Six issues facing libraries today: critical perspectives [1 ed.] 9781442277373, 9781442277380

Citation preview

Six Issues Facing Librarles Today: Criticad Perspectives

J ohn M . B udd

Beta Phi Mu Scholars series Founded in 1948, Beta Phi Mu is the intemational library and information studies honor society. Its mission is to recognize and encourage scholastic achievement among library and information studies students. The Beta Phi Mu Scholars series publishes significant contributions and substantive advances in the field o f library and information Science. Series editor Andrea Falcone is committed to presenting work which reflects Beta Phi Mu’s commitments to scholarship, leadership, and Service. The series fosters Creative, innovative, and well-articulated works that members o f the field will find influential.

Recently published titles in the series are:

Book Banning in 21 st-Century America by Emily J. M. Knox Young Adult Literature, Libraries, and Conservative Activism by Loretta M. Gaffney School Librarianship: Past, Present, and Future edited by Susan W. Alman Six Issues Facing Libraries Today: Critical Perspectives by John Budd

Six Issues Facing Libraries Today

Critical Perspectives

John M. Budd

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Rowman & Littlefíeld A wholly owned subsidiary o f The Rowman & Littlefíeld Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB Copyright © 2017 by Rowman & Littlefíeld

All rights reserved. No part o f this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available

ISBN 9781442277373 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781442277380 (electronic) © ™ The paper used in this publication meets the mínimum requirements o f American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence o f Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States o f America

To Carly

Contents

Preface

ix

Acknowledgments 1 2 3 4 5 6

xiii

What Is Information? What Is Information Literacy? What Roles Do Academic Libraries Play in Higher Education Today? How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians? What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases of the Library and Information Professions? What Is the Future of Librarianship?

1 29 57 85 113 145

Index

173

About the Author

181

vii

Preface

Michel de Montaigne was one of the fírst essayists in the print culture period. For him, essai referred to an attempt or a trial. The meaning of the English word essay is somewhat different today, but what follows here will be in keeping with Montaigne’s intent. These are attempts at addressing some of the more pressing issues in librarianship and information Science. They hardly express final words on any of the topics, but I hope they are contributions to ongoing conversations on these issues. It is not that these essays are “correct,” but I do intend that they not be completely incorrect. They will raise questions and, inevitably, disagreements. The most valuable outcome of the following chapters will be the encouragement of constructive discourse. Ideally, additional public work will tackle the issues presented here. By that I mean that other literary publications will be produced and that conference presentations will address these issues. These public discursive practices need not refer to the chapters published here but may deal with the issues themselves. I believe that the issues are sufficiently important that others will pick up on the themes and will add their own thoughts and analyses to the overall discourse. The principal purpose of the present book is to tackle some persistent and thorny issues that are of vital interest to librarianship. 1 have written previously about these issues, mainly because 1 have seen these issues arise again and again while attending conferences or when conversing with professional colleagues. With education for librarianship, I have also noticed that these topics are fodder for frequent discussion about curricular matters. As such, and on the face of it, the issues are not new, but this book offers an opportunity to take a new look at the matters in question. All the chapters are new to this book; while a few do build upon previous work, these are original compositions aimed at providing fresh looks at the issues. As such, the book IX

X

Preface

covers new approaches to familiar topics. Personally, I have been contemplating answers to questions relating to these topics for many years. This book represents the fruits of that reflection, the writings in the literature of librarianship on the topics, and the attention that has been paid to these issues within the profession. Our own literature, though, is not sufficient to address the topics fully. For one thing, the literature upon which the chapters draw represents different backgrounds and outlooks on the matters. As will become evident, much of this background literature is drawn from fields and disciplines other than librarianship and information Science. The reason for including the works cited is primarily to embrace scholarship and practical writings that can shed new light on the persistent challenges. Also the inclusión of other literatures reflects my own curiosity and the quest for understanding of these diffícult matters. The perspectives of the writers of these works complement and supplement those from within librarianship but also (at times) present some counters to the received information and knowledge of our field. The intent of bringing in some points of view is not merely to be provocative, except in the sense that altemative viewpoints may generate innovative approaches to conceptual and practical problems. I hope that the entirety of the professional community of librarians— perhaps particularly, but certainly not exclusively, academic librarians—will find something in the following pages to spark thought and action. The chapters are not solely based in theory; the ultímate aim is to affect the practice of librarianship. Both those new to the profession and those who have considerable experience will, I hope, find approaches and background that generate critical thought and praxis. The chapters are written so as to suggest ways to reflect on current practice (see, for example, the case studies on ethics), with the outcome of affirming effective practice, as well as altering some of the current ways of doing things. It is also possible that this book will fmd its way into library and information Science education curricula. It may be used in introductory courses as a means to initiate conversation about the profession; it could also be employed in culminating or capstone-type courses in order to allow students to revisit what has been leamed in the program. In short, the potential and intended audience for this book is very broad. The chapters included in this volume address specific topics; these are not intended to be an exhaustive array of issues. Chapter 1 tackles something that has plagued library and information Science for some time—a definition and theory of information. This is one of the pieces that is bound to draw disagreement but should continué the discussion about the important task of defíning just what information is. The other chapters address issues that may be considered closer to the heart of librarianship. For example, information literacy (chapter 2) is one such matter that has drawn much attention over the

Preface

xi

last several years and has prompted organizations to devise official standards. It remains a topic deserving critical attention in many settings, and the assessment offered here is in agreement with some of what has been written but is contrary to other ideas. Again the aim is to foster conversation about this important function in the profession. The difficult topic of higher education and academic libraries forms the fodder for the third chapter. To be honest, more of this chapter’s contení is devoted to higher education, which is in flux at this time. It may even be said that higher education is looking to rediscover itself at this juncture of its history. The occurrences in the broader realm of higher education will undoubtedly have an impact on academic libraries and librarianship. Of course, there is a fínancial element to the matter, but that aspect does little more than scratch the surface of the current turmoil. One thing that also recurs in the consciousness of librarianship is education for the profession, the content of chapter 4 .1 confess I spent twenty-eight years of my career as an educator, so I have acquired many observations and opinions on the subject. Are they all correct? That remains to be seen and is in the eyes of the beholder. That said, what appears in the chapter is the product of both experience and careful thought. Most of what is said will not be seen as particularly radical, but there are some aspects that could be seen as unique. A topic of perhaps broader interest within librarianship forms the focus of the fífth chapter. It is the challenge of ethical action within the profession. This is a far-reaching topic and cannot inelude all of the potential ethical issues that can arise for librarians and information specialists. Still, some of the more commonly occurring predicaments are addressed. There is, as is apparent from the chapter, a moral underpinning to the library and informa­ tion Science profession, and the chapter attempts to put a fínger on that underpinning. Finally, the matter of the future is addressed in the last chapter. Again some of the observations are based on what has been propounded in the past and what has actually happened. Inherent in most of the chapter is a set of questions. What the profession will face in the coming years is, naturally, a matter of speculation. The content of the chapter is, I hope, informed speculation. The purpose of chapter 6 is to spur thought about what is to come and how we all may anticípate and face the future. To reitérate, the fundamental rationale underlying this collection is, as Montaigne set forth, the presentation of a set of attempts at addressing some of the (more or less) intractable issues of our time. I hope that the chapters will be read as attempts, and that readers will offer their own attempts in response. If the work is successful, the reader will come away with alternative ways of examining these persistent issues. Not only will thinking about the issues be affected, but in some important ways, practice could be transformed. To accomplish that end (as is mentioned above), thought and writings from a variety of fields are introduced. This may provide some enlight-

Xll

Preface

enment regarding the ways others approach these and similar matters. A message that can be taken away is that librarianship does not exist in an intellectual or practical vacuum. No one fíeld can be expected to anticípate all approaches to the Solutions to common problems; we—that is, all disci­ plines that pay attention to such thorny issues—must work together in the search for answers. Admittedly, many questions arise within the discussions in this book. Readers can take it upon themselves to address these questions. Indeed, the most gratifying response possible would be active readership and thoughtful reactions to the topics presented here. That outcome is, of course, up to the readers.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all professionals and educators with whom I have worked over the years. The conversations and the work on association committees have been invaluable in formulating thoughts on the issues included in this book. I would also like to add a special thanks to Andrea Falcone, editor of the Beta Phi Mu Scholars series, as well as the series’ editorial board members for their cióse reading of this work and the suggestions they made. Because of them, this is a better work than it was at the beginning. Of course, all errors and misinterpretations are my own.

Chapter One

What Is Information?

Although he never used the term, John Stuart Mili is credited with advocating the existence of a “marketplace of ideas.” His view was that free exchange of ideas and opinions is the system that is most likely to result in the uncovering of new knowledge and of truth. He went so far as to urge allowing falsehoods so that they could circuíate, be evaluated, and be shown to be false. The efficacy of his notion relies on every claim that is made being fully and openly assessed and evidence that might support or refute the claim being evaluated. This, he said, would be of the greatest utility for society. Admittedly, it is difficult to find fault with his stance, but the attractiveness of it relies on free and open circulation and the time taken to assess every claim. If we keep in mind that Mili was writing in the nineteenth century, we may be more drawn to a structure that insists on such circulation and evaluation. Mili was quite an idealist in his faith in the discerning judgment of people. He believed that the application of reason would enable the populace to distinguish valid and/or true statements from error or falsehood. But the question we are faced with more than a century later is, Are we too overloaded by claims now to be sufficiently diligent in the assessment of claims? As will become evident here, I believe we are far too inundated by claims of all sorts, in all walks of life, to afford the time and attention for full and open evaluation and then circulation of the evaluative discourse. Any theory of information must consider Mill’s claims and subject them to some scrutiny. His premise that all statements and opinions should be freely articulated is one that seems to be in keeping with some primary tenets of democracy. If we want to live within a democratic State (a State where individual freedoms not only exist but are protected from all intrusión, including intrusions by authorities), then every person should be free to speak on any topic. For Mili, though, the mere speaking of one’s thoughts does not 1

2

Chapter 1

equate to truth. The thoughts and opinions of everyone should then be subjected to reasonable argument, according to which the logical, epistemológ­ ica!, ontological, and political elements of the speech are assessed. As Mili (2007) said, There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinión to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose o f not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty o f contradicting and disproving our opinión, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes o f action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance o f being right. (p. 35)

There is, then, a stringent set of criteria to which every statement should be subjected. Mili, of course, had utility in mind as he wrote this passage, and this is why he added “for purposes of action.” That said, he does set a high valué on the truth of a statement and on the possibility of disproving it. We can take a bit of an excursus here into the twentieth century and into the thought of Karl Popper. Just as Mili said that efforts to disprove and refute statements must be a component of the freedom of open discourse, so too did Popper valué the necessity of what he termed the “falsificaron” of theories and hypotheses. Mili (2007) offered, “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case” (p. 39). In agreeing fundamentally with Mili, Popper concluded that scientists must subject their work to possible falsification, not merely to potential verification. It is only through trying to prove the work false that genuine progress can be made in Science. Hypotheses should be continuously tested so that they can withstand scrutiny. In practice, many scientists do adhere to Popper’s (2002) admonition and seek new knowledge by means of subjecting current knowledge to further testing. The recent disputes regarding the nature of Pluto provide an example of continued testing. Given the technology of ground- and spacebased telescopes, conclusions were reached that Pluto may not be a planet in the same sense the other eight planets are. The recent pictures taken by the spacecraft New Horizons in 2016 indícate that the landscape of Pluto is much more dynamic than was previously thought. The scientific community had to be open to the possibility of new discovery in order to alter their views of Pluto. The above is one example where new information can make a difference in what is held to be val id. There are, however, examples where reason and diligence are not necessarily pursued, even in Science. For a number of reasons (almost all of which have to do with personal and social aspects of doing work in Science, mainly at institutions of higher education), some false

What Is Information?

3

work does not receive sufficient scrutiny. Each year, a number of published papers in the biomedical fíeld are retracted for any number of reasons, including error and misconduct. In 2014, 326 articles were retracted, according to the Medline database (this is an increase from 60 in 2003). There is evidence that retracted works continué to be treated as though they were valid. I have examined citations to works retracted in 2001 and 2002. For reasons that may inelude the pressure to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible, scientists are not taking care with the examination of the research upon which they are building. This example would probably cause dismay to Popper and Mili, since the exercise of reason is not being diligently applied. One caveat has to be mentioned at the outset. Information, as examined here, exeludes what might be called technical information; that is, the references to information as applied to, say, the structure of DNA or the genomic projeets are not addressed here. As is the case of the first (2011) article, human communicative action is the focus here. Information, of course, has many uses at this time, but here the restriction will be to what can be created, said, heard, and/or shown in human interactions. Granted some may consider this a limitation, but it is a limitation that allows for the possibility of a theoretical construct. For example, Vlatko Vedral (2010) says that “informa­ tion (and not matter or energy or love) is the building block on which everything is constructed. . . . Information can also be used to explain the origin and behaviour of microscopic interactions such as energy and matter” (p. 10). Information has to be defined in a particularly broad manner for such uses to apply; the definition here is narrower. PURPOSE In 2011,1 published a paper titled, “Meaning, Truth, and Information: Prolegomena to a Theory.” It is now time to revisit and extend the first words leading to a theory of information. It should be emphasized here that this present chapter is not intended as a recap of the earlier work but is an extensión of the background (in order to provide the soundest grounding possible) and a revisitation of the ideas presented previously. In the earlier work, I wrote, “An aim is to guide conversation about the nature of informa­ tion along paths that inelude consideration of meaning and truth. Breadth is a goal, so depth has to be satisficed to some extent” (Budd, 2011, p. 57). This current chapter is an effort to del ve more deeply into the theory. For this reason, much of the literature that was mentioned in that article will not be mentioned here. In short, this chapter accompanies the article and builds upon the work done there. This chapter will attempt to develop some of the ideas relating to semantics as a way to develop the concept and praxis of

4

Chapter 1

meaning. It will also try to extend the application of truth as a dynamic component of information. Ultimately, the goal is to develop the initial theory further. That fírst stab States, Statement o f Theory: Information is comprised o f those communicative actions (and only those communicative actions) that can be evaluated by a population— defined as the intended or potential hearers o f communication— as meaningful. Meaning is not limited to puré semantics, but ineludes context and history within evaluation. Further, information is true in that there is warrant for the communicative action, that is action ineludes no delibérate deception or omission, has inherent evaluative components, provides evidentiary justification, and is fundamental to ethics. (Budd, 2011, p. 70)

It must be noted that there are disagreements with the above theory state­ ment. The most articúlate and complete is that of Robert Lingard (2013), who frnds the statement restrictive and unable to encompass some real-world situations. His criticisms must be attended to and addressed in the present chapter if the theory is to be a more complete and mature theoretical claim. Lingard (2013) also addresses what may be called a pragmatics of communi­ cation and information; these factors must be attended to as well. The state­ ment constitutes a starting point for consideration here; what is ultimately to be developed will take into account not only Lingard’s thoughts but a renewed examination of semantics (and related matters) and truth. The aim here is the articularon of a more fully developed theory. INTENTIONALITY An assertion that can be made is that an informative statement (one that fulfílls the conditions below) is intentional. Intentionality, for the purposes here, is best defined by John Searle (1983): As a preliminary formulation we might say: Intentionality is that property o f many mental States and events by which they are directed at or about or o f objeets and States o f affairs in the world. If, for example, I have a belief, it must be a belief that such and such is the c ase . . . . On my account if a State S is Intentional then there must be an answer to such question as: What is S about? What is S of? What is it an S that? (pp. 1-2)

Informing is intentional insofar as it has directedness (it is directed at something). Being informed can mean that an individual is in an intentional State; the individual may, for example, have beliefs as a consequence of being informed. Searle maintains that language actually follows intentionality; speech acts emanate from the intentional States that people have. While this is a tempting notion, many people disagree with Seale on this matter; one

What Is Information?

5

factor, according to Searle, is that intentionality and consciousness are sepár­ ate. All this said, Searle does recognize the import of propositional statements and the reflection of intentional States. Searle (1983) does admit to a “connection between Intentional States and speech acts [that], in the perfor­ mance of each illocutionary act with a propositional contení, we express a certain Intentional State with the propositional contení, and that Intentional State is the sincerity condition of the speech act” (p. 9). Information usually requires some utterance, some expression (including propositions) for there to be assessment of a potentially informative act. Following Searle in parí, the expression/proposition ineludes a belief that has meaning. (As will be shown, meaning is essential; it is necessary, but other elements are required for there to be sufficient evidence of informational communication.) To reitérate a point from Searle, intentionality precedes language; being in an intentional State allows one to create utterances that express beliefs, desires, and so on. How do we relate this claim to informadon? In Searle’s conception, the intentional States enable representation—in the narrow sense that beliefs can be represented, ultimately, in communicative ways. Because of the order of the workings of the mind, the representing States (being intentional) are prior to any communicative intentions (Searle, 1983, p. 166). Being prior to communicative acts necessitates being prior to communicated meaning. In short, the mind of an individual intends something, then is able to express the intention in language, and so meaning can be communicated. All depends, though, on intentional States, by means of which such things as beliefs can be articulated. RETURN TO SEMANTICS One customary objective in human communication is to provide meaning to a hearer or a reader. This is not a simple matter, as I (2011) indicated earlier. For one thing, the conveyance of meaning ineludes structures of belief. If I were to say “It is raining,” the statement ineludes the implication “I believe it is raining.” It makes no sense to say “It is raining, but I do not believe it is raining.” The First statement—“It is raining”—is comprehensible to a hearer as “I believe it is raining.” The problem when we connect semantics to truth is that I could be mistaken in my belief; that is, I could say “It is raining” when it is not actually raining. J. L. Austin (1962) elaborates on this kind of communication (pp. 45-50). (At this time, I am only addressing error; deception is another possibility that will be taken up later.) For semantics and meaning to be conjoined, the condition described by Alfred Tarski (1944) has to be obtained: the sentence “It is raining” is true if, and only if, it is raining. For our purposes, the sentence “It is raining” when it is not raining is

6

Chapter 1

not informative. The sentence gives no meaningful shape to a hearer’s knowledge State. Some additional background can provide a solid grounding for the exam­ inaron of meaning in communication. Alan Cruse (2011) offers a straightforward illustration of the stages of communication, of which meaning is an essential component: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The The The The The The The The The

speaker normally has a purpose in communicating. speaker constructs a message to be communicated. speaker constructs an utterance with which to convey the message. speaker transforms the utterance into a physical signal. speaker transmits the signal. addressee receives the signal. addressee decodes the signal to recover the utterance. addressee reconstructs the message from the utterance. addressee infers the purpose o f the communication. (p. 5)

The list is a complete depiction of transference and reception of messages (more complete than the technical information model proposed by Shannon and Weaver, 1949). The first and last Ítems in the list are probably the most important since they begin and end with the purpose of communication. There is, of course, much more to the formation and perception of meaning, including relationships among components of messages. Cruse (2011) mentions the fundamental philosophical question that signifies the province of meaning: “What sort o f relation musí hold between X and Y for it to be the case thatXmeans 7?” (p. 14; italics in original). The question may appear, on its face, to be a simple one, but there are complexities in the relationship that need to be considered before a complete understanding of meaning (and of information) can be achieved. As Cruse (2011) indicates, semanticists look for systemic regularities in communica­ tion and meaning so that optimal economic transmission and receipt can be accomplished (p. 16). As far back as George Zipf (1949), linguists have been concerned with the economy of communication. In the ideal, the briefest message that can convey the meaning desired by the speaker is valued; at the same time, however, the most complete message that can convey meaning to the addressee is also desired. Reason holds that the two desired forms of communication are not always going to be identical. Some meaning may reside in the mind of the speaker but may be left unspoken. What is unspoken can present challenges for the addressee; the absent thoughts may be needed for meaning to be discemed completely. In practical use, the conflicting economies could be present in a reference transaction in a library. Someone may articúlate a query, thinking economy is achieved for both parties, but the librarían may require more knowledge of, say, the purpose of the query or the extensiveness of information required. For example, a questioner may ask,

What Is Information?

