Dillon, Andrew and April Norris. "Crying Wolf: An Examination and Reconsideration of the Perception of Crisis in LIS Education." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46 (4) (Fall 2005): 280-298. Read 1 March 2006. [Available at dLIST. This is the version I read.]
This piece is a direct response to Michael Gorman’s "Whither Library Education?" New Library World 105 (2004): 376-380, along with addressing the crisis of LIS education that Gorman ran a portion of his presidential ticket on.
Note: For another view of Gorman’s views on LIS education see "Why Library Education Matters" (part 1 August 2005 American Libraries and part 2 September 2005 AL).
The authors also take the editor of Library Journal, John Berry, to task for suggesting "that deans of LIS programs were too quick to defend the status quo and were unable to prove Gorman’s claims of a crisis incorrect, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that required the accused to prove their innocence" (280). This snip is directed at Berry’s editorial, "Don’t Dis the LIS ‘Crisis’: Gorman is Right to Focus His ALA Term on Library Education," Library Journal 129 (October 1, 2004): 10.
Although one can describe Berry’s editorial in that way, I think it does it a disservice. Also, seeing as the lead author of this paper is the Dean of an I-school (UTA) I see his retort to Berry as problematical. And the fact that he wrote this paper should serve as a big red conflict of interest indicator to many. It sure does to me. That is not to say that there is nothing of value in this piece, there is, but one needs to keep in mind the personalities and professional positions of the folks arguing over this ‘crisis.’ [See Pawley's response in particular (citation at bottom of this post).]
NOTE: There were also several responses to this paper in the same issue of the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. I have listed these at the bottom of this post.
The short review:
The article refutes the claims of "crisis," but doesn’t mention what’s wrong or what, if anything, needs to happen except for one sentence on page 294 and obliquely with the discussion of the "quality facet" (295). Also, it relies on some questionable sources regarding such things as soon-to-come retirements and what is actually being taught in our LIS schools.
The bottom line is that it easily refuted Gorman’s claim of ‘crisis’ in LIS education, but then most any of us current or recent students could have done that, particularly after hearing him speak about his ideas. One problem with this refutation is that it comes from the dean of a LIS school (an I-school even). More importantly, it doesn’t even begin to engage with what might constitute a ‘crisis’ in the minds of students.
See here for some comments from people attending Gorman’s ‘crisis’ talk roadshow: Nichole Dorothea Amanda My comments.
The longer review:
Crisis? What Crisis?
Demonstrates that the ‘crisis’ in LIS education is not new, primarily by discussing the closing of LIS schools.
While the closing of Clark Atlanta University’s program in 2005 was the first announced in this century, some 22 schools have closed their doors over the years (almost 30% of all LIS programs
founded in North America), 14 of them alone in the darkest period of the field’s history between 1981 and 1994 (280).
Distinguishes the current ‘crisis’ from previous ones.
This ‘crisis’ has emerged "at a time of relative stability and even growth
for LIS programs, …. The market for current graduates is considered to be expanding as retirements loom, new technologies have pushed issues of access, use, and organization of information to center-stage, and funding for faculty research and student recruitment has been greatly increased (281).
Yes, LIS programs are growing and are better funded. But in this list of positives are a whole set of issues that could be used to describe another sort of ‘crisis’ in LIS education, one which the deans of LIS schools will never address.
Some of us clearly understand that there are those who "consider" opportunities for new graduates to be expanding. None of them, though, are new graduates. I take serious umbrage to the authors’ use of "is considered to be expanding" and to the use of "loom" regarding Boomers’ retirements. My dictionary says that "loom" means "(of an event or prospect) be ominously close" (586). There’s not a damn thing about Boomer retirements that is "ominously close." Our professional associations and our schools are doing all of us an ethical disservice (that’s the "nice" phrasing) in continuing to tout this looming wave of retirements. But, why would our schools want to provide us with an accurate employment picture? They are a business. Their job is to take our money and give us a piece of paper. In the meantime, if they can actually prepare us to do the job they are purportedly educating us for that’s great. If there is then a job for us to go into, so much the better. But there is little in the business model of higher education to link post-graduation employment opportunities to the current realities of the job market.
This section and its acceptance of current "belief" is one of my two greatest gripes with this mostly well-balanced paper. The other, which I’ll come to, is what it does not discuss (hinted at above).
