Clash of the information professions: A case of paradigm con

In small-group exchanges at conferences and in computer-facilitated talk among records managers on the Internet, it is common to find references made to difficulties that records managers have in communicating with those in other information fields. Often enough, the objects of frustration are those in computer-intensive areas, such as Management Information Systems (MIS). Almost as easily, however, the problem might be archivists or librarians. Whatever the case, the records managers' pique is usually keen: "they just don't seem to get it; it's like I'm from another planet!" While the "others" in the various information fields we interact with really are from our planet, very likely they are "from" another paradigm, the set of assumptions that govern they way they view information work.

The importance of understanding and reconciling conflicting sets of assumptions among the information disciplines can be clarified by referring to another -- and widely known -- discipline: medicine. If we were to observe physicians unable -- or unwilling -- to communicate with one another about their common domain (and paradigm), human ailments, we would be dismayed at how irrational, peevish, and, most importantly, how incompetent they were. Likewise, if records managers are to continue considering records management as one of the fields whose professional domain is "information," then it would be in our best interest to begin understanding the paradigms of others in the larger information field, to communicate ("to hold in common") more effectively with them, and to look for intersections of interest, knowledge, and strength among the increasing number of information disciplines. Emphasizing our differences, harping on the alleged "uniqueness" of each individual information sub-discipline has produced nothing worthwhile and, on the contrary, has fostered counterproductive schisms among fields whose long-term interests would be better served by cooperation rather than confrontation. Of considerable value in this direction would be a single and unified paradigm shared by all information professions.

In this column, we will (1) explore the "paradigm" concept and provide examples, (2) briefly describe two of the more plausible information paradigms, (3) note the primary weaknesses of each, and (4) suggest the outline of a unified paradigm.

Granted, the term "paradigm" has been abused and even watered down by over-exposure.[1] Still, it is a useful term for a type of theory which helps structure the way we view and interpret trends and realities, either in our ordinary daily consciousness or in our occupational environment.[2] A prevailing paradigm is one which represents a set of ideas and assumptions which serve as a framework for thinking, values, sub-culture, and knowledge. It matters little if our collective insight, or understanding at a given time, is "correct" in some absolute sense; ultimate reality is ultimately unknowable, and alternate paradigms of value may emerge later. The prevailing paradigm, then, is that lens through which we collectively view and explain phenomena and trends for an indeterminate period. When a notable new focus emerges and affects the overall perception and interpretation of trends and phenomena, a "paradigm shift" is said to have occurred. That is, we shift from the prevailing paradigm to a new, more convincing, or satisfying, explanation.

But if a paradigm does not guarantee accuracy of our set of assumptions, then what good is it? It is useful that all those in a particular time or in a particular discipline work from the same set of assumptions; otherwise, the lack of a unified focus and effort would be enervating, and little progress would be made. What is normal conduct, or "normal science," then, is that all the members of a particular field or discipline accept and work from the prevailing paradigm at a particular time. When a revolutionary (abnormal science) view becomes dominant, the paradigm alters, or shifts, to accommodate the more powerful and compelling set of assumptions posited by the new paradigm.

EXTANT VS. EMERGENT SOCIAL PARADIGM

As the larger social paradigm is common to all of us, we can review it and recent changes affecting it as our defining examples of both "paradigm" and "paradigm shift." From the 1920s through World War II, there was a clearly defined socioeconomic paradigm (set of assumptions) characterized by givens such as the dominance of industrial production, hierarchy as the organizational model, male superiority in the workplace, and physics as the predominant model of science. In the 1960s and continuing through the 1990s, however, the older existing paradigm began to erode as a result of new social and economic forces, and a new paradigm has been emerging, one which, admittedly, has not wholly eclipsed the old.

We can most easily grasp the wide-ranging implications of such a shift in paradigm through a paired list comparing elements of the older paradigm to those of the emerging one:

EMERGENT MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

From this macro-set of paradigm characteristics, we would have little trouble separating out and focusing on the specifics of the smaller-scope phenomenon of shift from male-centered styles in the workplace toward those female-oriented styles which have begun emerging:

This is not to say that one of these paradigms is "right" and the other "wrong," that one is better and the other worse, or that one has completely taken over or driven out the other. Those of us old enough to have experienced both, however, will comprehend that a "shift" is clearly occurring in the corporate environments.

