[Library and Information Science] Library and Information Science Trends and Research: Europe Volume 6 || The Bologna Process Impact on Library and Information Science Education: Towards

Chapter 9

The Bologna Process Impact on Library

and Information Science Education:

Towards Europeisation of the Curriculum

Anna Maria Tammaro

Abstract

Purpose – The general aim of the chapter is to assess the impact of theBologna Process (BP) on Library and Information Science (LIS)education in Europe, investigating the curriculum content, the differentconcepts and values of LIS institutions, the learning and teachingdefinition and the learning outcomes orientation, with student-centredlearning considered the first objective to be achieved.

Design/methodology/approach – The past and recent debate insideEuropean Association for Library and Information Education andResearch (EUCLID), European Bureau of Library, Information andDocumentation Associations (EBLIDA), International FederationLibrary Associations (IFLA) studies and conferences are used togetherwith relevant literature to describe the ongoing debate.

Findings – The main problem of LIS education in Europe is that thereare different concepts of LIS and that the internationalisation of LISeducation lends itself to various interpretations. The quality criteria ofthe contents of the LIS curricula evidenced here are the researchorientation and, in particular, the qualities (and competencies) that youexpect graduates of the programme to possess. The first tenet of LISeducation in a European course is that it should have a student-centredapproach. Pedagogy should be based on a constructivist approach and

Library and Information Science Trends and Research: Europe

Library and Information Science, Volume 6, 195–215

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)0000006012

196 Anna Maria Tammaro

students should be encouraged to engage in a research project of somekind, so that they are more critical consumers of research.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – In the discussionsinside the EUCLID project European Curriculum Reflections (Kajberg& Lorring, 2005), there was no common understanding of the LISprofessional role. It is suggested that further research is neededtowards Europeisation of LIS curriculum.

Social implications (if applicable) – Possible benefits of the BolognaProcess for quality enhancement of LIS education, which can also bedescribed as problematic areas, are the stimulus of the politicianswhich push a constructive dialogue between stakeholders.

Originality/value – Ambiguities arenot lacking for the learningoutcomesapproach as a whole. The paper tries to evidence what the learningoutcomes subject to evaluation are, andhence how they canbemeasured.

Keywords: Bologna process; university education; LIS education

9.1. Background: the Bologna Process

Following the Bologna Declaration in 1999 (Bologna Declaration, 1999), thegrowing interest in the internationalisation of higher education in Europe ismainly due to the Bologna Process (BP) which aims to create an integratedEuropean Higher Education Area (EHEA). Besides the general value of aEuropean dimension of higher education for promoting intercultural under-standing and collaboration, the BP now wants to respond to the increasingneed to prepare graduates for the global labour market and has very practicalobjectives, such as transparency of curriculum content, facilitating mobilityand building ‘mutual trust’ zones for quality. To achieve these objectives, theBP approach to internationalisation is characterised by ten ‘Action Lines’applying the internationalisation of procedures, in general nationallybased,such as those for the recognition of qualifications and qualityassurance(Watcher, 2008) (Figure 9.1).

9.1.1. Recognition of Qualifications

Of the ten BP ‘Action Lines’, four could be classified as belonging to theobjective of recognising qualifications: mobility, recognition, joint degreesand global dimension. This line maintains continuity with the ERASMUSprogrammewhich has been financing the exchange of teachers and students in

Figure 9.1: The BP Action Lines

The BP Impact on LIS Education in Europe 197

Europe from 1987. In 2009, the European Ministers of the BP agreed uponthe common goal that at least 20% of those graduating from the EHEAshould have had a study or training period abroad. However, recognition ofqualifications is still an obstacle to mobility and is not an easy process. Untiltoday, recognition has been attained through the network of NARIC centres,which certify the equivalence of university degrees granted by the universities.It has taken a long time to come to an agreement that is suitable to allprofessional profiles. The BP has applied new tools such as the EuropeanCredit Transfer System (ECTS) for facilitating exchange, together with theDiploma Supplement which registers the transcript of the completed course.

The joint courses precede this agreement, with the stipulation of a contractbetween all partner universities in a consortium, which guarantees that thestudent will receive recognition in all nations which are partners in the course,with the validation of the course at a national level. Indeed they stimulate theuniversities to pool their relative expertise and offer an innovative course, thusguaranteeing a degree that is valid in all the universities of the consortium.Joint courses have been stimulated by financing programmes such as ErasmusMundus, which extend to third countries’ students and teachers monetarysupport for exchange, in the global dimension of the EHEA.