Turning back to Gorman, "there are three central themes for the current crisis consistently mentioned in his claims that we shall examine in detail in this paper:"
- Librarianship has been pushed out or otherwise negatively affected by the incursion of information studies or information science-oriented faculty into most LIS programs, and as a result there is a lack of research on library issues, since schools have given all their attention to technologically oriented research questions.
- A gender divide exists which places female faculty on the library side of the scholarship divide, with the potential for schools to become male-dominated as library education is replaced by information science/studies education.
- The curriculum of most LIS programs fails to address adequately the education of librarians (281).
Defines "librarianship" as "a commonly understood label for the work of credentialed practitioners involved in management and provision of services within a library or similar setting" (282).
Casting Libraries in Opposition to Information
The main argument of the current claims of ‘crisis’ seems to be that ‘information science’ has become ascendant in LIS schools at the expense of ‘librarianship.’
Many developments have altered the landscape in which librarianship operates. "Blogs, wikis, email, e-books, Amazon.com, online magazines, chatrooms, listservs, Web sites, etc. are relatively new features of the information landscape that people are embracing with rapidity" (282). "… people’s information-seeking behaviors have altered in a manner which suggests strong support for seamless and self-sufficient access to information beyond the walls of traditional physical libraries" (283). All true on this front.
Admits that much pop technological determinism exists regarding the impact of the internet on society (and by extension, libraries). This discourse is both optimistic (reverential, prophetical, oracular) and negative (fall of the empire, end of society, the death of ‘reading’). The authors point out that "[t]he voice of reason in the face of this digital hype is much more likely to come from LIS faculty critically examining the issues, providing a much-needed counterpoint to the proponents of an inevitably paperless world" (283). I agree with this at an anecdotal level. There are also some LIS faculty who fall within the "reverential, prophetical, oracular" group of techno-pushers. Disregarding those for the moment, the big issue with whether or not LIS faculty are providing a "voice of reason" is that their voices are going unheard. Much of this discussion is taking place outside of the LIS literature (as it well should!) and LIS educators are heard by no one. Well, except, for the nonsense coming from Michael Gorman as ALA President. Unfortunately, his voice isn’t exactly a warning "voice of reason;" it is more "man the lifeboats, librarians and children first."
So, is or has IS come to dominate LS? This binary division is nothing new. The authors use a book by Margaret Stieg to claim that this division does not clearly reflect the reality of LIS programs. They also use an article by Fran Miksa to show that "the claims for technological perspectives dominating LIS are misguided, but his argument is based on logical and historical, rather than empirical, analysis" (283). So what type of data can be used to refute this divide?
The authors rely on the research output of LIS schools centering on journal articles and dissertation topics. The authors show that of the over fifty journals dealing with library and information science research in ISI Web of Knowledge several address "libraries." They then reference the Nisonger and Davis study (2005) to demonstrate that these are important publication venues for tenure and promotion issues according to LIS education deans and directors of ARL libraries.
But what is the content of these journals? "Even a quick examination reveals that they contain papers that are definitely library-centric" (284). And that is exactly what they do; take a quick look. By throwing out a couple topics included in these journals of interest to library practitioners they consider that they have shown a literature of relevance to practitioners. Sorry. That doesn’t cut it. It is at best a passing reference to the issue and does not begin to adequately address what the proportions might be, or who is writing them.
The next round of evidence the authors use is the topics of recent doctoral dissertations. They include a short sample of dissertation titles from the last five years at UTA, and a longer list of the Eugene Garfield—ALISE Doctoral Dissertation Awards from 1996-2005.
While the list of UTA titles is instructive, what are the titles of all of the other dissertations completed there in the last five years? What about at other schools? Do the authors really think that a list of 10 titles from one institution constitute more than anecdotal evidence? The fourteen ALISE award winning dissertations provide a slightly more nuanced view. But I am having a hard time imagining how many of these titles, even if "library-centric," are going to help many people working in libraries. But even if I am underestimating their value to practitioners, I do not buy the optimism of the followiong claim without more evidence.
While far from a complete analysis, these data cast serious doubts on the claim that there is a lack of research relevant to the needs of libraries and librarians being conducted in LIS schools. The substantially library-oriented research that wins ALISE awards suggests that the next generation of LIS faculty, and, crucially those who are evaluating them, recognize library-related research topics as central to their professional expertise (285, 287).
If we are accepting this information on dissertations as evidence of the health of libraries within LIS, then at best I am going to concede to the authors that currently the award committee is recognizing the importance of library "issues" as topics of research. But without knowing the exact breakdown (which is of course impossible) of IS vs LS dissertations produced across all schools, and even knowing something about the dissertations that didn’t win the award, we know nothing but anecdotes. But then that’s nothing new about our literature.
