Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the current situation of academic LIS research, specifically in the UK and to provide some thoughts considering the future of the discipline. According to the opinion of the authors, this situation is characterised by a lack of cohesion, the need for justification of academic research in terms of its immediate applicability to the professional education of practitioners, and a disjuncture between the information profession and information research. The paper attempts to offer introductory thoughts regarding these circumstances.

The current situation is briefly reviewed and commented on from the authors’ viewpoint. Aspects of Pierre Bourdieu's study of the university as a hierarchically structured field of forces are considered. Some reference is made to previous literature.

The paper advances the view that the role of academic LIS research, debate and theory formation needs to be strengthened and that this needs to be reflected in the curriculum more strongly.

The paper attempts to highlight consistently overlooked contributing factors, and thus aims to shift the perspective towards role and position of LIS research within academia, rather than vis‐à‐vis the professional education it is connected to. It aims to stimulate discussion of the current situation, of how it can be perceived, and of ways to address it.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why library and information science (LIS) academics have responded to the advent of knowledge management (KM).

The study employs an “experience survey” as a research strategy. Besides a review of scientific literature, this study conducts an e‐mail survey of 106 LIS academics of the world who have adopted KM education in their schools. A structured questionnaire comprising of both closed and open questions is used as the data collection instrument. The study analyses 57 filled‐in valid questionnaires following a mixed‐method approach of research.

The ways of knowing and degrees of understanding of KM concepts among the LIS academics are varied. Although KM is distinct from LIS, there exists a strong link between the two knowledge domains. LIS academics have positively responded to KM and considering its long root in LIS, they have argued for a serious consideration of the adoption of KM in LIS. The significant reasons for why the academics have responded to KM are the role of global knowledge economy, the natural evolution of the information field, interdisciplinarity, domain expansion, survival issues, and trends in technological innovations, etc.

Many LIS schools do not come under investigation due to lack of their web accessibility.

It is suggested that LIS academics apply a holistic approach of KM and expand the knowledge domain of LIS by providing a sound understanding of the underlying concepts, theories, principles, techniques, and technologies of KM.

The empirical findings of the study are the original views and responses of LIS academics who are experienced in KM.

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.

The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.

It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.

This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.

The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

The central place that education has in the strength and well-being of any profession is widely accepted. Australia presents an interesting case study of a country where Library and Information Studies (LIS) education moved from being conducted by practitioners under the guidance of the professional association to being provided in institutions of higher education in 1959. The 50 years (1959–2008) saw substantial changes in Australian LIS education with a rapid proliferation of schools which was later followed by closures, mergers and changes of focus. This chapter charts LIS education during this period focusing on organizational and structural aspects of the placement of LIS education in tertiary institutions, on the academization of LIS educators who had in the early days mainly been drawn from practice, and on the development of LIS educators as academic researchers and authors as represented by their productivity and visibility in national and international databases. In addition to giving an account of these areas of LIS education over the 50 years, the chapter seeks to offer explanations for what has occurred and some views of strategies which may assist the development of LIS education in Australia and in other countries which possess similar characteristics.

This paper aims to provide 13 recommendations relating to the future of Indonesian library education based on the results of an extensive research study. The objective of the research was to investigate the desired level of educational qualifications and continued professional development of Indonesian academic librarians.

The research included surveys of Indonesian academic librarians and their managers, plus extensive interviewing of stakeholders. The recommendations have been developed on the basis of data gathered in this research.

There is an immediate need to raise the standards of Indonesian library education in order to enhance skills required of the contemporary library workforce. The Indonesian Librarian Association has an important role to play in raising the quality of library education and the status of librarians.

The recommendations have far‐reaching implications for Indonesian library education. There are also implications for the wider Indonesia library profession, and for the professional associations, in particular the Indonesian Librarian Association.

The recommendations are based on the first comprehensive analysis of the educational and continuing professional development needs of Indonesian academic librarians.

The purpose of the empirical study was to examine whether strategies shown to work well in one model of network development for library and information science (LIS) practitioners and researchers could be applied successfully in the development of a new network and contribute to the narrowing of the research–practice gap in LIS.

Overall, 32 members of a new professional network were surveyed by a questionnaire following the completion of a programme of four network events held between 2019 and 2021.

The analysis demonstrates the transferability of the existing model of network development to a new network and that it can be successfully adapted for online delivery of network events and activities.

The criteria deployed for the evaluation of the new network could be used in other similar settings. Funding bodies can also use these findings as demonstration of the value of their investment in network grants.

