1. Introduction .
Bibliothecal communication always takes place betwee n past recorded knowledge and its present recipients. It relates to the processes, both physical and cultural, which to some extent made each of us individually, and all of us together, what we are. To understand ourselves and the world around us, we communicate with experiences of others through available records. Library information science deals with facilitation of recorded knowledge, metalibrarianship encompasses the theoretical aspects of a broad range of recorded communications, and philosophy of metalibrarianship searches for the meaning, the nature and values of such communication. This essay attempts to identify some relationships between individuals writing about philosophical aspects of Library Information Science (LIS) and their philosophical mentors.
2. Methodology.
The study is based on the thorough review of all essays in English language, listed in the Library Literature under 'Librarianship, Philosophical Aspects' and in J. Z. Nitecki: Philosophical Aspects of Library Information Science in Retrospect, 1995.
The total literature in American philosophy of librarianship is small, hence the citations are relatively few; however, within that small sample there are some interesting relations. Although this type of study does not lend itself to the rigor of the scientific analysis, some numerical relations between the kinds of philosophers cited, their profiles, and the topics identified by the citations may sugge st interesting patterns within the discipline.
Limitations of the analyses are determined by the degree of subjectivity in formulating, classifying and interpreting data. The scope of the study is well defined, statistical descriptions are simple and obvious but the selection of key words and designations of their interpretative levels are of necessity subjective. All individuals in the study are identified as philosophers in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, although not all are listed in either of the philosophical dictionaries consulted. The criteria for selecting the key words were determined by the actual context of the domain studied, i.e., they refer to the summaries provided in the second part of this study only, not necessarily reflecting major philosophical concepts of cited philosophers.
The impact of philosophers on LIS is inferred from the examination of key words in the summaries of the philosophers viewpoints listed in appendix es. They provide numerical analysis of relationships between philosophers, their profiles and impact on librarians who cited them. The study identified 503 keywords referred to ninety-four philosophers cited by 154 authors in the 225 essays published in library literature on the subject of library philosophy.
In Part II of this study the philosophers cited by librarians were identified and their major contributions to philosophy briefly summarized. The in dividual entries consist of paraphrased extracts from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a handbook (Avey, 1954) and two dictionaries (Angels, 1992 and Runes, 1981). The impact of cited philosophers on the philosophy of LIS is inferred from the comments made about each philosopher by citing librarians. The annotations vary in scope. Some references relate cited philosophers directly to the issues in philosophy of library information science, others are mere casual notes or quotes, indicating lib rarian's familiarity with a given philosopher.
Appendixes contain numerical descriptions of various relationships between the philosophers, their profiles, key words expressing their philosophical views and the authors citing them in American library literature.
Appendix 1, a & b contain profiles
of philosophers cited by librarians, arranged in alphabetical
order with a note about the period, nationality and characteristics of each philosophe
r.
Appendix 1 c covers each philosopher's
major school affiliation. They also includes numerical summary
of nationalities, cited schools of philosophy, and their rank
order.
Appendix 2 list all philosophical schools of philosophy and the philosophers affiliated with them (Table 1). It also includes some philosophers that are not reviewed in this study, but who are important representatives of particular schools. Th e appendix also includes examples of contrasting interpretations of some major philosophical concepts (Table 2). The list is arranged in two columns: first represents conceptual, frequently metaphysical, definitions, the second the experiential, mostly epistemological, interpretations. Following each pair of concepts is a brief note about its possible equivalence in philosophy of metalibrarianship ('M').
Appendix 3 consists of primary data on which all the statistical descriptions of this study are based. It lists sequentially all philosophers cited in this study arranged by periods, followed by abbreviated key words and levels of their interpretations by quoted librarians.
Column (a) refers to the philosophers listed by name in Appendix 4. Column (b) contains the brief summary of the major themes of each philosopher, identified by librarians. The first word in the summary is a key word standing for the subject matter of the comment. It is fol lowed by the symbol designating the nature of the description of the word: '=' stands for the definition of the concept, its meaning or essence, often metaphysical (conceptual level, Co, described below); '>' relates to the characteristics of the key words such as their origin, nature or environment, predominantly epistemological (contextual level, Cx); '<' represents the variables that affect the key word by changing or modifying its characteristics through processes or procedures, frequently value-laden ethical (procedural level, Pd); '-' indicates the critical comment made by the librarian about a particular philosophical statement.
