McGill’s Graduate School of Library and Information Studies is evidently considering dropped the words “Graduate” and “Library”, which has some students up in arms. School of Information Studies? I don’t think it sounds as nice, or fits as well the role of the school, which just added three specializations this year: Knowledge Management, Archival Studies, and Librarianship. If you’re going to offer a specialization in “librarianship”, wouldn’t it make sense to keep “library” in the name? The crux is this, what does the word “library” mean in the 21st century, and how is it viewed outside of the library community? Removing the word would likely be based on the idea that “library science” has fallen far enough out of its specialization in libraries and into a more general idea of information management. Is there an viable instance where “library studies” are outside of and distinct from “information studies”?
If you do a wikipedia search for library science it automatically brings up the entry for LIS (Library and Information Science). For wikipedia, library science automatically incorporates information science, but the reverse does not seem to be true.
Library and information science (LIS) is the study of issues related to libraries and the information fields. This includes academic studies regarding how library resources are used and how people interact with library systems. These studies tend to be specific to certain libraries at certain times. The organization of knowledge for efficient retrieval of relevant information is also a major research goal of LIS. Basic topics in LIS include the acquisition, cataloging, classification, and preservation of library materials. In a more present-day view, a fervent outgrowth of LIS is information architecture. LIS should not be confused with information theory, the mathematical study of the concept of information or information science a field related to computer science and cognitive science.
Programs in LIS are interdisciplinary, overlapping with the fields of computer science, various social sciences, statistics, and systems analysis.
Doing a search for “information science” points you to informatics, where the language points much more into the realm of computer science and information management via databases and software engineering.
Informatics or information science is the study of information. It is often, though not exclusively, studied as a branch of computer science and information technology and is related to database, ontology and software engineering.
Informatics is primarily concerned with the structure, creation, management, storage, retrieval, dissemination and transfer of information. Informatics also includes studying the application of information in organizations, on its usage and the interaction between people, organizations and information systems. Within information science attention has been given in recent years to human computer interaction (HCI) and to the ways people generate, use and find information.
In the academic world, it’s easy to think that being a librarian is all about creating databases, utilizing new software, being technologically innovative, and so-on and so-forth, ad technologicum. However, many LIS graduates find work in small public libraries, where you still find a lot of patrons who don’t want to use computers or databases, and who want to ask the librarian anytime they have a question. For a lot of librarians, patron interaction and reference work are what make their jobs worthwhile, and while younger library users will likely jump on the technology bandwagon, utilizing the software and databases created by the librarian instead of the librarian directly, we have a more conventional generation, who having grown up with card catalogs and print indexes, aren’t keen on skipping the middleman and jumping straight into information overload.
Day by day the line is blurring between LIS and Informatics. We, as librarians and library students, are at a point where we need to try and straddle the gap between the two, and eventually build a bridge. I think that it is important to maintain the distinction between information study as a librarian to information study as a computer science student or software engineer. Yes, as “librarians” we want to be able to branch out. We are versatile, and can offer many skills outside of the library setting. But if that is our explicit goal, then the field of library science will decline, and the importance of the library as place will eventually be swallowed by technology, computer science, and the internet. The library can always expand its purview, and incorporate innovation and technology to its heart’s content. We can make the words “library science” mean “information expert”, rather than letting “information expert” destroy the word “librarian”.
13 replies on “The idea of “library” and the importance of a name.”
The word “library” has such an extreme cultural significance, it would seem that the only reason to drop it would be to make the MLS seem less…intellectual.
The point is to keep graduates of LIS from being pigeon-holed. A lot of people have a set idea of what a “librarian” is and feel like that isn’t the type of person they need outside of the library setting. The truth is, though, that librarians are experts in information management and organization, and as such can do well in many non-library settings.
So the question is, do you change the name to try and appeal to these people that think, “Librarian? No, that’s not what we’re looking for. We’ll take that guy over there with an ‘Informatics” degree.” Or, do you try and expand the meaning of “librarian”, expelling the prejudice and making people realize how versatile and worthy we are of jobs outside of a strict library setting?
Why not add “Information Management” onto the end. Master of Library Science and Information Management. MLSIM. I hadn’t actually thought about the issue from the perspective of a prospective employer.
It is a good point about the pidgeon-holing as far as public opinion is concerned. One of my uncles got his MLS from a small school in Cali and the whole family thought he was nuts. He had less than any interest in working with books. Technology was more his thing. He ended up getting a job as the librarian for a technology company where he just kept track of their information, research, books, etc. That’s when I realized that an MLS covers a lot more than just how to sit behind a desk and help people with questions while yelling “SHUSH!” at the kids.
Does the desire to change the name of the degree imply that the definition of the word is changing? What are the larger implications, if any, to language when definitions change with time?
