“Crisis as Opportunity: The Shaping of Library and Information
Science
Education in the United States”
Joan C. Durrance, Professor
University of Michigan School of Information
I am honored to be here on occasion of the
50th anniversary of the Japan Society of Library and Information
Science(JSLIS) and I extend my congratulations and bring greetings from the
Association of Library and Information Science Education and the University of
Michigan School of Information. I am
honored to speak about a topic of vital importance to LIS educators—the shaping
of library and information science education in the 21st
Century. (1)
Today I will discuss change in LIS education in the United
States and the trends identified in the recent KALIPER project. KALIPER itself— the Kellogg-ALISE
Information Professions and Education Reform project—was funded by a major U.S.
philanthropic foundation, the W.K.Kellogg Foundation in response to the
fundamental changes that occurred in the larger information world in the past
decade or more. KALIPER has received
considerable attention and I am pleased to talk about it. I chaired that project’s Blue Ribbon
Advisory Committee and others have frequently discussed the relatively positive
findings of KALIPER. KALIPER found that
LIS programs appear to be changing on a number of fronts—curricula are
addressing broad-based information environments and information problems, LIS
curricula are incorporating perspectives from other disciplines, they are
becoming more user centered, there has been an infusion of information
technology, and the structure of the curriculum is changing. Today I plan to discuss these trends and
those that have become even more pronounced in the past three years.(2)
For these findings to be understood they must be seen within
a larger framework. The one I have
chosen is crisis-opportunity. The
framework I will use today is aimed to show how the situation today is at once similar
to LIS education shortly after the turn of the 20th Century (facing
a major crisis that threatened the institution) and at the same time fundamentally
different (the crisis affects the an information world that is considerably
larger than libraries). Leaders in the
early 20th Century recognized and responded to that early
crisis. The information revolution, on
the other hand, has resulted in fundamental changes in the information world
that have major implications—and considerable opportunity (or loss)—for LIS
education. (3)
Origins of Modern LIS
Education—A Knowledge and Personnel Crisis
Modern LIS education does not share the long, rich history
of libraries, those institutions that for centuries have given order to
knowledge. Libraries as organized collections of important and rare materials
date back hundreds of years. Japan’s
KANAZAWA-BUNKO, for example, dates from 1275.
Historically, because books were very costly and were created by hand,
libraries were uncommon and were amassed only by rulers and wealthy landowners.
These libraries were generally kept by well-read and educated scholars who
served as librarians. (4)
The crisis that resulted in the need to create formal programs
in library education came with the rapid development of public libraries in the
United States during the latter part of the 19th Century. At the time that the public library began to
take root the U.S. was a new nation, less than a hundred years old with a large
population of immigrants. The first tax
supported public library in the world was formed in a small town in the U.S. in
the 1830s. By the mid 1870s, there were
approximately 300 public libraries in the U.S.
Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant himself, coming to the U.S. from Scotland
as a lad with a few pennies in his pocket and rising to become one of the
richest industrialists in America, used his great wealth to create one of the
first major philanthropic organizations—or foundations—in the U.S, the Carnegie
Corporation (Foundation). Carnegie’s
philanthropy provided the impetus and the excitement among city fathers and
other wealthy industrialists across America to take the steps necessary to help
start tax supported public libraries.
By 1900 there were over 1000 public libraries in the United States and
just 20 years later that number had doubled to over 2000 libraries! Between
1890 and 1920 the Carnegie Corporation (Foundation) had spent millions of 19th
Century dollars to pay for public library buildings in hundreds of communities.
(5)
But the crisis? This
rapid innovation resulted in thousands of libraries, but very few people with
the skills needed to run them. This
resulted in various efforts to fill the gap. Within the next few years the
first cataloging rules had been written, published, and disseminated to a
number of libraries where they began to be adopted. Dewey’s Decimal Classification System was improved on and an
international approach to classifying the world’s knowledge, the Universal
Decimal System, was developed. By 1915
the first library education association, the Association of American Library
Schools, now called the Association for
Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) was formed.