1

“When was the Battle of Hastings fought?” That query has a defmite and objective answer, but if the questioner also wants to understand who the battling forces were and why the battle occurred, the query is insufficient to produce full understanding. There are other components of semantics that can play a part in the processes of informing. As Paul Elbourne (2011) writes, Semanticists distinguish between the extensión and the intensión o f a term like chair: roughly speaking, the extensión o f chair is the set o f all actual chairs, while the intensión o f is the set o f possible chairs, allowing for all the possibilities o f bizarre science-fiction scenarios. The meaning o f chair, whatever it is, allows us to talk not only about actual chairs, but also about merely possible chairs. (pp. 4-5; italics in original)

Extensión and intensión may appear to be esoteric, but when it comes to the quest for meaning in the broadest sense, the distinction becomes an important one. Someone may not wish to be limited to a set of actual Ítems but may want to inelude imaginary or possible Ítems. A fiction writer might be such a person. Elbourne (2011) mentions two additional concems that are necessary for any consideration of meaning. He refers to “the referential theory of meaning [which] proposes the most direct mechanism: meanings of words simply are things in the world” and also “advocates of the internalist theory o f meaning. They suggest that word meanings are most fruitfully thought of as ideas or concepts in our heads” (pp. 14 and 15; italics in original). He expresses what happens to be a debate in linguistics. This is a debate that, in my view, will never be resolved; adherents of each side can easily posit examples that illustrate their side. On the other hand, the adherents of each will have to confess that their stance cannot describe all meaning. In other words, both are correct and both are incorrect (one might say they are mired in uncertainty); meaning is elusive. There are concrete and abstract objeets that exist in the world and in our minds; attempts to elimínate one or the other will prove to be fraught. Just why will elimination be fraught? A considerable amount of formal discursive practice in many fields (including in library and information Sci­ ence) addresses elements of the world we live in. These practices may be descriptive of aspeets of the world, or they may have to do with the neurophysiology of human beings—especially as the neurophysiology affeets humans’ perceptions of the world. The language that is commonly used to handle the expressions can be said to be referential; as Cruse (2011) says, “Reference is concerned with designating entities in the world by linguistic means” (p. 381). Cruse (2011) recognizes various types of reference, but that level of detail is not necessary here. Suffice to mention by way of example that in a library setting, if an undergraduate student says to a librarían, “I need an article on X topic,” that represents indefinite reference. In most

10

Chapter 1

meaning the speaker wishes to convey. If one were to conduct a study of pragmatics in communication, that study would necessarily be descriptive, examining how certain terms and expressions are used to get meaning across, rather than prescriptive, stating how language ought to be used. In formal communication, like books and joumal articles, pragmatics may be an infrequent occurrence. In speech, it may be evident more frequently. Additional advice regarding pragmatics comes from Paul Grice (1989), as is mentioned in Budd (2011). Grice (1989) advócate for a set of “quantity maxims”: 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes o f the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (p. 26)

The maxims appear (on the face of it) to make sense, but there may be a difficulty with maxim number 2. Suppose one is addressing a wide audience, one whose members have differing sets of background knowledge. In order to make the contribution as informative as is required for all members of the audience, maxim 2 may have to be violated (at least as far as some members are concerned). That is, some background information may be required so that the message can be fully informed of the contribution. Some members of the audience might consider that background redundant but not to the point that the contribution could be misunderstood. Therefore, it appears that max­ im number 1 is primary when mass communication is undertaken. Imagine a communication that will be read by informed scholars in a field and by students in that field. Adhering to maxim number 2 may require that the contribution be full and complete, with contextual background that allows novices to gain a purchase on the full meaning of the contribution. Stephen Levinson (2000) affírms the above interpretaron with his “Q-Principle”: “Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows” (p. 76). Completeness—minus obfuscation or confu­ sión—is necessary to produce understanding among readers and hearers of the message. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson (1995) contribute as well to an under­ standing of pragmatics. They State, [The] differences in degree o f explicitness are analyzable in terms o f the relative proportions o f decoding and inference involved:

Degrees of explicitness The greater the relative contribution o f decoding, and the smaller the relative contribution o f pragmatic inference, the more explicit an explicature will be (and inversely). (p. 182)

What Is Information?

11

Explicit communication, especially when the words employed have singular meaning, results in an utterance that is readily understandable. The opposite necessitates implicature or inference of meaning from what is said or written. Formal communication would essentially entail the introduction of explicature or the use of readily defmable terms. In the absence of ready definability, the terms would have to be defined as explicitly as possible. The key to this particular pragmatic principie is the introduction of understanding. A pragmatic challenge that exists and arises even in common conversations is that of polysemy, the realization that one word can have several meanings. For example, a bank is an institution in which money (real and virtual) is kept and bank is also the earth bounding a river. While these two definitions appear to be very different, use of the word can create confusión, especially in asynchronous communication. When people are in real-time dialogue, one can hypothetically ask something like, “Do you mean the insti­ tution known as a bank?” In something like an exchange of e-mails or me­ mos, even a simple word like bank could contribute to misunderstanding. Beyond such a straightforward example, the academic world may encounter some problematic instances of polysemy. To a sociologist conducting an ethnographic (or other) type of study, the word phenomenology will have particular meaning, usually referring to something like the lived Uves of the study’s participants. To a philosopher, phenomenology has a different and more complex meaning. It could be that members of the two fields of study could speak at cross purposes to one another as they describe their own inquiry. Multidisciplinary communication may inelude some inherent pragmatic uses of language that could render shared understanding a bit problematic. As Terence Horgan and Matjaz Potrc (2008) remark, “One inquires about the language-world and thought-world relations from within a rhetorical framework that largely employs words and concepts that are vague” (p. 135; emphasis in original). Their observation can apply to a field or an amalgamation of fields that may inelude inherent communicative, epistemic, and ontological characteristics (such as iSchools). A waming offered by Sharachchandra Lélé and Richard Norgaard (2005) is appropriate: Many . . . decide that it takes too much effort to communicate and share knowledge within such a disparate [interdisciplinary] group, and happily retreat to their own special fields, where all the participants use the same models o f analysis, are comfortable with the assumptions they share as a group, and consequently “know” the same things. (p. 967)

Budd and Dumas (2014) place pragmatics within the informational disciplinary context:

12

Chapter 1 The sharing o f meaning (based, as it is, in individual— or disciplinary— mean­ ing), as is suggested above, can be enhanced by the categorization o f concepts. Since categorizations have inherent relationships, the discovery o f relations assists people from different background with connection-building linguistic activities. In particular, linguistic pragmatics can present clues as to how shar­ ing can occur. Most classificatión structures are incompletely contextual (not non-contextual, but constructed in ways that are not entirely pragmatic).

It should be mentioned that pragmatics can entai 1 truth-conditionals—or “meaning that affects the conditions under which a sentence would be true” (Birner, 2013, p. 29). Again these truth-conditionals (in the pragmatic rather than the semantic sense) are context dependent. As such, the discerning of meaning may be dependent on more than a sentence; context might be included in longer expressions. Pragmatics is a rather specialized subfíeld of linguistics and will not be examined further here. Suffice it to say that the relationship to truth (albeit limited) provides a segue to the next section. TRUTH There was extensive discussion of truth in Budd (2011); what follows is an extensión of that conversation. Before delving further into the intricacies of truth and theories of truth, there are some connections that can be made with language. Wilson and Sperber (2012) offer a straightforward conception: “Here are a couple of apparent platitudes. As speakers, we expect what we say to be accepted as true. As hearers, we expect what is said to us to be true. If it were not for these expectations, if they were not often enough satisfied, there would be little point in communicating at all” (p. 47). We can also tum to Grice (1989) again; he articulates that one should not say what is false and one should not say anything for which there is a lack of evidence. Grice (1989) States something even more important: “False information is not an inferior kind of information; it just is not information” (p. 371). In this, Grice echoes the assessment of Fred Dretske (1981), whose words are noted in Budd (2011). Wilson and Sperber (2012) take the language connection even further when they State, “Saying is not merely expressing a proposition but asserting it: that is, committing oneself to its truth. Understood this way, the maxim of truthfulness means ‘Do not assert propositions you believe to be false”’ (p. 52; italics in original). There are any number of esoteric ways to conceive of truth and many detailed theories of truth. What we will attempt here is a description of some ways of looking at truth and useful strategies for melding meaning, truth, and information. A good place to begin enumerating kinds of theories is Richard Kirkham’s (1995) categorizations:

What Is Information? 1. 2. 3.

13

The metaphysicalproject. . . . The justificationproject. . . . The speech-actproject (pp. 20-21; italics in original)

More specific components inhere in each project. The metaphysical project can be seen as the one most closely connected with scientific inquiry; that is, there is attempt to associate truth with agreement with reality. There is some condition that is both necessary and sufficient for a statement or other expression to count as being true. The justifícation project involves seeking evidence or warrant for believing some expression to be (probably) true. This project is somewhat less stringent than the metaphysical one and is likely to apply in realms other than the scientific. As Kirkham (1995) says, “Theories of justifícation answer questions like, for any given proposition (or belief or sentence, etc.), when and how are we justifíed in thinking that the proposition is probably true” (p. 25). Kirkham (1995) summarizes the aims of the speech-act project: The project is to find an expression (possibly syntactically complex) that is intensionally equivalent to “is true,” that is, an expression that is synonymous with “is true.” The expression would therefore be one that could be substituted for “is true” in any English sentence without changing the meaning or truth valué o f the sentence. (p. 30)

Other writers address theories of truth, attempting to explícate the major theoretical stances (e.g., Burgess & Burgess, 2011): Realist or correspondence theory:

A belief is trne iff[ if and only if] it corresponds to reality Idealist or coherence theory:

A belief is true iff it coheres with other ideas Pragmatist or utility theory:

A belief is true iffit is useful in practice (p. 3; italics in original)

The above represent only a few of the prominent theories, but these are sufficient for the purposes here. The correspondence theory may be the one most widely held by scientists, even as it is questioned by some philosophers. Scientists tend to believe in propositions that have a grounding in the real world (or at least, the world as we can describe it at a given point in time). Alexis Burgess and John Burgess (2011) say, “Traditional realists would insist, against traditional idealist pragmatists, that whether the proposition that snow is white is true depends on whether snow really is white, and not on whether the thought that it is fits comfortably with our other ideas or is convenient to adopt in practice” (pp. 68-69). Descriptions of the world can vary as new discoveries are made and as the soundness of theories of the

14

Chapter 1

natural world are accepted. As such, a correspondence theory of truth is contingent; it depends on the State of knowledge at the current time. While realism is attractive, the idealist stance that truth depends on coherent statements should not be dismissed in its entirety. The coherence theory, however, has some desiderata as a theory. As a member of the family of epistemological theories, it depends on ideal means of justification (that ideal being coherence). As Chase Wrenn (2015) writes, “Coherentists will claim that beliefs are justified in virtue of their connections to one another. When they form a suitable coherent body of belief, they are justified, and beliefs that do not cohere with the rest of what one believes are unjustified” (p. 69). What if one were to admit a weak form of coherence, though? Suppose a theory included a form of coherence along with, say, realism. This view might hold that in addition to corresponding to reality, there has to be some coherence among beliefs so as to avoid contradiction and to allow for vagaries of reality. One could say that snow is white or sometimes brown (if it mixes with soil, for example). The brown snow either is brown snow or else it has to be described as snow mixed with soil. A genuine realist might insist on the latter description, but for everyday purposes a person might say that the snow is brown. For example, William Alston (1996) categorizes all epistemic theories as altematives to realism: he ineludes instances where “a belief is justified, warranted, rational, well-grounded, or the like” (p. 190; italics in original). Here the epistemic variety is employed as a supplement to realism. The decisión of which form of realism to accept may likely depend on the uses to which the description is put. A scientist, wanting to be com­ plete in description, would likely adhere to the latter description. For the purposes here, the concern is with formal and complete communication. Therefore, a realist and (weak) epistemological melding of theory could be preferred. This means that one would affirm the statements of Dretske (1981) and Grice (1989) about misinformation, disinformation, and falsehoods being something other than information. Those statements are affirmed here in the discussion of truth being an important consideraron in communication. Wrenn (2015) suggests a reason to accept the necessity of distinguishing among forms of communication, one that is rooted in practical considerations: “Philosophers tend to think truth is instrumentally valuable as well. Not only can true beliefs come in handy for doing such things as getting food and treating diseases, but false beliefs can have disastrous consequences” (p. 47). This is an important statement when it comes both to the pragmatics of language and the utility of information. In the political realm, holding false beliefs can indeed have catastrophic consequences; in library and information studies, the consequences may not be so dire, but the professional consequences can still be of some magnitude. If there is poor—or even intentionally false—inquiry in our field, there could be prices to pay with

What Is Information?

15

respect to access to relevant works and the most effective means to meet communities’ needs. These aspects will be explored in greater detail below. Why should we countenance realist and weak epistemological bases for ideas of truth in library and information studies? One reason is that documen­ taron (and I use the word advisedly here) has an objective quality; it is real and tangible. The other reason is that documentation exists in the realm of conceptualization; it is an expression not only (usually with intention) of objective matters but also of ideas that can (or should be able to be) tested for validity, reliability, and other factors. The two elements combined result in a fairly complex relationship to truth. Referring to Michael Lynch (2005), as I did in “Meaning, Truth, and Information” (2011), is necessary here. He asserts some essential characteristics of truth that should be heeded and not forgotten: Truth is objective Truth is good Truth is a worthy goal of inquiry Truth is worth caring about for its own sake (pp. 10-15) Lynch’s admonitions should be adhered to with respect to library and infor­ mation studies. The first component is a commitment to realism. The second emphasizes the importance of avoiding falsity and advocating what we believe to be true. The third asserts that true belief is a valué; asking for and evaluating reasons for beliefs is a means to reach true beliefs. This third component holds that truth is deeply normative; it has inherent and essential valué for any inquiry. Even with Lynch’s guidance, the epistemological stance regarding truth enters the picture. There is a human-made world, as Lynch (2005) points out: for example, the stock market is rather an abstraction that does not always reflect the true valué of companies in a purely objective sense. Other concepts, including things like information seeking, have abstract characteristics even as there are objective aspects. The importance of truth is not diminished in any way. In fact, Lynch (2005) articulates the importance of truth for particular purposes: “To care about the truth entails that one is disposed to act in certain ways. More exactly, just as one cares about the good to the extern that one has a virtuous moral character, so one cares about truth to the extern one has a virtuous intellectual character” (p. 129; italics in original). As a means of reconciling the two elements of theory, he adds, “Intellectual integrity is not simply a matter o f being consistent” (Lynch, 2005, p. 133; italics in original). In short, consistency may be necessary, but it is not suffícient. A pitfall to avoid is that of extreme relativism—relativism that is more ike nihilism than a quest for truth. Strong relativism avoids the question of truth by reverting to likewise extreme neopragmatism (see, for example,

16

Chapter 1

Rorty, 1979) that negates epistemology and emphasizes reliance on what helps one function in the world. Little more will be said about extreme relativism here; suffice it to say that it is antithetical both to meaning and to truth. That said, absolutism can also be an enemy of truth. To be unwilling to admit there are múltiple pathways to truth is to deny the efficacy of, among other things, scientifíc revolutions. When Albert Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity, there was not merely an incremental increase in scientifíc knowledge. There was a new way of thinking about aspects of the universe, a way so different from the Newtonian paradigm that all means of conceiving of such things as light and gravity had to be revised. In like manner, quantum mechanics necessitated a revisión in the conception of matter and motion. Naive absolutism would not be capable of the shifts that these modes of scientifíc progress represented. In this way, Thomas Kuhn (1970) is correct when he States that there could be incommensurability between the new school of thought and the oíd. It is possible that an individu­ al committed to a way of knowing in a discipline would be unable (temporarily, at least) to alter his or her thinking so as to accept a new paradigm (in Kuhnian terms). If we extrapólate Kuhn’s idea, the incommensurability thesis can apply in any fíeld. By way of clarifícation, Lynch (2005) offers an explanation of the view of truth that incorporates pluralism: First, [the approach] allows us to avoid saying that truth is a mystery. At the very least, truth is no more or less mysterious than many other properties we find in our daily life. Second, and more important, it opens the door to a pluralism about the sorts o f properties o f beliefs on which truth depends, or which get the truth-job done. (p. 99)

The pluralism stance can resolve many issues in library and information Science. The fíeld addresses issues of, among other things, classification, which is resistant to an absolutist position. That is, the categorization of the content of a work has to be sufficiently flexible to embrace a complex of topics, not all of which may be unifíed around a single theme. For example, there may exist a work that critiques late nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury economic theories while also positing a new theory that contradicts the older one. To be complete, the subject classification of that work should detail those theories that are critiqued, as well as the content of the proposed theory. The work may entail some statements to the effect that elements of the older theories are true, as well as false. A pluralist categorization could be inclusive of all content. Lynch (1998) expands on the pluralist idea in such a way that objectivity is not forsaken and a needed conceptual scheme is provided for the foundation of the idea. The conceptual scheme allows for a fundamentally realist

What Is Information?

17

position regarding truth; this feature of Lynch’s thought makes it most com­ patible with the position adopted here. Furthermore, it has metaphysical grounding (albeit not an absolutist grounding but one relative to the accepted conceptual scheme), which is also required for the theory of information that will be proposed shortly. As Lynch (1998) States, “The pluralist denies that there are any absolute facts about ultímate reality; the facts themselves reflect our conceptual points of view” (p. 11). There is, then, some mind dependence with respect to the evaluation of facts, beliefs, and truth. That mind dependence is hardly random or haphazard, though; it must be contextualized with the totality of the conceptual scheme. The requirement necessitates that the goveming conceptual scheme be chosen with deliberation and care for the realism underpinning theory. As Lynch (1998) insists, “Truth is not a matter of what we think about the word but about the way the world is. . . . Metaphysical pluralism is compatible with a realist theory of truth” (pp. 12-13). The ultímate theory of information that will be suggested here depends on Lynch’s articularon of a viable conceptual scheme. The scheme is adapted from Immanuel Kant who, as most readers will appreciate, was no metaphys­ ical relativist. Lynch (1998), however, States an adjustment of Kant’s views that uphold the metaphysical pluralism Lynch advocates. I accept his adjust­ ment and further claim that it can form a component of a basis for a theory of information. Lynch’s (1998) Kantian model ineludes the following elements: KM 1 The primary components o f a conceptual scheme are mental.. . . KM2 The criteria o f identity for schemes lies with their categorical and

formal concepts.. . . KM3 Conceptual schemes involve a commitment to the analytic/synthetic distinction. . . . KM4 Schemes have a foundationalist structure. (pp. 33-34; italics in orig­ inal)

The above elements apply both to beliefs and propositions. More specifically, beliefs and propositions must adhere to an objective foundation to be considered true. I will admit that Lynch’s position is not a simple one to grasp. There may appear to be some contradictions in the stance, but these seeming difficulties are resolved by Lynch (1998): “Truth is stable and unchanging, while the epistemic status of a belief (i.e., whether it is justified or unjustified) may change positively or negatively as new information comes ln (p. 104). Lynch is adopting, though not directly, the law of excluded nnddle. Either a proposition is true or its negation is true. The challenge is to assess the proposition effectively. The importance of Lynch’s caveat cannot e °yerstated. Take the age of the universe as an example. It is the way it is; °ur instrumentaron, however, can allow for changes in our contingent nowledge of what is. In the same way, our understanding of what informa-

18

Chapter 1

tion is can be affected by certain epistemic presumptions or limitations. Meaning, beliefs, propositions, and truth all contribute to a theory of infor­ maron; that is what will be addressed next. COGNITION Another element that I believe needs to be incorporated into theory is cognition. Of course, this is a huge and wide-ranging topic, but there are a few considerations that impinge most directly on information. Fred Adams and Rebecca Garrison (2013), in discussing the mark of the cognitive, introduce the four Es of cognition: “embedded, embodied, extended and enactive” (p. 340). They ask, Does cognition extend beyond the boundaries o f the body or brain? . . . Is cognition embodied ? That is, do the body and properties o f a cognitive creature determine the type o f mind or thoughts that it may have? . . . Is cognition enactivel That is, is cognition an action, an activity? And, is cognition embeddecH Do minds only form and develop when causally embedded in suitable environments? (Adams & Garrison, 2013, pp. 340-41; italics in original)

The four Es ensure that both cognition and informational action is not solipsistic; that it is not merely in the head of one perceiver. For example, the enactedness of cognition allows for things that inelude the sharing of infor­ mation. Likewise, the extendedness makes communication possible. Further, the embeddedness, as is stated, introduces the environmental consideration, emphasizing that one is not alone in thinking and in becoming informed. Other cognitive scientists have notions about cognition and information. Mark Rowlands (2010) expounds upon the process (P) that is indeed a cogni­ tive process: 1. P involves information processing — the manipulation and transformaron o f information-bearing structures. 2. This information processing has the proper function o f making available either to the subject or to subsequent processing operations information that was, prior to the processing, unavailable. 3. This information is made available by way o f the production, in the subject o f P, or a representational State. 4. P is a process that belongs to the subject o f that representational State, (pp. 110-11; italics in original)

Adams and Garrison comment on one element of Rowlands’s scheme, that of the fací that the contení of the representations is nonderived: “This just means that the content in a cognitive representation is not borrowed from the meaning or content of another system but is original to it” (Adams & Garrí-

What Is Information?

19

son, 2013, p. 344). The statement seems simple, but its meaning is that representation is original to the individual cognizer and is a product of the Processing (in a nontechnical sense) of information. The sense of the claim is essential to the theory of information. Just one additional source will be mentioned here, but it brings in some other concerns. Laurent Dubreuil presents several important observations on cognition and cogitation is his work The Intellective Space (2015). Dubreuil (2015) says, “I would rather maintain that cognition literally makes us think, and, in the particular enactment of common rules, it shapes what is identified as thought” (p. 10). This is a Cartesian notion; he claims that the “7” influences structures and “the cogitatum, as soon as it is formed, goes through the process of being thought again” (Dubreuil, 2015, p. 10). This is a radical idea; the custom is to believe that once thought, a cogitatum is transformed into what could be called a past tense, something that has occurred once and for all. Instead, what is thought not only can be thought again but is thought again. Moreover, there is, according to Dubreuil (2015), no language of thought; thought is at odds with language since it is through language that we must arrive at some expression of thought. As evidence of the inadequacy of expression, we reexpress thoughts in various ways, partly to bring language and thought into some agreement but partly because we continué to think about the cogitatum once again and then again attempt to derive an expres­ sion that is in consonance with the cogitatum. Dubreuil (2015) also bashes a common cognitive (and information) Sci­ ence dictum that thought—and informational processes—are material in a certain way: “Materialism is ingrained in cognitive Science, so it justifies the recourse to hypotheses borrowed from physics. But thought, once seen as an emergent property of the brain, appears to be less ‘material’ than expected” (p. 17). His thinking is in keeping with Colín McGinn and David Chalmers, who are referred to in Budd (2011). Moreover, Dubreuil States that thinking (the intellective space) is dialogic, both in itself (thought repeating) and in the sense that language imposes a particular kind of logical quality upon expression of thought. Formal communication embodies the dialogical element of thought and/versus language. There is the stating of what we take to be thought, reaction through the thought of others, and then (possible) restatmg of the thought. Whether the process has a culmination is actually a moot point; the dialogue ends, not because there has been an ultímate resolution but because actors stop participating. An additional point of Dubreuil’s is pertinent here. The challenges of disciplinary information are noted above; Dubreuil picks up the challenge and expounds on it. Knowledge comes to us through discipline(s). At an existential level, disci­ pline implies training, control, and, yes, some pain. . . . A discipline, both a

20

Chapter 1 social body and an individually acquired manner, channels knowledge. . . . Disciplinary boundaries canalize, facilítate, and augment what we know. There is an obvious trade-off that, out o f self-justification and narrow-mindedness maybe, most teachers omit to mention: disciplined knowledge preconfig­ ures the knowable at the very moment it raises the first question. (Dubreuil, 2015, p. 19)

Borrowing from Dubreuil, we can see that it is no wonder that agents from differing disciplines have diffículties becoming informed when they communicate with one another. The challenge exists from the start; a resolution would have to address the beginning in order to avoid an impasse. INFORMATION My article “Meaning, Truth, and Information” (2011) covered considerable territory in reviewing definitions of information and detailing some previous writers’ conceptions of what information is and is not. That territory will not be traversed again here. There are, however, some additional ideas that do deserve attention. For example, Richard Foley (2012, p. 12), in speaking of knowledge, maintains: “A subject S knows that p if and only if S truly believes thatp and has adequate information.” Michael Hannon (2014) expands on Foley’s viewpoint by adding, “Whenever someone has a true belief but not knowledge, there will be important information that she lacks. To know that p , there musí not be important gaps in one’s information” (p. 1070). The explication is an important one for any theory of knowledge, because information—and an adequate amount and contení of information—is essential as a correspondent to true belief. While Foley does not address in detail what information is, the addition of information to the definition of knowledge is a vital consideraron. One thing that remains in question, according to Hannon, is whether there is doubt regarding what constitutes important versus unimportant information. An answer to that concern relies on a viable theory of information. Prior to articulating a revised theory, some additional commentary should be reported and assessed. Luciano Floridi is one of the most active and interesting writers on the nature of information, and he has produced some works that are definitely worthy of attention. One of his most important works is his suggestion of the strongly semantic information theory in “Outline of a Theory of Strongly Semantic Information” (2004). He States, “A semantically stronger approach, according to which information encapsulates truth, can avoid the [Bar-Hillel-Camap semantic] paradox and is more in line with the ordinary conception of what generally counts as information” (Flori­ di, 2004, p. 198). It should come as no surprise that I agree with Floridi’s suggestion given the discourses on semantics and truth that precede the

What Is Information?

