Introduction

In this chapter we consider paradigms and turns, approaches to the study of the information disciplines and the practice of the information professions, which are generally regarded as more specific and contextual than the philosophies discussed in the previous chapter. We then consider the role of theory in information science. A theory is regarded as more specific and contextualised than a paradigm, although types of theory are closely associated with particular paradigms. However, the terms are not used consistently, and the philosophy–paradigm–theory hierarchy is not strictly observed in writings on information science.

Paradigms and turns

The Oxford English dictionary (December 2020) defines a paradigm, in the sense in which the term is used here, as ‘a conceptual or methodological model underlying the theories and practices of a science or discipline at a particular time; hence a generally accepted world view’. The term, brought into common use by the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1922–96) in his work on scientific revolutions, describes a collection of beliefs about the subject matter of a subject, and a set of agreements about how the subject should be studied. Acceptance of a paradigm is therefore mainly applicable to academic study and research, but it also influences practice, since it encapsulates a view of what a subject is like on the whole. It is important to realise that the emergence of a new paradigm does not mean the cessation of work based in older paradigms; the process is more one of addition, and perhaps gradual replacement. Information science has certainly seen several paradigms operating at the same time. This is somewhat different to Kuhn's original concept, by which there would usually be a single paradigm for a science, and a new paradigm would replace the old quite rapidly.