The study aims to analyse the evolving trends in research methodologies and paradigms in Library and Information Science (LIS), using articles indexed in the ScienceDirect database from 2015 to 2023. Using a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), this article analyses how LIS scholars apply three primary research methods, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods, and situate their work within broader philosophical paradigms, including positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework was employed to guide the transparent reporting of the review process, not as a methodological tool. From an initial pool of over 210,000 articles, 47 met the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted researchers’ preferences for various research methods in LIS research. The analysis showed that 16 articles (34.04%) employed qualitative research, followed by 15 studies (31.91%) using mixed methods and 12 studies (25.53%) adopting quantitative approaches. In addition, the paradigmatic analysis revealed limited explicit engagement with critical theory (6.38%) and positivism (2.13%), indicating either under-articulation of paradigms or growing methodological pluralism in LIS. These findings reflect a dominant trend towards qualitative and integrative methodologies, with limited adoption of critical and positivist approaches in the reviewed literature. This study is limited to English language articles that include the key term ‘Library and Information Science’ focusing on three methods and three research paradigms: positivist, interpretive and critical theory. While some overlap exists between methodological and paradigmatic categories, the review identifies key trends and underexplored areas, offering valuable insights to inform future research design and methodological training in LIS.
CenM.Applying computational methods to analyze trends and themes in library and information science education. Educ Inf Technol2024; 30: 8765–8803.
2.
LawalI.Library and information science research in the 21st century: a guide for practicing librarians and students. Oxford: Chandos, 2009.
3.
SongYWeiKYangS, et al. Analysis on the research progress of library and information science since the new century. Libr Hi Tech2023; 41(4): 1145–1157.
4.
HjørlandB.Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Inf Process Manag2000; 36(3): 501–531.
5.
WuRYangHShiW, et al. The knowledge import and export of LIS: the destinations, citation peak lag, and changes. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL’2020), Wuhan, China, 1–5 August 2020, pp. 197–206. New York: ACM.
6.
YangXFengLYuanJ.Research on linkage of science and technology in the library and information science field. Data Inf Manag2023; 7(2): 100033.
7.
BawdenDRobinsonL.Library and information science. In: BatesMJMaackMN (eds.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2016, pp. 1–5.
8.
JainMK.Library science and information technology. Global J Multidiscip Stud2014; 4(1): 1–7.
9.
LiuGYangL.Popular research topics in the recent journal publications of library and information science. J Acad Librariansh2019; 45(3): 278–287.
10.
MavodzaJ. The evolving landscape of research methods in library and information science. In: NgulubeP (ed.) Handbook of research on connecting research methods for information science research. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020, pp. 1–17.
11.
WattanasiriPManoromPChansanamW.Emerging themes, leaders, and collaboration in library and information science research. Data Metadata2024; 4: 497.
12.
KhanAMaZLiM, et al. From traditional to emerging technologies in supporting smart libraries. A bibliometric and thematic approach from 2013 to 2022. Libr Hi Tech2023; 43: 590–621.
13.
AbbasiMChannarWAbbasiA, et al. Emerging trends in library and information science research. J Soc Sci Rev2024; 4: 202–211.
14.
MaJLundB.The evolution and shift of research topics and methods in library and information science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2021; 72(8): 1059–1074.
15.
ZhangCMaoYPengS.Data-driven evolution of library and information science research methods (1990–2022): a perspective based on fine-grained method entities. Scientometrics2024; 129: 7889–7912.
16.
KothariCR.Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi, India: New Age International, 2004.
17.
KuhnK.Research methodology. In: KuhnK (ed.) Lighting up the Blackbox – digital transformation in German lobbying. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler (Gabler Theses), 2023, pp. 67–106.
18.
WilligC.Introducing qualitative research in psychology. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2022.
19.
PilcherNCortazziM.‘Qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices. Qual Quant2023; 58(3): 2357–2387.
20.
TaherdoostH.What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations. J Manag Sci Eng Res2022; 5(1): 53–63.
21.
EmS.Exploring experimental research: methodologies, designs, and applications across disciplines. SSRN Electron J. Epub ahead of print 23 April2024. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4801767.
22.
AbutabenjehSJaradatR.Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology. Teach Public Adm2018; 36: 237–258.
23.
UllahAAmeenK.Account of methodologies and methods applied in LIS research: a systematic review. Libr Inf Sci Res2018; 40(1): 53–60.
BrymanABellEReckJ, et al. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
26.
ChuHKeQ.Research methods: what’s in the name?Libr Inf Sci Res2017; 39(4): 284–294.
27.
FellowsRLiuA.Research methods for construction. 5th ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2022.
28.
DenzinNKLincolnYSGiardinaMD, et al. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2024.
29.
CahyoWN.Finding novelty of research with Systematic Literature Mapping (SLM). J Phys: Conf Ser2021; 1764(1): 012186.
30.
ZhangHBabarMA.Systematic reviews in software engineering: an empirical investigation. Inf Softw Technol2013; 55(7): 1341–1354.
31.
ThoméAMTScavardaLFScavardaAJ. Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod Plan Control2016; 27(5): 408–420.
32.
PatiDLorussoL.How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD2018; 11: 15–30.
33.
SauerPSeuringS.How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Rev Manag Sci2023; 17: 1899–1933.
34.
MengistWSoromessaTLegeseG.Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX2020; 7: 100777.
MunnZTufanaruCAromatarisE.JBI’s systematic reviews: data extraction and synthesis. Am J Nurs2014; 114(7): 49–54.