21

present section. He takes the position further by writing that one should “treat the alethic [truth] valué of o [a unit of information] not as a supervenient but as a necessary feature of semantic information, relevant to the quantitative analysis” (Floridi, 2004, p. 205). For completeness, it should be noted that Floridi’s (2004) quantitative theory incorporates “the degree of informativeness function of a: t(o) = 1 - d2(g)” (p. 210). The equation accounts for the level of vacuity in sentences and utterances. The quantitative aspect of Floridi’s theory may be a bit problematic since vacuity and informativeness are doggedly difficult to measure. Nonetheless, the alethic character of his theory is certainly noteworthy. James Fetzer (2004) critiques Floridi’s theory, advocating the “standard account” of information, in which truth does not feature so prominently and meaningfulness is more important. In the statement of theory to come, meaning is certainly a necessary feature of information, but it is not sufficient. Fetzer (2004) claims that Floridi does not allow for a condition: “A sentence that is information can have a negation that is not, where no one knows which is information and which is not” (p. 226). He follows up that claim with “‘information’ should not be restricted to declarative sentences which are true, synthetic or not” (Fetzer, 2004, p. 226). Fetzer then attempts to ¡Ilústrate his point with everyday instances of what he claims to be informative ítems that do not in themselves inelude sentences. A problem that arises is that the everyday instances do lead to sentences or propositions— those are informational. Therefore, both semantic and alethic characteristics are indeed components of the idea propounded by Floridi. Fetzer is left with the task of dissembling in order to inelude such things as misinformation in the theory of information. As is stated above—and as is affirmed by Floridi (2005)—the Dretske (1981) and Grice (1989) conception of information prevails. All readers interested in a theory of information owe a debt to Jesse Dineen and Christian Brauner (2015) for their excellent review of the voluminous works related to the topic. Their work is so complete that it need not be replicated here. This debt extends to their astute questions and comments: “Is a UTI [unified theory of information] possible? . . . Consensus of any sort is rarely reached in philosophy, however, and so the prospeets for a UTI are bleak” (Dineen & Brauner, 2015, p. 381). The authors then continué to review the literature, ultimately agreeing with Floridi’s effort. One of the tacit conclusions they reach is that information is substantive. This does not rciean, necessarily, that information is always material (i.e., limited to a physjcal form) but that it always has some ideational substance. For example, earkening back to Fetzer (2004), there could be blood clots or spatter at a enme scene. (Spatter can be gravitational or directional and can be interpreted accordingly.) The blood clots are not themselves informational, according to Fetzer. Be that as it may, the clots or spatter are signs that can be mterpreted. In the process of interpretation, the experts on the matter reach

22

Chapter 1

semantic conclusions based on direction, amount, and other characteristics of the clots or spatter. There is, then, informational potential in blood clots, fossils, weather pattems, and so on. In short, informational content need not be limited to verbal messages in order to carry interpretable (semantic) con­ clusions. One of the most valuable elements of the Dineen and Brauner (2015) work is the full and perceptive critique of Michael Buckland’s (1991) three ways that information can be defined. The notion of information as process is flawed by virtue of the counterintuitiveness of thinking that a process can have a direct effect on information by the beginning or cessation of the process. The notion of information as knowledge is limited by definitions of knowledge and the components that accompany knowledge. Dineen and Brauner (2015) State, “Less narrow approaches to information-as-knowledge might avoid this issue by defining information less strictly, equating it not with knowledge but instead with that which is known” (p. 387; italics in original). Buckland’s third conception—that of information as thing—also comes under scrutiny. As Dineen and Brauner (2015) write, “If, after all, information-as-thing is meant to provide a definition of information rather than merely providing examples of places where information exists, then it must State that the thing is the information” (p. 389; italics in original). Their critique is important in large part because people continué to return to Buck­ land’s ideas, either as grounding for theory or as something to react against. Dineen and Brauner (2015) ultimately concur with Floridi’s definition of information, finding reason to affirm both the well-formed and truth-related aspects of his conception. They also refute Fetzer’s (2004) criticism of Floridi (2004). The core idea of Floridi (2005) is expressed as follows: RSDI [new versión o f the standard definition o f information] a is an instance o f DOS [declarad ve, objective, and semantic] information if and only if: 1. 2. 3. 4.

a consists o f n data (d), for n > 1; the data are well-formed (wfd); the wfd are meaningful (mwfd = 8); the 8 are truthful. (p. 366; italics in original)

Floridi (2005) ineludes components that are, I believe, essential. He elaborates on his idea as follows: It would be daft, for example, to identify a piece o f software as information— as we ordinarily do in IT and Computer Science— and then argüe that, since information must be true, so must be that piece o f software. “True about what” would be the right skeptical question. Likewise, it would be unduly pedantic to insist that, given the veridicality thesis, cognitive scientists should stop speaking about information processes. (Floridi, 2010, p. 406)

What Is Information?

23

Given all the foregoing (plus Floridi’s very cursory introduction of cognitive Science), there is the possibility for a reappraisal and statement of definition and theory regarding information. ETHICS Ethical considerations regarding information form something of a metaconcept. By that, I mean ethics pervades every component of what comprises a theory of information. For example, one cannot consider the truth of a matter without engaging in ethical examination. What about the communicative action is honest and is not false? Is knowledge about something arrived at by means of truthful methods and analysis? Can meaning be realized by means other than ethical methods? Intentionality could be less than truthful, but if one follows the work of Edmund Husserl (see, especially, Husserl, 1970), then one is drawn to honesty and ethics in all intentional action. It must be said that ethics, as it is used here, is characterized by two features (with which some may disagree): (1) the differences between ethical action and morality are not cause for fíne distinctions here, and (2) ethical action is normative. For an excellent and concise review of ethics, see James Rachels’s (1986) The Elements o f Moral Philosophy. For a more in-depth investigation of ethics, refer to R. M. Hare’s (1989) Essays in Ethical Theory. It may not be surprising that Floridi (2013) addresses information ethics in depth. There is no need to recap his entire treatment here, but he does address anticipated challenges to information ethics. The objections inelude claims that information ethics is more global than local, that it does not sufficiently inelude the individual. His response to the criticism follows: What the sceptic is demanding is a full ontology that will tell us, with certainty and precisión, in a variety o f disparate and possible complex cases, when some specifíc data are (or fail to be) parí o f what constitute an individual (and mind that the individual in question need not be a single individual, it could easily be a married couple, a company, a team, a social group, and so forth). (Floridi, 2013, p. 310)

His work again provides a foundation for any examination of the ethical aspect of all the components of information. THEORY AND DEFINITION In my earlier work (Budd, 2011), I offered a brief definition of information a statement of theory (see above). Those suggestions were intended as irst steps, and this section is an effort to expand upon and extend the theory. e oregoing does more than hint that meaning (semantics and pragmatics),

24

Chapter 1

language, and truth hold integral places in a complete theory of information. As is evident from the mention of other thinkers—particularly Luciano Floridi—there are some offerings that incorpórate a considerable amount of what must be in the full articularon of theory. Floridi’s ideas of a well-formed, meaningful data that is true are excellent starting points for expansión. Floridi (2011) expands greatly on these ideas in his Philosophy o f Information. There is no reason to repeat much of what he has to say, but some points he makes have not been discussed here thus far. It should also be mentioned that this theory primarily concentrates on formal communication and the informing properties that such discursive practice can have. Because of this, such elements as semiotics will not be addressed. This section’s heading places theory first for a reason: a theoretical statement should be articulated before a concise definition of information can be suggested. The statement of theory, articulated above, is not abandoned, but it was, in fact, a prolegomenon. The treatments of semantics, pragmatics, truth, and information presented here are quite detailed and are intended to contribute to theory. They form essential elements of the theory proposed, so they are integral to a consideration of what information is and does. What follows are the considerations that go into the making of a theory of informa­ tion. 1. Communication is preceded by intentional States, within which such things as beliefs can be formulated and then expressed. This activity of the mind is necessary prior to any informing actions on the part of a thinker/speaker. As Searle (1983) States, ‘The main function which language derives from Intentionality is . . . its capacity to represent. . . . The mind-to-world direction of fit corresponds to assertives, and since this direction of fit is pre-eminently assessable as true or false, it is a defining characteristic of assertives that they admit of truth valué” (p. 175). What then can count as information is bound to inten­ tional States, which are then communicated as assertives. 2. In formal communication, shared understanding is desired; therefore, propositions and sentences must be clear and must have discemible meaning. The need for meaning is necessary by virtue of the communicative responsibilities both of speakers and hearers. (N.B.: Speakers and hearers are generic terms for formal communicators and recipients of the communication.) The responsibilities of speakers inelude clarity, absence of ambiguity (insofar as it is possible), and provisión of evidence that is pertinent to the expression. The proposition/sentence should provide sufficient context so that the meanings of words are known (as they are employed within the sentence). One might go so far as to agree, in principie, with W. V. Quine (1992), who says, “Understanding, behaviorally viewed, is thus a statistical effect: it

What Is Information?

25

resides in multiplicities” (p. 59). Both referential and internal meaning can apply; wherever possible, speakers should defer to referential meaning so that hearers can have a grounding for understanding that is more likely to be shared among the speech’s audience. Reference is also more likely to facilítate comprehension of propositions (see Collins, 2011, pp. 2-3). 3. Information should also follow the major tenets of pragmatics, primarily because the formal communication is directed at people who have purposes and reasons for attending to the communication. Context is an essential element of being informed since the context does help give shape to the totality of the communicative act. Further, formal communication does have a social nature, and information is intended to provide a form for social thought and action. Grice’s (1989, p. 26) maxims certainly apply to a theory of information, although the second maxim fundamentally misstates just what information is (in other words, too much information ceases to give shape to the thoughts and actions of hearers). The contributions of Sperber and Wilson (1995, p. 182) are meaningful for the theory proposed here. Explicitness is inte­ gral to information. The examples of multidisciplinar or transdisciplinary communication provide examples of the need for pragmatics within the theory of information. Effective sharing of ideas and thoughts depend on commonality of context, which may well entail creating a starting point for communicative action. While multidisci­ plinar work is rhetorically valued in the realm of formal communica­ tive outcomes, the accomplishment of action is dependent on pragmat­ ics as a component of information. 4. The first comment related to the truth condition is that the edicts of Dretske (1981) and Grice (1989) should apply fully. Informing is a specific, truth-conditional act that is not at all similar to (much less the same as) misinformation, disinformation, or falsehoods. Furthermore, a combination of realist and weak epistemological grounding for truth in information meets objective requirements. Information is simultaneously real (ontological) and conceptual. As Quine (1992) States, the correspondence th e o r holds that “the truth predícate is intermediar between words and the world. What is true is the sentence, but its truth consists in the world’s being as the sentence says” (p. 81). Here sen­ tence can stand in for information. The realist stance can also be said to be pluralist; there are múltiple ways to reach a true informational State, but as Lynch (1998) asserts, metaphysical pluralism is compat­ ible with realism. Lynch’s (1998) Kantian model is, for the purposes of theory, the most effective articularon of components of a theory that has empirical import. The nature of information, in this model, can have the potential to lead to knowledge.

26

Chapter 1

5. Formal information has a fundamentally cognitive character. In fací, the four Es recognized by Adams and Garrison (2013) prevail. There is a relatively new strain of thought focusing on embodied cognition, typified by the work of Lawrence Shapiro (2010), among others. This strain ineludes psychology, physiology, and other fields and melds them into the traditions of cognitive Science, resulting in a rich coalescing of the physical and the mental. Materialism must be an element of cognition and information, and Dubreuil (2015) expresses the nature of the materialist character more clearly than most. That is, while cognition is a material property of the brain, there is a somewhat less material aspect to thought. This thinking is not unique; other philosophers of mind admit to a “mysteriousness” of thinking and knowing and so of information. Dubreuil (2015) also makes the connection with disciplinary work, which is integral for formal communication. Informing cannot occur without the workings of the mind, so cognition is a necessary element of information. 6. Information, foundationally, has an alethic character (see number 3 above). As Floridi (2004) adds, however, information is marked not just by declarative sentences but also by propositions. A common proposition holds, as Foley (2012) says, that knowledge depends on true belief and adequate information. As can be expected, though, “adequate information” itself requires explication. To date, Floridi (2005) has proposed the most complete and cogent theory of informa­ tion (see above). His inclusión of meaning and truth is in concert with what is presented here. 7. Once again, ethics is a metaconcept as it applies here. It is a pervasive concern and applies to everything that is integral to a theory of infor­ mation. Little more need be said here, except that all informational action should have an ethical dynamic as part of the totality of communication. It becomes clear that the above statement of theory is inadequate. The immediately foregoing components are necessary and sufficient for a theory of formal information. The stage is set for a definition of formal communication: Information depends on the human mind having Intentional States by means o f which semantic and pragmatic representation can occur through communicative action relying on cognitive processes; the information is marked by truth conditions that are well formed and clearly articulated and is marked by ethical communication (Floridi, 2011, p. 178).

What Is Information?

27

The theory and the defínition are presented here in order to further the conversation about what information is (and is not) and in an effort to propose a robust statement that can serve for future consideration of discussions about information. This is not likely to be the final word on theory, but it is offered as a potential advancement. REFERENCES Adams, F., & Garrison, R. (2013). The mark o f the cognitive. Minds & Machines, 23, 339-52. Alston, W. P. (1996). A realist conception of truth. Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Belkin, N. J., & Robertson, S. E. (1976). Information Science and the phenomenon o f informa­ tion. Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science, 27(4), 197-204. Bimer, B. J. (2013). Introduction topragmatics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351-60. Budd, J. M. (2011). Meaning, truth, and information: Prolegomena to a theory. Journal of Documentation, 67(1), 56-74. Budd, J. M., & Dumas, C. (2014). Epistemic multiplicity in iSchools: Expanding knowledge through interdisciplinarity. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 38, 271-86. Burgess, A. G., & Burgess, J. P. (2011). Truth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Collins, J. (2011). The unity oflinguistic meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cruse, A. (2011). Meaning in Language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dineen, J. D., & Brauner, C. (2015). Practical and philosophical considerations for defining information as well-formed, meaningful data in the information Sciences. Library Trends, 63(3), 378-400. Dubreuil, L. (2015). The intellective space: Thinking beyond cognition. Minneapolis: Univer­ sity of Minnesota Press. Elboume, P. (2011). Meaning: A slim guide to semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fetzer, J. H. (2004). Information: Does it have to be true? Minds and Machines, 14, 223-29. Floridi, L. (2004). Outline o f a theory of strongly semantic information. Minds and Machines, 14, 197-221. Floridi, L. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351-70. Floridi, L. (2010). The philosophy o f information: Ten years later. Metaphilosophy, 41(3). 402-19. Floridi, L. (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foley, R. (2012). When is true belief knowledge? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Green, G. M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. M. (2014). Is knowledge true belief plus adequate information? Erkenntnis, 79, Eare, R. M. (1989). Essays in ethical theory. Cambridge, MA: Clarendon Press. organ, T., & Potré, M. (2008). Austere realism: Contextual semantics meets minimal ontoloH Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. usserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European Sciences and transcendental philosophy (D. Carr, Jucker118 ^ ^vanston’ Northwestern University Press. 894 L90 ^ (2008). Historical pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5),

28

Chapter 1

Kirkham, R. L. (1995). Theories oftruth: A critical introduction. Cambridge, MA: M1T Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lélé, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55, 967-75. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lingard, R. G. (2013). Information, truth and meaning: A response to Budd’s prolegomena. Journal of Documentation, 69(4), 481-99. Lynch, M. P. (1998). Truth in context: An essay on pluralism and objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lynch, M. P. (2005). True to Ufe: Why truth matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mili, J. S. (2007). On liberty. London: Penguin. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge. Quine, W. V. (1992). Pursuit of truth (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rachels, J. (1986). The elements of moral philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Recanti, F. (2011). Truth-conditionalpragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowlands, M. (2010). The new Science of mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Russell, B. (1903/1936). The principies of mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Shapiro, L. (2010). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Tarski, A. (1944). The sematic conception o f truth and the foundation of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4(3), 341-76. Vedral, V. (2010). Decoding reality: The universe as quantum Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wrenn, C. (2015). Truth. Cambridge: Polity Press. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human communication and the principie of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley Press.

Chapter Two

What Is Information Literacy?

An information literate individual is able to: • • • • •

Determine the extent o f information needed Access the needed information effectively and effíciently Incorpórate selected information into one’s knowledge base Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use o f information, and access and use information ethically and legally (ACRL,

2000)

The epigraph to this chapter States the fundamental tenets of the information literacy standards propounded by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) some years ago. Recently, a new framework for informa­ tion literacy has been articulated, but discussion of that framework will be held in abeyance for a while since the existing standards still form a basis for much instruction in academic libraries. Of course, information literacy is a concern for organizations and communities other than academic libraries, but the concentration in this chapter will be on the academic library environment. Genuine literacy should begin much earlier than with college-age students, but much of the concern in the literature focuses on programs and offerings m colleges and universities. It is tempting to say that instructional efforts should start in school libraries, but there are problems in schools—primarily the absence of librarians in many schools—that render a fully realized in­ structional Ímpetus moot. This statement is not intended to imply that many school librarians are not involved in information literacy, but a universal effort is, at this time, out of the question. Much commentary could be dev°ted to the State of affairs in schools, but this is not the place for that

29

28

Chapter 1

Kirkham, R. L. (1995). Theories oftruth: A critical introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The s tructure of scientific revolutions (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lélé, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55, 967-75. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lingard, R. G. (2013). Information, truth and meaning: A response to Budd’s prolegomena. Journal ofDocumentation, 59(4), 481-99. Lynch, M. P. (1998). Truth in context: An essay on pluralism and objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lynch, M. P. (2005). True to Ufe: Why truth matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mili, J. S. (2007). On liberty. London: Penguin. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge. Quine, W. V. (1992). Pursuit of truth (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rachels, J. (1986). The elements of moral philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Recanti, F. (2011). Truth-conditionalpragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowlands, M. (2010). The new Science of mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Russell, B. (1903/1936). The principies of mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Shapiro, L. (2010). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Tarski, A. (1944). The sematic conception of truth and the foundation of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4(3), 341-76. Vedral, V. (2010). Decoding reality: The universe as quantum Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wrenn, C. (2015). Truth. Cambridge: Polity Press. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human communication and the principie of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley Press.

Chapter Two

What Is Information Literacy?

An information literate individual is able to: • • • • •

Determine the extent o f information needed Access the needed information effectively and efficiently Incorpórate selected information into one’s knowledge base Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use o f information, and access and use information ethically and legally (ACRL,

2000)

The epigraph to this chapter States the fundamental tenets of the information literacy standards propounded by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) some years ago. Recently, a new framework for informa­ tion literacy has been articulated, but discussion of that framework will be held in abey anee for a while since the existing standards still form a basis for much instruction in academic libraries. Of course, information literacy is a concern for organizations and communities other than academic libraries, but the concentration in this chapter will be on the academic library environment. Genuine literacy should begin much earlier than with college-age students, but much of the concern in the literature focuses on programs and offerings in colleges and universities. It is tempting to say that instructional efforts should start in school libraries, but there are problems in schools—primarily the absence of librarians in many schools—that render a fully realized in­ structional Ímpetus moot. This statement is not intended to imply that many school librarians are not involved in information literacy, but a universal effort is, at this time, out of the question. Much commentary could be dev°ted to the State of affairs in schools, but this is not the place for that

29

30

Chapter 2

commentary. Suffice it to say that much information literacy instruction re­ sides in academic libraries. This chapter will be somewhat selective in its approach; there is no way that a piece of this length could possibly survey the entirety of the voluminous literature on the topic. Critical attention will be paid to some of the works that deal directly with information literacy, but the extent of this chapter’s remit will also extend to what constitutes knowledge, what learning theories might be able to offer, the structure of courses and/or class sessions, and the outcomes that fit under the umbrella of social epistemology. In fact, a new resource urges that social epistemology be taken as both a model and a goal for information literacy. Anthony Anderson and Bill Johnston (2016) assert that “the ‘situated activity’ perspective is more nuanced and preferable to the simple notion of a ‘skill,’ since skills tend to be conceptualized as collections of independent capabilities that can be discussed in isolation from each other and from the contexts in which they manifest themselves” (pp. 38-39). The matter of social epistemology is discussed further below. This is important practical and conceptual framework for information literacy in general. Even with some degree of specificity, the task here is extensive. The standards that exist and the framework that has been proffered will also be addressed in some detail, although quite a bit has been said about standards in Framing Library Instruction (Budd, 2009). The intention is to repeat as little as possible from that source. Also, I will attempt to leave other chapters in this volume as they stand, although some specific points may be referred to from time to time. For example, the proposed theory of information will not be covered again here, but what is said in that chapter stands here as well. We might do well to keep in mind the words of Benedict Carey (2014): “If the brain is a learning machine, then it’s an eccentric one. And it performs best when its quirks are exploited” (p. xiii). The theory and defmition of information stated in that piece apply here, in keeping with what Carey says, almost in total. It is not a simple matter to lócate a starting point for this chapter, but existing defínitions, propositions, and commentary on informa­ tion literacy in academic libraries will form as good a place to begin as any. WHAT IS INFORMATION LITERACY? Over the years, there has been an evolving terminology related to instruction. The terminology has signaled much more than alteration in wording; the etymological change also marks an evolution in conceptual distinctions. For a clear and concise review of the changes, see Ariew (2014). The epigraph above provides the beginnings of a defmition, but it is not the final statement.

What Is Information Literacy?

31

A relatively early and major statement was issued as a result of an ACRL Presidential Committee that reported in 1989. The report stated, To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when Informa­ tion is needed and have the ability to lócate, evalúate, and use effectively the needed information. Producing such a citizenry will require that schools and colleges appreciate and intégrate the concept o f information literacy into their learning programs and that they play a leadership role in equipping individuáis and institutions to take advantage o f the opportunities inherent within the information society. Ultimately, information-literate people are those who have leamed how to leam. They know how to learn because they know how knowledge is organized, how to find information, and how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them. They are people prepared for lifelong learning, because they can always find the information needed for any task or decisión at hand.

This statement has been widely cited over the last few decades as a useful definition and set of objectives for information literacy. There is much to recommend the statement even today, especially the admonition that infor­ mation literacy helps people learn how to learn. That said, the statement does not go far enough in either defínition or purpose, but more will be said about that later. It should be noted that in Framing Library Instruction (Budd, 2009), I critiqued the term information literacy. At this time, though, 1 will adopt the term throughout this chapter to be consistent and to use the favored terminology. Christine Bruce, who has written extensively on information literacy, has made one point that ought to be highlighted here. Some years ago, she spoke of adopting John Biggs’s (1999) principie of “constructi ve alignment”: “This involves designing learning activities in such a way that students are required to change their usual ways of learning; for information literacy educators, this will usually mean designing learning strategies so that students learn through the process of effective information use” (Biggs, 1999, p. 212). The changes to learning patterns are indeed essential, but they must transcend what has been thought of as information use. The emphasis should be on the altered learning objectives; instructors need to have a clear and cogent visión for student learning outcomes. Budd (2009) ineludes quite a bit of background on the defínition and early thought on information literacy; there is little need to go over that ground again. Since that review, however, several individuáis have written about the topic and have added to the discourse. For example, John Buschnian (2009) addresses “new” literacies and advocates the expansión of the Very lc*ea °f literacy beyond print to embrace many media: The contention here is not that IL [information literacy] is or must be print based or that these new concepts o f literacy (both in and out o f LIS) are

32

Chapter 2 ¡Ilegitímate because they do not posit a print basis. Rather, the point is that far from having intellectually and technologically exploded, shattered, complicated, detextualized, or decontextualized literacy per se beyond recall, the “new” literacies’ outcomes are inherently conceptions o f critical reflexivity grounded in the cognitive-intellectual results o f literacy itself. This is the intellectualepistemological hurdle these new literacy studies and theories have not successfully been able to address or absorb, and that failure has shown up in the descriptions o f the “new” and múltiple literacies that have flowed from these critiques, (p. 1 1 0 )

The very idea of information literacy must inelude a variety of media by means of which information can be communicated. This certainly embraces additional textual ways of communicating (using devices other than print on paper) but also images, films, sounds, and so on. Literacy cannot be limited to a single médium given that people can become informed by means of many channels. What will be of concern now and into the future is how to become informed in a complex communicative action. Some writers extend the concepts of literacy in ways that are pertinent to the present discussion: We refer to them comprehensively as “extended literacies” because all o f them, in one way or another, add something to the notion o f literacy as the fundamental capacity o f recognizing words made up o f letters, sentences made up o f words, and so on, and o f recognizing what such expressions on the basic level mean. In each instance o f the extended literacies o f information, or media literacy, one theme is extending texts proper to comprehend such forms as pictures, sound, and combinations o f these. (Suominen & Tuomi, 2015, pp. 615-16)

In a recent examination, Kevin Klipfel (2015) integrates authentic experience—based on the work of psychologist Cari Rogers—into the educational milieu. He writes, Put simply, increasing the level o f authenticity a student feels in a particular task should increase the motivation o f the student, because it makes the activity more meaningful. This increased engagement, in tum, should increase how much students learn. Since retention o f information is one o f the main goals o f education, educators o f all stripes have reason to be interested in the construct o f authenticity, creating pedagogical experiences that will allow students to bring their true selves to their work. (Klipfel, 2015, p. 23)

Klipfel’s (2015) ideas are not brand new, but he articulates the need for authentic experience for students. The authenticity is needed for instruction is all areas, but there are certainly times of need when students of all ages engage information in all its forms. Charles Taylor (1992) expresses, possibly more effectively than anyone, the nature of authenticity and the importance of the authentic experience in

What Is Information Literacy?

33

all phases of life. Taylor critiques certain aspects of modernity, and his critique has relevance here. For example, he says, there is “the hold of moral subjectivism in our culture. By this I mean the view that moral positions are not in any way grounded in reason or the nature of things but are ultimately just adopted by each of us because we fínd ourselves drawn to them” (Taylor, 1992, p. 18). This observation applies, one can see, to information literacy instruction where students adopt and accept ideas simply because they seem attractive. There may be a lack of rational analysis and clear-headed reflection on what may be read, seen, or heard. Taylor also emphasizes that the spirit of authenticity is not monological; the conclusions one reaches occurs through dialogue (Taylor, 1992, p. 33). This may be one of the most important of his points that can be related to information literacy. When a student enquires into communicative action, the process is most effectively—and authentically—accomplished with others. He writes, “We define [our identity] always in dialogue with, sometimes in struggle against, the identities our significant others [writ large] want to recognize in us” (Taylor, 1992, p. 33). The dialogic experience for students occurs in a multitude of ways. One can exist within the classroom, through discussion and the authentic exchange of ideas about information, which is in concert with the theory of information expressed in chapter 1. Another possibility is the responsible action of the instructor, who can instill reflective modes of thought into students. A third is by students reading or seeing altemative conceptions of issues and reflecting through rational thought on the arguments and rhetoric of the múltiple expressions. Taylor (1992), in his critique of modernity as an abdication of authentic­ ity, reserves particular commentary for what he calis instrumental reason: Instrumental reason has also grown along with a disengaged model o f the human subject, which has a great hold on our imagination. It offers an ideal picture o f a human thinking that has disengaged from its messy embedding in our bodily constitution, our dialogical situation, our emotions, and our traditional life forms in order to be puré, self-verifying rationality. (pp. 1 0 1 - 2 )

Taylor is not condemning rationality as a valid human endeavor, but the kind of reasoning that ignores such things as dialogic communication and fully embodied cognition is not likely to be fruitful in a society that valorizes atomism (or the belief that all life and thought is merely an agglomeration of the most minute parts). The totality of human existence is the more fruitful visión for all of social and public life, including the deliberative facets of life from which authentic belief and action are spawned. On a sepárate but somewhat related note, one ongoing effort that must be jnentioned is the ACRL’s immersion program. Many librarians have benefite by attending intensive workshops aimed at producing more effective in-

34

Chapter 2

struction. The 2017 program description can be found at www.ala.org/acrl/ immersion/teachingwithtech. METALITERACY A relatively recent conception of information literacy is metaliteracy. This idea builds upon the need for instruction to encompass a variety of media and ways of informing. The idea was first propounded by Thomas Mackey and Trudi Jacobson in 2011 (and has been further developed by them). They write, Metaliteracy promotes critical thinking and collaboration in a digital age, providing a comprehensive framework to effectively particípate in social media and online communities. It is a unified construct that supports the acquisition, production, and sharing o f knowledge in collaborative online communities. Metaliteracy challenges traditional skills-based approaches to information lit­ eracy by recognizing related literacy types and incorporating emerging technologies. (Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, pp. 62-63)

An innovative feature of metaliteracy is that the concept is indeed sensitive to emerging technologies. The authors emphasize that while this is a new conceptual model, it is grounded in practical considerations that can be used in instructional programs. (A pragmatic program insists that ideas and work be attuned to successful results. The pragmatic imperative applies to infor­ mation literacy in general.) They also see metaliteracy as a transcendent mode of thinking and acting, moving beyond traditional information literacy to a broader environment. In another article, Jacobson and Mackey (2013) repeat seven objectives of metaliteracy from their earlier work as they connect the objectives to practice and practical outcomes. They State: The seven elements inelude the following:

Understand Format Type and Delivery Mode. Evalúate User Feedback as Active Researcher. Create a Context for User-generated Information. Evalúate Dynamic Contení Critically. Produce Original Contení in Múltiple Media Formáis. Understand Personal Privacy, Information Ethics and Intellectual Property Issues. 7. Share Information in Participatofy Environments. (Jacobson & Mackey,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

2013, p. 87; italics in original)

There are Ítems in the stated elements that are unique (and are not included in the information literacy standards). For example, the context for user-gener-

What Is Information Literacy?

35

ated information is something that is new to the conception of information literacy. As Jacobson and Mackey (2013) point out, there are practice-based implications for this and other elements. That said, some of what is proposed (e.g., evaluation, ethics, and the understanding of delivery mode) is common to other proposals, including the ACRL standards of 2000. What is new to the conception they Jacobson and Mackey (2013) offer is the active role that students can play in becoming informed and in establishing a critical relationship with what is presented to them as students: “Metaliteracy empowers learners to particípate in interactive information environments, equipped with the ability to continuously reflect, change, and contribute as critical thinkers” (p. 88). The challenge that exists for teachers is to ensure that students embrace their role as active learners and critical participants. The conception of metaliteracy has been adopted at some institutions as a new way to approach instruction. Donna Witek and Teresa Grettano (2014) developed a course at the University of Scranton with the following purpose in mind: To these ends, the authors developed the following course goals: By the end o f the course, [students] should be able to: • • • • • •

analyze a rhetorical situation in terms o f audience, purpose and style; determine options for communication and make effective choices based on a rhetorical situation; understand the difference between thesis-driven academic arguments and visual-driven arguments, and be able to compose both effectively; incorpórate others’ ideas/outside information into [the students’] own argu­ ments effectively and efficiently; become aware o f [the students’] online behavior, its reasoning and effects; and develop more purposeful and effective practices in social network environ­ ments. (pp. 92-93)

The key element to the course’s purpose is students’ understanding of processes and outcomes of rhetorical situations. The inclusión of rhetoric is a ttajor contribution of this work and one that ought to be attended to by all who are in the process of revising or creating instructional experiences (up to and including full courses). STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK Budd (2009) covered the 2000 information literacy standards in some depth; ere ls to add here, but a few comments are appropriate. For one thing, even though there have been some critiques of the standards, including by me’ ^ey marked a leap forward in information literacy instruction. Megan

36

Chapter 2

Dempsey and colleagues (2015) mention some of the positive elements of the standards: “Where librarians have succeeded in gaining acceptance of information literacy as an institutional core competency, the Standards have played a significant role” (p. 166). One very useful commentary is offered by Emily Drabinsky (2014). She draws from the Greek concept of kairos or the argument against timelessness: “Kairos, then, demands that we understand all truth claims as embedded in a context, and all action as measured responses to that context” (Drabinsky, 2014, p. 481). The standards, understood in this way, are bound by time and events; their use is limited to the context in which they were formulated. If one views the standards in such a manner, it becomes evident that as times change, the nature and articulation of any standards should evolve. I am not claiming here that the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education (ACRL, 2016) achieves these goals, but Drabinsky provides a context in which the framework can be examined with care. Drabinsky is not the only commentator who recognizes that the standards and the framework are not two absolutely discrete conceptualizations. There are some epistemological and practical connections between the two even as there are some important distinctions. As is stated in Budd (2009), the stan­ dards tend to be instrumental, with less attention paid to the thinking and thought that can and should accompany students’ progress through informa­ tion literacy courses and sessions. No more need be said about that feature of the standards here. Some other commentators see something of a cióse affinity between the standards and the framework (closer examination of the framework is required to assess such a belief): The authors recognize that the Standards still exist within the Framework’s knowledge practices. What we find untenable is the insistence that the ideas o f the Framework are so far separated from the Standards as to be completely incompatible. Our discussions o f the questions above have led us to the con­ clusión that the Framework and the Standards serve two different purposes and have two different intended audiences, but are both valuable in their own right. (Dempsey, et al., 2015, p. 172)

Since Drabinsky (2014) and Dempsey and colleagues (2015) mention the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education, some detailed discussion of it is warranted here. For informational purposes, the ACRL Board adopted the framework on January 11, 2016. There is quite a lot to say about the framework; there are very positive elements of it that lend themselves to the development of content and pedagogy, but there are also some areas of concern that should be addressed. To begin with, the framework offers a revised definition of information literacy: “Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of informa­ tion, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the

What Is Information Literacy?

37

use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (ACRL, 2016, p. 3). There are features of the definition that are noteworthy, particularly the reflection, understanding, and ethics, which are integral. These elements are inherent in the theory of infor­ mation that is presented in chapter 1 of this volume. The tenets of the framework need to be investigated closely for explicit and tacit meaning. For example, one of the points is: Information Has Valué Information possesses several dimensions o f valué, including as a commodity, as a means of education, as a means to influence, and as a means o f negotiating and understanding the world. Legal and socioeconomic interests influence information production and dissemination. (ACRL, 2016, p. 6 )

The core sentiment underlying this component is indeed worthwhile, especially in light of a theory of information; that which does give shape to one’s thought and being is valuable. The understanding of the world and the comprehension of socioeconomic aspects of information are essential to the development of leamers. However, in the midst of the commendable elements is the neoliberal (i.e., the shift of economic concern from the public to the prívate sector) and that is of some concern. Further, in that framework com­ ponent the information “marketplace” is referred to. The problem with this terminology is that it can foster the idea that information has monetary or exchange valué primarily. Informing is something different, though, and has the purpose of enhancing the cognitive, intellectual, embodied, social, and emotional Uves of those informed. The thoughts, words, and images produced by others are valuable insofar as they enhance one’s own being (more will be said later about the phenomenological enhancement contributed to by information). What should be considered is the valué information has for students in their Uves (both as students and in the rest of their lives). Another tenet is that information creation is a process: “The iterative process of researching, creating, revising, and disseminating information vary, and the resulting product reflects these differences” (ACRL, 2016, p. 5). The statement could have included writing, by which students work through thoughts, incorporating the work of others into their own Creative processes. This element also embodies the various media by means of which people are informed. It is in this way that metaliteracy is intentionally incorporated into the framework. The framers claim that experts transcend mé­ dium and format as they seek meaningful work to inelude within their own processes. The recognition that information creation and dissemination is ynamic is an extremely important component of any information literacy C°urse, session, or experience. The tenet also recognizes that there are some C°nstraints to the processes but that there are ways to attempt to overeóme

38

Chapter 2

those constraints. Inherent in the theory of information (see chapter 1) is the dynamism and creativity that renders data meaningful and intentional. One of the more practical components of the framework is the claim that scholarship is a conversation. The scholarly apparatus is ideally constructed around the dialogic nature of the communicative process. That said, both M. M. Bakhtin (1986) and Edmund Husserl (1970) have said that scientifíc communication can tend to be monologic. If that is so, the conversational nature of scholarship may be somewhat limited. Scholarship is supposed to be self-correcting, and for the most part, it is. On the other hand, students need to be aware of such phenomena as scientifíc misconduct, wherein researchers might plagiarize or even fabrícate data. In short, the conversation tends to embody all the good and bad parts of all human communication. Information-literate students should be aware of this fact. That said, the framers are to be commended for stating that scholarly communication is, at its most basic, a discursive practice “where ideas are formulated, debated, and weighed against one another over extended periods of time” (ACRL, 2016, p. 8). The tenet does inelude the pedagogical necessity of citation, as it should; students are to acknowledge formally the work that has preceded their thought and has helped shape their cognizance of various topics. Moreover, the conversation must be weighed and evaluated on the bases of evidence, logic, and merit. This is integral to the development of an informa­ tion-literate individual. Another very practical tenet holds: Searching as Strategic Exploration Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation o f a range o f information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue altemative avenues as new understanding develops. (ACRL, 2016, p. 9)

Most admirably, this statement begins with the realization that searching (inquiry) begins with a question. There is some Ímpetus that leads to acts of searching. As the framers claim, “Experts realize that information searching is a contextualized, complex experience that affeets, and is affected by, the cognitive, affective, and social dimensions of the searcher” (ACRL, 2016, p. 9). While much of the foregoing has merit, one of the tenets of the frame­ work is problematic. The first States: Authority Is Contextual and Constructed Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the informa­ tion will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may

What Is Information Literacy?

39

recognize different types o f authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level o f authority required. (ACRL, 2016, p. 4)

The foundation of this claim is at odds with the theory of information propounded in chapter 1 of this volume. The tenet espouses relativism based in context and community construction, whereas the theory makes a normative assertion. The authority of an information claimant, if the theory is adhered to, is grounded in intentional, meaningful, cognitive-based truth claims. Communities may offer some rationale for authority, but if that authority is not based in realism (perhaps especially critical realism), there is a problem at hand. This is not to say that there cannot be biases and prejudices in what members of a community may say. It does State, however, that biased and prejudiced assertions are not authoritative. We can turn to Patrick Wilson (1983) for one view of normativity: “Cognitive authority is clearly related to credibility. The authority’s influence on us is thought proper because he is thought credible, worthy of belief. The notion of credibility has two main components: competence and trustworthiness” (p. 23). Wilson obviously takes a normative stance related to authority. To hearken back to the theory of information, one can also turn to Crispin Wright (2009): “For a claim to be warrantedly assertible is for it to be appropriate, given the available information/evidence, for one to assert the claim. ‘P’ is true if, and only if, P provides virtually everything that is needed to explain the function of the truth predícate” (p. 384). Authority, then, is not constructed in the sense intended by this component of the framework. It would be preferable if “knowledge” were addressed here. Knowledge can be constructed by students in that they evalúate claims on the bases of evidence and reason and then reach conclusions that fit with what Wilson and Wright say. One can know something if there is justification for a true belief regarding that thing. Further, the belief cannot be accidental; it musí be intentional and formulated on given or discovered evidence. If the matter in question is an assertion about the physical world, variances in community beliefs are of no consequence; there either is a fact or there is not (in light of the best evidence possible at a given time). If the matter is a social convention that does not have a basis in physical law or fact, then the convention applies for a group or it does not. This last claim deserves emphasis. If the convention holds that shaking hands as a greeting is considered rude, then it can be taken as rude by the group. If it concems something like female genital mutilation, however>physical fact cannot be ignored. The delibérate disabling of another hunian being is wrong, regardless of the community’s belief. The ethics of Information must be adhered to in addition to all the other criteria of the eory of information. The framework tenet claims that assuming an authori*Ve stance is accompanied by responsibilities, “including seeking accuracy an rebability [and] respecting intellectual property” (ACRL, 2016, p. 4).

Chapter 2

40

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK Quite a bit has been written on practical and conceptual ways to build upon the framework in academic settings. One example of a practical guide is that presented by Trudi Jacobson and Craig Gibson (2015). Among other suggestions, they write that the framework provides an opportunity to “Develop an assignment and course redesign process. The Framework affords a broader, integrated set of ‘big ideas’ about research, scholarship, and information” (Jacobson & Gibson, 2015, p. 104; italics in original). They also emphasize that outcomes can be aligned with disciplinary knowledge and that the framework facilitates the establishment and assessment of outcomes. Colleen Burgess (2015) claims that “the frame Search as Strategic Exploration is an opportunity to cross a threshold from the canned search demonstrating databases to the messy process of research as exploration, sharing some of the challenges we’ve encountered in our own leaming experiences and from our own beginner’s frame of mind” (p. 4). The iterative and recursive natures of learning are apparent in what Burgess says. There are some examinations and commentaries that deserve special attention because of their acumen and wealth of wise coverage. One by Rebecca Kuglitsch (2015) raises a very important matter for the present and future of literacy: “Scholars have raised the question, for example, of whether infor­ mation literacy applies only to traditional textual research or also to data research. The question remains not fully settled” (p. 459). It would be pretentious to say that I have the final answer, but it is reasonable to say that the answer is that there is no reason why data should not be included. Data, like text, provide interpretable moments that can be analyzed according to tenets expressed in the framework. The critical investigation that is at the heart of the framework can certainly offer a means for teaching and learning about data sources. Beyond the scientific study of big data (which itself has to be defined and have parameters established), there are data in everyday life that beg for critical examination. For instance, if data are used in political discourse, the sources, delimiters, and inclusiveness of the data cry for analysis. As is the case of verbal discursive practices, students need to be exposed to the critical appropriation of the data that also form components of discursive practice. Were one to State that 78 percent of Americans believe that there is no man-made climate change, that datum is open to critique. Kuglitsch (2015) speaks of threshold concepts, which are forceful ideas that can foster both change and critical apprehension of the nature of the concepts and that characterize—or should characterize—information literacy in light of the framework. These are important and deserve mention here. The concepts are 1.

transformad ve, in that it changes the way a learner approaches a field;

What Is Information Literacy? 2.

