Please welcome our new guest editor, Ling Hwey Jeng, who will lead a discussion on "Transforming the Traditional to the New Age." Ling Hwey received her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1987, and has been an educator in library and information science since then. She was on the faculty at UCLA from 1991-93 and is currently on the faculty of the School of Library and Information Science, University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky. Her areas of research interest include knowledge representation in cataloging and organization of information. She has also been actively involved in the design and teaching of organization of information area since 1991.
Let's welcome Ling Hwey with a blast of reactions, comments, ideas, and energy on this new topic!
"Change what I have been doing? Over my dead body!" "Wait until I retire!"
Change is hard to do. The history of introducing computer technology into workplace is a good example of changes facing resistance. Instructors of library automation courses almost always include a lecture on how to reduce resistance among project participants. Of course, automation is not the only area in which changes must be dealt with. And this is the topic of discussion for the next two weeks. Specifically, I am looking for appropriate steps to take in order to bring the traditional institutions, traditional workers, and traditional positions into something fit for the new age without bloodshed.
(1) Where Do Changes Occur?
There are plenty of changes in LIS field: Converting a card catalog to an online catalog, and changing an aging library automation system to a new one with state of the art technology. Changes do not always have to be complete overhauls. Introducing Internet reference service is an example of an add-on service in the reference department that, if managed poorly, may not succeed at all.
These examples are from practicing LIS professionals. There are also changes in LIS education. The obvious one is when the curriculum needs revision and update. Most library schools are comfortable with the idea of introducing new courses, but often have trouble revising or deleting courses that are in need of updating. The larger task is when the entire curriculum needs complete overhaul. Some educators see the curriculum and the faculty as the same thing; that is, an LIS curriculum is whatever the individual faculty teach; no one can dictate that without violating academic freedom. Using this philosophy, the curriculum can only be overhauled when all the faculty agree with changes, which, in reality, rarely occurs. This philosophy also takes the position that the success of changes is entirely up to individual instructors. When this happens, systematic changes in curriculum become difficult, if not impossible. What are other changes you see? How does one identify needed changes in an organization?
(2) How Do We Introduce Changes to Get the Best Results? Revolutionary or Evolutionary Approach?
We have seen more than one way to introduce changes. On one extreme is the heavy-handed approach of a top manager directing what needs to be changed and forcing out all who do not go along. On the other extreme is the Taoism approach of waiting until individuals retire to introduce piecemeal changes. Revolutionary approach, when done appropriately, may actually bring about quick success. The question is how it could be done appropriately? Evolutionary approach is much less painful but also takes a long time to bring about success. In this fast changing society, is the evolutionary approach simply not enough?
(3) What are Strategies That Work, and Those That Don't Work?
Training and orientation to the new system are the two that are often mentioned as necessary strategies to introduce changes. When and how training and orientation should occur? Who should be trained? Who should do the training? In LIS education, what are best strategies to introduce the existing faculty to new technology or new approaches to studying the subject area? How should faculty be retrained? What strategies work in addition to training and orientation?
(4) How Does One Detect Resistance? What are the Symptoms of Resistance?
The two quotes given at the beginning of this introduction are two obvious examples of resistance to change. But there are plenty of other remarks, though less extreme, that nevertheless show symptoms of resistance. One example is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What are other verbal and behavior symptoms of resistance? How can one deal with them effectively?
(5) What Should We Do with People Who are Recognized Leaders in the Old System?
In every system, there are people who are recognized as experts of the system through years of experience and accumulative knowledge. These are often the leaders who build morale and consensus in an organization. Some of them are open to changes and are capable to lead the group through changes. Some others are opposed to changes and can be detrimental to the success of the new system. How can the organization retain current leaders after the change (perhaps giving them the first chances of retraining)? Or should they be replaced by new leaders with no regards to their long-time contribution to the organization? What can be done to ease the transitional pain for people from the old system?
Enough questions. Now, it's your turn. Let's hear your comments.
Unfortunately, we are forced to make those transitions at an ever-increasing pace due to the new technologies arriving almost daily. We are expected to become instant experts on searching the Internet, disseminating electronic information, and creating Web pages. With changes like these coming so fast, how are we supposed to become "expert" at anything?
As far as training and retraining -- I think it is happening each time a patron asks how to log onto the Internet. Training happens each time a library moves from a manual to an automated circulation system -- and it's not just training LIS people, it's training our customers, too. I forget sometimes that change is probably harder for them than for us.
While technology must be thoroughly taught due to the need for those skills in the field now, can't we still offer the traditional classes in, for instance, cataloging with minimal changes for the students who will be doing some original cataloging in small and even school libraries? My point is that we don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so to speak.
The field of education has long been guilty of throwing out a system of teaching in favor of the newest one without considering the parts of the first system that did achieve the desired results. My education is important enough to me that I plan to continue taking classes beyond my MSLS to gain not only the broadest knowledge base possible but a well balanced one as well. Not all students have that opportunity though.
Is it possible to reevaluate required courses, changing some or adding additional ones? What if there were courses with more than one professor teaching an integration of two or more courses. This would be an interesting way to get a better overall picture of the information in that they could be "overlapped" and their components seen in the larger context. Practicums are another possible way to have students test their skills/information.
I look forward to the responses of others.
What Beth said is interesting:
>The field of education has long been guilty of throwing out a system of teaching in favor of the newest one without considering the parts of the first system that did achieve the desired results.
Beth, I wonder if you can give us a few examples here. Here are my examples based on my own experience on the issue of change.
(a) The faculty at a library school considered changing its program from 36 hours to 48 hours. They spent several months in discussion. The proposal received unanimous support at conceptual level, but was voted down at practical level. Among the arguments was that most students would rather go to short programs where they can finish in a year or so. (This argument was proven to be true in a recent student survey here in Kentucky where a large number of respondents cited the short program as one of the reason they chose the school). Has any other LIS program had similar experience related to changes that are considered conceptually good but practically not feasible? Could you share with us your experience?
(b) Many LIS programs have recently gone through changes in their core courses. This happened at a library school where I worked. I remember at a faculty meeting, a group of professional librarians marched into the meeting room demanding that the traditional core courses be saved. I vaguely remember a threat that they would stop participating in the internship program if the school went ahead with the changes. The LIS program did change the core courses, and as far as I know the internship program is not in any danger. My question is how have other LIS programs dealt with this kind of conflicts during changes?
I do hope people who have gone through similar changes can share their experience.
The issue of introducing and managing change in LIS (or SILS) education cannot be isolated from the flux of change concurrently transforming libraries on the one hand, and confronting universities on the other. The underlying issues, at least as I view them, were addressed excellently by two articles in the November/December 1995 issue of Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. If I were a dean contemplating a new LIS curriculum, I would initiate a group faculty envisioning process based partly on these two articles.
The first article, "The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology," recalls the transition of American universities from an early Ivy League paradigm based on the British model to the paradigm of a modern research university based on the German model. The integration of "professional" disciplines (business, law, library science) presented a problem for the latter paradigm because their associated research does not address issues of so-called "fundamental knowledge." The article proposes a new model of scholarship based on reflective practise and action research. It further suggests that the change to this new model be propelled by a process of organizational learning. It presents a telling case that "...the new scholarship cannot achieve legitimacy within an institution exclusively dedicated to technical rationality-- the epistemology around which the modern research university was originally established and which still underlies its key institutions." For evidence, go back to the spate of library school closings a few years ago, and read some of the derisive comments about the LIS field made by certain university administrators, etc. Such comments emerged, of course, from the "research university mentality" with its attendant myopia about what constitutes "fundamental" knowledge. Those closings, in my view, now appear more misguided and shortsighted by the year, with the rapid advance of technology unleashing an information overload that cries out for the coherence and structure which are the focus of LIS programs.
The second article, "From Teaching to Learning," carries a similar banner from research to the classroom, arguing for a closely related shift from an instructional to a learning paradigm, with the transition again guided by a process of organizational learning. While "the Learning Organization" model proposed by Peter Senge has become something of the management fad du jour, I would argue that it offers the best vehicle yet for initiating institutional change so long as change is not done for its own unsettling sake, but within a coherent framework such as that proposed by these two articles.
My final point about this second article is that it offers a cogent approach for library administrators as well as educators. We would do well, I think, to turn our libraries, or portions of our libraries, into the kind of interactive learning environments proposed for the classroom of the future. The exciting thing is that because we are relatively less encumbered by the leftover institutional inertia of the old university paradigm (particularly in public libraries) the learning environments of tomorrow could well be prototyped by the libraries of today.
We often discuss the education of students now in LIS programs, or future students, but I think it is also necessary to discuss continuing education for practicing information professionals -- whatever their professional roles may be. While reading the literature and even attending local journal clubs help to keep my knowledge up-to-date, a structured course taught by someone more knowledgeable than me helps to provide a framework and a structure for that knowledge. I would like to see LIS programs be more active in CE activities, even implementing distance education opportunities. If this transformation in LIS education requires new frameworks,theories and paradigms, everyone in the profession must be part of the process.
Thanks for the opportunity to raise this issue.
Beyond the pragmatic approach "reading the literature" and "attending local journal clubs," Elizabeth proposes "structured courses" even through distance education.
I join to encourage implementing more of these concise, varied, timely CE courses aimed at practitioners, organized by LIS faculties and professional associations.
"If you think you can or if you think you can't, you're right." I've been a part of a number of groups that start by thinking that something is a problem or can't be done. It's amazing sometimes if you believe you can. (I'm tempted to pull out a copy of The Little Engine That Could...)
"Change happens in an instant." I've kept this one from reading The Tom Peters' Seminar Book. (my favorite book of the last few years) We often hear that change takes time, but what we usually mean is that we take a lot of time getting to the instant that the change happens... We use that time to get used to the instant, prepare for the instant, give people time to adjust to the idea of the instant -- but often we are just postponing the instant...
"Stop trying to control" My second favorite book of late is probably The Tao of Leadership by John Heider. Efforts to control usually result in resistance. Encouraging usually results in acceptance.
"Seek to understand, before seeking to be understood" This is one of Stephen Covey's seven habits... and I think it fits here. When we talk of resistance or talk of using leaders from the "past" tradition, it's important for us to listen and understand much more than to persuade others of the "future". People are people. Leaders are leaders.
Bottom line: Even our expectations about change are changing... I believe that rate of change that is necessary for the profession to succeed during this transition period is 10 times greater than we are experiencing today -- and I believe that we as librarians are better able to deal with this change than most think. Fact is, librarians are very practical and resourceful people dedicated to providing an important service for our communities.
What have you changed today to improve the quality of library service (or library education) that you are responsible for?
(stepping off the professional soapbox...)
The grab bag of nostrums approach, which is delightfully eclectic enables us to cover the suffering patient with multicolored band aids instead of a single colour, but fails to review the underlying malaise.
The nature of change that is required lies both in the individual and in the system or series of systems (social, work , professional, personal etc) that that person engages with. The tools required are metatools -- i.e., those which allow for the dynamic building of processes in response to the actual requirement of the situation -- not the blanket application of a patent "one size fits all" approach.
Where to look for guidance -- range is broad depending which aspect of the problem you wish to focus on first:
I think you can teach an old dog new tricks. However,I do think change is disconcerting to those involved. Particularly the rapid rate of change that is currently demanded. But our institutions are doing it and our personnel are doing it. My position is that our libraries are changing at about the same rate as the society as a whole is changing.
To settle on a revised list of core or mandatory courses simply repeats old thinking. You are giving credibility to the idea that a magic number of credit hours attained gives the person status or security and it does not.
The agency of state government where I work has a strong reputation for innovative programs and is actively engaged in TQM,IT and process re-engineering all at the same time. The volume of public business it receives demands that it change to keep costs within acceptable limits. But the transmission of accurate and relevant information is still at the core of this process.
The question of why some people there (and elsewhere) can deal with change, while others resist it, is determined more by an open-mindedness and a willingness to discuss and explore new ideas. The mind-set that "I so important that I cannot possibly be asked to change"is deadly. You have to provide the resources to help people learn how to handle these situations.
Changing one's attitude about change and learning how to manage the process can not stop with a list of books and one set of courses.
The crucial question is:
How can we strengthen the motivation of the actors?
As I see it, one answer could be:
By improving awareness.
