Research and Philosophical Paradigms Used by Information Science PhD Candidates

Abstract

This study aimed to identify philosophical and methodological orientations in doctoral theses produced by universities offering IS/IKM in the Western Cape region of South Africa. A secondary aim was to identify any philosophical and/or methodological biases and their implication on supervision strategies. Given that IS/IKM is a diverse field in which a multiplicity of research strategies can be applied, the author holds that identifying biases could help enhance supervision strategies for academics working in the field in the Western Cape, as well as inform university leadership in the Western Cape of existing supervision capacity gaps. This will enable the production of better doctoral studies in the future, either by having currently employed academics actively explore other methodologies or by addressing skills gaps from a university standpoint to ensure adequate research supervision and the advancement of the field. This unique understanding becomes increasingly important in the IS/IKM field, as it is relevant across distinct industries, making its application context-specific. This complexity may pose challenges when conducting research, as emerging scholars may not understand the research and philosophical paradigms most appropriate to their studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was employed to determine the studies deemed relevant to fulfilling the study’s objectives, as indicated in the established category sheet. 18 studies were subsequently included in the study for analysis. Content analysis was used to capture data relating to epistemological and ontological positions and research paradigms from the theses. Recurring categories were identified, citing justifications for holding a specific position, thereby providing perspective on research paradigm selection. Pragmatism was identified as the most prominent paradigm, while relational epistemology and ontological relationism were the most widely held positions. Information Science research demonstrates philosophical pluralism and methodological flexibility. This adaptability enables the field to address complex, real-world problems. The study offers a comparative mapping of philosophical and methodological orientations, contributing to scholarly debate and guiding future research design in IS.