9.1.2. Enhancement of quality and educational reform

The remaining BP ‘Action Lines’ belong to the category of procedures forthe enhancement of quality and educational reform: quality assurance,


social dimension, employability, lifelong learning and the three-cycle degreearchitecture. To achieve these objectives, the BP has applied the three-levelstructure of higher education, with a new approach to lifelong learning, anda minimum set of standards and guidelines for quality assurance, called theEuropean Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in HigherEducation (ESG). The problem of quality has two aspects: one at aninternational level that aims at transparency and accreditation of coursesand another at national level that tends to better the quality of universityeducation, by adapting the curriculum to the new needs of a global society.Starting from 2005, a more qualitative approach has been taken by the BP,adopting the learning outcomes orientation of education, which tries todescribe the content of the curriculum with the desired outcomes and not thedisciplines taught. In the BP approach to an international curriculum, as inthe past, this is not an end in itself but the learning outcomes orientation is ameans toward developing the appropriate international competencies instudents, staff and teachers (Tauch & Rauhvargers, 2002). Learningoutcomes are defined as (European Commission, 2005a, 2005b):

Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner is expected to know,

understand and/or be able to do at the end of a period of learning.

The use of the verb ‘to do’ in the definition underlines the aspect ofcompetence or ability, rather than the way in which this ability isdemonstrated, or competency. Competencies are related to the EuropeanQualifications Framework (EQF) and classified as

� Knowledge and comprehension,� Being able to apply knowledge,� Being able to make evaluations,� Being able to communicate,� Being able to learn.

It is important that learning outcomes, once and in whatever wayachieved, must be described and attested in such a way that they may beconsidered for recognition. The descriptive words of the learning outcomesdistinguish the competencies expected after the completion of all three levelsof the university courses, and the corresponding levels of EQF (EuropeanCommission and European Union Council, 2003). There is a consequentcascade effect that links the learning outcomes orientation with the selectionof appropriate teaching and learning techniques and the development ofsuitable curriculum design (Adam, 2004; Campbell & Van der Wende, 2000).

Thus, the BP has ambitious objectives that are not limited to theEuropeisation of the curriculum, rather they include the entire educational


process: content design, teaching and learning process, assessment of theachieved learning outcomes and recognition of qualifications.

9.1.3. BP Achievements

After 10 years of development, the BP has been successful in developing andapplying some reference tools, such as the three-level structure of courses,the ECTS, the Diploma Supplement for course description, the ESG and theEQF for establishing the level of the qualifications. All these tools areimproving transparency of academic qualifications and curriculum content.Many challenges and obstacles are still standing in the way however, such asrecognition, countries regulations for quality assurance within and outsidethe EHEA, and many other legal or informal barriers including languageand cultural barriers. The tension between the conflicting aims ofharmonisation and developing diversity has characterised Europeandevelopment for decades and even in the BP and renders an undesirablecollaboration towards a single educational system. However, a commonframework is needed for comparability and co-operation at internationallevel. The Tuning Project (Tuning, 2004) and joint courses (Tauch &Rauhvargers, 2002) are trying to develop this common framework.

The Tuning Project idea is that European curricula need points ofreference, such as learning outcomes, for a common understanding at subjectarea level. In the Tuning approach, the learning outcomes are linked to theEQF schema of professional levels and the knowledge or skills required foreach level of education. The Tuning Project used the term ‘competence’ torepresent a combination of attributes: knowledge and its application, skills,responsibilities and attitudes. Also, in Tuning Project, participation andrepresentation of all stakeholders in the quality process are key issues to builda common framework for the nine subject areas which have been analysed.

Joint courses can go further in Europeisation of the programmes and theyenvisage a curriculum that has been jointly designed by two (or more) highereducation institutions and is regulated by a specific negotiated agreement.These partnerships are considered to be an effective means for developing theEuropean dimension as they adapt national regulations for recognition,quality assurance and curriculum design to a common regulation.

9.2. The BP Impact on LIS Education

How are LIS schools in Europe responding to the re-discovery of thisEuropean dimension?


The European project ‘‘European Curriculum Reflection on LIS educa-tion’’, promoted by EUCLID (European Association for Library andInformation Education and Research) has collected data about LISeducation in Europe, completing a survey and promoting discussion aboutBP impact on LIS education between experts and professors from allcountries. According to the results of the EUCLID survey, there are about200 LIS institutions in Europe (Kajberg&Lorring, 2005).Most typically, LISschools function as a department within a specific faculty or as a programmewithin a specific department; few institutions function as an independentfaculty/department or as an independent academic institution. For a smallnumber of countries offering LIS education according to the Anglo-American model, there are professional associations and/or national bodiesthat provide a basis for making some comparisons and assessments. But formost of the European countries, there are no professional associations ornational bodies that take on this responsibility. As a consequence of thesedifferent regulations, LIS is taught differently in different Europeancountries, and this is reflected again in the curriculum, and is an obstaclefor student mobility, recognition of qualifications and transparency ofcontent. The BP represents a great stimulus to collaborate for removing theseobstacles and enhancing the quality of learning and teaching.

