Social Epistemology from Jesse Shera to Steve Fuller

Tarcisio Zandonade

Abstract
This article examines the project of Jesse Hauk Shera (1903–82), carried out
originally in association with his colleague Margaret Egan, of formulating
an epistemological foundation for a library science in which bibliography,
librarianship, and the then newly emerging ideas about documentation
would be integrated. The scholarly orientation and research agenda of the
University of Chicago’s Graduate Library School provided an appropriate
context for his work for social epistemology, though this work was continued
long after he left the University of Chicago. A short time after his death, a
group of philosophers that included Steve Fuller (1959– ) began to study
the collective nature of knowledge. Fuller, independently of Shera, identi-
fied, named, and developed a program of social epistemology, a vehicle
for which was a new journal he was responsible for creating in 1987, Social
Epistemology. Fuller described his program as an intellectual movement
of broad cross-disciplinary provenance that attempted to reconstruct the
problem of epistemology once knowledge is regarded as intrinsically social.
Fuller, like other philosophers interested in this area, acknowledges the
work of Shera.

“The Renaissance of Epistemology”

Nineteenth-century philosophy, and especially its branch of epistemol-
ogy, was dominated by neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegelianism. The twentieth
century opened with a new and naturalistic interest in epistemology, a
reaction against German metaphysical idealism. Luciano Floridi describes

Tarciso Zandonade, Associate Professor, Department of Information Science and Documen-

tation, Faculty of Economics, Administration Accountancy, and Information Science and
Documentation, University of Brasilia, Caixa Postal 04561, 70919–970, Brasilia, Distrito Fed-
eral, Brazil
LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 52, No. 4, Spring 2004, pp. 810–832
© 2004 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 811

this period as “The Renaissance of Epistemology” in the first half of the

twentieth century—between the two world wars—which formed “a bridge
between early modern and contemporary philosophy of knowledge” (Flo-
ridi, 2003). This young Italian philosopher at Oxford University identifies
the roots of this philosophical reaction in Europe and in the United States.
He suggests that, in German philosophy, this antimetaphysical movement
originated from Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz’s (1821–94)
scientific interpretation of Immanuel Kant (1874–1904), from Franz Bre-
nato’s (1838–1917) phenomenology, and from Ernst Mach’s (1838–1916)
“neutral monism.” In France, Auguste Comte’s (1798–1857) positivist move-
ment prepared this reaction. In Britain, the critical realism at Oxford and
the philosophy of George Edward Moore (1873–1958) and Bertrand Ar-
thur William Russell (1872–1970) at Cambridge repelled Hegelianism. In
the United States, Floridi describes how Kant’s and Hegel’s idealism was
directly confronted by the new pragmatist epistemology of William James
(1842–1910) and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), who introduced the
term “pragmatism”; John Dewey (1859–1952), who introduced the terms
“experimentalism” and “instrumentalism”; Clarence Irving Lewis (1883–
1964); and George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). By the turn of the twentieth
century, major advances in mathematics, logic, and physics prompted new
methodological interests in the philosophy of science, and central topics
in epistemology came to be reexamined mainly as “a reconsideration of
the role of philosophy as a critical exercise of analysis, rather than as an
autonomous and superior form of knowledge” (Floridi, 2003, p. 531).
The second half of the nineteenth century in the United States was the
age when many of the contemporary liberal professions and the academic
disciplines that supported them intellectually were institutionalized. The
trend was not different for such an old humanistic profession as that of
librarianship. In the United States, a strong demand for a “national union
catalog” to link major libraries in the country was voiced at the first confer-
ence of American libraries in 1852, while British librarians were gathering
around the “public libraries movement” at almost the same time in their
country. Librarians had developed by then the whole basic apparatus for
the proper organization of books in library collections (Egan and Shera,
1953). But concurrently the periodical, or scientific journal—the “archive
of science”—at around its bicentennial was reaching the landmark of one
thousand titles (Price, 1961). This event brought a problem for the library,
since the tools to organize this new medium of scientific publication were
not readily available. An augur of things to come, William Frederick Poole,
at Yale College in 1848 devised a “collective index” to enable access to the
content of individual periodical articles. Twenty-eight years later, at the first
American Library Association (ALA) conference, Poole reported on the
constraints he had gone through to bring his index to a second edition by
1853. He then suggested that the conference had the powers to organize a
812 library trends/spring 2004

practicable plan of cooperation to proceed with a new edition of the index.

He was adamant in maintaining that the burden and labor of producing
such a work should not be laid upon one person (Library
Library Journal
Journal, 1876).
The library profession, however, was unable to unite around a coopera-
tive venture of this sort, partly because management resources were still
scarce, and partly because they were not then convinced of the importance
of “micro-documentation” at the level of the “thought unit,” as against
“macro-documentation” for the “publication unit” (Egan and Shera, 1949;
Ranganathan, 1963, p. 29). Meanwhile, even before the establishment of
ALA, calls were recorded for the creation of a “librarians’ association,” and
the philosopher and writer Ralph Waldo Emerson identified the need for a
“professorship of books” to teach readers how to make the most of library
resources (Emerson, 1870).

The Birth of a New Social Science (Library

Economy) from an Old Profession (Bibliography
and Librarianship)
Library Apprenticeship
A “library and information profession” has existed ever since man-
kind adopted writing to record graphically on any physical object their
knowledge and imagination. By mid-nineteenth century, the library profes-
sion, both in the United States and in Britain, was becoming aware of its
responsibility to provide a sophisticated library service. However, a formal
profession entrusted with the duty to manage the graphic record for the
benefit of society—and a matching overruling institution for library and
information education and research—did not emerge in the United States
until 1876, when the American Library Association was founded, and in
Britain until 1877, when the Library Association (LA) was founded. Before
the emergence of a formal profession, prospective librarians were chosen
for their “housekeeping” skills, and the chief librarian directly supervised
their training during an apprenticeship period. We take into account only
the American and British library profession and education development
because this is where the strongest early developments occurred.
Library Economy
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the leading charac-
ter of Melvil Dewey commanded the library scene in the United States. As
a professional librarian, in 1876 alone, amongst other ventures, he pub-
lished his Decimal Classification and was instrumental in the creation of
the American Library Association (ALA), becoming its first secretary and
then its president for several terms. As a library educator, he made a pro-
posal to ALA for a first School of Library Economy. The creation of the
school was approved by ALA, although not without some resistance from
opposing quarters, and it started operating in 1887 at Columbia College.
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 813

In comparison to the young and already wealthy science of economics, the

establishment of a librarianship course seems now to have been opportunis-
tic but still in accordance with the title the new academic area received at
the formation of ALA. Dewey tried hard to find a suitable academic cradle
for his newborn scientific discipline. An appropriate name for the program
was already inscribed on ALA’s “birth certificate.” In fact,
on the last day of the congress [in Philadelphia], Friday 6 October
1876, those present were invited to append their signatures to the fol-
lowing: For the purpose of promoting the library interests of the country and
of increasing reciprocity of intelligence and good-will among librarians and all
interested in library economy and bibliographical studies, the undersigned formed
themselves into a body to be known as the AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIA-
TION. (Munford, 1977, pp. 17–18; emphasis added).

