Page 209 - Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.47, 2021

208 Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.13, 2021

development, the term “discipline” was largely amorphous. Knowledge was holistic, derived from
[1]
humanity’s foundational endeavors to comprehend the world around them . However, by the 19th
century, knowledge specialization reached a turning point. Disciplines emerged as core entities
within structured institutions dedicated to the generation of new knowledge and the nurturing of
its proponents. The categorization system of that epoch finds resonance with today’s academic
[2]
framework .
Given the inherent complexities of quantitatively comparing knowledge embedded within
specific disciplines, one potential approach lies in examining the philosophical underpinnings of
scientific development. Such an exploration could provide invaluable insights when comparing
knowledge structures across different disciplines. Thomas S. Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions , outlines the phases of scientific maturation, underscoring paradigm
[3]
shifts and their implications. Similarly, Popper [4-5] presented theories rooted in their falsifiability,
[6]
while Lakatos built on these by introducing a structured concept of the scientific research
program. Each of these philosophies, despite their differences, suggests that scientific knowledge
possesses a structured, definable form. This integral, cohesive core knowledge, unique to each
[7]
discipline, is aptly termed “backbone knowledge” . In academia, particularly in the realm of
university education, the boundaries of disciplines influence the creation of academic majors,
and the content integral to a discipline finds reflection in standard textbooks. Such textbooks,
corresponding to their respective courses, become pivotal resources to explore and understand a
[8]
discipline’s knowledge .
Extensive discussions in the academic domain have delved into the backbone knowledge
of Library and Information Science, with scholars like HUANG Zongzhong , HUANG
[9]
[10]
[11]
Jungui , BAO, LIU, ZHANG et al. , and YE [7, 12-14] offering insights into the core theories and
methodologies that define this field. Drawing inspiration from such works, as well as integrating
[15]
[16]
cognitive insights from other scholars such as SHEN et al. and WANG et al. , this paper aims
to expand upon these perspectives.
By synthesizing insights from both the philosophy of science and existing backbone knowledge
of various disciplines, this paper seeks to introduce and define a novel metric—“Knowledge
Hardness”. This metric aims to evaluate and contrast disciplines, focusing particularly on
the backbone knowledge in Library and Information Science, and strives to yield innovative
understandings in the process.

2 Methodology

Under the classification of knowledge subjects and knowledge objects as proposed by YE [17] ,
humans, as knowledge subjects, exhibit initiative and dynamism. In contrast, most of the
knowledge objects have been transformed into documented information, archives, artifacts, and
digital resources housed in libraries, archives, museums, and databases. This interconnection