Introduction

Librarianship is a quirky profession. No other profession suffers from identity crises to the extent that we do. No other profession has murkier definitions of its body of knowledge, mission, and purpose. Because librarianship encompasses the conservation, organization and provision of information of all kinds and from all disciplines, one might consider it to be a specialization in generalities - the ultimate interdisciplinary profession. Yet librarianship, like other professions, is firmly rooted in practice. For decades, conflict has arisen over the practice of librarianship and the education of librarians with regard to the ratio between practical and theoretical instruction and the need for research. This dichotomy between the practical and the theoretical has contributed to the decades-old identity problems that both the profession and education for the profession have faced. For example, librarians’ identity is in constant conflict with the public’s perception of our worth. We are seen as tied to buildings filled with books, cut off from the burgeoning information age. We have accepted this definition in what White (1986) calls "our reluctance to redefine our role in terms of an Information Age that everyone thinks they understand except that their understanding doesn’t include us" (p.52). Our identity is fragmented between our practical professional roles and what we have been taught in graduate school. And library schools' identities have been splintered between their perception of their importance to the profession and academe’s reluctance to see our schools’ relevance to their scholarly missions.

As Watson (1996) states "librarianship has for too long been an ill-defined profession shot through with ambiguities. As librarianship enters the digital age, it must clearly define its professional parameters or lose its responsibilities to others" (p.36). One of the crucial factors in defining our identity comes from the education we receive. The ending of World War II began the post industrial society and information economy often spoken of by Daniel Bell (1976). Yet library schools did not take heed of the massive changes in technology and snowballing amounts of information generated by government and university research. While many library schools opened and flourished during the 1960s, few really looked at the practice vs. theory dilemma within their own curricula, and few looked outside their own departments to see changes coming to the universities as a whole.

This inability to recognize the need for change has dramatically hampered library education -- to the point of mass closings of library schools in the late 1970s and 1980s. By the time the "massacre" was over, in an effort to begin to align themselves with the new information paradigm, no schools included only the name "library" in their titles.

Technology has revolutionized the way information is created, disseminated, and stored. Yet librarianship as a profession is evolving and adapting to the changes technology has created. Paris (1988) believes that "librarianship…stands at…a gateway of opportunity that few professions have ever experienced and which probably will never come this way again" (p.1). Since change is the only constant, library schools have learned to adapt their missions and curricula.

Definitions

Because our identity crisis as a profession is reflected in the demise of our schools and confusion over curriculum content, it is helpful to look at the often blurry distinctions between the definitions of library science and librarianship, and information science and information scientists. Stieg (1992) states that library science is simply "the knowledge and skill by which recorded information is selected, acquired, organized, and utilized in meeting the information demands and needs of a community of users" (p.11). Borko (1968) believes that information science is "an interdisciplinary science that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces that govern the flow and use of information, and the techniques, both manual and mechanical, of processing information for optimal storage, retrieval and dissemination" (p.5). These definitions do not appear to be substantially different, except that the latter is more technical in tone. This technical emphasis and resulting benefits bestowed upon such knowledge in the corporate world has caused some to define information science as "librarianship practiced by men" (Gorman, 1990, p. 462).

And how does one define the hybrid "library and information science", the title most often used in the names of library schools today? Again, definitions emphasize "the application of modern technologies…with the study of the characteristics of information and how it is transferred or handled", which ironically, ignores librarianship’s traditional functions such as providing childrens’and readers advisory services and other less technically based activities (Apostle & Raymond, 1987, p. 19).

Conflict emerges over which discipline is the more inclusive "parent" discipline. While it may seem obvious that librarianship has existed long before the term "information science" and its related societies (such as the American Society for Information Science), there are many debates in the literature over who came first. Some feel that information science is simply librarianship under a different name, that both terms are equal or at least a part of an "information continuum" (Dean's list, 1994, p. 62). Shera (1972) believes that information science is a branch of librarianship and "contributes to the theoretical and intellectual base for the librarian’s operations" (p.293). Still others such as Buckland (1986) feel that librarianship is subsumed by the superior discipline of information science.