3. 4. 5.

41

irreversible, in that it cannot be unleamed once learned; integrative, in that it exposes connections between ideas that previously seemed unrelated; bounded, in that it is particular to a specific field ; and troublesome, in that it is somehow challenging to students. (Kuglitsch, 2015, p. 459; italics in original)

As Kuglitsch says, the list is not definitional ñor is it a check-off for courses or sessions for inclusión in total for every student experience. Taken together, though, the Ítems indícate possibilities for learners. Ideally, the threshold concepts extend beyond information literacy and embrace the entirety of the students’ experiences. As such, the concepts are educational and pedagogical guides that can be accepted widely. Kuglitsch (2015) adds that students are primarily concerned with their disciplinary studies (not information literacy as such), and the threshold concepts provide guidance for all of their study (p. 462). Kuglitsch does accept the framework’s partial relativism regarding authority, however. This is not a major aspect of her work because of the manner in which she appropriates it. The nature of authority is interpreted as the source of the discursive practice (including data). That is one (and only one) way to define authority; the contení of the discursive practice is more important to the valuation of authority. It is particularly important when the matters of meaning and truth are considered. I continué to maintain that the most fruitful attention to authority is grounded in those matters, as well as the cognitive importance and the ethics of the discursive practice. Other commentators address the political side of what is presented in the framework. For example, Nicole Pagowsky (2015) writes, “We should consider ways in which the Framework can help us push back against the neolib­ eral agendas of pedagogy and reinvent our roles as librarían educators” (p. 136). (N.B.: The politics of higher education will be dealt with in another chapter in this volume, so I will say little about this here.) Pagowsky (2015) rightly urges readers to view the framework in light of what is happening in higher education in general: “Misperception of poor learning ability is often paired with the assumption that students’ primary interest is in obtaining Jobs. This provides false evidence that there is no time in the curriculum for asking big questions or having larger dialogue because this form of pedagogy is not viewed as the most efficient means to the end” (p. 138). Pagowsky quotes Karen Nicholson (2015) as saying, “Economic exchange becomes the defming relationship between students, staff, and the institution. Demands °r a skilled workforce to support the global economy have resulted in the ttiassification of higher education and a curricular shift toward vocationallsm (Pagowsky, 2015, p. 330). These assessments echo Jean-Fran^ois Lyotord (1984), who observes,

42

Chapter 2 The nature o f knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context o f general transformation. It can fit into the new channels, and become operational, only if learning is translated into quantities o f information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body o f knowledge that is not translatable in this way will be abandoned and that the direction o f new research will be dictated by the possibility o f its eventual results being translatable into Com­ puter language. . . . We may thus expect a thorough exteriorization o f knowl­ edge with respect to the “knower,” at whatever point he or she may occupy in the knowledge process. (p. 4)

One of the most valuable works of recent years is the one by Amanda Nichols Hess (2015), both for her commentary and for the review of learning theory (which will be revisited later). She accurately writes, “Librarians’ educational experiences do not equip them with the pedagogical and instructional training provided to other educators” (Hess, 2015, p. 772). She could note that even in other disciplines, there is a dilemma regarding pedagogical training for teachers in higher education. Too often prospective teachers are thrown into the deep end of the pool without sufficient preparation; librarians may not be unique, although students in library and information studies may not gain any experience (save for at a few programs) with teaching. Hess (2015) also astutely adds, For academic librarians to avoid doing what they have always done and seeing the same outcomes in practice, those involved in designing professional leaming opportunities need to consider how professional learning around the Framework can be most effectively constructed. This involves identifying adult learning motivations and incorporating important adult learning theory, into professional development. Including social learning theory and transformational learning theory into professional development. (p. 773)

What the framework signáis is the blueprint for a different and distinct peda­ gogical approach to information literacy—one that broadens the conceptions of both information and literacy. As Jacobson and Gibson (2015) State, there is an opportunity for the redevelopment of curriculum and assignments. The curricular alteration allows for a diminution of reliance on the mere presenta­ ron of databases and other information resources and the relocation of infor­ mation assets within contexts that are meaningful to students. It has been said that students are not intending to become information specialists; they have needs that tend to be contení based. Therefore, a pedagogy that presents the complexity of information creation (in part, the conversational role of the informational producís) and the need for careful and critical evaluation of contení is likely to provide students with the cognitive and intellectual abilities to make choices aimed at the location of meaning and truth. The assign­ ments and evaluative mechanisms for a course or a session can thus be structured so as to enable students to learn about the complexities of informa-

What Is Information Literacy?

43

tion creation and to exercise critical judgment. Evaluation of learners’ potential to apply logic, reasoning, and the foregoing definition of authority will be possible in light of a revisión of the pedagogical intention of the course or session. The emphasis is shifted to the learners within their complete academic lives and experiences. The goal becomes providing learners with the wherewithal to succeed at the tasks they face. This entails transcending memorizing or storing the fixed examples of the classes that tended to typify the past and moving onward to Creative processes of taking what is known into ambiguous realms. One topic related to the learners’ opportunities is that of social epistemology. SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY The “authority” tenet of the framework, as is apparent, raises some questions. In part, the response to the questions depends on social epistemology. As a reader might expect, social epistemology is not one simple thing, but there are two prominent voices to draw from to seek some answers. Steve Fuller takes a sociology of knowledge approach and examines how communities build knowledge and knowledge structures. Fuller’s (1988) ideas are not unrelated to those in the framework, but there is a normative element to his position: A producer “has knowledge” if enough o f his fellow producers either devote their resources to following up on his research (even for purposes o f refutation) or cite his research as background for their own. The producer continúes to “have knowledge” only as long as these investments by his fellows pay off for them. (p. 30; italics in original)

The citation element itself creates some difficulties. With increases in scientific misconduct and error, resulting in the retraction of publications, there are problems with the possession of knowledge. According to Daniele Fanelli (2009), a weighted average of nearly 2 percent of scientists admitted to falsifying or fabricating data in their publications. That percentage may not seem high, but it is a problematic amount of falsified work. A further difficulty is the fact that retracted publications continué to be cited after they are retracted. There is no good excuse for the continued citation because the publication is marked clearly as having been retracted. Customary theories of citation practices do not, in general, account for this deviant practice. By extensión, a theory of social epistemology would be required to adjust conceptions of knowledge to accommodate the possibilities of misconduct in particular; social epistemology should have an ethical component.

44

Chapter 2

Another conception of social epistemology is put forth by Alvin Goldman in a number of works. In a recent publication, he hearkened back to an articularon of the scope of social epistemology’s reach: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

testimony, peer disagreement, epistemic relativism, epistemic approaches to democracy, evidence in the law, the epistemology o f mass collaboration (e.g., Wikipedia), and judgment aggregation. (Goldman, 2012, p. 221)

In his new conception, Goldman argües for a “systems-oriented” social epis­ temology. This is distinct from individual epistemology and an epistemology based on the actions of group agents. “An epistemic system is a social system that houses a variety of procedures, institutions, and pattems of interpersonal influence that affect the epistemic outcomes of its members” (Goldman, 2012, p. 223). The notion of social systemic operations fit well with the practice of information literacy since the instructional Ímpetus is on learning, not merely by groups of individuáis but by systems of people learning in concert (and from one another as well). I have commented on Goldman: “Ideas of all stripes are presented in such a way that Goldman refers to as a maximized veritistic valué is achieved (by allowing a free form of speech regulation rather than a structure of constraints and exclusión)” (Budd, 2004, p. 365). Goldman does admit that while there are definite formal systems, there are informal social systems in which social epistemology does opérate. The formal systems about which he speaks “inelude Science, education, and journalism. The core mission of each of these systems is to elevate its community’s level of truth possession, information possession, knowledge possession, or possession of justified or rational belief’ (Goldman, 2012, p. 229). One could easily add librarianship to his list since there are múltiple systems procedures that identify the operations of the profession. Information literacy is one of these procedures. As a reason for including information literacy in the realm of social epistemology, one can point to Goldman’s assertion that there must be causes for the valuation related to making judgments. As he says, “A scheme of epistemic valuation may appeal to a set of fundamental epistemic valúes, which might inelude (i) having true beliefs, (ii) avoiding errors, (iii) having justified beliefs, (iv) having rational beliefs (or partial beliefs), and (v) having knowledge” (Goldman, 2012, p. 223). This mode of valuation differs from the framework when it comes to authority. Only certain sources of authority can lead to the possession of the above valúes; information literacy should embrace these valúes and work to inelude them in any instructional experience for students. A principal component of in-

What Is Information Literacy?

45

struction must be the means to be used in gathering and evaluating evidence. Students need guidance in search for and locating the evidence that can lead one to the evaluation of claims and the situation of authority. The framework does address this to an extent, but the exercise of evaluation should be marked as an explicitly epistemic endeavor. Social epistemology fits well with information literacy because instruction is, first, a social act that involves the students constructively in gaining knowledge about complex topics, and second, social epistemology entails means of gaining knowledge that inelude the serious evaluation of things like testimony (among other things). Much of higher education (except firsthand experimentation and the like) depends on testimony in the form of such things as textbooks, selected readings, and lectures. None of these testimo­ nies should be taken at face valué according to social epistemology. There must be assessment of what is said and written according to quests for rational and true beliefs. This means that logic and argument should be applied critically. A question that should be asked by students is whether there is warrant for certain statements. Epistemic warrant has a substantial pedigree in a couple of ways, including argumentaron and the theory of knowledge. Stephen Toulmin (1958) has developed a well-defmed schema for assigning warrant within argumentation. In argumentation, data proceeds toward claims, with reason(s) being the linking element. Warrant—logical reasons for believing and accepting premises—is necessary if a claim is to be articulated. Working backward, warrant is necessary for the evaluation of a claim. Anyone stating an argument, according to Toulmin, must intégrate warrant into the formulation of all components. Without reasoned warrant, a claim stands on shaky ground, and it is doubtful whether it can (or should) be accepted. One of the most prominent proponents of epistemic warrant is Alvin Plantinga. He sums up his conceptualization succinctly: warrant is “that which distinguishes knowledge from mere true belief’ (Plantinga, 1993a, p. 3). He elaborates: A belief B has warrant for you if and only if (1) the cognitive faculties in­ volved in the production o f B are functioning properly (and this is to inelude the relevant defeater systems as well as those systems, if any, that provide propositional inputs to the system in question); (2 ) your cognitive environment is suffíciently similar to the one for which your cognitive faculties are designed; (3) the triple o f the design plan goveming the production o f the belief in question involves, as purpose or function, the production o f true beliefs (and the same goes for elements o f the design plan governing the production o f input beliefs to the system in question); and (4) the design plan ls a good one: that is, there is a high statistical or objective probability that a belief produced in accordance with the relevant segment o f the design plan in that sort o f environment is true. (Plantinga, 1993b, p. 194)

46

Chapter 2

Information literacy does not have to follow every element of social epistemology in order to succeed, but it is evident that information literacy instruction can incorpórate quite an amount of the design and intention into the thinking behind courses, sessions, and programs. LEARNING It may seem to be out of order to cover social epistemology prior to tackling leaming, but social epistemology provides a groundwork for knowledge, and learning will explícate the means by which knowledge can be facilitated and acquired. The ñame Jerome Bruner is not frequently invoked these days, but his later work ineludes some essential elements for our consideraron of information literacy. For example, in The Culture o f Education (1996) he discusses the distinctions between computational and cultural stances regarding leaming. Computational ideas—frequently referred to as informationprocessing viewpoints—are commonplace in much of neuroscience (including artificial intelligence) and philosophy of mind. In “Revisiting the Importance of Cognition in Information Science” (Budd, 2011), I delved into infor­ mation processing; there is no need to repeat that critique here. Suffice it to say that the computational stance has some desiderata even as it ineludes some very important points about the way the mind works. Bruner (1996) adds the stance of “culturalism” to the discussion of leaming and compares it with computationalism. That stance is flawed insofar as it is limited to brain processes (which are inadequately and incompletely understood, despite claims to the contrary) and does not take other events and phenomena into account. As Bruner (1996) says, “The issue .. . is whether the computational view of mind itself offers an adequate enough view about how [the] mind works to guide our efforts in trying to ‘edúcate’ it’’ (p. 2). This informationprocessing view adopts the stance that the mind has the apparatus to take the stimuli that bombard it and then make sense of them. It is, in this way, a fundamentally functional system; the brain can function computationally to take stimuli and transíate them into sense and meaning. Enter culturalism, which “takes its inspiration from the evolutionary fact that mind could not exist save for culture” (Bruner, 1996, p. 3). It may strike one that computationalism is an “inside-out” mode of thinking and learning and that culturalism is an “outside-in” mode. Bruner is very careful to point out that the genuine act of leaming is not an either/or choice between the two modes. I fully agree with his point; there is a material basis for brain activity. Yet as philosophers of mind—including Colin McGinn, David Chalmers, and John Searle—point out, there is more to thought and learning than the activities within the brain. If there are indeed stimuli that influence what and how we leam, those stimuli can inelude the cultural (writ large). I address

What Is Information Literacy?

47

this matter to a considerable extent in Framing Library Instruction (Budd, 2009). Bruner (1996) speaks to the influence quite eloquently: Culturalism takes as its first premise that education is not an island, but part o f the continent o f culture. It asks first what function “education” serves in the culture and what role it plays in the lives o f those who opérate within it. Its next question might be why education is situated in the culture as it is, and how this placement reflects the distribution o f power, status, and other benefits. Inevitably, and virtually from the start, culturalism also asks about the enabling resources made available to people to cope, and what portion o f those resources is made through “education,” institutionally conceived. (p. 1 1 )

There are, then, elements of nature and nurture in the process of learning, and the latter cannot be ignored. Bruner’s mention of institutions is extremely important for such actions as information literacy. The very essence of information literacy is institutional in a multitude of ways. As the framework aptly States, a vital part of learning about information in its formal State is the realization that there is a conversation taking place. Such a conversation can only occur within an institutional (actually, a multi-institutional) setting. It is important that students comprehend the institutional freedoms and boundaries and the opportunities they create. If one were to concéntrate on students’ academic success, the reality that success is defined institutionally is also a component of the total learning process. In the instrumental sense, success is defined in large part by grades, but any assessment of learning is grounded in institutions. There is, however, a more transcendent way of defining learning, and Bruner attempts to describe some of its basics. Bruner (1996) articulates a set of tenets that are intended to meld what he calis the “psycho-cultural” approach to education. Only a few of the tenets will be mentioned here; the reader can consult Bruner (1996) to see them in total. His is the “perspectival tenet.” “The meaning of any fact, proposition, or encounter is relative to the perspective or frame of reference in terms of which it is construed. . . . Understanding something in one way does not preelude understanding it in other ways” (Bruner, 1996, p. 13). He adds that the ideal is to be able to “see” a fact or proposition from múltiple perspectives and to exercise critical thought to assess the various perspectives, both °n their own terms and in terms of the alternatives. In other words, the learner should seek the alternatives so that the evaluative action can occur in ftdl. This can, in some senses, be a problematic tenet; the relativism could be . e focus, and fínding a warranted understanding could fall by the wayside. It is here ^ at I may break with Bruner’s idea. There can be some “wrong” ways ° looking at faets and propositions. For instance, one could fall prey to u ty reasoning and interpret something according to what one wishes to be instead of how it is. (As I mentioned previously, I am a realist.) This way

48

Chapter 2

of thinking does not mean that there is necessarily only one correct answer to, say, a social issue. It does mean, however, that there can be some unproductive ways of looking at the issue. There were a number of factors that contributed to the recession that began in 2008. Paying attention to only one may result in myopia when it comes to examining the complexities of economic and social reality. Bruner’s (1996) second tenet also applies here. This is the “constraint tenet.” He States, The forms o f meaning making accessible to human beings in any culture are constrained in two ways. The first inheres in the nature o f human mental functioning itself. . . . The second comprises those constraints imposed by the symbolic systems accessible to human minds generally— limits imposed, say, by the very nature o f language— but more particularly, constraints imposed by different languages and notational systems accessible to different cultures. (Bruner, 1996, pp. 15, 18)

These constraints certainly are evident in information literacy, especially when one considers that undergraduate students are in the process of developing cognitively and that those same students have probably had little experience with the symbolic actions of cultures other than their own. These are generalizations, but they are likely to apply, especially to first-year students. The information literacy course can seize an opportunity to accelerate cognitive growth and also to introduce students to the language use of members of other cultures—be those other cultures ethnic, linguistic, or even intellectual. A single literacy session will be limited in this regard, but some hints at the desiderata can be presented. Ideally, the desiderata can be addressed by the course instructors. In any event, what Bruner has to say is legitímate and needs to be remembered as, for example, the framework is applied in instruction. The constraints cannot be absolutely overeóme, even in a full course, but students can become cognizant of the challenges and can continué to tackle the challenges throughout their academic programs. The important thing is to provide students with intellectual and affective tools to address the challenges. One additional tenet will be mentioned here. Bruner (1996) speaks of the “interactional tenet”: “Passing on knowledge and skill, like any human exchange, involves a subcommunity engaged in interaction. At the mínimum, it involves a ‘teacher’ and a ieam er’—or if not a teacher in the flesh and blood, then a vicarious one like a book, or film, or display, or a ‘responsive’ Computer” (p. 20). Bruner was writing before online education became common (and before concern regarding online information literacy became almost ubiquitous). The idea of a responsive Computer could be interpreted to emulate the interaction he advocates. The important element is integration of culture into the core of teaching and leaming, regardless of the mode of

What Is Information Literacy?

49

educational delivery. Informational awareness depends on these tenets that Bruner presents. I do not claim that these tenets (or the totality of Bruner’s tenets, for that matter) provide all that is needed for effective information literacy, but his ideas can definitely be integrated not only into the framework but also into the ideáis of metaliteracy. The expansión of learning to the breadth of culture encompasses the nature of various types of literacy; much can be taken from what Bruner has to offer. LEARNING As is mentioned above, Hess (2015) has done excellent work in integrating learning theory into information literacy. She writes, For academic librarians to avoid doing what they have always done and seeing the same outcomes in practice, those involved in designing professional leaming opportunities need to consider how professional learning around the Framework can be most effectively constructed. This involves identifying adult learning motivations and incorporating important adult learning theories, including social learning theory and transformad onal learning theory into pro­ fessional development. (Hess, 2015, p. 773)

Hess draws substantially from the work of Jack Mezirow (1998) when it comes to transformational learning, which he defines “as the process by which we transform problematic frames of reference—sets of assumptions and expectations—to make the more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (p. 92). Undergraduate students are likely to enter higher education with instilled frames of reference, which can come from the social milieus of their lives—family, schooling, adult and peer influences, and so on. Those frames of reference may be problematic in that they have not been subjected to reflection and analysis; rather they may have been accepted on account of pressure, influence, and a complex of both intellective and nonintellective forces. The forces may inelude “authority,” an influence that accentuates the challenges inherent in the framework. Au­ thority may take the form of teacher, parent, religión, peer, or other sources that may be more social than analytical. Hess (2015) cites Mezirow (1994) and the means by which frames of reference may be changed. The means are complex and almost evolutionary (in a generic sense) and inelude a process of critical assessment. Mezirow’s ineans may be something of an ideal; it is not altogether convincing that an individual will come to this critical assessment on his or her own with some nnpetus to engage in critique. Self-critique is an extremely diffícult process ^n frequently requires challenges to identity. Granted, higher education can e a locus of this kind of set of challenges to identity, but as Mezirow also

50

Chapter 2

says, there must be an openness to the challenges. Without the openness, a transformation that involves identity can be elusive. Mezirow (1994, p. 224) does admit that new meaning schemes are essential to transformative learning. The key question that must be addressed is, From where does the source of transformation come? Hess hints that information literacy instruction is one such source; within the instruction, students’ schemes—their frames of reference—are challenged in a potentially transformative environment. It is here that the tenets of the theory of information enters. The components of the theory, as stated in chapter 1, are in themselves transformative; they constitute a different way of seeing what information is and what it should be. Since the theory is purposely constitutive, it should be a background for leaming theory that depends on informational transformation. The theory of information, along with what Hess and Mezirow propound, can form a sound basis for information literacy instruction. To be sure, the essence of the framework fits well into these theoretical foundations. One additional point deserves to be made, and placing it under learning seems most appropriate. It has to do with how we use our intellective faculties, and what contingent circumstances impinge on how we think about the choices and situations that we face. What will be presented here is a bare synopsis; much more could be said, but there is limited space here. Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has conducted a lifetime of research into choice and problem solving; he has recently encapsulated much of his theo­ retical and practical thought into a book aimed at a more popular audience (Kahneman, 2011). In it, he distinguished between “fast” and “slow” thinking and under what conditions each tends to be employed. He refers to these ways of thinking as two distinct Systems: System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense o f voluntary control. System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations o f System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience o f agency, choice, and concentration. (Kahneman, 2011, pp. 20-21)

In system 2 occurrences, it is essential that the individual pay cióse attention not only to the task at hand but also to the surrounding circumstances that can affect outcomes. There are everyday situations where this slow thinking is necessary, such as driving in heavy trafile or in unfamiliar surroundings. Leaming is another locus for slow thinking; studying new material requires full attention along with reliance on knowledge already present. One way of looking at the challenge is that “System 2 takes over when things get difficult, and it normally has the last word” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 25). In information literacy instances (courses and single-session experienees), it is extremely important that students understand the demands of

What Is Information Literacy?