So, accepting their anecdotes as evidence of library-centric research output, the question remains as to its relevance to practitioners. While I entirely agree with what the authors say on this question, the tactic is still highly evasive. I will try and explain what I mean by that in a bit, but so I can’t be accused of taking them out of context I will quote this paragraph extensively.
One might, with justification, state that relatively little LIS research is so highly theoretical, especially when compared to other work in the humanities and social sciences, as to be inapplicable to the field, but this is not the crucial issue. More importantly, it is doubtful that trial by practitioner is ever the best measure of any scholarly research. While it may be common for librarians to complain of the relevance of many scholarly articles, this represents an assumption about the purpose of research, and one that is not unique to our, or even any, professional field. We would note only that while research must ultimately be tested in the context of practice, to engage solely in localized problem solving that satisfies the immediate practical issues facing librarians today would be to reduce scholars to consultants and threaten the status of LIS schools in the eyes of the academy, surely an activity more likely than any other to force schools into crisis (287).
I pretty much agree with every word in that paragraph. But. It is a semi-evasive maneuver; at best. To me, it is the equivalent of what the authors accused John Berry of, "…a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that required the accused to prove their innocence" (280). Well, maybe that fails a bit. It is a bit more like labeling a crime victim as guilty because of their race or gender or class or the way they were dressed. Either way, it is evasive and does not really address the question. Research shouldn’t be judged by its use to practitioners, but any practitioner with half a brain could make use of it anyway is what is essentially being claimed. [See Estabrook on the topic of research.]
Gendering the Instruction of Library or Information Science
Basic claim of the ‘crisis’-mongers: There is a gender divide. Women teach library courses, men teach information science courses. As women retire they are replaced by information science teaching men.
ALISE faculty data for the past 28 years is used to show that the faculty gender divide has closed "from a near 60:40 male to female ratio to virtual parity (slightly favoring females) for the last five year" (287). [I have no idea what limitations, if any, this data set has, though. See Pawley for some insight into its limitations.]
"If LIS is becoming a science-oriented discipline, as has been claimed, then this trend is in sharp contrast to such disciplines as engineering or computer science, where the failure of schools to attract and maintain female faculty has also been likened to a crisis" (288). I honestly fail to see what real purpose this statement and the rest of its accompanying paragraph play other than rhetorical. This field is vastly different than science and engineering. Anecdotal rhetorics supported by statistics; but these raw percentages tell no one anything of real value.
These numbers do contradict Gorman’s claim, but what of stratification? While there are still some discrepancy in gender balance at the top ranks, the data do appear to "suggest that the gender shift appearing across ranks is largely influenced by the promotion of female faculty, not the overhiring of of male facutly at the junior rank" (289).
This is good news. But is there still a gender divide within the curriculum? This is where the authors most readily admit to squishy data (my term, not theirs). They took a look at a selection of courses taught at most schools and divided them up according to "male-oriented" and "female-oriented" based on "conventional assumptions" (290).
- Male-oriented (3): database design and management, information systems, information retrieval.
- Female-oriented (3): cataloging, collection development, reference.
- Wild card (2): organization of information/knowledge, information resources.
I will not do a complete analysis of these courses at my school, but our biggest info retrieval course is taught by a woman and my reference prof was a male. They do refer to a paper by Suzanne Hildebrand, "The Information Age Versus Gender Equity?" Library Trends 47 (1999): 669-85 as the source of their "conventional assumptions" on gendered courses which I still need to look at, but I’m having issues with this. [Definitely see Pawley on this!]
This data, though (which they admit), was "extracted from the Spring 2004 Web-based course schedules provided by 34 ALA-accredited programs" (290). One semester. In defense of the authors they admit they need data from a two- to five-year period. Does this sample even rise to the level of anecdote?
They completely fail to point out another limitation of this data set though. It was extracted from 34 schools’ websites. In Spring 2004 I had already been accepted to library school, but just barely. That means that for the previous 3 years I had been researching library schools. Let me just say that this was some seriously miraculous research to be able to get this amount of detail from these schools’ websites! Their data may be accurate, but I have my doubts.
Accepting their data at face value, we currently end up with "more female faculty teaching information science-oriented courses than their are male faculty teaching library-oriented courses. The implication is that females are contributing to the development of LIS education by teaching both library science-oriented courses and information science-oriented course" (291). I, for one, am thankful if this is the case. [See Pawley. Why, for instance is parity even the goal, if 85% ofthe field is comprised of women?]