OCCUPATIONAL PARADIGMS

How do paradigms work in the profession or discipline in which we are practitioners? One example of paradigm and paradigm shift as applied to scientific disciplines by Thomas Kuhn, a historian of science, involves Isaac Newton's theory that light is made up of particles. This particulate "view," or theory, of light became the prevailing paradigm, or basic assumption, for research activities in the branch of physics called optics. For roughly a century, scientists built upon the knowledge base of this field using Newton's paradigm. Eventually, a paradigm proposed by Christian Huygens, one which actually preceded that of Newton and described light in terms of waves, became the one generally accepted.[4] So, regardless of any firm, or absolute, reality, the widespread paradigm for theorizing about (looking at or viewing) the fundamental nature of light among optics researchers "shifted" from Newton's basic assumption to that of Huygens. Another way of looking at such a shift is that "the community forming that [field] has decided that something worth perceiving before is no longer worth perceiving and is to be replaced by a new basic concept or a new basic principle, using a new insight."[5]

If we realize that there really is a general social paradigm, that a new paradigm is emerging in management specifically, and that paradigms affect most fields of study and work, then how might we define the prevailing paradigm, the set of basic assumptions, for the information discipline? Unfortunately, no singular "information discipline" has yet been identified; so, there has been no unified or unifying paradigm common to all the information fields. Because there is such long-standing separation and fragmentation among these fields, it has been difficult to address them meaningfully in a collective way as a single discipline. While medicine, law, nursing, engineering, and other fields have their many specializations, there are also underlying and unifying paradigms within each field as a whole. In contrast, each of the information fields -- including at least records management, archives, librarianship, and MIS -- has generally presumed itself to be freestanding, somehow unique, and occasionally superior (e.g., older, larger, better paid, more "high tech," etc.). Different espoused rationales, separate educational preparations and emphases, varying occupational subcultures, separate literatures, separate professional associations, differentiated occupational terminologies, and different approaches to certification are but part of the compelling evidence for the lack of a shared paradigm even though the shared domain clearly appears to be the management of information resources.[6]

TWO INFORMATION FIELD PARADIGMS

We might begin to seek a more comprehensive, positive -- and possibly unifying -- paradigm first by examining two extant paradigms which seem to account, albeit separately, for two principal sets of information professions. One such paradigm might be called the Social Needs paradigm; the other might be termed the Decision Support paradigm. Each will be described briefly here, criticized, and a unifying paradigm will be recommended, one which has positive implications for a more effective working relationship among all groups of information professionals.

Those working from the Social Needs paradigm assume that information and knowledge exist primarily to meet the needs of individuals in the larger society in areas such as culture, education, research, pleasure reading, and aesthetics. Among the information professionals governed by this paradigm are librarians, archivists, and manuscript curators, though we might want to include museum curators and, in some cases, anthropologists. All these disciplines are involved with acquisition, organization, representation, promotion, access, and preservation of products, or records, of human intellect or creativity. The purposes of such collections focus around the enrichment, or expansion, of knowledge of those individuals who use the collections and the services associated with these "records of humanity." The information retrieval systems falling under this paradigm are usually of the "probabilistic" type, that is, those which help users find all items (e.g., bibliographic citations, texts, documents, data sets) relevant to the users' need or interest, not merely a single factual "answer." Typically, those who use such collections -- usually of documents -- do so to expand their knowledge or understanding of some topic (e.g., "salary trends in the medical field"). The practitioners of the field do not create these documents but work in a value-added mode to "maximize the utility of human records."[8]

As expected, the Decision Support paradigm introduces characteristics rather different from those of the Social Needs paradigm. This paradigm is less tied to social institutions or physical structures, both of which are properties of fields emphasizing the functions of libraries, archives, and museums. Information practitioners working under the Decision Support paradigm are, for the most part, designing systems to answer discrete and specific questions (e.g., "What salary is our hospital currently paying Dr. Smith?"). The paradigm is typically related to the concept of instrumentality; that is, with accurate information provided by the system -- and enough of it -- one can make an effective decision and/or take a supportable course of action.[9] Systems associated with this paradigm are often labeled "deterministic" (vs. probabilistic). Such systems provide specific responses rather than a large set of bibliographic citations or texts usable in extending, or enlarging, the user's base of knowledge. Thus, the thrust of the Decision Support paradigm is toward information as a commodity for decision making (vs. mapping access to a broad range of knowledge as in the Social Needs paradigm). The fields most closely associated with the Decision Support paradigm are records management, MIS, and Decision Support Systems (and its auxiliaries, such as Executive Information Systems).

Even this brief introduction to two of the most visible paradigms for the information field may suggest some of their weaknesses. For example, both types of information (social and decisional) have uses and value; neither paradigm alone accounts for both categories of information needs. Also, in the corporate environment the Decision Support approach assumes that all worthwhile information is of internal origin when, in fact, much information needed for functions like strategic planning is of external origin and is often of the published variety or in the "grey literature." Also, those public institutions like libraries often supply information used to support decision-making in the corporate environment and in the larger society (e.g., a family using consumer information to make a car purchase). Both paradigms are self-limiting in that one, the Social Needs paradigm, ties itself narrowly to institutions (e.g., libraries, archives) and to published information; the Decision Support approach increasingly restrict itself as to a computer-based foundation and to the internal business environment.

