ED 352 032 AUTHOR McClure, Charles R.; Hert, …DOCUMENT RESUME ED 352 032 IR 054 253 AUTHOR McClure, Charles R.; Hert, Carol A. TITLE Specialization in Library/Information Science

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 352 032 IR 054 253

AUTHOR McClure, Charles R.; Hert, Carol A.TITLE Specialization in Library/Information Science

Education: Issues, Scenarios, and the Need forAction.

PUB DATE Nov 91NOTE 23p.; Paper presented at the Conference on

Specialization in Library/Information ScienceEducation (Ann Arbor, MI, November 6-8, 1991).

PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Accreditation (Institutions); *Change Strategies;

*Educational Environment; Educational History;Graduate Study; Higher Education; *InformationScience Education; Information Scientists; LibraryEducation; *Library Schools; ProfessionalOccupations; *Specialization; Undergraduate Study

ABSTRACTLibrary/Information Science (LIS) education is facing

cataclysmic change brought about by changes in the informationprofessions. LIS education must provide education for the evolvinginformation professions or it will become obsolete. Two centralcharacteristics describe the status of LIS schools and their likelyevolution. First is the depth and range of their programs. Someschools offer only one degree, the MLS (Master's degree in LibraryScience). Other programs have multiple degrees and specializations atthe undergraduate and graduate levels. The second characteristic isthe program perspective. Some LIS programs begin with the presumptionthat the school is shaped by the discipline of library science.Others begin with the presumption that they are defined by theevolving information professions. LIS schools that will prosper willdevelop models of graduate and undergraduate information studies;they will develop a range of program specializations to meet theneeds of existing and evolving information professional niches; andthey will integrate a range of information from other disciplinesinto coherent programs of "information studies." Intended to serve asa catalyst for discussion of LIS education and the role ofspecialization, this essay: (1) explores the definition ofspecialization; (2) assesses the existing conteit in which LISprograms operate; (3) presents several possible scenarios to developspecialization in LIS education; and (4) identifies and analyzes keyissues related to the implementation of specialization in LISeducation. A discussion of five change strategies and thecharacteristics of strategic thinking necessary to bring changeconcludes the essay. (Contains 32 references.) (KRN)

*******'c***** ,. c************************* ******** ********* ******** ******

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educatonet Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTERIERICI

Tn,s document has ceeh reproduceo ase,e,ved ',on- the ciesoh o organzaho,or.gonal.gM .0, C.a.Q05 have open made to ',provereprocIachon quat4 v

Pcants of wee. or up,n,ons staled 'MS 00( umenl 00 not necessarav represent othco,OER, pos,t.o^ or pdhcv

SPECIALIZATION IN LIBRARY/INFORMATION SCIENCE EDUCATION:

ISSUES, SCENARIOS, AND THE NEED FOR ACTION

by

Charles R. McClureCarol A. Hert

School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13244

[email protected]

For

Conference on Specialization in Library/Information Science EducationAnn Arbor, MI, November 6-8, 1991

Sponsored By

W.K. Kellogg FoundationUniversity of Michigan, SILS

CIC Schools of Information and Library Studies

Library/Information Science (LIS) educationcurrently faces a turning point in its existence: either itbecomes absolutely essential to and Lnectricablyintertwined with the education of the evolvinginformation professions, or it becomes obsolete anddies a slow and painful death. Indeed, some LISeducation has been judged to be "inappropriate"("Columbia SLS to Close," 1990) and, as we know, anumber of programs have been discontinued. Ourresponse to this challenge affects not only USeducation; it affects the fabric of the informationprofessions, the manner in which we define ourselves,what we do, who we serve, and the role that LIS playsin today's and tomorrow's society.

To meet this challenge successfully will require LIS

educators, practitioners, graduates, employers, andother key stakeholders to embrace and championcataclysmic change. Cataclysmic change is dramaticupheaval that sweeps away old landmarks andintroduces massive changes throughout societalinstitutions. Before we can describe strategies tocreate and manage this cataclysmic change, it isimportant that we describe our view of the existinglandscape of LIS programs.

Figure 1 offers a typology of LIS programs andattempts to explain, in part, US program developmentin recent years. As suggested later in this paper, thereare numerous factors that can be used to describe USschools. Our assessment of these factors suggests thattwo are especially important for understanding thecitrrent status of US schools and their likely evolution.

2

Depth and Range of Program: At one end of thecontinuum, US programs have limited pro-grams, typically the one graduate MIS degree.At the other end, some US programs havemultiple degrees and specializations at both thegraduate and undergraduate levels.

Program Perspective: Some LIS programs beginwith the presumption that library science as adiscipline is the basis for the program. At theother end of the spectrum, some LIS schoolsbegin with the presumption that they are aprofessional school defined by the current andevolving information professions.

© Charles R. McClure, 1991

PEST COPY Mil

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Chart es R. lc:Clore

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Specialization in Library /Information Science Education

Figure 1. Typology of LIS Programs

US SCHOOLORGANIZATIONAL

CONTEXT

Library Science'Disciplinary° Based

US INSTITUTIONAL. CONTEXT

Limited DegreesGraduate Level Only

2

4

InformationProfessions

Professional SchoolBased

Multiple Degrees/SpecializationsUndergraduate and Graduate

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

Note: Shaded area represents general emphasis of US schools today

Figure 1 relates these two factors in a contingencytable suggesting four general types of LIS programs.The shaded area describes the location of LIS schoolstoday in light of this model.

Cell 1 describes the traditional LIS program. Inmany instances, even though the LIS school includes"information science" in its title, the fact remains thatit is largely library science-based. Cell 2 depicts theefforts in the early 1980s when LIS schools attemptedto move their program more toward an informationprofessions-based program and away from traditionallibrary science. Also there continues to be efforts (assuggested in cell 3) to develop joint programs andvarious types of specializations largely within alibrary-based context. A handful of schools are nowdeveloping programs to operate in cell 4. In this cell,library education is but one of the many professionalniches in the larger information profession milieu.The LIS school in cell 4 designs both graduate andundergraduate programs for a range of informationprofessional niches. 3

A key point in Figure 1 is the institutional context,the organizational context, and the interaction of theschool with the larger environment in which the LISprogram finds itself. We suggest that giveninstitutional assumptions, resources, and perceptionsof the US program, a particular LIS school may beable to define target niches and prosper in any of thecells. However, it may also be that the cell selected bythe LIS school is in dissonance with the mission of theinstitution. In short, the match between the LIS schooland the institution is key to the success of any LISprogram, regardless of the cell in which it resides.

Some LIS schools may be able to prosper in cell 1(given their setting), but in some instances, there willbe increased pressure from the host institutions toeither discontinue cell 1 programs or move themtoward cell 4. Moreover, schools that do continue tooperate in cell 1 may do a disservice to libraryprofessionals by encouraging their isolation from theother information professions.

McClure/Hert 2 November 1991

Specialization in LararylInforntation Scienu Education

Trends in higher education for the 1990s suggestthat broader-based, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary professional schools, having significantcritical mass and students will be those most likely toflourish The movement of LIS programs from cell 1to cell 3 seems to be the direction desired by manylibrary practitioners. Such movement, however, mayonly exacerbate the existing isolation of libraryeducation from the larger context of the evolvinginformation professions.

The future for LIS schools is in cell 4. The LISschools that will prosper and, at the same timeadvance the quality and status of library education,will develop models of graduate and undergraduateinformation studies; they will develop a range ofprogram specializations to meet the needs of existingand evolving information professional niches; andthey will integrate a range of information from otherdisciplines into coherent programs of "informationstudies." The task before the LIS schools today is howto effect change in order to move toward cell 4.

This essay is intended to serve as a catalyst forattendees to assess LIS education, in general, and toexplore the role of specializations in particular. Itsupports the notion that US programs should developa more purposeful and structured academic programin one or more areas of specialization. It is a call toarms to take action, make decisions, and move towardmassive and fundamental change of our LISeducational programs. More specifically, the essayaims to:

Explore the definition of specialization

Assess the existing context in which LIS pro-grams operate

Present several possible scenarios to developspecialization in US education

Identify and analyze key issues related to theimplementation of specialization in LIS educa-tion.

