Many thanks to Steve Bonario who suggested that we take a good hard look at ourselves -- the CRISTAL-ED electronic discussion group -- to clarify who we are, what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what course of action we should take in the future. This two-week discussion made me pause to ponder these points and raise questions for the CRISTAL-ED membership to consider regarding our future. Thanks again to Steve for bringing these important issues to our attention and starting our deliberations on them.
Let's now turn to our next scheduled topic on "Education for Deinstitutionalizing the Profession." Please welcome back James Shedlock for a second term as guest editor. Jim is currently the director of the Galter Health Sciences Library at Northwestern University in Chicago and a member of the Board of Directors of the Medical Library Association (MLA). Jim received a BA from the University of Notre Dame in 1974 and the AMLS degree from the University of Michigan in 1977. He has spent his entire career in health sciences librarianship, starting as a reference-serials librarian at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Pontiac, Michigan, and continuing in academic positions at Wayne State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Northwestern University. He has published various articles and opinion pieces, delivered papers and presented posters related to issues relevant to health sciences librarianship and the library profession in general. Active in the Medical Library Association, Jim has served in a number of posts including leadership in MLA sections, committee chairmanships and now on the Board of Directors. Jim has been certified as a medical librarian by the MLA since 1977 and is now a distinguished member of the Academy of Health Information Professionals. He most recently served as a project manager for the Galter Library's $10 million renovation and expansion project.
Please join us for a discussion on "Education for Deinstitutionalizing the Profession."
James Shedlock
Director
Galter Health Sciences Library
Northwestern University
303 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Voice: (312) 503-8133
Fax: (312) 503-1204
j-shedlock@nwu.edu
Introduction:
Why this topic? I propose a discussion on "deinstitutionalizing" our profession for several reasons, and some of them came to light during the recent CRISTAL-ED discussions about diversity and accreditation. I would propose discussing the radical (to some and not to others) idea about changing our professional name, the name we call ourselves. Part of this change is already taking place in our schools for the profession (School of Information, School of Information Studies, etc.), and the degrees from these schools are different too from the traditional MLS. Some of us are thinking about changing the name of our professional associations. I offer some reasons why we should be thinking about a name change.
My reading of CRISTAL-ED postings, in conversations with colleagues and in recent papers (see Van House, Nancy A. and Stuart A. Sutton. "The Panda Syndrome: An Ecology of LIS education," http://sims.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse/panda.html) leads me to propose that moving away from the "L" word might be a good thing. The profession is now able to be clearly distinct from library buildings. The powerful technology in our hands and in the hands of many prove that electronic "libraries" can be created and accessed by professionals and users. How these electronic collections are built, searched, accessed, organized and disseminated are very serious issues that professionals with skills and authority should address. These professionals who build electronic libraries have nothing to do with library buildings per se.
Even while I say this I do not mean that library buildings are not needed (see forthcoming April 97 issue, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association). They definitely are needed, and one reason is to collect a group of working professionals who collaborate with others to build the electronic collections used by local communities. The library as a place for working professionals (as oppose to working at home, which is also a good thing and a possible option for those who want it) is a valid reason to have one; that the same place also stores collections or is a focal point for education, training, and other services makes the library building a valuable space within a larger institution or in society.
Librarians are professionals with knowledge and skills that address issues related to information access, the provision of information services, knowledge management, preservation of information in a variety of formats, etc. Some of these activities are not in libraries or can be done away from libraries. The "library" word is not always accurate in describing our professional work.
Organization of information is also done by other professionals from related and not-too-related disciplines. This common interest is likely to grow as technology advances and improves upon itself. From common interest will come common bonds. It seems inevitable that new associations will form -- the Association of Digital Libraries, the Association for Digital Information, the Association for Digital Information Professionals, the Informaticists Association, and on and on. New names for information professionals are likely.
Technology is freeing many professionals to use their skills in new ways. There are professionals who are: creating electronic publications, designing tools such as search engines for identifying information in local intranets, managing networks, training users to use information efficiently and effectively, creating multimedia educational resources, transforming old information formats into new ones, creating databases for use by local communities, etc. Skills in using technology and managing professionals leads to new roles that are beyond the walls of any local library.
