We will now turn to a discussion of "Placement of LIS graduates into non-library emerging information market jobs." This topic was suggested during our open discussion period by Dr. Boris Raymond. Dr. Raymond holds master's degrees in sociology and library science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a doctorate in Library Science from the University of Chicago. He has held various positions in technical services departments of academic libraries (Berkeley, Nevada-Reno, Manitoba). He was a professor at Dalhousie University's School of Library Studies for many years where he taught organizational behavior and library administration, technical services, research methods, and information environment. Since his retirement in 1991, he has been an adjunct professor in Dalhousie's Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology. Dr. Raymond and his colleague, Dr. Richard Apostle, are currently under contract with Scarecrow Press to write a book entitled Librarianship and the Information Paradigm Revisited.
Dr. Raymond will lead our discussion of "Placement of LIS graduates into non-library emerging information market jobs." Let me draw your attention to a few articles he has written on this topic:
I suggested the topic of "Placement of LIS Graduates into Non-library Information Market Jobs" for a number of pressing reasons.
First among these was the fact that a very large number of library educators in North America and Great Britain are currently advocating a drastic re-orientation of the generally-accepted library schools curriculum -- one that was designed to prepare professionals for work within libraries. These educators, while differing in specifics, are arguing for a shift of LIS curriculae to emphasize "information management" or "information specialization". They also advocate the inclusion into the LIS one- or two-year master's sequences of courses which would prepare graduates to work primarily OUTSIDE of present-day libraries in what is referred to as the "emerging information market".
The second reason for discussing the topic of LIS graduates' employment in this market is based on the well know business principle of never making fundamental changes in one's primary product before finding out, usually through a professionally-conducted market survey, about the existing and anticipated demand for such a new product. In the case of LIS schools, no such survey (to my knowledge), has been carried out, and yet many of them are proceeding full speed with a total restructuring of their curriculae.
The third reason is that, IMHO, the LIS community owes it to its students as well as to their university administrations and to the general taxpayers of our countries, to produce some reliable data which would evaluate the flood of unsubstantiated, inflated and (alas), perhaps even self-seeking claims regarding how many of their graduates actually stand a chance of obtaining positions outside of libraries, in the supposedly booming "information market" of our "information society" for "information professionals/information managers."
I have been seeking any and all such studies for a number of years, but have found only a very few that were not primarily anecdotal -- in the form of "so-and-so has found a job doing such-and-such." The work of Debons and also Chen in the U.S. and of Moore in Britain are an exception to this statement, as is the 1993 study by Cronin, Stiffler and Day. My own work done with my research partner, Dr. Richard Apostle, was also a modest attempt to begin gathering reliable data on this question:
Finally, given the administrative, ideological and especially ETHICAL imperatives involved, I would like to see us discuss in as much concrete detail as possible how such data can be obtained and made available to our community, and which organization (the A.L.A.?) should take responsibility of implementing this research.
Also, assuming agreement about the need for such employment data, two subsequent questions need to be discussed:
Our School also refined its master's of info studies program over a year ago by identifying three concentrations/tracks and ensuring that the "information" words are very evident on transcripts.
Thus, we are most interested in having data that suggests the demand for information studies graduates--master's and bachelor's.
We look forward to participating to the degree we might have the data.
There is a need to help define and create the roles that students can play in non-library environments. Then we must have students at the ready to take on these challenges. This has been our approach at Michigan, and we have found that students with future-oriented and broad-based, transferable skills are eminently employable.
At present, the large majority of our graduates are taking positions in libraries, but we are working to create a future in which our students will be valuable to a range of employers. We are preparing students now to assume new roles and at the same time we are engaged in providing broad visibility among potential employers.
The current "crop" of accredited librarians do not lack in professional expertise, but rather have not had the chance to gain an extended period of experience. Many of us are willing to become junior partners in information brokerage firms, and some of us have been extensively trained in both marketing and management of library and information centres. Why, then, is the percentage of recent professionals receiving "information jobs" at 10 - 15 percent?
There are quite a number of complex reasons for this, but I would like to focus on a few points that I think are of importance. First of all, because most information professionals (i.e. public and academic librarians) do not charge for their services, in the generous spirit of free access, it is very difficult to determine the social benefits of information service. The rewards of a more effective supply of information to society are pretty much intangible. Recently I read in the Globe and Mail that Minister of Human Resources Lloyd Axeworthy and his American government counterpart wrote a joint letter to the OECD asking their statisticians to determine a process that would evaluate the effects of various social programs on a national economy (i.e. education, health care, etc.) Their objective was to find an internationally agreed upon statistic for use in social cost-benefits analysis (possibly for budget-cutting purposes.) As a number of my friends are statisticians, I am quite sure that this can be competently arrived at, and, as a librarian, I believe that our profession will be vindicated in its importance. This may mean that in two to five years we may have a method of "justifying our existence." This will go a long way towards supporting the growth in demand for information professionals.