Ultimately, this essay and the resulting discussion anddecisions from this conference can serve as a key stepin initiating significant change in LIS educationalprograms.

THE NOTION OF SPECIALIZATION

This essay makes no pretense of reviewingcomprehensively the literature on improving LISeducation and developing specializations within suchprograms, numerous others have already done so.Rather, it hopes to offer a perspective that willencourage the change necessary in LIS education. Inorder to develop that perspective, the essay firstaddresses the concept of specialization itself.

Goals of Specialization

While a number of goals can be suggested forprograms of specialization, we base our discussion onthe following three. Programs of specializationshould:

Increase the knowledge and skills that LISgraduates bring to specific niches in the informa-tion professions.

Assist graduates from LIS programs to operatemore effectively and productively in specificinformation-based positions.

Improve societal perceptions that a professionaldegree from a US program has high credibilityand value.

Certainly, other goals can be proposed as well. These,however, offer a context in which to discuss whatspecialization is intended to accomplish.

The authors also hold the following assumptions:current US programs are increasingly unable to keepup to date with the ongoing change occurring intoday's complex information environments,institutions of higher education are increasinglyunable or unwilling to support such programs,successful specialization in US education cannot occurwithin its traditional isolated structure on campus and36-credit hour framework, and current programs donot adequately encourage or educate their graduatesto think creatively and innovatively therebyexacerbating endemic problems in informationorganization, retrieval, management, dissemination,and use.

4McClure/Hert 3 November 1991

1

Specialization in Layrarygnforntrit ion Science Education

What is Specialization?

Numerous articles discuss specializations in the LIScurriculum and the competencies which might beassociated with such specializations (e.g., Cloonan,1991; Griffiths and King, 1986; Hill, 1990; Schmidt,1990; Woodsworth and Lester, 1991). However, asSummers (1991, p. 211) suggests, "the fact of thematter is that the profession, including library schools,has never come to grips with what specialization inthe field means." While there seems to be no explicitdefinition, the implied definition is that aspecialization is a set of courses designed to providethe competencies necessary for a graduate to functionin a particular organizational setting or to perform acertain type of work.

Three main approaches to describing a specializa-tion exist. The first is by type of organizational setting(e.g., special library, academic library). The second isby a specific service area (e.g., government documents,maps, reference, information systems) and the third isby skills /competencies (e.g., indexer /abstracting,collection development, bibliographic instruction).

Moreover, there can be some overlap between skills/competencies and service areas. It is possible, nonethe-less, to develop a myriad range of specializations thatcombine aspects of the dimensions (e.g., reference in aspecial library). Figure 2 summarizes these traditionalapproaches to defining specializations.

These approaches to specialization have limitedusefulness as we attempt to articulate new visions ofLIS education. They tend to be library-centered andbased on existing types of positions. They alsocompartmentali7e competencies into the various cellsrather than emphasizing the commonalities acrosscells. This compartmentalization may also lead to afragmenting of what are considered to be the essentialcompetencies, attitudes, and knowledge of theprofession as well as reinforce a complacent and non-experimental attitude towards LIS education.

This traditional view of specializations has ledsome observers to argue that specialization in an MLSprogram is not appropriate. They point to evidencewhich suggests that:

Figure 2. Traditional View of LIS Specializations

ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

SERVICEAREA


Specialization in LararylInfornsation Scir :cc Education

Employers seem unwilling to pay for specializeddegrees, and while they frequently want anALA-accredited degree they do not specifyspecific courses (Marchant and Wilson, 1983;White and Paris, 1985).

Students are primarily self-recruiting and comefrom the local area. Many employers may not beable to recruit nationally but need to hire em-ployees from a local pool (Robbins-Carter andSeavey, 1986; White and Mort, 1990).

Employees change the type of job they do overthe course of their career (Fisher, 1987; Whiteand Mort, 1990).

Students may not know what they want tospecialize in (White and Mort, 1990).

Specialization may create the impression thatpeople who have not been trained in a particularspecialty cannot perform adequately in a differ-ent specialty area (Koenig and Safford, 1984).

Specialization may create employees who can fitinto particular jobs but may work against thecreation of flexible employees who can capitalizeon opportunities (Martin, 1986; Woodsworth andLester, 1991).

It must be remembered that these disincentives arebased on the existing definition of specialization asdescribed in Figure 2. Much of the empirical evidencewhich argues for them is based on research whichasked respondents about existing types ofspecializations. Many of these disincentives tospecialization may, in fact, not exist given a new typeof specialization in our programs. A new vision couldalso act as a change agent, mitigating the influence ofother disincentives.

Redefining Specializations

To articulate new visions for specialization andfoster cataclysmic change requires a new definition ofspecialization. The one we will adopt in this paper isas follows:

Specialization in LIS education produces graduateswith a set of skills, competencies, and attitudes that

define and fill the needs of current and evolvingniches in the information society. Specializationcan draw upon differing combinations of teachingphilosophies, institutional and program strengths,curricular content, and fieldwork.

This definition differs in several ways from theprevailing definition of specialization.

The use of "niche" allows us to take a step backfrom jobs and settings for which library schools havetraditionally educated td look more broadly at newtypes of activities and jobs which maybe developingas a result of the transformation of society. Croninwrites (Cronin, 1988, p. 328):

There is no information profm ion as such. Thereis, however, a large scattered and heterogeneouspopulation of professionally qualified people who,for the sake of convenience, can be classified asinformation workers. This community is so diffusethat it makes little sense to speak of a fraternity orfederation of information workers. The spectrumof functions they perform and the range of skillsthey exercise in their work-a-day lives are toodiverse to succumb to simplistic classification....Professions, like ecological niches, are dynamicand eapable of supporting a number of specieswithout competitive overlap.

A niche is defined as a partitioning of a market or anenvironment according to some criteria. A niche existsin relation tc other niches; as one changes, othersadapt to reduce overlap. How the market ispartitioned is determined by the market itself, whatslots are available to be filled. Therefore, niches servethe function of limiting competition as well asproviding the diversity necessary to fill all slots in anenvironment. Figure 3 lists several possiblespecialization niches in the information professions.

We find niches to be a useful metaphor for ourdiscussion of specialization; what we should stive forin LIS education is specialization that maximizes theemployability of our graduates throughout theinformation environment and minimizes overlapamong the various niches. The fact that the marketrather than some external party (e.g., an US school)defines the niches allows us to move away fromtraditional perceptions of our role to a more market-based approach. Which segments of the information

McClure/Hert 5 November 1.991

6

1

Specialization in LErrarylInformation Science Education

Figure 3. Specialization: Niche Approach

Other

//ORGANIZATIONALCONTEXTS

Libraries CorporationsNiches

Strategic ManagementInformation PolicySystems Analysis/DesignRecords ManagementSystems EvaluationSystems ImplementationHurnaa Resources ManagementKnowledge EngineeringInformation BrokeringOnline Service

Data CommunicstionsNetwork. AnalysisSofn are SystemsDais base DesignTfti ideal TrainingOM x SystemsConsultingData Center AdministrationEnd User TrainingInformation ResearchOthers

InformationResources Vendors

and Suppliers

Not-For-ProfitOrganizations

Government

marketplace need to be covered, and how can weposition our programs to provide appropriateeducation for those niches? Any particular LIS schoolcould target its programs for specific niches in order tomanage its resources. Thinking of specializations interms of niches in the evolving informationprofessions may be more constructive than theprevailing notion of skills needed in particular librarysettings.

This definition also suggests that teachingphilosophy, curricular content, and delivery methodare inextricably bound together. Discussions oflearning and teaching philosophy for LIS programs(e.g. skill-based vs. theory-based) have tended to beseparate from discussions of curricular content, withthe result that we have not considered which types oflearning experience or approach might be mostappropriate for each specialization.