When professionals take on new roles, don't they change their name or adopt a new one? When the new roles are still related to information and knowledge, shouldn't they use a name that is more encompassing of what they do, more reflective of their skills, knowledge, experience?
Using information technology is very attractive to young people. We are creating a generation that will only know more about the computer and associated tools than the generation teaching it now. Why not encourage young people to think of the information professions as a bright prospect for building a career? Shouldn't we be giving these bright prospects a name they can identify as part of their future? Is the library that name?
Also, there is the issue of attracting other professionals who do information work but do not have the library science degree. These professionals have knowledge (computer science, information science, business, education, design and graphics, etc.) important to information access, organization and dissemination. Why not pull together all information professionals into a mutually supportive association, under a truly representative professional name?
Frankly, there is power in numbers as well as in new ideas. Joining together different professionals creates new power.
One of the criticisms that will be made in this discussion is that current library leadership is already changing how users think about their libraries and the professionals who work there. In many environments, the librarians are the leaders in using information technology. Users turn to the librarian as the source of information about building databases, searching and finding Internet and Web resources, making connections to electronic tools and resources required for work or education. The librarian is the key professional in this information age, and users are well aware of this "new librarian."
If so, is the term "librarian" now accurate? Will that term be accurate in the future? Is it a term that competes in a growing sophisticated world of high tech?
What do you think?
William Arthur Liebi
Academic librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek Bern
CH-3000 Bern 7 Switzerland
Voice: +41 +31 320 32 259
Fax: +41 +31 320 32 99
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
Departing from ecological theory and Pierre Bourdieu's analysis of fields, authors Nancy A. Van House and Stuart A. Sutton develop our actual discussion topic lucidly and systematically ("The Panda Syndrome: An Ecology of LIS Education"). I would like to come back to some of their focuses:
SUB-FIELDS
The authors say that "LIS can be considered a field or sub-field operating within a larger field of existing and emerging information professions."
This perspective corresponds to my view I explained in a posting to our discussion about "Reinventing Archival Education" in 1996: I postulated that information professionals should gain a "double professional identity"; firstly, as belonging to specific groups like archivists, librarians as well as other types of "pure" or "hybrid" information specialists, secondly, as information specialists in the broadest sense of the term. Certification procedures, as rituals, give the individuals security; security to belong to a specified group like archivists, librarians and so on. This speaks for the maintenance of sub-groups.
STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE
Yet, these sub-entities cannot remain unchanged, as the authors mention:
"For an individual program to survive, it must diagnose its situation, determine a useful set of strategies and convince its members, parent organizations, accrediting agencies and other stakeholders that change is necessary and that its chosen strategy is viable and then implement these changes all in a timely fashion."
EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES
As principles to achieve change, the authors propose adaptation (this means to take up new information functions), speciation (this means to differentiate among programs and graduates) and hybridization (this means to execute interdisciplinary approaches).
ABSTRACTION AND REDUCTION
Finally, the authors want us to go beyond specific sub-groups:
"LIS education should be information-centered (abstraction), with a variety of institutional foci (reduction)."
As a consequence, arguments should not be "too closely tied to current institutions (e.g. libraries)", because they "lack the appropriate degree of abstraction." The information problem is central.
In my eyes, a two-step-procedure could help to promote an unified professional identity as information specialists:
While fostering an unified charta, education and practice within the maintained sub-units evolve, too. If the development of the sub-fields is done with the large field in mind, the sub-fields may become coordinated or converge. Individuals gain security step by step within the broader, information-centered framework; time might become ripe that the particular chartas can be dropped and substituted by an unified charta of professional ethics.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
Middleburg, VA
scriptorium@mediasoft.net
James Shedlock reiterates many of the issues related to "librarianship," professional identity, institutional relevance, and how information technology is forcing the hand of change across these, and several other spectrums. William Leibi further provides us with some parameters by which we can garner some systematic assessment of these same themes.
I would offer however, that while much of what these gentlemen are saying bears truth and cause for attention, especially on the heels of an increasingly cited article in this forum, a perspective which remains wanting here does indeed relate to institutional roles, even in the age of the perception of the vanishing institution.