What kind of paradigm might unify these two complementary yet disconnected models? What kind of paradigm might enable a common foundational education for both; a more solid shared research platform and, thus a more credible knowledge base; similar ethical foundations; a common vocabulary; and joint efforts in areas of shared concern (e.g., technical standards, database design, the impact of information, etc.) -- but still allow practitioners to pursue their own specializations?

A full answer is best left for a future column, but for now it seems clear that a universal information paradigm would have to focus on areas such as information itself: as process, as commodity, as change agent, as economic resource, as intellectual capital. It would focus more on elements of the information life cycle (i.e., creation, acquisition, representation, storage, retrieval, dissemination, use/application, evaluation, disposition). It would focus more on the self-defined information needs of clients or customers, not merely on "records," "books," "database printouts," or whatever any one discipline has to offer up as the solution. It could focus on methods of measuring information quantitatively and its impact on persons, organizations, and social systems. There would be more emphasis on methods of evaluating information systems and products; and on the roles of technology in enhancing the information resource, which is not itself a technology, The new paradigm would focus less on buildings and machines which house the information. And there would be an effort to provide professional certification in information management.

These factors could serve as initial compass settings on a search of a new and more vital paradigm; the results might well prove worth the effort. But only if we are willing to reduce the degree of our special claims and special pleadings, only if we are willing to let go of the parochial, exclusive, and narrow vision of discipline-specific points of view. And only if we are willing to make information the center of our emergent paradigm.

Figure 1

EXTANT PARADIGM

Hierarchical views of order

Physics as discipline model metaphors (e.g., "splitting")

Mechanical/deterministic metaphors in study of phenomena

Closed linear/mechanistic systems view

Objective research (e.g., "double-blind" scientific model)

Energy-intensive

Outer-directed

"Micro" perspectives

Durable goods

"Male" styles (e.g., top-down decisions)

EMERGENT PARADIGM

Heterarchic views of order

Biology as discipline model metaphors (e.g., integrative, "adaptive"

Holographic metaphors used in study of phenomena

Open holistic/integrative systems view

Perspective research (e.g., anecdotal, case study as useful as double-blind type)

Information-intensive

Inner-directed

"Macro" perspectives

Services (including information)

"Female" styles (e.g., empowerment consensus)

Figure 2

TRADITIONAL MALE MANAGEMENT

Objective: control

Military archetype

Rank

Hierarchy

Limits and defines

Imposes discipline

Punishment

Drill sergeant

At the top

FEMALE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP

Objective: change

Teaching archetype

Connections

Network/web

Empowers

Acts as a role model

Reward

Motivator

In the center[3]

REFERENCES

1. Michael Cohn, "Don't Talk to Me About Paradigms," Computerworld, 27 xxiv (June 14, 1993), 37.

2. A lucid review of theory types (e.g., grand theory, world view, paradigm) is provided in Robert Grover and Jack Glazier, "A Conceptual Framework for Theory Building in the Library and Information Science," Library and Information Science Research, 8 (1986), 227-242.

3. This list is garnered from Patricia Aburdene and John Naisbitt, Magatrends for Women (New York: Villard Books, 1992).

4. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 10-34.

5. Saul Gorn, "Informatics: Its Idealogy, Methodology, and Sociology, " in Fritz Machlup and Una Mansfield, eds., The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages (New York: Wiley, 1983), p. 125.

6. This problem in addressed in some detail in J. Michael Pemberton and Christine R. Nugent, "Information Studies: Emergent Field, Convergent Curriculum," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science; in press.

7. Useful insight into paradigm elaborations and comparisons in information work are found in Francis L. Miksa, "Library and Information Science: Two paradigms," in Pertti Bakkari and Blaise Cronin, eds., Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Historical, Empirical, and Theoretical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Conference Held for the Celebration of [the] 20th Anniversary of the Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere, Finland, 26-28 August 1991 (London: Taylor Graham, 1992), pp. 229-251; see also: Richard AV Diener, "A Tale of Two Paradigms, or Whatever Happened to IRM?" Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 18 ii (December/January 1992), 26-27; Richard Apostle and Boris Raymond, "Librarianship and the Information Paradigm," Canadian Library Journal, 43, vi (December 1986), 377-384; and C. Sheldon Seibel, CRM, "Records Management in Its Intellectual Context: Experience at the University of Texas at Austin," Records Management Quarterly, 21 iii (July 1987), 4-14, 42, 59.

8. Jesse H. Shera, "An Epistemological Foundation for Librarianship," in Edward B. Montgomery, ed., The Foundations of Access to Knowledge: A Symposium (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, 1968), p. 9.

9. Marshall C. Yovits is one researcher whose work is related to the Decision Support paradigm. See, for example, his "The Average Decision Maker and Its Properties Utilizing the Generalized Information Systems Model," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44, vi (July 1993), 352-263.

Copyright Association of Records Managers and Administrators Inc. Apr 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved