Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
New topic -- "The Dreaded 'L' Word: Emerging Trends in Schools of L* and Information Studies"
Over the holiday break we received a few suggestions for new topics. Unfortunately I have been unsuccessful in scheduling new topics beyond April 1998, which is my busiest time of year. If you have new topics suggestions in mind, please contact me (karen.drabenstott@umich.edu) because it would certainly help me to schedule new topics through May 1998.
Let's begin the new year with the topic "The Dreaded 'L' Word: Emerging Trends in Schools of L* and Information Studies" hosted by our mail list's technical moderator, Steve Wooldridge. Steve is a Ph.D. student in the University of Michigan's School of Information. He earned both bachelor's (mathematics) and master's (library science) degrees from Indiana University in the 1970s. He has worked as a school librarian, a media librarian for two Catholic colleges in Baltimore, and a media librarian at the University of California, Irvine.
Steve's interests are in the cognitive aspects of novices in new environments as well as human computer interaction issues and the design of more effective interfaces for better information products as well as information retrieval.
Please join the discussion.
Steve Wooldridge
swooldri@umich.edu
A few years ago many of us were worried about the survival of library schools as good programs at universities were being closed (e.g., University of Chicago and Columbia University) and it gave serious pause for reflection. Some schools simply went out of existence while others were merged into other programs (e.g., Rutgers). Library schools are not the only programs that have been phased out due to low enrollments -- as you read this, the dental school at Northwestern is scheduled for elimination as they feel they cannot effectively compete with other schools.
However, programs at schools such as the University of Michigan have redefined their missions and foci in order to broaden their perspectives beyond traditional library education so that archives and skills in human-computer interaction might be incorporated so as to effectively prepare students for a rapidly evolving employment market. At the same time curricular changes can attract a larger enrollment base, allowing for successful competition in the academic marketplace.
Name changes in programs have evolved over the years: School of Library Economy, School of Library Science, School of Library and Information Science, School of Library and Information Studies. Of course, these days the trend seems to be to drop the "L" word out of the name of the program (e.g., at the University of Michigan it is now the School of Information). However, there is usually considerable discussion and careful thought that goes into any name change -- there was much discussion here at Michigan. (One criticism proffered over "School of Information" is that everybody in the academy is involved with information -- but then, so is the case with education but there are many Schools of Education). At Michigan, even though the "L" word does not appear in the school name there are various "tracks" -- librarianship, school librarianship, archives, human-computer interaction (HCI).
I am interested in getting reflections and reactions from the CRISTAL-ED participants about the ongoing developments in programs that are trying to prepare students for careers in information.
Ben Speller
North Carolina Central University
Speller@nccu.edu
You have presented quite a few issues under this topic. The issue for me is "Is the library school as we know it going to be the only degree granting unit that will prepare information specialists for a variety of positions in libraries and or organizations that need information counselors, analysts, and managers?"
This could be better stated but I thought I would send it in any case.
Ned Fielden
San Francisco State University
Reference/Instruction
1600 Holloway Ave.
J. Paul Leonard Library
San Francisco, CA 94132-4030
Voice: (415) 338-1454
fielden@sfsu.edu
I agree that this is a rather huge arena for discussion, which may contribute to the paucity of postings, but several intriguing questions prod a response:
"2. What should be added to the curriculum to effectively prepare students for library careers? What should be dropped? Since we are trying to prepare students for a variety of occupations, tracking has been implemented -- so that there is a core curriculum for all students with requirements for the various tracks (librarianship, school librarianship, archives, human-computer interaction). What should be the sine qua non for a central core? What skills and knowledge should be emphasized outside of the core?
"8. What innovative ways can be used to teach students in changing programs that would be different from the traditional library school approach? What ways should we retain?"
One non-trivial example may prove useful to both of these. In a study I undertook some years ago on graduates who were utilizing their MLS (or equivalent) in a wide range of careers, I was struck by how often the graduates said something like "I never wanted to be a cataloger, never enjoyed cataloging, but since I have left and now work on XYZ, I have come to realise how essential that one course was. I couldn't do what I do now without an understanding of the major themes of that one class" Basically, no one should leave home (excuse me) without it.
This was particularly true for folks who had to organise a collection for networked distribution. All kinds of organizations from various US Government agencies to Newspaper image databases to corporate intranets have had to deal with the issues presented by putting up information up on the web (or the like). What many administrators initially viewed as a "simple" process (eg. just get the right techies in place to dump the electronic files up out there on the webserver we just bought so everyone can use them) turned into now familiar nightmare scenarios. How were these files going to be arranged? Who was likely to be looking at them? Do we use a Subject tree or some other means of locating relevant items? Is information that cannot be found any good at all?
MLS degrees happened to have some very excellent qualities to bring to bear on these sorts of projects: primarily a good understanding of information organizational structures, but also an attitude of empathy for and understanding of the potential users. Additionally, MLS grads often had those wonderful humanities- based abilities such as excellent written or oral skills that work well for documentation, and allow them to pass easily between the often conflicting interests of administrators and computer sysops and the like.