Documentation
At the end of the nineteenth century, while in the United States the
education for library service swiftly expanded in the presence of challeng-
ing obstacles, English librarians also gathered around their Library As-
sociation and for a period of time shared with their American peers the
same (American) Library Journal, a periodical “devoted to library economy
and bibliography” (Library Journal, 1876) By this time, the focus of de-
velopment shifted to Brussels, where the Belgian lawyers Paul Otlet and
Henri La Fontaine undertook—under the name of “documentation”—to
develop new approaches to the organization of access to all sources of
knowledge. In 1892 Paul Otlet met Henri La Fontaine, who was engaged
in collecting documentary material on the social sciences at the Société
des Études Sociales et Politiques in Brussels, Belgium. Scientific periodicals
were reaching the mark of 10,000 titles at the turn of the twentieth century,
and the European pioneers worked fast and hard to build the “Répertoire
Bibliographique Universel,” which would include classified references to
the entire universe of subjects and literatures. The activity of documen-
tation soon became institutionalized in what has been up until recently
the International Federation for Documentation and Information (FID)
(Bradford, 1953; Rayward, 1975).
Library Service
In the United States the growth in the number of library schools led
to the setting up of the Association of American Library Schools in 1915.
In the early 1920s the Carnegie Corporation took an interest in the educa-
tion of librarians and in 1923 issued what became known as the Williamson
Report, Training for Library Service. This along with Minimum Standards for
Library Schools, published in 1925 by the newly created American Library
Association Board of Education for Librarianship, set in motion a normative
function for the new library-based area of research and professionalized
education. On the other side of the Atlantic, the first British library school—
814 library trends/spring 2004

now the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies (SLAIS)—was

opened in 1919 at the University College, University of London.
Outside the U.S.-U.K. axis, but somewhat related to it, in Brazil the first
school of librarianship was opened at the Bibliotheca Nacional do Rio de Ja-
neiro in 1910 and started operation in 1915; it was designed after the model
of the French École des Chartes in Paris. Then, in 1929, the librarian of the
Mackenzie Institute library in São Paulo, Adelpha Silva Rodrigues, received
a scholarship from the American Association of University Women to study
librarianship in the United States. To replace and train Miss Rodrigues in
advance of her studies abroad, the institute brought from the United States
the young Miss Dorothy Muriel Geddes, later Mrs. Arthur E. Gropp, who
opened the first training course for librarians at Mackenzie and became
the true founder of modern librarianship in São Paulo (Rodrigues, 1945,
pp. 8–9).
From the Library Economy to Library Science
The most influential drive toward the emergence of a library science
was—without any doubt—the establishment of the Graduate Library School
(GLS) at the University of Chicago in 1926, sponsored by the Carnegie
Foundation (Richardson, 1982). The school faculty was drawn from well-
established scientific disciplines to support a strong program of research
related to what they saw as the theoretical foundations of library science.
Highly significant in this context was the influence exerted on GLS by the
philosophy of John Dewey, amongst other scholars of the day. His small
treatise on “the sources of a science of education” (Dewey, 1929) became
required reading at GLS and was eventually “translated” into library science
by GLS faculty member Pierce Butler (1933). Following Dewey’s approach
to creating a science of education, Butler stated that the three essential
problems of a library science as an autonomous discipline are sociological,
psychological, and historical. The scholarly work of the school obtained
an outlet after the founding of a new journal, Library Quarterly. Another
member of the school faculty, Douglas Waples (1939), prepared one of
the first handbooks on library research methodology. This was especially
tailored for students supervised through correspondence courses (Waples,
1939, p. viii). On the other hand, this seemingly distinct improvement
that library science received from this all-graduate program and from the
“Chicago School” environment during the 1920s and 1930s did not come
unquestioned. The library profession did not entirely agree to a swift change
from its traditional “pragmatic” mainstream, and adjustments had to be
negotiated between GLS and the profession (Richardson, 1982).
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 815

Jesse Shera
Formative Years
Jesse Hauk Shera (1903–82) was born in Oxford, Ohio, on December
8, 1903. He graduated with honors at Miami University, in Oxford, in 1925
with an A.B. in English. He then went to Yale University, graduating in 1927
with a master’s degree in English literature. Shera had planned to teach
English language and literature at a university, but he was prevented from
getting a teaching post because of his poor eyesight. He returned to his
native Oxford and got a position as assistant cataloguer at the library of
Miami University. The head of the library, Edgar King, pressed him to apply
for a job as a library science lecturer. He effectively was offered such a job
in 1928 by Charles C. Williamson, dean of Columbia University’s library
school, of which Edgar King was himself a graduate. Shera instead took a
position as a bibliographer and research assistant at the Scripps Foundation
for Research in Population Problems, at Miami University.
Shera worked at the Scripps Foundation from 1928 to 1938 under
Warren S. Thompson, a sociologist from the University of Columbia and a
famous demographer. To conduct population studies at Scripps, Jesse Shera
worked with perforated cards and related equipment, the same equipment
that Herman Hollerith had devised to cope with the volume of the 1890
census data. This was Shera’s first experience using automatic equipment
to organize information (Presnell, 1999).
From 1938 to 1940 Jesse Shera enrolled in the doctoral program at the
Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago. After his practical
years at Scripps, GLS was the crowning period of his formative years. The
ideas he encountered at Chicago about librarianship matched and un-
derscored his own thinking (Kaltenbach, 1980). Douglas Waples was later
named by Shera as the one responsible for setting down the foundations
of “social epistemology,” Shera’s main academic project: “A generation
ago Douglas Waples, of the Graduate Library School of the University of
Chicago, devoted many years to the consideration of the social effects of
reading, but he was never able to do more than to ask the fundamental
questions of the new discipline that I have subsequently called social epis-
temology” (Shera, 1976, p. 49). Again, at the University of Chicago, Shera
made close acquaintance with philosophical ideas, especially John Dewey’s
epistemology and Karl Mannheim’s developing sociology of knowledge.
Jesse Shera spent the years of 1940 and 1941 in Washington, D.C.,
working for the war administration and learning about library automation
and management. He received his Ph.D. in 1944, with a dissertation on
the origins of the public library movement in New England from 1629 to
1855, later published as his first monographic work (Shera, 1949). Back
in Chicago, Shera was made the vice-director of the university library and
part-time lecturer at GLS until 1947, when he was made a full-time faculty
816 library trends/spring 2004