Virkus (2007; Virkus & Wood, 2004) and Tammaro (2001, 2005a, 2005b)evidence the growing interest of adopting internationalisation for the needof a systematic modernisation of curricula, adapting to the digital age.Europeisation of the curriculum has been the specific aim of the ex-Sovietand the Balcan countries (Juznic & Badovinac, 2005; Primoz & Branka,2005) after re-unification. The ‘Europeisation’ of LIS education achievedbefore the BP has emphasised the concept of individual mobility andcurricular harmonisation (Abdullahi & Kajberg, 2004). After Bologna,collaborative activities in LIS education have increased with a morestructured form, including collaborative projects for quality assurance andjoint courses (Audunson, 2005; Berger, 2002; Tammaro & Dixon, 2003).Dixon and Tammaro (2003) describe the International Master in Informa-tion Studies arranged jointly by Parma University and NorthumbriaUniversity in 2000. More recently, a joint master’s programme on DigitalLibrary Learning (DILL) between Oslo University College (Norway),Parma University (Italy) and Tallinn University (Estonia) has got support inthe framework of the EU Erasmus Mundus programme. Kajberg (2003a,2003b) believes that joint curriculum, course or module development is themore ambitious and resource demanding way of collaboration.

The most important efforts for building a common framework forteaching and learning in LIS have been guided by the initiatives ofEUCLID, EBLIDA and IFLA. EUCLID (European Association forLibrary and Information Education and Research) is an independent


European organisation which aims at promoting co-operation for teachingand research in LIS. EUCLID organises an annual conference, identified bythe acronym BOBCATSSS that stands for the first letters of the cities of theuniversities that initiated the first BOBCATSSS symposium in 1993.EUCLID began a discussion on the BP during the EUCLID conferencein Thessaloniki 2002, where a Position Paper was prepared containingprecise objectives.1 The European project European curriculum reflections onlibrary and information science education, coordinated by the Royal Schoolof Library and Information Science of Copenhagen, in December 2005published a synthesis of the discussions of European teachers on curriculum(Kajberg & Lorring, 2005). During the project and the BOBCATSSSConferences, the internationalisation of curriculum has been repeatedlydiscussed.

EBLIDA is the European Bureau of Library, Information andDocumentation Associations. In 2004, EBLIDA began the group ILEG(Information Library Education Group), aiming to

� maintain a general awareness of LIS education practice across Europe,and identify major trends and developments in the field;� establish a digital information resource on LIS education matters;� work towards an optimal balance between theory and practice in libraryeducation for the benefit of users and wider society;� promote the mobility and flexibility of qualifications both withincountries and across national boundaries and the development ofinternationally recognised competency frameworks;� monitor decision-making processes in relevant European bodies andlobby and influence these processes where appropriate;� foster co-operation and partnership working with other key stakeholdersacross Europe;� support innovation and evidence-based research in LIS.

‘Librarian@2010 – Educating for the future’, the conference held inLisbon in 2007 marks the first public event promoted jointly by EBLIDAand EUCLID (Hipola, 2008).

The IFLA Section Education and Training (SET) has investigated thequality assurance processes and the feasibility of equivalency and recogni-tion guidelines, with a survey of LIS schools in Europe (Tammaro,2005a,2005b; Tammaro & Weech, 2008).

1. http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/contrib/Statem_oth/EUCLID.pdf


9.3. Core Elements Which Influence LIS Education in Europe

The past and recent discussions inside EUCLID, EBLIDA and IFLA,together with the relevant literature review, are analysed below, trying todesign a conceptual framework of LIS education in Europe and focusingupon:

� the profile of the information professional;� the field of LIS and LIS education;� learning and teaching considerations (and the age-old problem of theoryand practice).

9.3.1. The Profile of an information professional

In the discussions inside the EUCLID project European CurriculumReflections (Kajberg & Lorring, 2005), there was no common understandingof the LIS professional role. The concept of the mediator role prevailedwhile other roles, such as educators or social roles, were debated within theEUCLID project, without reaching any agreement. Most of the LIS schoolsinvolved in the EUCLID project agreed on this definition (suggested by TorHenriksen):

All the information professionals have to organise collections, both physical

and/or virtual. Their role is that of mediator between authors and users.

9.3.1.1. Role This makes LIS studies a field which prepares for practicalwork and for teaching and research in librarianship and jobs in libraries, inthe book trade, in archives administration, in museums or in any otherphysical or virtual collection or archive-based activity – also outside culturalinstitutions or organisations (Kajberg & Lorring, 2005). Can the LIScommunity in Europe agree on this role of mediator in the society? There isnow a new active role in the society, supporting the user in learning andknowledge creation. In the discussion inside the LIS community, thesedifferences were clarified:

Mediator role: to focus on document, on physical stores (even when theyare digital) – libraries as ‘warehouses’, emphasise on on technical tasks andconsequently LIS programmes should focus tools and cultural institutionsmanagement.

Active role: he has a focus on information management and onprofessional skills and knowledge. He is aware that libraries have a socialrole and are willy-nilly political sites: libraries rather as social institutionsand not ‘warehouses’. As a consequence, emphasis in LIS programmesshould be on transferable concepts and analysis of information workflow.


