Author: ahniwa

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.

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”.