Preparing the Information Professional: An Agenda for the Future

Citation

Savolainen, R. (2002), "Preparing the Information Professional: An Agenda for the Future", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 327-330. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd.2002.58.3.327.4

The title of the book is partly misleading because the study focuses on library professionals, not information professionals in general. The book employs international perspectives for analysing existing models of LIS education and defines the competencies required of the future LIS professional. Sajjad ur Rehman, Professor of Information Science at Kuwait University, makes an ambitious attempt to provide a rationale and a methodology for responding to the demands of LIS markets. He asks how to configure the changing scenario of LIS education and then translate it into relevant academic models, programmes and curricula. Rehman makes comparisons of LIS education both in developed and developing countries. The first group includes North America, the UK and Australia. As to the developing countries, Rehman describes LIS education in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia and Singapore.

To put the empirical study in a broader context, Rehman discusses the intricate concept of competence (Chapters 2 and 3). He adopts a pragmatic standpoint and defines competence as a combination of knowledge, skill and attitude (p. 36). Considering the goals of the book, general level definitions such as these work quite well, even though a more profound analysis of the relationships between knowledge, skill and attitude would have been helpful for the operationalisation of variables which describe the areas of competence.

Rehman emphasises the situational nature of competence, pointing out that situational variables may cause significant variations over time and that areas competence may vary in different types of libraries. On the other hand, if the naming of competence areas is based on the identification of various work tasks in libraries, the number of individual competences rises very steeply. This danger is exemplified by a study conducted by the US Department of Education in the mid 1980s (p. 28). No less than 8,800 competences of library and information professionals were identified! To see the wood for the trees, it is necessary to operate on a more general level when such competences are discussed. Rehman succeeds relatively well in steering between too specific and to general approaches to competence. On the other hand, he avoids the problem of endless wish lists of competence requirements in regard to individual tasks; on the other hand, he does not merely draw on speculation about LIS competences in general.

Chapters 4‐7 report the findings of a survey conducted in 1994‐1995 in Malaysia. About 150 top and middle managers in the largest library and information organisations were interviewed for the study. The managers were asked to indicate their views on the deficiencies on information professionals and the trends in professional practice during the next five to ten years; in addition, they were asked to propose strategies for improving professional capability of entry‐level librarians working in academic, public and special libraries.

To study the requirements of professional preparedness, Rehman specifies six “generic” (or foundational) competences: cataloguing, circulation, information services, collection development and serials. As the main components of the above, both knowledge and skills are scrutinised. To exemplify individual LIS competences: cataloguing (knowledge) refers to cataloguing methods, techniques and products, whereas cataloguing (skills) stands for the application of cataloguing rules. On a scale of one to nine, mean scores were computed where one means minimal and nine the most extensive coverage of competences.

The empirical results are presented in numerous tables. For instance, the application of cataloguing rules was deemed very important; these skills scored 8.13 in academic libraries, 8.80 in public libraries and 8.55 in special libraries. However, knowledge of insurance of library resources and facilities, provisions and applications scored only 5.71, 5.50 and 6.60 respectively. On the basis of the survey findings, an extensive picture of the competence areas was drawn. As the above examples indicate, the mean scores varied across library types. The tables are informative in this sense, even though the reader has to take pains to extract an overview of the similarities and differences between public, academic and special libraries. Obviously, the tables would have given added value by drawing “competence profiles” of public, academic and special libraries or highlighting the competence requirements which are most characteristic of the above library types.

Interestingly, the results also indicate difficulties associated with the exact operationalisation of LIS competency areas. This is evident, for example, in the discussion of information service competences (p. 82). Knowledge of “search strategy, information systems and searching tools using manuals; machine‐readable and emerging technologies” scores 8.44, whereas skills of “use of tool for searching information” scores slightly less, that is 8.40. However, the separation of the components of knowledge and skills is not without problems. For example, searching for information on the WWW simultaneously presupposes both knowledge of the various properties of Web browsers and skills, such as to how to proceed from one hyperlink to another. Thus, in competent action, knowledge and skills are always intertwined. The ambiguities of operationalisation are exemplified in other contexts too. For example, “user community and its information needs” are specified in regard to both knowledge and skills, resulting in identical mean scores (p. 49). The reader will obviously be baffled in trying to find out the meaningful difference between “knowledge” and “skills” in this case. Conceptual ambiguities are also encountered, for instance, where the author refers to “skill competencies” (p. 54).

Chapter 8 reports the findings of the second survey conducted in the Arabian Gulf region. The date of the later survey is not indicated but probably the empirical material was gathered in the mid 1990s. In this study, 50 senior library managers differentiated between the competences and educational preparation of paraprofessional and professional library workers. The informants were asked to judge whether each of the 70 listed competences was taught in LIS schools on at least one level or if there were a need for a varying extent of coverage on two levels (typically, BA and MA). About 75 per cent of the respondents felt that professional education should be confined to those having at least a BA degree. A total of 21 common competences such as “helping users in searching OPAC and other bibliographic sources of utilities” were identified and ranked in the study. A number of higher level competences, for example, “strategic planning” were also specified. In general, these findings do not offer surprises; the competence requirements specified in the survey are traditional and well known in everyday library practice, at least in developed countries.

The final chapter of the book compares the strategies and directions of LIS education in North America, the UK and various developing nations. The most detailed picture is given of US developments since the 1980s. Even though LIS education has made good progress in some developing countries, LIS schools suffer from inadequate resources and unsystematic development of curricula. Comparing the number of LIS teachers having PhD degrees or the availability of IT tools for teaching purposes, the contrast between developed and developing countries is considerable. However, as Rehman points out, there is no single “right” way to reshape LIS education; each institution has to respond to local conditions and resources.

Although the major part of the empirical findings has already been published in LIS journals in the late 1990s, the book is worth reading since it offers an interesting overview of the competence requirements of LIS professionals and illuminates the similarities and differences of LIS education world‐wide. The major competence requirements of LIS professionals change quite slowly; thus the book will retain its value for years. However, since new developments such as the mushrooming of digital libraries and Web‐based education compel us to rethink the LIS curricula, an “updated” version of the book would be welcome within a few years.