Because our identity crisis has had such an effect on the closing of library schools and subsequent attempts by the schools to adapt to the new information paradigm, one must look at the variety of definitions of librarians and librarianship. Simply put "librarianship is the management of knowledge" (Shera, 1965, p.16). Shores (1972) believes that "the library discipline can be defined as a field of study concerned with the sum total of knowledge, the interrelationship of its parts, and the communication of its significance to mankind" (p.11). Quite clearly, then, this definition supports the idea that our profession specializes in generalities -- it is a profession that must cover all disciplines. Another major distinction between our profession and those of many other disciplines is its emphasis on service. A major argument over the current curriculum is whether or not today’s library students are being properly inculcated in the service ethic needed to be a good librarian (Hyman, 1991). Still others feel that librarianship has relied upon the concept of service to the exclusion of all other possible foundations of knowledge, and thus cannot provide a strong basis for a good curriculum (Ostler & Dahlin, 1995). Librarians are largely seen by themselves (and the public) as being strongly identified with the buildings in which they work - as custodians and collectors of knowledge in physical formats. Yet now, because of the introduction of terms like "information science" into the titles of library schools, librarians to be are encouraged to think of themselves as separate from the library itself - as purveyors of information that may be accessed from almost any place and in any form (Apostle & Raymond, 1987). Holmes (1983) even feels that this trend is "laudable" (p.98).

On the other hand, information scientists are often associated with special libraries and the corporate world. Although libraries were originally established as educational and cultural institutions, corporations began to create special libraries of their own in response to the burgeoning information created in their own fields. In the for profit environment the word "library" has very negative connotations. Apostle and Raymond (1987) note that terms such as "information professional have begun to acquire an ideological flavour designed to convey emotional as well as factual messages. These terms carry higher status, managerial efficiency, and at least a partial negation of the low prestige connotation of the term ‘librarian’" (p.21). Thus, corporate librarians or "information scientists" are not only seen as superior to other librarians, but tend to be economically compensated at a far higher rate.

These definitions can help one understand many of the reasons why library schools felt pressure to change their names to include "information science" or to drop the word "library" from their titles entirely. To further understand the changes occurring in library schools today, a brief history of education for librarianship will expose many trends regarding not only the conflict between librarianship and information science but the dilemma between practical and theoretical education.

Early History Of Education For Librarianship

Before the late 1800’s, library education consisted of apprenticeship programs tied to individual libraries. During the last quarter of the 19^th century there was an emphasis on technical education that grew throughout the United States. In 1886, Melvil Dewey founded the first School of Library Economy at Columbia College. Dewey was a firm believer in practical instruction, and his practices have informed library education through the 1960’s. As Ostler and Dahlin (1995) note, "Dewey’s pragmatic approach leaves us without the theoretical tools that are necessary to deal with the problems of the Information Age" (p. 683). Even during Dewey’s era, critics such as Carl White emerged that called for the development and introduction of theory into the curriculum.

Library education continued to occur in conjunction with small library schools such as Dewey's or were attached to large public libraries until about the mid 1920's. In his 1923 landmark report "Training for library service" , C. C. Williamson advocated the development of library schools on a graduate level with appropriate accreditation. He was adamant that these schools emphasize theoretical education over training. At this time, librarians were needed to fill the jobs available in all the newly-built Carnegie-funded libraries. Williamson’s report also spurred the Carnegie Corporation to create the first graduate and doctoral program of library science, which was established at the University of Chicago. After the implementation of many of Williamson’s ideas, the Masters in Library Science (rather than the B. A.) became the standard acceptable form for completion of the degree.

The librarianship "boom" occurred from 1948 to 1970 (Ostler, Dahlin, & Willardson, 1995) and in its heyday libraries were lavishly funded and schools opened to meet the needs of vacant positions. At least 20 new schools were founded and accredited during the 1960s alone (Paris, 1988). At the same time the current information explosion began during World War II and the post war research that was funded by the government. Much of this funding, under the guise of defense research, went to major universities and was used for other educational programs, including library schools. People handling the resulting information changed from being merely shufflers of paperwork to organizers of massive quantities of information - usually within the government or corporate environment. In 1968 the American Society of Information Scientists (ASIS) was founded to address the needs of these new information scientists and special librarians. The commodification of information grew under the effect of corporate need and soared during the 1980s with nearly 50 % of economic production in the United States coming from the production and handling of information (Williams & Zachert, 1986).