51

learning and the differences between the two ways of thinking. It may be that when someone is presented with an informational event (a political advertisement, for example), that person may rely on fast thinking and put limited effort into deciphering and fully comprehending the ad and its meaning. That may actually be a prototypical instance where slow thinking is required. Students (whatever the learning environment) need to know when slow thinking is needed and how to put it to work. This understanding may be particularly pertinent to information literacy. The evaluation of what is said and written is one of the kinds of complex tasks that Kahneman refers to and is appropriate to system 2 or slow thinking. When there are conflicting accounts of an event or disparate discourses on a topic, cióse attention must be paid to what is said, how it is said, and why certain conclusions are drawn. At the very least, mistakes can be avoided when attention is paid to the event and its meaning. Kahneman’s ideas fit into the spirit of the framework and can be a component of the application of the practical aspects of the frame­ work. PHENOMENOLOGY It is stated above that some attention would be paid to phenomenology and information literacy. There is little need for background to be repeated here, since I have addressed the issue in the past (see Budd, 2005). Perhaps some foundational definitions will assist; Lyotard (1991) offers one: The term signifies a study o f “phenomena,” that is to say, o f that which appears to consciousness, that which is “given.” It seeks to explore the given— “the thing itself ’ which one perceives, o f which one thinks and speaks— without constructing hypotheses conceming either the relationship which binds this phenomena to the being o f which it is phenomena, or the relation­ ship which unites it with the I for which it is the phenomena. (pp. 32-33)

Phenomenology is about discerning, as Lyotard (and others) State, the thing itself; that is, what literally appears to consciousness. And then there is an ultímate examination of the thing as it is imposed upon the Being of the perceiver. Stewart and Mickunas (1990) clarify this complex idea somewhat: Basic to phenomenology is the contention that the world has no meaning apart from consciousness. But the relationship is reciprocal; consciousness as no meaning apart from the world” (p. 43). That is, awareness is always awareness of something. Other philosophers (cited in Budd, 2005) raise some pomts that are important for teaching and learning in general and for inforuiation literacy in particular. First, effective communication is dialogic. That í?ay sfem self-evident, but the recognition of dialogism entails accepting that ere *s an “I” communicating with a “You.” That is, a self is in dialogue

52

Chapter 2

with another self. The second self—the “You”—has similarity to “I,” but it is a sepárate Being with a sepárate consciousness. Another feature of phenomenology is offered by Paul Ricoeur (1992, p. 172), who makes the point that phenomenology consists (in a simplified form) of living the good life, with and for others, in just institutions. For Ricoeur and as applied here, the good life does not concéntrate on things like prosperity but hearkens back to classical notions. The good life is one lived ethically and one that embodies virtues that inelude (in more modern terms) honesty, generosity, intellectual development, and the like. These elements allow one best to live with and for others (keep in mind the nature of “I” and “You”). In the application of information literacy, this conception necessitates understanding one’s own beliefs and learning to accept the beliefs of others for what they are worth (as the beliefs of the “You” as another self). It also necessitates the evaluation of the world, especially as the world is created, in social terms, by selves—individually and in concert. The creation is an intentional act, just as is the assessment of what is created. Once again, the framework ostensibly incorporates these criteria, not so much overtly but inherently. The meaning of the framework ineludes, especially, Ricoeur’s admonition. The ultímate goal is to construct just institutions—educational, political, and social. The construction depends on the goals of the framework being achieved in the educational setting and being extended to the lives of people beyond those as students. As Budd, Hill, and Shannon (2010) have shown, phenomenology fits well with the critical realism that has been expressed in a number of works by Roy Bhaskar. Budd and colleagues (2010) write, For one thing, he [Bhaskar] distinguishes between two distinct objeets o f knowledge. One he calis “intransitive objeets,” which are independent o f our existence; these are generally material objeets or occurrences. For example, a realist believes that the thing we cali granite exists whether we have knowl­ edge o f it (or even awareness o f it) or not. The other object o f knowledge is what Bhaskar calis “transidve objeets,” which “are Aristotelian material causes. They are the raw materials o f Science— the artificial objeets fashioned into Ítems o f knowledge by the Science o f the day” (quotation by Bhaskar, 1997, p. 21). (pp. 271-72)

The distinction is an important one; the phenomena of the natural world, at their foundation, are. They exist, and humans interpret them. The phenomena of the social world are created by humans, and the human action that goes into the creation (and maintenance, use, control, etc.) must be a component of the interpretation. It should be noted that as humans alter the material world, that action forms part of the interpretation as well. Hill, Shannon, and I express the melding of phenomenology and critical realism: “That is, the library exists within a context: (1) an academic library exists because of the

What Is Information Literacy?

53

college or university; it has no purpose apart from that context; (2) a public library exists for the community; its existence is not as fixed as that of an academic library, but it still is situated within the community” (Budd, Hill, & Shannon, 2010, p. 281). In like manner, information literacy exists within a context, and that context is real and must be apprehended critically. The context is not as simple since it exists not merely within an information literacy session or course but within the entirety of a student’s learning experience. All that any student is exposed to requires the contextual and complex learning (including reflection and perception of phenomena as they are given). This realization, perhaps more than anything, emphasizes the importance of information literacy. DISCUSSION The purpose of this chapter has not been to create a unified theory of infor­ mation literacy but to review the present State of this essential action (along with added elements, such as learning theory and phenomenology). The Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education has been assessed critically and, with only a couple of exceptions, has been found to be a grounding that has enormous potential for the practice of information literacy instruction. Rather than focusing on instrumental processes and producís, as the 2000 standards did, the framework presents intellective means by which students can leam about complex informational works and States. The more recent writings on information literacy display mature evaluative suggestions for instructional procedures. Only one additional matter will be introduced here. In Framing Library Instruction (Budd, 2009), I offered assessment of cognitive processes and brought metacognition into play. Just a few more words deserve to be said here about that particular notion. Eleonora Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) offers the standard definition of metacognition: Metacognition is a concept that has been used to refer to a variety o f epistemological processes. “Metacognition” essentially means cognition about cognition; that is, it refers to second order cognition: thoughts about thoughts, knowledge about knowledge or reflections about actions. So if cognition involves perceiving, understanding, remembering, and so forth, then metacogni­ tion involves thinking about one’s own perceiving, understanding, remember­ ing, etc. (pp. 1-2) -pi

e roots °f this defmition of metacognition exist in Jacobson and Mackey’s j •*' c°nception of metaliteracy. Their idea of this expansión of literacy °st naturally encompasses some form of metacognition. In the future, c *ce that embodies metaliteracy could incorpórate a somewhat self-di-

54

Chapter 2

rected learning activity that, as Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) says, can inelude “the definition of metacognition [that] has been broadened and ineludes, not only ‘thoughts about thoughts’ as it was before considered, but the following notions as well: knowledge of one’s own knowledge, processes, and cognitive and affective States; and the ability to consciously and deliberately moni­ tor and regúlate one’s knowledge, processes, and cognitive and affective States” (p. 3). To an extent, this redefinition marks a distinction between techné, or knowing how, and epistéme, or knowing that. The standards were bound by knowing how; the standards themselves and the producís that accompanied them were about skills that could readily be assessed. The framework crosses over into knowing that, and the accompanying elements begin to address knowledge, as well as skills. The framework represents, it may be said, an evolutionary advance over the standards. Knowledge and cognition are ex­ tended into new territory. It is quite possible that after rather extensive adoption and use of the framework, there will be further evolution of information literacy—both as an idea and in instructional practice. In Framing Library Instruction (Budd, 2009), 1 offer some possibilities for extensión. It could well be that the next iteration begins to incorpórate the most difficult aspect of knowledge, phronésis, which is sometimes equated with wisdom. This level of knowledge ineludes ethics (in a practical way), according to Aristotle. Information literacy may one day inelude the virtues that are marked by ethical action. One thing we can assume is that information literacy will continué to be a vital action in academic libraries and that librarians will continué to take critical positions related to it for the foreseeable future. The final word here will be brief. Readers are probably fully aware that the Internet is a very valuable resource that is not the be-all and end-all of becoming informed and of gaining knowledge about complex topics. As Michael Patrick Lynch (2016) States, “A key challenge to living in the Inter­ net of Us is not letting our super-easy access to so much information lull us into being passive receptacles for other person’s opinions” (p. 39). In other words, none of us should mistakenly take Kahneman’s system 1 as the stopping point in the quest for information. The emphasis on information evalua­ ron in both the standards and the framework underscore Lynch’s point. Rather than expound upon this well-known and appreciated matter, I commend Lynch’s (2016) book to all information literacy instructors. It is an illuminating discourse on what the Internet can and cannot do. REFERENCES ACRL. (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy: Final report. Chicago: ACRL www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.

What Is Information Literacy?

55

ACRL. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: ACRL, www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf. ACRL. (2016). Framework for Information literacy fo r higher education. Chicago: ACRL, www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilffamework. Anderson, A., & Johnston, B. (2016). From Information literacy to social epistemology: Insights from psychology. Amsterdam: Chandos. Ariew, S. (2014). How we got here. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(2), 208-24. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. by V. W. Mcgee. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bhaskar, R. (1997). A realist theory o f Science. London: Routledge. Biggs, J. (1999). Teachingfor quality learningat university. Buckingham, UK: Open Univer­ sity Press. Bruce, C. (2000). Information literacy programs and research: An intemational review. Australian Library Journal, 60(4), 209-18. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Budd, J. M. (2004). Academic libraries and knowledge: A social epistemology framework. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(5), 361-67. Budd, J. M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. Journal of Documentaron, 61( 1), 44-59. Budd, J. M. (2009). Framing library instruction. Chicago: ACRL. Budd, J. M. (2011). Revisiting the importance of cognition in information Science. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 360-68. Budd, J. M., Hill, H., & Shannon, B. (2010). Inquiring into the real: A realist phenomenological approach. Library Quarterly, 80(3), 267-84. Burgess, C. (2015). Teaching students, not standards: The new ACRL information literacy framework and threshold crossings for instructors. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10( 1), 1-6. Buschman, J. (2009). Information literacy, “new” literacies, and literacy. Library Quarterly, 79(1), 95-118. Carey, B. (2014). How we learn. New York: Random House. Dempsey, M. E., Dalal, H., Dokus, L. R., Charles, L. H., & Scharf, D. (2015). Questions about the framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(2), 164-75. Drabinsky, E. (2014). Toward a kairos o f information literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 480-85. Fanelli, D. (1999). How many scientists fabrícate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4, 1-11. Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Goldman, A. I. (2012). Reliabilism and contemporary epistemology: Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fless, A. N. (2015). Equipping academic librarians to intégrate the framework into instructional practices: A theoretical application. Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 41,11X-16. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of the European Sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Trans. by D. Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Jacobson, T. E., & Gibson, C. (2015). First thoughts on implementing the framework for information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(2), 102-10. Jacobson, T. E., & Mackey, T. R. (2013). Proposing a metaliteracy model to redefine information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), 84-91. ahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast andslow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ipfel, K. M. (2015). Authenticity and leaming: Implications for reference librarianship and £ lr|. rmation literacy instruction. College & Research Libraries, 76(1), 19-30. gitsch, R. Z. (2015). Teaching for transfer: Reconciling the framework with disciplinary t ^ / )r|^a^on literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(3), 457-70. » M. P. (2016). The Internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in the age of

Lyotard^’

^ or^: ^ veright-

wr 5 • (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. assumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

56

Chapter 2

Lyotard, J.-F. (1991 ) Phenomenology (B. Beakley, Trans.). Albany, NY: SUN Y Press. Mackey, T. R., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College & Research Librarles, 72(1), 62-78. Mezirow, J. (1994). Transformad ve leaming: Theory into practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Ouarterly, 48(3), 185-98. Nicholson, K. P. (2015). The McDonaldization o f academic libraries and the valué of transformational change. College & Research Libraries, 76(3), 328-38. Pagowsky, N. (2015). A pedagogy o f inquiry. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(2), 136-44. Papaleontiou-Louca, E. (2008). Metacognition and theory of mind. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Plantinga, A. (1993a). Warrant: The current debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plantinga, A. (1993b). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University o f Chicago Press. Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the fleld and its literature. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Suominen, V., & Tuomi, P. (2015). Literacies, hermeneutics, and literature. Library Trends, 63(3), 615-28. Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses ofargument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-handknowledge. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Witek, D., & Grettano, T. (2014). Teaching metaliteracy: A newparadigm in action. RQ, 42(2), 188-208. Wright, C. (2009). Fear o f relativism. Philosophical Studies, 141, 379-90.

Chapter Three

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

A couple of decades ago I wrote, Ultimately, librarians need to take care with the language they adopt, and with the facility with which they use it to shape concepts. That the language o f consumerism and commodification dominates beyond the sphere o f libraries is not suffícient reason to accept it uncritically. The library’s language, and practice, should flow from as clear an idea o f purpose as possible. And librarians should examine purpose independently from the pressures o f capitalism and consumption. (Budd, 1997, p. 319)

These words are still pertinent. Information is, if anything, viewed even more commonly as a commodity, and the problem of that attitude is profound. As is evident from chapter 1 on the theory of information, there are essential characteristics that define what information is. The defínition carries implications for what information can/should be used for. The essential characteris­ tics have implications in particular for education and leaming. Higher education is subject to some of the same forces that affect how we view information. What can be seen as a neoliberal Ímpetus is in play on college and university campuses. In short, leaming is, to a considerable extent, forsaken and the actions in higher education are reduced to transactions. What occurs in colleges and universities certainly impinges upon academic ibraries and thrusts the libraries into a political milieu. That political life is c°niplex and is becoming more pervasive all the time. It is necessary to examine the politics closely and to investigate what effects a particular politi.environment can have on the institutions, their libraries, and the concept ^formation. This chapter will examine the forces that are prevalent in 57

58

Chapter 3

higher education and will explore what kinds of impact the political frame can have on the missions of these institutions. There are some particulars to keep in mind as this examination proceeds. One is a reminder, courtesy oflan Shapiro (2016), of something Immanuel Kant stated some time ago: Kant insisted that “for since puré reason commands that such actions ought to occur, they musí also be able to occur” (Kant, 1996, p. 737). (Shapiro, 2016, simplifies this maxim to “ought entails can” [p. 7].) That statement deserves some critical attention; as Shapiro (2016) asks, “Why assume that reality—including the reality comprised by human action—can be made to conform to the moral nostrum that people devise?” (p. 7). The question is apt; just because some State of affairs, way of thinking, or manner of acting should comprise reality does not mean that it actually can. Shapiro (2016) proposes an alteration of Kant’s assertion, articulated by Casiano Hacker-Cordón (2002): “Ought entails musí try” (p. 34). There is a world of difference between the two claims. Kant presumes a great deal; Hacker-Cordón presumes little save for urging humans to attempt to bring about what should be. The latter can be a guiding principie throughout the present chapter. In stating this, I admit that what follows is not neutral; there is a point of view evident here that will be defended and justifíed. In order to accomplish this goal, background is required. THE ACADEMY It is appropriate to begin this examination with the parent organizations of academic libraries. All the units within colleges and universities follow the direction and the directives of the administrations. This ineludes libraries, for good or ill. The administraron of higher education institutions is quite vari­ able, but there have been trends over the last several years that indícate a rather authoritative bent among administrators, as well as indicators that certain qualities and backgrounds are more frequently sought in administra­ tors. Some anecdotal evidence points to the qualities and backgrounds, as well as the activities, of some of the top administrators of institutions. One of the most recent instances occurred at Mount St. Mary’s University. Simón Newman, institutional president, made comments relating to the retention of high-quality students and said, quoted in Biemiller, “My short-term goal is to have 20-25 people leave” the university very soon (Biemiller, 2016, p. Al). He estimated that would raise retention rates by 4-5 percent. He further stated to a faculty member, “This is hard for you because you think of students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t. You have to drown the bunnies, put a Glock to their heads” (Biemiller, 2016, p. Al). There is no question that retention of students is a measure that many, including accrediting bodies, pay special attention to, but it is not a measure that exists in a vacuum.

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

59

Newman claimed that he was concerned about admissions standards and the quality of admitted students, but the students he spoke of had already been admitted for the 2015-2016 entering class (S. Brown, 2016, p. A6). Jack Stripling (2016b) writes, “Simón Newman’s ‘drown the bunnies’ comment triggered the crisis that led to his resignation as the college’s president. But it was his temperament as a hard-nosed private-equity executive that may well have doomed his tenure from the start” (p. Al). Newman carne from the business world, and the university hoped he would bring a new visión for efficiency and fiscal effectiveness. Prior the controversy, “the Catholic institution’s board credited Newman with ‘strengthening the university’s finances, developing a comprehensive strategic plan for our future and bringing many new ideas to campus’” (R. B., 2016, p. 15). The assessment of Mount St. Mary’s board is quite typical of the opinions of governing boards when they hire business people to guide academic institutions. The thinking seems to focus on the financial matters of the college or university and to express a desire for a particular sort of efficiency. In too many instances, though, “efficiency” is not a well-defined criterion. Efficiency in a business like a private-equity company is not likely to equal efficiency in a college or university. Also, and notably, effectiveness may receive short shrift, and effectiveness may be the criterion that deserves the most attention. Before delving more deeply into the neoliberal State of affairs in higher education, I believe it is important to paint a clearer picture of what educational institutions should be like and how they fail to live up to the ideal. It is necessary once again to draw from Ian Shapiro. He speaks of the modes of govemance that exist, but he says, “Modes of govemance should be contextually designed and redesigned, with a sfrong presumption o f deference to insiders” (Shapiro, 2016, p. 33; italics added). He also adds that “public institutions differ because there is no superordinate good” (Shapiro, 2016, p. 33). I must take issue with him when it comes to higher education. Almost all colleges and universities have a mission statement that places teaching and leaming first, research and scholarship second, and public Service third. These missions do tend to form a superordinate good, at least rhetorically. What seems to have happened in “postmodem” (I use the term reluctantly and in Jean-Fransois Lyotard’s sense) higher education is that the mission actually has been abandoned and revenue generation has taken precedence among administrators. The Mount St. Mary’s case affirms this assertion. Shapiro (2016) adds, “Politics differs in that it is concemed in the last instance, as well as in the first, with managing power relations” (p. 33). Col­ iges and universities are, in many cases, political institutions, frequently to e detriment of the stated mission. The existence as political bodies means at power relations can lead to domination, to the point of faculty and ents becoming the disempowered. As might be expected, this State of

60

Chapter 3

affairs produces substantial tensions. The neoliberal groundings are consequentially responsible for the tensions and the power strains. There is little need here to detail the many corporate executives who are leading or have taken over the administraron of colleges and universities. There is also little need to detail some of the effects of the commodification of higher education; I addressed it at length in Higher Education 's Purpose (Budd, 2009): “If the pursuit of knowledge and truth, through teaching and inquiry, in just institutions is indeed the chosen purpose, then there are no customers. . . . If . . . higher education is some form of public good, the language of profit and markets obscures purpose” (Budd, 2009, pp. 78-79). Some of the difficulty is addressed in chapter 2, on information literacy; Jean-Fran^ois Lyotard’s assessment of the postmodern condition in educa­ tion is documented there. The indictments by Lyotard and others speak volumes. All this said, the spirit and actions of neoliberal forces in higher education should be reviewed to some extent so that the foundation of a deleterious dimensión of college and university management can be fully understood. Mission has been mentioned, but what constitutes the statement of a mission? Stefan Collini (2012) ponders his institution’s mission state­ ment: “It’s—well, it’s hard to say what it is: it’s kind of a cross between an extended dictionary defínition of the term ‘university’ and an advertising brochure for an upmarket health club” (p. 133). The University of Missouri mission statement is: Our distinct mission, as Missouri’s only state-supported member o f the Association o f American Universities, is to provide all Missourians the benefíts o f a world-class research university. We are stewards and builders o f a priceless State resource, a unique physical infrastructure and scholarly environment in which our tightly interlocked missions o f teaching, research, Service and economic development work together on behalf o f all citizens. Students work side by side with some o f the world’s best faculty to advance the arts and human­ ices, the Sciences and the professions. Scholarship and teaching are daily driven by a commitment to public Service— the obligation to produce and disseminate knowledge that will improve the quality o f life in the State, the nation and the world. (University o f Missouri, 2017)

The first identification of the institution is with a club—the Association of American Universities—that purports to be the premier North American re­ search university group. It then identifies itself as a “world-class research university.” Only later is teaching mentioned (although learning is not). Some additional digging calis parts of the mission statement into question. For example, according to the Institutional Research Office, there were 1,122 tenured and tenure-track faculty members in 2015. However, in 2006 there were 1,224. Also, in 2015 there were 851 nontenured faculty members; in 2006, there were 536. To explore even further, there were 28,253 students in

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

61

2006, but in 2015 there were 35,448. It would seem that the opportunities to work with some of the world’s best faculty have diminished over time if sheer numbers provide any indication. Is the mission statement disingenuous? The sorts of numbers just mentioned—in particular, the numbers related to faculty—are not unique to the University of Missouri. Moreover, the phenomenon is not new. Richard Ohmann (2003) says, “Cióse to half of college teachers are part-timers now, and a third of full-timers on short contracts— figures that leave out the army of gradúate students teaching for small wages on the way to careers that may not happen” (p. 87). There may be more attention of late paid to what Collini (2012) identifíes as efficiency for the institutions (pp. 133-35). The data presented here demand scrutiny. Where is student learning in higher education today? Is it a priority for colleges and universities? Does something else take precedence? ENTER NEOLIBERALISM The first point that needs to be made is that a critique of neoliberalism is not a blanket condemnation of everything that capitalism is and does. It is, however, damning of excesses of a certain type of faith in markets—faith that eliminates individual agency and allows market forces to be deterministic of social relations. A second point is that neoliberalism means different things to different people. For the most part, the meaning stems from the idealism of the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century. Without going into detail, the liberalism of, say, John Stuart Mili was intended to be a positive, rectifying means of thinking and acting in response to a largely reactionary State of affairs. Jamie Peck (2010) offers an examination of the multifarious uses of “neoliberalism”: Neoliberalism, it will be argued here, has only ever existed in “impure” form, indeed can only exist in messy hybrids. Its utopian visión o f a free society and free economy is ultimately unrealizable. . . . Ironically, neoliberalism possesses a Progressive, forward-leaming dynamic by virtue o f the very unsustainability of its idealized destination. In practice, neoliberalism has never been about a once-and-for-all liberalization, an evacuation o f the State, (p. 7; italics in original)

