From situated users to situated categories: rethinking research objects in information science
Hassan MortadaPurpose
Although library and information science (LIS) recognizes the contextual nature of information, yet the categories through which research populations are constructed as objects of inquiry have received little critical scrutiny. This article argues that these categories do not function neutrally. Rather, they act as a productive mechanism, creating the very phenomena they purport to explain. Using immigration as an example, it examines how LIS constructs the immigrant as a long-lasting scholarly object and the resulting epistemological constraints. Although LIS recognizes the contextual nature of information, the disciplinary processes through which research populations become established as objects of inquiry require further examination. Building on existing immigration scholarship that identified problems of definitional boundary and distinction, this article examines how such categories become durable within LIS research and the epistemological constraints that follow. Using immigration as an example, it argues that categories do not function as neutral descriptions but actively shape the populations they are used to investigate.
Design/methodology/approach
The article combines conceptual analysis with a scoping review of 92 peer-reviewed LIS articles published between 2014 and 2023. Twenty-five migration-related terms were coded for presence and definitional status. The empirical analysis examines definitional frequency, temporal patterns, variation in categorical boundaries and article-level term co-occurrence, while the conceptual analysis draws on classification theory, critical migration studies and broader epistemological scholarship from within and beyond LIS. The article uses conceptual analysis and empirical data from 91 peer-reviewed LIS articles published between 2014 and 2023. It analyzes the epistemological employment of 25 immigration-related terms by examining definitional frequency, temporal stability, internal consistency and geographic distribution. This investigation relies on classification theories, critical migration studies and broader epistemological perspectives from within and beyond LIS.
Findings
Results indicate 94% of immigration-related terms lack explicit definitions. This trend remained statistically stable over the last decade despite a 117% publication increase (Spearman ρ = −0.084, p = 0.426; Mann–Whitney U = 867.5, p = 0.975). When definitions existed, they often conflicted; the term “immigra*” alone had eight unique definitions. Co-occurrence patterns identified in Mortada et al. (2025) demonstrate this undefined vocabulary is structured around legal status, criminalization, settlement and displacement, existing predominantly in Global North contexts. Results indicate that 727 of 773 article-term occurrences (94.05%) lacked explicit definitions, while 62 of 92 articles (67.4%) provided no definitions for any of the tracked terms. Thirteen terms were never explicitly defined. Definitional precision showed no statistically significant change over the decade despite a 117% increase in publication volume (Spearman ρ = −0.091, p = 0.389; Mann–Whitney U = 854.0, p = 0.971). When definitions existed, they often differed substantially, with immigra* receiving nine distinct definitions. All seven pre-specified co-occurrence relationships tested remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment, indicating recurring associations related to legal status, criminalization, settlement, displacement and privileged mobility.
Research limitations/implications
The corpus covers 2014 to 2023 and draws on a single database and a predefined 41-journal sampling frame, so the findings describe the contemporary reproduction of migration categories within that frame rather than their initial historical stabilization or the whole of LIS scholarship. Establishing whether the same process operates for other LIS research populations requires comparative work.
Practical implications
Researchers should state how migration-related populations are defined and why those inclusion criteria were selected. Those developing controlled vocabularies, subject headings and service frameworks should attend to the political genealogies of the terms they standardize and ask which populations a given framework reaches and which it does not.
Originality/value
This article introduces “epistemic stabilization” to name the process by which a category becomes so deeply embedded in academic and professional discourse that it anchors continued knowledge creation without needing re-justification. As the constitutive counterpart to epistemicide, epistemic stabilization focuses on what is created rather than erased, providing new vocabulary for practices LIS already enacts. This article introduces “epistemic stabilization” to describe how a category can become sufficiently durable within scholarly and professional practice to support continued knowledge production without repeated justification. The concept is distinct from epistemicide, which concerns the destruction or delegitimation of knowledge. Epistemic stabilization instead draws attention to the persistence of categories within knowledge-producing systems and to the point at which that persistence may require renewed critical scrutiny.