Throughout this time, Dewey’s practical approach held sway over the education of future librarians. Yet thinkers such as Ralph Shaw, Ernest Richardson, Jesse Shera, and more recently, Herbert White continued to question the validity of continuing to use the practical approach. These men felt that librarianship lacked a solid theoretical foundation or knowledge base, and that the profession would inevitably need to prove its worth and identity not only to itself, but to the people that it served.

Library schools largely ignored the critics' voices, and the developments in the new field of information science. This denial of the information revolution and the resulting multiplicity of types of information enhanced the "splintering" (White, 1995) of the profession between traditional librarians and library schools and information scientists (p.230). Finally, library schools themselves began closing in the late 1970’s.

The Massive Closings Of Library Schools

Since 1978, with the University of Oregon, over 25% of library school programs have closed in the United States, more than any other professional school (Saracevic, 1994). During this time, the total number of MLS graduates decreased from 5,029 in 1978 to 3,820 in 1984 (Paris, 1988). Compared with the all time high of 70 programs in 1982 (Hyman, 1991) there are currently 56 accredited programs in North America (American Library Association, 1999). Both external and internal factors played large roles in library school closures and their subsequent attempts to survive.

During the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s the job market for librarians dwindled due to the withdrawal of government funding, particularly on the state level. Many librarian positions were abandoned and filled by less expensive paraprofessionals, which further led to a decrease in positive identity for the profession (Gardner, 1987; Paris, 1990). As a result, enrollments decreased, as did enrollments of students in higher education overall. Faculty numbers decreased to an all time low today of 5 to 35 full time faculty per school, and their turnover rate is high (Robbins, 1993). Library schools had simply grown too rapidly for the number of librarians required. A large part of this problem could have been avoided with strategic planning and an eye for the changes occurring in the information paradigm. Law (1989) notes that many librarians now see the 1970’s as "a period of missed opportunity, locust years when we grew sleek and fat…when libraries could have taken and held the central role of information managers, if they had seen themselves as the agents of change and not its victims" (p. 5). Because library schools were slow to respond to the information paradigm shift or "major change in the way librarians do their work" (Ostler et al., 1995) they failed to notice their competition (p.683). Competition included not only the fact of commodification of information (which they still failed to teach and acknowledge), but competition from other educators -- the corporations themselves. Corporations began to spend billions on employee training and education (Boehm, 1983). Other degree programs on campus such as communications, information studies, computer science, and business adapted to meet the needs of the information industry (Saracevic, 1994). Finally, the demise of the Cold War affected federal research dollars received by universities. The government encouraged universities to make private partnerships with corporations to make up for some of the financial loss. Universities began to develop bottom line accounting principles and a scrutinizing eye towards the profitablility of each and every program on campus (Aronowitz, 1998).

By the late 1970’s universities in general became more expensive to operate, and within the university, graduate students were the most expensive to educate. Library schools tended to be the smallest programs on campus with the least amount of revenue both in terms of student tuition and alumni donations. Marion Paris (1988) in her landmark study of the closing of four library schools noted that a frequent harbinger of a school's closing was its tendency to isolate itself from the rest of the departments on campus (Hyman, 1991). Paris and others also felt that some schools closed due to lack of faculty and administrative leadership (Ostler et al., 1995). Related to these issues are the age-old realities of simple campus politics. Faculty members were not seen or even known by the rest of the university, and when they were recognized, were viewed as "dead wood in the sense of not being interested in the way the world was changing" (Paris, 1990, p.31). Library schools also felt the tug between what the profession, or practicing librarians, expected out of library education, and what the universities felt was their place within the universities’ mission (Lester, 1990). As Kniffel (1998) states, "library schools serve two masters…[and] ALA is not the one who pays the bills" (p.52).

Research, or lack thereof, was another important factor in provoking universities to close down library schools. By the early part of this century, American universities began to model themselves on the German system, which heavily emphasized the importance of original research in the advance of scholarship. For example, theoretical research is more respected than practical research, especially if scientific. Humanities inevitably place last in the research pecking order. Library science, rife with identity problems and straddling an uncertain theoretical body of knowledge, is particularly at risk for academic disapproval and has even been referred to as an "academic impostor" (Manley, 1991, p.70). Other professional schools such as law, medicine, and especially education, have had to face disapproval for having to focus too much on the practical, yet all three disciplines are seen as vital to society, and alumni in at least the first two disciplines tend to donate large sums to their alma maters. In the eyes of university administrators, it has been to library schools’ detriment that research has taken a back seat to teaching.

