Theoretical clarity is not “Manicheanism”: A reply to Marcia Bates
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Standard
Theoretical clarity is not “Manicheanism” : A reply to Marcia Bates. / Hjørland, Birger.
In: Journal of Information Science, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2011, p. 546-552.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Theoretical clarity is not “Manicheanism”
T2 - A reply to Marcia Bates
AU - Hjørland, Birger
N1 - Answer to M. J. Bates (2011). Birger Hjørland’s Manichean Misconstruction of Marcia Bates’ Work, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10):2038–2044. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21594.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - It is argued that in order to establish a new theoretical approach to information science it is necessary to express disagreement with some established views. The “social turn” in information science is not just exemplified in relation to the works of Marcia Bates but in relation to many different researchers in the field. Therefore it should not be taken personally, and the debate should focus on the substance. Marcia Bates has contributed considerably to information science. In spite of this some of her theoretical points of departure may be challenged. It is important to seek theoretical clarity and this may involve a degree of schematic confrontation that should not be confused with theoretical one-sidedness, “Manicheanism” or lack of respect.
AB - It is argued that in order to establish a new theoretical approach to information science it is necessary to express disagreement with some established views. The “social turn” in information science is not just exemplified in relation to the works of Marcia Bates but in relation to many different researchers in the field. Therefore it should not be taken personally, and the debate should focus on the substance. Marcia Bates has contributed considerably to information science. In spite of this some of her theoretical points of departure may be challenged. It is important to seek theoretical clarity and this may involve a degree of schematic confrontation that should not be confused with theoretical one-sidedness, “Manicheanism” or lack of respect.
U2 - 10.1177/0165551511423169
DO - 10.1177/0165551511423169
M3 - Journal article
VL - 37
SP - 546
EP - 552
JO - Journal of Information Science
JF - Journal of Information Science
SN - 0165-5515
IS - 5
ER -
ID: 47065832