Before I turn our discussion over to Jim, I would like to thank Dick Dougherty who did a splendid job introducing the topic of management in the future-oriented curriculum. In view of our lively discussion, we may choose to revisit this important topic at a later date.
Now, let's discuss "Less-than-graduate Education."
Is there, and/or should there be such a thing as undergraduate library education? Is the goal of having every "librarian" be a MLS degreed "professional" realistic? If undergraduate library education is to be undertaken, what kind of degrees, with what kind of qualifications should there be? Should these undergraduate levels of education be required for certain sorts of jobs in libraries? These are some of the questions that can be asked when approaching this topic. I am sure that there are more.
My bias: I am a public library director with an MLS. I believe that my graduate level library education gave me a good start toward having the knowledge and skills needed to do the job I do today. I also believe that my non-library related undergraduate education was good preparation for graduate school and for work as a public librarian. I believe that graduate level library education is very important to library services.
However, as an actual "in the trenches" library professional, I see, on a daily basis, the realities of library budgets and the skills of local workforces.
I'm sure that we would all love every library to have all MLS-level workers to provide the highest level of service to library users. At the same time, I can't name any library that has all the MLS folks it could use. Budgets can be a major factor in this issue. If you believe in paying an MLS level worker a fair compensation according to their level of education, then often it is not possible to have as many people with that higher level of compensation as a library director might need.
The available workforce can also be a factor. There may not be enough MLS-level workers who live in a certain area, or who are willing to move to a certain area. What about existing non-MLS staff? Even if you have the money to upgrade their positions to MLS level jobs, how do you get them the MLS? Having worked in rural librarianship for all of my professional career, I know first hand that it is very difficult, if not impossible for many people in libraries now to get to the sites where the graduate programs are located. I live and work in Houghton, Michigan, located in a remote area of Upper Michigan. It would be at least an 8-10 hour drive to either the library schools in southeastern Michigan or in Wisconsin.
Why not have some sort of undergraduate level degrees in librarianship that could be offered in more locations and at lower costs? Also, do we need every library worker to be an MLS degree holder?
Let's hear what you think about this issue.
Over the years I've formulated the idea that there should be an undergraduate degree in library studies that would qualify the holder for most public library jobs. The MLS would be for those going into management, academic and (maybe) special libraries.
I'd rather see a community hire someone with an undergraduate degree in LS than hiring someone because they like books. It ain't about books, it's about information. And as the world changes around us libraries and librarians have to change as well.
I hear rural librarians tell me that the Internet is a waste of time for them -- they're too busy handing out romance novels and videos. Wireless and cable technology will soon end our need for pulling more wires into rural areas and their customers will need to be able to access information. If we can't get an MLS-holder in there, then we ought to provide for educated and trained people to come in at levels that a community can afford.
Comments on "budget realities" are not at all appropriate. I am willing to bet that, if a poll were taken in the average small town as to whether the village engineer, the county DA, or any of the local school teachers (to name a few) should have master's, JD, or even a bachelor's degree, we'd get the same answer: no, it would cost too much.
My answer to that is simple: You get what you pay for. I personally would prefer a lawyer who had a law degree, or for that matter a third class stationary engineer who had been to college and passed a license exam to those who didn't -- even if that does mean my taxes are a bit higher.
May I suggest that we focus on the first version of this question: where and where are master's degrees required? Then, if we can justify the answers, we can answer the budget question: If you don't choose to afford it, then fine, but don't pretend you have a librarian when you don't.
(This may lead to a later topic -- Does every community really need a "full service library," or can they get by with a "reading room.")
And I remember well hearing Bill Summers at ALA in San Francisco in 1992 say that several graduate programs had determined that they needed to establish undergrad programs to feel into their grad programs; but I've neither heard nor seen follow-up to that statement.
I am looking forward to reading others' comments on this issue.
Finally, and perhaps the most important question of all, what quality of academic experience can be assured at the undergraduate level, particularly when compared to other disciplines and other choices?
I don't fully agree with many in the discussion who have argued for the strong liberal arts background as a prerequisite for librarianship. This flies in the face of the changing landscape of higher education. It also does not respond to the interdisciplinary potential of our "field." I think that we have an opportunity to merge issues in intellectual property, information-based technologies, sociocultural issues relating to literacy and intellectual freedom, etc. that might create a new undergraduate interdisciplinary major that might have tremendous appeal to students and prepare them well for graduate/professional study in a number of fields. But I am not sure that this is what we're talking about when we consider undergraduate programs in library/information science. I would be against any effort that would ultimately subvert the MLIS as the professional degree.
