Abstract

Library historians use primarily qualitative research methods, unlike most in LIS, who adopt social science research methods. This contrast becomes problematic when evaluating the goodness of historical research. This article briefly explores this conflict and crosses the methodological divide by adapting both bibliometrics and qualitative approaches to examine four volumes from the Journal of Library History (1967, 1977) and its successor, Libraries & Culture (1987, 1997), in order to observe transitions. The sample, 497 citations from 53 articles, was tabulated by age, self-citation, and other factors to examine the goodness of historical research.

pdf