InfoMatters

The May 2006 President’s Message in American Libraries, entitled “More on Library Education” presents further thoughts from Michael Gorman on the apparent crisis in library education. He doesn’t mention any names in particular but he argues that the claim made by some (myself included) that there is an agreed core curriculum delivered by most ALA-accredited programs is not supported by the data. At least, I think that is what he says. He then turns this around and argues that if it were true, what is the problem with having ALA ‘enforce its accredidation standards and insist that the programs they accredit both teach and do research in a prescribed set of subjects’.

Surely I am not the only one who sees a slight problem here, am I? Please tell me an external professional society, one committed to open access to information and the free exchange of ideas, would never chose to dictate what is and what is not acceptable research to the academic community. Maybe it’s just the tone and the language, but when words like ‘insist’ and ‘enforce’ are used, it hardly encourages open discussion between the various parties.

Of course this also leaves aside the rather thorny problem of where the lines are drawn. Just what is ‘research in a prescribed set of subjects’, to use his words? At what point is work on reading, comprehension, management, design, evaluation, categorization etc. relevent to and part of LIS and when is it not? I really would hate to have to draw such boundaries, but I would hate more for those with no direct connection to the culture of universities to attempt it on our behalf. Good research is often so because of the implications and lessons others can draw from it. To that end, for a field like LIS there is really no fixed boundary outside of which research is irrelevant since even the most obscure work can provide theoretical or conceptual insights to the right faculty. But I digress……the real issue is who gets to define a faculty member’s and a field’s research agenda? It’s clear that some outside of academia feel that this is their right and they are not shy about saying so. Accreditation as cookie-cutter? Enforced standardization of research and teaching agenda? Welcome to the brave new world of library education.

Just back from CHI in Montreal (great city, so-so conference) I noticed how many people on the airplane were reading the Da Vinci Code. On both sides of the aisle I saw fellow-passengers with copies, and a third with another Dan Brown book. As if this was not bad enough, the O’Hare bookstore in which I wiled away a few minutes had more books on gospel secrets, hidden meanings and symbols than you could shake an author’s advance at. The worst yet has to be a new book on losing weight by using the secrets of Da Vinci and the golden ratio. Now, I will not put a link in here - the book will get enough publicity without me but this has to take the prize for the most crass exploitation yet (and as soon as I write this I just know there will be worse to come). Warner, in announcing the new series, said the book is sure “to pique the interest of Da Vinci enthusiasts and weight-loss seekers alike.” Imagine!

Now I’ve read the Da Vinci Code (yes, I am annoyed with myself but I couldn’t help it) and as far as I can tell, the only secret to losing weight it contained was to have yourself chased around Europe by a self-flagellating member of a murderous religious order - that ought to do it. Who needs a book? But the real point here is that I have heard people referring to our latest epoch as the Creativity Age (information being so last year). Well, I suppose if we consider technology to have enabled rapid repurposing and repackaging of one basic idea then it’s true –but if you quaintly thought creativity implied something ‘new’ emerging then I guess we’re still in the information age for now. Phew…..