member; he kept this position at GLS until 1952, when he was selected dean
of the School of Library Science (SLS) at Western Reserve University, later
Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, Ohio. At Case Western he
spent almost two very busy decades teaching, especially the two courses His-
tory of American Libraries and Theory of Classification, starting a doctoral
program at SLS, enlarging the program’s full-time faculty, and running
national meetings and international conferences. He and his associates
conducted research into the foundations of information retrieval and de-
veloped some of the first computer devices for bibliographic organization.
They created the Center for Documentation and Communication Research
(CDCR) at Western Reserve in 1955. Shera was also busy as an editor and
an active professional member of several associations and institutions, and
he was a prolific writer and a born lecturer. His most important work, The
Foundations of Education for Librarianship (Shera, 1972a), was published with
the financial support of the Carnegie Foundation. He was married to Helen
May Bickham, also a librarian. They had two children—Mary Helen (Shera)
Baum, and Edgar Brooks Shera. He died on March 8, 1982.
The Search for Foundations: Bibliography and Library Science
An important early academic milestone for the work of Shera surfaced
at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School at the
University of Chicago, July 24–29, 1950, on bibliographic organization.
Shera organized this conference with his associate at the GLS, Margaret
Elizabeth Egan (1905–59), and their short article, “Prolegomena to Bib-
liographic Control” (Egan and Shera, 1949), was intended to provide an
agenda for the conference. The article already contained the seeds for
the project of “social epistemology.” At the conference, at a discussion on
the functional approach of bibliographic organization—side by side with
Mortimer Taube, from the Atomic Energy Commission, and S. R. Ranga-
nathan, from the University of Delhi and president of the Indian Library
Association—Shera presented a paper entitled “Classification as the Basis
of Bibliographic Organization,” during which he nonchalantly introduced
the terms “social epistemology” and “sociology of knowledge”:
Even a cursory examination of the history of the classification of the
sciences emphasized the extent to which any attempt to organize knowl-
edge is conditioned by the social epistemology of the age in which it was
produced. This dependence of classification theory upon the state of
the sociology of knowledge will doubtless be even more strongly confirmed
in the future. (Egan & Shera, 1951, p. 82)

Neither of these terms appear in the index to the proceedings (Shera and
Egan, 1951), and the “hidden” references to these new concepts remained
“hidden,” except—as far as I could find out—for a citation by W. Boyd
Rayward (Machlup and Mansfield, 1983, p. 354).
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 817

The Problem of Information Science

After the Second World War, in part because of developments in the
war and even due to war experience, new information techniques became
generally available for the library profession. The mainstream of investiga-
tion and practice concentrated around “information retrieval.” The number
of library schools considerably increased throughout the world, especially
in the United States and in Britain, responding in part to the need to create
new university places and jobs for war veterans and their families. The fast
growth of “information technologies” (mainly computers, telecommunica-
tions, and publishing technologies) greatly affected the library profession.
Furthermore, in face of an “information explosion,” the scientific commu-
nity gathered in London in 1948 for the Royal Society Scientific Information
Conference and in Washington in 1958 for the International Conference on
Scientific Information and helped the library profession and other agencies
to focus attention on “scientific information.” The nucleus of investigation
and action was then oriented toward the fluid concept behind this new
simple but multifaceted word—“information.” Since the 1960s what was
called an “information science” has engaged with computer science, cy-
bernetics, general systems theory, operations research, information theory,
formal logic, management theory, etc. with no happy ending thus far!
In the early 1960s the economist Fritz Machlup, who since the 1950s
had been researching the products of the United States “Knowledge In-
dustry,” produced a landmark study, “The Production and Distribution of
Knowledge in the United States” (1962). This was followed by his three
volumes on “Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Signifi-
cance” (1980–84) (Volume 1: Knowledge and Knowledge Production, 1980;
Volume 2: The Branches of Learning, 1982; Volume 3: The Economics of
Information as Human Capital, 1984). At the end of the 1970s, Machlup
was responsible for a multidisciplinary project to examine the different
approaches that had emerged in the study of information. He assembled
over forty highly specialized scholars and grouped them into nine areas.
For each of the nine areas a lead paper was commissioned to serve as the
basis for between three and five discussion papers. The result was The Study
of Information, a superb report edited by Fritz Machlup and Una Mansfield
(1983) about the academic development of the information area and its
terminology. The library science lead paper was “Library and Information
Sciences: Disciplinary Differentiation, Competition, and Convergence” by
W. Boyd Rayward (1983a, pp. 343–363). The discussion papers were David
Batty and Toni Carbo Bearman, “Knowledge and Practice in Library and
Information Services”; Manfred Kochen, “Library Science and Information
Science: Broad or Narrow?”; Jesse H. Shera, “Librarianship and Information
Science”; and Patrick Wilson, “Bibliographical R&D”, with a rejoinder by
W. Boyd Rayward, “Librarianship and Information Research: Together or
Apart?” (Rayward, 1983b, pp. 399–405).
818 library trends/spring 2004

Twenty years later, this report is still alive. Shera’s contribution to this
project might have been his last. He does not discuss “social epistemology”
but rather talks of “symbolic interactionism.” “I submit,” he says, “that li-
brarians must look for the proper foundations of a theory of librarianship”
in this theory. “First named by Herbert Blumer in 1937,” he observes that
it “is rooted in the social psychologies of William James, Charles S. Peirce,
Charles H. Cooley, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead” (Shera, 1983,
p. 386–388).
With the support of UNESCO and other international agencies, the
field of education for the library profession quickly expanded worldwide to
embrace information. Starting in the late 1960s most of the library schools
in Britain and in the United States took a middle-of-the-road position by
adopting the title of Library and Information Science (LIS) or even—in
a more moderate guise—Library and Information Studies. Other schools
took on additional qualifications, such as Archival Studies, Communica-
tions, Information Management, Policy, Resources, Services, Technology,
Instructional Technology, Learning Technologies, and Media Studies. At
least two schools in the United States went straight into “The School of In-
formation” or “The Information School.” After a few years, library schools
all over the world followed suit in naming themselves.

Shera’s Ideas about Social Epistemology

Jesse Shera spent his most productive years in the middle of this ter-
minological turmoil, and he was permanently in favor of basic scientific
and professional values, which he held to against all obstacles. He took a
strong position in favor of the unity of library science, documentation, and
information science. One of his main principles was that “bibliography”
(“bibliographic organization” or “control”) was the basis for information
organization at the national and international levels. His first extended work
on “social epistemology,” written again jointly with Margaret E. Egan, is an
article on the “foundations of a theory of bibliography” (Egan and Shera,
1952), where they discuss “graphic communication” as part of a theory of
communication. Then came Shera’s most visible piece on “social epistemol-
ogy” in the form of an Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture and Colloquium
at the Institute of General Semantics in Lakeville, Connecticut. As the
conference came to be published by at least three different periodicals in
different languages, the text of this speech may be considered as the “birth
certificate” of the new concept (Shera, 1960, 1961, 1977). An additional
work touching on the social epistemology project was published in the Il-
linois Library Association Bulletin, after a lecture presented at the College
and University Section of the Louisiana Library Association in New Orleans
in 1962, with the title “What Is Librarianship?” (Shera, 1962). Other articles
by Shera on social epistemology are listed in the bibliography below (Shera,
1963; 1965a; 1968a; 1968b; 1971; 1973b).
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 819