This contribution on means of growing collaborative networks to narrow the LIS research–practice gap stands out in contrast with prior research that tends to focus the support of research productivity of academic librarians in North American universities for the purposes of career development. Here wider aspects of research engagement are considered of value for LIS practitioners from a range of sectors and institutions, beyond North America, for purposes that are broader than personal advancement.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate UK academics’ views of the importance and prestige of journals relevant to library and information science (LIS) teaching and research.

A questionnaire, based on one used previously in the USA, was sent to UK academics involved in LIS teaching and research. The questionnaire asked respondents to rate the importance of 87 LIS journals, to suggest others that were of importance to them but that were not amongst the 87, and to identify the five most prestigious journals for promotion purposes. In addition, those journals were identified that had figured in institutional submissions to the LIS Unit of Assessment in Research Excellence Framework (REF).

While there was a fair measure of overall agreement between US and UK rankings of the 87 journals, with both highlighting the standing of the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and of the Journal of Documentation, some substantial differences were also noted. Evidence is presented for a strong locational component to academics’ assessments of journal prestige, and analysis of the REF2014 submissions demonstrates the highly inter-disciplinary nature of LIS research in the UK.

The sample size is small, comprising 30 completed responses.

This is the first study to report UK academics’ rankings of LIS journals, and to compare those with comparable data for US academics.

The library and information science (LIS) profession experienced drastic changes in its job requirements due to emerging digital scholarship trends, especially the growth of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). As a result, there is a discrepancy between the job market and the LIS curriculum. This study addresses this gap by looking into incorporating digital scholarship into the LIS school curricula in South Africa. This may have implications for other contexts as well, because digital scholarship is becoming pervasive.

The study adopted a constructivist paradigm using a qualitative approach and a multiple case study design. Primary data using semi-structured interviews were collected from 10 academics at LIS schools and 10 librarians from both academic and special research council libraries in South Africa.

The study revealed that LIS schools did not have content on digital scholarship such as research data management (RDM), digitisation, metadata standards, open access, institutional repositories and other related content. Stakeholders who needed to be consulted included librarians, information technology (IT) and information and communication technology (ICT) specialists, computer scientists, humanists, the South Africa Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and LIS professional bodies. There were gaps and redundancies in the curriculum as far as digital scholarship was concerned. Digital scholarship presented opportunities for librarians and academics to acquire emerging jobs and to collaborate more in the digital space.

The article advances knowledge on the importance of incorporating digital scholarship in the LIS curriculum in South Africa. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding stakeholders to be consulted when incorporating content into the LIS curriculum with the intention of closing the gaps and curbing or removing discrepancies between job requirements and graduates’ skills and competencies.

This chapter updates earlier research that analyzed mergers, collaborations, and similar trends in LIS education, and provides a more comprehensive current summary of those trends. Three distinct patterns are beginning to emerge in both organizational structure and collaboration: changes in the nature of LIS program partnerships within parent educational institutions; the impact on LIS education by prominent academic associations that are not reliant on ALA accreditation recognition; and the growth in the number and type of academic offerings in LIS schools themselves. Among some notable changes are the establishment of the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), continued growth in the iSchool caucus and its increasing international membership. Additionally the number of dual degree master’s programs in which LIS departments partner is on the rise, as is the number of degrees now being offered at LIS schools (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels) that are not “traditional” MLS degrees. Inter-institutional collaborative MLIS programs are also emergent, evident in such programs as the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) consortium. The data presented here seem to suggest that the face of LIS education continues to change as the 21st century gets underway.

This paper aims to review the practitioner‐based teaching model for the MSc in Information and Library Management (ILM) at the University of the West of England (UWE). With input from students, practitioners and academics it considers the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and questions whether this is indeed the way forward for LIS education.

A case study approach is used with views gained from students, practitioners and academic staff involved in the course. These views were gained from a combination of informal focus groups, informal interviews and a short e‐mail questionnaire asking current students their views on practitioner involvement in the course.

Findings reveal a model of practitioner‐based learning on the MSc ILM at UWE, which is meeting student and employer needs in terms of the skills they require in their future roles. Findings also raise questions as to how one can best ensure the involvement of practitioners in the future of the course; whether practitioner input is needed from a broader range of roles outside the library and information service; and how one can best maintain a balance of academic and practical skills.

The study suggests that more thought may be needed on securing practitioner involvement in the development and delivery of LIS education and further consideration on whether some of that involvement should be from a wider range of roles.

The paper identifies the need to consider how to best ensure the ongoing involvement of practitioners in LIS education, particularly those outside academic libraries, whilst maintaining the balance of academic rigour. It is valuable to those involved in designing and delivering course content and to those thinking about getting involved.