Ironically, accreditation has not played much of a role in library school closings (Paris, 1988; Large, 1991; Gardner, 1987; White, 1986). Others, such as Saracevic (1994) disagree, and feel that because accreditation standards have not been stringent enough, programs have not been forced to really evaluate their curricula and bring them up to date. Finally, university administrators believed that other universities could always replace lost library school programs, not realizing that smaller universities were also closing their programs (Paris, 1990).

The New Domino Effect: Name Changes

In response to the above internal and external factors, library schools began to change their names to include some form of the word "information". Permutations range from "information studies" to "information management" or "information science". In 1960, 100% of all library school programs had only the word "library" in their titles. By 1986, 54.4% had both "library" and "information" included in their names (Voos, 1985). By 1998, at least three schools no longer had the word "library" in them at all, and some, like the School of Information Management at the University of California at Berkeley, have not sought ALA accreditation at all.

Thus, schools began to recognize the information paradigm shift, the growing commodification of information and the resulting information industry that was taking the corporate world by storm. Schools began to notice competition from other departments on campus and desired to attract students who might otherwise be turned away from librarianship due to stereotypes or the plain economic fact that traditional librarians tend to have low salaries. Name changes were the quickest tactic to attract more students and their tuition dollars. The broader the name, the more students the school might attract. At first, the name changes were "cosmetic" only and curricular changes came slowly (Ostler et al., 1995; Lancaster, 1984). Most important, use of the word "information" indicated progressiveness (Biggs and Bookstein, 1988) and helped change the image of library science. Another factor was the desire to cultivate a corporate image (Martin, 1991) because library schools could then boast to their parent institutions and prospective students of the high salaries graduates now received in corporate settings.

Most proponents of library school name changes agree that the changes are important in recruiting a new type of student. Changing librarianships' negative stereotypical image is cited as an important reason. Maurita Holland of the University of Michigan says that the term "library" conjures up archaic images (Davis, 1998) and Jose-Marie Griffiths, Director of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Tennessee agrees. "We are striving to recruit students of a different type who wouldn’t think about entering a library and information science program because they have the traditional view of what it’s all about" (Dean's list, 1994, p. 60).

Another important factor is psychological. Name changes show academe and potential students that the field of information science is not limited to librarianship, and that information science education can lead to non-traditional, higher paying jobs (once again, usually in the corporate world). Library schools today are adamant about divorcing librarianship from the physical institution of the library. "Information science" connotes that information is everywhere and that therefore graduates of a program can work just about anywhere, whether that is in a library, corporate setting, or as a freelance information broker. Nancy Van House, former Dean of the now-defunct School of Library and Information Science at the University of California at Berkeley agrees. "If we focus as ‘library schools’, on the library, then we are tied to an institution that is changing and that could disappear"(Dean's list, 1994, p.62).

Naturally, others disagree heartily with the name changes, finding them superficial at best and an utter betrayal of the profession at worst. While proponents of the changes believe the name changes will improve relations with the rest of academe, critics feel that universities will see the new titles as simply another attempt by a low-ranking discipline to manipulate words in order to raise its status (Crowley, 1998). And while name changes may appear to be a token effort to address the reality of the information paradigm shift, it takes time and strategic planning to develop a corresponding curriculum that is properly balanced between theoretical and practical education. In this sense, name changes, especially with the plethora of permutations of the word "information", can be evidence again of the identity crisis within which library schools are involved (Bohannan, 1991). What are such schools, really? More library school than information science school? Or vice versa? These questions lead one directly back to the definitions described above -- definitions that provide few answers except to show that as a profession, librarianship is still struggling to define itself and its schools.

Curriculum Changes

As stated above, name changes did not always bring immediate curricular changes. Ironically, what they did often foster were antagonistic relationships with other departments on campus which felt that library schools were encroaching on their academic territory. Paris (1990) notes that business, computer science, and management systems schools felt particularly threatened not only by the library schools’ name changes, but by the gradual addition of new curricula. To strengthen programs as well as to eliminate political dissent, several schools set up interdisciplinary, cooperative degree programs with other schools on campus, offering joint or merged degrees. In 1982 Rutgers was the first such program to be subsumed into a broader interdisciplinary program, now taught under the School of Communication Studies. Both the School of Information at the University of Michigan and the School of Library and Information Science at Louisiana State University are other examples of schools who have either completely abdicated their independence as separate library school programs, or who have developed joint degree programs.

