ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


172 / C&RL N ews ■  M arch 2003

NEW REALITIES, 
NEW RELATIONSHIPS

The ivory tower as preparation 
for the trenches

The relationship between library education 
and library practice

by Robert P. Holley

W hy ca n ’t library education and library practice get along better? I’m disturbed by the number o f librarians who believe 
library education has abandoned libraries. I’m 
even more concerned when these librarians at­
tempt to use the ALA accreditation process to 
force library education to change. For example, 
a recent ALA Council resolution, fortunately 
defeated, would have required all ALA-accred
ited programs to include “library” in their 
nam e.1 I ’m equally disturbed by those in li­
brary education who overlook the continuing 
need for traditional librarians and, perhaps more 
importantly, devalue the long and honorable 
history o f libraries and library education in 
helping people find the information they need.

I bring a dual perspective to this issue from 
library practice and library education, since I 
have been both a top administrator o f a major 
academic research library and the director of 
an ALA-accredited library sch oo l, and I am 
currently a library science professor who none­
theless retains close ties with the library sys­
tem. In addition, I’ve been involved with ALA 
for 30 years, with multiple committee appoint­
ments and elected positions; I’ve also actively 
participated in the accreditation process.

t

I propose to look at four issues in this ar­
ticle— program name, the curriculum, theory 

havet rsus practice, and accreditation.

The fa te  o f th e "L w o rd "
I have the most sympathy for those who criti­
cize program s for rem ovin g the “L w o rd ” 
from their names. “Library s c ie n c e ,” itself a 
nam e that seek s to establish a rational and 
positivist nature for the p ro fessio n , b etter 
defines a program  that ed u cates librarians 
than “information sc ie n c e ,” a m ore general 
term that cou ld  equ ally apply to com puter 
s c ie n c e , parts o f the b u sin ess curriculum , 
and communications.

A recent posting on a discussion list told 
the believable story o f a potential library sci­
ence student who overlooked the programs in 
his immediate area because none o f them in­
cluded the word “library.”

Including the word “library” somewhere in 
the program name reaffirms a long and honor­
able professional tradition. I also consider the 
argument that changing the name doesn’t re­
ally change anything else as a facile rationaliza­
tion. Why then b oth er to rem ove “library,” 
since such a change is certain to offend some,

About the author

Robert P. Holley is professor o f  library and information science at Wayne State University in Detroit e-mail: aa3805@wayrte.edu

mailto:aa3805@wayrte.edu


C&RL News ■ March 2003 / 173

including a program’s alumni who are assur­
edly asked to donate to the program?

Yet I can see valid reasons for changing a 
program’s name from the perspective of a li­
brary education administrator. Times are tough 
right now in higher education. In addition, the 
principles of the market economy are holding 
increasing sway among university administra­
tors. “Library” sounds stodgy and retro to 
many; “information” is trendy and hip, even if 
we can’t define what it is.

Library practice has not been immune to 
the trend either as school libraries have b e ­
com e media centers and academic libraries 
emphasize their “information commons” and 
“information portals.”

An article in the Jo u r n a l o f E du cation  f o r  Li­
brary a n d  In form ation  Scien ce pointed out that 
the name changes and mergers must have 
helped library programs survive since the great 
wave o f closures from 1978 to 1990 (15 
schools) appears to be over.2 While I prefer 
keeping “library” in the name of programs that 
graduate librarians, I ’d rather have an “infor­
mation science” program with excellent library 
content than no program at all.

Shaping th e curriculum
The curriculum is a second area of concern. It 
is not difficult to find studies in professional 
literature that report that a certain number of 
the 56 ALA-accredited library programs don’t 
require a course in cataloging, youth services, 
government documents, or whatever else is im­
portant to the author. Worse yet, these articles 
report that some don’t even offer an elective 
course in this critical area.

This criticism assumes that a core body of 
knowledge exists for the profession. But I be­
lieve that any attempt to establish this core 
would b e as prickly as the debates in higher 
education about establishing general require­
ments, since experts would all rate their spe­
cializations as being of critical importance. 
Even if there is a theoretical core body o f 
knowledge, I see little evidence of any attempt 
to enforce this concept in practice. If librar­
ians had to pass the equivalent of the lawyers’ 
bar examination to get a job, I’m sure that li­
brary programs would teach to the test. School 
librarians often have such a test and a list of 
required courses for state certification. Stu­
dents often complain about the rigidity of their 
programs, the need to take courses where they

W hile I prefer keeping "lib rary" in 

the nam e of program s th at 

graduate librarians. I'd rath er have 

an "inform ation science program " 

w ith  excellen t library content than 

no program  at all.

already have expertise, and the lack o f elec­
tives. I’d hate to see a similar rigid course struc­
ture imposed upon academic librarians.

