This study explored the use of theories in library and information science research in Tanzania from 1990 to 2024 using content analysis based on a typology of theoretical visibility. The findings reveal the predominantly minimal use of theories within the library and information science research domain in the country, with many articles lacking theoretical foundations, which could weaken academic rigor. Among those that do use theory, some are at lower levels of the theoretical visibility typology, indicating challenges in the consistent application of theories. While some theories, such as the technology acceptance model, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, and the diffusion of innovations, are predominantly used, there is inconsistency across library and information science subdisciplines, with information seeking being the subfield that utilizes theories most. Overall, while there is a positive trend towards the consistent use of theory in some articles, significant deficiencies remain, which need to be addressed to improve the academic integrity of library and information science research in Tanzania.
AdbekhodaMAshrafi-RiziHRanjbaranF (2018) Theoretical issues in medical library and information sciences’ articles published in Scopus and Web of Science databases: A scoping review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion12: Article244.
2.
Armann-KeownVPattersonL (2020) Content analysis in library and information research: An analysis of trends. Library and Information Science Research42(4): Article 101048.
3.
BawdenDRobinsonL (2012) Introduction to Information Science. London: Facet.
4.
Bradbury-JonesCHerberORMillerR, et al. (2022) Improving the visibility and description of theory in qualitative research: The QUANTUM typology. SSM – Qualitative Research in Health2: Article: 100030.
5.
Bradbury-JonesCTaylorJHerberO (2014) How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: Development of a new typology. Social Science and Medicine120: 135–141.
6.
BrymanA (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
CollinsCSStocktonCM (2018) The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods17(1): 1–10.
8.
ConnawayLSPowellRR (2010) Basic Research Methods for Librarians.5th ed.Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.
9.
CreswellJWCreswellJD (2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Research Approaches. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
10.
Dehghan DisfaniFKianiMRAkbari BoorengM (2017) The use of theory in the Library and Information Science quarterly journal from March 2010 to March 2015. Library and Information Science Research7(1): 73–89.
11.
GrantCOsanlooA (2014) Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your ‘house’.Administrative Issue Journal4(2): 12–26.
12.
KalervoJVakkariP (2022) LIS research across 50 years: Across content analysis of journal articles. Journal of Documentation78(7): 65–88.
13.
KassimM (2023) A content analysis of articles in the University of Dar es Salaam Library Journal. University of Dar Es Salaam Library Journal18(2): 136–156.
14.
KimSJJeongDY (2006) An analysis of the development and use of theory in library and information science research articles. Library and Information Science Research28(4): 548–562.
15.
KumasiKDCharbonneauDHWalsterD (2013) Theory talk in the library science scholarly literature: An exploratory analysis. Library and Information Science Research35(3): 175–180.
16.
LevineTRMarkowitzDM (2023) The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication. Human Communication Research50(2): 154–161.
17.
LorMBackonjaULauverDR (2017) How could nurse researchers apply theory to generate knowledge more efficiently?Journal of Nursing Scholarship49(5): 580–589.
18.
LorPJ (2014) Revitalizing comparative library and information science: Theory and metatheory. Journal of Documentation70(1): 25–51.
19.
McKechnieLPettigrewKE (2002) Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends50(3): 406–417.
20.
NgulubeP (2019) Theory and theorising in information science scholarship. In: Ngulube P (ed.) Handbook of Research on Connecting Research Methods for Information Science Research. Hershey: IGI Global, 18–39.
21.
NicholasDBoukacem-ZeghmouriCRodríguez-BravoB, et al. (2017) Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing30(1): 19–29.
OnyanchaBKwanyaT (2019) Application of information systems theories in library and information science research: A content analysis. In: KwanyaTKiplang’atJWamukoyaJ, et al. (eds) Digital Technologies for Information and Knowledge Management. Nairobi: Technical University of Kenya, 392–402.
24.
ParkSLeeJHollisterJM (2022) A systematic review on the application of the theory of information worlds. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice10(4): 87–109.
25.
RawsonCHughes-HassellS (2015) Research by design: The promise of design-based research for school library research. School Libraries Worldwide21(2): 11–25.
26.
RoyBKMukhopadhyayP (2023) Theoretical backbone of library and information science: A quest. LIBER Quarterly33(1): 1–57.
27.
TashakkoriATeddlieC (2010) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
28.
TogiaAMalliariA (2017) Research Methods in Library and Information Science. London: IntechOpen.
29.
UkwomaSCNgulubeP (2021) To borrow or not to borrow is the question? Theory borrowing in library information science postgraduate research in Nigeria and South Africa. International Information and Library Review53(1): 48–62.
30.
UkwomaSCNgulubeP (2023) Trends and patterns of theory use in open and distance education research journals 2009–2018. Open Learning38(3): 194–208.
31.
WeberR (2012) Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(1): 1–30.
32.
ZamboD (2014) Theory in the service of practice: Theories in action research dissertations written by students in education doctorate programs. Educational Action Research22(4): 505–517.