“Librarian” seems to also signify some educational and civic roles in the community, that “Information Studies” seems to remove. If a librarian (or an information studies major) is simply a supplier of data, what role do they serve in the community?
I don’t think we should get so hung up about a name. Though as a KMer, when people ask me what I’m studying, I can see confusion flitting over their faces as their minds hiccup over library. They never hear information studies (probably ’cause it’s meaningless). It would be nice not to have to explain every time.
However, SIS isn’t very descriptive, we could definitely offer the school some name suggestions on Friday.
Theo:
The current name is Library and Information Studies, which includes both and excludes neither. So it is right now pretty much like your suggestion, though MLSIM looks kinda cool.
I think that stories like your uncles are fairly common, and that there is a general problem in the perception of the librarian. Is a librarian someone who gets the degree, or someone with the degree who ALSO works in a library? I’d say that most students getting their MLIS want to work in a library setting. Certainly, some don’t (like your uncle), and due to lack of jobs others find it impractical.
Changing the name of the program won’t change what people are learning in the program. And what we’re learning makes us valuable employees in many venues outside of the library setting (ebay was organized by a librarian). So how do we get people to see that, without sacrificing the “library” aspect of the title? Or should we, in fact, let the word fade away?
Emmett:
I agree that the word “librarian” has a lot of meaning outside of “information expert”. Librarians feel personal, like an old book, someone we can approach and trust, leave our kids with, and who are an integral part of the community. Change the name librarian to something like “information management technician”, or anything equally modern, and that sense is lost completely.
The trick is to keep the personal and comfortable sense of the librarian as a member and educator in the community, without limiting someone with a library degree from pursuing the non-library jobs that they are also perfectly suited for.
So is it easier to do that by changing the name of the degree or by changing the sense of the word librarian (without sacrificing any of those civic connotations)?
Ahniwa, I would say move forward on both front together, because while there is a civic conotation of the word librarian, how much civic work libraries end up doing is questionable. I would say that they could do much more. As they engage more fully, they can use advanced tools that would make them more effective in all of their roles.
Emmett,
Do you think that in a city like Olympia the library’s impact on civic issues is simply overshadowed by the very politically and civicly active community that is already present? I think that perhaps the library doesn’t do a good enough job advertising their events outside of the library.
On the other hand, is it the library’s job to organize civic events, or is it adequate to simply offer their space for civic events that want to take place, and leave it to individual citizens to organize them?
In a town like Olympia it’s hard for the library to take too active a role without showing a bias that someone will say is inappropriate, and take offense to. But who knows. In any case, it’s an interesting question.
Hi Jessica,
I think the name is important. The trend lately, in many schools, has been to remove the word ‘library’ from their degrees. Hereabouts, at the University of Washington, doing so evidently allowed them to offer more programs that did not necessarily relate to the ‘library’ aspect of the degree.
My concern is that I think librarianship is a noble and esteemed profession, and not only as we slowly obliterating the word (just wait until we change libraries into ‘information resource centers’), but by removing the ‘L’ from these degrees and saying “We’re doing this because it’s better”, we’re devaluing the degrees of everyone who is stuck with that ‘L’, no matter how informationally or technologically savvy they may be.
It’s a dangerous trend, and it isn’t fair to them.
I think they need to offer more than just room space. And, to no fault of the good people who work out our library, but they hardly to that as it is.
Especially in a town like Olympia, where there are already a lot of engaged people already, there is a need a unbiased, non-partisan agent of engagement. Many of us are put off by the current culture of engagement in Olympia to the point that we recoil from pitching in. The library can act as the common space and arbiter. If they are to fault towards a bias, it should be to finding common ground, engaging people across the spectrum and educatating.
There seems to be a middle ground between “is it the library’s job to organize civic events, or is it adequate to simply offer their space for civic events that want to take place, and leave it to individual citizens to organize them?” The library could provide the space and organizing skills for regular forums/community conversations and frequently go to the public for topic ideas. Much like saying “We’re going to have these forums, but its up to you to think of something you want to talk/learn more about.” That would be my perfect world.
Emmett, I think that’s a fantastic idea. From my experience of her, it’s something that Cheryl (the librarian at the Oly Lib) might well be interested in pursuing, or at least discussing. And to bring this all full around, she’s a McGill grad. 🙂
i was going to make a comment… but the truth of the matter is that i don’t have the patience today. all i will say is that you all seem to have mapped out the issue rather well. i will weigh-in then by mentioning that “librarian” is a sexy word, while “information specialist is simply…. well…. “politically correct”. there, now that i sound completely shallow….
i agree with ahniwa.
-amos
“Informatics”? What a terrible word! I say, libraries are cool places, and quite able to change and expand with the times, and librarians should wear their title proudly. Informatics — bah, humbug!