As MLIS students we have either asked ourselves or been asked by others why do you need a Masters degree to become a librarian? At first we may not have known the answer to this question but as we continue with our courses the need for an additional degree becomes blatantly clear. Although not everyone in the field of library and information science can agree upon what competencies graduates of LIS programs should have as evident in the Library Journal’s article Task Force’s Recommendations for LIS Accreditation Criticized written by Norman Oder.
The ALA put together a task force for library education to guarantee that LIS programs produced competent and capable graduates who understand the core values of the profession. The task force was asked to produce a report of their final recommendations to ensure that all ALA-accredited LIS programs had the same standards for a ‘core curriculum.’ Once the final report was released the critics of the recommendations emerged.
This article ties into our upcoming readings and discussions on professionalism. I do believe there is a need for some form of standardization for LIS programs but also agree with some of the task force’s critics from the article. I am not sure that a ‘core curriculum’ across the board will work. The deans of iSchools made some good points as to why a ‘core curriculum’ would not work. They stated that we are currently experiencing rapid changes and that LIS students are too diverse to be bound to stagnate standards. Therefore the curriculum must remain flexible to remain updated. It is feared that a set ‘core curriculum’ will not remain relevant over the years and become outdated.
Conversely, it would be nice to graduate knowing that my fellow colleagues with MLIS degrees have the same base knowledge as myself when entering the field. I think either adding to or revising the current ALA Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library & Information Studies would aide in the professionalism of the field from the beginning of a librarian’s career.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The ALA has every right to establish policies with respect to LIS schools that seek accreditation. The idea that schools should incorporate core competencies and ALA core values into their programs is a sound one. Further, the ALA has the right to say that these standards serve as mandates rather than suggestions. The issues are really with the points the ALA has chosen to establish as important precepts for library schools.
I find their requirement for faculty interesting. The ALA proposes that a majority of faculty be “grounded in librarianship by virtue of their educational background, professional experience and/or record of research and publication". I understand the rationale for wanting library school faculty to be librarians in some way, whether by education or experience. However, are they forgetting the “information science” part of the degree?
As Scott Barker, Chair, Informatics, at the University of Washington’s Information School said in the article, not every LIS student wants to work in a library. Some students want to pursue positions in the information or records management fields. These are related, but different fields. By concentrating solely on the librarian-type educated faculty, the ALA could be closing the door to potentially wonderful faculty from other areas of study. Our 6010 professor, for example, does not have a PhD in LIS. That doesn't make her any less competent; in fact, I would argue that her MLIS and “outside” PhD make her a more well-rounded member of the faculty. The ability to both provide experiences from her library work, as well as her PhD studies in a non-disciplinary, problem-based program should make her a welcome addition to WSU.
As we all have learned this semester, the field of library and information science is changing at quite a rapid pace. Librarians across the country are struggling with the new demands placed on them by this economy and the changing environment. The ALA needs to recognize and acknowledge that LIS programs cannot afford to remain static and that rather than prescribing requirements from above, they should allow the LIS schools to evaluate the needs of today's information professionals and establish a current and useful curriculum that will work in any information-type field the student chooses.
I agree with Lynn that the ALA does have every right to establish policies with respect to LIS schools seeking accreditation. However, it seems like the ALA is being narrow minded in their recommendation that permanent faculty have a background in library. When we were at orientation this spring, I think at least half of the students I spoke with were interested in pursuing careers in the record management field. Many of them more specifically mentioned working in healthcare. I just wonder what kind of education and preparation these students will get if the instructor’s only come from a library background.
I guess I am a just a bit surprised by this. Ranganathan wrote that libraries needed to be always evolving and I just don’t feel like the ALA is establishing this in their recommendations for accreditation of LIS programs.