In reality, no conception of neoliberalism eliminates the State from consideration; rather, the State is usurped under a market-driven economic presence at concerns itself with transactions that in practice can exert a deterministic °rce on social relations. Even Peck (2010) accepts the negative power, statln8» Neoliberalism has achieved this (ecologically) dominant position by yanously exploiting, reflecting, and intensifying conditions of globalizing economic turbulence since the 1970s” (p. 29). A lesson that Peck leaves with

62

Chapter 3

us is that we have to be careful with the language we use to describe neoliberalism. A number of individuáis have proffered definitions of neoliberalism, but David Harvey (2005) says succinctly, “It holds that the social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market” (p. 3). Harvey (2005) further writes, In the event o f a conflict, the typical neoliberal State will tend to side with a good business climate as opposed to either the collective rights (and quality o f life) o f labour or the capacity o f the environment to regenérate itself. The second arena o f bias arises because, in the event o f a conflict, neoliberal States typically favour the integrity o f the fínancial system and the solvency o f financial institutions over the well-being o f the population or environmental quality. (PP. 70-71)

According to Harvey (2005), Accumulation by dispossession comprises four main features: 1. Privatization and commodification. 2. Financialization. 3. The management and manipulation of crises. 4. State redistributions. (pp. 160-63; italics in original)

In Harvey’s model, the State itself falls prey to neoliberalism and is guilty of the flaws and faults thereof. Harvey’s words describe an aspect of higher education today. As leaders of single-campus and multicampus systems are hired from the prívate sector and as goveming boards seek such candidates, the environmental climate of campuses are altered. Corporate leaders do have a tendency to transíate business models and operations to colleges and universities. In short, higher education institutions are, more and more, managed as though they were businesses. There is indeed conflict on a number of campuses; this theme will be discussed further a bit later. Within this neoliberalist conception, education and educational institu­ tions are also market-driven entities characterized by transactional relationships. For example, a student at a university is in such a relationship; the market (not the university) is the standard by which the student’s education would (and should) be judged. All the functions and actions of the university ought to be directed to the general market and structured in such a way that a student’s/graduate’s benefits can be assessed in market terms. On some cam­ puses, administrators and others have questioned the need for some disci­ plines that do not lead directly to well-paying jobs after graduation. To some extent, this criticism is directed at a need for more graduates in Science,

What Roles Do Accidemic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

63

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM fields). That concern has some legitimacy, but it is questionable whether programs in art, history, sociology, philosophy, and so on should be starved so that students major in STEM fields. It is, in fact, questionable whether someone who would desire to become, say, an anthropologist would become an engineer if the anthropology department were cut. Alain Touraine (2001) agrees with Harvey and offers his take on the current predicament: ‘in this new society, social actors, social issues and social relations are being transformed, and have already undergone profound transformations. . . . The defming feature of capitalism is that change is managed by the market; that of socialism is the dominant role played by the State” (pp. 8-9). He goes on to say that “it is not so much the economic as the social situation that has encouraged the mass diffusion of a capitalist ideology which suits both right- and left-wing social conservad ves, as well as the golden boys of the financial world” (Touraine, 2001, p. 17). Touraine’s analysis has much merit; there is indeed a social transformation that takes place in higher education. Classes must have sufficient enrollment for there to be a “profif ’ (and profit here is recognized to be revenue that exceeds the costs for any particular class). Where the revenue is substantially in excess of the costs, there is deemed to be efficiency. The faculty teaching such classes are usually seen as also being effective. I mention that latter point because effectiveness is, more and more, couched in financial terms. The difference between efficiency and effectiveness can even be said to be perverted in the most extreme instances; there must be cost recovery wherever possible. The alteration that becomes evident comes in the social action of the teachers, who are pressured to teach courses that will have larger enrollment. At some institutions, the alteration can manifest itself as a preference for undergraduate classes rather than gradúate classes since there are more potential undergraduate enrollees. The content of classes, the need for certain types of leaming, and the levels of instruction may fall by the wayside. One of the most vocal critics of neoliberalism is Henry Giroux, who has written many pieces on the subject. Giroux’s work tends to be more polemical than analytical, but that fact does not lessen the valué of his assessment. By way of example, one can turn to his claim that “Americans are now convinced that they have little to hope for—and gain from—the government, nonprofit public spheres, democratic associations, public and higher educa­ ron, and other nongovemmental social forces” (Giroux, 2004, p. 105). Gi­ roux clearly recognizes that education exists in a complex social and political niilieu; he sees the locus of teaching and learning as essential to the individu^.and Polis. “Pedagogy looms large . .. not as a technique or a priori set methods but as a political and moral practice. As a political practice, ^gogy illuminates the relationship among power, knowledge, and ideolo(Giroux, 2004, p. 119). More recently, Giroux has turned his attention

64

Chapter 3

specifically to neoliberalism and higher education, where he examines the forcé the ideology has on institutional, social, and individual action (Giroux, 2014). In many ways, he echoes the prescient words of Touraine (2001): “When actions are based on what people do not have . . . and not upon the recognition of a function or qualification, there is always a danger that the creation of social actors will become divorced from the political and ideological denunciation of an unfair order” (p. 64). As we will see, the unfair order can take on a multitude of forms; Touraine’s waming will become clear. Others have written about the forcé of neoliberal ideáis as they extend to colleges and universities. For example: Neo-liberalism has spread its clutches globally in the sphere o f higher educa­ tion. Its powerful discourse can be witnessed in terms o f change in public higher policy. The basis has shifted from a traditional welfare approach to a more privatized, market-oriented approach. The self-interested individual, free market economics, a commitment to laissez-fairism and free trade are the defining characteristics o f this “new brand o f neo-liberalism” that has fundamentally brought changes in higher education policy. (Gupta, 2015, p. 6)

The idea of a welfare approach is not common among critiques, but it does point out a particular economic theoretic situatedness for higher education. Tania Gupta (2015) continúes, “Marketing in education is right out front. The increased demand for higher education has led to changes in the supply. Higher education, initially a government-supported Service has entered the marketplace. Govemments are not thinking much on how the universities are managed” (p. 10). Governments are, however, thinking about the appropriations to public higher education. Some govemments are sympathetic to the needs of the institutions; others appear to be hostile. Where are we left with the recent actions by corporate bodies and the State? Harvey (2005) claims, By Marx’s standards o f freedom, and almost certainly by that laid out by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, neoliberalization would surely be regarded as a monumental failure. For those left or cast outside the market system— a vast reservoir o f apparently disposable people bereft o f social protections and supportive social structures— there is little to be expected from neoliberalization except poverty, hunger, disease, and despair. (p. 185)

Those in higher education are not going hungry, but for many in a number of institutions, benefits have been reduced and the costs of those benefits (such as health care and retirement) have risen. Tamar Lewin (2014) points out that students face more severe problems: At most public universities, only 19 percent o f full-time students eam a bachelor’s degree in four years, the report [by Complete College America] found.

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

65

Even at State flagship universities— selective, research-intensive institutions— only 36 percent o f full-time students complete their bachelor’s degree on time. Nationwide, only 50 o f more than 580 public four-year institutions gradúate a majority o f their full-time students on time. Some o f the causes o f slow student progress, the report said, are inability to register for required courses, credits lost in transfer and remediation sequences that do not work.

It takes most students more than four years to complete a four-year bache­ lor’s degree program. From Lewin’s article, it is evident that many institu­ tions are not doing or are not capable of doing enough to help students finish on time. Add to the stated problems the cost of earning a degree, and the delay in completion becomes a serious concern. Jillian Berman (2015) reports that the average student debí for graduates in 2015 is more than $35,000, which is about $2,000 more (on average) than for graduates in 2014. Given that some graduates will have little or no debt, the figure can be staggering. Individuáis who are starting their lives in careers are already forced to pay large sums each month just in student loans. Questions arise that beg to be answered: Do colleges and universities care about the debt with which their graduates are encumbered? Is there anything the institutions can do to reduce the indebtedness? Does the State (writ large) care about the individuáis? Is there anything the State can do? In the neoliberalized condition, the graduates will be paying substantial amounts to lenders, primarily prívate lenders. Add to this dilemma the fací that many people default on their loans, throwing the ideal Financial structure into disarray. The answers to the above questions are elusive, but the responsibility of the State may have some data to examine. In the 2013 fiscal year, the State appropriations to the University of Iowa constituted 33.3 percent of general education revenues; in 2016, the percentage was 32.8. The difference is not much, but the time period is short. In 2013, the percentage of revenue from tuition and fees was 59.6; in 2016, it was 61.2. If it is assumed that Iowa is not atypical, the State is doing less to support higher education and students are paying a more substantive share. In short, students are paying transaction fees to institutions of higher leaming plus transaction fees to lenders that make higher education possible for many students. The trends are not new °nes; neoliberalization, as Harvey calis it, has been taking place for quite some time. That said, there is acceleration in the pace of the phenomenon in higher education. Another example is the tenure predicament at the University of Wisconsm. Colleen Flaherty (2016) offers this quote: “‘I do not believe the academy ls precisely like a business,’ Regina Millner, board president, said at the rneeting. ‘But we cannot have quality, serve our students, have quality faculj 1 We do not have a sound Financial system. This is a different century, this uterent time. . . . We need to protect that quality by making certain

66

Chapter 3

critical decisions.’” The idea that tenure is in any way connected to the finances of an institution has been shown to be false (see Budd, 2009). In fact, not even salary raises for faculty affect the college’s or university’s fiscal State. Tenure exists to provide academic freedom for faculty members. However, if the above-mentioned trend in hiring nontenure-track personnel (as is evident at the University of Missouri) continúes, freedom—affirmed and solidified by tenure—could be eroded. At the University of Wisconsin, the protections of tenure have been diminished in the ñame of sound financial policy, a claim that is disingenuous on its face. Flaherty (2015) says, “But many professors and other observers said the roller coaster hit a new low Friday afternoon when the State Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee approved, by a vote of 12-4, the elimination of tenure from State statute. The committee also approved adding new limits to the faculty role in shared governance and procedures for eliminating faculty members in good standing outside of financial exigency.” The political State of affairs affecting the University of Wisconsin-Madison may be having an impact on research and development (R & D) spending and ranking. In 2008, the university ranked second in the nation in R & D expenditures; in 2014, it ranked fourth. In addition, the university spent more on research in 2011 than it did in 2014 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2016). More recently, there has been a vote of no confidence in the University of Wisconsin System president: The Faculty Senate o f the University o f Wisconsin at Madison on Monday [May 2, 2016] voted no confidence in Ray Cross, president o f the University o f Wisconsin System, and in the system’s Board o f Regents. The vote follows the board’s rejections o f proposals made by faculty groups that they said would protect academic freedom in new system policies on tenure and the elimination o f faculty jobs. (Jaschik, 2016)

Votes of no confidence are not common, and most frequently, extraordinary matters prompt such action. The efforts to diminish tenure at one of the nation’s great universities seems to be valid cause for concern since the repercussions of the move will likely have extremely dire impact on teaching and learning and research, as well as the recruitment and retention of faculty. The president of the Board of Regents States, “The Board of Regents has total confidence in President Ray Cross. Most Regents will be disappointed by this overreaction to the Board’s decisión to put in place very reasonable and fair tenure and layoff policies—something the legislature directed us to do as parí of the State budget” (University of Wisconsin System, 2016). The president and the board do not appear, at the present time, to be taking the faculty vote seriously. There is no way to determine yet what the resolution may be. Faculty, under these kinds of official provisions, become subject to transactions. A major difficulty is that the faculty members are not part of the

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

67

transactions; they are the objects of the transactions. Faculty member’s very agency is removed from the setting of the university; they are treated only as assets or liabilities. To further the dilemma, it is not made evident what constitutes an asset or a liability. What, for example, would define quality teaching? If an individual attracts a substantial amount of extemal funding, would that secure the person’s position at the university? Could students effect the removal of a faculty member? Could a State legislator who disagrees with the manner in which a faculty member teaches or researches effectively “fire” the individual? Are there any safeguards for free speech on campuses? Wisconsin is not the only State to contémplate such legislative action. lt could be that campuses across the country may soon be afflicted with an absence of freedom. Could this prompt the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to contémplate its most serious penalty— sanction? The foregoing statement hints at dissatisfaction with (especially) public colleges and universities in the United States. The neoliberal response is just one reaction to the current condition of higher education. In Missouri, the State General Assembly has a resolution being discussed to establish an eight-member legislative oversight commission. The commission would be given sweeping influence over the day-to-day operations of the University of Missouri (see Cagle, 2016). The General Assembly of Missouri is of the opinión that the university is not fulfilling its educational and fiduciary responsibilities. With that in mind, legislators desire more control over the institution’s operations. Since this resolution is now pending, it is diffícult to tell what repercussions will ensue. MORE ON HIGHER EDUCATION There are organizations that purport to be watchdogs over higher education. For example, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), founded in 1995, is an activist organization that insists on (among other things) accountability on campuses. One example is their statement relating to teacher education: Launched in 2000, Trustees for Better Teachers is an initiative aimed at helping trustees understand how they can best be involved in improving teacher education in the United States. ACTA’s report “Teachers Who Can: How Informed Trustees Can Ensure Teacher Quality” identifies the critical problems in teacher education, outlines the principies and criteria for an excellent teacher preparation program, along with real-life examples o f programs that Wrk in practice, along with step-by-step action plan for trustees. (American ouncil of Trustees and Alumni, n.d.)

68

Chapter 3

ACTA was originally funded by right-leaning donors and foundations, but its remit has become broader over time. Its purpose is essentially to promote a higher level of advocacy among trustees of colleges and universities, demanding accountability and asserting a more active role in institutional govemance. ACTA openly States that one of the issues it has embraced is institutional reform. This is an issue that many trustees have gotten on board with, according to some reports (see Stripling, 2016a). A goal is to create a more adversarial role (for lack of a better term) for trustees in the sense that they are not to be mere members of a team that moves at its own pace and in its own direction. To be sure, governing boards should not be lickspittles for institutional administrations. The question to be asked is: To what extent should trustees be thoms in the sides of administrators? There are necessary checks and balances of which boards are part, but should there be antagonism for its own sake? Another group that has been critical of higher education practices is Students for Academic Freedom, which has propounded the “Academic Bill of Rights.” While the group purports to advócate for academic freedom and truth, the defínitions of academic freedom do not always reconcile with a quest for truth. Rather, the Academic Bill of Rights implies that one person’s beliefs are as legitímate as anyone else’s and teaching should be accepting of what is said by anyone in a classroom regardless of point of view, basis in fací or truth, or fit with (among other things) scientifíc foundation. For instance, the document States that “no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through any other administrative means by the academic institution” (Students for Academic Freedom, n.d.). The foregoing statement appears to be accepting of all ideas, but the actuality is that there is supposed to be a neutrality that is antithetical to the goals of educa­ tion and the quest for truth. For more on the Academic Bill of Rights, see Budd (2015, p. 148). A faculty-based organization is the National Association of Scholars (ÑAS). It was founded in 1987 by Stephen Balch, and its statement of pur­ pose is to “confront the rising threat of politicization of colleges and univer­ sities and to summon faculty members back to the principies of liberal educa­ tion and disciplined intellectual inquiry” (National Association of Scholars, n.d.a). The organization articulates a set of ideas related to academic contení:• • • • • • • •

Hollowing out o f liberal education Politicization o f the classroom Trivialization o f scholarship and teaching Disappearance o f core curricula Neglect o f important books Marginalization o f key subjects Declining study o f Western civilization

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today? • •

69

Overemphasis on the current, popular, marginal, ephemeral Overemphasis on issues o f race, gender, class, sexual orientation (National Association o f Scholars, n.d.b)

The ideas are presumptuous; there is an overt claim that none of the things they make claims for exists on college and university campuses. Also, the ideal of removing politics from the classroom is disingenuous; what is desired is the removal of liberal or left-leaning politics in favor of conservative, right-leaning politics. The actual proclivities of the ÑAS are clearly evident in the “Attitudes” section: • • • • • • •

Systematic denigration o f American society Denial o f the possibil ity o f truth and disinterestedness Condescension toward the non-academic world Anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom orientations Complacency toward divisive group entitlements Marketing college as the only path to success Assuming a college degree signifies an education (National Association o f Scholars, n.d.b)

The claims in the “Attitudes” section are very revealing. The ÑAS is assuredly political in its own way, even as it critiques the political. Some of the assertions are decidedly questionable, such as that of the “denigration of American society.” Others deserve attention and consideration, such as the claim that college is the only path to success (there is a need for skilled labor that may not be filled by four-year college educations). Investigaron of organizations like the ÑAS requires a thoroughgoing analysis; unfortunately, that investigation is not possible with the constraints of this chapter. There are many critics of the present State of higher education, and more observations that have been made about the State of affairs. See my book Higher Education ’s Purpose (Budd, 2009) for more of these kinds of comments. But criticism is not the only action taken by individuáis and groups. David Levinthal (2014) reports on contributions to departments in a number of colleges and universities by David and Charles Koch, both directly and through their foundations. In 2012, the Koch brothers gave $12.7 million to institutions of higher leaming. Levinthal (2014) goes on to State, “The Koch foundations together have also spent millions more to fund dozens of acaemic scholarships and internships, numerous think tanks and educationocused organizations.” The donations sometimes carry explicit conditions; e $1.5 million given to Florida State University for faculty in the econom­ ía ^ artment included the fíat that an advisory committee appointed by fa °i re^ esentati°ns oversee hiring and conduct annual evaluations of the br ^ rec*‘ The neoliberal imperative is clear. For more on the Koch ers activities in higher education, see Mayer (2016).

70

Chapter 3

It probably goes without saying that many of the challenges that colleges and universities face today are external to the institutions. The recession that began in 2008 had multifarious negative effects on higher education. States lost tax revenue, which led to low government appropriations to public col­ leges and universities, for example. Also, enrollments and retention have been affected over the last few years. Add to these things the fact that the federal government has reduced research funding, and many institutions— public and prívate—have come upon hard times. Institutions of several types have been in competition for students, resources, external funding, and other arenas for some time. At present, this competition may be as fierce as it has ever been. This prompts Derek Bok (2013) to say, Paradoxically, the spirit o f competition that so often pervades the activity of colleges and universities has also been at the root o f many o f its problems. The effort and initiative that rivalry inspires are all to the good when directed toward goals that are clearly worthwhile. They are not so advantageous, however, when universities compete with one another in pursuing aims o f a more questionable nature. (p. 389)

What would be goals of a questionable nature? At times, seeking increased enrollment can be questionable, especially when faculty resources are wanting, which can lead to large classes, extended teaching assistants, and suffering learning objectives. More is not always better. Also, as Bok (2013) mentions, institutional efforts aimed solely at advancing the rankings of the institution and its academic programs can have some deleterious effects on the missions of colleges and universities. He also points to institutions trying to gain prestige by creating “publish-or-perish” predicaments for their facul­ ty, especially when the institutions have not been research intensive (Bok, 2013, p. 390). The greater emphasis on publication (as well as conference presentations and the attraction of external funding) may be based on a notion that institu­ tional prestige will be enhanced. A common outcome, however, is a major change in the culture of the university. If, for instance, an institution had a focus on teaching and learning (along with a fairly heavy teaching load for faculty—say, three or more courses per semester), the work of the faculty members probably has been concentrated on the preparation of course con­ tení, time spent with students, and attention to the evaluation of students’ learning. It may be that many of the faculty members on this hypothetical campus have spent careers developing effective pedagogical methods and have developed meaningful assessment mechanisms. Suddenly, the means of evaluation of faculty is changed. The faculty members are to become transformed into the kinds of scholars who produce Ítems that can be published and can add to a plethora of work that crowds journals and competes for the attention of readers. The skills—and more importantly, the cultures—are not

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

71

readily transferrable, whatever administrators may think. Bok is correct to criticize such moves. The communicative actions related to teaching effectively and writing for publication are by no means the same. Some individu­ áis can succeed at both, but it is more customary that an individual will have uneven strengths. WHAT CAN WE LOOK FORWARD TO Politically, it appears that there may be some difficult times ahead in several States. The predicament in Wisconsin may be extreme, but the deterioration of public funding (as is evident from the above example of Missouri) is not uncommon. One measure of the political State of affairs is the amount of State appropriations for higher education. According to the Digest o f Education Statistics, 2013 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015), in fiscal year 2005-2006 the State appropriations figure for all public institutions in the United States was approximately $58,720,000,000. By fiscal year 2011-2012, the total amount was $58,789,000,000—virtually no change at all. Michael Crow and William Dabars (2015) provide an example of funding for Arizona State University: In 2008, the amount of State support per fulltime equivalent (FTE) student was $7,976; in 2012, the figure was $4,134 (p. 290). If we assume that salaries and wages will rise by some dollar amount— and that there will be infrastructure and technology cost increases—it is not a surprise that tuition and fees must rise in order to meet those increases. In other words, the costs have shifted to the students and their families directly rather than the indirect costs (through taxes) paying that amount. Referring back to the data on numbers of faculty at the University of Missouri (above), it does seem that some institutions are trying to keep some costs in check. Another datum is telling. According to the Digest (National Center for Edu­ cation Statistics, 2015), the number of full-time faculty increased, on aver­ i e , by 28.9 percent from 1999 to 2011. During that period, the number of full-time professional staff increased by 43.5 percent. Granted, that time period saw increased amounts of federal regulations, but in 2011 the number of full-time professional staff was more than double the number of full-time faculty. There needs to be systemic examination of the operations of colleges and universities, with institutional mission at the center of the analysis. Although it is impossible to offer a thoroughgoing analysis of the fiscal side of higher education (due to space constraints), some data and opinión, such as that which has been presented, is worthy of note. Some of the stated opmions are cr¡t¡cai 0f colleges and universities. For example, Dan Primack 1) states, Where is the university’s responsibility to its customers? Hell, where is its resPonsibility to America? Isn’t college designed to enhance a student’s future

72

Chapter 3 well-being and, in turn, that o f society at-large? How did it get corrupted to the point where higher education is the cause, rather than the solution, to so many o f our collective ills?