Curriculum Needs for Librarian Education: Renovation vs. Innovation
Well, there is little merit to a gender divide [not so quick Mark, see Pawley for a far more nuanced view], but does the curriculum serve us well to educate librarians? According to Steig, practitioners have accused educators of being out of touch for a long time.
Three studies over the last 14 years (Kellogg CRISTAL-ED, KALIPER, Markey) have shown there to be a "conceptual core of knowledge and skills" in our field (292).
The authors also claim that this core is "close to the recommended core advocated in Gorman…" (293). While I generally agree with this, I did not see anything in Markey that addressed proficiency in "the promotion of culture and knowledge" or "knowledge of literature" (293), and I read Markey twice.
Several of these reports made claims that librarians would need to employ their knowledge and skills "’beyond the library setting’" (293). The authors suggest, and I fully agree, that "it may be that this language triggers a strong reaction in traditionalists who equate it with a discarding of libraries rather than an extension of library practice to a broader domain" (293).
They conclude that generally all parties are in agreement as to what the core curriculum should be, and that "most schools are now delivering on it" (293). This may be the case, but the method of data collection only hints that this may be the case. Why do I say that? Because they have all accepted that because a class is listed, it is in fact taught, and that it is taught well. That may be a reasonable assumption, but it is certainly not universalizable.
Shifting the Debate: Crisis as a Moment of Change
Using, in my mind, somewhat dubious data the authors have shown that the ‘crisis in LIS education’ as defined by Michael Gorman is "overstated." Well, that was a fairly easy task as Gorman’s ‘data’ was even more dubious; i.e., nonexistent.
So what is it that leads to "the eternal existence, imaginary or otherwise, of crisis in LIS education" (293)? The authors’ view is "that at the heart of the current discourse lie two issues, one contemporary, relating to the technological revolution overtaking our field; the second longstanding, relating to quality control. In combination they offer two facets of the conception of crisis as it pertains to our field" (293-94).
Technology facet
The technology (information science) vs. library science discussion is actually pretty good, although I think it makes a few optimistic assumptions also.
"Technology has permeated all that we do in this field; it is foundational for the discipline in the twenty-first century, not a component that can be ignored or taught separately, under the heading "information science," in our schools" (294). This, and the rest of the paragraph of which it forms the heart, will only get a hearty "Amen" from me.
Gorman is accused of creating "a self-fulfilling prophecy," and that is certainly correct (294).
There is one overgeneralization and one optimistic assumption made in this paragraph, though. It is simply not the case that everyone is using "cheap, widely available information and communication technologies … across multiple task domains" (294). I, too, often speak (and sometimes write) like that, but I am trying to be better about it. While the dean of an I-school might wish that everyone was "drinking the koolaid," as many say, it is simply not true. [Shudder. I can't believe I just used that phrase. Being old enough to remember the Jonestown Massacre, I find it a completely inappropriate metaphor.]
The optimistic assumption, in my mind, is that "students arrive in LIS programs familiar with and skilled in the use of such routine technologies" (294). Certainly many do; but far from all. At the bottom of this linked page are the current computer literacy requirements students are expected to have by the time classes start at my school. Notice the requirements for saving to a floppy disk and using CD-ROMs. In the interest of fairness and disclosure, the faculty are seriously discussing updating this list, but the extraordinary task that it is, in some cases involving University-level approval, is simply ridiculous. The other sad part is that many students will graduate without having attained many of these skills, much less having them before they come. We simply cannot assume that students are coming technologically prepared. I have no doubt that most are far better prepared than many of our current professors and deans were, but then much of this technology did not exist when they entered library school.
The second optimistic assumption I see is that graduates and their employers, across the entire gamut of professional practice, expect graduates "to be familiar with current technologies" (294). This is improving, and probably even includes the (vast?) majority of both graduates and employers, but it is not universal. We have students who go out of their way to avoid learning anything about technology. Go visit many small public libraries. Read the discussions about Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 in the biblioblogosphere. Many will cry that I am being extremely nit-picky here. Yes. I am. But this is my education, and the education of all of my peers who are entering the field. We are paying dearly in time, money, and effort for the ‘privilege’ of getting this education.