Surely `librarian' as a word has innate institutional analogy. Conceptually however, librarians know among themselves, and increasingly in the information industry, that there is an image offering optimism along the lines of IT information professionals as well as one which is still dogged by stereotyping in the media. Harris and Hannah ('93) with their valuable monograph Into the Future provided the library community with a sweeping review of librarianship in the age of Bell's "post-industrial society." In their work they discussed many of the issues surrounding identity in an increasing information intensive world and provide a longitudinal assessment to where we have arrived today.
Granted that while fours years in this climate may seem like a lifetime, I would suggest that those who are interested revisit D'Elia's (`93) national study on the role of the public library funded by the Dept. of Education as well as the more recent Bertot, McClure and Zweizig (`96) national survey on the public library and the Internet supported by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences (available on the Internet at http://istweb.syr.edu/Project/Faculty/McClure-NSPL96/NSPL96_T.html.
Thirdly I would recommend a review of Francis Miksa's ('96?) piece, "The Cultural Legacy of the "Modern" Library for the Future," at http://fiat.gslis.utexas.edu/faculty/Miksa/modlib.html, as well as what Norwegian scholar Ragnar Audunson (`95) offers in his "Comparing change processes in public libraries: An institutional perspective" in Information Science published by Scandinavian University Press.
What can be derived from these efforts (and there are many others) are discussions of what roles libraries will play in society in the future given electronic, virtual and digital libraries, remote access capabilities, etc. Secondly and more to the point is the implied relationship to those who may be working "in" or "with" such environments.
The social and cultural significance of our institutions (higher education is another) reach far beyond what can be readily replicated through the employments of varying information technologies. Those whose professional relationships have historical and namesake relevance to such an institution should wear their badge of librarianship proudly in the larger context of library role and mission.
As was noted, information professionals abound across many realms and as such,the mere expression "information professional" attempts to both encompass this as well as lend some "umpf" to librarian identities which are misconceived as well as financially addressed as such. The Special Libraries Association headquartered in Washington, D.C. has been very active in public relations which seek to redress perspectives which reinforce type casting of the librarian as well as expand perspectives which lend themselves more to what James is saying.
Some might argue that the librarian today, will be increasingly seen as someone who holds perspective on both historic roles as librarian/scholars and priest/archivists in the context of their preservation and service dimensions to those with information needs as well as the multi-applicable techno-savvy information resources which they are. I believe UA's new name for their SLIS is to be the School of Information Resources; now there's a discussion for you.
Finally I would add that much of this discussion lends itself to what Diane Nahl ('96) has summarized for us as the "user-centered revolution" (http://www2.hawaii.edu/slis/nahl/articles/user/user1toend_toc.html) where end users are empowered and previous person based assistance is more readily side stepped for CBT modules, user friendliness and personal resolve. There is a whole discussion about the role of "librarian" in this light aside from whether we even need such a title.
If you know what a librarian is, then be one if you choose. If you see the identity as misplaced or bad image laden, then let it go. There is room for both. I would caution however, that quick dismissals of a librarianship identity speak poorly to what we have thought of ourselves to date, lend some credence to caving in to the image feared, and play light to issues related to either specific skills or specific relationships with culture and society.
James Shedlock
Director
Galter Health Sciences Library
Northwestern University
303 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Voice: (312) 503-8133
Fax: (312) 503-1204
j-shedlock@nwu.edu
I want to especially thank William Leibi and Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr., for their very thoughtful postings to this topic. Based on the LOW level of response, I was (and am still) thinking that:
While the responses are few, the content is great! Both William and Robert provide wonderful assessments and useful critiques of the concept. Most importantly, their references to the literature, especially Robert's citations, will lead those of us still thinking about the name concept to more literature that will expand and enhance our own thinking. These contributions make this list so wonderful to read!