This view of specialization allows us to movebeyond considering existing organizational settings orjobs or traditional library and information scienceschool roles. As we move further into the

"information age," it is evident that neworganizational settings are being created and newtypes of work are being performed. The difficulty is insimultaneously producing graduates for both thesenew environments and for existing environments. Thistask may require new types of specializations and newmodels for our schools. The use of this broaderdefinition should enable us to examine specializationin light of ongoing and dramatic changes in theinformation professions.

Incentives for Specializations

There are a number of persuasive incentives forconsidering specialization by niches in the MISprogram:

Increasing complexity of the information envi-ronment necessitates specialization; it is notpossible to be a generalist anymore.


Specialization in Lararygnforination Science Education

Practitioners have found that library schoolgraduates do not have the requisite competen-cies, and specialization may provide an opportu-nity to develop those before enuring the jobmarket.

Increasing specialization in programs can bringbenefits to faculty and students alike as well asenhance the public's perception of the professionand its professional schools.

Graduates of niche specialization programs canperform innovative and creative roles in theorganizations in which they are employed.Organizations can take advantage of a broaderbase of knowledge and competencies to improveoverall effectiveness of the organization.

Specialization may increase the marketabilityand demand for LIS graduates outside theimmediate library market.

LIS programs may be able to grow and increasetheir critical mass relative to other programs oncampus.

We suggest that the development of programs ofspecialization by niches are necessitated by thesefactors or will lead to their occurrence.

Information professionals operate in anincreasingly complex world. The breadth and depthof what can be called information work has increasedto the point where it may be impossible to find a singleset of competencies that would be sufficient for allpositions. This fact would make a generalist approachto the MLS degree untenable.

Supporting the perception that the complexity ofthe environment necessitates the development ofspecialized programs are the persistent cries frompractitioners that graduates are entering the professionlacking competencies necessary for jobs. A cursoryreview of the literature finds many articles which saymore or less strongly that LIS programs do notprovide adequate training for almost any type ofspecialization based on the traditional model (e.g.,Cloonan, 1991; Gross and Richardson, 1989; Hill, 1990;Seavey and Clark, 1988; Sellberg, 1988).

Sellberg (1988, p. 39), for example, states quitestrongly that "library schools do not have the teachers,'the internship opportunities, or time to preparecatalogers." She goes on to say that an AmericanLibrary Association (ALA) committee concerned aboutthis problem came up with recommendations whichincluded that the Committee on Accreditation (COA)and its site teams should convey the importance ofcataloging, examine accreditation criteria in light ofthe shortage of catalogers, and otherwise causecataloging education to be expanded. Given both theevidence from practitiotiers and the complexity of theenvironment, it seems clear that in order to educateand train professionals to perform successfully, weneed to either provide them with special skills duringtheir first degree program or establish opportunitiesfor acquiring those skills in other ways.

Increasing specialization is likely to lead to longerprograms. Hayes suggests a number of benefits oflonger programs for both students and faculty (Hayesand Summers, 1983):

Increased in-depth examination of a specialtyarea not only provides specific competencies butalso provides opportunities for the developmentof self-motivation and self-direction skills.

Students with specialized skills are more able tohelp faculty in their work. This may provideopportunities for increased mentorship and thedevelopment of an awareness of the role ofresearch in library and information science.

Faculty have an opportunity to teach morespecialized courses which enhances their jobsatisfaction.

Specialization and the development of advancedcompetencies in graduates may also enhance theperception of the profession and the professionalschools within the university and beyond.

Niche specialization patterned on emerging typesof work and information-use settings will also enablegraduates of such programs to be innovative andcreative in their positions. They will be able to drawon a broader range of knowledge (some of it outside oftraditional library science knowledge) andcompetencies to perform more effectively in theirorganizations. Their competence and innovation will


Specialization in Lil,rary/Infornuatio. n Science Education

translate into organizational benefits as theorganization uses their expertise to provide betterservice and operate more effectivelyas well.

Shank et al. (1991) suggest that one causal factor inlibrary schools' closings is that their graduates havebeen shut out of the information marketplace with jobsbeing taking by graduates from other types ofprograms. This fact has caused universities to lookmore favorably on the disciplines that are educatingstudents to fill those jobs. One cause of the shut-out oflibrary school graduates has been a lack of necessaryskills, especially information technology-based skills.Defining niche specializations would develop moresuccessful graduates thereby bolstering the libraryschool's status within the university. Given theincreasing pace of library school closings, this isnosmall incentive for the creation of specializedprograms.

During this discussion, we have offered a newdefinition of niche specialization. This new definitionwill enable us to develop new visions for LISeducation and make possible the type of changenecessary for LIS schools to survive and flourish in thecorning decades. We turn now to a discussion ofcontextual issues which will impact the choices we can

.make to move forward.

THE LIS EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

A move toward developing programs andspecializations within the context of cell 4 (see Figure1), will require that we create our future, not react toexisting conditions. However, our efforts will notoccur in a vacuum. Since library and informationscience schools are just one component ofa systemwhich includes LIS schools and their hostinginstitutions, students, employers, other practitioners,as well as clients, change on the part of the LIS schoolswhich fails to consider these other components of thesystem will be ineffectual or detrimental to the systemas a whole. The following discussion of contextual

.

issues focuses on the institutional, historical,environmental, and philosophical issues having themost immediate impact on discussions ofspecialization.

Institutional Issues

Probably the most important set of issues affectingLIS education today are those related to theinstitutional context in which LIS programs findthemselves. Many institutions of higher education arerethinking their mission, programs, and structure inthe face of declining numbers of graduating highschool seniors and tight or declining budgets. Wecannot ignore the fact that the past decade has seen a20% reduction in the number of accredited USprograms and a 42% decline in the number of studentsbetween 1973-1988 (Shank et al., 1991). Any action wetake regarding programs of specialization mustimprove US schools' position and strength within theinstitution. Issues particularly pertinent to oursurvival within the institution are:

What criteria are used by the institution to assessprogram effectiveness and success?

Where should the LIS progra'n b located withinthe institutional structure?

How can the US program demonstrate itsintellectual integrity as a professio. 1 school?

Discussions of specialization must recognize that LISprograms live in a dynamic and complex institutionalenvironment. Credibility within this environment isessential. Moreover, as the closings of LIS programsindicate, maintaining such credibility is moreimportant than maintaining credibility within theprofession or through the American LibraryAssociation (ALA) Committee on Accreditation(COA) accreditation.

Institutions of higher education are likely to havediffering criteria for what constitutes an effectiveeducational program at their institution. Theseperspectives will be affected by whether the institutionis public or private; research or liberal artsundergraduate oriented; or located in an urban or non-urban setting; as well as by a host of other factors. Thekey to survival is how well the LIS program is able toposition itself given these criteria.

General criteria for program effectiveness/qualitylikely to be espoused by most institutions include thefollowing:



Centrality: the degree to which the LIS programsupports the mission of the institution and isseen as "central," "integrated," or "supportive"to other programs and activities on campus; thedegree to which US faculty are involved in otherprograms and interact with other faculty oncampus

Demand: the degree to which individuals wantto take courses and enroll in programs from theunit; the range and types of constituency groupsresponsible for the demand; and the degree towhich the demand is locally, regionally, nation-ally, or internationally based

Quality: the degree to which there is the percep-tion on campus that the US program is engagedin significant and important scholarly activity,that the program is recognized outside theinstitution as high quality, and that the profes-sions it serves finds the programs able to meettheir needs

Intellectual Integrity: related to quality, thinnotion asks what is the intellectual justificationfor the US program? Where does the program"fit" into the scholarly framework of otherprograms on campus? How does the LIS pro-gram contribute to the generation of knowledgeand the advancement of science?

;Return on investment: the degree to which theUS program is a "net loss" or "net profit" to theinstitution, financially and otherwise.

Interpretation of these five criteria is likely to differfrom institution to institution, and some will havegreater importance than others. In general, the singleprogram MLS graduate degree with inadequatecritical mass and infrastructure may find it verydifficult to satisfy such criteria.