All the while Carnegie and other philanthropists were prodding local elected
officials and political leaders to join with the foundation to build libraries
across America, greatly strengthening the cultural centers of many, many
communities. (6)
As good stewards of their
investment, the Carnegie leadership began to ask about the quality of the
librarians who were running these new libraries. The full extent of the crisis was revealed by the first study of
library education in 1923. Charles
Williamson, funded by Carnegie, found that education for librarianship in those
early days after the rapid development of public libraries to be extremely
bleak and conducted largely outside of university settings.[1] The report made a group of very ambitious
recommendations that ultimately resulted in graduate library education, the
creation of standards to assure quality, and faculty who would study the
problems of librarianship. (7)
To foster the recommended
changes, Carnegie provided financial assistance to a group of fledgling
university library science programs.
The reforms that resulted from the Williamson Report had the desired
effect of raising the level of knowledge of the faculty and the quality of
instruction both at individual programs and at a field level. It is important to note that this crisis was
library-centered and the opportunity—creating training programs designed to
solve the problems associated with the rapid development of a single
institution also focused narrowly.
Leaders developed educational programs for libraries. This narrow
construct, focusing education on a single institution did, indeed, solve the
immediate problem, but in the process it contributed to sewing the seeds for
later crises in library and information science education. (8)
Leon Carnovsky, a renowned
faculty member at the University of Chicago, who spent some time teaching librarianship in
post-war Japan, indicated in 1937 that:
Librarianship as a field of research is still
relatively untried discipline. The
opportunity for implementing it with significant investigations looms large
before those who would be pioneers, provided they are willing to cast off too
conventional modes of thought and have the courage to break new ground.[2](9)
Indeed, knowledge growth in
the field was relatively slow at first with the University of Chicago being the
only PhD granting institution in the field.
By mid-century only approximately 20% of library school faculty had PhDs.
Starting in the 1960s the availability of federal government funding for
fellowships for doctoral study greatly increased the numbers of PhDs capable of
conducting research. By the 1970s 50% of faculty had PhDs and in the 1970s and
1980s the knowledge base of the field grow rapidly with more of a focus on the
use of information technologies to store and retrieve information and on ways
to increase access to content (knowledge and information). By the 1980s, when 78% of faculty had PhDs,
a few researchers began to focus on the process of information seeking and
use. As a result, these decades brought
research that not only focused on library topics such as the use of library
services, library history, online public access, and catalog use, but also more broadly on information storage and
retrieval, database development, the value of information, bibliometrics, and
on such topics as information needs and seeking. (10)
These decades brought the
field research that changed library science into library and information
science and sewed the seeds for a paradigm shift in research and thus education. LIS programs began to focus more broadly on
information environments and information problems both in faculty research and
curriculum development. As faculty
broadened their research foci, schools began to see themselves as focusing both
on libraries and on information. By the
late 1980s a number of schools incorporated information into the names of their
schools. Thus over several decades LIS
education had shifted from a narrow library focus to a broader information
framework. By the 1990s, 90% of LIS
faculty had earned the PhD degree.
These research faculty continued to broaden the focus of LIS research,
resulting in stronger LIS programs. (11)
By the time of the KALIPER
study, a small group of influential programs had dropped “Library” from their
names. The KALIPER study findings are
an indicator that the broadened focus of LIS education over the last decade or
so helped to position leading LIS programs for the crisis/opportunity that
resulted from the rise of the Internet and the World Wide Web. (12)
A Crisis in Professional Knowledge At the End of the 20th
Century—
The Information Technology Revolution
The library environment,
itself, has changed considerably in the past few decades. Librarians, too, have adopted digital
information technologies for their work.
