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.

As I make my last contribution as editor of Advances in Librarianship, I would like to say a few words about my twelve years’ experience with this annual. My tenure has greatly enriched my life both professionally and personally. My first association with Advances goes back to 1980 when I was asked to submit an article on library materials budgeting for volume 10. Later, in 1992 I joined Advances as a member of its editorial advisory board. At that time, Irene Godden (Colorado State) edited the volume. I owe her a great debt for her counseling and guidance. After Godden resigned in 1998, I took over as co-editor of Advances and from 2001 (volume 25) I have been its sole editor. Through all these years, I truly enjoyed working with my colleagues on the editorial board and with the many prominent librarians whose papers appeared in Advances. I am especially grateful to Nancy Allen (University of Denver), G. Edward Evans (Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles), and Mary Jean Pavelsek (NYU), longtime editorial board members, who constantly provided encouragement and support. As editor I worked closely with the publishing staff, first at Academic and later Elsevier. I would like to single out both Marvin Yelles (Academic) and Christopher Pringle (Elsevier) and their assistants, Naomi Henning and Julie Neden, for their excellent work in turning manuscripts into the fine finished books that the reader sees.

The idea of adapting and designing services and products to serve “special” needs either for the public good or for commercial purposes is fundamentally an idea anchored in US history. At root, it is a simple idea, albeit expressed in widely varying vocabularies across disciplines and professions. In the parlance of social work, public education, and public librarianship, for example, the idea has been repeatedly advanced over the years as a well-meaning reaching out to meet the needs of subpopulations not readily addressed by available service designs. In the parlance of the commercial sector, the idea has focused on market segmentation, dividing the population into finer and finer subgroups for the purposes of marketing products and services. One of the most recent labels for these activities has been marketing to audience “niches” in which the audience is identified “… as a certain definable market segment with demographic characteristics that make it attractive to advertisers.” (Fejes and Lennon, 2000, p. 37).

This chapter traces the history of digital libraries (DLs) in the United States through the funding sources that have supported DL research and development over the past decade and a half. A set of related questions are addressed: How have the mission and goals of funding agencies affected the types of projects that have been funded? What have been the deliverables from funded projects and how have the goals of the funding agencies shaped those deliverables? Funding agencies have exerted strong influence over research and development in DLs, and different funding agencies have funded different types of projects, with varying sets of concerns for driving the various fields that feed into DLs. This chapter will address the impact that DL funding has had on the development of research in the field of Library and Information Science, as well as on the practice of librarianship.