New Fields for Research in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 3rd British‐Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, 12‐14 April 1999, Boräs, Sweden

K.G.B. Bakewell (Emeritus Professor of Information and Library Management, Liverpool John Moores University)

New Library World

ISSN: 0307-4803

Article publication date: 1 November 2000

128

Keywords

Citation

Bakewell, K.G.B. (2000), "New Fields for Research in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 3rd British‐Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, 12‐14 April 1999, Boräs, Sweden", New Library World, Vol. 101 No. 6, pp. 282-287. https://doi.org/10.1108/nlw.2000.101.6.282.2

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2000, MCB UP Limited


Research in librarianship and information studies has really come of age when 358 pages on the subject, containing 30 papers and two keynote addresses, can be published. As Ian Johnson points out, in one of the keynote addresses, a factor inhibiting our research effort is the fairly recent development of the subject. I was reminded of a question put to me by a professor of biology when I was being interviewed for a Readership in what was then Liverpool Polytechnic: what is there to do research on in librarianship? In a contribution that is high on split infinitives and self‐citation, Johnson considers the problems of obtaining research funding and persuading managers of the importance of research.

In the other keynote address, Lars Högland of the Swedish School of Library and Information Studies provides a very brief comparison of research activities in Nordic and UK schools of librarianship and information studies.

There follow three papers on approaches to development in library and information studies. The short contribution by Peter Enser and Kate Wood on new approaches to the professional accreditation of library and information science education in Britain has been overtaken by events, to some extent, with the impending merger of the Library Association and the Institute of Information Scientists. Having lectured in Boräs several years ago, I found Staffan Lööf’s contribution on the development of education for librarianship in Sweden particularly interesting. He states that “the road towards the establishment of LIS as a proper academic discipline in Sweden has been both a long, winding and sometimes uphill one” and there certainly seem to have been considerable changes from the rather rigid and old‐fashioned approach which I found.

What exactly is new about “Documentation studies is close to LIS, but not quite the same!”, a description of the scientific and educational approaches in the Tromsø curriculum for librarianship by Niels Windfeld Lund? To me, the alleged differences between “documentation” and “library and information studies” are old hat. On p. 45, Lund states “the point of departure in documentation studies is not the document, but the human being wanting to document something or to use some documents”. I always thought this was true of librarianship too and I seem to recall that Ranganathan’s fifth law of library science was “Books are for use”.

Two contributions on knowledge management follow. Mirja Iivonen considers the role of trust as a basis for knowledge‐management trust between members of work communities; nothing is said about trust between enquirers and those attempting to answer enquiries. In a very well researched paper supported by an impressive bibliography, Brendan Loughridge reviews a selection of recent publications on aspects of the theory and practice of “knowledge management”, with particular reference to the development of the curriculum of professional education for library and information management and the career roles and prospects of information professionals. He points to the need to pay more attention to the personality and motivation of potential students, in view of the current stress on teamwork, groupwork, networking and sharing.

Next come three papers on the LIS workforce. “Likely to succeed: attitudes and aptitudes of new information professionals” by Anne Goulding, Beth Bromham, Stuart Hannabuss and Duncan Cramer reports the results of research supported by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre. Employers and students were asked what they considered to be the desirable qualities of information professionals. Ability to work under pressure, flexibility and ability to deal with a range of users were the top qualities required by employers. Friendliness and a pleasant manner were low on the list, but friendliness was also regarded by employers as one of the qualities most lacking. Students also rated ability to work under pressure, flexibility and ability to work with a range of users highly but they considered ability to work with and for a range of colleagues and an organised manner more important than did the employers. The authors considered that the students surveyed appear to have many of the qualities required for success in the new information environment but that there is cause for concern over their self‐image and their ability to cope with the changing nature of the workplace.

Pat Gannon‐Leary, Catherine Hare and Sandra Parker consider the role of National Vocational Qualifications in the library and information sector, while Bronwen Jones, Mel Sprague, Clare Nankivell and Karin Richter consider skill needs and learning choices for staff in the new library. This paper summarises the findings of “Training the future”, a public library research project funded by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre and an interesting example of cooperation between a library service (Birmingham) and an academic institution (the University of Central England). I wonder what is new about library staff being the added value element of the library service, but the authors are obviously right to say that the role of the staff is pivotal in providing the vital human link between information, technology and people and in bringing the “new library” to life.

