College and Research Libraries Research Notes Paradigm Restrictions on Interdisciplinary Research into Librarianship Jeffrey N. Gatten Scholars are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary in their approach to research, but traditional structures of knowledge within the social sciences may limit their ability to view a phenomenon in its entirety. This citation study examines the extent to which interdisciplinary research into librarianship is restricted by paradigms. The study uses library science and sociology journal articles that address the sociological aspect of libraries. The data indicate that interdisciplinary research into the applied discipline of librarianship is inhibited by paradigms. ~ii!!iii~iilli....ll• ecent trends in social sciences -~ research indicate that scholars are becoming increasingly inter- disciplinary in their approach to research, more so than researchers in the organized schools of thought (e.g., sociol- ogy, political science, psychology) that de- fine academic institutions.1 However, a researcher investigating an interdiscipli- nary phenomenon approaches the topic from a specific research paradigm rooted in a traditional structure of knowledge. The paradigm may force a particular per- spective or approach to conducting research, thus limiting the investigator's ability to view the phenomenon in its entirety. The extent to which interdisciplinary study of librarianship is limited by paradigmatic structures is the focus of this study. Sociological aspects of libraries-the ·interdisciplinary phenomenon used for this study-incorporates the disciplines of sociology and library science into a concentrated, specialized area of re- search. This phenomenon provides a logical example, combining a research discipline (e.g., sociology) and an ap- plied discipline (e.g., library science) for which researchers could formulate a new paradigm. Because the library is a social institution, sociological research methodologies are appropriate in inves- tigating library science. However, the ex- tent to which research in library science looks toward previous research in soci- ology for methodological or theoretical foundations or the extent to which soci- ological theories are of value to the prac- tice of library science has yet to be determined. It could be argued that li- brary research studies that report the use of sophisticated sociological research Jeffrey N. Gatten is Head of Collection Management at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242. 575 576 College & Research Libraries methodologies may reach only a small number of librarians. 2 This report ques- tions the value of a research discipline's methodology and theory to applied dis- ciplines and examines the nature of in- terdisciplinary studies and the extent to which cross-pollination occurs between a research discipline (in this case, sociol- ogy) and an applied discipline (in this case, library science). LITERATURE REVIEW Florian Znaniecki' s work serves as an introduction to the concept of paradigm structures that may affect interdiscipli- nary studies. Znaniecki presented the concept of the social circle, the audience to which one addresses ideas. Within the social circle is "a common bond consti- tuted by a complex of values which all of them appreciate positively." 3 Some crit- ics describe Znaniecki' s concept as more apropos to a small social group than to society at large. In Znaniecki's model, the originator of an idea is a member of the social circle, which-in turn-ex- pects the originator to meet certain de- mands in exchange for recognition. Scholars "anticipate the demands of their public; and they tend to form self- images, select data, and seize upon prob- lems in terms of their actual or anticipated audiences."4 Thomas Kuhn made the concept of paradigm primary to the study of the organization of knowledge in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn defined paradigms as "univer- sally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practi- tioners."5 Paradigms develop as differing schemes compete for wider acceptance among scientists. Eventually, a paradigm is established, becomes widely accepted, and defines a given scenario of scientific discovery. Anomalies can force changes in a paradigm; these changes result in the creation of new paradigms. Richard H. Wells and J. Steven Picou consider Kuhn's model to be a dialectical one. That is to say, the thesis (existing paradigm) provides its own contradic- tions (crisis provoking anomalies) November 1991 from which several antitheses (new competitors) arise. Finally a synthesis (a new paradigm) evolves which re- jects the worst of both existing para- digms and the new competitors, while concomitantly retaining the best.6 Martin E. Spencer suggested that the social sciences do not advance in a dia- lectic manner. Rather, progress is prob- lematic.7 The social sciences are "an aggregate of conceptual communities that communicate only imperfectly with each other and that assert the correctness of their point of view while disdaining others." Spencer contrasted the physic(\! sciences and the social sciences using Kuhn's paradigmatic dialectic and con- cluded that "the mere succession of the- ories" traced through history does