The Brazilian periodical Ciência da Informação contained one of the

three most extended and complete texts Shera provided on his ideas on
social epistemology. The publication in the Brazilian journal was set in the
original English. This work had been originally presented at a seminar at
the Study Center for Democratic Institutions at Santa Barbara, California,
1972 (Shera, 1973a). Two collections of Shera’s papers were edited by
the English librarian D. J. Foskett: Libraries and the Organization of Knowl-
edge (Shera, 1965b) and Documentation and the Organization of Knowledge
(Shera, 1966). Almost all of the works published previously elsewhere and
republished now in these two books had three advantages for the project
of social epistemology. First, almost every one of the reprinted works car-
ries a contribution, even if implicitly, to the ideas of social epistemology.
Second, the fact that “Libraries” and “Documentation” were both concepts
strongly linked to “The Organization of Knowledge” in the titles of the
books suggested that the latter concept lay emphatically at the core of
librarianship and documentation. And third, these books give the papers
in them renewed circulation and, especially for the British public, an extra
opportunity for a wider examination of this basic project.
The furthest Jesse Shera brought his social epistemology concepts was
in a visit to India, where he presented the Sarada Ranganathan Lectures in
1967 at the invitation of S. R. Ranganathan. Shera and Ranganathan were
able to share again their ideas, for they knew each other at least from 1950,
when Ranganathan had participated in the 1950 bibliographic organization
conference at the University of Chicago. At the event in India, Shera gave
five lectures:
Library and the Individual
Library and Society
Library and Knowledge
Transition and Change
Education of the Librarian

The lectures were published by Asia Publishing House in 1970 under the
title Sociological Foundations of Librarianship (Shera, 1970; Ranganathan,
1970).
In an article published in American Libraries (Shera, 1972b), Shera com-
plained that while “Such terms as ‘social epistemology’, adopted by the
present writer, or ‘social cognition,’” which he thought perhaps might be
more appropriate and was being used quite often to identify this field of
inquiry, “little progress has been made in its exploration.” He indicated
that he knew that “only one conference touching on the subject has been
held on this side of the Atlantic, and that was at Syracuse University in the
summer of 1965.” He did acknowledge that in England, however, Barbara
Kyle “had been investigating the problem until her untimely death.” One
of his fullest treatments of his ideas about social epistemology occurs as
820 library trends/spring 2004

chapter 4 (“An Epistemological Foundation for Library Science”) of The

Foundations of Education for Librarianship (Shera, 1972a). He divides this
chapter as follows:
The Need for a New Epistemological Discipline
The Nature of Knowledge
The Classification of Knowledge
Social Epistemology and the Sociology of Knowledge
Social Epistemology and the Library

The main ideas from this chapter may be listed as a series of propositions,
as follows:
• The brain deteriorates when deprived of information.
• To avoid decay, a society must make constant provision for the acquisi-
tion and assimilation of new information and knowledge.
• Knowledge and language are essentially inseparable.
• Language is social in origin.
• Language is the symbolic structuring of knowledge into communicable
form.
• Modern society is a duality of action and thought bound together by
the communication system.
• The librarian must also concern himself with the knowledge he com-
municates.
• The study of the nature of knowledge, the relationship between the
structure of knowledge, and the librarian’s tools for intellectual access
to that knowledge have received almost no attention and certainly no
intensive exploration.
• We need a new epistemological discipline, a body of knowledge about
knowledge itself.
• We know how scientific knowledge is accumulated and transmitted from
one generation to another.
• Historians of science are interested in the growth of scientific knowl-
edge.
• Philosophers have speculated about the nature of knowledge, its sources,
methods, limits of validity, and relation to truth.
• Epistemology is a branch of speculative philosophy, concerned with how
we know.
• The evolution of the science of psychology left epistemology relatively
poor in intellectual substance.
• “Scientific epistemology” (coined by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington,
1822–1944) transformed philosophic and speculative approach into
scientific, largely theoretic study.
• “Scientific epistemology” is concerned largely with what man cannot
know, that is, the limits (“constraints” in cybernetics) of human knowl-
edge.
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 821

• “Constraints” may be physical, biological (or physiological), psycho-

logical, or determined jointly by the environment and the organic and
electronic structuring of the human body.
• The study of epistemology has been seen against the background of the
intellectual processes of the individual.
individual
• The psychologists have made progress in understanding mental behavior
by carrying the philosophers’ speculations into the laboratory.
• Neither epistemologists nor psychologists have developed an ordered
and comprehensive body of knowledge about intellectual differentia-
tion and the integration of knowledge within a complex social organi-
zation.
• The new discipline, social epistemology, should provide a framework for the
investigation of the complex problem of the nature of the intellectual
process in society.
• Social epistemology is a study of the ways in which society as a whole
achieves a perceptive relation to its total environment.
• Social epistemology was so named by Margaret Elizabeth Egan, for want
of a better name.
• Social epistemology should focus on the production, flow, integration,
and consumption of communicated thought throughout the social
fabric.
• From social epistemology should emerge a new body of knowledge
about, and a new synthesis of, the interaction between knowledge and
social activity.
• Social epistemology should have its own corpus of theoretical knowl-
edge.
• Social epistemology should be interdisciplinary, dependent upon sociol-
ogy, anthropology, linguistics, economics, the physiology of the human
nervous system, psychology, mathematics, and information theory.
• Social epistemology may be expected to have practical results.
• One of the most practical applications of social epistemology will be in
librarianship.
• There exists a very important affinity between social epistemology and
the role of the librarian in society.
• Librarianship is based on epistemological foundations.
• The aim of librarianship is to bring to the point of maximum efficiency
the social utility of man’s graphic record.
• The librarian is an effective mediator between man and his graphic
records.
• The good librarian will do his job well if he possesses a true mastery
over the means of access to recorded knowledge.
• The bibliographic and information systems of the librarian are to be
structured to conform as closely as possible to man’s uses of recorded
knowledge.
822 library trends/spring 2004

• The tools and methods of the librarian for the control of his collection
are his classification schemes, subject headings, indexes, and other de-
vices for the subject analysis of bibliographic units.
• The librarian’s tools are based on the assumption of permanent, or
relatively permanent, relationships among the several branches of knowl-
edge.
• The librarian’s tools tend to become inflexible, closed, fragmented, and
non-holistic systems into which each unit of information is fitted.
• The structure and communication of knowledge form an open system
that changes as the functions and needs of the individual and society
shift to accommodate the increasing differentiation of knowledge, as
well as its consolidation resulting from the coalescence to two or more
disciplines.
• Modern philosophy is held captive by the alleged objectivity of sci-
ence.
Jesse Shera designed an explicit proposal for his project of a discipline
of social epistemology in the 1960s. This proposal can be retrieved from
several of his papers but mainly from (Shera, 1972a, pp. 113–114), where
it reads as follows: The theoretical foundations of the librarian’s profession
must eventually suggest solutions to the following problems:
• “The problem of cognition—how man knows.
• The problem of social cognition—the ways in which society knows and
the nature of the sociopsychological system by means of which personal
knowledge becomes social knowledge.
• The problem of the history and philosophy of knowledge as they have
evolved through time and in variant cultures and,
• The problem of existing bibliographic mechanisms and systems and
the extent to which they are in congruence with the realities of the
communication process and the findings of epistemological inquiry.”
(Shera, 1972a, p. 114)