Let me offer two small points, more for clarification and less to extend the discussion. I'm grateful no one wanted to read into the original post the idea of the professional image problem. I did not intend to approach the topic from this point, but realized someone could easily take the discussion toward this direction. Related to the image problem are two citations that help deflect it. Consider from the "medical" library/informatics literature:
Blackwelder MB. "The Image of Health Sciences Librarians: How We See Ourselves and How Patrons See Us." BMLA 1996 July 84(3):345-350
and tangentially related is
Geise N. "Preparing Librarians to Meet the Challenges of Today's Health Care Environment." JAMIA 1997 Jan-Feb 4(1):57-67.
Both articles demonstrate a more positive image of the profession than we sometimes give ourselves.
Another point to emphasize is Robert's last:
"If you know what a librarian is, then be one if you choose. If you see the identity as misplaced or bad image laden, then let it go. There is room for both. I would caution however, that quick dismissals of a librarianship identity speak poorly to what we have thought of ourselves to date, lend some credence to caving in to the image feared, and play light to issues related to either specific skills or specific relationships with culture and society."
Indeed, there is room for both the librarian and the information professional in our society. My perspective is admittedly somewhat skewed being located strictly in the health sciences (and it is why many of us in the health sciences part of the profession read lists such as this so that we can learn from colleagues and they can learn from us), and the links between librarianship's legacy and our society and culture are not always seen right away.
The issue that I would still raise is the one about competition. Do we see our profession competing successfully in the information age? I think Robert makes the point that we do and can compete. I admitted the point as well when I thought I said that users do recognize the changes happening in all sorts of libraries as librarian leaders promote the smart and realistic benefits of technology and how technology has advantages for certain instances of information access; i.e., the smart leaders who promote technology as a means rather than an end!
The speed of technology can still somewhat shock us, and professions or groups are not always quick to respond to change. The group that moves first, claims the turf. This is my concern. I also believe that what I'm expressing in my concern about competition is the realization that the group that MARKETS first, grabs the attention. Maybe our profession needs to concentrate not only on competition and advancing our skills but gaining market share or attention. Granted, marketing can be just 'hype', and hype is fleeting. But in our society and culture, rightly or wrongly, we are still human and we do react to marketing techniques and the respective images that are produced. Maybe the image problem is not the problem at all, but rather it is in marketing the good name of "librarian" to a society and culture that gets caught up in the speeding technology?!
What do you think?
William Arthur Liebi
Academic librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek Bern
CH-3000 Bern 7 Switzerland
Voice: +41 +31 320 32 259
Fax: +41 +31 320 32 99
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
INTEGRATED EDUCATION, COMMON DENOMINATIONS
For some years, the Swiss associations of archivists, librarians, and documentalists have been thinking about reshaping the education for the different categories of information professionals. An integrated education is intended, due to begin in autumn 1998. Certifications are planned under the common denominations of "information and documentation assistant" and of "information and documentation economist". There will be a postgraduate study in information and documentation, too.
FINAL SPECIALIZATION
From an archivist's viewpoint, Peter Toebak1 starts with the assumption that archivists, librarians and documentalists share a common basis of knowledge but that the three categories show also particularities. Should there exist a sort of specialization after the fundamental education? Toebak decidedly says yes: Specialization towards the end of the general curriculum permits the archivist and other types of information specialists to reach well grounded theory and practice. Final education should therefore be specific, and continuing education should remain so. The specialized part of education could have a modular form.
1Toebak, Peter: "Verlangen Ordnen und Beschreiben, Bewertung und Kassation eine archivspezifische Aus- oder Fortbildung?" Arbido 12 (1997), Nr. 3 p. 2-5
Bob Watson
Executive Director
Franklin Park Public Library District
10311 Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, IL 60131
bwatson@vax.linc.lib.il.us
I want to thank James Shedlock and the others who have participated so far.
My take on the matter is that we can hardly deinstitutionalize quickly enough if we are to gain a piece of the "information industry" pie. This said, however, there is still room for the "librarian" who tends to the needs of a physical or virtual collection.
And there likely always will be, but we have to ask ourselves whether this person will be primarily a "professional" or a "paraprofessional." As long as this person's responsibility is primarily to "copy catalog" from a database, then this is a paraprofessional. If the duty is to create the database from which the copying is being done, then it is (in the general sense) a professional position since it demands judgment.