I agree with Laura that the ALA is not setting a good example of a profession that is constantly changing by asking schools with the MLIS program to incorporate core competencies. While I agree that schools that seek to become accreditated should incorporate most of what the ALA recommends (or mandates), not all schools should. I think that schools should have a guideline to base their programs off of, but I think by mandating that each program follow the same classes and reading the same books, students ideas would stifled. Every librarian & information professional thinks different and every work setting will be different, and I believe that having variations in programs will lead to a more exciting profession.
I also do not think that having a requirement for faculty is a good idea. While I believe each faulty member should be familiar with the profession, and have some experience, having a mixture of backrounds would keep classes exciting and well rounded.
I agree with what many of the others have said as far as the ALA being too stringent in keeping with their standards for all programs.
I thought a really interesting line in the article was from Donald O. Case, professor at the College of Communications & Information Studies, University of Kentucky, when he said, “Do they believe that working in the information industry always requires a traditional library background?”
I think that's very true, that there are many jobs in information where a traditional library background many not be as helpful as some other things. And on the flip side, I think it's interesting to think of the things that may come in handy in a "traditional library background" that may not fall under any of these categories. I've heard many librarians discuss the challenges of being a new librarian--dealing with patrons, in particular, that can't be taught.
What I'm getting at is that it seems very difficult to define one set of standards. Although I agree with the idea of incorporating library values, it seems that each program should be evaluate for what it is and what it provides rather than making it fall into a category.
“First, these changes represent a significant narrowing of the LIS field, at a time when the need for information professionals is burgeoning in all areas of human enterprise. At present, almost 30% of LIS graduates do not enter library jobs and the proposed prescriptive emphasis on specific competencies will displace content that addresses non-library-related knowledge and skills.”
Our world is changing at a pace that most of us cannot even attempt to keep up with. When there is no universally accepted definition of even the term "information science" how can you proscribe standards for teaching such science? I applaud the attempt, however.
I agree with Lynn's contention that educators from surrounding fields bring a new flavor, emphasis, and tone to students seeking to enter such a diverse and rapidly changing career field.
No one complains that records are no longer kept on clay tablets or on papyrus scrolls any longer. I'm sure there were complainers at some point, but they have been long forgotten. My point is that things change, but the basic need remains the same. The keeping of records, and access to them when needed later, is what we are all about. Whether it is digital, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Shannon mentioned that people often ask why a Master's degree is needed. I have the same question myself. The further I get into this swamp of information I am starting to learn that all of us may be entering from the same door but our paths are going to diverge very, very quickly. Library science is a vague and vast term simply because so are the career possibilities.
I have gone on Monster.com and entered "librarian" and it is amazing what jobs pop up. The world of business, finance, medicine and many others recognize the value that an MLIS bearer can bring to their organizations, even if they hardly have any books in the building at all.
Organizing information so as to be easily accessible, being able to sift through the valueless and pull out the valuable, finding just the right information at just the right time: these are all time saving services that librarian professionals can and do provide their employers, within or without a traditional "library" setting. And, time is money.
I believe the ALA is trying to put the genie back in the bottle long after he has already escaped, but perhaps there is still something of value to be learned in the attempt.
I would like to voice an idea that may be unpopular; perhaps it is time to separate the ALA from the iSchools? I am not arguing their potentially similar goals, their marriage of convenience, or their outwardly similar tasks in universities. I am not arguing whether or not they should be able to be partners, but maybe it is not in either party’s best interest to be wed to the other. In actuality, iSchools have different educational philosophies that may or may not match the ALA core competencies, but it is an arduous process to go about setting accreditation standards and establishing oneself as a serious, respected organization with the ability to review and grant accreditation to universities (not that they are not respected, but not necessarily as much as the ALA in academic policies). It may be time to start though. If the ALA seriously wants to continue down the road of more traditional “librarianship” and enforce one set of standards, compatibility issues may test this partnership.