Shera’s Followers
There has been a range of citations to these ideas of Shera. Some of
the papers, essentially by colleagues at Case Western Reserve University,
Shera regarded as themselves works of social epistemology (Shera, 1972a,
pp. 112–113; Goffman and Newill, 1964, 1967; Goffman, 1965, 1966). B. C.
Brookes has argued that “Shera’s ‘microbibliography’ or ‘social epistemol-
ogy’ provides not only a subject for theoretical study but that it will also be
needed for the rational design of library and information systems and net-
works of the near future” (Brookes, 1973). It is also interesting to observe
the influence of Shera’s ideas internationally. Some references are just lau-
datory, citing “social epistemology” for its novelty. Others take Shera’s proj-
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 823

ect as an exercise to defend socialism against capitalism: Dube (1975),

Stupnikova (1976), Yatsko (1985), and Dubroskaya (1988). Yet others both
in the United States and abroad, like Wright (1985), Froehlich (1987, 1989a,
1989b, 1994), Budd (1995, 1999), Dick (1999), and Hjørland (2002), began
a philosophical discussion of Shera’s social epistemology before the phi-
losopher-epistemologists came to the area and joined the epistemological
discourse (see also Khurshid, 1976; Brace, 1976; Rolland-Thomas, 1975;
Vásquez Restrepo, 1980; Mukhopadhyay, 1984; Mueller, 1984; Botha, 1989;
Kawasaki, 1989, 1990; Warner, 1993; Lai, 1994, 1995; Nemoto, 1994; Pent-
land, 1995; Shan, 1995; Watson, 1995; Pahre, 1996; Plaiss, 1996; and Taher,
1998).

Steve Fuller and the Birth of a New Social

Epistemology
“Synthese”
As we have seen above, by the time Shera died in the early 1980s the
expression “social epistemology” had already been around for over three
decades and used by writers in many countries east and west of the United
States. This expression, however, did not reach those philosophers and
scientists to whom it might mean something different than for librarians
and information scientists. There can be many explanations for the “mes-
sage” not having been received earlier by this audience:
• Shera was mainly a librarian and an educator, so he was used to address-
ing library and information scientists and professionals, by lecturing
usually—with few exceptions—to this restricted audience.
• In every writing by Shera on this issue, the topic of social epistemology
always was described as appended to a broader theme, sometimes as a
comment of just a few paragraphs, sometimes as a proposed solution to
solve library and information problems in a more scientific guise rather
then working through them in a “pragmatic” way.
• Most journals used by Shera to disseminate his project were special li-
brary and information science periodicals, which were usually not read
outside this narrow scientific community.
• The phrase “social epistemology” was never used by Shera in the title of
a whole monograph or of a scientific article, and even when the expres-
sion was recorded in an appropriate context, it usually came out in a
diffident way—for want of a better name—sometime opening space for
alternative expressions, like “social cognition,” “symbolic interaction-
ism,” or “knowledge management,” amongst others.
• The choice of the term “social epistemology” was attributed sometimes
to Shera himself, most often to his associate Margaret E. Egan, and at
least once to the GLS scholar, Douglas Waples (Shera, 1976).
824 library trends/spring 2004

Although philosophers and epistemologists did not have a direct com-

munication on this issue with library and information scientists, especially
because of the isolated structure of the respective literatures, now we can
see in retrospect that the collective character of knowledge had been stud-
ied for some time already in both arenas, although this trend in classical
epistemology ran underneath the surface and without a proper name. The
theme of “social epistemology” surfaced as such in the epistemological
arena in 1987, when the journal Synthese, An International Journal for Episte-
mology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, published an issue on “Social
Epistemology” (volume 73, number 1). Frederick F. Schmitt, an eminent
philosopher from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, edited
the issue. The seven articles that comprised this issue of Synthese suggest
the scope of what was then understood as social epistemology:
Frederick F. Schmitt, “Justification, Sociality, and Autonomy”
Stewart Cohen, “Knowledge, Context, and Social Standards”
Hilary Kornblith, “Some Social Features of Cognition”
Keith Lehrer, “Personal and Social Knowledge”
Alvin I. Goldman, “Foundations of Social Epistemics”
Steve Fuller, “On Regulating What Is Known: A Way to Social Episte-
mology”
Margaret Gilbert, “Modeling Collective Belief”

Fuller, the youngest in the group, subsequently adopted the term “social
epistemology” from the title of his contribution to Synthese, stuck to this
name, defined clearly what he meant by it, mapped the intellectual and
human resources belonging to what he regarded as a very mixed area, and
designed the structure and dynamics of a new philosophical and empirical
interdiscipline, social epistemology, that combined epistemology and the
sociology of knowledge. Fuller launched the quarterly Social Epistemology: A
Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Policy in January 1987 and has published
several books on the subject (Fuller, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1997, 2000a, 2000b,
2002a, 2002b, 2003). The question that opens his Synthese article remains
fundamental to his thinking about social epistemology: “How should the
pursuit of knowledge be organized, given that under normal circumstances
knowledge is pursued by many human beings, each working on a more or
less well defined body of knowledge and each equipped with roughly the
same imperfect cognitive capacities, albeit with varying degrees of access
to one another’s activities?” (Fuller, 1987; 1988; 2002b).
Overview of Fuller’s Program of Social Epistemology
Fuller’s program of social epistemology, to which the fundamental
question given in the passage above from Synthese gives rise, can be split
into four statements and a final question:
• Many human beings pursue knowledge.
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 825

• Each human being works in a more or less well defined body of knowl-
edge.
• Each human being is equipped with roughly the same imperfect cogni-
tive capacities.
• Human beings have varying degrees of access to one another’s epistemic
activities.
• Given these propositions, how should the pursuit of knowledge be or-
ganized?
In Fuller’s view, these propositions may be further investigated through
an empirical approach to the sociology of knowledge and other social
sciences. From the results of this investigation, the epistemologist will be
equipped with the descriptions of the way human beings usually pursue
knowledge, from which he will be able to sift the “norms” for pursuing
knowledge. Fuller suggests that ultimately
the social epistemologist would be the ideal epistemic policy maker: if
a certain kind of knowledge product is desired, then he could design
a scheme for dividing up the labor that would likely (or efficiently)
bring it about; or, if the society is already committed to a certain scheme
for dividing up the cognitive labor, the social epistemologist could
then indicate the knowledge products that are likely to flow from that
scheme. (Fuller, 1987, p.145)

