Keywords
Citation
Holland, M. (2003), "Continuity, Culture, Competition: The Future of Library and Information Studies Education? Proceedings of the 4th British Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, 21‐23 March 2001, Dublin, Ireland", The Electronic Library, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 268-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470310480542
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Before the World Wide Web it might have questionable whether there was a sustainable future for a broadly based curriculum in Library and Information Studies (LIS). After the World Wide Web the potential curriculum has expanded immeasurably, to include technology, its impacts on organisations and society and new career opportunities associated with “knowledge management”. Government policy towards higher education in the UK, including the most recent White Paper, has never been more positive towards “vocational” higher education. Peter Enser’s Keynote Paper, challenges Departments of Library and Information Science (DILS) to embrace opportunities through co‐operation and collaboration with departments of computer science and disciplines associated with cultural heritage, health and medicine. The future described in the conference title appears bright.
Briefly the proceedings are in six parts containing 29 papers including the keynote paper. These are:
- 1.
(1) Library and information studies curriculum issues – 12 papers.
- 2.
(2) Library and information studies curriculum in a wider context – four papers.
- 3.
(3) Library and information studies curriculum delivery – beyond 2000 – three papers.
- 4.
(4) Networks, partnerships, consortia; mergers – six papers.
- 5.
(5) Education and research in heritage information management – three papers.
- 6.
(6) The economics of information 2000‐2002 – one paper.
Nordic authors contribute approximately one third of the papers.
Elena Macevicute’s excellent survey of the current curriculum in Baltic, Nordic and British DILS examines the shift from the traditional LIS curriculum to new areas of information/knowledge management, offering some evidence that the curriculum is evolving. Jette Hyldegaard et al. report an example of good practice, teaching a course in Enterprise Information Portals (EIP’s) and intranets using lectures, project work and student presentations. Papers make convincing arguments for the inclusion of languages (Jorna), the study of the information society (Duff) and the role of information in the proper functioning of democracy, citizenship and social responsibility (Thorstensson/Klasson).
A number of papers seek to analyse the fit between the curriculum and the job market. Brigitta Olander’s paper looks at an ongoing study examining the personality characteristics looked for in new graduates by Swedish library managers and a self assessment by students of their own personality characteristics. For the reviewer this approach, whose methodology is based on a UK study, is in part flawed. DILS might have the luxury of choosing candidates by character trait if they have sufficient applicants. However, a good higher education curriculum should deliver professionals with appropriate skills and competencies given a moderate quality of applicant. Michael Middleton’s paper, addressing “vocational competency” offers a more promising line of enquiry. Middleton notes the role of professional organisations in setting the context for course curricula and a trend in Australia at least towards broader, generic and flexible criteria. Breen et al. address the perennial issue of the stereotype of the librarian in the workplace. They note that many of the skills of LIS have a place in knowledge/information management but librarians are overlooked in place of professionals from other areas. The most coherent strategy for moving from the “old” to the “new” is reported in Margaret Watson and Linda Banwell’s paper, “Adding value to learning through cultural change: the Northumbrian experience”. They identify the role of research, engagement with professionals and industry and the interaction between research and teaching in underpinning their success.
Three papers address virtual and distance learning. Two papers (Marcella and Baxter, Broady‐Preston and Bell) reflect on the varying challenges in delivery. The shared conclusion is the value students place on flexibility of delivery and their need to engage in professional development while they are working. Catherine Hare and Julie McLeod’s experience of teaching records management within the BBC as part of a Life Long Learning agenda would also seem to address in practice many of the issues raised in earlier papers on curriculum design and engagement with employers’ needs.
Remaining papers address the experiences of cross sectional qualifications and training in academic libraries, archives and the cultural heritage sector (Ashcroft and McIvor, Huotari and Valtonen, Matthews and Tebridge). Andrew Pearson and Christine Urquhart make a telling point in relation to health information professionals in their analysis of job descriptions, interviews with practitioners and analysis of QAA benchmarks. The LIS QAA benchmark, it appears, is too narrow to meet all the demands of the health information job market, other benchmarks contain the right mix of skills, creating graduates who might compete against LIS graduates for jobs. A warning perhaps of the need for collaboration in the curriculum raised by the keynote speaker, Leif Kajberg looks at European co‐operation, a pressing issue in an era of global competition and, it is hoped, co‐operation in higher education.
The British/Nordic co‐operation has been very productive for this excellent proceedings. MCB/Emerald, who appear to be positioning themselves as the LIS publisher of choice in the UK, are to be congratulated on the quality of production. A must have for those who deliver LIS courses, definitely of interest for those working in higher education.