An improved awareness will have a beneficial effect on the motivation for change. "Awareness" includes the will and the capacity to recognize and to evaluate trends in society, politics and economy. First of all, education and training at different levels have a key function in developing awareness. If people are able to use the media in a critical and selective way, awareness will become accentuated. Interest in democratic decision processes is also an important prerequisite for awareness. Memberships in parties, professional associations and societies of different kinds are due to improve the awareness of the participants.
The new School will pioneer the development and application of unifying principles that clarify the role of information at all levels in a community.
"This action is the result of a recognition that unprecedented change in the use of information is reshaping personal activities, community and organizational practices, and national and global institutions," says President James J. Duderstadt. "The School will educate professionals to lead in the information age."
The Board of Regents of the University approved the new School of Information at its March 15, 1996 meeting. The new School replaces the existing School of Information and Library Studies. It inherits a 70-year tradition of service, research, leadership, and access to information, and extends these values into the digital age. Both master's and doctoral degrees are offered.
"We will continue our commitment to educating graduates as librarians and provide them with the knowledge and skills required of emerging information technologies," says Dean Daniel E. Atkins. "By offering an expanded curriculum that includes Librarianship, Next Generation Systems Architecture, Human-computer Interaction, Organizational Information Systems, Archives and Records Management, and Digital Publishing, we are creating an academic program that brings together in a synergistic way these different specializations."
Students and faculty with a broad range of perspectives and interests will forge this new body of theory, principles, and practices. They will draw from the best of scholarship in library and information science, computer science, the humanities, and the social sciences.
The School's doctoral students will prepare for future roles as distinguished researchers and innovative teachers. They will be ready to assume roles as university faculty, administrators, technical innovators, and research scientists.
"The pace of change in both social organizations and information technology is such that the School must also provide life-long learning opportunities to established information professionals and prepare students to pioneer career paths that do not now exist," Dean Atkins adds. "Richly intertwined programs of instruction, research, and community engagement will expose students to innovative ideas, novel approaches, and the potential of new technologies."
As part of its mission, the School will stress the interaction between technical possibilities and the distinctive contexts in which information is actually used. It will also seek partnerships with other parts of the University and with external organizations. The research and instructional programs at the School will have a strong component of practical engagement with private enterprises, not-for-profit institutions, libraries, schools, and communities to address the pressing social and technological problems of information management, access, and use.
The School's aim is to integrate this larger community tightly into its instruction, via extensive use of supervised field experiences, and into its research, via partnerships in developing concepts and technologies. This approach will enrich both the practice and theory of the information professions.
To define the future curriculum of the new School, U-M faculty are consulting with alumni, students, professionals, and faculty members from the University and other institutions. The School's curriculum will be a model for other institutions that are reshaping their information and library studies programs.
Additional details about the School of Information are available on the home page at http://www.si.umich.edu/.
July 27-30, 1996
The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh Scotland
Society is witnessing a fundamental transformation to the Information Age. This international workshop, led by Donald Norris and James Morrison, is an opportunity to apply the principles described in Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century (Dolence and Norris, 1995) to your learning enterprise. This is a hands-on workshop using practical examples and cases studies of transformation in academic programs, facilities, and the academic culture. Workshop format includes a combination of collaboration, workshop activity, and consultation.
The preliminary agenda, which focuses on frameworks for introducing transformation to your campus, includes the following topics:
For more information about the workshop, including the time frame, and for registration information, browse the conference section of Horizon home page or contact the On the Horizon editorial office (address above) for a workshop brochure and registration form.
June 10-13, 1996
St. Andrews, Scotland
This seminar focuses on (1) identifying emerging global issues that can affect education and on (2) using the tools, structures, and processes of anticipatory issues management to gain lead time to plan more effectively. All participants will receive the seminar handbook describing and illustrating anticipatory issues management tools and techniques, a printed copy of each briefing paper presented, and a copy of seminar proceedings. Participants are invited to submit an issue brief for seminar discussion addressing the following questions:
To submit a briefing paper, contact James Morrison at the address above. For more information about the seminar, including the agenda, and for registration information, browse the conference section of Horizon home page or contact the On the Horizon editorial office (address above) for a seminar brochure and registration form.
 Home |
 Discussion |