The table is divided into four periods: (1) Antiquity, from Heraclitus (number 1 in the table) to Sextus (number 11); (2) the Thirteen to the Nineteen century (from #12 Aquinas to #39 Laplace); (3) Nineteen to the Twentieth century (from #40 Comte to #62 Whitehead; and (4) Twentieth century (from #63 Adler to #94 Wittgenstein). The names of individ uals born at the borderlines between the periods were moved to the next one.
The last column contains the codes for levels of citations (Co, Cx, Pd, CR) and the letters of the most frequently cited librarians (MFCL).
To limit the subjectivity in assigning the levels of citations, the following criteria were used: (a) Individual citations were reviewed in terms of the philosopher's level of interpretation of a particular concept or issue, as perceived by the citing librarian. (b) The questions asked in selecting the level were: for Conceptual level 'what is 'x', the concept or event; for Contextual level 'why x is so'; and for Procedural level 'how x becomes what it is at the moment'.
The most frequently cited contributors to the philosophy of librarianship were identified in the Nitecki (1995) study. They included the following individuals with frequency of citations to them indicated in brackets: librarians Foskett (10), Nitecki (18), Sher a (51), Wright (13) and economist Machlup (9), all identified in this study as most frequently cited librarians (MFCL). The list in the original study also includes Butler (27), Ranganathan (24), Shannon (21), M.Dewey (20), Broadfield (12) and Fairthorne (9). None of these individuals (with the exception of Fairthorne who cited only one philosopher) referred to any philosophers in Nitecki (1995) study, hence are excluded from the present review.
Appendix 4<
/a> summarizes the frequency of cited key words. The total
number of key words assigned to each philosopher is classified
by the level of librarians' interpretation (Co, Cx, Pd, CR), further
subdivided by the number of total key words that were specifically
cited by the most frequently cited librarians (F, M, N, S, W).
Appendix 5: The series of tables
summarizes numerically different aspects of the
impact of the selected philosophers on the development of American
philosophy of libr
arianship. The content of this appendix is extracted
from Appendix 4. It includes: (5a) a list of 14 most frequently
cited key words. The first column refers to the philosophers cited,
the second lists the key words and the last column indicates the
level of interpretation. (5b) rearranges the
number of individual key words by the five most frequently cited
philosophers (from Popper to J. Dewey), the total number of citations
t
o other philosophers and the grand total of all citations of
a particular key word.
In the next four tables of Appendix 5, the most frequently cited key words are rearranged by
different components: (5c) by the four main historical periods
and (5d) by the levels of citations. (5e)
lists all key words cited by the five selected librarians;
the references to a philosopher are shown in t
he first column,
an abbreviated key word in the second and the level of citation
in the third column. (5f) lists the total
number of citations to the most frequently cited key words by
the five librarians.
It should be noted that (a) present
compilation should be considered as a sample of relevant literature
only; although a significant segment of library literature was
reviewed for this study, some essays may have been inadvertently
omitted; (b) selection
of philosophers is determined by their
citations in the essays addressing library philosophy only; (c)
the comments are selective, and may not satisfactorily reflect
the cited philosopher or quoted authors' intentions; and (d) as
already mentioned, the abbreviated notes about individual philosophers
and schools of philosophy are the aggregates of selective extracts
from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), the handbook
(Avey, 1954) and the dictionaries of philosophy listed in the
bibliogra
phy (Angels, 1992, Runes, 1983). To avoid repetitions,
these sources are not cited in the text unless quoted verbatim.
3. Perceived Heritage
a. Profiles of Philosophers
(Appendix 1 a-b, c)
Numerically, the influence on
American philosophy of librarianship is predominantly West European.
Eighty three philosophers, or 88.3% of all intellectuals listed were either
English, U.S., ancient Greek, Germa
n or Austrian.
The Anglo-Saxon group of English
and U.S., citizens alone account for almost half of all individuals.
Only two non-US and non-European philosopher were listed among
the fifteen different nationalities (Indian and Mexican philosophers).
There were 45 different philosophical
schools listed in this study; occasionally more than one school
was identified with individual philosophers. The most frequently
cited primary affiliations of philosophers were Realism (15 times),
Sci
ence (13 times), Ethics (11 times) and Idealism (10 times).