9.3.1.2. Qualifications We can evidence that the complex process ofinternationalising the LIS profession is related to the implications ofdifferences in value judgement about LIS, and this impacts on recognitionof qualifications. Weech and Tammaro on behalf of IFLA Education andTraining Section (Tammaro & Weech, 2008) have investigated the feasibilityof equivalency and recognition guidelines. Most of the European respondentsgave evidence that the pre-eminent entry level in Europe is the LIS Bachelordegree. Any Bachelor degree (not in LIS) is required by some countriesin Europe (e.g. by Portugal, Bulgaria, Italy). For civil servants working inpublic institutions, additional requirements are certification of individuals (asfor example Estonia, Belgium), or professional exams (as in Spain, Croatia).For career advancement in Public Administration, there are specialrequirements, such as professional retraining, or master’s completion. AllEuropean respondents to the IFLA survey have declared that the Bolognareform has resulted in the flourishing of new courses of librarianship inuniversities. The three-tier structure of BP has been applied in all LIS schools,together with the ECTS credits. However, some issues have been evidenced, asfor example same subjects receive different ECTS points and the finalassessment is different as the calculation is not related to agreed standards.

9.3.1.3. Accreditation The participants of the IFLA SET survey were alsorequested to give their opinions on the realisation of an internationalaccreditation and recognition procedure and the learning outcomesapproach. Stakeholders’ collaboration seems to be difficult to obtain inEurope and Library Associations are not involved in quality assurance. Onthe other hand, employers’ and labour markets’ relationship with LibrarySchools are improving. This is mainly due to the stimulus of the BP onemployability. Internship is playing an important part in learning in LibrarySchools. In the United Kingdom, the use of students’ placement has beenstimulated in big industries, and no longer only in libraries.

We can conclude that the complex process of internationalising the LISprofession is related to the implications of differences in value judgementabout the LIS field. The variations we can observe include a vocational or aresearch-based profession, education entry requirements, professionalretraining and certification of individuals which are seldom required.Library Associations have a weak role in quality assurance and certification.

9.3.2. The Field of LIS and LIS Education

Different perceptions of LIS education have to be related to different libraryconcepts. What is the role of a library in the community? The reply to thisquestion is implicit in the values that LIS schools transmit to the


professionals. Such values are coherently expressed in what is considered the‘core’ of the profession, that is the definition of what ought to be ofpermanent value in time and space. A learning outcomes approach relatedto the EQF can foster clearer thinking about the core of LIS programmes.This is what EUCLID has begun to do, realising a survey whose findings areillustrated in Table 9.1, Degree of overlap of the 10 curricular themes with

Table 9.1: Degree of overlap of the subject areas in the current curricula ofresponding LIS schools (from Kajberg & Lorring, 2005, p. 234).

Theme Description Percent

Information literacy and

learning

This represents the user approach to search

competence, behaviour and use within

knowledge organisation/retrieval.

76

Information seeking and

information retrieval

knowledge

organisation

The discussion in EUCLID was that these two

items should be dealt with together. In most

programmes, this sub-field dominates in

allocated time – up to 50%.

100 and 82

Knowledge

management

This term is used when LIS methodology is

applied in other kinds of organisations. It is a

compound of all three of the basic sub-fields with

special emphasis on the needs of the particular

kind of organisation.

Knowledge management is often organised as

special courses.

86

Library management

and promotion

This is an important part of the third sub-field,

including not only promotion towards the

users but also works at a political level.

96

Library and society in a

historical perspective

This is the diachronic approach to the third basic

sub-field, but may include aspects from the two

others.

66

Cultural heritage and

digitalisation of the

cultural heritage

This seems to represent the compound of a part

of the first sub-field (documents in its widest

possible sense) and a special theme:

digitalisation programmes. This includes the

digital asset management and access to the

digital library. Administrative or

organisational matters should be added.

62

Mediation of culture in

a European context

Again we have a compound of all three basic sub-

fields – perhaps with emphasis on the first one

(what is a European context?)

26

The library in the

multicultural

information society

Multiculturalism is obviously a theme to take

into all basic sub-fields. It concerns the variety

of documents, the special user needs when

organising the aggregates of documents and

the service organisation for a multicultural

society in general.

42


subject areas in the current curricula of responding LIS schools (Kajberg &Lorring, 2005).

The EUCLID guidelines which have been developed (EUCLID, 2008), todate as drafts, indicate a common structure which could be used for thebenchmarking of European programmes. They define a conceptual modelthat is inspired from Shera (1965) and can facilitate reciprocal under-standing at an international level. This model indicates the componentelements of the curriculum as

� Sources: what we mediate – real or virtual documents, data, broadcasts,etc., including content and specialists. How we communicate them tousers.� Organisation: principles and theories of the profession, including IT. Thisincludes how we organise, store, search and retrieve the documents andother sources.� System: organisation and development. How we develop and organise theuser services and other tasks – including management, relevant legislation,social role and information politics.

What are the real values underlying the concept of library in LIS schools?The greater importance attributed to one or more of the elements, for theparticipants in the EUCLID project, distinguishes the different culturaltraditions in LIS training. The participants of the EUCLID projectEuropean Curriculum Reflection agreed upon the core of the discipline: LIShas been defined as the ‘science’ of organising mediation, using the termscience as a special kind of science in the sense defined by Ranganathan(Kajberg & Lorring, 2005). Information seeking, information retrieval andknowledge organisation are considered the core of the curriculum to whicheveryone ought to align.