One thing often overlooked is the community of the library (academic or public, urban or rural). Employees of any service come from a local community and the community is always much more comfortable with one of their own, than with an outsider. A good MLS program will prepare individuals to move up and around in librarianship.
I spent many years working with small communities in Monroe County Michigan and numerous counties in Montana. Training was a part of the job description, and training of non-professionals was a concern each time we gathered in any setting.
As a person who offered training as well as someone who asked others to provide training I would like to make one more comment. Often times our employees get tired of us teaching them something, anything. I found that if I could get someone else to come and teach, and teach what these employees needed to know, I was successful. I can remember many times going Lansing and talking with the state library consultants regarding what they were going to teach our employees. We had had enough fiascos where an outsider came and told these non-professional employees that without Granger's Index to Poetry (for example), they were not a library - or without the complete works of Shakespeare setting on the local library's shelves the community must be illiterate.
Secondly, as a library director, I am a participating witness to a trend where budgetary exigencies are driving libraries in all spheres to replace degreed librarians with "support/paraprofessionals." Since we are forced to do this and are aware of the pluses and minuses of operations in this mode, why not develop a pool of candidates who, minimally, have a B.A. in the field.
Thirdly, if such programs develop enough support, we create a demand for instruction, competition for entrance into graduate school, and awareness of the field as a choice long before it becomes "I couldn't do anything else, so I went to library school."
I look forward to responses to my arguments. Thanks.
After many years of being told in the professional literature and by other MLS "professional" librarians, I returned to graduate school to pursue a master's in library science. What I eventually discovered was that graduate school provided lots of theory and book "learning." But when it came to the everyday information needed to run a branch, school, or special library, it just was taught. I would hate to think that I was put out into the cold, cruel world to be a librarian with only my graduate degree to support me.
Over the years, I have had assistants and volunteers with undergraduate degrees in a variety of areas and master's in library science. They have all told me the same thing. "You have taught me so much about the day-to-day running of a library. My graduate program never prepared for this type of thing. Where did you learn these things?" And in all honesty, I had to tell them I learned them in my undergraduate program in library science. It was truly money and time well spent and I no longer apologize for having been "less than a librarian."
I think the sad reality to the profession is the fact that very few undergraduate programs in library science exist and over the years, many good graduate library schools have been closed or merged with other programs due to budget limitations and lack of students. I think the time has come for a truce among the undergraduate and graduate program librarians. We are all about the same business, and if our numbers continue to dwindle as they have in the past, we need all the allies we can find. It takes a strong united voice to carry our issues to the administrators, county commissions, state and federal legislators. For me, the argument of graduate versus undergraduate is over.
>mystified that graduate educators and practitioners do not see the value of "less-than-graduate education."
and, like William Welburn see that:
>The phrase, "less-than-graduate education," tells the story all by itself.
since it has the flavour of intellectual arrogance that is rather distasteful in any academic debate. Judith Segal hits the nail on the head when she notes that:
>If we claim legitimacy for "library/information science" as an academic field, worthy of graduate education, that says we have a theoretical basis, a body of knowledge, a comprehensive view of the role of libraries, a history. Why shouldn't we teach that to undergraduates? It would, if anything, elevate the level of graduate instruction and endow > the field with greater respect.
If medicine, architecture, engineering, and other vocational areas of study can begin at the undergraduate level, why not library/information studies? As list members will know, undergraduate education has been going on in the field for many years in the U.K. and, although I, personally, advocate postgraduate education as preferred, it cannot be denied that many of the programmes have been very successful -- perhaps we could hear from some of my U.K. colleagues on that success on how it is achieved. One mode of study is the "dual honours degree" in which the undergraduate studies librarianship or information management and another subject -- with a wide choice of that other subject in some institutions. At Sheffield we offer dual honours in business studies and information management and in financial management and accountancy and information management, and having a growing number of students opting for these duals. We are also starting a single honours BSc in information management with effect from September 1996. One of our reasons for going down this road is that the information world is changing and changing rapidly with a proliferation of new roles that have very little to do with classical librarianship but which offer excellent job prospects for young people with appropriate qualifications. I would not advocate that track for someone who wanted to be a subject specialist librarian in an academic research library, but there are many other roles for which it can be an appropriate preparation -- and graduates have a habit of finding the appropriate niche for themselves without too much effort on the part of the educational institutions.