And there are, it seems, many databases which need professional attention since computerized "full-text" searching cannot separate the dross from the gold.
In a strong sense, I think one can state that automation has moved us from a "cataloger in each library" state to something like "a cataloger in each state." Except that will always be inefficiencies we need no more catalogers than what we get if we divide the number of items to be cataloged by the average number of items a person can catalog.
Selection, at the local level, will remain a professional task -- though one can logically argue that this is only needed to the degree that local variety warrants. (Not wanting to be confused with the silliness of having a jobber do the selection out of what's in stock.) This latter requires considerable literacy and knowledge.
But all of the other traditional library activities are now taking place, at least partly, in a non-traditional world. How can we not give up the "L" word in order to provide an accurate description of what we do and where we do it?
One last point lest this be thought anti-book. The new jobs, I think, require people who are significantly more literate and flexible than librarians have needed to be in the past. We are now dealing with content, not bindings.
James Shedlock
Director
Galter Health Sciences Library
Northwestern University
303 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Voice: (312) 503-8133
Fax: (312) 503-1204
j-shedlock@nwu.edu
Thanks to Bob for adding to the discussion.
Bob's point is: "My take on the matter is that we can hardly deinstitutionalize quickly enough if we are to gain a piece of the 'information industry' pie." I think this a fair assessment. However, a point from the original posting is whether the 'profession' should try and move as quickly as it can, one way being to put less emphasis on the building and more emphasis on skills for the information age. The education angle is that if we, the practicing professionals, adopt this thinking -- to emphasize skills and less association with a building -- then students will too, and their future will not be limited strictly to building-/facility-related services. Saying that, I realize too that maybe the process is reversed -- that schools are leading the profession via name and curriculum changes! These changes then create tension in the practicing professional who are 'caught' between the realities of the current day, as Bob and others point out, and the desire to be current with new graduates.
Bob also raises the significant question: "How can we not give up the 'L' word in order to provide an accurate description of what we do and where we do it?"
Any other thoughts and comments?
Thanks!
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
I can't agree with the author that libraries will no longer need catalogers. Since I spend my work days doing a mixture of original cataloging, database maintenance and authority work, and verifying "member" copy from OCLC, I cannot see how this detailed work could be done by a paraprofessional. My paraprofessionals handle the Library of Congress-level cataloging copy on OCLC, but even so, they must frequently ask me questions about subject headings, authority work, classification, and descriptive cataloging. And incidentally, with no cataloger around, just who is going to *teach* these paraprofessionals how to do even copy cataloging? I firmly believe that without experienced professional catalogers in the library, the databases will eventually contain a lot of errors which will interfere with accessibility. Having discussed various cataloging questions with my professional public service colleagues in various locations over the years, I doubt that very many of them could "fill in" and answer such questions. Without a professional in-house who understands the cataloging rules, the use of subject headings, the use of the classification system (LC or DDC), and the best way to manipulate the online catalog to display this information accurately, I would expect the catalog itself to deteriorate quickly. Even if one "outsources" much of the cataloging, there must still be experienced people in place to assess the quality of the work and to be sure that local practices and policies are reflected. Administrators who believe that catalogers are not essential simply don't understand the complexities involved. And, oh yes, about those cataloging databases (OCLC, RLIN, etc.): administrators should understand that libraries are expected to contribute their own original cataloging as well as to use records already in the database, and the database providers do not relish having records contributed which do not reflect correct cataloging standards.
In my opinion, library administrators who do not understand the need for professionalism in cataloging are setting forces in motion which will come back to haunt them in ways that they may not be able to anticipate. Those whose eyes are fixed only upon the "bottom line" may think only of "saving money," but it costs less to avoid a disaster than to attempt to repair it once it occurs.
Ronald Naylor
University of Miami Libraries
rnaylor@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Shirley Richardson's eloquent defense of the function of cataloging, and therefore of the importance of catalogers, could be applied to all the other activities - selection, acquisition, reference, instruction, service - - that occur in libraries and that are performed and/or supervised by librarians. I doubt if many practitioners of these crafts advocate their elimination from the institutional library. A significant problem with the practice of our profession today is that when librarians become administrators they forget WHAT they used to do as librarians and HOW it was done.