One might summarize this view of social epistemology in these three propo-
sitions:
• Social epistemology answers normatively the question about how the
pursuit of knowledge should be organized: it should arrive at an opti-
mum organization of cognitive labor.
• The change in the social relations of knowledge producers (that is, bet-
ter communication between producers in face of more efficient com-
munication means or otherwise) affects the quality of knowledge of
cognitive pursuits and of products of knowledge themselves.
• The social epistemologist is an ideal epistemic planner because he de-
signs or manages a scheme for dividing up cognitive labor.
Fuller shows that social epistemology is a natural development from
the history of philosophy since Kant. He also examines social epistemology
in its incarnation as “the sociology of knowledge.” This is an area where
confused terminology abounds, and Fuller has attempted, for instance,
to clarify the confusion surrounding the nuclear term “knowledge” in the
English language. In a recent article about the project of social epistemol-
ogy and the elusive problem of knowledge, Fuller writes:
In retrospect, it is ironic that Russell drew rhetorical support from
logical positivist strictures against the reification of natural language,
since a German or French speaker could easily see that only an anglo-
826 library trends/spring 2004

phone like Russell could be misled by the homonymous use of ‘knowl-

edge’ to conclude that ‘knowledge by acquaintance’ and ‘knowledge
by inference’ must have something in common that is captured by the
word ‘knowledge’. But what is confused in English is clearly marked in
German and French—not to mention, Latin and Greek. The relevant
distinctions between knowledge by acquaintance and by inference are
Erkenntnis/Wissenschaft, connaissance/savoir, cognition/scientia, nous/epis-
teme. In other words, the English word ‘knowledge’ is meant to cover
the objects of both consciousness and science. Yet, the former is normally
concentrated in an individual’s mental space, while the latter is distrib-
uted among a community of collaborators. (Fuller, 2001)

This terminological examination may help in clarifying in information sci-

ence the distinction between “knowledge” and “information.”
The Philosophers Acknowledge Shera
The last few years have seen the inclusion of definitions of social epis-
temology in important philosophical reference works that show some rec-
ognition of Shera’s contribution, for example:
Social epistemology is the conceptual and normative study of the rel-
evance to knowledge of social relations, interests and institutions. It is
thus to be distinguished from the sociology of knowledge, which is an
empirical study of the contingent social conditions or causes of what is
commonly taken to be knowledge. Social epistemology revolves around
the question of whether knowledge is to be understood individualisti-
cally or socially. (Schmitt, 1998, p. 828)
Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge
or information. There is little consensus, however, on what the term
“knowledge” comprehends, what is the scope of the “social”, or what
the style or purpose of the study should be. According to some writers,
social epistemology should retain the same general mission as classical
epistemology, revamped in the recognition that classical epistemology
was too individualistic. According to other writers, social epistemol-
ogy should be a more radical departure from classical epistemology, a
successor discipline that would replace epistemology as traditionally
conceived. (Goldman, 1999)

On the history of social epistemology, Goldman writes of Shera:

Perhaps the first use of the phrase “social epistemology” appears in
the writings of a library scientist, Jesse Shera, who in turn credits his
associate Margaret Egan. “[S]ocial epistemology,” says Shera, “is the
study of knowledge in society. . . . The focus of this discipline should
be upon the production, flow, integration, and consumption of all
forms of communicated thought throughout the entire social fabric”
(1970: 86). Shera was particularly interested in the affinity between
social epistemology and librarianship. He did not, however, construct
a conception of social epistemology with very definite philosophical
or social-scientific contours. What might such contours be? (Goldman,
1999)
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 827

Fuller himself suggests that social epistemology is

An intellectual movement of broad cross-disciplinary provenance that
attempts to reconstruct the problems of epistemology once knowledge is
regarded as intrinsically social. It is often seen as philosophical science
policy or the normative wing of science studies. Originating in studies
of academic knowledge production, social epistemology has begun to
encompass knowledge in multicultural and public settings, as well as the
conversion of knowledge to information technology and intellectual property.
The institutional presence of the field began with the quarterly, Social
Epistemology. (Fuller, 1999, p. 801)

In an analytical report entitled “Recent Work in Social Epistemology,”

ten years after the foundation of the journal Social Epistemology, Fuller has
become aware of Shera’s work and observes:
Social epistemology first appeared as the name of a proposal for mak-
ing librarianship more “scientific” by having facts about the produc-
tion, distribution, and utilization of knowledge impinge more directly
on the organization of libraries (De Mey, 1982, pp. 111–12). Writing
three decades ago, Jesse Shera’s (1965[b]) call for cataloguing schemes
that reflect contemporary divisions in the knowledge enterprise and
his sensitivity to the material dimensions of knowledge growth were
roughly contemporaneous with Machlup (1962) on the “economics of
knowledge” and presaged the more broadly gauged Rescher (1979)
on “cognitive systematization.” Though ignorant of Shera’s precedent,
the first philosophical book explicitly devoted to “social epistemology”
(Fuller, 1988) had largely this orientation, but its theoretical basis was
in recent philosophy, history, and sociology of science. (Fuller, 1996,
p. 149)

Fuller’s Social Epistemology and Information Science

Fuller has more recently attempted to find ways of exploring the re-
lationship between social epistemology and information science. An im-
portant event in this connection was the appearance of an issue of Social
Epistemology on this matter under the invited editorship of Don Fallis (2002).
Again, the titles of the articles (compared with those in the issue of Synthese
mentioned above) indicate something about how the connections between
information science more generally, Shera’s notions of social epistemology,
and the newer approaches are now being conceived:
Don Fallis, “Introduction: Social Epistemology and Information Sci-
ence”
Jonathan Furner, “Shera’s Social Epistemology Recast as Psychological
Bibliography”
Archie L. Dick, “Social Epistemology, Information Science and Ideol-
ogy”
Luciano Floridi, “On Defining Library and Information Science as
Applied Philosophy of Information”
Ashley McDowell, “Trust and Information: The Role of Trust in the
Social Epistemology of Information Science”
828 library trends/spring 2004

Christopher Smith, “Social Epistemology, Contextualism and the Divi-

sion of Labour”
Soraj Hongladarom, “Cross-Cultural Epistemic Practices”
John M. Budd, “Jesse Shera, Social Epistemology and Praxis”
Nancy A. Van House, “Digital Libraries and Practices of Trust: Net-
worked Biodiversity Information”

Conclusion
Social behavior toward knowledge production, organization, manage-
ment, and use is certainly changing and will change even more with the
spread of information technologies and as electronic information becomes
more democratically available. Information science has already learned that
information provision will not survive in the near future if supported by
old pragmatic principles. The strengthening of the underlying foundations
concerned with social cognition or the discovery of new, higher-level prin-
ciples seems a significant assignment for contemporary social epistemology.
Here is a new road less traveled in the past but hopefully conducive to a
better future for information science and the professional occupations it
sustains.