not constitute progress.8 Low subject dispersion within the professional literature of library science indicates little effort by librarians at looking toward another discipline (e.g., sociology) for theory or methodology. Communication within the social cir- cle does not necessarily facilitate a dia- lectic process and, Wells and Picou argued, the social sciences can provide theoretical "puzzles," but not an "arse- nal" of shared exemplars to guarantee solutions to the puzzles, as is the case with the physical sciences.9 Therefore, the social sciences consist of a number of partial, not full, paradigms. One method for identifying a partial paradigm within the social sciences is to define the social circle membership through the professional literature. Thus, the development of professional literature within a subject area can be one component of a paradigmatic struc- ture.10 Gloria Stark Cline asserted, "The intellectual base of any discipline is re- vealed in its journal literature which serves, among other things, as a vehicle for disseminating information, introduc- ing innovations, and reporting the find- ings of research in the field." 11 Librarians have begun to investigate the structure of knowledge and the de- velopment of paradigms in the distribu- tion of knowledge. 12 This investigation is occurring, in part, through the study of the nature of the professional literature of disciplines. 13 Tefko Saracevik and Lawrence J. Perk argued that library sci- ence as a discipline has not developed "many interactions with other subjects as many other subjects have, subjects from which, for instance, tools for investigation may be borrowed."14 This statement sug- gests that low subject dispersion within the professional literature of library science indicates little effort by librarians at looking toward another discipline (e.g., sociology) for theory or methodology. Specifically, Leigh Estabrook con- ducted a citation analysis of library sci- ence literature to determine the extent to which tools for investigation have been borrowed from previous sociological re- search. Estabrook discovered little ac- knowledgment of "those individuals who are classically important to socio- logical theory," including Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. 15 Es- tabrook concluded that approximately 8% of the library citations can be consid- ered sociological, yet demonstrate an "ap- parently limited sociological theoretical framework from which library research- ers have drawn."16 The result, by implica- tion, is that library science researchers may view phenomena sociologically, but adopt unsophisticated analytical tech- niques and use limited theoretical frameworks. For example, only descrip- tive, rather than inferential, statistics may be used for data analysis, or the use of one theoretical model may define the type of research methodology employed.17 METHODOLOGY The general objective of this study is to examine patterns of interdisciplinary research for the purpose of determining and observing the existence of a partial paradigm. Specifically, it seeks to deter- mine whether the subject area "sociolog- ical aspects of libraries" is composed of researchers constituting a partial para- digm or whether the subject area is con- Paradigm Restrictions 577 sistently examined from two distinct paradigms. Sampling Procedure Two sets of source journal articles-li- brary science and sociology-were iden- tified. Each set is devoted to the topic "sociological aspects of libraries." . For library science source journal articles, the database Library & Information Sci- ence Abstracts (LISA) was searched for all English-language journal articles published during the ten-year inclusive period between 1979 and 1988. This set was then reduced to include only the articles that had been assigned sociol- ogy-related subject headings in LISA. The following subject headings were se- lected after a thorough examination of the preferred terms list in the USA Online User Manual: "social aspects," "socializa- tion," and "sociological perspectives." A list was generated of 201 source articles representing research on various socio- logical aspects of libraries as published in library science journals. For sociology source journal articles, the database Sociological Abstracts was searched for all English-language jour- nal articles published during the ten- year inclusive period between 1979 and 1988. This set was then reduced to in- clude only the articles that had been as- signed the subject heading "libraries," determined after a thorough examina- tion of the Thesaurus of Sociological Index- ing Terms. A list of 17 items resulted. After the investigator discarded one of the items because it was an occasional paper and not a journal article, a list of 16 source articles representing research on various sociological aspects of librar- ies as published in sociology journals remained. This sampling procedure pro- duced two sets of source journal articles from which citation patterns could . be examined: library science (n = 201) and sociology (n = 16). Classification The source journal articles in both sets (library science and sociology) were clas- sified by a variety of means, including identification of prominent source