The main problem of the BP reform application in LIS seems to betheoretical and is related to the concept of ‘Library’ as currently understoodin Europe. While agreeing with core content, LIS education institutions inEurope have traditionally had two different approaches: one more focusedon collection organisation and one more focused on information manage-ment. These values appear to be linked to two different paradigms: the firstcan be called the ‘archival paradigm’, focused on the resources to bemediated (book, document, information, etc.); the other paradigm can becalled ‘information management paradigm’ with a functional approach tofacilitating user access to information.

9.3.2.1. Archival Paradigm The archival approach has the organisationof knowledge as the core of the profession, with the function of managing


the documents for rapid retrieval. It covers three basic sub-fields of study(Kajberg & Lorring, 2005):

(a) Source: the study of documentsThis sub-field covers the two main genres: fiction and non-fiction, their

typology and the structure of the main kinds of documents. For some kindsof user, a specific user orientation is recommended, e.g. children, visuallyhandicapped, researchers, music listeners or performers.

The document being a combination of text and medium, various mediashould be dealt with, from the oldest forms to the electronic ones.

It is assumed that it is not possible to standardise the content at aEuropean level. Each institution must make its priorities according to thetraditions of the country and the labour market for the candidates.

(b) Knowledge organisation and information retrievalThis sub-field has already reached a certain amount of standardisation

and consists of the following items:

� Formal and subject analysis� Formal (bibliographic) and content representation (with or withoutindexing languages)� Storage (cataloguing, shelving, databases)

Searching and retrieval (including search behaviour)� Evaluation of performances� Diachronic aspects to be dealt with could be e.g. classification history

(c) Organisation and management. Cultural and information policy andlegislation

This item primarily covers documentary institutions or organisations, butalso issues related to the document flow in institutions or organisations ingeneral (information management). Central topics will be the building up ofcollections or archives through acquisition policies or deposition schemes,the study of the users to be served and the organisation of the variousservices.

An obvious diachronic approach will be the history of institutions, e.g.library history or scenarios for the future.

General topics like planning, staff administration, budgeting andmaintenance of buildings should be dealt with here.

Information Management Paradigm The LIS profession seeks to highlightits role in service to society, impacting not only on learning but also on theeconomic development of the country. The information-centred approach,presented by Wilson (2001) in his paper ‘Mapping the curriculum ininformation studies’, adds a fourth block to the three defined as


a) information content: the ‘traditional’ function of library and informationservices;

b) information system: information in organisational settings;c) people: users and information providers; andd) organisations: information producers, libraries, information centres, etc.

The Wilson (2001) model is the result of the interaction among the fourfields and is based on the information science tradition. Thus, in response tothe question ‘What is a library?’, there are two possible replies, leading todifferent values. While the details of the international curriculum must differsomewhat from one place to another, the core content and the disciplinaryprinciples should be the same.

The current period is however evidencing a continuous change, with newusers’ needs, new tools and new library competitors. A review of changingneeds has to be performed in relation to different traditional and emergingroles, new working environments, new societal demands. A particularchallenge of LIS education at present is to address the education of futureprofessionals in a field featuring major change and rapid evolution. Forexample, the most important factor of change in terms of its impact on theLIS sector is undoubtedly technology. The EUCLID project EuropeanCurriculum Reflection on LIS Education (Kajberg & Lorring, 2005) hassought to define an intermediate model between the two paradigms. TheNordic countries tend to place the Information Society at the centre of theLIS sector, where the role of the library is to foster learning, multiculturalismand citizenship. Digital and multicultural competencies should penetrateeducation and students should be introduced to both the approaches: theinformation management oriented and the archival oriented.

9.3.3. Learning and Teaching Considerations in LIS

The emphasis on outcomes distinguishes the BP approach and moves thecriteria for quality from the input (what staff teach) to the learningoutcomes (what students will be able to do) (Adam, 2004). A comparison ofthe BP ESG guidelines with the findings of IFLA LIS schools’ survey onindicators (Tammaro, 2007) demonstrates that most indicators are the same.The BP’s particular learning outcomes orientation focuses on evaluationwhich can have an impact on the quality of student learning, but the IFLAsurvey has demonstrated (Tammaro, 2007) that students are involved inquality assurance in 69% of countries. Other output measures have beenindicated, such as percentage of students working after graduation, but only14% of European countries use this indicator.

The learning outcomes approach focuses attention on explicit anddetailed statements of what students learn: the skills, understanding and


abilities the course seeks to develop and then test. Ambiguities are notlacking for the learning outcomes approach as a whole, however. Inpractice, it is not always clear what the learning outcomes subject toevaluation are, and hence it is not easy to decide how they can be measured.The reply to the question ‘What is a library?’ implies another question: Whatis the purpose of the LIS school? However, we should recognise the fact thatEuropean countries have different traditions in teaching LIS and this isevidenced in the research methodology and principles which are taught(Kajberg & Lorring, 2005). In LIS schools in Europe, we can find differentmethodological approaches to LIS discipline, such as

� Epistemology;� Research methods;� Computer science;� Linguistic/Philology;� Historical research;� Bibliometrics.