References
Biographical References
The following are documents from which bio-bibliographical details of Jesse Shera were
taken.
Cheshier, R. C. (1978). The work and impact of Jesse Hauk Shera. Herald of Library Science,
17(2–3), 112–116.
In the News: Jesse H. Shera; Profession loses revered educator and visionary. (1982). American
Libraries, 13, 220ff.
Kaltenbach, M. (1980). Shera, Jesse H. In R. Wedgeworth (Ed.), ALA world encyclopedia of library
and information services. Chicago: American Library Association.
Kaula, P. N. (1982). Dr. Jesse H. Shera is no more. Herald of Library Science, 21(1–2), 3–7.
Molz, K. (1969). A profile of Jesse Shera. Bulletin of Bibliography, 26(2), 33–36.
Rawski, C. H. (Ed.). (1973). Toward a theory of librarianship: Papers in honor of Jesse Hauk Shera.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Rawski, C. H. (1985). Shera, Jesse Hauk. In A. Kent (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information
science, Vol. 38, Supplement 3 (pp. 348–371). New York: Dekker.
Rees, A. M. (1971). Personality profile: Jesse H. Shera. Information, 3(2), 105–109.
Wright, C. H. (1985). Shera as a bridge between librarianship and information science. Journal
of Library History, 20, 137–156.

Works Cited
Botha, W. M. (1989). Studie-objek van die Biblioteek- en Inligtingkunde: verkenning en
voorstelle [Object of study in library and information study: exploration and proposals].
South-African Journal of Library and Information Science, 57(3), 274–283.
Brace, W. (1976). Frequently cited authors and periodicals in library and information sci-
ence dissertations, 1961–1970. Journal of Library and Information Science (Delhi, India),
2(1), 16–34.
Bradford, S. C. (1953). Documentation (2nd ed.). London: Crosby Lockwood.
Brookes, B. C. (1973). Jesse Shera and the theory of bibliography. Journal of Librarianship,
4(4), 233–258.
Budd, J. M. (1995). An epistemological foundation for library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 65(3), 295–318.
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 829

Budd, J. M. (1999, October 14–15). The information professions as knowledge professions. German-
Dutch University Conference “Information Specialists for the 21st Century” at the Fachhochschule
Hannover, University of Applied Sciences, Department of Information and Communication, Han-
nover, Germany.
Butler, P. (1933). An introduction to library science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Mey, M. (1982). The cognitive problem. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright.
Dick, A. L. (1999). Epistemological positions and library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 69(3), 305–323.
Dube, V. W. (1975). Zur Bildung des Bibliothekars im gegenwärtigen Stadium des amerikan-
ishen Imperialismus [On the education of librarians in the present stage of American
imperialism]. Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswessen, 89(5), 199–212.
Dubroskaya, M. M. (1988). K voprosu o sotsial’nykh funktsiyakh angliiskikh i amerikanskikh
publichnykh bibliotek [The social function of British and American public libraries].
Bibliotekovedenie I Bibliografia za Rubezhom, 117, 109–120.
Egan, M. E. and Shera, J. H. (1949). Prolegomena to bibliographic control. Journal of Catalog-
ing and Classification, 5(2), 17–19.
Egan, M. E. and Shera, J. H. (1952). Foundations of a theory of bibliography. Library Quarterly,
22, 125–137.
Egan, M. E. and Shera, J. H. (1953). A review of the present state of librarianship and docu-
mentation. In S. C. Bradford (Ed.), Documentation (2nd ed., pp. 11–45). London: Crosby
Lockwood.
Emerson, R. W. (1870). Society and solitude. Boston, MA: Fields, Osgood.
Fallis, D. (Ed.) (2002). Social Epistemology, 16(1) . [special issue]
Floridi, L. (2003). The renaissance of epistemology: 1915–1945. In T. Baldwin (Ed.), The
Cambridge history of philosophy: 1870–1945 (pp. 533–543). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Froehlich, T. J. (1987). Social epistemology and the foundations of information science. In
ASIS ’87: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science.
ASIS Annual Meeting volume 24. Boston: ASIS.
Froehlich, T. J. (1989a). Relevance and the relevance of social epistemology. In S. Koskiala & R.
Launo (Eds.), Information, knowledge, evolution: Proceedings of the 44th FID Congress, Helsinki,
28 August-1 September 1988 (pp. 55–64). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Froehlich, T. J. (1989b). The foundations of information science in social epistemology. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii (pp. 306–315). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Science Press.
Froehlich, T. J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered—Towards an agenda for the 21st century.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 124–134.
Fuller, S. (1987). On regulating what is known: A way to social epistemology. Synthese, 73(1),
145–183.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Fuller, S. (1993a). Philosophy of science and its discontents (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Fuller, S. (1993b). Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: The coming of science and technology
studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fuller, S. (1996). Recent work in social epistemology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(2),
149–166.
Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Fuller, S. (1999). Social epistemology. In A. Bullock & S. Trombley (Eds.), Norton dictionary of
modern thought (801–802). New York: Norton.
Fuller, S. (2000a). The governance of science: Ideology and the future of the Open Society. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Fuller, S. (2000b). Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Fuller, S. (2001). O projeto de epistemologia social e o problema esquivo do conhecimento
[The project of social epistemology and the elusive problem of knowledge]. Revista de
Biblioteconomia de Brasília, 25(2), 167–180.
Fuller, S. (2002a). Knowledge management foundations. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fuller, S. (2002b). Social epistemology (2nd ed). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
830 library trends/spring 2004

Fuller, S. (2003). Kuhn versus Popper: The struggle for the soul of science. Cambridge: Icon
Books.
Goffman, W. (1965). An epidemic process in an open population. Nature, 205(4973), 831–832.
London.
Goffman, W. (1966). A mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas: The history
of the mast cell research. Nature, 212(5061), 449–452. London.
Goffman, W. & Newill, V.A. (1964). Generalization of epidemic theory; An application to the
transmission of ideas. Nature, 204(4955), 225–228. London.
Goffman, W. and Newill, V. A. (1967). Communication and epidemic processes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London, series A, 298(1454). 316–334.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Social epistemology. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/ar-
chives/spr2001/entries/epistemology_social.
Heilprin, L. B. (1968). Response. In E.B. Mongomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowl-
edge: A symposium (pp. 7–25) Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information science.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 257–270.
Kaltenbach, M. (1980). Shera, Jesse H. In R. Wedgeworth (Ed.), ALA world encyclopedia of library
and information services (pp. 774–776). Chicago: American Library Association.
Kawasaki, Y. (1989). Jesse H. Shera and the study of library history: With a special refer-
ence to his “Foundation of the Public Library.” Toshokan-Kai [The Library World], 41(4),
154–165.
Kawasaki, Y. (1990). Jesse H. Shera and the study of library history: With a special refer-
ence to his “Foundations of the Public Library”. Toshokan-Kai [The Library World], 41(5),
230–242.
Khurshid, A. (1976). Intellectual foundations of library education. International Library Review,
8, 3–21.
Lai, T. (1994). The origin of information science. Journal of Educational Media and Library
Sciences, 32(1), 40–49.
Lai, T. (1995). Sociology of knowledge and the intellectual foundation of library and informa-
tion science. Journal of Information, Communication and Library Science, 2(1), 50–56.
Library Journal, 1(2–3). (1876). Transactions of the conference. [special issue]
Machlup, F. (1962). Production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Machlup, F. (1980–84). Knowledge: Its creation, distribution and economic significance (3 vols.).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Machlup, F. & Mansfield, U. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages.
New York: Wiley.
Mueller, S. P. M. (1984). Bibliotecas e sociedade: evolução da interpretação de função e pa-
péis da biblioteca [Libraries and society: The evolution of the interpretation of library’s
function and roles]. Revista da Escola de Biblioteconomia da Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte
Horizonte, 13(1), 7–54.
Mukhopadhyay, A. (1984). Foundation of informatics and the theory of reference. IASLIC
Bulletin, 29(1), 19–24.
Munford, W.A. (1977). A history of the Library Association: 1877–1977. London: Library As-
sociation.
Nemoto, A. (1994). Two methodological foundations of study in librarianship: J. H. Shera’s
view in his latest years. Annals of Japan Society of Library Science, 40(4), 145–159.
Pahre, R. (1996). Patterns of knowledge communities in the social sciences. Library Trends,
45(2), 204–225.
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information systems and organizational learning: The social episte-
mology of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Management and Information
Technology, 5(1), 1–21.
Plaiss, M. (1996). Wheat-paste librarians and the Jesse Shera band. American Libraries, 27(3),
29–30.
Presnell, J. L. (1999). Shera, Jesse Hauk. In J. Garraty & M. C. Carnes (Eds.), American national
biography, Vol. 19 (pp. 801–803). New York: Oxford University Press.
Price, D. J .S. (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 zandonade/jesse shera to steve fuller 831