Libraries and librarians have always been early adopters of information
technologies. For decades librarians have applied computerization to library
operations. Standardization and
computerization of bibliographic records decades ago made possible automation
of library systems, the creation and utilization of giant bibliographic
utilities such as OCLC and UTLAS which brought shared cataloging, on-line
public access catalogs, bibliographic databases, enhanced interlibrary loan and
document delivery, and acquisition of information in digital formats. (13)
Nonetheless the revolution
in information technologies in the mid-1990s hit the information profession of
librarianship and education for librarianship like an earthquake. The Internet
brought radical changes in access to information content and in the abilities
of people to communicate and collaborate around knowledge. Computer scientists
promised that intelligent agents would provided access to Internet content
bypassing intermediaries, including librarians. Some librarians feared that the Internet would make both
libraries and librarians superfluous.
Some library educators, by the same logic, felt doomed. It is not difficult to see that the Internet
and the changing information infrastructure brought at least fear of a crisis
by the mid 1990s. So many articles have been written about the influence of the
Internet that it seems unnecessary to bring any additional background to this
statement. It is sufficient to say that
the Internet created a new information landscape—just as an earthquake might.
The Internet, built by computer scientists, provided radically new kinds of
information flow. (14)
The Internet as a force and
a phenomenon could not be ignored in the 1990s and cannot be ignored today. At
first the Internet changed the ways that scientists and scholars work. It very quickly changed the way that people
think about getting information and influenced the way that commerce is conducted
as well as the ways that people communicate with each other. Increasing waves of people became convinced
that all the information they needed was readily available on the
Internet. However, LIS researchers and
librarians recognize that there are a number of misconceptions about the Internet. Christine Borgman of UCLA says.
The claim that the Internet will replace libraries
often is based on questionable assumptions.
Three common misconceptions are that all useful information exists
somewhere on the Internet, that information is available without cost, an that
it can be found by anyone willing to spend enough time searching for it.[3]
The Internet provided
libraries and LIS education with a major challenge. The broadly framed Internet
crisis set the stage for the KALIPER study and report. Like the Carnegie
Corporation’s activities at the turn of the 20th Century, the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation provided an opportunity for LIS education to examine itself
during this period of radical change.
(15)
KALIPER—Evidence
that LIS Programs Can Turn Crisis into Opportunity
Seeing the Internet
revolution in its infancy and fearing a crisis in the delivery of information
by libraries and in education for librarians that would result in these
institutions falling hopelessly behind, the Kellogg Foundation developed a
program initiative designed to assure that information professionals would be
able increase access to “knowledge and resources” with the aim of improving the
“quality of life” for people. The concern
at the time was that, without intervention, the
Internet revolution might very well render libraries and librarians irrelevant.
Kellogg invited several LIS programs to create radical changes in education for
information professionals. A proposal
by the University of Michigan identified both strengths and weaknesses in the
intellectual constructs of such fields as LIS, computer science-engineering,
and management information systems. [4] It then proposed a model for information
education that would mobilize the strengths of multiple disciplines. (16)
Kellogg generously funded
the proposal for the creation of a multi-disciplinary approach to information
research and education at Michigan.
Kellogg, understanding that LIS programs had been under-funded, provided
a major infusion of funds. The grant
provided funds for interdisciplinary faculty hiring, the means to develop a
major research arm of the School, extensive information infrastructure support
for both research and curriculum development, strengthening of mechanisms for
enriching student experiences both in the classroom and through practical
engagement experiences, and the mechanism for knowledge growth, curriculum
development, and testing new models of information delivery. In the process this grant—coupled with a
major digital library grant from several federal agencies—transformed
Michigan’s School of Information and Library Studies into the School of
Information. (17)
There is no question that
the major infusion of foundation and federal funds and the growth of knowledge
in the field had transformed selected programs. Toward the end of the 1990s the question in the minds of LIS
leadership focused on the extent to which other programs had changed. The 1997
conference of the Association for Library and Information
Science Education (ALISE), entitled “Reinventing the
Information Profession” featured
interdisciplinary speakers, highlighted some of the recent changes in LIS
education, and challenged participants to think
critically about the interdisciplinary nature of education for a changing
profession. This conference received funding from the Kellogg Foundation and Kellogg
leadership were present.(18)
Following the conference a group of
ALISE leaders approached the Kellogg Foundation for additional funds to look
broadly at educational changes being made at schools of library and information
science and in 1998 research on the KALIPER project began. KALIPER asked: “What evidence/indicators
that suggest dynamic curricular changes are occurring in the education for
information professionals?” (19)
The KALIPER Report, the most important
study of LIS education since the Williamson Report, was issued in 2000. The
KALIPER Report Executive Summary[5],
available on the web, has been very well received by library and information
science education both in North America and elsewhere. Unlike the Williamson
Report which found early library education in disarray, KALIPER found active
movements toward change in the education of information professionals for
libraries and other information environments.
