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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".