The BP learning outcomes approach is seen as a dynamic frameworkguiding teaching and learning processes including how curricula are beingdelivered in learning environments. Some reccommendations have beenevidenced by the analysis done for this paper.

9.3.3.1. Student-centred approach The first tenet of LIS education in aEuropean course is that it should have a student-centred approach. By this itis meant that a curriculum is designed by the teachers (given that they havehad lengthier experience with the theory and praxis of the profession, andalso presumably are aware of the changing nature of information work thatis required, and in which there are jobs). Means must be found to getstudents fully engaged in the curriculum, however, both rationally andaffectively: small teams, discussions, shared class projects, production,performance, debate, conceptualisation – are all suitable for various topics.In order to do this, a careful guide through the introductory literature isgood preparation: students can discuss what they have read in class. Thiscan be tied to assessment in various ways – through presentations in class,discussion on listservs, maintaining blogs, or whatever. Individual research-like projects can also be encouraged, and the class as a whole invited tocritique these projects – once again, this can be done through websites,blogs, etc. In this way, students can become involved in performing whatthey are being taught. Explaining and defending topics or issues facilitatesdeeper understanding and learning, on the whole. Teaching methods aredesigned to stimulate students, facilitate their understanding and help themto achieve learning objectives.


9.3.3.2. Research orientation The second tenet of LIS education in aEuropean course is that it should have a ‘research orientation’ (Johnson,2010). Research is strictly linked to good teaching. This is why good teachersare those doing research. Students should be familiar with quantitative andqualitative research methods and be able to define the problem to beinvestigated. Doing research means being able to pose both questions(definition of the problem) and possible solutions (quantitative andqualitative methods). Students should understand the processes ofresearch (which is connected to the creation of knowledge mentionedabove), and should be able to read and critique research, or how knowledgeis created and communicated. It is only in this way that ‘information’ itselfcan be evaluated, and that suitable or ‘relevant’ information can be providedto an information seeker.

9.3.3.3. Constructivist pedagogy Third, pedagogy should be based on aconstructivist approach and students should be encouraged to engage in aresearch project of some kind, so that they are more critical consumers ofresearch. To recapitulate: learning and teaching in European courses shouldbe linked to research – the research done by teachers, the research done bystudents and the mastering of research methods on the part of the students.

Theory Vs. Practice As an immediate consequence of this constructivistapproach to learning and teaching, we have to ask ourselves: can thisteaching innovation resolve the age-old dichotomy of theory and practice?One of the current trends is to separate the discipline from the profession.Audunson, Nordlie et al. write: (Audunson, Nordlie, & Spangen 2003):

We can distinguish between the discipline-oriented approach and the

profession-oriented approach. For some, becoming an academic field implies

developing an academic discipline like sociology or history or chemistry. Such

disciplines are not linked to any specific and institutionalized field of practice.

Hence LIS becomes a generalized information science studying the phenom-

enon and practice of information in general without any links to a specific

professional field. Hence references to librarianship tend to be omitted. Others

have developed a profession-oriented perspective and aim at developing an

academic and research-based profession like medicine and law. A profession is

here defined as a field where practice is based upon a body of scientific

knowledge, and where a degree in this field of academic knowledge of study

from an accredited university or college is that which certifies a person to

perform as a practitioner and defines him or her as a member of the field.

To conclude this paragraph, one could ask: How can this BP learningoutcomes approach be linked to quality enhancement? LIS quality criteriathat have been evidenced are updating of the curriculum content, research


orientation and qualities (and competencies) that you expect graduates ofthe program to possess. But what would make a particular LIS schoolcompetitive would be its unique character: how it interprets the field, itsscope and vision, the quality of its academic staff, their research activitiesand so forth.

Knowledge organisation, information retrieval and information seekingshould be taught in any curriculum, but these subjects should focus ontheoretical understanding and practical capabilities.

9.4. Final Considerations and Conclusions

Although there is now major clarity in curriculum structure and content ofLIS schools, the BP impact in LIS still seems weak, however (Kajberg, 2002,2003a, 2003b; Virkus, 2007). In conclusion, what exactly are the qualitiesand competencies of the graduate of an international course? what learningoutcomes should be achieved? The author has used the structure of the BPlearning outcomes model (European Commission, 2004) for aggregating allthe desired outcomes described above, as illustrated in Figure 9.2.

Knowledge and understanding: this includes the body of disciplinaryknowledge. It has been described by the EUCLID project (Kajberg &Lorring, 2005), focusing on users, sources, organisation and system. Students

Figure 9.2: LIS education learning outcomes.


should understand the different typologies of user communities and howknowledge is created and disseminated. They should know what sourcesprofessionals mediate and how they organise, store, search and retrieve theinformation sources.

