Implications of changing names in changing times.

I came across an interesting paper written as a masters thesis
(around 2000, I think), that addresses this topic pretty well.

“The implications of name changes for library and information
science schools” – JULIA ANNE MURPHY

the link is: http://www.crowbold.com/homepage/topic4.htm

Of particular interest concerning this topic:

Positive and Negative Aspects of Name Changes
Most proponents of library school name changes agree that the changes are important in recruiting a new type of student. Changing librarianships’ negative stereotypical image is cited as an important reason. Maurita Holland of the University of Michigan says that the term “library” conjures up archaic images (Davis, 1998) and Jose-Marie Griffiths, Director of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Tennessee agrees. “We are striving to recruit students of a different type who wouldn’t think about entering a library and information science program because they have the traditional view of what it’s all about” (Dean’s list, 1994, p. 60).

Another important factor is psychological. Name changes show academe and potential students that the field of information science is not limited to librarianship, and that information science education can lead to non-traditional, higher paying jobs (once again, usually in the corporate world). Library schools today are adamant about divorcing librarianship from the physical institution of the library. “Information science” connotes that information is everywhere and that therefore graduates of a program can work just about anywhere, whether that is in a library, corporate setting, or as a freelance information broker. Nancy Van House, former Dean of the now-defunct School of Library and Information Science at the University of California at Berkeley agrees. “If we focus as ‘library schools’, on the library, then we are tied to an institution that is changing and that could disappear”(Dean’s list, 1994, p.62).

Naturally, others disagree heartily with the name changes, finding them superficial at best and an utter betrayal of the profession at worst. While proponents of the changes believe the name changes will improve relations with the rest of academe, critics feel that universities will see the new titles as simply another attempt by a
low-ranking discipline to manipulate words in order to raise its status (Crowley, 1998). And while name changes may appear to be a token effort to address the reality of the information paradigm shift, it takes time and strategic planning to develop a corresponding curriculum that is properly balanced between theoretical and practical education. In this sense, name changes, especially with the plethora of permutations of the word “information”, can be evidence again of the identity crisis within which library schools are involved (Bohannan, 1991). What are such schools, really? More library school than information science school? Or vice versa? These questions lead one directly back to the definitions described above — definitions that provide few answers except to show that as a profession, librarianship is still struggling to define itself and its schools.

I still don’t know how I feel about getting rid of the word “Library” from graduate programs. Perhaps I’m biased because I do want the degree to pursue work IN libraries, which I realize isn’t the case for everyone.

Here are some more links I’ve run across that seem relevant.
There’s a lot to read, just thought I’d throw it out there.

http://www.si.umich.edu/cristaled/postings/V52.html

http://walt.lishost.org/?p=231

http://www.slis.ualberta.ca/cap03/regan/unitedstates.htm

In addition, library schools are choosing to drop the word ‘library’ from their faculty names in order to disassociate themselves with the low status occupation of librarian. Farley suggests that librarians can improve their status and pay by: 1) standing firm on wage negotiations despite economic downturns, 2) disseminating information on fair pay, 3) embracing the title of librarian instead of information specialist. She generally recommends marketing the librarian as important to society and refute the common misconceptions of the librarian.