au- 578 College & Research Libraries thors, prominent source journals, and prominent source subject areas. In addi- tion, prominent cited authors, promi- nent cited journals, and prominent cited disciplines from the source articles were identified. ("Prominent" was defined as a relatively high frequency of appear- ance.) Source subject areas were identi- fied by using the subject headings that had been assigned to the article by the database producer. In some cases, sim- ilar subject headings were tabulated as one. For example, some articles from LISA were assigned the subject heading "intellectual freedom" while other arti- cles were assigned the subject heading "censorship." In compiling the data, the investigator tabulated these two subject headings as if they were the same. The Standard Periodical Directory (SPD) supplied the appropriate discipline to which a cited journal should be as- signed. If a journal could not be classi- fied using SPD, the investigator viewed OCLC records to determine the Library of Congress subject classification, which was then used to assign the journal to a discipline. For example, when the jour- nal Administrative Science Quarterly was cited, the discipline to which it is as- signed by either the SPD or the Library of Congress via OCLC classified it. This journal was assigned to the discipline "management." In some cases, similar disciplines were combined into one larger discipline. For example, some journals were assigned to the discipline "communications" while other journals were assigned to "televi- sion." In compiling the data, the investi- gator tabulated these two disciplines as if they were the same. RESULTS Library Science Source Articles In the library science journals, 15 au- thors were discovered to have written more than one article on sociological as- pects of libraries. These 15 authors ac- counted for only 8% of all the authors within library science source articles. Twenty-one (28%) journals accounted for 55% of all citations. Almost 50% of the source articles' subject areas focused on November 1991 organizational administration or the dis_. semination of information (typically in electronic format). Sociology Source Articles In the sociology journals, only one au- thor was discovered to have written more than one article on sociological as- pects of libraries. This one author ac- counted for 9.5% of all the authors within sociology source articles. Not only did a number of the source journals originate from outside of traditional so- ciology (e.g., Journal of Management), but the most frequently found source journal in the Sociological Abstracts database relevant to this study was Library and Information Science Research, a library sci- ence journal. The plurality of the articles (31 %) was dedicated to the subject area of education. Examination of Study Questions To what extent does research into the sociological aspects of libraries, as pub- lished within library science journals, draw on previous sociology research? This question was answered by first identifying the prominent cited authors, journals, and disciplines. One hundred and twenty-seven of the 201 source li- brary science articles identified through LISA were used for the citation study. These 127 articles were found in the Kent State University Libraries collection of library science journals supporting a graduate library science program. Only 33 (2.7%) of all cited authors (a total of 1,207) were cited more than three times, representing 12.8% (198) of the 1,541 citations. An author was consid- ered to be cited each time a different work by that author was referenced within a source article. Citations were tabulated as follows: one work by an author referenced one or more times within one source article equaled one citation; multiple works by an author referenced within one source article equaled one citation per unique work; and one work by an author referenced in different source articles equaled one ci- tation per source article. The ten most frequently cited journals represented Paradigm Restrictions 579 TABLEl FREQUENTLY CITED JOURNALS IN "SOURCE" LIBRARY SCIENCE ARTICLES No. of citations %of Total Cited Journal Discipline (n=679) (n=227) Library Journal Library 86 37.9 New York Times General 32 14.1 Wilson Library Bulletin Library 19 8.4 Library Quarterly Library 15 6.6 Library Trends Library 15 6.6 South African Libraries Library 13 5.7 Top of the News Library 13 5.7 American Libraries Library 12 5.3 College & Research Libraries Library 11 4.8 ]. American Society for Info. Science Library 11 4.8 Total"' 227 99.9 *The 227 citations represented in this table constitute 33.4% of the toatl number (679) of citations to journals from 127 "source" articles. The"% of total" column totals to 99.9% due to rounding. 