Exploring the contemplative landscape of Library and Information Science through the lens of Chinese philosophies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although some research has examined aspects of contemplation and spirituality within Library and Information Science (LIS), there remains a lack of systematic exploration into how Chinese philosophies and religions might influence this topic. The paper at hand seeks to address this gap by exploring the potential of Chinese philosophical and religious traditions to enrich contemplative research and practice in LIS. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a conceptual analysis approach, drawing on literature from both Chinese philosophy and LIS contemplation to explore the potential contributions of Chinese thought to the field. Findings By introducing Yin-yang philosophy, Buddhism, Zen and Confucianism into LIS discourse, the study reveals new pathways for addressing important issues. These include fostering a dynamic balance between information technology and human well-being; understanding the role of inner (prajña) information; deepening our understanding of users’ information needs and behavior; opening LIS education to greater holism and revisioning library spaces. Confucianism relates contemplative practices (CP) to social justice imperatives, offering ideas for a more ethical and inclusive information science. At its conclusion, the study presents a contemplative paradigm for LIS and articulates 12 metatheoretical propositions. Originality/value This study provides a novel overview of how Chinese philosophies and religions can inform the contemplative research and theoretical foundation of LIS. It contributes to a more spacious and globally informed perspective within the field and highlights the potential of Eastern thought to enrich LIS discourse and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".