The authors do make one small concession, and that is to say, "If there are criticisms to make here, it might be that LIS programs have failed to grasp fully the opportunity to stake a stronger intellectual claim on this terrain" (294). If? Might? There is no doubt that most of Gorman’s anti-technology claims are insipid, but there certainly "are criticism to make here." And they are that our LIS schools do need "to stake a stronger intellectual claim on this terrain." There is no ‘if,’ or ‘maybe.’ But, again, I’d be more than pleasantly surprised to see a dean offering serious public criticism of what they offer students.
Quality facet
Now this is a very interesting discussion. Sadly, it is a non-discussion. The authors point out several areas in our professional education where "quality" is, or should be, a highly important issue; e.g., incoming students, research and educational experiences across schools, graduates, entrance requirements, tenure and promotion standards, and so on. "It is difficult to quantify these issues, however, since discussions of quality and admissions standards are among the most divisive topics raised in faculty deliberations or practitioner discourse, and there is almost no vehicle for their formal treatment in the literature and conferences of the field" (295). Well yes, I have no doubt that this is true. But, quantification difficulties did not prevent the authors from ‘refuting’ Gorman’s manufactured crisis. On one hand, I am pleasantly surprised that this "discussion" of quality even arose; on the other, I am not in the slightest bit surprised that it was really a non-discussion after all.
In my mind, the failure of our schools to adequately engage current and newly emerging technologies, along with an almost complete avoidance of the "quality facet," is the real ‘crisis’ of LIS education. In fairness, although not a justification, the avoidance of the "quality facet" is rife across all of higher education. Also, I probably would not use the word ‘crisis’ to describe the issue but, nonetheless, these are two of the biggest failures I currently see in LIS education.
Crisis, as the authors point out, can positively "refer to turning points or decisive moment" (295).
The crisis we face is less to make research more relevant to local concerns of practitioners, or to revamp once more a set of core classes or accreditation standards, but to demonstrate our authority as a profession in dealing with information issues at both theoretical and practical levels, within academia and beyond. [Amen! Amen!] This is a crisis in the sense of it being an opportunity and a turning point, and in that sense, it should be welcomed, if we truly believe we, as a profession and a discpline, have something substantial to offer. To that end, the importance of a large professional society such as ALA in framing public debate and understanding cannot be underestimated, and it is there, rather than crying wolf about an educational crisis, that we believe more attention might be usefully given" (296).
All in all, this is a good refutation of Gorman’s manufactured ‘crisis of LIS education.’ I appreciate the effort of these authors to bring this refutation to us. While some might think I’ve been excessively harsh on the authors at points, I am firmly in their camp. I do have doubts, though, about the ability of the leaders of our LIS schools, in the current climate, to adequately address what may be at issue with LIS education. That much was implicitly admitted in their section on the "quality facet."
I highly recommend anyone concerned with a perceived crisis, or with LIS education in general, read this article. Available at dlist. And, please, if you disagree with my analysis or critique feel free to comment here or contact me [email address is found on my About page].
Responses to this article in the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science:
Malone, C. K., et. al. "Habits of Mind in the LIS Communities." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science v. 46 no. 4 (Fall 2005) p. 277-9. This article sets the stage.
Estabrook, L. S. "Crying Wolf: A Response [In reply to Crying Wolf: An Examination and Reconsideration of the Perception of Crisis in LIS Education by A. Dillon and A. Norris]." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science v. 46 no. 4 (Fall 2005) p. 299-303.
Pawley, C. "Gorman’s Gauntlet: Gender and Crying Wolf [In reply to Crying Wolf: An Examination and Reconsideration of the Perception of Crisis in LIS Education by A. Dillon and A. Norris]." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science v. 46 no. 4 (Fall 2005) p. 304-11.
Stoffle, C. J., et. al. "Practitioners and Library Education: A Crisis of Understanding." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science v. 46 no. 4 (Fall 2005) p. 312-19. [This piece is also available via dLIST.
I found the responses by Estabrook and Pawley to be the most satisfying. In fact, if you are only going to read one, or are particularly interested in issues of gender within LIS and LIS education, read the piece by Pawley. Also see Pawley for critique of the ALISE statistical data. See Estabrook regarding research. See Stoffle, et. al. regarding accreditation. Some might think that Stoffle, et. al. rebut some of my comments; maybe so, but I’m pretty sure I could overcome any such efforts. I have a response to that piece but, alas, no time to make it, having already spent at least 30 hours on this piece and its responses.
I wish I had known all of these responses existed prior to finishing this lengthy piece. I would have written a far more integrative piece that would have served me better from a pedagogical standpoint. As it is, I must leave it to you to do so on your own. I highly encourage you to do so.