One o f the changes that surprises me the 
most from a generation or two ago is the emer­
gence o f the student as informed consumer. 
Students now expect to have great influence 
on the curriculum. Many, like administrators, 
think technology is trendy and will lead to bet­
ter paying jobs. They may even be right. Stu­
dents also expect courses that fit their plans 
rather than the plans o f their professors.

Finally, the curriculum has to cover so many 
more areas, as academic libraries have taken on 
new tasks without abandoning the old ones 
and simultaneously deal with the information 
explosion. Something has to give because a 
1970s curriculum w on’t meet current needs, 
which require all librarians to be computer lit­
erate. Even the traditional areas of reference 
and cataloging have undergone significant 
transformations. Library educators argue with 
great truth that the alternative to painful 
change is stultification and obsolescence. In 
addition, professors from communications, 
psychology, business, or computer science have 
much to offer library science students.

T h e o ry v e rs u s  p ra ctice
Another criticism o f library education from 
practitioners is that library science students 
graduate with lots o f theory but don’t have 
the skills required for their first library posi­
tion. I would argue that the fundamental pur­
pose o f library education is not to train stu­
dents for their first jobs but to prepare them 
for a professional career in librarianship. In 
addition to practical skills, students must ac­
quire the ability to integrate new knowledge 
and becom e socialized to the values o f the 
profession, such as open access, service, objec­
tivity, and intellectual freedom. Library edu­
cation has shortchanged the graduate who



174 /  C&RL News ■ M arch 2003

…  th e fu n d am en tal purpose of 

lib rary edu catio n  is not to train  

stu d en ts fo r th e ir first jo b s but to 

p repare th em  fo r a p ro fessio n al 

caree r in librariansh ip.

know s how to do things but not why to do 
things because the current “how” will rapidly 
become obsolete.

Even if the goal were to train students for 
their first positions, this would be an impos­
sible task. As stated above, the curriculum, even 
for the relatively few programs that have in­
creased the requirements for a master’s degree 
from the traditional 36 credit hours, cannot 
cover all areas and all specialties. Practice var­
ies too much, even among academic libraries, 
for library education to be expected to train 
students in exactly how it is done in any one 
institution. What the library can exp ect is a 
graduate who has a good enough theoretical 
model of the process to learn quickly the spe­
cific practices o f the institution.

In my opinion, the best resolution is to show 
that “theory versus p ractice” is a false di­
chotomy by combining the two. For example, 
library educators can offer simulations by lead­
ing a class through a real world library activ­
ity— such as reference, cataloging, collection 
development, or creating a Web page— while 
taking care to identify the problem to be re­
solved, the context, and the theory behind each 
action. Using case studies when realistic simu­
lation isn’t possible is another effective method 
for teaching topics such as library management 
and intellectual freedom.

I also see value for som e pure theory in 
library education. Students need to take a re­
search methods course to acquire the ability to 
evaluate research studies in the literature and 
to conduct research o f their ow n to answer 
operational questions in their libraries. Fur­
ther, a course or two in theory is excellent for 
developing abstract thinking skills and for the 
sheer excitement of discussing ideas. Finally, 
academic librarians may profit the most by ac­
quiring a better understanding o f the major 
interest of a large number of their faculty and 
student users— the creation o f theoretical 
knowledge.

Working w ith  accreditation standards
Accreditation is the most formal link between 
library practice and library education. Most 
academic libraries require an ALA-accredited 
degree or its equivalent for librarians. To be­
com e ALA accredited, a library program must 
submit a detailed study and be judged by the 
Committee on Accreditation (COA), which re­
ceives a report from an external review panel 
that visits the library program. All panels in­
clude both educators and practitioners. In ad­
dition, Council, as the legislative body for ALA, 
has the authority to change unilaterally accredi­
tation standards, as is shown by the resolution 
cited above, though I believe it would be un­
wise to do so. In my 11 years on ALA Council, 
I have seen several resolutions that would have 
had unintended consequences on library edu­
cation through the accreditation process.