So, I would say, there must be some "organization of information" course of some sort, that examines various basic methods of information arrangement, classification schema and the needs of the target user base. I think ideally it should cover more than just the "normal" materials covered by bibliographic records, although a lot of what works for MARC records can have application for non-bibliographic formats as well.
At this point any decent LIS program also has to deal with computer databases in particular and there is plenty to do in the areas of HCI for interfaces and searching mechanisms.
And, a healthy dose of research and writing, for an understanding of the former pays dividends in a multitude of environments and the latter continues to be an essential attribute for anyone even remotely connected to an information profession.
In the new School of Information at the University of Michigan we have new signs at each entrance. They say:
The School of Information
Vision. Community Technology. Practical Engagement.
Scrawled in small letters at the bottom right of one sign is the word, "Libraries". I found this alternately profound and pathetic. I entirely sympathize with the effort to chart new territory and to be much less parochial than the notion of library science. Yet, the new words we use to describe our endeavor seem terribly empty. What school or department at a university is not about vision or practical engagement? To me the word "library" is at least an anchor, not to the past but in uncharted seas. People sometimes know what the word means. I think that the effort to go beyond libraries is often based on a definition of the word "library" that was out of date 30 years ago. After all, librarians did online searching long before Yahoo. They worried about censorship and pornography long before PICS. It would be nice if we could add all this new knowledge and effort to the library profession, rather than invent new, ungainly words. Yet I clearly realize that for a computer scientist, economist, or cognitive psychologist, the choice of an association with a school with library in the title and a School of Information, or School of Information x (you fill in the word), is obvious. It is unfortunate, but true that an association with information is looking forward, and an association with libraries is looking backward. It might make an interesting paper to look at how the word "library" has become an albatross rather than an eagle.
Robert Bauchspies
Middleburg, Virginia
Coordinator@foxcroft.org
I suppose in looking over Steve's questions, we have come full circle regarding curriculum and name changes in library science; "library science" that is, the fog over the science of librarianship. By returning to this topic, we accent what was one of the chief reasons for being for this list, to foster discussion of curriculum change in the library and information science realm of higher education.
I cannot help but ponder that the brooding over the "L" word is both a reaction to current and ongoing events as well as a sentiment deeply embedded in the controversies surrounding "librarianship" in general as well as in the IT age.
Some of these can be listed as:
There are others but while echoed more than once in multiple media, the above list for those in the know, concedes the truth in this bunk. More importantly, they realize the historical context as well as the base sentiments reflecting the servitude and support orientations. Roma Harris and the male library directors...now there's a good conversation.
Truth is, and as I mentioned in a recent "Open Forum" post, the dash from the "L" word was an institutional response to changing student demographics, increased competition for new students (read enrollments), and of course, what technology was/is doing to higher education, the workplace and society in general.
One must understand that what technology has done for the library world is two sided with both positive and negative reference. Duh! you say to such an overly simplistic and accommodating comment but take it further... End users are enabled, space is no longer a prerequisite, information provision leaps clear of many a traditional presentation. If you are Joe anybody and need to know something yesterday, thank God for the Internet if you have half a mind to browse the 25,000+ hits you just received on your use of the latest search engine. On the otherhand, if you decided to read the 'tips' link next to your search space, you can make for dramatic reduction in response if you apply this new "knowledge" thus hopefully arriving at the sooner rather than later satisfaction of your information need. The point is so many have thought in both actual and imagined terms that "librarians" are a vanishing breed. Quite honestly, I don't think so and this has little to do with whether there will be books or not.
Surely we have read of the Hawaii outsourcing episode, or the suite of midwest librarians that were put out to pasture deemed unnecessary as well as the substantial press over all the change with information this and information that and for the academic, it cannot but provoke the kind of musings we have here.
The rub on the information landscape is really about economy. Librarians in non-profit organizations have little to fear for "librarian" is so embedded in culture and society that a "who you gonna call" default remains when one needs to know something. Technology of course changes this dramatically but somebody more than just a systems manager, needs to have skills that involve content awareness, patron interfacing, tool optioning etc should such encounter occur. Corporate libraries, like the one where I work, blur the lines on systems and information service time and time again and yes, I am expected to deliver.
For library education, the chief culprit to the "L" word's demise in the departmental/school marquee, aside from the demographic issue, has to do with the commodification of information in the workplace. The poo pooed knowledge management movement is a logical extension of having an educated and applied workforce with the ambitions of maximizing profit. Hence, the explosion of "information related" curricula, degree programs, tracts and so on. Surely specialization has merit and one can call it anything, but the point is there are core concepts in librarianship which extend well into the IT arena. If there is anybody out there that agrees, I would be interested in seeing their post to what these "core concepts" might be.