33.4% of the 679 citations to journals, but only 4% of the 249 journals cited. There- fore, of all the citations to journal articles, one-third were to 4% of the titles. Ap- proximately 52% of all citations were to journals within the discipline of library science. Only about 3% were to journals within the discipline of sociology. (The term "discipline" refers to a cited journal's general orientation, not to the specific focus of the cited article that appears within a journal.) This study examines the nature of in- terdisciplinary studies and the extent to which cross-pollination occurs be- tween a research discipline (in this case, sociology) and an applied dis- cipline (in this case, library science). Next, the cited authors from source library science articles were compared with the sociology source authors. Of the 1,207 authors that were cited in 127 source library science articles, none au- thored the 16 source sociology articles. The cited journals from library science source articles were then examined to determine the journals cited most prom- inently and to determine to which dis- cipline the cited journals belonged. Table 1 illustrates the 10 journals cited most frequently in source library science arti- cles. These 10 titles represented 33.4% of all the citations to journals, with 237 ti- tles accounting for the remaining 66.6% of citations to journals. Within this top one-third cluster, library science journals composed 86% of the citations. One title, the New York Times, represented there- maining 14% of these citations and is, (1) not associated with any particular sub- ject discipline and (2) not a professional scholarly journal. Moreover, none of the citations within the top 33.4% of cita- tions was to sociology journals. In fact, sociology journals did not appear in the top 66% of the citations. Therefore, library science research ap- parently does not look toward the field of sociology when investigating socio- logical topics. The lack of citations to contemporary sociologists publishing in the same area and the overwhelming tendency of library science articles to cite articles from a core of library science journals support this conclusion (see table 1). Also, the observation that soci- ology journal articles represented only 3% of the citations to journals within the entire sample-less than, but similar to, journal articles in education (4.7%) and 580 College & Research Libraries November 1991 TABLE2 FREQUENTLY CITED JOURNALS IN "SOURCE" SOCIOLOGY ARTICLES No. of citations %of Total Cited Journal Discipline (n=130) (n=55) Academy of Management Journal Bus.Adm. 9 16.4 Administrative Science Quarterly Bus.Adm. 9 16.4 Human Organization Sociology 6 10.9 College & Research Libraries Library 5 9.1 International Library Review Library 5 9.1 Public Administration Review Pub.Adm. 5 9.1 American Political Science Review Political 4 7.3 American Sociological Review Sociology 4 7.3 Journal of Business Bus.Adm. 4 7.3 Urban Life Sociology 4 7.3 Total* 55 100.2 *The 55 citations represented in this table constitute 42.3% of the total number of citations to journals from sixteen "source" articles. The"% of total" column totals to 100.2% due to rounding. administrative sciences (3.2%), as well as newspaper articles (12.4%)-demonstrates a lack of attention focused on previous sociolo~calresearch. To what extent does research into the sociological aspects of libraries as pub- lished within sociology journals draw on previous library science research? The same method described above was used to answer this question. Only 5 (1.4%) of the 364 authors were cited more than three times, representing 6.1% (27) of all citations. The 10 most frequently cited journals represent 42.3% of the 130 citations to journals and approximately 15% of the 65 journals cited. Therefore, of all the citations to journal articles, just over two-fifths were to 15% of the titles. Approximately 19% of all citations were to journals within the sociology discipline. Just over 26% were to journals within the library science discipline. Next, the cited authors from source sociology articles were compared with the library science source authors. Of the 364 ·authors that were cited in 16 source sociology articles, 3 were authors from the 206 source library science authors. The cited journals from sociology source articles were then examined to deter- mine the journals cited most frequently and to determine to which discipline the cited journals belonged. Table 2 illustrcltes the 10 journals cited most fre- quently in source sociology articles. These titles represent 42.3% of all the citations to journals, with 55 titles ac- counting for the remaining 57.7% of cita- tions to journals. Within this top two-fifths cluster, sociology journals composed only 25.5% of the citations. The remaining titles were dispersed among several other disciplines. Library science journals represented 18.2% of these citations. Library science research apparently does not look toward the field of soci- ology when investigating sociological topics. Therefore, it appears that sociology re- search into libraries looks to previous library science research. While 3 of the authors cited in the sociology source ar- ticles also were authors of library science source articles, this constituted less than 1% of all authors cited. However, within the top 10 journals cited (see table 2), the frequency of citing library science jour- nals (18.2%) was similar to that for soci- ology journ!ils (25.5%). Moreover, Paradigm Restrictions 581 TABLE3 FREQUENCY OF AUTHORS CITED IN BOTH LIBRARY SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY "SOURCE" ARTICLES Authors Asheim, L. Berelson, Bernard Berger, Peter