Scientific and technological information services in Australia: II. discipline formation in information management.

This is the second part of a two-part work that looks into scientific and technological information (STI) services. The first part (1) focuses on their history and development in Australia. In this second part, the services are examined through the lens of an information management disciplinary framework. An objective is to discuss the extent to which information management may be regarded as a discipline, and then to consider how present understanding of information management has been informed through the development of STI services. Case studies of the administration of STI services in the areas of earth sciences, engineering, health, natural resources, transport, and nuclear science are used to support the analysis. A rationale for the choice of these cases is given in Part I.

A major factor in the characterisation of a profession is the body of knowledge to which it subscribes. Although this may be relatively coherent in fields of scientific endeavour, in the social sciences the body of knowledge may be drawn from disparate subjects and the practitioners are less likely to come from the same educational background. This seems very much the case with information professionals. Their professional training, even when focused on information, may come from streams as diverse as journalism, public administration, librarianship, recordkeeping, communication, information systems, or organisational research.

Is there a body of knowledge that these groups may jointly make use of so that they can advance as a coherent profession? Consideration of what constitutes a discipline normally takes place by examining the underlying principles and models of the body of knowledge. This has been done regularly for the information professions through deliberation upon what constitutes 'information science'. Although this paper reviews disciplinary approaches to information science, its attention is more focused, by way of contrast, on information practice in order to suggest elements of a discipline through information management as derived from principles.

Research Method

This paper has arisen from a detailed case study of several STI services using a case study protocol (explained in Part I) supported by interviews with key participants, use of different versions of databases produced, and reference to literature, archives, and supporting material created to support users of databases.

The project's case study questions were structured according to the context of a recently written book on information management, (2) because this book uses defined domains of information management to describe how information science principles are applied with practical examples. The three information management domains as detailed in the book are:

* Operational, referring to the different tasks carried out during staged processes of information handling, for example the creation, distribution, organisation (including provision of metadata for information medium and content), retrieval, navigation processes for interaction, presentation, and where necessary, disposal or retirement of information

* Analytical, referring to user needs and systems analysis, information resources analysis including audits and assessing information worth, and evaluation procedures, and

* Administrative, in this context referring to policy and planning aspects and strategic approaches in general.

Outcomes are documented as characteristics of the STI services in Part I, and then interpreted in the context of discipline formation here in Part II as factors within the domains outlined above.

Studies that investigate some of these factors have been carried out in Australia previously in similar contexts. Some analytical and operational factors were investigated to provide general guidance for database production by Judge and Gerrie, (3) who surveyed about 40 database producers in Australia and itemised examples of design and operational requirements. An approach at the analytical level and applied to information users as well as to the information sources that they use was carried out with respect to Australian STI services in general by Maguire, Weir and Wood. (4) They interviewed research scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), academic scientists from universities, and technical managers from industry in order to tabulate a range of formal and informal resources consulted, and to isolate unsatisfied information needs. At the analytical level, examples of user needs identification described from the perspective of individual professionals rather than as research studies, have been reported in a number of Australian forums. For example, both Lay and Thomas provide an engineering viewpoint. (5)

This part of the study examines the characteristics of the STI services by interpreting the extent to which they correspond to the defined domains, and in this manner represent an evolving disciplinary framework.

Discipline Formation

There has been a limited amount of explicit consideration of information management discipline formation, so it is necessary to look beyond the field in order to take into account methods that have been used for identifying discipline formation in other areas of knowledge and their application.

The process of discipline formation is sometimes characterised as providing new ways of looking at knowledge. For example, the publication in the seventeenth century of Newton's Principia provided mathematical principles for natural philosophy, and thereby introduced a formal language that was able to introduce disciplines such as physics and astronomy.

Examination of how disciplines form must first decide what a discipline is. Becher and Trowler have reviewed different approaches to this, (6) noting such aspects as tradition, sets of values and beliefs, mode of enquiry, conceptual structure, and a network of communications. They make a distinction between two types of emphasis in investigative studies. These are either an epistemological one where the focus is concepts and fundamental aims, or a sociological one where there is a focus on organised social groupings. Nevertheless they recognise that most commentators pay attention to both aspects.

Study of discipline formation is often pursued in general terms by philosophers or sociologists, or in relation to particular disciplines, normally by authorities within those disciplines who are trying to establish disciplinary limits. Their approach might best be described as historiographic analysis of documentation. (7) Abbott's sociological approach has focused on the professions. (8) He acknowledges that the clarity with which the professional borders are defined may affect what he terms the jurisdiction of a profession, and therefore its vulnerability. His approach to defining professions is relevant to examining discipline boundaries, particularly since he has specifically considered the information professions.

Information Science as a Discipline

There have been many years of debate on what comprises the defining knowledge of the field of information science. Several works have provided overviews and debate about disciplinary boundaries. Examples are the early compilation by Saracevic, and more recent accounts by Norton and by Griffiths. (9) In each case they emphasise the interdisciplinarity or 'boundary spanning' of research, but they do not explore to a great extent the application of information science in areas such as systems and management, although Griffiths does give some examples of practice. Elsewhere, information systems and information management are also spoken of as disciplines. However there seem to be professional, research and conceptual barriers that inhibit an inclusive approach to them as a discipline across the applications.

The disjunction between information science and information systems researchers has been observed repeatedly. For example Martin (10) noted that database searching for information management material showed little duplication of coverage in three different databases favoured by the data processing, management and information science fraternities. Later, Ellis, Allen, and Wilson (11) used citation analysis of the subfields of user studies and information retrieval to illustrate the lack of dialogue between respective fields. Likewise, a recent review of information science as a discipline in the UK (12) makes little reference to studies in information systems, or examination of an information systems/information science boundary.

In information systems study, emphasis seems to be substantially on the systems and process; in information science the emphasis seems to be substantially on the information and…