KALIPER reports have been given at major associations and have appeared
on the Internet. A number of articles
have presented the KALIPER findings,[6]
In addition, KALIPER has fostered discussions of LIS education in various other
countries, including Japan. In the
three years since the completion of KALIPER, the trends identified in 2000 have
become even more pronounced. I will
briefly discuss these trends focusing on recent actions and examples of
leadership(20)
TREND #1: In addition to libraries as
institutions and library-specific operations,
Library and Information Science
(LIS) curricula are addressing broad-based
information environments and
information problems.
LIS education has changed from a library-focused
Ptolemaic model to an information-focused Copernican paradigm. By the time of the Internet “crisis”, LIS
programs showed a rapid adoption of an information-focus. KALIPER scholars
found that faculty were very much aware that information professionals need to
develop a “big picture” view of the information world. Courses were seen as
being framed toward broad information environments. They found that schools were marketing both to a diverse student
body and a diverse set of employers without, in the process, eliminating
libraries as job targets for their graduates. (21)
Based on the KALIPER examination of mission
statements, course titles, descriptions and syllabi LIS schools proclaim their
domain as covering cognitive and social aspects of how information and
information systems are created, organized, managed, priced, disseminated,
filtered, routed, retrieved, accessed, used, and evaluated. LIS programs are incorporating approaches to
dealing with a variety of new problems into the curriculum including those
associated with traditional content with an eye to increasing access to users,
including broader information access questions, redefining collections to
better incorporate the virtual, implication of digital libraries, and the
blurring of institutional
boundaries. (22)
A POST-KALIPER LOOK At TREND 1.
A Move to Information Programs.
The number of LIS programs
that have made major changes in their approaches to examining broad-based
information problems and information environments and changed their names in
the process has increased considerably since the Kellogg Foundation invested in
a small group of LIS programs. Just
five years ago there were only a handful of such schools. In looking recently at the list of programs
accredited by the American Library Association, I found that number to have
tripled. There are now fourteen
programs that have dropped Library from their names and I expect this number to
grow.(23)
The developing critical
mass of information schools has enormous potential for actually creating a new
information discipline, something I will examine at the end of my remarks.These
changes send important messages both to local universities (where computer
science programs and business schools have claimed the information domain), and
to the library profession which has expressed some concern that these moves
reflect an abandonment of educating librarians as information
professionals. (24)
TREND #2: While LIS curricula incorporate
perspectives from other
disciplines, a distinct core has
taken shape that is predominantly user-centered.
This trend addresses two important
and related areas; it encompasses both increased user-centeredness and
increased Interdisciplinarity (often bringing different disciplinary views of
the user). How
people get and use information has an increasingly prominent role in the
curriculum with courses on user-centered design of information retrieval
systems, information search strategy, and information-seeking behavior. The missions of most LIS schools
as well as the emerging Information Schools are user-centric. The University of Michigan’s
School of Information’s core mission, for example, is based on an integrated
approach to the study, design, and management of information systems, in
particular bringing people, information, and technology together in more
valuable ways.(25)
There has been an infusion of multidisciplinary perspectives into
LIS curricula results as LIS faculty have broadened their focus beyond
libraries, as faculty from multiple disciplines are hired, and as faculty
conduct research with other from cognate fields. These perspectives emerge as
well when schools offer joint programs/courses or team teach with faculty from
other departments. Whether it’s due to
a shortage of LIS faculty or a perceived need to hire from outside, the faculty
at several schools are growing increasingly multidisciplinary with new hires
and through additional joint appointments.