These changes are not necessarily negative. Conant supports the academic strength that a double master’s degree can provide the library school graduate (Ostler et al., 1995). In 1984, Boaz advocated for interdisciplinary cooperation to strengthen the failing schools. White, however, disagrees. Losing independence can be a first step to losing the program entirely. He also wonders who the new dean of such programs will be -- and surmises that the dean is most likely going to come from the computer science department rather than the library school (White, 1987). Library school education in and of itself is interdisciplinary and needs no further "strengthening" by diluting itself with other departments. Such a stance only serves to weaken librarianship's self-identity further by prohibiting the realization that we are a unique profession with a unique perspective (White, 1987).

At the heart of the dilemma of library education is the ability to create a graduate ready to work in today’s diverse information environments. Thirty years ago, when library school graduates were expected to work in traditional libraries, core courses focused on practical skills such as reference sources and cataloging. These skills are still important today, but the problem is that a reference librarian in one setting may be using a very different set of sources than a reference librarian in another. The importance of traditional cataloging has been de-emphasized with the emergence of national union catalogs such as OCLC and RLIN, which provide ready to use records for millions of materials. The result has been the introduction of classes with broader titles and curricular content, such as "information technology", "organization of information" or "management of organizations". The main question is: What kind of a core can provide a solid background for students who will inevitably specialize and end up in diverse positions? Most schools today are attempting to create a core grounded in enough basic theory to provide a common ground for all students, regardless of what specialty they may choose. This is proving to be extremely difficult because of Dewey’s far-ranging influence on teaching mostly practical skills. To this day, Saracevic (1994) argues, all we have done is added on a few theoretical classes here and there to a required core, but have not really defined a true theory of librarianship, nor made it accessible to students. Educators such as White (1995) that dislike new changes claim that it is all being done to "impress higher-level administrators with the appearance of newly found academic rigor" (p.44). Yet White also is very much in favor of teaching theory - he is complaining about the hastily "patched together" curriculum that only proves to be a disservice to library school students.

By 1978, cataloging and classification were no longer required courses for graduation from many MLS programs (Marcum 1997). Educators hailed this development as a positive change. Because of the development of the national bibliographic utilities, educators argued, many functions currently performed by librarians in cataloging will (and now are) assigned to paraprofessional staff. The profession as a whole tends to view catalogers as a dying species. Directors interviewed by Harris and Marshall (1998) complained about catalogers who were perfectionists, and whose standards led to decreased efficiency overall. These directors did not see cataloging as a science or a skill, and tended to look down their noses at work that could easily be outsourced. Quite simply, original cataloging is expensive.

Corporate firms also tended to feel that traditional cataloging had little relevance to their specialized collections, which were often classified according to in-house schemes (Jeng, 1993). This deskilling of labor proved further to the schools that librarians versed in organizational or classification theory were the most useful (Manley, 1991). Classes today are broad enough to include elements of traditional classification and indexing, as well as data and systems management.

As one might expect, opponents rallied against these attacks. Critics argue that there is a growing shortage of qualified catalogers to maintain the bibliographic utilities that the profession is starting to take for granted. Quality control cannot be outsourced if no one knows any longer what constitutes quality. Even more crucial is cataloging’s fundamental role in providing subject analysis. Subject analysis no longer only refers to assigning subject headings to books and other traditional media, but refers to all kinds of information systems, from manual and online catalogs and databases, to full text systems and the Internet (Wilson, 1993, p.73). Without adequate subject analysis, retrieval from full text databases and the Internet will continue to be elusive and frustrating.

Traditional reference courses are meeting a similar, if less exacting, demise. Miller (1996) notes that "reference courses have been recast as reference and information packaging courses" providing yet another example of a broadening name change (p.2). Less emphasis on reference sources needn’t be a bad thing, however. Today’s emphasis should be on communication and information literacy. Lancaster (1984) believes that the essence of information dissemination is about human communication, and that this should be strongly emphasized in the curriculum. Curran (1989) also agrees that too little emphasis is placed on the ability to conduct a good reference interview and getting a good grounding in "people skills" (p.472).

