia, Guimaraes, Lopez-Huertas, Mai, and Tennis have systematically investigated the value and implications of domain analysis for KO and contributed to a deeper understanding of domain analysis (Smiraglia, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2015a, b; Guimarães and Tognoli, 2015; López-Huertas, 2006, 2015; Mai, 2005, 2011; Tennis, 2003, 2012). Under these scholars' efforts, the domain analytic paradigm is advanced to a large degree. The theory growth and paradigm development of domain analysis are not straightforward but accompanied with controversies and debates, sometimes even fierce (Salton, 1996; Beghtol, 2004; Feinberg, 2007; Szostak, 2008; Nicolaisen, 2017; just to name a few). This is uncommon in the intellectual history of IS. It may be just because of these debates that domain analysis advocates can improve its metatheory and theory and develop a coherent theory system. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, controversy and debates are valuable tools in scientific progress. Debates about domain analytic paradigm intentionally or...