Ranganathan, S. R. (Ed.). (1963). Documentation and its facets. London: Asia Publishing
House.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1970). Application to India. In J. H Shera (Ed.), Sociological foundations
of librarianship (pp. 166–183). Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Rayward, B. W. (1975). The universe of information: The work of Paul Otlet for documentation and
international organisation. Moscow: FID/VINITI. (FID 520)
Rayward, B. W. (1983a). Library and information sciences: Disciplinary differentiation, com-
petition, and convergence. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information:
Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 343–363). New York: Wiley.
Rayward, B. W. (1983b). Librarianship and information research: Together or apart? In F.
Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp.
399–405). New York: Wiley.
Rescher, N. (1979). Cognitive systematization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Richardson, J. V. (1982). The spirit of inquiry: The Graduate Library School at Chicago, 1921–1951.
Chicago: American Library Association.
Rodrigues, A. S. (1945). Desenvolvimento da biblioteconomia em S. Paulo [Development of librari-
anship in São Paulo, Brazil]. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional.
Rolland-Thomas, P. (1975). The role of classification in subject retrieval in the future. In K.
L. Henderson (Ed.), Major classification systems—The Dewey centennial: Papers presented at
the Allerton Park Institute, Nov. 9–12, 1975, No. 21 (pp. 157–174). Urbana-Champaign:
University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science.
Schmitt, F. F. (1998). Social epistemology. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy
(pp. 828–832). New York: Routledge.
Shan, Z. Q. (1995). The humanistic sense of library and information science. Journal of Infor-
mation, Communication, and Library Science, 1(3), 84–86.
Shera, J. H. (1949). Foundations of the public library; The origins of the public library movement in
New England, 1629–1855. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shera, J. H. (1960). Social epistemology, general semantics, and libraries. Yearbook of the Institute
of General Semantics, 26–27, 19–21.
Shera, J. H. (1961). Social epistemology, general semantics, and libraries. Wilson Library Bul-
letin, 35(3), 767–70.
Shera, J. H. (1962). What is librarianship? Louisiana Library Association, 24(3), 95–97.
Shera, J. H. (1963). The propaedeutic of the new librarianship. In W. Simonton (Ed.), Infor-
mation retrieval today; Papers presented at the Institute conducted by the Library School and the
Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, September 19–22, 1962 (pp. 5–19).
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota.
Shera, J. H. (1965a). The library as an agency of social communication. Journal of Documenta-
tion, 21(4), 241–243.
Shera, J. H. (1965b). Libraries and the organization of knowledge. London: Crosby Lockwood.
Shera, J. H. (1966). Documentation and the organization of knowledge. London: Crosby Lock-
wood.
Shera, J. H. (1968a). Libraries. (Information storage and retrieval, part 3). In D. Sills (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 7 (pp. 314–48). New York: Macmillan-
Free Press.
Shera, J. H. (1968b). An epistemological foundation for library science. In E. B. Montgomery
(Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge: A symposium (pp. 7–25). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.
Shera, J. H. (1970). Sociological foundations of librarianship. New York: Asia Publishing House.
Shera, J. H. (1971). The sociological relationships of information science. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 22, 76–80.
Shera, J. H. (1972a). The foundations of education for librarianship. New York: Becker-Hayes.
Shera, J. H. (1972b). Two decisive decades—Documentation into information science. Ameri-
can Libraries, 3(7), 785–790.
Shera, J. H. (1973a). Toward a theory of librarianship and information science. [Address at the
Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California, November
1, 1972]. In Jesse H. Shera, Knowing books and men; knowing computers, too (pp. 93–110).
Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
832 library trends/spring 2004

Shera, J. H. (1973b). Toward a theory of librarianship and information science. Ciência da

Informação, 2(2), 87–96.
Shera, J. H. (1976). Introduction to library science: Basic elements of library service. Littleton, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Shera, J. H. (1977). Epistemologia social, semântica geral e biblioteconomia [Social epistemol-
ogy, general semantics, and libraries]. Ciência da Informação, 6(1), 9–12.
Shera, J. H. (1983). Librarianship and information science. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.),
The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 386–388). New York: Wiley.
Shera, J. H. and Egan, M. E. (Eds.). (1951). Bibliographic organization. Papers presented before
the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School, July 24–29, 1950. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Stupnikova T. S. (1976). O politike komplektovaniya bibliotechnykh fondov v usloviyakh
kapitalisticheskogo gosudarstva [The politics of library acquisition in a capitalist state].
Bibliotekovedenie I Bibliografia za Rubezhom, 60, 55–68.
Taher, M. (1998). Library historiography: Methodological issues. Herald of Library Science,
37(1–2), 52–56.
Vásquez Restrepo, J. (1980). La enseñanza de la bibliotecología y los cambios sociales y
tecnológicos de la información [The education for librarianship and the social tech-
nological changes of information]. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología (Medillin),
3(1–3), 301–314.
Waples, D. (1939). Investigating library problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Warner, J. (1993). Writing and literary work in copyright: A binational and historical analysis.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(6), 307–321.
Watson, B. (1995). The road less traveled: A public library perspective. Illinois Libraries, 77,
29–31.
Wright, H. C. (1985). Shera as a bridge between librarianship and information science. Journal
of Library History, 20(2), 137–156.
Yatsko, V. A. (1985). Voprosy teorii bibliografii v rabotahk Dz. Kh. Shiry [J. H. Shera’s theory
of bibliography]. Bibliotekovedenie I Bibliografia za Rubezhom, 101, 68–77.