William Welburn is right to say that:
>There are several important questions that proponents of an undergraduate program must address. First, to what extent would an undergraduate degree be "valued" by society (that is, is there a market value)? Or, would it be valued more than the MLS? Second, would an undergraduate library/information science major be accepted for graduate study in the same field?
and any institution thinking of entering the undergraduate sector must have a clear idea of the market and the job roles before entering into curriculum design and offering courses. However, if the thinking never gets beyond the bounds of classical librarianship training and traditional library markets, the curricula and courses are hardly likely to prosper.
Perhaps naturally, this discussion seems to be too concerned with those traditional markets and courses, whereas the Kellogg programme is about the future - I'd like to hear what has been happening to graduates from the undergraduate programme at Pittsburgh, for example, as perhaps having more to do with that future.
We welcome inquires regarding the content of the program. Later this academic year, when the curriculum is finalized for the initial offering, we will be placing information on the School's Web page.
We are presently searching for three assistant professors to join the faculty of the School to aid us in offering not only this B.S. program but also our M.S., Advanced Master's and Ph.D. programs. Inquiries regarding these positions are also welcome. There is a possibility that a senior level position for the School may also be authorized. Possible interest in such a position is also welcome. The faculty is looking for statements of intellectual interest from potential faculty; i.e., we are not looking to specifically fill prescribed subject area vacancies.
I also remember that at one time, University of Toledo (Toledo, Ohio) was considering some level of library science program. Don't remember if it was undergrad or grad. I know they don't have one, but perhaps it might be interesting to find out WHY they decided not to go ahead with such a program.
I don't have a clear opinion of all the ramifications of this topic, yet, to make an insightful comment. I'll wait and see where the thread goes.
Requiring all library workers to hold MLS degrees implies that all tasks or functions in a library carry the same weight. Perceptually, there is not a logical distinction between tasks and the skill sets required by the individual performing the task. This lack of distinction diminishes the librarian manager/director title by placing the book shelvers, cataloguers and managers/directors all on the same level. Consequently, salaries are lower than other career positions which require extended education beyond a four-year degree. We are aghast at the notion that librarians are "glorified clerks" and yet demanding an MLS for all library tasks sends a confusing message to the public.
A realistic task analysis is warranted to ascertain the skill sets utilized in a library. The skill sets pertinent to the task drive the curriculum and the amount of education required. Ultimately, a tiered educational approach also constructs a framework to restructure the current salary disparities that exist between the MLS and other educational programs.
In my work I prepare responses to bid requests. As a standard, I delineate the tasks, determine the skill sets needed, assign a time value for the task and then assign cost. Obviously, the goal is to man-load the job with skill sets suitable to accomplish the task (as cheap as possible). To say cost cannot be a valid issue is both naive and unrealistic. It's a constant battle between wanting to use the most highly skilled people and having a budget that just simply will not support the salaries. And actually, is it the best utilization of resources to have the highest qualified people doing some of those tasks?!
In want ads, I see librarian positions, MLS required, with a salary of $25K. An entry level engineer with a B.S. four-year degree can receive $28K a year, first job, no experience. Addition of a P.E. will add an additional $5-10K to the salary. The pay increase is commensurate with increasing responsibility and skill sets. A reform of the current education structure is warranted to ensure that our MLS graduates are recognized as the managers/directors...the true visionaries and pace setters of our field!
A previous posting repeated an observation many of us have heard for many years. Undergrad preparation is "practical." Grad is "theoretical." Curriculum watchers who expect that undergrad preparation will teach prospective information workers how to check books out in the East Overshoe Branch of the Anywhere Free Public Library and other "practical" stuff better prepare for a long watch. It is highly unlikely that the designers of undergrad curricula are going to confuse training with education.
Part of our mission must be to supply clients with marketable skills. How much OJT is the job of the schools and how much is the responsibility of the job site represent issues we must address. We can load up with too much of either. What will the market bear? What will the ghosts of Butler and Shera tolerate? Who said this? "There's nothing so practical as a good theory."
If we emphasize the external aspects of IR for the disciplines (database selection, term selection, and the like) we neglect the internal aspects (content, subject matter, theories of the field, controversies, innovations, hot topics, classic texts, significant research, and the like) and become virtually content-free in our librarianship. Just when library users and information consumers need more access to the actual content of the materials we make available, need more assistance in critically evaluating their content, need intelligent (human) filters, we are considering giving that up for an undergraduate preparation for librarianship.
It wasn't that long ago that librarians were scholars and taught disciplinary knowledge in the libraries. If anything, librarians need to re-connect with the content of their resources to better understand the interdisciplinary and disciplinary connections within their collections. If we remove ourselves from content we are left with a technocratic identity. Herbert Simon (Nobel Laureate) recently said something to the effect that information consumes attention. Explosions in the growth of information lead to the dispersal and squandering of our precious attention, resulting in not being able to focus on anything in depth. He also pointed out that there is a great need for human filtering services to assist people with the overwhelming amounts of information being made available to them today. Librarians are well-educated for this filtering service, but only if they understand the content of the disciplines can they be successful in providing truly informed, intelligent filtering.
