Search results

The honor of editing the 30th volume of Advances in Librarianship posed a challenge of how to acknowledge changes in the profession over three and a half decades, while continuing a tradition of identifying new trends and innovations. The series aims to present a variety of aspects of the field of librarianship through the publication of critical articles and surveys, based on the published literature, research in progress, and current developments, relating to all segments of the profession and related topics. Contributing authors are encouraged to address provocative and stimulating topics that will ensure that trends are identified and research results of interest are made available quickly in a rapidly changing profession. Though authors in the past have been encouraged to add an historical perspective, those contributing to this volume were invited especially to celebrate the history of the past 36 years by reflecting, as appropriate, on advances made in their topic since the first volume of the series was published in 1970.

What influence do funders have on advances in librarianship? The idea to devote this 31st volume of Advances in Librarianship to this question arose from a conversation between the co-editors during which they wondered if the library and information science (LIS) professions were influenced in similar ways as other disciplines reportedly are by the agencies and foundations that fund research in their fields. The notion of the influence of funding is not new. Mangan (1999) notes that the focus of the American Association of University Professors’ meeting held in May 1999 was on the influence of corporate funding on medical academic research. The increase in corporate funding is due at least in part to a decline in government funding, the author notes that often with this type of funding, “the sponsors decide what will be studied, how the research will be conducted, and how and whether the findings will be published” (p. 14). Approaching the same notion from a different perspective, Goldfarb (2008) tracked the academic output of 221 academic researchers who had received funding from the NASA aerospace engineering program in 1981 in order to explore whether research with specific usable outcomes has a negative impact on scholarly publication. Overall the findings of this study support previous studies that concluded that academic research efforts in the United States are responsive to social and technological needs. Further, Goldfarb notes that commercial outputs of research, such as those that result in NASA type studies, complement academic output.

Purpose – In January 2015, a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in a planning forum on “Envisioning our Information Future and How to Educate for It.” Focused on shaping a future by design, not by default, information educators, professionals, technologists, futurists, and others proposed proofs of concepts for larger-scale implementations. This chapter reports on four pilot projects using steps in the design-thinking process to frame the discussion.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The stages of (1) empathize, (2) define, (3) ideate, (4) prototype, and (5) test in the design-thinking process facilitate moving beyond what is and breaking fixedness to build a representation of what might be. Applied to library and information science (LIS) education, design thinking can lead to transformative change.

Findings – Creative collaborations yielded actionable outcomes from projects that identified the following: (1) the knowledge, skills, and abilities that employers seek in graduates of LIS programs, (2) curriculum options for developing and launching artist-in-residence programs, (3) how a Library Test Kitchen course enables students to apply design thinking, and (4) how a short-term faculty residency in a particular institution connects LIS educators with trends in the field and informs curriculum design.

Originality/Value – The value of tangible outcomes from pilot projects informing future innovation in LIS education is augmented by the originality of their framing within design-thinking processes.

This chapter explores the role of libraries and librarians from the perspective of the information seeker in general and from business school students in particular. In a recent article in First Monday, Keller et al. (2003) pose the question: “What is a library anymore, anyway?” The answer to this question would be “That depends.” It depends upon who you are asking and the perspective from which you are answering the question. The notion of perspective has been raised before in the library and information science literature. Zweizig (1976) noted that users were the focus of studies, they were examined from the perspective of “the user in the life of the library” rather than from the perspective of “the library in the life of the user.” More recently, Lipow (1999) noted that librarians discuss how to serve “remote users” when in fact it is the library that is remote to the user.

This chapter reviews significant advances in health sciences librarianship, highlighting developments between 1970 and 2005. During this time Advances in Librarianship published two chapters that dealt with health sciences librarianship. The first appeared in 1971 with volume two. Written by David Bishop (1971), then at the University of Arizona, it focused on developments in the 1960s and provided a review of the MEDLARS (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System) system, the beginnings of the regional medical library (RML) program and advances in library services and information resources. The second chapter devoted to health sciences libraries appeared in the ninth volume of Advances in Librarianship. In it Donald Hendricks (1979) from the University of New Orleans highlighted collaborative programs among health sciences libraries, the growing reliance on computer applications, professional development programs, clinical medical librarian services and the accomplishments of the Medical Library Association (MLA).