Colleagues converse about technology change, curricula

David Pimental
School of Information Studies,
Syracuse University
245 Hinds Hall
Syracuse, NY 13244

LIS educators and professionals all wrestle with the rapid pace of technological change, and the past two decades have challenged our schools to prepare future librarians for a technology landscape that is constantly in flux. Some technologies will be fads, but others will become fundamental to library practice, and new technology will always be on the horizon. How can LIS curricula best address this state of affairs, properly balancing between technology concepts and features, readying library professionals whose work will impact our field and society? With this broad question in mind, Syracuse University Professor R. David Lankes invited a group of LIS faculty and policy administrators to engage in a conversation about holistically integrating technology into the LIS curriculum.

The group gathered on the morning of January 9 at the Free Library of Philadelphia; most attendees were in town for the annual meeting of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). After introductions, Lankes opened the session by presenting a brief overview of Web 2.0 technology innovations as well as related national policy issues. Network policy specialist Carrie Lowe provided an overview of the ongoing work taking place at the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP). Part of ALA’s Washington Office, OITP is actively engaged in both education and lobbying efforts that bridge the intersections of libraries, technology, and public policy.

Lankes described his ongoing research project with OITP about the evolving landscape of information technology and its implications for the education of LIS professionals. The concept of participatory librarianship is central to this work. Lankes framed libraries as being “in the conversation business” – positing that knowledge is never static, and that the resources and collections capturing our knowledge are the products of ongoing conversations. Robust conversations require the involvement of a diverse group of participants, and this is where LIS professionals can position themselves. Physical library spaces are already being largely reconceived: as places where book storage takes a subsidiary role to fostering community conversations and the creation of new knowledge. Libraries that wish to be a vital part of these conversations will increasingly have to invest in tools and services to enable such community participation.

All those gathered at the meeting engaged in an open discussion about the notion of participatory librarianship, what it meant for LIS curricula in general, and how it could affect LIS technology education specifically. After sharing some of the technology initiatives going on at LIS schools, the conversation shifted to the need for durable concepts. The degree to which a technology does or does not nurture participation was discussed, as were fundamental professional skills: leadership, collaboration, and problem solving. In many library settings, hiring new staff is a key mechanism for introducing innovation – yet this model is hindered by all the pitfalls inherent with navigating a new institution’s culture. Educating future LIS professionals to effectively manage and enact change – not only technological, but also wide-ranging organizational change – was viewed as an area for increased curricular attention.

Another theme emerged from the group discussion: the desire from LIS educators to more systematically engage in conversations about the evolving mission of libraries and the changing nature of the overall LIS field. While individual faculty members repeatedly raised these issues in classes with students, said conversations were often incomplete (e.g., limited by the scope of particular course) and would benefit from the input and involvement of more faculty. This final perspective seemed an appropriate culmination to the morning’s discussion. It is vital to the entire LIS community that faculty members not only stay engaged with the latest developments in their particular research area, but also actively participate in the ongoing conversations taking place in the broader library field. The meeting thus concluded with a consensus to bring this message home with us and keep the conversation going.