Of course, the most obvious argument against the banishment of traditional reference classes from the core comes from practicing librarians themselves, and illustrates, once again, the dilemma between the place that practical and theoretical education have in library schools. Employers continue to insist that graduates be ready to work in their particular libraries, not realizing that it is impossible to custom-train each student for every setting. Hauptman (1989) finds that even having taken a reference practicum, students will be "barely formed, barely capable of adequately surviving at a busy reference desk" (p.522).

Because of the diversity of positions available to library science school graduates today, the problem of adequate specialization is apparent. Librarianship requires the least amount of post graduate education of all professions, yet the specialization required to maintain even the smallest public library system has too often been ignored. As Conant (1980) notes we are "the last of the demanding professions to require only one year of professional training" (p.61). For example, a hospital contains many levels of personnel trained in specializations suited to their positions, such as doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, physical therapists, etc. Yet libraries have tended to lump professional and paraprofessional duties in times of financial need, often placing paraprofessionals in librarian positions, or demanding clerical duties of librarians. Clearly doctors and nurses are not interchangeable but complementary positions, yet library schools historically produced graduates who have performed the work of library clerks as well as complex administrative and managerial tasks. Stieg (1992) and Lancaster (1984) agree that a single educational track will turn out graduates ill-suited to the demands of today’s complex information society. White (1995) and Robbins (1993) disagree, however, feeling that dividing the curriculum into tracks makes the curriculum over-specialized and in danger of quickly becoming out-dated. Continuing education can fulfill the need to keep up with changes in information trends.

The question of specialization was posed by Williamson as early as 1923 when he advocated a two year curriculum. Many library professionals and educators believe that it is simply impossible for library school students to receive a proper education in a year long program. Conant (1980) and White (Ostler et al., 1995) also support a two year curriculum, and Gardner (1987) notes that such a curriculum would allow practicums.

But there are no guarantees that two years of education, which translate into lost wages and extra tuition, will pay off in the United States. So far, the profession has not shown a preference for hiring and increasing the initial salaries of graduates from two year programs (Hayes, Summers, and Flagg, 1983). Because many librarians feel somewhat contemptuous of the education they received, they feel disinclined to support "more of the same" in new graduates. Graduates themselves often have the "grin and bear it" attitude towards library school and try to get out as soon as possible (Hayes, et al., 1983). Clearly, the debate still rages over the efficacy of more hours spent in school.

As hinted above, nowhere do the curriculum revision debates center heaviest than on the theory vs. practice dispute. The author has already listed many reasons why theory is important to library education; specifically, that the lack of it has caused an identity crisis both for the schools and for the profession, and that it provides the ability for graduates to adapt to change. Shera insists that "without an enduring body of theory, library school leaders have no guiding principles to point the way in reforming and updating library school curricula" (Ostler, et al., p.4). Gorman (1990) agrees that the role of training is best left to future employers, who can teach new graduates the specifics of their jobs.

Professional librarians, however, feel divided on what the ratio of theory to practice in the curriculum should be. Several librarians that the author has spoken to spoke highly of a theoretical education, primarily for reasons of providing a basis for strong management and administrative skills, and the ability to adapt to change. On the other hand, employers want "ready to work" graduates who will need minimal training to get the job done. Plaiss (1983) believes that theory actually inhibits a positive identity formation for the profession when he believes that "the refusal of library schools to emphasize competency is the greatest barrier to professional recognition" (p.618). These same employers argue that new staff are unlikely to be in management positions for several years, perhaps long enough that the learned theory will be obsolete (Law, 1989). Librarians are worried that current emphasis on theoretical education and information science in particular is causing students to turn away from careers in children’s services (Lester, 1990). Library schools should fill the needs of libraries, since above all, their mission is to serve our profession. Unfortunately, schools’ past tendency to focus on the vocational approach has brought them disrespect in academe, and has been a contributing factor to their endangerment and closure.

What is really at issue is the need for proper balance between the two in a good curriculum. Too much theory creates a graduate who is more an academic than a professional; too much of the practical creates a technician (Biggs and Bookstein, 1988). The most important skill for the graduate is adaptability and the ability to plan strategically. Obviously, both theory and practice must be equally taught.