Blau,P. M. Braverman, M. Carpenter, R. L. Chelton, M. K. Chen, C. Chisholm, M. E. Cooper, M. D. Danton, J. D. Dervin, Brenda DuMont, R. R. Estabrook, Leigh Garrison, Dee Goodman, Paul Hughes, E. C. Katz, J. Lazarsfeld, P. F. Liesener, J. W. Olsen, Harold A. Palmour, Vernon E. Roderer, N. K. Strauss, Anselm Toffler, Alvin Van House, Nancy A. Warner, E. 5. Zaltman, Gerald Zweizig, Douglas L. • corrected for ties. rs = + .444 library science articles were cited more often than sociology articles within source sociology articles. To what extent does a partial para- digm, constituting sociological aspects of libraries, exist? Table 3 lists the 29 authors who were cited in both source article sets-library Cited in Library Science Sources n 1 3 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 6 1 1 1 2 5 1 2 rank• 21.0 5.0 21.0 9.5 2.5 9.5 9.5 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 9.5 5.0 5.0 1.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 9.5 2.5 21.0 21.0 21.0 9.5 Cited in Sociology Sources n 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 4 rank• 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 1.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 3.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 5.0 2.0 science and sociology. These cited au- thors represent the extent to which both library science and sociology draw on a common body of specific authors when studying sociological aspects of librar- ies. For library science source articles, table 3 lists approximately 4.5% of all authors cited. For sociology source arti- 582 College & Research Libraries November 1991 TABLE4 FREQUENCY OF JOURNAL TITLES CITED IN BOTH LIBRARY SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY "SOURCE" ARTICLES Cited in Library Cited in Science Sources Sociology Sources Journal n rank* n rank* Academy of Mgt. Review 1 18.0 9 1.5 Admin. Science Quarterly 2 10.0 9 1.5 American Pol. Sci. Rev. 18.0 4 6.5 American Soc. Review 1 18.0 4 6.5 College & Research Libraries 11 4.0 5 4.0 Inti. Forum Info. & Doc. 1 18.0 1 19.5 Inti. Library Review 7 8.0 5 4.0 ]. of Academic Libr. 1 18.0 3 9.5 f. of Educ. for Libr. 10 5.0 2 13.0 Journalism Quarterly 1 18.0 1 19.5 Library Journal 86 1.0 3 9.5 Library Quarterly 15 2.5 2 13.0 Library Trends 15 2.5 2 13.0 Management Science 1 18.0 3 9.5 Monthly Labor Review 1 18.0 1 19.5 North Carolina Libraries 18.0 1 19.5 Public Admin. Review 2 10.0 5 4.0 Public Interest 1 18.0 1 19.5 Public Opinion Quarterly 2 10.0 3 9.5 Science 8 7.0 19.5 School Library Journal 9 6.0 19.5 Social Forces 1 18.0 19.5 Sociological Quarterly 18.0 1 19.5 Urban Affairs Quarterly_ 18.0 1 19.5 *corrected for ties. rs = + .361 des, the same table lists approximately tion. For table 3, the relatively high cor- 12% of all authors cited. relation could be artificial and explained A Spearman's correlation, which mea- by the high number of ties on the low sures the relationship between two sets number of occurrences. of rankings of the same observations, Table 4 illustrates the comparison of was comryuted for table 3. It indicates both the library science cited journals that amo~g the common authors cited in and the sociology cited journals in an both sets there exists a degree of relation- attempt to discover common titles. ship (rs = + .444). However, the existence Twenty-four journals were cited in both of a common body of specific authors library science and sociology source ar- who are cited in both library science and tides. These journals represented 26.5% sociology source articles does not neces- of all the journals cited in library science sarily imply the existence of a paradigm. source articles, and 53.1% of all the jour- It is a necessary, but insufficient, condi- nals cited in sociology source articles. A Spearman's correlation of ranked data indicates that among the common journals cited in both sets there exists a degree of relationship (rs = +.361). However, only one of these titles, College & Research Li- braries, appeared in both table 1 and table 2, the tables that listed the most fre- quently cited journals for each source set. Because of this, one could conclude that rather than illustrating the existence of core journals within a paradigm, table 4 reflects the tendency of sociology arti- cles to draw on the published literature of other disciplines, as made evident in table 2. Limitations Examining citation patterns only within journal articles limits this study. Monographic and other material was not used because journal literature pro- vided a focus on current interdiscipli- nary communication. Also the study is limited by the citations from library sci- ence source articles available in the Kent State University Libraries. Furthermore, the low number of source sociology arti- cles (n = 16) may not be a large enough sample for conclusive data analysis. However, this low number is also indic- ative of the direction and level of inter- disciplinary relevance between applied and research disciplines. The examina- tion of the research discipline's literature revealed few instances of empirical study into how that discipline's research is applied in a given field. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study affirms that research re- ported in the library science literature does not often cite relevant research from other disciplines. The observation that an applied discipline-in this case, library science-demonstrated a strong tendency to cite its own body of litera- ture reinforces the notion that paradig- matic structures do not cross the traditional boundaries of established disciplines, thus inhibiting interdiscipli- nary research. The research discipline, sociology, seems to indicate that unlike paradigms for applied disciplines, para- Paradigm Restrictions 583 digms for research disciplines may be structured around a theoretical or meth- odological approach rather than around topics. This would explain why the top- ical focus of this study, sociological as- pects of libraries, resulted in a clearly defined body of literature within library science and the absence of such a body in sociology. This study examined the extent to which cross-pollination can occur between a re- search discipline (e.g., sociology) and an applied discipline (e.g., library science), resulting in a new paradigm facilitating interdisciplinary research. The research discipline and the applied discipline do not share a paradigm. The applied discipl- ine ap~ars to be more self-contained, while the research discipline appeared more likely to draw on resources from a variety of disciplines. Paradigms are per- petuated by rewards through publication and other means. The reward system re- inforces the perception within the social circle that an internal focus is superior. As long as the rewards are greater for paradigm membership, the traditional partial paradigm structures of the social sciences will continue. 18 This study could be restructured. Rather than approaching the study from a specific topic, the investigator could have studied a content analysis of arti- cles from sociology (research discipline) core journals and defined paradigms based on observations of the theoretical or methodological approaches. Once this was accomplished, the presence or absence of specific phenomena could have been noted from one paradigm to the next. Library science (applied dis- cipline) literature could have been ap- proached in the same manner in order to confirm or deny the concept, introduced in this study, that an applied discipline's paradigms are organized differently from a research discipline's paradigms, which may, in turn, inhibit scholarly inter- disciplinary research into librarianship. CONCLUSION Librarians need to be conscious of the existence of paradigms, how library sci- ence paradigqts are organized, and how 584 College & Research Libraries paradigms shape practice within the profession. In order for librarianship to incorporate new ideas and to challenge existing structures, theory and research methodologies from a variety of dis- ciplines should be used. This utilization would allow movement from topical or November1991 situational issues toward the building of "the theory base which supports and en- hances the library and information pro- fessions."19 The first step in this process is to understand that existing paradigms may inhibit the interdisciplinary inquiry necessary to accomplish this task. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Julie Thompson Klein, Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Pr., 1990), passim. 2. Leigh Estabrook, "Sociology and Library Research," Library Trends 32:465 (Spring 1984). 3. Florian Znaniecki, The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1940), p.14. 4. Lewis A. Coser, "Sociology of Knowledge," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, v.8, ed. David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p.433. 5. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1970), p.viii. 6. Richard H. Wells and J. Steven Picou, American Sociology: Theoretical and Methodological Structure (Washington, D.C.: Univ. Pr. of America, 1981), p.22. 7. Martin E. Spencer, "The Imperfect Empiricism of the Social Sciences," Sociological Forum 2:331 (Spring 1987). 8. Ibid., p.358-59. 9. Wells and Picou, American Sociology, p.51-52. 10. Lee Harvey, "The Nature of 'Schools' in the Sociology of Knowledge: The Case of the 'Chicago School,"' Sociological Review 35:248 (May 1987). 11. Gloria Stark Cline, "A Bibliometric Study of Two Selected Journals in Library Science, 1940-1974" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Southern California, 1978), p.l. 12. Don R. Swanson, "Libraries and the Growth of Knowledge," Library Quarterly 50:112- 34 (Jan. 1980). 13. William Brace, "A Citation Analysis of Doctoral Dissertations in Library and Informa- tion Science, 1961-1970" (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve Univ., 1975), p.v. 14. Tefko Saracevic and Lawrence J. Perk, "Ascertaining Activities in a Subject Area through Bibliometric Analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24:133 (Mar./ Apr. 1973). 15. Estabrook, "Sociology and Library Research," p.468. 16. Ibid., p.471 17. Ibid. 18. Ellsworth R. Fuhrman and William E. Snizek, "Syntheses, Delusions, and Metasociology," International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 19:22 (Oct. 1982). 19. Robert Grover and Jack Glazier, "A Conceptual Framework for Theory Building in Library and Information Science," Library and Information Science Research 8:227 (July 1986).