Simply put, in an academic library, the synergy achieved by a corps of librarians each contributing a particular skill to a specific function, results in significant bibliographic service. Remove one of those functions with its attendant skills and you have a lesser service.
Kitti Canepi
Extended Campus Services Librarian
East Tennessee State University
ETSU/UT at Kingsport
1501 University Blvd.
Kingsport TN 37660
Voice: (423) 392-8011
Fax: (423) 392-8014
canepi@etsu-tn.edu
James Shedlock has raised an interesting point:
"(m)aybe the process is reversed -- that schools are leading the profession via name and curriculum changes! These changes then create tension in the practicing professional who are 'caught' between the realities of the current day, as Bob and others point out, and the desire to be current with new graduates."
If the schools are leading the profession, it is probably because they are, by necessity, more responsive to changes in the market. They have to compete for both students and faculty, and "cutting edge" mentalities are what draw them. The tension between the approaches of new graduates and long-time practitioners is obvious in the often heated discussions regarding using or losing the term "library/librarian." Any time of growth causes tensions such as these - twenty years from now we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Shirley Richardson also makes a good point in her caution against dismissing the need for catalogers just yet. One of the things we must determine during this stage of growth is the costs incurred by moving too swiftly. Accuracy is one of those costs, and we see in the Internet what happens when you are willing to pay that price. We keep proclaiming that one of our greatest values in this information age is our ability to organize, to verify accuracy, to verify authentication. Why do we want to throw that away when it comes to our own databases of MARC records? Any cataloger who has worked with OCLC and LC records, with all their little inaccuracies and inconsistencies, will echo Shirley's fear that "the databases will eventually contain a lot of errors which will interfere with accessibility."
It is difficult to live with parallel, and sometimes conflicting, ways of doing things. Yes, we need to forge ahead, but let's not too quickly discard everything from the past along the way, or we may find, as Shirley says, that we are "setting forces in motion which will comeback to haunt [us] in ways that [we] may not be able to anticipate."
James Shedlock
Director
Galter Health Sciences Library
Northwestern University
303 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Voice: (312) 503-8133
Fax: (312) 503-1204
j-shedlock@nwu.edu
This topic only produced a few responses, though in my opinion, what was offered was significant, especially the analysis and references to the existing literature that touches upon this topic: the changes taking place in librarianship, especially education for the profession.
We started out basically by talking about dissociating the profession from the "L" word -- getting away from being associated with an institution, a building: the library. The idea in the original posting is that maybe librarianship as a profession needs to change faster, to compete more aggressively and that considering a new name might assist it in its haste to join forces with 'other information professionals' to form an even greater profession for the emerging information age.
While no one disagrees with the need to collaborate with all professional groups engaged in information science, information services, education for information management, preservation of information (regardless of format and container), and so on, most everyone believes that the institutional role will remain in the near future (at least, possibly the next 20 years) and that the profession of librarianship is also changing at a proper pace to be associated with the best of the emerging information age. Librarians, essentially, like their distinction, earned by their historical successes toward improving access to the best of recorded knowledge. Librarians also like taking this professional name (and all the baggage -- good and bad -- that goes with it) into the future. Indeed, librarians are shaping that future as much as other information professional groups. The original posting served to play the 'devils' advocate' in testing whether the profession is too complacent in the competition to gain society's attention for leadership in the information age. Again, maybe the profession's problem is marketing.
Part of the background for this discussion was my efforts to test the need to change our associations' names in order to proclaim a new future. I had this in mind specifically for the Medical Library Association. In discussions at Northwestern and at the University of Virginia, the test revealed remarkably similar (uncanny!) conclusions from professional staff - -- no need to change the MLA name (except to think more about the "M" word - -- medical), no good alternative exists yet (one colleague at Northwestern stated 'information professional' to be too "bland"), librarians are proving themselves to be technologically savvy for dealing with user demands, etc. The few postings here in this discussion, I think, are saying the same thing.
For myself, I look forward to reading the literature referenced in this discussion and will keep thinking about the professional and educational issues associated with our changing librarianship.
Add your
comments
to the discussion
 |
 |