For example, faculty hired at the University of Michigan since the
School became the School of Information include those with degrees in public
policy, electrical engineering,
computer science, business, linguistics, psychology, and economics. (26)
Information-focused programs focus on individuals, groups or
societies. An increasing number of core courses or course elements address
information seeking and use. In core
revisions, the incorporation of instruction in information seeking was seen in
varying degrees of granularity ranging from the cognitive issues of personal
information seeking and use to the broad-based role of information in practice
and discourse communities. Schools have also
increased the numbers of faculty whose interests focus on human-computer
interaction which focuses
on designing, developing, and evaluating technologies that fit the capabilities
of the user.(27)
A POST-KALIPER LOOK AT
TRENDS 1&2: Expanded interdisciplinary research that focuses broadly on
information problems & environments.
KALIPER addressed a variety of curricular and support questions, but
did not directly address research in an attempt to maintain a reasonable
focus. It is important to note that the move from a
library-centered paradigm to an information-centered paradigm and the increased
Interdisciplinarity of LIS has resulted in an ability to identify frameworks
that more effectively explain the types of research conducted by LIS
faculty. The figure, “Broad Groupings of LIS/IS
Research at the Beginning of the New Century,” that appears in Appendix A was compiled for
this presentation and is based on an examination of the LIS research and LIS
program websites that feature faculty research. It
groups LIS research into five broad categories—information technologies,
content, information systems, human information behavior, and the final, cross-cutting
categories. It reveals the breadth of
contemporary research interests across a wide range of information environments
and information problems. It shows that
LIS researchers look broadly at problems associated with increasing access to
information so that information can be used more effectively. However, it does not suggest that
researchers have abandoned libraries as a topic of research. (28)
TREND
#3: LIS
schools programs are increasing the investment & infusion of information
technology into their curricula.
The increase in investment in information technology infrastructures and the infusion of information technology into the curricula should not be simply dismissed as a sign of the times. Something more meaningful is occurring that’s having long-reaching effects. The intense focus on most anything digital is undoubtedly redefining LIS education as we add more core courses and electives to the curriculum, infuse existing courses with digital elements, and seek out more faculty who can teach in these areas. Information technology is attractive, it’s fast becoming the glue of our daily existence, and market forces and funders of education and research are willing to support IT development and use. For these same reasons, the parent institutions want programs that lead in teaching and research on the electronic frontier. (29)
Information technologies continue to
explode requiring LIS programs to continue IT development and to hire faculty
capable of incorporating both knowledge and skills into the curriculum. Some schools such as those who participated
in the federally funded digital library initiatives are conducting research for
cyber-infrastructure development, the comprehensive, advanced infrastructure
based on information and communication technology, including the Global
Information Infrastructure and preparation for the next generation of
information technologies. Faculty in LIS and
information schools continue to make strong contributions to the knowledge base
in this area.[7] Prof. Dan Atkins at the University of
Michigan School of Information recently chaired the National Science
Foundation’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyber Infrastructure that produced a major
set of recommendations that are expected to have wide-ranging impact on the
cyber-infrastructure of the United States.[8](30)
TREND
#4: LIS
schools and programs are experimenting with the structure of specialization
within the curriculum.