The distribution of schools varies
still more were the affiliations are compared with the schools
listed for the 14 most frequently cited philosophers.
Here, in rank order, Idealism was listed 91 times, Humanism 51
times, Ethics 49 times, Realism 49 times and Sciences 46 times.
However, when the citations for the remaining eighty philosophers
were counted the priorities changed. The most frequently listed
in that group were Science
s (52 times), followed by Pragmatism
(42 times), Ethics (29 times), Realism (27 times) and Rationalism
(21 times). The highest popularity of Idealism is to a great extent
created by the philosophical affiliations of the most frequently
cited philosophers who were all idealists. The distribution clearly
reinforces the widely held view, that American librarianship is
based on Platonic and Aristotelean schools of thoughts.
(b) Major philosophical systems
(A
ppendix 2).
Philosophical schools briefly
annotated in this appendix reflect general trends of thoughts
of a particular period, school or groups of individuals thinkers.
The focus here is not on the intricate and detailed analysis of
individual philosophers, but on the overall pattern represented
by their views.
Forty-five schools are summarized,
identifying philosophers normally classified in them.
All philosophers discussed in this essay are assigned to one or
more of these sch
ools. The grouping also includes major representatives
not analyzed in this study. Among the more popular philosophers
not cited by the librarians were Thales (c.640-c.546 BC) of Antiquity,
probably the first Western philosopher raising the question about
the nature of Ultimate Reality; the early Christian philosopher
Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) (known as St. Augustine) representing
the beginning of the intellectual Christianization of the Roman
Empire; Spinoza (1632-1677) of the early modern perio
d, developing
rational philosophy of the unity and wholeness of the universe
based on deductive method; Nietzsche (1844-1900) expressing the
optimism of the 19th c. and Santyana (1863-1952) of the present
century, representing the views of Critical Realism.
Some philosophers are listed
more than one category (eg. Comte in seven schools, Leibnitz in
four). One early school of philosophy, Cynicism, is not represented
by any of the philosophers discussed here, it is included because
it represe
nts the views opposing skepticism, discussed in this
appendix. Examples of some contrasting
views represented by different philosophical interpretations of
reality are listed in Appendix 2b. They are arranged in two parallel
groups: the conceptual, often idealistic and empirical, frequently
experiental. There are similar, not yet resolved, differences
of opinion on basic issues in librarianship, particularly in the
metalibrary interpretation of library philosophy. Some such controversies
are listed
in each section of the table (marked as 'M' for metalibrarianship)
To illustrate the contrary views,
the two major schools of library philosophy are often characterized
in terms of monastic Platonic syntheses ('hedgehog' metaphor) and
pluralistic Aristotelian analysis ('fox' metaphor). (1) Similarly,
several contradictory positions were not yet resolved, such as
(a) the distinction made between censorship and selection, (b)
library neutrality versus social activism, (c) libra
rian's role
as a teacher or information specialist, (d) relationships between
instrumental value of library action and the metaphysical aspect
of knowledge, (e) library theory focus on form versus content,
or (f) in library administration, centralization versus decentralization,
and authoritarian versus participative management.
c. Philosophical issues (Appendix 3).
Philosophical concepts of interest
to librarians are tabulated in this appendix.
As shown, the subject matter of philosophical concepts is scattered.
The data are more fully analyzed in the next two appendixes.
d. Key words as indicators of
philosophical subjects (Appendix 4).
Frequencies of key word citations
are the subject of this appendix. The summary comparison indicates
that (a) predominantly contextual level of analyzes (54.4%) is
followed by conceptual (27.4%), critical (10.5%) and procedural
(7.5%) comments respecti
vely; (b) the number of citations gradually
increases with each historical period, from 78 key words in Antiquity
culminating in most references made to the philosophers of the
twentieth century (175 key words); (c) philosophers in all periods
had impact primarily on contextual, epistemological issues related
to the nature and origin of various concepts. The conceptual,
metaphysical references to definitions and meanings of concepts
followed in the remaining periods; (d) most critical comments
were
made about classical philosophical concepts of Antiquity
and the comments of the twentieth century philosophers.
In this study the most frequently
mentioned philosophers were Popper, Plato, Aristotle, F. Bacon,
Kaplan, Ortega and J. Dewey. Together they made up 31.8% of all
the citations.