37.
KrausSBreierMDasí-RodríguezS.The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J2020; 16(3): 1023–1042.
38.
LaméG.Systematic literature reviews: an introduction. Proc Int Conf Eng Des2019; 1(1): 1633–1642.
39.
JessonJMathesonLLaceyFM.Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. London: SAGE, 2011.
40.
Bettany-SaltikovJMcSherryR.How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press, 2016.
GrantMJBoothA.A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J2009; 26(2): 91–108.
43.
ShehataND’SouzaR.Conducting a high-quality systematic review. J Rheumatol2025; 52(7): 636–646.
44.
XieJKeQChengY, et al. Meta-synthesis in library & information science research. J Acad Librariansh2020; 46(5): 102217.
45.
AbrizahAInuwaSAfiqah-IzzatiN.Systematic literature review informing LIS professionals on embedding librarianship roles. J Acad Librariansh2016; 42(6): 636–643.
46.
KamińskaAMOpalińskiŁWyciślikŁ.The landscapes of sustainability in the library and information science: systematic literature review. Sustainability2021; 14(1): 441.
47.
CreswellJW.Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2012.
48.
GhanadA.An overview of quantitative research methods. Int J Multidiscip Res Anal2023; 6(8): 3794–3803.
RallisSFRossmanGB.The research journey: introduction to inquiry. New York: Guilford Press, 2012.
51.
ReckerJ.Scientific research in information systems: a beginner’s guide. Cham: Springer Nature, 2021.
52.
SinghA.Significance of research process in research work. SSRN Electron J. Epub ahead of print 29March2021. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3815032.
53.
LuoJAnnesley-WilliamsDAdamsM, et al. How are adjacent spinal levels affected by vertebral fracture and by vertebroplasty? A biomechanical study on cadaveric spines. Spine J2017; 17(6): 863–874.
54.
TracySJ.Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2024.
55.
TrushnaTDiwanVNandiS, et al. A mixed-methods community-based participatory research to explore stakeholder’s perspectives and to quantify the effect of crop residue burning on air and human health in Central India: study protocol. BMC Public Health2020; 20(1): 1824.
56.
BottrillMCHockingsMPossinghamHP.In pursuit of knowledge: addressing barriers to effective conservation evaluation. Ecol Soc2011; 16(2): 14.
57.
ChenCSongM (eds) Representing scientific knowledge: the role of uncertainty. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2017.
58.
CreswellJW.Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2014.
59.
NeumanWL.Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 7th ed. Essex: Pearson, 2014.
60.
KamideHAraiT.Human-object interaction, connectedness with nature, and life satisfaction: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychol2024; 15: 1360518.
61.
WilliamsonKJohansonG.Research methods: information, systems, and contexts. 2nd ed. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, an imprint of Elsevier, 2018.
62.
MbanasoUMAbrahamsLOkaforKC.Research techniques for computer science, information systems and cybersecurity. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2023.
63.
NiraulaS.A review of research process, data collection and analysis. Insights Biol Med2019; 3(1): 1–6.
64.
McGregorSLMurnaneJA.Paradigm, methodology and method: intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. Int J Consum Stud2010; 34(4): 419–427.
65.
BrymanA.Social research methods. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
66.
SaundersMLewisPThornhillA.Research methods for business students. 9th ed. Harlow: Pearson, 2023.
67.
PullinASStewartGB.Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol2006; 20(6): 1647–1656.
68.
ChuH.Research methods in library and information science: a content analysis. Libr Inf Sci Res2015; 37(1): 36–41.
69.
DickAL.Library and information science as a social science: neutral and normative conceptions. Libr Q1995; 65(2): 216–235.
HussainAKhanAAhmadP.Library management models: a review and direction for future research. Glob Knowl Mem Commun. Epub ahead of print 02 February 2024. DOI: 10.1108/GKMC-08-2023-0309.
TogiaAMalliariA.Research methods in library and information science. In: OflazogluS (ed.) Qualitative versus quantitative research. London: IntechOpen, 2017. pp. 43–64.
74.
FidelR.Are we there yet?: Mixed methods research in library and information science. Libr Inf Sci Res2008; 30(4): 265–272.
75.
MaL.Some philosophical considerations in using mixed methods in library and information science research. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2012; 63(9): 1859–1867.
76.
HiderPPymmB.Empirical research methods reported in high-profile LIS journal literature. Libr Inf Sci Res2008; 30(2): 108–114.
77.
BernhardM.Civil society and democratic transition in East Central Europe. Political Sci Q1993; 108(2): 307–326.
78.
MasukuM.Library and information science and the positivist paradigm: some critical reflections. J Librariansh Inf Sci2023; 56: 698–711.
79.
KankamPK.The use of paradigms in information research. Libr Inf Sci Res2019; 41(2): 85–92.
80.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg2010; 8(5): 336–341.
81.
ShaffrilHAMSamahAASamsuddinSF. Guidelines for developing a systematic literature review for studies related to climate change adaptation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 22265–22277.
82.
LenbergPFeldtRWallgrenLG.Behavioral software engineering: a definition and systematic literature review. J Syst Softw2015; 107: 15–37.
83.
MukaTGlisicMMilicJ, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol2020; 35(1): 49–60.
84.
ZhangCTianLChuH.Usage frequency and application variety of research methods in library and information science: continuous investigation from 1991 to 2021. Inf Process Manag2023; 60: 103507.