Schools involved with KALIPER indicated that they were “rethinking specializations” including offering more generic curricula, adding new specializations such as medical informatics, or developing joint degrees with other schools.(31)
At Michigan students may specialize in one of four Master of Science
in Information (MSI) areas: library and information services; archives and
records management; information economics, management and policy; or
human-computer interaction. A “tailored” option allows students
to design their own curriculum. It
allows students to combine specializations to suit a particular career
interest, or pursue areas which have not yet become formalized specializations,
for example information architecture or
community information. The option to
design an interdisciplinary program appears to be increasingly available to
students a various LIS programs.(32)
As part of preparing students for specialization some schools impose
program entry and/or exit requirements, such as work experience in industry, or
require their students to complete practical engagements or compile graduation
portfolios that describe their field experiences during their programs. Other exit requirements include successfully
completing internships or other practical engagement activities. (33)
TREND
#5: LIS
schools and programs are offering instruction in different formats to provide
students with more flexibility.
Flexibility in the curricula is perhaps nowhere as evident as in
instructional formats. Today’s students
have more choice than ever regarding course length, day and time of course
offering, and on or off campus meetings.
Traditionally, distance education courses were offered in a different
physical location; within the past few years there are an increasing number of
off-campus courses offered via some form of telecommunication and/or via the
Internet. (34)
A POST-KALIPER LOOK AT
Trend 5: Distance Education
Ten years ago only 10 North American schools offered courses using
this new option. Now 36 programs provide technology assisted distance-education
degrees.[9] For example, the University of Illinois’s
Graduate School of Library and Information Science Education’s distance
education programs have served as excellent alternative delivery models for
several years. Illinois’ nationally recognized faculty
combine brief periods of on-campus instruction with Internet instruction and
independent learning. Students complete most of their course work at the site
they choose--usually their home or office using advanced technologies that
provide live, Web-based instruction. (35)
TREND #6: LIS schools and programs are
expanding their curricula by offering related degrees at the undergraduate,
master’s, and doctoral levels.
A Post KALIPER Look At Trend 6: New degrees
This is an area of continued
growth in the three years since the KALIPER report was issued. Some LIS or Information School programs have
several different master’s degrees. The
area of most growth has been the addition of undergraduate programs. A number of schools have developed
or are developing innovative undergraduate programs
(majors and/or minors). Undergraduate degrees are offered in such areas as:
Information Technology; Information Science; Information Systems; or
Information Technology and Informatics.
In several schools those seeking
undergraduate degrees comprise more than a third of the student body. (36)
In sum, the changes identified in
North American LIS programs by KALIPER scholars have continued and accelerated,
thus shaping LIS education for the new digital era. The most noticeable changes have been in increased
Interdisciplinarity, the move toward curricular developments and research that
focus broadly on information problems and environments, and the move toward the
development of information schools. LIS programs are stronger than ever. Students better understand the needs that
people have for information and how to more effectively assist them in getting
the information they need, they gain skills in using information technologies, they
have a broader understanding of information systems. These changes have not
only prepared LIS education for the digital age, they have also moved LIS
education toward a new potential crisis born of the Internet, the convergence
of various disciplines, each making some claim on control of the Internet.(37)
Convergence Toward Creating and Defining a New
Discipline?