Applying knowledge and understanding: students should have familiaritywith the body of knowledge and be able to apply research methods foradapting to different circumstances (Johnson, 2010). They should knowtheir professional role and how the user services are organised and othertasks, including information politics, management and legislation, accordingto the EUCLID project (Kajberg & Lorring, 2005).

Making judgements: students should understand the professional role inthe society and make judgments accordingly (Johnson, 2010).

Transversal skills: these are transferable skills as communication,leadership, international view, critical thinking, self-management and soforth. These skills are described in the EQF and other BP reference toolsextensively.

The BP represents the politicians’ support for managing the neededchange, and the learning outcomes model stimulates the development of acommon conceptual framework towards and European curriculum. Con-troversial issues and some criticisms and misunderstandings of the BPimplementation in LIS, however, should be evidenced.

9.4.1. Competition Vs. Collaboration

This includes the analysis of aspects of the curricula that appear to attractbetter-performing secondary school students. In other words, while aninitial trend of the internationalisation of the BP is towards theharmonisation of the LIS curricula and the transparency of the minimumrequisites, or what is called the core programme, an apparently opposingtrend is towards the stimulation of excellence and innovation in the LIScurricula in Europe. LIS schools should have different specialisations andattract students through their optimal quality in such specialisations. Whatmakes a LIS school competitive?

One BP orientation is that related to the learning outcomes of thecourses. The quality criteria of the contents of the LIS curricula evidencedhere are the research orientation and, in particular, the qualities (andcompetencies) that you expect graduates of the programme to possess.Another strong measure of the competitiveness of an LIS school is, inaddition, producing graduates who are interested in, and committed to,engaging in theory development in the field and in further research. That is,the students should develop a curiosity, and a sense of meaning, in the field(Johnson, 2010).


A second BP orientation relates to the resources and specialisation of theLIS schools as centres of excellence. Centres of excellence have resources, agood environment, such as modern buildings, dedicated campus, largeteaching team, consequently specialism. Their curricula are updated andrelevant. Relevance of curriculum is demonstrated through validation andaccreditation process, best demonstrated by the existence of accreditation byprofessional bodies and students’ success in the labour market. Thedifference between these two orientations lies in the resources at thedisposal of the educational institutes. The risk of the second orientation isthat of penalising the schools with scantier resources.

9.4.1.1. Employability The updating of the curricula and employability isanother important BP quality indicator. One of the quality elements of thecourses is the continual updating to meet changing needs, even if measuredonly as a progressive trend towards ongoing evolution. That is, the change ispart of the LIS profession. For example, the most important factor ofchange in terms of its impact on the LIS sector is undoubtedly technology.The input of technology in the LIS curricula has engendered variedresponses, such as that of the extreme specialisation of the InformationSchools in the United States. Speaking of the application of technology tolibraries, the EUCLID project has demonstrated that there is a growingneed of technical capabilities. What is, however, the correct ratio betweentechnology and library science in the curriculum? Do librarians all have tobecome technologists? But won’t this lower the level of the profession? Orwill the libraries be replaced by computer systems, so that librarians will nolonger be needed?

Possible benefits of the BP for quality enhancement of LIS education,which can be also described as problematic areas, are the stimulus of thepoliticians which pushes a constructive dialogue between stakeholders.Quality of education, on the other hand, might relate to a student’sachievement of high grades, although they may not be particularly wellsuited for a particular position in the national labour market; the degreeitself may be of a high scholarly standard, but not cognisant ofcontemporary market demands. There are no clear answers yet, andsolutions which can be locally satisfactory could fail to take into account theinternationalisation which is currently demanded by the BP.

In conclusion of this chapter, the BP quality criteria and its learningoutcomes approach could act as a thinking device to promote ongoingdialogue about LIS schools in Europe. The necessary ‘mutual trust’ betweenLibrary Schools in Europe can stem from educational systems, which areappropriately compatible and credible following a common conceptualmodel, so that they can be validated. The learning outcomes focus, stressed bythe BP, is however less popular than other BP tools which have been applied.


To conclude, an international professional association such as EUCLID,could be leading the proposal of a LIS quality model in Europe focused onlearning outcomes which students should reach in order to becomecompetent professionals. The identification of appropriate learning out-comes and competencies would also facilitate the ability of employers andacademic institutions to establish international reciprocity and equivalencyof qualification guidelines in the global world of library and informationprofessionals.

References

Abdullahi, I., & Kajberg, L. (2004). A study of international issues in library and

information science education: Survey of LIS schools in Europe, the USA and

Canada. New Library World, 105, 345–356.

Adam, S. (2004). Using Learning Outcomes. A Consideration of the Nature, Role,

Application and Implications for European Education of Employing ‘Learning

Outcomes‘ at the Local, National and International Levels. Edinburgh, UK-

Bologna Seminar:30. Retrieved from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/

Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/040620LEARNING_OUTCOMES-

Adams.pdf

Audunson, R. (2005). LIS and the Creation of a European Educational Space.