Educational Changes: Revolutionary or Evolutionary?

The exploding rate of technology is truly revolutionary, as is its application in information management. For example, the Internet with its proliferation of individual home pages on the World Wide Web has provided a global democratic forum never before seen in history. Use of the Internet was instrumental in the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, and on a national level, has allowed millions to speak out in favor of free speech against the Communications Decency Act. Apostle and Raymond (1987) agree that the "growing rate of technology and its use in information management is just as revolutionary, if not more so, than the rate of an increasingly mechanized society was during the Industrial Revolution" (p. 19).

But does this "revolution" apply to what is going on in library schools today? One must disagree. The ways in which technology is used may be revolutionary, but actual education for librarianship must be viewed on an evolutionary scale, going back to Dewey’s original library school and vocational orientation. All of the arguments regarding theoretical vs. practical education, core curriculum vs. specialization, and above all, the identity of librarianship itself have existed since the beginning of formal education for the profession. Miller (1996) notes that librarians have always held a traditional, important role in the conservation and collection of information, but that this role is "evolving" as the means of accessing information changes (p.5). Our profession is attempting to define its body of knowledge and this process is also part of the "evolution" of becoming a "discipline in its own right" (Stieg, 1992, p.9). The problems of defining library science vs. information science and how they relate to school titles also illustrate librarianship's growing pains and shows how the relationship between the two disciplines are in "continuous flux" (Stieg, 1992, p10).

Our schools are indeed growing. As curriculum changes draw more students, the number of master’s degrees awarded annually in the United States and Canada increased between 1986 and 1996 by 46% (Dalrymple, 1997, p.2). Wilson (1993) believes that all of these developments are "indications of an emerging maturity in the field of library and information science" (p. 225). Evolution implies adaptation, and that is exactly what library schools have done in response to the crisis of annihilation. Change and flexibility are the watchwords of the future, but have always been a part of our past. Fortunately, library schools have finally begun to take the new information paradigm seriously and are truly standing on the cusp of great opportunities.

References

American Library Association. (1999). Accredited library and information studies Masters programs from 1925 through present [On-line]. Available: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/schools.html

Aronowitz, S. (1998). The new corporate university: Higher education becomes higher training. Dollars and Sense, (216), 32-35.

Apostle, R. & Raymond, B. (1987). Librarianship and the information paradigm. In R. K. Gardner (Ed.), Education of library and information professionals: Present and Future Proposals (pp. 17-31). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Bell, Daniel. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.

Biggs, M., & Bookstein, A. (1988). What constitutes a high-quality M.L.S. program? Forty-five faculty members’ views. Journal of Education For Library And Information Science,29 (1), 29-47.

Boaz, M. (1984). Some controversial opinions about library/information science education. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 24, (3), 215-217.

Boehm, E. H. (1983). Conference overview. In E. H. Boehm & M. K. Buckland (Eds.), Education for information management: Directions for the future: record of a conference cosponsored By the Information Institute, International Academy at Santa Barbara, and the Association of American Library Schools, May 6-8, 1982. (pp. 93-99). Santa Barbara: The Academy.

Bohannan, A. (1991). Library education: Struggling to meet the needs of the profession. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 17, (4), 216-219.

Borko, H. (1968). Information Science: What is it? American Documentation,19, 5.

Buckland, M. K. (1980). Education for librarianship in the next century. Library Trends, 34, (4), 777-788.

Conant, R. W. (1980). The Conant report: A study of the education of librarians. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Crowley, B. (1998). Dumping the "library". Library Journal, 123, (12), 48-49.

Curran, C. C. (1989). Teaching about reference work. The Reference Librarian, (25-26), 465-481.

Dalrymple, P. W. (1997). The state of the schools. American Libraries, 28, (1), 31-35.

Davis, K. (1998). Universities transform library curricula. Knowledge Management [On-line]. Available: http://enterprise.supersites.net/kmmagn2/km199812/fc2.htm

Dean's list: Ten school heads debate the future of library education. (1994). Library Journal, 119, (16), 60-64.

Gardner, R. K. (1987). Library and information science education: The present state and future prospects. In R. K. Gardner (Ed.), Education of library and information professionals: Present and future proposals (pp. 32-51). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gleaves, E. S. (1992). Library education: Issues for the eighties. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 22, (4), 260-274.