The high frequency for Popper,
Kaplan and Ortega were mainly due to their general popularity
and pragmatic views (Popper and J. Dewey) and their direct interest
in the issues related to philosophy o
f librarianship (Kaplan and
Ortega). The close number of citations for Plato and Aristotle
reflects the general duality in the librarians' approach to the
philosophy of librarianship, expressed by these two philosophers.
F. Bacon was popular for his empirical approach and inductive
method.
The largest influence of the antiquity
was on contextual and conceptual level of philosophical issues,
with relatively high number of critical comments made about some
philosophical views of that era. It
is interested that more than
twice as many comments were made about Socratic-Platonic than
Aristotelean viewpoints. The leading commentator among frequently
cited librarians was Wright, whose book on this period of history
was the major contribution.
In the Middle Ages, the contextual
and conceptual interpretations continue to be the strongest, with
increased references to procedural and methodological issues.
The highest number of citations in this period is made by Shera,
who was one of th
e most frequent contributors to library literature.
In the Nineteenth century predominant
are again the citations referring to the contextual aspects of
philosophy, followed by conceptual comments. Critical comments
and Shera's references continue to be high.
In the Twentieth century, the number
of all interpretations increased considerably. All five frequently
cited librarians were commenting on the philosophers of that period,
with Nitecki having the highest number of citations, in par
t due
to his numerous essays on the subject of metalibrarianship, suggesting
a logical system for the philosophy of librarianship based on
current philosophical trends.
Overall, contextual interpretations
of philosophical comments dominated all philosophical periods.
Of the 148 citations made by the most frequently cited librarians,
Shera led with 42.5% of all comments.
e. Most frequently cited data
(Appendix 5e).
To narrow the sprea
d of key words
among many cited subjects, the comparisons in this appendix focus
on the most frequently cited philosophers (MFCP), their key words
(MFCK) and most frequently cited librarians (MFCL).
The 14 most frequently cited key
words (MFCK) constitute the base for all the comparisons in this
section (Appendix 5a). The most frequently cited was 'library information
science' key word (115 times), followed by key words 'knowledge'
(49 times), 'libraries'
(43 times) and 'information' (27 times).
Among the most frequently cited
philosophers (MFCP) Appendix 5b citing most frequently cited key
words (MFCK), Popper led with 32 key words, followed by Plato
(21 MFCK), Aristotle (14 MFCK), Kaplan (17 MFCK), J. Dewy (18
MFCK) and Ortega (14 MFCK). Together these philosophers accounted
for 34.3% of all key words cited. The MFCK were most often cited
by Popper (8.5% of all MFCK), most of them referred to issues
rel
ated to subject 'models'. Plato and Aristotle addressed the
definitional issues that were related by librarians to the meaning
and nature of the discipline. Kaplan, F. Bacon, Ortega and J.
Dewey referred most often to Library Information Science, and
Ortega specifically to 'Libraries'.
The number of citations gradually
increased from the lowest in Antiquity and the highest referring
to the Twenty century (Appendix 5c). The strongest influence in all
peri
ods was on the issues related directly to the domain of librarianship
(LIS).
Most of the 14 MFCK were cited
in the Twentieth century (36% of all citations). The most popular
key words (library information science, knowledge, libraries and
information) constituted 62.2 % of all MFCK. Antiquity led in
key word 'methods', Middle Ages in 'classification' and 'form',
Nineteen century in 'education', nineteen and twentieth centuries
in 'philosophy' and twentieth century in key word 'model'.
Contextual level of interpreting
the MFCK dominated the whole distribution (55% of all MFCK), with
conceptual interpretation running distant second (27.4% of all
MFCK) (appendixes/appx-5d). The strongest contextual approach related to
key words 'library information science' and 'knowledge'. Conceptual
level led other levels of interpretation in the citing of key
words 'philosophy' and 'form'. An altogether weak procedural approach
did not relate at all to philosophy and classification, while
the
strongest criticism was of concepts represented by MFCK in
Library Information Science and Philosophy.
The total number of key words
cited by the most frequently cited librarians (MFCL) totaled 148,
or 29% of all key words analyzed in this study (Appendix 5e). Shera
lead with over 40 percent of all MFCL key words, followed by almost
evenly distributed citations among Wright, Nitecki and Machlup
and a few citations by Foskett. Shera, Wright and Foskett lea
d
in contextual approach, Nitecki in slightly higher conceptual
level, Machlup breaking evenly. Procedural level was least represented,
with Shera citing most of them; Wright provided most criticism,
followed by Shera.
f. The significance of most frequently
cited data (Appendix 5f).