Small units isolated from the remainder of thecampus, both intellectually and structurally, are likelyto be reviewed by the institution, regardless of theperceived demand for such a program. Indeed, Paris(1986) found that the "isolation" issue was a keyfactor in the closing of 4 schools. Despite this finding,the majority of LIS programs are still relatively small,

structurally separated from otl. 7 units, and oftenintellectually isolated from related scholarly activityon campus. Specialized US programs which arelarger in size, offer multiple programs, and areintegrated with other departments may provide someof the necessary ingredients for success in the currentinstitutional climate.

The nature of the US program as a professionalschool or as a discipline continues to confound ourperception of ourselves as well as the institution'sperception of us. Such confusion raises questionsregarding the intellectual integrity of the US program.A profef sional school is a decidedly different animalthan a discipline, and many US programs findthemselves unable to articulate the difference anddevelop strategies or programs to position themselvesappropriately within the institution.

Conflict between visions of US education asprofessional training or education in a discipline isexacerbated by the shift from a practitioner model ofUS faculty to a more "normative" university facultymodel with a concentration on the traditionalmeasures of faculty productivity (Heim, 1986). TheShank report points to library schools' inability toproduce research or an intellectual corpus whichcontributes to the university as reasons for libraryschool demise (Shank et al.,1991). Institutionalassumptions regarding what constitutes a professionalversus a discipline-based school have significantimpact on the programs and specialties that can beoffered.

Given the desperate situation in with some USschools find themselves, our discussions ofspecialization must always place the institutionalcontext in the forefront. There are a range of othercontextual issues which, while of lesser import, mustalso be considered as part of the US educationallandscape.

Historical Issues

In an ideal world, we would have the luxury ofbeginning a discussion of specialization from scratch.US schools have a 100 year history however, and thishistory is often an anchor affecting future directions.A number of features of this history are relevant to adiscussion of specialization.

McQure /Hert 9 November 1991

10

Specialization in Lararyfinfonnatian Science Education

Librarians traditionally have seen themselves asgenet alists and have believed that any under-graduate degree (especially a liberal arts degree)would provide adequate background for theMLS.

There is an existing accreditation process whichhas influenced what educators teach and howprograms are structured.

Over the years, skills and knowledge needed inthe "information age" have been incorporated innon-LIS programs.

These issues impact on LIS education by reinforcingthe status quo represented by existing programs andcurricula and mitigates against our ability to developand offer structured programs of specialization.

The belief that librarians (and now informationprofessionals) should be generalists, and thus, allthings to all clientele, has deep roots in the profession.The onslaught of technology is forcing the professionto reconsider this position. While there are jobsavailable for "generalist" librarians, they tend to be atthe low-end of the job market. Moreover, one mightargue that such generalists simply serve to preservethe status quo of traditional library activities ratherthan the development of innovative services and are,therefore, unprepared upon entry into the market.

The belief in the value of a generalist educationsprings in part from longstanding accreditationpractices. Whatever one's personal opinion about theusefulness or limitations of the COA and theaccreditation process, it is clear that they have shapedthe content and structure of LIS schools. Theguidelines state that schools should be judged on theirown stated goals and objectives, but the COA has alsooutlined a number of content areas for an MLS. Theseare (Robbins, 1990, p. 213):

1. An understanding of the role of the library asan educational and informational agency

2. An understanding of the theories of collection,building, and organizing library materials foruse

3. A knowledge of information sources and anability to assist the user of library materials inlocating and interpreting desired items

4. A knowledge of the principles of administra-tion and organizations to provide informationservices.

Some schools have developed a core curriculumaround these contnt areas. The existence of a corecurriculum suggests that there is a set of competenciesthat all liorary/information 7rofessionals need toacquire. As we consider specialization, we shouldassess the legitimacy of this assumption and theassociated potential of current core curricula to hinderexperimentation and innovation in LIS education.

The impact of the COA on LIS education may notbe limited to curricular content. For weak programs,with little visibility on campus, with few resources,COA may be a useful tool to gain administrativeattention every seven years or so. However, for manyof the stronger programs with innovative curricula,major research initiatives, and a strong presence oncampus, the COA process may be a costly and timeconsuming process without significant benefits.Worse, it may be an embarrassment to the programsince it must then "explain" to universityadministrators the basis for COA's very traditionalrecommendations.

Moreover, the COA process fails to recognize thatthe most important criteria for success are typicallyinstitutional criteria, and NOT those articulated in theguidelines and discussed in the recent ALA-COA self-study. Being accredited by ALA-COA has had littleimpact on the recent decisions to close or review LISprograms.

An additional historical feature is that educationfor many of the competencies needed in the"information age" has been taken on by other types ofprograms and disciplines. Williams and Zachert(1986) trace this development to library schools' slowacceptance of changes in the dissemination andhandling of information which began after Wcrld WarII. They point to the splintering off of speciallibrarians (into the Special Library Association) anddocumentalists (into the American Documentation

McClure/Hert 10 1 November 1991

Specialization in Mnardfinforiration Science Education

Institute), as well as the development of educationalprograms in computer and information science, asevidence of this trend. Programs in informationscience, management information systems,telecommunications, instruction, and other areas arecompletely separate from library education,techniques, and philosophies. Shank et al. (1991) citethis historical trend as part of the explanation forlibrary school closings. Many of the new, exciting, andtechnically based courses are already establishedoutside LIS schools. As we consider specialization inour MLS programs, we may want to positionourselves relative to these other programs or begin towork cooperatively with them.

Environmental Issues

A number of environmental factors should beconsidered in assessing the appropriateness of LISspecializations:

The environment in which information profes-sionals operate is increasingly complex. Organi-zational settings are changing, demanding newskills, new management techniques, and newtypes of employees.

There is only a weak link between US employersand educational programs.

Students are primarily self-recruiting and comefrom the local area. Many employers may not beable to recruit nationally but need to hire em-ployees from a local pool.

Many library and information professionals maychange the type of job they do on a regular basis.

Such environmental factors add to the uncertainty ofknowing which types of specializations might beappropriate in too. y's and tomorrow's society.

Perhaps the most significant feature of theenvironment is its increasing complexity. There arenew types of information work; a complex andchanging array of information resources, technologiesand services which necessitates new types ofemployees capable of operating in this environmenteffectively. In such an environment, specialization

1.0110101.0

may be a necessity rather than a luxury, since theremay be no "generic" information handling skills, onlyskills specific to particular situations.

A second feature of the environment is that thereseems to be only a weak link between employers'preferences for graduates and the educationalprograms in which those graduates were enrolled. Jobadvertisements testify to the fact that employers prefergraduates with an ALA - accredited MLS, but thereseems to be little attempt to hire graduates who havetaken spec c courses except perhaps for school mediaspecialists (Robbins-Carter and Seavey, 1986).Additionally, although there is some evidence thatspecialized degrees enhance hireability, the evidencealso points to an unwillingness to pay for thatadvanced education (Marchant and Wilson, 1983;White and Paris, 1985).

As we are well aware, most students in LISprograms are self-recruiting and come from the localarea. This factor has affected our ability to providespecialized programs since these graduates often needto be educated for a variety of jobs available locally.There is also evidence that employees change the typeof work they do as they move from position toposition (Fisher, 1987).

These environmental factors suggest thatspecializations acquired during a degree program maynot remain useful throughout one's professional life.Rather than let that prevent us from developingspecializations, the profession and US educatorsshould consider steps to ensure ongoing programs orre-education and specialization throughout variouscareer paths.

Philosophical Issues

Tha profession continues to debate philosophicalissues that a-1 at core of professional education andtheir place in the university setting. There is a longhistory of discussion of these issues in the literature,and the key questions will only be - 'unmarized here.

Is library/information science a profession? adiscipline?

What skills/attitudes/knowledge bases definean information professional?


Spezia lization in Larary/Infornudion Science Education

Whom are library schools attempting to educate?

What is the role of a professional school intraining versus educating professionals?

What is the role of research in US education?

How we answer these questions will impact the typesof specializations we can develop.