Now, for an apparent paradox. We are all familiar with the talk of an "information age," and Mr. Alvin Toffler's prediction of the growth in "knowledge industries" and "knowledge workers." If this is so, then why is job placement in the information industry for highly skilled recent graduates at 10 - 15 percent? Some may say that this boom is largely technical, being driven by the advancements in automated information retrieval and better end-user searching capabilities. But let me draw upon an analogy. In the 80s and early '90s, automated teller machines gave "end-users" better access to funds through non-staff expansion of banks. As a result, the banking industry continues to grow. How is it that an industry can grow, without driving spinoffs that require human employment?
We are all aware that the LIS profession is undergoing radical change because of the development of information technology. Sociotechnical theory suggests that humans change behavior, and the structure of work, naturally in response to changes in technology. Corporations, because of their drive for competitive advantage, are often the first social structures to implement changes in technology. If we are to see changes in the employment patterns of LIS professionals due to the advent of technology, we might look to corporate libraries as a litmus test for change. Are corporate libraries hiring new librarians to help their corporation gain an advantage over competitors?
Small business is also touted as of great necessity to the ecology of national economies. Are new librarians, faced with a statistic such as 10-15 percent employment in the information field, considering the prospect of self employment? As an LIS professional currently seeking employment in the English speaking world, I do not ask these questions lightly.
>Why, ...the percentage of recent professionals receiving "information jobs" [is] at 10 - 15 percent?
He puts forward several reasons for this, emphasizing the lack of expertise on the part of information workers in justifying their usefulness (cost/benefit, etc).
Moore's law (from memory) tells me that an information source will only be used if it is more convenient to use that source rather than go without the information. Information must not only be useful, but also accessible!
He then discusses the information age:
>Now, for an apparent paradox. We are all familiar with the talk of an "information age," and Mr. Alvin Toffler's prediction of the growth in "knowledge industries" and "knowledge workers." If this is so, then why is job placement in the information industry for highly skilled recent graduates at 10 - 15 percent? Some may say that this boom is largely technical, being driven by the advancements in automated information retrieval and better end-user searching capabilities. But let me draw upon an analogy. In the 80s and early '90s, automated teller machines gave "end-users" better access to funds through non-staff expansion of banks. As a result, the banking industry continues to grow. How is it that an industry can grow, without driving spinoffs that require human employment?
I will elaborate a bit on the information age, and what it means before looking at the implications for LIS.
The banking industry is a good example because we can identify not only where it has come from over the last few years, but where it is going. The traditional "business" of this industry was financial services -- primarily borrowing and lending money. If you speak to a top banker today s/he will probably state that the current "business" of this industry is information, communication, transportation, etc.
I now pay my telephone and electricity accounts at my ATM. In the next few years I will be buying movie/theatre tickets, and accessing information services at the bank ATM. Banks here also provide telecommunications channels and distribution networks (e.g., mobile cash pension payouts in remote rural areas). Similarly my greengrocer's till has been linked to the major banks and can be used as an ATM. Major retailers also produce their own credit cards.
Therefore the boundaries between traditional industries are crumbling in the information age. Depending on what country you are in your milage may vary, but another feature is the increasing globalization.
With regard to staff cuts in the information society:
A traditional, "average" bank (in this country) consists of perhaps five front-desk people (dealing with customers) and 20-30 back-room staff (dealing with paper, providing support etc). This will change. The trend is to re-engineer business processes (using for instance workflow) to eliminate redundant processes, and to "drive information down to the coal-face" so that the front-desk people are empowered to take the kind of decisions that managers and support people could only take before. Certain decisions (eg granting credit, overdraft facilities) could even be taken automatically if the rules are embedded in the business systems. Banks have a lot of information stored about customers that allow this.
What is the relevance of this to LIS?
I believe that because the old paradigms are disappearing information workers can't simply be trained to provide "traditional" information in a new situation. When Richard asks the question:
>Are corporate libraries hiring new librarians to help their corporation gain an advantage over competitors?
I wonder whether the new breed of information worker shouldn't be looking beyond the confines of the corporate library and moving simply into the corporate itself?
The traditional functional boundaries within companies are now collapsing in any case. Much of the "new" information of the information age is embedded in the computer and business systems, for example. As the computers have moved out of the computer department and onto the desktop, shouldn't the information workers move more into the mainstream of the business? Since the information age implies, I believe, that the end-user becomes an information worker should the LIS department perhaps be moving into the mainstream of the University and looking at providing information literacy skills to all graduates?
 Home |
 Discussion |