I agree with some of the above responses regarding the potentially stricter ALA accreditation standards. I wish to argue the other side. Presently, “when the need for information professionals is burgeoning in all areas of human enterprise” (ASIS&T), I might argue that the ALA is doing exactly the right thing in staking its claim clearly and narrowly on what it means to be a librarian. If each school decides on its own requirements based ‘loosely’ on the ALA standards, the ALA stands to lose credibility, which could in turn mean the profession will suffer. Standards are a slippery slope in all academic fields; the ALA is just one of many struggling with this issue. I think they could take a strong stance and adopt their standards to the “new” world of information, but that may require effort and resources that are simply unavailable at the moment.
I think that these restrictions and enforced compliance with outcomes for sustaining a School's accreditation are quite necessary. Somebody has to put a leash on the universities. What I see everywhere, compared to other countries' education systems, are schools who think their job is to serve their own interests and make money, rather than to provide an affordable service. As Mary Chelton said in the article, "...it looks like the I-schools want three things: places for their Ph.D students to find teaching positions; to keep the MLS/MLIS programs in their schools accredited by ALA so they will continue to have students in those programs; and the freedom to ignore librarianship if it suits them." The cost of an education in this country is already just ridiculous, for both graduate and undergraduate programs. So, I'm absolutely in favor of the ALA regulating LIS programs. They are the ones who should ensure that our courses remain relevant to the industry.
Nor do I disagree with the requirement that the majority of staff should have a library background. I think this is a reasonable requirement. For the most part, they should be able to tie the majority of what they teach to library practices. I wonder if this apparent schism between the information and the library components of the profession really exists in the real world? It seems like they are moving closer all the time, in terms of practice, and it becomes a difference of context, rather than service provided. The library field is already so diverse, it seems to me that it could afford to encompass the information field. I agree with Jen A, that the ALA should be providing these necessary standards, but I also take the point that the profession is changing very quickly. Perhaps the ALA will need to keep up with reinterpreting and updating these standards more often, in accordance with the changes in the industry.
I think that in theory the ALA is doing a great job with accrediting schools and universities and basically teaching them how to teach library students. On the other hand, I know that I have come across some jobs that require an ALA accredidation and in no way does hat particular job warrant it. I know that I could do some of these jobs without even working at a library first. Here's another thought, the library students in this program do not have the same background at all. I studied bones of our ancestors for 4 years. How does that in any way compare to the person with an IT background who will know the components much more than I? I think that we all bring something a little different to this field and need to be treated as such. I would like a curriculum tailored to my weaknesses. if someone has a weakness in that they are an IT person and needs more liberal arts, I am all for that. And vice versa. The inforamtion we come with before even stepping into a classroom is valuable and should be treated as such.
While I can understand the ASIS&T position on the recommendations made in the article, and how they feel they feel the emphasis on certain competencies is “narrowing of the LIS field,” what I do not understand is why would LIS students would be attending library school if not, at least in part, to achieve the competencies of librarianship? Obviously not all of us in the program want to be “librarians” in the traditional sense, but a far few of us do. It almost sounds that they are complaining that the ALA is focusing too much on teaching LIS students to be effective librarians and they will not be happy. I also think that there is a failure on the part of the ASIS&T to see that simply because LIS faculty are educated in “LIS and library-centric curricula” does not mean they do not have unique perspectives to offer on other topics pertaining to information professions or issues pertaining to information services outside the context to the library.
I tend to agree with Kazi. While some policies/guidelines may be a bit strict, there has to be some sort of standardization for LIS programs, and if the programs are to have the "L" in them, then there needs to some librarianship component.
I think it's great that we all have to do 6010 and 6080. At least that gives us the same foundation for when we go into our other classes. I also don't see a problem with records mgmt people having to take certain courses and then being able to choose from electives. Everyone has got to be on the same page as far as the basics go.
As to the faculty element of things, I think that it should be a good enough mix to meet the students' needs. The problem that I have with schools getting too many IS people or people without library backgrounds is that it then becomes too difficult for the faculty to come together and norm their standards and expectations. At least if they have 50% from LIS, they can probably come together on some core competencies for their courses and standards for grading. Getting too many out of field faculty from too many different field could create a real problem for setting school/departmental goals and standards.
Post a Comment