Gorman, M. (1990). A bogus and dismal science; or, the eggplant that ate library schools. American Libraries, 21, (5), 462-464.

Harris, R. & Marshall, V. (1998). Reorganizing Canadian libraries: a giant step back from the front. Library Trends, 46, (3), 564-581.

Hauptman, R. (1989). Education for reference work: Breaking the icons. The Reference Librarian, (25-26), 521-525.

Hayes, R. M., Summers, F. W., & Flagg, G. (1983). Two-year library school programs: Useful extension or waste of time? American Libraries, 14, 619-620.

Holmes, F. W. (1983). Information systems curriculum. In E. H. Boehm & M. K. Buckland (Eds.), Education for information management: Directions for the future: record of a conference cosponsored by the Information Institute, International Academy at Santa Barbara, and the Association of American Library Schools, May 6-8, 1982 (pp. 93-99). Santa Barbara, CA: The Academy.

Hyman, R. (1991). Library schools in crisis: Stemming the tide. Wilson Library Bulletin, 65, (5), 46-49.

Jeng, L. H. (1993). From cataloging to organization of information: A paradigm for the core curriculum. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 34, (2), 113-126.

Kniffel, L. (1998). Talking to ourselves about library education. American Libraries, 29, (6), 52.

Lancaster, F.W. (1984). Implications for library and information science education. Library Trends, 32, (3), 337-348.

Large, A. (1991). Editorial. Education for Information, 9, 93-95.

Law, D. (1989). Education needs for the 1990s. Catalogue & Index, (94), 1, 3-7.

Lester, J. (1990). Education for librarianship: A report card. American Libraries, 21, (6), 580-584.

Manley, W. (1991). Professional survival: It's academic. Wilson Library Bulletin, 65, (6), 79-81.

Marcum, D. B. (1997). Transforming the curriculum; transforming the profession. American Libraries, 28, (1), 35-38.

Martin, W. J. (1991). Education for information management: Restructuring and reform. Education for Information, 9, (21-28), 21-28.

Miller, M. (1996). What to expect from library school graduates. Information Technology and Libraries, 15, (1), 45-48.

Ostler, L. J. & Dahlin, T. C. (1995). Library education: Setting or rising sun? American Libraries, 26, (7), 683-685.

Ostler, L. J., Dahlin, T. C., & Willardson, J. D. (1995). The closing of American library schools: Problems and opportunities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Paris, M. (1990). Why library schools fail. Library Journal, 115, (16), 38-42.

Paris, M. (1988). Library school closings: Four case studies. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Plaiss, M. (1983). New librarians need skills, not philosophy: Countering the "guru of I.U.". American Libraries, 14, 618.

Robbins, J. B. (1993). 1992: The state of library and information education: An essay. In P. G. Reeling, (Ed.), Education for the library and information profession: Strategies for the mid-1990's (pp. 11-21). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Saracevic, T. (1994). Closing of library schools in North America: What role accreditation? Libri, 44, (3), 190-200.

Shera, J. (1972). The foundations of education for librarianship. New York: Becker & Hayes.

Shera, J. (1965). Social epistemology, general semantics, and librarianship. In D. J. Foskett (Ed.), Libraries and the organization of knowledge. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.

Shores, L. (1972). Library Education. Littleton, CO.: Libraries Unlimited.

Stieg, M. F. (1992). Change and challenge in library and information science education. Chicago: American Library Association.

Voos, H. (1985). The name's the thing. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 25, (3), 232-234.

Watson, B. (1996). On gatekeepers and librarians. Public Libraries, 35, (1), 36-44.

White, H. (1995). Educating for the now and future profession. Library Journal, 120, (9), 44-46.

White, H. (1995). Library studies or information management – What's in a name? Library Journal, 120, (7), 51-52.

White, H. (1987). Library education programs: Independence and Mergers. Library Journal, 112, (10), 84-85.

White, H. (1986). The future of library and information science education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 26, (3), 174-182.

White, H. (1992). Why do "they" close library schools? Library Journal, 117, (19), 51-52.

Williams, R. V. & Zachert, M. J. K. (1986). Specialization in library education: A review of the trends and issues. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 26, (4), 215-232.

Wilson, T. (1993). Professional education: The ever changing face. The Library Association Record, 95, (3), 224-225.