The image problem is a tough nut to crack when the MIS graduate gets the high paying job and the librarian does not. You must decide, "Is librarianship for me?" or should I go after one of these new hybrids, hoping that they are more on the beam for my greater career ambitions. And don't forget, aside from a needed understanding of what today's librarian really is, there remains a learning curve for employers for someone who comes to them with a degree in "information studies" seeking employment as well.
I believe it was a post to PACs-L a few years back when this conversation was once again raging, where it was stated something to the effect that those who go after higher education as it is so tied to today's technology, build their careers on sand. I tend to agree. Part of becoming a librarian is understanding the intrinsic value in social and societal context that you serve. In the IT age these values are only that much more challenged, not negated, and what we learn in our graduate education/training should hopefully equip us with, at the very least, a hunger for wanting to know, "see," and do more.
I would suggest that to those who feel the "L" word was rightly disembowelled from departmental and school titles and programs think again. Beyond the academy there are individuals in organizations whose responsibilities are both technologically intensive and information servicing to user and organizational needs. Often they are called librarians. Not matter how savvy the workforce can become in self-satisfying their "information needs" there will be still those who need additional assistance for whatever reason. Most likely they will turn to librarians using both traditional and contemporary tools and skills. An MLS in addition to other skills and knowledge bases would serve a CIO well; as it does many a public librarian today.
Those who "knee-jerk" react and subsequently punt the "L" word should drink less coffee and read more.
Anthony Debons
debons@lis.pitt.edu
I am surprised that in all of these discussions the name of Jesse H.Shera did not surface. Jesse had a lot of important things to say about Library science.
Bob Watson
Executive Director
Franklin Park Public Library District
10311 Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
(847) 455-6016
bwatson@linc.lib.il.us
Off to a nice start, now. :-)
I think the issue needs framing. At the most basic level, does "librarianship" refer to:
If the last, are we talking about various mechanics (search engines and/or hardwares) or are we talking about the relationship of the "professional user" to the information contained in the collection (or obtained through some other means)?
Could be any of these, or all of these, depending upon the context.
What do we mean by "library?" And what do we mean by "librarian?"
Our discussions would likely follow a well-worn path, going back to those who first opposed Dewey's clerical rationalization of our housekeeping tasks. In my view, the systems manager is much more akin to the traditionally (library economy) trained librarian than is the reference librarian or the children's librarian. Both the system's manager and the technical services librarian are concerned with the mechanics of the library, the mechanics of access -- the rationalization of the machinery.
The public service folk are generally more interested in outputs, in how the "library machine" performs its public duty of making information available. This requires a different set of tools and "professional" library users.
It is an old, old argument and an old "difference." But still, I think, a good one to reflect upon.
Johan Koren
Hogskolen i Nesna
Nesna College
Samlingsutvikling (Collection Development) Postboks 166
N-8601 MO I RANA
Norway
Voice: +47-751 29780
johan@rana.fylkesbibl.no
This is getting to be an interesting discussion, and I'd like to drop in with a viewpoint from Norway, as director of a modest year-long program which attempts to cover collection development in libraries, museums and archives.
Consider that ICOM, the International Council of Museums, defines a museum as "a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment." This definition could comfortably include at least many types of libraries and their collections, and archives as well, for that matter. The "difference" seems to come in the traditional philosophies of the professionals from the different institutional types, but even there the boundaries are blurring. W. Boyd Rayward has a very interesting keynote address on this from an Australian conference in 1995, "Libraries, Museums and Archives in the Digital Future: The Blurring of Institutional Boundaries," available on the Internet.
Mary K. Chelton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial
Emporia, Kansas 66801
Voice: (36) 341-5071
Fax: (316) 342-6391
mchelton@cadvantage.com
Before I comment on other questions posed, I would like to suggest that the hopelessly undefined "I" word is equally dreaded by many of us, and I am unhappy to see this list participate in the further stigmatization of "library" and "librarianship." Furthermore, all these name changes have occurred under the revised standards of the ALA Committee on Accreditation without much review from the larger ALA membership who foot the bill for the Office of Accreditation. What this means is that these schools are guaranteed the "imprimatur" of accreditation (i.e., students) while they continue to marginalize what many of these students come there for.
What I find most troublesome in these discussions is the automatic assumption that the functions of information professionals are the same, regardless of the vastly different contexts, audiences and ethics of the public and private sectors. These differences should not be relegated, in my opinion, to elective courses within the curriculum. Part of the core should address these questions frontally by discussing differences rather than blurring them. I also think that these programs should deconstruct the rhetoric of the "information age," which we are not only awash in, but seem to accept pretty mindlessly for reasons of self-perpetuation as units of higher education.
In other words, I think the questions we are asking are possibly wrong.
As a product of the "Rutgers Model," I can only say not to do it unless a school can create one faculty. Rutgers is merged in name only with a lot of energy wasted at the department level on competition for resources, status and predominant paradigms. As an economic marriage-of-convenience, it works fine for external audiences, but it is a mess internally, despite having some of the smartest people I have ever met in one place.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|