One of the most frequently cited characteristics of aprofession is a body of knowledge associated with it.This leads naturally to the question of what skills,attitudes, and knowledge define an informationprofessional. Many have suggested a variety offeatures (e.g. Grover, 1985; Mason, 1990; Schlessingeret al.; Vondrart, 1990). Should we care if specializationwill lead to a diversity of skills and knowledge whichmight be difficult to integrate into one body ofprofessional knowledge?

Estabrook (1986) suggests that this problem alreadyexists in the case of the information resourcesmanagement (IRM) specialty. Her argument is thatthe history and value system of ERM is differentenough from library science that we must consider it adifferent profession. Robbins (1991) has recentlysuggested that the academic information specialist ofthe future might not be based in the library but in aparticular department with a first allegiance to thedepartment. Clearly such a model would greatlyimpact our idea of what makes us a profession andhow we educate professionals.

Another characteristic of a profession is a trainingperiod for professionals. Robbins-Carter and Seavey(1986), quoting Heim, state that specialization may,however, only be a weak indicator of a profession: "Itseems that specialization, insofar as it lengthens theperiod of professional training is an indicator ofprofessionalism, but that specialization in the basictraining period is not" (p. 569).

The consideration of library and informationscience as a profession also raises the question of therole of the US school in educating for a profession.Some professions (e.g., medicine) educate and trainvirtually everyone involved from technicians to fullprofessionals. As Robbins (1990) points out, libraryschools generally do not train technicians, and this

may be problematic as more jobs in libraries are beingdone by technicians as librarians get increasinglyinvolved in more complex tasks. She also states thatthe "function of a professional school is to educate forthe broad field, not to emphasize training in thenarrow skills of the field" (p. 212). As we considerspecialization, we need to bear in mind that ourdefinition of what constitutes a profession and ourperceptions of the role of a professional school mayinfluence whom we educate and to what extent weeducate them

Also under debate are issues regarding the properrole of research in US programs. To what degree arefaculty expected to conduct research and what typesof research are appropriate? Generally, the researchbasis of US has been weak at best, and there is stillconsiderable discussion of issues related to research ina discipline-based view of library science (McClureand Hemon, 1991). New models for the role ofresearch in both the curriculum and in facultyactivities for US programs need to be developed as wemove toward cell 4 (see Figure 1).

Too Little, Too Late?

An overview of the issues identified in this sectionsuggests that the health and quality of many USschools will be carefully examined in forthcomingyears. Responsibility for the current state of affairs liesin many quarters: the profession has paid littleattention to LIS education, LIS schools have beencomply _it within their institutions and lax atassessing professional needs., employers hire USschool graduates at relatively low salaries regardlessof the location and nature of the US program, studentshave not been demanding enough of a high-qualityeducation, and all of us have been slow to recognizethe potential impacts of changes in the informationenvironment on US educational programs. Our jobtoday is not to assign responsibility for problems inUS education but to come quickly to anunderstanding of possible avenues for improvement.

The crucial question is: Can LIS programs berevamped quickly enough to serve an important andintegral role (1) in the host institution and (2) in theeducation of information professionals? The authorsbelieve that, simply put:

McClure /Hert 12 November 1991

13

Specialization in lalrary /Information Science Education

some T IS schools will be ignored by their hostinstitution and will continue to operate in cell 1(see Figure 1) as traditional library schools.

some LIS schools will be unable to make thecataclysmic and strategic changes necessary andwill likely be closed by the end of the decade.

some LIS schools will limp along in a state ofbenign neglect, with inadequate resources andfaculty to provide high quality LIS education,eventually becoming candidates for closure.

some LIS schools will evolve into dynamicprograms offering leadership both within theinstitution and within the profession.

Providing options for a range of programs andspecializations, at both the graduate andundergraduate levels, will be essential for those in thelatter category.

The concept of niche-based specialization may offerLIS programs an important conceptual frameworkthrough which to expand on the traditionalspecializations outlined in Figure 2 and to betterposition the LIS program both within the institutionand in the profession. Given the contextual issuesdiscussed above, ea. h LIS program could target nichesin the information professions for which they are best-suited to educate. An exploration of the optionsdescribed in the scenarios below may offer someguidance as to which niches might be best targeted byindividual programs.

Options for specialization need to be consideredfrom a strategic planning perspective. LIS schoolsneed to position themselves appropriately in relationto their institution and the environment in order tobecome competitive with other types of educationalprograms which are developing graduates forinformation profession niches. Programs ofspecialization must contribute to that competitivepositioning process, enabling a school to define itsniche within the institution and the profession. Suchspecialization programs will be possible if we developnew visions of our roles, make hard decisions abouthow to fulfill those visions, leverage resources, andtarget our services to specific groups. None of thiswill be easy, but we cannot afford to wait.

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR SPECIALIZATION

A key component of strategic planning is vision. Avision of the future provides a target. Without a target,we tend to get bogged down in what is, rather thanmove toward what might be. Visions catspult us outof our complacency, and with a vision est.blished, wecan tura to means of achieving it.

A technique for focussing vision that has beenused with much success by strategic planners andothers involved in change processes is scenariodevelopment (Amara and Lipinski, 1983, pp. 41-82).A scenario is a description of how a future state ofbeing might evolve. Scenario development requirespolicy makers to make their assumptions about thefuture explicit and to describe a future state of theorganization in light of these assumptions and in lightof possible organizational goals and resources.Scenarios can be used to direct the development of anorganization. The authors have found the techniqueuseful in a variety of settings for moving organizationsbeyond a discussion of what currently exists to adiscussion of how to move towards entirely new, morevisionary goals.

As has been suggested throughout this essay, LISeducation stands at a crucial point between traditionalroles and programs and the need for an entirely newdirection. It is hoped that the following scenarios willprovide a leaping off point for a discussion of possibleapproaches to specialization that will facilitate thetype of change necessary to enable US education toremain viable. Any one of these scenarios might beenacted in order to fulfill the goals intended forspecialization programs as outlined in the beginningof the essay. These scenarios are only some of thepossibilities which might exist for meeting those goals.In the ones discussed below, a range of teaching anddelivery techniques are possible although not detailed.

Reorganized LIS Program

This scenario finds the MLS degree as one of anumber of degree programs in a large and diverseschool or program on campus. Instead of there beinga separate school of LIS, US becomes a department orprogram in the Communications, Computer Science,Journalism, or Management schools/colleges (to namebut a few possibilities). The MLS curriculum takes

. McClure/Hert 13 November 1991

14

Specialization in Lawry/Information Science Education

advantage of the raAge of information-based programsand offerings within the larger college. Specializationsare designed in light of the organizational strengths ofthe various programs in the school of which the USprogram is a part.

Underlying this scenario is the desire for theexisting US program to become part of a larger moreinterdisciplinary school/college on campus and thedegree to which other such programs on campuswould agree to "take" the US program. Moreover, theUS faculty would have to be able to "hold their own"in a larger college, the existing Dean or Director of theUS program may have to accept lower status asdepartment chair or head, and students wouldcompete in a larger context.

The benefits of this type of scenario are that the USprogram may be able to take advantage of resources,programs, and opportunities in a larger setting. Forexample, the union of the LIS program with anotherprofessional school may provide access to a computerinfrastructure that may not be available in the existingprogram. In addition, US students would benefit bymeeting students from other professional areas andthereby reduce their myopia about the informationprofessions in general.

Extended MLS Program

This scenario has been implemented at some USprograms, primarily Canadian schools of US and afew programs in the United States. The scenarioproposes that the professional degree is based on 48-60credit hours rather than the standard 36 required bymost LIS programs. As used here, however, theextended program scenario is not "more of the same,"but targeted instruction to fill identified and evolvingniches in the library/information professions.

Assumptions underlying this scenario are thatstudents are willing to invest an additional year ofstudy in obtaining the degree, that employers wouldprefer to hire graduates from such programs asopposed to non-extended programs, and that therequisite skills, competencies, and attitudes needed tobe successful in a range of information positionsrequires more education.

15

Numerous options exist for how an extendedprogram might be structured and the types ofspecializations which might be offered. Acombination of coursework and fieldwork could beprovided; specific specializations and tracks could bedefined as areas for specialization within thecurriculum depending on institutional and facultystrengths; and teaching/delivery methods could becustomized to on-site and remote students.