Librarian@2010, Lisbon, EBLIDA; EUCLID.

Audunson, R., Nordlie, R., & Spangen, I. C. (2003). The complete librarian – an

outdated species? LIS between profession and discipline. New Library World,

104(6), 195–202.

Berger, F. (2002). International co-operation of LIS schools in Europe: an obstacle

to be won. In A. M. Tammaro (Ed.), Towards internationalisation in library and

information studies: Proceedings of the international seminar, Parma, March 18th

2002, Fiesole, Casalini (pp. 49–56).

Bologna Declaration (1999). Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of

Education. Ministers of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna.

Campbell, C., & Van der Wende, M. C. (2000). International initiatives and trends in

quality assurance for European higher education. Helsinki: ENQA.

European Commission. (2005a). Towards a European qualifications framework for

lifelong learning. Bruxelles: European Commission.

European Commission (2005b). The European charter for researchers. The code of

conduct for the recruitment of researchers. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf

EUCLID (ed.). (2008). Providing access to information for Everyone. 16th

BOBCATSSS 2008 symposium, Proceedings Bad Honnef, Bock+Herchen,

Germany.

European Commission (2004). Irish Presidency Conference. Towards 2010: Common

themes and approach across higher education and vocational education and training

in Europe. Background Research Paper. Irish Presidency Conference, Dublin.

http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/040620LEARNING_OUTCOMES-Adams.pdf



http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf


EuropeanCommission andEuropeanUnionCouncil (2003). Joint InterimReport on the

Implementation of the DetailedWork Programme on the FollowUp of the Objectives of

Education and Training Systems in Europe. Brussels, European Commission: 35.

Hipola, P. (2008). Editorial. Mind the gap. Education for Information, 26(1–2).

Johnson, I.M. (2010). A tiresome exercise or a first step in library leadership?

BOBCATSSS, Parma.

Juznic, P., & Badovinac, B. (2005). Toward library and information science

education in the European Union: A comparative analysis of library and

information science programmes of study for new members and other applicant

countries to the European Union. New Library World, 106(1210/1211), 173–186.

Kajberg, L. (2002). Cross-country partnerships in European library and information

science: education at the crossroads. Library Review, 51, 164–170.

Kajberg, L. (2003a). Cross-country partnerships in international library and

information science education. New Library World, 104, 218–226.

Kajberg, L. (2003b). A survey of internationalisation activities in European library

and information science schools. New Review of Information and Library Research,

9, 25–60.

Kajberg, L., & Lorring, L. (Eds.). (2005). European curriculum reflections on library

and information science education. Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and

Information Science.

Primoz, J., & Branka, B. (2005). Toward library and information science education

in the European Union: A comparative analysis of library and information science

programmes of study for new members and other applicant countries to the

European Union. New Library World, 106, 173–186.

Shera, J. H. (1965). Libraries and the organisation of knowledge. London: Crosby

Lockwood.

Tammaro, A.M. (2001). Towards internationalisation of LIS schools: An introduc-

tion: Towards internationalisation of LIS schools. Parma, 18 marzo 2001, Casalini

Digital.

Tammaro, A. M., & Dixon, P. (2003). Strenghts and issues in implementing a

collaborative inter-university course: The international masters in information

studies by distance. Education for Information, 21(2/3), 12–27.

Tammaro, A.M. (2005a). Adapting LIS education to the digital age: Co-operation

and internationalisation for innovation. BOBCATTS, Budapest.

Tammaro, A.M. (2005b). Recognition and quality assurance in LIS: New approaches

for lifelong learning in Europe. PerformanceMeasurement andMetrics, 6(2), 67–79.

Tammaro, A. M. (2007). A curriculum for digital librarians: A reflection on the

European debate. New Library World, 108(5/6), 229–246.

Tammaro, A.M., & Weech, T. (2008). Feasibility of International Guidelines for

Equivalency and Reciprocity of Qualifications for LIS Professionals. Final Report.

The Hague, IFLA.

Tauch, C., & Rauhvargers, A. (2002). Survey on Master Degree and Joint Degree in

Europe. European Universities Association.

Tuning (2004). Tuning educational structure in Europe; closing conference document.

Tuning Educational Strutures in Europe. Available at http://unideusto.org/

tuningeu/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/pdf/erab-first-annual-report-06102009_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/pdf/erab-first-annual-report-06102009_en.pdf


Virkus, S. (2007). Collaboration in LIS education in Europe: Challenges and

opportunities. 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council. IFLA. Durban.

Virkus, S., & Wood, L. (2004). Change and innovation in European LIS education.

New Library World, 105, 320–329.

Watcher, B. (2008). Internationalisation and the European Higher Education Area.

Academic Cooperation Association (ACA).

Wilson, T. D. (2001). Mapping the curriculum in information studies. New Library

World, 102(11), 436–442.

Documents

[Library and Information Science] Library and Information Science Trends and Research: Europe Volume 6 || The Bologna Process Impact on Library and Information Science Education: Towards