Conditions are ripe either for the
field’s most serious crisis or for an unparalleled opportunity. The digital earthquake changed the
information landscape. The Internet has created an uneasy playground for a disparate group
of professionals and researchers providing both threat and promise. Various competing players each breaking out
of formerly narrow constructs have claimed primacy on the Internet. The Internet crisis has resulted in a new
set of problems that need to be solved and competing interests with different
solutions.(38)
Eight years ago, light years in
the rapidly changing cyber world, two LIS researchers,
using an ecological metaphor compared library science education to the Panda
Syndrome. Referring to the panda’s
preference for a single plant, they noted that the cute, well-loved, animal is
nearing extinction because of its limited ecological niche. They argued that traditional LIS education
programs were doomed to extinction. They warned that
LIS education is operating in an extremely dynamic and highly competitive environment. The growing importance of information, developments in information technology and the information environment, and LIS' own efforts at adaptive radiation have created an ecological convergence between LIS and other professions and professional education programs both in LIS' traditional niche (e.g., "digital libraries") and new niches (e.g., information management). The information field is undergoing radical change, and LIS is not the only profession seeking to claim jurisdiction.[10] (39)
Examples of converging and competing
interests include: the development of
various informatics programs, most commonly medical informatics in Medical
Schools and information management programs in Business Schools. (40)
With the rapid rise of the personal computers in the 1980s and the urgent need to improve computer interfaces for non-computer scientists, the sub-field of computer science now known as human-computer interaction (HCI) emerged. Its primary professional organization, the Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) developed in the early 1980s as a Special Interest Group of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). HCI programs exist in a number of universities. Scores of programs are emerging from computer science that focus broadly in preparing students broadly for careers in information technology. These programs are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary with the realization that the knowledge from a single discipline is inadequate either to conduct research or to develop relevant curricula. (41)
Another initiative is focused on bringing together a community of deans of information schools that initially consisted of information-focused programs from computer science. This group has been meeting under the auspices of the major US association focused on research in information and computing, the Computing Research Association (CRA) (www.cra.org). CRA started originally as a membership association of computer science departments, but has expanded to include the other kinds of programs. These two notable initiatives are beginning to converge with former LIS programs becoming active in the CRA discussions. At present about fifty programs, including a group of leading LIS/IS schools, are participating in the CRA initiative. These meetings focus on examining the implications of the convergence of various disciplines into a common domain and building a conceptual picture of the intellectual territory covered by all the research and instruction programs. A major conference to examine the intersection of interests represented by a variety of academic programs is planned for summer 2004. (46)
While it is still
possible that the Internet revolution will swamp LIS/IS education, it appears
to me that recent efforts by thought leaders from a variety disciplines,
including LIS, are likely to succeed in bringing an interdisciplinary
convergence that will result in forging a new discipline that will more
effectively develop and harness technologies, systems and practices with the
aim of bringing the benefits of convergence to society. These efforts are based on the assumption
that achieving these benefits will require the intellectual power and energies
for multiple disciplines. I leave you
with a quote from Christine Borgman who speaks for many LIS educators.
Access to information is too important a problem to leave entirely to government officials, corporate policy makers, librarians, archivists, computer scientists, or lawyers. Rather it is a problem faced by people in all walks of life, at most stages of life, in all parts of the world.[12] (47)
Thank you very much for inviting me to share with you the 50th Anniversary of the Japan Society of Library and Information Science. It is a great honor to share this anniversary with you. (48)
Resources
Abbott, Andrew D. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Borgman, Christine. From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Networked World (MIT Press, 2000), Denise A. Troll Covey. How and Why Are Libraries Changing? White paper, presented to the Digital Library Federation. January 2001. http://www.diglib.org/use/whitepaper.htm
Cox, Richard J.; Yakel, Elizabeth; Wallace, David; Bastian, Jeannette A.; Marshall, Jennifer. “Archival Education in North American Library and Information Science
Durrance, Joan C. and Karen Pettigrew. “KALIPER:A Look at Library and
Information Science Education at the Turn of the New Century.” In: 1999
Bowker Annual. N.Y. R.R.Bowker,
1999. Pp. 266-281.
Heim, Kathleen M. “The changing faculty mandate.” Library Trends. Spring 1986, 581-606.
King, John L. and Margaret Hedstrom: “On The LAM: Libraries, Archives,
and Museums in the Creation and Sustainment of Knowledge Communities.” Invited
paper for the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. 2003.
Mary Jo Lynch, Ed. Library Trends. Spring 2003. Special issue entitled “Research questions
for the 21st Century” devoted to articles written by field experts.
Paris, Marion. Library
School Closings: Four Case Studies. Metuchen, NJ. Scarecrow Press, 1988.
Pettigrew, K. E., & Durrance, J. C. (2001). (Eds). “KALIPER: Introduction and overview of results.” Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 42.(3), 170-180. Entire issue devoted to KALIPER findings.
Pettigrew, Karen and Joan C. Durrance. ”KALIPER Study Identifies Trends in Library
and Information Science Education” In: 2000
Bowker Annual.
Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: A Report from the U.S. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Daniel E. Atkins, Chair. January 2003. http://www.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/
Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science. N.Y. Neal Schuman, 2000.
Sutton, Stuart A. (2001) “Trends, trend projections, and crystal ball
gazing.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science.42(3):241-47.
.
Van House, Nancy and Stuart A. Sutton. “The Panda Syndrome: An ecology
of LIS education,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
37 (2), 1996:131-47
Van Slyck, Abigail. Free to All : Carnegie Libraries &
American Culture, 1890-1920.
Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998
Welch, Theodore F. Libraries and Librarianship in Japan. Westport, CT, 1997.
Williamson,
Charles Clarence. Training For Library
Service. New York. 1923
Appendix A.
Broad Groupings of LIS/IS Research at the
Beginning of the New Century[13]
|
Information
Technologies |
Information/ Knowledge
(Content) |
Information
Systems |
Human
Information Behavior |
Cross-Cutting
Areas |
|
technology
capabilities and limitations historical
aspects (including various information technology innovations) issues;
legal questions impacts
of IT identifying
and selecting information technologies human
factors in technology specific
information technologies such as the internet and web technologies cyber-infrastructure |
defining
the nature of information and its value life-cycle
of information publishing
(including electronic) physical
and virtual collections economics
of information costing
and pricing of information and information services value-added
functions bibliometrics;
webmetrics |
information
storage and retrieval computerized
information systems user-centered
design of information systems approaches
to organization of knowledge/information increasing
system capabilities search
retrieval models database
and file structure computer-human
interfaces expert
systems & intelligent agents studies
of use of the system or information resources |
information
needs information seeking and search
processes characteristics
of information users information
use and uses human
information interaction information
literacy impacts
(outcomes) of information use effects
of information on decision-making communication
and professional practice designed to increase access to information
(including service development) |
Historical
aspects Management
approaches and concerns Evaluation
approaches and issues Information
policy Methods |
[1] Williamson, Charles Clarence. Training For Library Service. New York. 1923
[2] Heim, Kathleen M. “The changing faculty mandate.” Library Trends. Spring 1986, 581-606;, Quote from p. 591.
[3] Borgman, Christine. From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Networked World (MIT Press, 2000), p. 194
[4] Educating Human Resources for the Information and Library
Professions
of the 21st Century. A Proposal to the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation from the Faculty of The [University of Michigan] School
of Information and Library Studies.
1996. http://www.si.umich.edu/cristaled/Kelloggproposal.html
[6] Durrance, Joan C. and Karen Pettigrew. “KALIPER:A Look at Library and Information Science Education at the Turn of the New Century.” In: 1999 Bowker Annual. N.Y. R.R.Bowker, 1999. Pp. 266-281. Pettigrew, K. E., & Durrance, J. C. (2001). (Eds). “KALIPER: Introduction and overview of results.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42.1, 170-180. Pettigrew, Karen and Joan C. Durrance. ”KALIPER Study Identifies Trends in Library and Information Science Education” In: 2000 Bowker Annual.
[7] For example Christine Borgman, a faculty member at UCLA, wrote in 2000 an excellent presentation on the emergence of the global information. Christine L. Borgman. From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: Access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000.
[8] Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: A Report from the U.S. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Daniel E. Atkins, Chair. January 2003. http://www.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/
[9] Daniel, Evelyn and Jerry D. Saye. “Highlights of the 2001 ALISE Statistical Report with a five and ten year comparison of key data elements.” http://www.ils.unc.edu/ALISE/2001/Highlights.htm
[10] Van House, Nancy and Stuart A. Sutton. “The Panda Syndrome: An ecology of LIS education,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 37 (2), 1996:131-47.
[11] Borgman, pp. 33-52.
[12] Borgman, p. 269..
[13] This table is influenced both by examination of individual research profiles of LIS faculty on School websites and Ch. 2 of Richard Rubin. Foundations of Library and Information Science, N.Y.: Neal-Schuman, 2000. (especially pp. 23-53).