Post-MLS Professional Certification

In this scenario, a collection of library/information-based professional associations organizes acertification board that requires a post-MLS"information professional" to meet certainrequirements and augment his/her education on aregular basis, over a certain period of time. Thecertification board establishes areas of specialization inwhich individuals might be certified, it coordinatesand supplies educational opportunities, and itdetermines what requirements have to be met in orderto gain certification, for example, as a bibliographicinstruction librarian.

Specialization occurs after the graduate MLSdegree, although some US programs may be able tohave the certification board approve a specializationdeveloped within their program. By and large, mostof the education for specialization would beaccomplished outside the US programs although USprograms might serve as providers for some parts ofthe certification. Specializations include traditionallibrary jobtypes as well as other and evolvingpositions in non-library settings.

This approach assumes that the membership of thepartripating professional associations are willing tocontribute resources for the operation of thecertification board. It also assumes that a body ofprofessional associations are able to work together andthat the American Library Association is willing toexpand the ...umber and kind of participants whowould direct post-MLS education.



Combination Generalist/Specialist Programs

This scenario allows students to choose a general ora specialized MLS degree. The 36-hour graduatedegree program would be, by definition, the generalistdegree, although students might concentrate somecoursework in areas of special interests. Studentswishing to have an MLS degree that indicates a formalspecialization would take an additional 18 hours (forexample) beyond the 36 in a carefully craftedcombination of coursework, fieldwork, and specialprojects.

With such an option, students would be free to takeon the additional costs of a longer program if theyjudged it worthwhile. LIS programs would offer the18 credit hour specializations in selected areas wherethey have specific strengths. It is likely that LISprograms would evolve with different specializationofferings. Students might complete a generalistdegree in one LIS program and obtain a specializationdegree from another US program.

This approach assumes that some LIS programswill be able to define and augment their curriculumwith a number of specializations beyond the generalistprogram. Moreover, it would be necessary that therequirements for the specialization could not becompleted within the generalist degree. Specificrequirements by employers to hire or show preferencefor applicants with such specialization would give thespecialization credibility in the field. Additionally, LISprograms would need to coordinate theirspecializations or some associations or foundationsmight fund a group of LIS programs to provide certainspecializations beyond the general degree.

Undergraduate Program

This scenario assumes a major restructuring in thesystem of LIS education. LIS programs would offer amajor in LIS as part of the Institution's BA degree. Forexample, undergraduates would complete therequired liberal arts core (however defined at theinstitution) and in their junior and senior yearscomplete perhaps 24 hours of coursework from the LISprogram. They would receive a BA degree in US andwould fill a range of "middle ground" positionsbetween existing pars- professional and professionalpositions.,

The graduate degree in LIS would require that theBA had already been completed. Students who hadnot completed a BA in LIS would have to master theskills and knowledge represented in the 24undergraduate credit hours prior to being admittedinto the masters program. The masters degree wouldthen have increased flexibility (even if it stayed at 36credit hours) to offer a range of specializations sinceintroductory material had already been covered in theBA program. The experience of our undergraduateprogram at Syracuse is that juniors and seniors wouldhave little difficu:iy col pleting the typical 15-18 hour"cores" in place at a number of LIS programs.

Such an approach assumes that the profession (andexisting MLS professionals) would "accept" LIS BA'sdoing much of the work in library/informationsettings where a graduate degree is not required. Italso assumes that existing LIS programs can eitherdevelop an undergraduate program or restructurethemselves to be part of other programs where such adegree can be offered.

Joint Programs

Some LIS programs have adopted this scenario asan approach to the provision of specializations.Basically, the approach calls for agreements betweenthe US program and other programs on campus, or inthe local area. Students take coursework or engage infieldwork under the guidance of this other program.The credit hours might comprise a part of the basic LISgraduate degree or the credit hours might be inaddition to the basic requirements for the MLS. Thekey aspect of this scenario, however, is that thespecialization is provided primarily by programsoutside the LIS school. It is important to note thatjoint program specializations typically stress subjectareas rather than type of setting specializations.

This approach assumes that the US program canmake formal and informal arrangements with otherprograms on campus. It assumes that these otherprograms are willing and able to provide educationalopportunities that would not otherwise be available tothe student. Moreover, the opportunities must meetthe knowledge needs of the students and be more thansimply a mechanism for increasing enrollment in the

1

McC1ure/Hert 15 November 1991

Specialization in LlrarylInfonnatio n Science Education

other program. The cooperating program mayprovide both curriculum and fieldwork opportunitiesrelated to the specialization.

Clinical Program

In the clinical approach, a key and significantportion of the LIS program comes from learning bydoing. The clinical scenario should not be confusedwith programs that add one or two internships intothe curriculum. Rather, a clinical curriculumincorporates regular and ongoing interactions withspecially selected on-site learning/doing experiencesand has a capstone "residency" experience in aspecialized setting of at least six months andpreferably one year.

The host library/information center paysprofessional, entry-level wages to the resident. TheLIS program and the library/information center workout a program of activities for the residency, agreeupon evaluation criteria, and meet regularlythroughout the time period to monitor progress inachieving learning objectives. The student does notreceive the graduate professional degree unless theresidency is completed satisfactorily.

This scenario assumes that the library/informationcenter community is willing to participate in such, aprogram. Indeed, it might be that only certainlib, cries /information centers would be certified tooffer a residency, and the profession as a whole wouldsupport those libraries/information centers offeringthe programs. The libraries and the LIS programswould have to agree upon a combination of formaland informal activities that would constitutespecialization in that specific setting.

While the library/information center may wish tohire the student upon completion of the residency(and thus the degree), such a hiring could not replacethe residency position available at that library/information center. The norm would be for thestudent to complete the residency and then enter thejob market and obtain a position not at the residencylibrary/information center.

Prerequisites

aM111110.

The prerequisite scenario is one in which studentsbeing admitted to an US program must firstdemonstrate competencies related to and knowledgeof pre-determined skills and topics before they areaccepted into the program. The idea is to push basiccompetencies and knowledge outside the formalprogram and require that students have this prior toadmittance. With these "basic" competencies andknowledge already obtained, more time in thegraduate program can be dedicated to specialization.

This approach assumes that the LIS program canidentify the basic competencies and knowledge to beconsidered prerequisites. Moreover, it assumes thatstudents will agree to some sort of procedure orprocess for demonstrating these competencies andknowledge as a requirement for admittance to theprogram. If the student fails to have the necessaryprerequisites, the LIS program will have to devisesome remedial steps to remove the deficiencies.

Overview of Scenarios

The scenarios described above are not necessarilymutually exclusive approaches to the development ofspecializations. Clearly, aspects of each can becombined into additional scenarios. Moreover, thosedescribed here offer only a first statement of whatsome possible specialization scenarios might be. it islikely that additional scenarios can be developed aswell. Each of these scenarios have strengths andweaknesses that have to be considered within each LISinstitutional setting and according to specific criteriafor success.

What is constant across the scenarios is thatachieving any of them will require strategic thinkingand change. Moreover, they are likely to requiregreater resources and infrastructure '" an many LISprograms currently have. The existing traditionalmodels of LIS programs and specializations areineffective. We cannot rest and wait for thesescenarios to evolve; we must forcibly create them bymaking hard decisions after carefully considering howbest to position ourselves in order to remain viableentities in the 21st century.


Specialization in LararylInformation Science Education

FACTORS AFFECTING SCENARIOS AND THEIMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIALIZATIONS

A number of contextual issues impact our ability toplan and implement specialization scenarios. Anyparticular school must base its planning activity on anassessment of its micro-environment. It must dealwith a range of issues including organizationalstructure, commitment to planning, organizationalculture, and the types of institutional missions towhich the LIS must relate. The school also needs tounderstand where it stands in relation to the larger LISeducational context. This assessment will helpdetermine which specialization scenarios might bemost appropriate for that school. As an example,Figure 4 shows a matrix of possible levels ofcommitment to planning both on the part of the USand its host institution. The scenarios a school selectsmay depend on the cell (see Figure 4) the school findsitself in.