The picture did not change much,
when the analysis narrowed, concentrating on distribution of the
most frequently cited key words. Shera again led with 45.7% of
a
ll MFCK by MFCL, followed by Nitecki, Wright and Machlup and
few key words listed by Foskett. However, all MFCL as a group
accounted for 12.8% of all citations, suggesting the strongest
influence of philosophers on the leading writers in the philosophy
of librarianship. Individually, Shera was most interested in the
subjects of knowledge and methodology, Nitecki and Wright in definitional
issues of Library Information Science and Machlup in relations
knowledge and science.
4. Bibliographical
distribution.
In addition to the few referential
works, the bibliography lists all essays referring to philosophers
cited by librarians in this study. It is but a small part of a
much more extensive bibliography of all the works in philosophy
of librarianship, listed in Nitecki (1995). The present compilation
illustrates the rapid increase in the number of essays citing
professional philosophers, from one published in 1920's to the
total of 225 title
s published till 1995, the cutting date for
this study. The two decades 1970's and 1980's, contains over
71% of all the titles published, with the 1980's alone containing
40.5% of all relevant essays.
5. The Nature of Emerging Pattern.
In appreciation of a painting,
one is not immediately concerned about the hues of paints used
or their chemical composition, but responds to an overall pattern
created by that painting. Similarly, in the present study one
ought not to pay too much
attention to the absolute numerical
values of various relations; they are affected by the subjectivity
of the selection and classification of surveyed data. Hence, the
analysis in this part of the present study could be accepted primarily
as a description of a pattern of relationships that influence
philosophy of librarianship. For example, the specific frequencies
of the key words used will change with different sample of literature
studied, but the overall impact of the philosophers and the issues
relevant to librarianship discussed by them, will, most probably,
be similar to the picture drawn in this analysis.
6. Major Characteristics of Library Information Science
Philosophical Tradition.
Essays in the philosophy of librarianship
citing philosophers form approximately one-fifth of all the writings
on the issue of library philosophy, listed under that subject
in Library Literature.
The overall interest in the philosophy
as expressed by the contribut
ing librarians is broad, almost accidental,
with very few librarians examining the philosophical issues in
depth. This is characteristic of the approach by generalists with
a predominantly humanistic and sociological education. Philosophy
of librarianship is not yet firmly established, but there is good
indication of its incremental growth.
There is a strong predominance
of Western philosophical tradition, representing both the idealism
and empiricism with a focus on contextual and conceptual
levels,
with almost no mention of non-European philosophers or their schools.
The five most frequently cited philosophers best illustrate the
point. The core for the library philosophy was strongly established
by Plato's metaphysical and Aristotle's empirical approaches.
Librarians glided lightly over the history of Western philosophy,
stopping for a moment to note Francis Bacon's inductive, scientific
methodology, and then heavily concentrated on the current philosophers.
In this stage the philosop
hical reflections are divided between
most popular pragmatism of Popper and John Dewey and the neo-Platonic
and neo-Kantian idealism of Kaplan and Ortega.
Most influenced by the philosophers
were the most frequently cited librarians, again representing
the twofold approaches, Wright's metaphysical focus on 'form in
matter' of librarianship, and Machlup's, a non-librarian and economist,
attempts to reduce metaphysics of information to experimental
science. Shera, the most encyclopedic and prol
ific writer on the
subjects, mediated between the two opposite views, proposing social
epistemology, which would bridge the two views. Nitecki attempted
to develop a philosophical system based on the three-fold approach,
anticipating Popper's scientific, impartial three worlds and Dervin's
three personal and emotional interpretations of reality.
Unfortunately, the issues discussed
in this study do not include references to philosophers by other,
influential library writers.
The citat
ions illustrate philosophical
erudition of the library writers, who in their discussions related
specific library issues to the more fundamental philosophical
views. Philosophy is not foreign to library theoreticians, but
it ought to serve more as a framework in their research. And of
course, to be useful to practicing librarians, the philosophy
of librarianship, should be fully developed as a system, interconnected
with relevant philosophical schools of thought, providing interpretations
of both th
eory and practice of librarianship.
___________
NOTES