The discipline of disciplines must after all deeply understand the disciplines in order to truly improve indexing and access to their contents. Shera and Butler are still right. Theories are useful explanations whose power extends to various library and information environments, not mere ivory tower frills that can be ignored by the "practically" minded.
The argument over whether library science is a "field of knowledge" is the same point given against any course which has direct practical application in work situations. I would suggest that almost any topic can -- given the right treatment -- be a "field of knowledge." It almost seems that as soon as something is seen to be practical or useful it automatically becomes "unworthy." The argument should not be about subject matter but about approach, attitude and presentation of material. I would suggest that given the right treatment any subject matter can be used for a "liberal" education.
If the problem is one of depth then the rich field of library science has more than enough depth to keep anyone happy. Certainly library science is an ideal vehicle for students to be made aware of and practise the first four points outlined by Richard Cox.
Having read many of the contributions to this discussion if even part of the topics and issues raised are included in the library science course then students will have a broad and I would suggest "liberal" education. The fact that they may be able to apply that knowledge directly in some work should not disqualify it as forming a liberal education. To give a particular example, the practical knowledge of cataloguing, can be presented so that students have to come to grips with whole idea of knowledge and how we can classify it. A subject deep enough for anyone.
Excellent discussion we have going on the issue of "Less-Than-Graduate Library Education"!
Thank you to all of you who have contributed to this discussion to date. Please continue your input. To those of you who may be "lurking" on the sidelines --please feel free to jump in any time.
We have had valuable points made on both sides of this issue. So far there seems to be some who see a real need for some sort of library education at the undergraduate levels. It was interesting to see the information about existing undergrad programs, especially the one at Florida State. It would be interesting to hear about any other programs. Others are advocating the need for a solid undergraduate education as a foundation for a master's in library science.
For those of you who advocate undergraduate library ed -- how do you propose to get graduate library programs, ALA, etc., to recognize the need for accredited undergrad programs? How do we get fair monetary compensation for those with the undergrad degrees? Should there be a tiered system enforced by state governments? What other challenges might there be to installing this type of situation?
For the "MLS-only" advocates -- on what kind of actual library environment(s) do you base your arguments? Could there not be a system where there could be different levels of education for the various types of library environments? How do you propose that smaller rural libraries afford to hire "scholar" MLS'ers with two masters degrees? Don't most undergraduates end up taking at least some "fluff" courses while earning their bachelors that could be traded off for at least some library education -- and still leave room for the "pure" subject area studies?
Please comment on the above questions and any other ideas you have. Let's keep up the good discussion!
My perspective on including undergraduates in LIS education is based on my observations of undergraduates that take the course I teach, "Internet Resources & Services," for GSLIS at the University of Texas at Austin. I teach the course at the upper division undergrad level because I am a doctoral student. For the past seven semesters, the class has been an interdisciplinary mix of graduate and undergraduate students. It has been a valuable experience for all of us to face learning the tools and services of the net together. Our individual and interdisciplinary perspectives enrich the learning of the group, as well as the undergraduates get the opportunity to brush shoulders and colloborate with LIS folk. During these classes, I have heard many undergraduates observe that they never knew there was a grad program in LIS or that librarians could "major" in LIS topics, etc. So, not only has it been good P.R. for our program, it has also broadened the perspectives of LIS students.
I confess, however, that I am more comfortable with Richard Cox's call for LIS students to bring a good liberal arts background to their graduate studies. The bottomline? I like the idea of innovative courses, heck, even traditional courses, for undergraduates. What a marvelous way to offer them skills to make the most of a dynamic and complex information environment. I prefer, however, that we encourage LIS graduate students to broaden, not narrow, their undergraduate studies.
My impression is that this debate (need for undergrad vs. grad degree) hasn't changed much since ALA discussed the Carnegie-funded report in 1921, which led to the master's degree in the first place. So--
Does anyone have any thoughts on the historical development of the master's (and the related assumption that a general liberal arts degree is required for all librarians)?
Are any of the folks on this list involved with or familiar with the (I assume) similar discussions in fields like journalism, business, and engineering? My impression is that those fields questioned the need for a bachelor's degree vs. on-the-job training until quite recently. I also seem to recall that there is a big debate about the value of an MBA.
 Home |
 Discussion |