Along with an assessment of the environment, theimplementation of scenarios will necessitate that a

number of factors be addressed. While we mustpresent them linearly, the resolution of one clearlyimpacts on the others.

Who are the Players in the Debate?

To reiterate a point made earlier, a discussion ofspecialization must recognize that there are a numberof potential players in the debate. LIS programs existin an environment that includes the universities inwhich they reside, the students in the program,employers, other practitioners, other relevantdisciplines, and other interested parties. As we designspecializations, we should idevttify those parties whoneed to be involved in the debate and determine theirappropriate level of involvement.

What are the Goals of the MLS Program?

While the authors have assumed several goals forprograms of specialization, we have so far avoided themore general question of the goals of an MLS

Figure 4. Levels of Planning Commitment

.

knowledgeableand committed

.

Institutional Perspective

knowledgeablenot committed

not knowledgeablebut committed

not knowledgeablenot committed

LIS ProgramPerspective

knowledgeableand committed

not knowledgeablebut committed

not knowledgeablenot committed

knowledgeablenot committed

Note: The location of a program within any particular cell of the matrix will play a part in determining which scenarios might be possible.This matrix could be expanded to include other contextual issues until a clear picture of the environment is developed. Equipped with a clearpicture of the environment, an US school can explore those scenarios with environmental assumptions that most closely match the school'senvironment.

McClure/Hert 17

18

November 1991

Specialization in LtbrarylInfonnation Science Education

education. Specializations can only be developed Yilight of whom we are trying to educate. Are we tryingto educate any person who is employed in anycapacity in an information-handling environment, orperhaps we are interested in educating libraryprofessionals only? Are we attempting to provide anentry level degree or a degree that will be sufficient foran entire career? Without some understanding of thegoal, or goals, of the MLS, we will not be able todevelop appropriate specializations that willeffectively and efficiently prepare our graduates. EachLIS program may define its goals differently given itsparticular situation.

How should Specializations be Defined?

Existing models of specialization have tended to behampered by an examination of existing settingsrather than a more forward look at what might berequired in the future (Woodsworth and Lester, 1991).These efforts, however, should not be discarded sincethey suggest a number of useful facets we shouldconsider as we attempt to determine what is similarand what is unique in information handling jobs.Other facets may also be relevant and need to beconsidered before we develop a set of specializationswhich are appropriate for information niches. Some ofthese additional facets might be the type oforganization in which job resides (e.g., for-profit,manufacturing) and rank in organization (e.g.,technician, entry-level professional, manager).

Length of the Program

Robbins (1990) reported that current core programsgenerally require from 12-15 credit hours. How manyadditional credit hours would be required for;ipecializations? Robbins-Carter and Seavey (1986)postulated a reference specialization that requiredapproximately 40 credit hours. It seems clear thateven without a core curriculum, programs ofspecialization will require more time on the part ofstudents and faculty.

White and Paris (1985) pointed out that many of theschools that have gone to longer programs are stateschools with low tuition and with little pressure from

the university administration to maintain enrollment.Incentives will have to be provided for students toattend longer programs and obtain specializations.Clearly, one cannot expect students to enroll in a 48-credit hour private institution program, at $350 percredit hour, when they can also enroll at a stateuniversity with a 36-hour program at $90 per credithour if the source of the degree makes no difference toemployers.

Faculty Ability and Needs

A frequent situation in LIS schools today is that"specializations" are offered because there is a facultymember available who has a particular interest(Robbins-Carter and Seavey, 1986). Such an ad hocapproach will not be appropriate to the developmentand maintenance of specialized curricula. It seemsclear that more faculty, if not differently educatedfaculty, will be needed. Specialist programs mayrequire faculty drawn from other disciplines(particularly since there are not enough Ph.D.'s inlibrary and information science), faculty who do nothave Ph.D.'s., and the continuing use of practitionersas adjunct faculty.

Resources

Money will be needed to develop and support thespecializations and associated tools (e.g., computerhardware and software) and to recruit and maintainfaculty. Additionally, funding will be needed torecruit and support students, particularly if the cost ofan MLS increases while the value of the degree toemployers does not. We are all aware that traditionalfunding sources are dwindling.

Shank et al. (1991) have pointed to the high cost ofmaintaining library and information sciencedepartments as a key factor in their demise. If wewish to develop a program of specializations, we needto demonstrate our legitimacy to the university as wellas identify alternative funding sources to create andmaintain the necessary infrastructure and to recruithigh quality faculty and students. We also may needto reorganize and restructure the place of the LISprogram within the university.

19


Specialization in Lil;raryllnfonnation Science Education

Competitive Advantage

An issue of competitive advantage among the USprograms must also be considered. Although manyUS students select an LIS program primarily based ongeographic proximity, this fact could changedrastically. What if a student were able to obtain a

. graduate degree from LIS program X (across statelines) in 36 credit hours, with no prerequisites, and nofieldwork? At the same time, the local programrequired a range of prerequisites, specialization in 51credit hours, and a six month residency. Clearly, the36-hour program will have a competitive advantageover the more specialized program.

Investment by the Profession as a Whole

The profession as a whole, and especially library/information science employers, must engage in thediscussion of specialization. Put frankly, theprofession must quit kicking LIS education anddevelop proposals that include direct employer andpractitioner involvement and resource commitment. Ifspecialization programs are to be implemented, theywill need support, rewards, and incentives from thefield. The degree to which the field, as a whole, iswilling to make such commitments is unclear.

Additionally, new approaches to specializationmay require a professional "blessing" of some sort toeffect change. That blessing may come from theprofessional associations, the host institutions, theCOA, employers, or others. Without some sort ofblessing (e.g., certification, accreditation, etc.) theremay be no impetus to encourage change and noreward for those US programs that do effect change.

Evaluation of Approach

However we decide to meet the goals outlined forspecialization programs, we also need to assesswhether specialization of curricula meets the needs ofthe marketplace and the profession. There is littlesuggestion in the literature of how such an evaluationmight be undertaken. Criteria suggested in thissection might be used as a means to compare andcontrast different approaches to specialization. Thisanalysis, however, must be done in the context of

critical success factors currently in use in the homeinstitution.

MAKING CHANGE A REALITY

US programs are only beginning to address theissue that libraries and information centers already arefacing: we =mot be all things to all people all thetime. Such is especially true for the smaller, generalistUS programs. One might argue that most USprograms provide a generalist orientation, not becauseit is the best approach to take, but rather it is the onlyapproach available given faculty size, availableresources, and level of interest by the profession as awhole.

In general, during the past 20 years, LIS educationhas changed little. Over this period of time, the Deansand Directors of LIS programs have shown anamazing lack of leadership both within institutionsand within the profession in integrating, expanding,and innovating US education. Despite massivechanges in society, explosive innovations ininformation technologies, and the closing of numerousUS programs, US education remains largely what itwas in 1971. Simply stated, the US generalisteducation model of 1971 is unworkable and untenablein 1991. It certainly will not meet the needs of theevolving information professions in the year 2000.

What kind of strategies might be necessary toimplement the scenarios and achieve the cataclysmicchange that we think necessary? Here are somepossibilities:

Disband the ALA COA and create an LIS ac-creditation and certification board with widerepresentation from other information profes-sions; develop standards for extended programsand requirements for lifelong certification inspecific areas of specialization.

Have a cadre of 5-10 leading US programseschew COA accreditation and develop theirown standards and criteria.

Make strategic alliances with professionalentities (other than libraries) in the informationprofessions in order to receive resource support,adjunct instructors, and placements.


20

Specialization in LibrarylInformation Science Education

Have a cadre of 5-10 leading ARL libraries and/or other types of libraries/information centerswork with LIS programs to organize one yearresidency programs that become degree require-ments.

Require regular and on-going certification of USeducators along the lines that some states have inplace for public school teachers or that which iscurrently done by the Medical Library Associa-tion for medical librarians.