I have great respect for the current “Standards 
for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library 
and Information Studies,” approved in 1992.3 
Within broad limits, these standards allow a li­
brary program to define its own mission. One pro­
gram, for example, might decide to concentrate 
on information technology while another empha­
sizes rural librarianship. COA makes some deci­
sion on the appropriateness of this mission but 
concentrates on how well the program does what 
it says it wants to do. Thus, COA can’t tell a pro­
gram to offer all specializations or to focus on 
academic librarians because they are in short sup­
ply. I favor the current policy because it allows for 
differentiation among the schools and for spikes 
of excellence. A smaller program can’t do every­
thing well.

Trying to change library education through ac­
creditation is more likely to destroy the current 
process than to change library education. Univer­
sity administrators are increasingly skeptical of 
accreditation, regarding it as a means for profes­
sional associations to require increased resources 
for areas that are not the administrators’ highest 
priority. For library practice to retain its role in 
the accreditation process, it needs to understand 
the realities of higher education.

C o n clu sio n
I wish that both library practice and library 
education would realize the essential congru­
ity o f their goals. Academic libraries wish to 
hire qualified librarians; library schools wish 
to graduate students who are employable. Po­
tential students are evaluating future employ-



C&RL News ■  March 2003 I  175

ability when selecting a profession or an indi­
vidual library program. If libraries are not hir­
ing graduates from a specific program, this pro­
gram is either placing its graduates outside the 
library world or it will need to change to sur­
vive in a competitive, enrollment-driven mar­
ket of 56 accredited library schools. This pro­
cess also leads to the positive change of forc­
ing programs to update the curriculum regu­
larly. In fact, perhaps some of the complaints 
from library practice are based on a view of 
required skills that is no longer supported by 
the library marketplace in general.

I also believe that more communication 
between those in the trenches and those in the 
ivory tower would help. Events such as the 
two ALA Congresses on Professional Educa­
tion are a good start. Librarians need to do 
more to encourage participation by library edu­
cators whose backgrounds are not in library 
practice. Asking them to speak at library con­
ferences and hiring them as consultants in their 
area o f expertise, for example, would be an 
excellent way to encourage them to learn more 
about libraries. Most programs would welcome 
constructive feedback from library employers. 
Both recent and not-so-recent graduates can 
have an influence either individually or through 
alumni associations. Most library schools are 
also actively looking for adjunct professors who 
can have a critical influence on at least one 
class of future graduates.

My main recommendation to library prac­
tice is to b e sympathetic to the realities of 
academia. No program in any subject ever of­
fers perfect training; everyone needs to learn 
on the job. Programs can’t always find the pro­
fessors to teach the courses they want to have 
taught. There is never enough funding. Stu­
dents could always have better preparation 
before entering library school. Academic librar­
ians should be particularly sympathetic because 
of personal experiences with their own insti­
tutions o f higher education.

The key goal for both library education and 
library practice is to recru it and retain the best 
and the brightest. Library  education needs to 
challenge these students while in school and 
graduate them with a strong knowledge base. 
To assure their growth in the profession, li­
brary practice needs to offer them possibilities 
for continuous learning and intellectual devel­
opment, interesting work, and decent salaries. 
From my dual viewpoint, I d on’t think the

system is broken; but both sides should defi­
nitely cooperate to make it better.

Notes
1.  “CD# 51 Call to Action on Maintaining 

the Words ‘Library’ or ‘Library Science’ in the 
titles o f Programs Accredited by ALA,” ALA 
Council Minutes 2002, Annual Conference, 
Atlanta, Georgia: 16.

2.  Charles R. Hildreth and Michael Koenig, 
“Organizational Realignment of LIS Programs 
in Academia: From Independent Standalone 
Units to Incorporated Programs, " Jo u r n a l o f  
Education fo r  Library a n d L nform ationS cience43, 
no. 2 (Spring 2002): 126-133-

3. “Standards for Accreditation of Master’s 
Programs in Library and Information Studies 
1992,” adopted by the Council of the Ameri­
can Library Association, January 28, 1992, ef­
fective January 1, 1993, available at http:// 
www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/standard.html. The 
process is described in “Accreditation Process : 
Policies and Procedures,” effective September 
1, 2002, available at http://www.ala.org/ 
alaorg/oa/ap3-html. ■

http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/standard.html
http://www.ala.org/