Three papers on the electronic environment follow. Linda Ashcroft provides an interesting survey of electronic journals, a new resource in higher education libraries. She points to problems of awareness and access but her research indicates a number of advantages of electronic journals and she concludes that such journals are becoming an integral part of higher education library collections. Mats Dahlström and Mikael Gunnarsson consider the relation of document architecture to LIS education and research and, in a paper with the fascinating title, “The lowest canonical denominator”, Claire Warwick reviews the publication, collection and preservation of electronic library texts. She suggests that information professionals need to know more about what is happening now in order that electronic texts in as wide a variety as possible are provided for present and future users – i.e. the canon of English literary works, the exclusive gathering of “great” writers whose work has stood (or is felt likely to stand) the test of time is preserved electronically.

Under the heading “Impact and consequences”, change in the university library is considered by Gunnel Hessler, the IMPEL (Impact on People of Electronic Libraries) project is described by Joan Day, Catherine Edwards and Graham Walton, and Arja Mäntykangas asks “What is a library? Confronting the future”. Hessler is concerned about attitudes of librarians and library staffs to technological change but seems less concerned about the impact on users. In the IMPEL paper, I wonder why the writers state that there was even some concern that schools of library and information studies are placing too much emphasis on technology and losing the professional ethos (page 155)? Many people have expressed this concern to me.

There follow seven papers given at three workshops, concerned with assessment, flexible and distance learning and ethical issue of Internet use. Sally Gibbs reviews learning styles research and Bill Johnston and Sheila Webber consider information literacy as an academic discipline. Moving towards a Web‐based virtual classroom is discussed by Ian R. Murray, the use of computer conferencing for supporting group projects on a split site campus is described by Christine Urquhart and John Nelson, and the evaluation of the University of Wales Aberystwyth BSc in Information and Library Studies distance learning course is described by Susan D. Lithgow, Clare Thomas and Marianne Taylor.

The first contribution to the ethical issues workshop “Teaching issues regarding obscenity and pornography in a LIS department” by James Dearnley, points to the dangers of using the Internet in the study of censorship issues. The author was told by the management of his university, Loughborough, that it was unacceptable to consult obscene or pornographic material on the Internet: “Sorry to be a wet blanket”, wrote the manager concerned, “but academic pursuits are not above the law”. Stuart Hannabuss considers eclectic ethics for an electronic future.

Three papers on the reflective practitioner follow. Maj Klasson asks “Can ‘teacher thinking’ and ‘reflective practitioner’ research contribute to a quality improvement of the education of LIS professionals?”, while Christina Persson and Angela Zetterlund describe the design of a course in project management in LIS (and I am still trying to work out why their title is followed by?). The main focus of “Research training and public library management” by Graham Matthews, Clare Nankivell and Stella Thebridge is the development of an open learning package to help in the training of public librarians to undertake, exploit and promote research.

In the first of three case studies on the information environment, Judith Preston and Tim Hayward consider the use of the balanced scorecard, developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton, in strategic information management in retail banks. One respondent to their questionnaire/interview survey stated “There’s no such thing in this organisation as an information person. Everyone is in a finance function, or strategic planning function, or a marketing function, and part of their role is information.” True, but is an information professional not needed to show them how important information is to them and to help them locate and use this information?

Lars Höglund calls for a broader and deeper LIS curriculum, while Rebecca Linley and Dave Muddiman review the training and education of information workers in UK voluntary organisations.

The final section of the book, before reports on the three workshops, considers new approaches for the millennium. Paul Sturges provides some thoughts on the distinctiveness of the LIS curriculum, which he feels is in crisis though he believes it is possible to see a content‐related solution emerging from some of the trends in process. In a paper with the biological title “Pandas, predators, players and other wildlife”, Susan Hornby analyses the views of members of academic staff on changes within library and information management education and training and whether or not they perceive these changes as threats. I noticed from the table on p. 336 that only four of the 16 LIS schools listed included the word “library” in the name of their department or school and I was pleased to see that Liverpool John Moores University was one of these. I have never been ashamed to call myself a librarian.

From a young lecturer, whom I remember as an excellent student, to a doyen of library education. In the final paper, Tom Wilson reflects on new fields for research in the twenty‐first century. He feels that diversity and collaboration will be the keywords for the future and that both of these concepts must be embraced in order to survive in what may well be even more difficult times with greater competition for research resources.

There is a great deal of useful information here for both academics and practitioners. Although the emphasis is on academia, practitioners can benefit greatly from research, as is shown particularly in the collaboration between Birmingham Library Service and the University of Central England. I am sorry that the editors and/or publishers do not seem to share my high opinion of the value of the contributions, since they have not seen fit to provide an index to facilitate the retrieval of the information provided.

Related articles