Certainly other strategies can be suggested as well.But to some extent, this paper argues for broadeningthe base of education for the information professions,recognizing that LIS education is only a portion of thislarger base, and admitting that it is not theresponsibility of an LIS program to solve problems forall library situations (e.g., the one person public libraryin a community of 1500). The point for this conferenceis not necessarily ro agree on a strategy but to agreethat some dramatic cataclysmic strategies are needed.

Cataclysmic change will not occur by LIS schoolsachieving greater market penetration in cell 1 ormoving to cell 3 of Figure 1. Indeed, there appears tobe an evolving vo-tech mentality in some LIS schoolsthat focuses on skills, builds enrollment with distanceeducational Offerings to remote sites with inadequateresources and faculty, eschews a research perspectivein program offerings, and continues to isolate libraryeducation from broader topics in informationmanagement and technologies. In the short term,these efforts may allow the program to survive in cell1; but in the long term, they may only injure theprofession of librarianship and impede its integrationin to the broader information professions.

Movement to cell 4 in Figure 1 will requirecataclysmic change in both the profession oflibrarianship and in library education. It will occuronly when we begin to think of the profession, LISeducation, and library/information servicesstrategically. Strategic thinking and planning willenable us to position ourselves to capitalize onavailable opportunities and match our actions to therisks inherent in the environment, thereby creating anew role for LIS in the coming years. Strategicthinking for LIS programs requires:

Having a vision

Making choices regarding what will and will notbe done

Leveraging resources

Targeting services and resources to specificclientele

Exploiting competitive advantages

Making strategic alliances with other informa-tion professions

Positioning the program relative to the institu-tion and the market.

These elements of strategic thinking, employedtogether, can create a strategic posture, one that isopportunistic, that sets agendas rather than respondsto them; and that recognizes the importance and use ofpower and politics. Such a posture, combined withleadership, vision, and bold decision making is criticalto LIS success in the current uncertain environment.

The degree to which a few LIS programs canundertake, themselves, to make massive change in LISeducation is an interesting issue. Can a program thatis obviously strong, innovative, carefully crafted andoffers specializations and residencies, but requiresextended time and high tuition fees compete in the LISmarketplace against the traditional 36-hour generalistprogram? Can there or should there be LISequivalents to the Harvard Business School? Canmassive revamping of LIS educationoccur naturally,or will nationally agreed-upon standards andcertification requirements be needed to do what mustbe done?

Schools of LIS may not be able to change theexisting state of LIS education on their own. Ifemployers continue to accept any type of MIS for anytype of position, if professional associations do notestablish high standards for USprograms, and ifpracticing librarians do not become respone,le for,and rewarded for, developing and maintainingcompetencies over the length of their careers, USeducation may not be able to change. And indeed,what the profession may "want" from an USeducation may not, in fact, be what it "needs."

McCiure/Hert 20 November 1991


Empirical justification, while useful, is not neededto restructure LIS education. It w..Il be done only byvision, boldness, and innovation. At issue are values,philosophies, and assumptions. Developing more listsof competencies for specific types of library work, oraskil ig practitioners what types of courses are neededin the "real world," for example, begs the key issuesand decisions. Visions, innovations, boldness, anddecision making are needed. Perhaps mostimportantly, willpower and resolve will be the criticalsuccess factors required to implement changes in thephilosophical and structural underpinnings of LISeducation.

The long term future of LIS programs is in thelarger milieu of education for informationprofessionals. This future requires movement fromcell 1 to cell 4 as shown in Figure 1. Success in cell 4will require an expanded base of students andresources, a range of graduate and undergraduateprograms and specializations, and the targeting ofthese programs and specializations to niches in theevolving information professions. This future can beachieved, but we cannot afford a "let's wait and see"attitude. We must act now.

REFERENCES

Amara, R., and Lipinski, A. J. (1983). Businessplanning for an uncertain future: Scenarios & strategies.New York: Pergamon Press.

Cloonan, M.V. (1991). Preservation education inAmerican library schools: recounting the ways. Journalof Education for Library and Information Science. 31(3),187-203.

"Columbia SLS to dose: Faculty fires off protest,"(1990). School Library Journal. 35, 8.

Cronin, B. (1988). Nichemanship for the nineties. InPost-professionalism: Transforming the informationheartland edited by Blaise Cronin and E. Davenport.London: Taylor Graham, pp. 328-333.B.

Estabrook, LS. (1986). Librarianship andinformation resources management. Journal ofEducation for Library and Information Science. 27(1), 3-11.

Fisher, W. (1987). Does education for speciallibrarianship need to be "special education?" Educationfor Information. 5(1),15-25.

Griffiths, J. and King, D.W. (1986). New directions inlibrary and information science education. Westport, CN:Greenwood Press.

Gross, B.M. and Richardson, J. Jr. (1989). Theeducational preparation of government informationspecialists. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science. 30(4 28-38.

Grover, R.J. (1985). Library and informationprofessional education for the learning society: Amodel curriculum. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science. 26(1), 33-45.

Hayes, R.M and Summers, F.W. (1983). Two-yearlibrary school programs: Useful extension or waste oftime? American Libraries.14, 619-20.

Heim, K.M. (1986). The changing faculty mandate.Library Trends. 34, 581-606.

Hill, L.L. (1990). Education for special librarians.Special Libraries. 81, 317-29.

Koenig, M.E.D. and Safford, H.D. (1984). Myths,misconceptions, and management. Library Journal109, 1897-1902.

McClure, C. R., and Hernon, P., eds. (1991). Libraryand information science research: Perspectives andstrategies for improvement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Marchant, M.P. and Wilson, C.F. (1983).Developing joint graduate programs for librarians.Journal of Education for Librarianship. 24, 30-37.

Martin, S.K. (1986). Library education: Anadministrator's view. Library Journal. 111, 115-117.

Mason, RD. (1990). What is an informationprofessional. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science. 31(2),122-138.

Paris, M. (1986). Library school closings: Four casestudies. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.



Robbins, J. (1990). Master's degree from a programaccredited by the American Library Associationrequired. Journal of Education for Library and InformationScience. 30(3), 206-217.

Robbins, J. (1991). Cultural authority achievedthrough specialization.. The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship. 17(4), 214-215.

Robbins-Carter, J. and Seavey, C.A. (1986). TheMaster's degree: Basic preparation for professionalpractice. Library Trends. 34,561-90.

Schlessinger, B.S., et al. (1991). Information science/library science education programs in the 1990's: ANot-so-modest proposal. Library Administration &Management. 5,16 -19.

Schmidt, K.A. (1990). Education for acquisitions: AHistory. Library Resources and Technical Services. 34,159-169.

Seavey, CA. and Clark, S.M. (1988). Libraryeducation for work with maps. Journal of Education forLibrary and Information Science. 29(2), 121-126.

Sellberg, R. (1988). The Teaching of cataloging inU.S. library schools. Library Resources and TechnicalServices: 32, 30-42.

Shank, R. et al. (1991). ALA Special Committee onLibrary School Closings Repo;-t. Unpublished.

Summers, William F. (1991). The necessity forphilosophical adaption. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship. 17(4), 211-212.

Vondran, R.F. (1990). Rethinking library educationin the information age. Journal of LibraryAdministration. 11(3-4), 27-44.

White, H.S. and Paris, M. (1985). Employerpreferences and the library education curriculum.Library Quarterly. 55,1 -33.

White, HS. and Mort, S.L. (1990). The accreditedlibrary education program as preparation forprofessional library work. Library Quarterly. 60, 187-215.

McClurefliert

Williams, R.V. and Zachert, M.J.K. (1986).Specialization in library education: A Review of thetrends and issues. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science. 26, 215-232.

Woodsworth, A. and Lester, J. (1991). Educationalimperatives of the future research library: Asymposium. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 17(4),204- 215.

23

22 November 1991

Documents

ED 352 032 AUTHOR McClure, Charles R.; Hert, …DOCUMENT RESUME ED 352 032 IR 054 253 AUTHOR McClure, Charles R.; Hert, Carol A. TITLE Specialization in Library/Information Science