Primack expresses an outrage that is shared by many people, including many students and their families. The average student debt, mentioned above, is a high price to pay for a college degree. Ryan Craig (2015) says that “it is more likely that the purchase decisión is made in the context of asymmetric information: The institution knows or should know the fair valué of the product, but the purchaser is fairly clueless” (p. 19). These comments deserve attention and not merely because they are shared by so many people. For one thing, the notion that a university has customers is a problematic one. It is accurate to claim that students are paying for their educations, but the good of the college or the university (not just because most are nonprofit organizations) is something more than a simple product. The valué of an education cannot be reduced to a salary or even to lifetime eamings. There are valúes that transcend the marketplace and defy reduction to neoliberal measures. The worth of an education is greater than the graduation, employment, and income that Craig (2015) maintains should be the benchmark. Further, “well-being” cannot be reduced to employment and income. This is certainly not to say that preparation for employment is not important, but it is not the solé metric. It is also true that colleges and universities are fulfilling their goals and objectives with completeness and clarity (see, for instance, the discussion of general education requirements in Budd, 2009). Curricula could be reshaped to accomplish two purposes: (1) prepare students to be citizens in the United States and (2) offer knowledge, skills, and preparation for certain careers. The second purpose is a general one; it extends to all of postsecondary education. A two-year col­ lege can and should prepare graduates for specific kinds of career fields; a four-year university can and should set its sights on other kinds of careers. Taken as a whole, postsecondary education should be able to accomplish both purposes. An open question is whether the typical eighteen-year-old is able—on many levels—to succeed at what colleges and universities can offer. The cost issue is one that can only be touched upon here. A reality is that effective education is a cost-heavy endeavor. The business side of higher education—including maintenance, procurement of goods (including technology), housing, food Service, insurance, and so on—costs a great deal if the operations of the institutions are to provide at least adequate Services. The academic side has its expenses, but (again, as is shown above) those costs have been held in check to a considerable extent. Over the past couple oí decades or so, more universities have sought to attract external funding» primarily for research. One reason for the growth in the number of institu-

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

73

tions seeking grants and contraéis is increasing prestige, but another reason is garnering the financial support required to pay for some of the fundamental objectives of the universities. Unfortunately, the federal government has not been increasing appropriations to agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, that provide research funding. A portion of every grant or contract is dedicated to what is referred to as “facilities and administrative” costs. The very use of the physical plant is one of the costs, but so is the staffing to manage budgets and the regulations that frequently accompany grants. The direct costs inelude fee payments and stipends, typically for gradúate students, who learn to conduct research from the faculty investigators. These costs are largely unappreciated by the public and even by some within the institutions, but the number of universities competing for extemal funding is also cause for concern since it is costly to attempt to attract the grants and contraéis. A solution cannot be provided here, but to an extent, the phenomenon is a result of inadequate funding for colleges and universities. REFORM? It would seem that a fundamental question that would arise at this point in the discussion is, Does higher education need to be reformed? The corollary question that arises immediately is, If there should be reform, then in what direction and in what ways? Give the critique that precedes these questions, let us opérate under the assumption that reform is called for. One element of a basis for reform should keep the words of Louis Menand (2010) in mind: “The success of almost all our other business depends on [knowledge], but its valué is not only economic. The pursuit, production, dissemination, application, and preservation of knowledge are the central activities of a civiliza­ ron” (p. 13). The critics of higher education might grudgingly accept Menand’s premise but would probably emphasize the economic aspect. Where is the locus of, especially, the dissemination and preservation of knowledge? That would be colleges and universities (and their libraries). Menand (2010) further observes that knowledge is a kind of capital that is unequally distributed; perhaps academic libraries can help substantively in equalizing the capital equalization. This latter point—the equalization of at least access to knowledge—is of extreme importance. Of additional importance is the de^elopment of the wherewithal to make use of knowledge. That may seem to e a tautology but only if “knowledge” is defíned as “information” (in the sense of possessing sources of data and opinión). Otherwise, people need the cntical and reflective abilities to evalúate information in order to create Knowledge.

74

Chapter 3

While Menand makes an essentially important point, Crow and Dabars (2015, p. 25) add a commentary that should be considered as well. Today’s universities and their personnel are slicing and dicing elements of knowledge in ways that render knowledge less useful and less meaningful given that there is less likely to be substantive context and background—along with breadth—to enable people to make sense of it all. One could claim that the prevailing “publish-or-perish” paradigm, which necessitates (for faculty members who want to earn tenure and continué employment) creating more and more scholarly products, is a large component of the dilemma. If a faculty member in, say, the natural Sciences wants to succeed, then he or she will have to publish many articles in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals every year. These papers add to the information base and may actually counteract the utility of the literature of the field by virtue of the bulk of materials that are published plus the narrowness of the content of the articles. The overabundance of publications and information cali into question higher education’s ability to achieve the goal Menand describes. The “good” to society is a moot point; it is arguable that the practices of universities run counter to the growth of knowledge that can benefit civilization. In fací, the proliferation of literatures may run counter to the spirit of higher learning’s purpose of providing for teaching and learning, research, and Service. Crow and Dabars (2015) offer a visión that, if widely accepted, could help reform progress: “To establish [Arizona State University] as the model for a New American University, measured not by those whom we exelude, but rather by those whom we inelude and how they succeed; pursuing re­ search and discovery that benefits the public good; assuming major responsibility for the economic, social, and cultural vitality and health and wellbeing o f the community” (pp. 60-61; italics added). The key element of their visión is the public good and community well-being component. They maintain that universities have lost sight of this part of the mission of institutions, if not rhetorically, then in practice. Too many universities (and some colleges) have become rather solipsistic, seeing their own well-being—in the senses of fiscal health and prestige—as the primary mission in fact. If this diagnosis is correct (and I suggest, along with Crow and Dabars, that it is), then the public suffers, whether it knows it or not. The suffering comes in the diminution of the dissemination and growth (on individual and collective bases) of the knowledge of the polis. The last word is used deliberately because there are civil and political consequences to the lessening of a shared and operable knowledge base. One deleterious outeome is a diminished abil­ ity to absorb, assess, and reflect on what is claimed to be knowledge and fact. The outeome can be dire for a civilized society. William Massy (2016) makes the point that the United States has fallen, among developed nations, in the attainment of college degrees, and he comments on that phenomenon.

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

75

Crow and Dabars (2015) expand on their idea of the new American university: “Because knowledge is at once epistemological, administrative, and social . . . the design of a knowledge enterprise should never be considered finished business, not in design arbitrary or merely adventitious to the production of knowledge” (p. 117). The social well-being aspect, plus Menand’s thought, are evident in their admonition. Yes, there is a definite epistemolog­ ical element to what universities are supposed to be doing. The point made by Crow and Dabars is that this element is related to society as a whole. What is created as knowledge is of benefit to everyone and to the polis (as has been stated). This discussion does not elimínate the practical, the pragmatic. For example, materials Science is engaged in the development of new and improved products that can benefít, among other things, the engineering of the country’s infrastructure. Agricultural Sciences help create disease- and insect-resistant crops. Health Sciences allow clinicians to diagnose and treat people more effectively. Along with all these examples, history, philosophy, and literature studies enable people to comprehend the cultural and social worlds more completely and with substantive benefít. These are genuine reasons to create reformed educational missions and operations. Crow and Dabars (2015) make reference to J. Douglas Toma (2012), who suggests that universities have become “eerily similar in visión” and “seemingly obsessed with ‘moving to the next level,’” with the most prestigious institutions being the wealthiest (pp. 118,120). What, really, does prestige mean? More important, what good does “prestige” do for society? In general, as Massy (2016) points out, prestige may be directly attached to institutional wealth, as Toma (2012) says. The seeming tautology of prestige and wealth appears to be connected to selectivity of admissions (more students want to attend the prestigious institutions), salaries of faculty, amount of external funding attracted, and similar measures. The typical State (public) university is, by and large, unable to compete with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the Hke. These universities are not able to pay as well, have larger undergraduate populations (which require considerable resources directed at teaching, which tends not to be an important measure of prestige when large numbers °f students must be in classes), and in many instances, do not have the wherewithal to attract as much external funding or endowment contributions. Speaking of the last criterion, many public institutions have undertaken amitious capital campaigns in recent years so as to elevate their prestige. These CamPaigns require an enormous amount of attention and effort. One must wonder if the effort is directed at the meaning of the new American universitv^ur^ ^ a^S° ° ^ erec*a diagnosis and remedy for the traditional univer.ls suSgestions for remedial action are evident in his observations on a ails higher education:

76

Chapter 3 The academic business model as currently exercised by traditional universities harbors some fundamental ílaws and indeed is no longer sustainable. . . . Decades o f experience, research, and Consulting have convinced me that the most serious flaws fall into the following broad categories: (i) overdecentralization o f teaching activity, (ii) unmonitored joint production, (iii) dissociation o f educational quality from cost, (iv) lack o f good leaming metrics, and (v) overreliance on market forces. (Massy, 2016, p. 41)

There is a need for greater collaboration between educators and those who examine the functions and efficacy of learning, for one thing. Such collabora­ tion may lead to usable leaming metrics. Too little effort at research univer­ sities is given over to effective teaching. Markets have missed some important points with respect to universities in that there are valúes placed on operations that do not lead to genuine leaming; in other words, the prestige beast is fed, to a considerable extent, by market forces. According to Massy (2016), all of these shortcomings must be addressed if the university is to be reengineered. All this has merit, but we must remember that there are limits to the nature of research universities; other institutions probably do not suffer from the same flaws (or at least not nearly to the same extent). INFORMATION CONCERNS The discussion thus far has concentrated on certain aspects of higher education, including several economic and political elements. One of the aspects of higher education that has to be considered is the informational component (which has been touched on to a limited extent). Informational resources are essential to many of the functions related to the missions of teaching and leaming, research, and Service. In much of the literature on higher education (written primarily by current and former administrators of institutions, who tend to have certain topics in mind), informational resources, production, dissemination, and use receive rather short shrift. This is not necessarily a criticism of that literature since the authors have specifíc agendas they wish to press in their works. Nonetheless, information deserves some consideration, and that consideration is of interest to academic librarians and to professionals at large. Many faculty have some understanding of the informational concerns, but librarians may well have a deeper and more sophisticated appreciation of the challenges that are present. After all, it is the librarians who help colleges and universities achieve their missions through informationrelated Services (including information literacy Services, addressed in chapter A recently published book by David Brown (2016) covers a great swathe of territory in addressed scientiflc communication in the United Kingdonj (and a great deal of what he writes has universal application). For a very fu

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

11

treatment of the many issues, his book is highly recommended. Some of the issues that he raises will be addressed in the remainder of this chapter. One of the matters taken up is the subscription model of dissemination. This is actually an increasingly complex issue that manifests itself differently in different disciplines. It is almost axiomatic that in scientific, technological, engineering, and medical (STEM) fields researchers are communicating outside the traditional subscription-joumal model. Many researchers post drafts of their work to their own web sites, to institutional repositories (about which more will be said later), or to preprint Services. One of the major preprint Services is arXiv (http://arxiv.org/), which covers several disciplines, including physics, mathematics, and Computer Science. Researchers can deposit their work in arXiv prior to submitting papers to formal journals. The upshot of the preprint Communications is that fellow researchers can read and react to work before it gets published in the joumal literature. In some senses, journals become an archiving mechanism and a stable resource of record for the work that has been conducted, but in fields such as physics, joumal publication is no longer the first resource in the communication of work. It should be noted that these resources are not, by and large, peer reviewed. The journal literature does provide this “value-added” Service. It is of interest that David Brown (2016) asserts that a false assumption with regard to scientific communication is that “Peer Review and Refereeing is inviolate.. . . There is a growing clash between the ‘dynamic or live document’ which supports a real-time and interactive approach to scientific communication, and the ‘min­ utes of Science’ which provided the building bricks on which Science has been based” (p. 76). The formal journal literature still cannot be denied or, at this point in time, diminished. (This is said even though numerous commentators claim that the days of scientific journals are numbered.) For one thing, this formal communication is still, more or less, “currency of the realm” in many disci­ plines, more heavily represented in the humanities and social Sciences. For another, the formal representation of publication is evaluated in higher edu­ cation; it forms much of the basis of a faculty member’s curriculum vitae. This phenomenon is one of the major connections between information and higher education. As is stated above, there is an expectation on the part of mstitutions that their faculty publish work in top-tier, high-prestige journals. In part, it is having the faculty member’s ñame and affíliation in those jour­ nals that contribute to the prestige—and ranking—of the institutions. The prestige related to publishing naturally (or unnaturally) leads to the Pressure to publish. Metrics adopted by organizations like the Association of erican Universities (AAU; www.aau.edu/) emphasize such measures as t . ers °f publications (in certain journals), numbers of conference presen­ i l ? 8 ^at national and intemational conferences), and attraction of extemal lng from particular sources. What occurs is a kind of arms race when it

78

Chapter 3

comes to such things as publications. More is deemed better by members of the organizations—in raw numbers and by per capita measures. It should be stated that membership in some organizations, the AAU included, is very limited to a relatively small set of universities. As Toma (2012) has commented, the wealthiest institutions tend to be the highest-ranking universities. The wealthier institutions are, in general, more favorably placed to attract external funding for research, which pays for both basic and applied inquiry, which (in turn) tends to result in greater numbers of publications. The rich get richer in terms of prestige (although the major public universities are under the budgetary gun in several States). It is an open question whether some of the traditionally high-prestige public universities will be able to maintain their rankings (see above for the data on the University of Wisconsin-Madison). While the high-prestige universities are limited in number (for library measures, there is the Association of Research Libraries; www.arl.org/), there has been a kind of “mission creep” in institutions that are not members of the aforementioned associations. That is, other institutions are trying to emulate the pressures being placed on the high-prestige institutions’ faculty members. For example, a regional State university may well have increased the required numbers of publications for its faculty to earn tenure and to be promoted. This move has a number of effects: more time and effort is needed on the part of faculty members to meet the requirements; greater pressure is placed on personnel to produce more than they were previously required to; and teaching and leaming pays a price because of this pressure. The mission of such a university has to be altered for this transformation to take place, if not rhetorically, then in fact. The question that must be asked is whether this emphasis on the production of more informational producís serves the purposes that the university exists to serve. This is not a trivial question, as Massy (2016) has said; the quality of leaming becomes lessened as priorities shift to the production of informational works. Another concern related to these phenomena is the bulk of producís that get created. As more and more floods the journal sphere, attention is challenged; it is more and more difficult for scholars and students to lócate and absorb the work that is produced. A challenge is that useful material is missed. A corollary challenge is that a considerable amount of time and effort must go into the location of potentially useful work. Imagine conducting a search in a disciplinary database and trying to create a search string that should retrieve a manageable number of hits. Yet the results number in the hundreds. Can a searcher/reader maneuver through the results effectively? H has to be realized, however, that there are topics that attract attention because there is a lot of attention paid to the topics. It is almost as though some topics grow in number of works through a viral expansión. That is, the amount o works leads to more works being produced. Contributing to the growth is the

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

19

focus of journals on particular topics; it may be easier to publish on those topics than on other subjects. There is a related phenomenon that can take place: less popular topics may not find places in the journals. So another searcher may construct a search string and may fmd very little on the desired topic. This is not necessarily a negative action, but it may indícate to the searcher that the topic in question may have a lesser chance of being published; it may not be in vogue or fashionable at a particular time. This is not to say that the work will not be published, but the results may affect the work of the searcher/writer. David Brown (2016) refers to a problem that is seldom spoken of in conversations about information access—the inability of some researchers to retrieve some kinds of published works (Research Information NetWork, 2011). The principal difficulties aróse for researchers outside academe (only 5.4 percent of respondents in universities said that access was “poor” or “very poor”). Remember, Brown’s focus, and that of the study, is on UK researchers. While the percentage of respondents who said that access was “poor” or “very poor” is low, it could still be seen as troubling. David Brown (2016) also illustrates that the tide is changing worldwide from print to digital media in the transmission of scientific research. A point that could be made is that the digital initiatives are forces that cannot be stopped. This does not mean that traditional publishers, especially print publishers and distributers of formal digital journals, are not working very hard to maintain their position in the communication business. Brown cites Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979), who provide evidence that those lagging behind in almost any endeavor will fight more vigorously than will “winners” to solidify and retain their positions. This raises a question regarding how long the traditional publishing model will last. Traditional production models may have limited futures, but at the present time commercial scientific journal publishers have very healthy bottom lines. At the end of 2014, the gross revenue of Reed Elsevier was €7,159,000,000. The gross profit was €1,738,000,000 or 24.3 percent (RELX Group, 2014). The company’s Scientific, Technical, and Medical División was more profitable, grossing 37.2 percent. Not only does the latter percent­ age ¡Ilústrate the profitability of the business, but it hints at the extremely high prices charged for producís. David Brown (2016) reaches the logical conclusión: “Research libraries’ funding sources are divorced from the creation of research results. Budgets are not being aligned with output, and as such research libraries have difficulties maintaining a credible collection in an era o f‘digital information overload’” (p. 62; italics added). The misalignment with production is a phenomenon that is not widely discussed and that Phh ^ ^ C*ear^ understood by institutional administrators. According to 1 Davis (2014), library budgets, as a percentage of the institutional budget, ave shrunk from 3.7 percent in 1984 to 1.8 percent in 2011. The figures

80

Chcipter 3

affirm Brown’s eloquent assessment of the plight of academic libraries. Some libraries are experiencing severe budget shortfalls. The University of Missouri Libraries’ budget for fiscal year 2017 will be reduced by $1.2 million. Twenty percent of that amount will come from library materials (http://library.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016_May26_ library_budget_communication.pdf). David Brown (2016) enumerates some particular challenges that are affecting university research now and in the immediate future: competition (for students, among other things); digital technology (having an impact on On­ line education and the production of knowledge); globalization (the internationalization of both teaching and research); democratization (the amount of information readily accessible online); and industry (partnerships between universities and corporate entities; pp. 238-39). As he says, “These changes have raised questions about the viability of many universities which rely on revenues from traditional teaching and research Services” (D. Brown, 2016, p. 239). One of the areas of concern has to do with the prívate (especially corporate) funding of university research. Questions arise regarding the independence of the academic research if there are funders who might have their own agendas relating to research results and their dissemination (see, for example, https://explorable.com/research-grant-funding). Some corporations that fund academic research insist that researchers sign agreements to delay dissemination of the results of the work. The embargo is intended to give the company funding the research a competitive advantage in the marketplace by being able to use the research results before competing companies can see the results. The ethics of such agreements and embargoes is questionable at best given the missions of universities. If federal research funding is not increased, it is to be expected that academic institutions will seek altemative sources of funding. The world of information production and dissemination is defínitely affected by the kinds of research support that researchers have. For example, Jalees Rehman (2012) States, Many Clinical research studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies and there is a general perception that such industry-based funding could potentially skew the results in favor o f a new medication or device. The rationale underlying this perception regarding the influence o f industry funding is fairly straightforward. Pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers need to increase the sales o f newly developed drugs or devices in order to generate adequate profits.

The concems about these kinds of phenomena will be discussed further in the chapter on ethics. Meanwhile, the present State and the future of academic inquiry is in a complicated way; there is, as has been said, increased pressure to publish and attract extemal funding, but competition is fierce.

Whcit Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

81

WHERE ACADEMIC LIBRARIES FIT All of the above have ramifications for academic libraries and librarians. For one thing, libraries cannot keep pace with the price increases in academic communication producís, especially journals (individually and in the aggregate). Budget cuts and budget shortfalls are not uncommon, particularly since 2008. This is not news; librarians everywhere are accustomed to dealing with budgetary predicaments. What is still an open question is, What is the most effective means by which to address the communication dilemma? The ques­ tion is framed this way because the problem is not simply one of money (although money enters into any potential solution). Most people recognize that the prices of information producís are not sustainable. Are producers aware of this fací, and are they attempting to soak a diminishing market while they still can? Only the decisión makers of the companies can answer that question. One complicating factor relating to the pricing of producís is the nondisclosure agreements that many companies insist that libraries sign. David Brown (2016) reports that in parí because of the agreements, different prices can be levied for the same producís to different institutions (p. 318). Many commentators speak of open access as one tactic that can be used to address a portion of the challenge (see D. Brown, 2016, for a discussion of such things as “Green and Gold Open Access”). To date, there have been developments in open access (in the limited sense of formal journals that open access to their content), but it is not presently considered the solution. There is insufficient space here to cover the many complex issues related to open access (one resource is Peter Suber’s 2012 book, Open Access, if readers would like to pursue this issue further). Another open format, mentioned earlier, is the institutional repository. For information on these entities, see the Directory of Open Access Repositories (www.opendoar.org/), which lists more than three thousand repositones, about 85 percent of which are institutional repositories. These repositones are intended to provide access to faculty preprints, articles (with permission from publishers), course materials, data sets, and other materials. Most of the institutional repositories are managed and maintained by the institutions’ academic libraries. Another challenge is that the maintenance of the repositories require staffmg and fínancing. The money required for the operation of the repositories can be rather substantial (see Bums, Lana, & Budd, 13, for the results of a survey of institutions that manage repositories). The Potential for the repositories is considerable; faculty must be persuaded to tj \ e ^dvantage of the Service to create widespread access to their work. At ,ls time, it is questionable whether the repositories have the ability to rebut°e COmmerc^ anc* society journals and the costs associated with them, any open-access mechanisms are worth pursuing if the communication Processes can be facilitated.

82

Chapter 3

What will be the situation of academic libraries in the short-term future? The foregoing statement suggests that there will be pressures tugging in different directions. There will be budgetary considerations for some time to come—stemming not merely from the pricing of information producís but also from the inadequate funding from institutions. Those considerations will obviously affect collections and access, but they also are having an impact on staffmg in many libraries. As was shown above, State appropriations to public colleges and universities are not increasing, which effectively results in cuts for the institutions (and in all likelihood, for their libraries). There are also market pressures on tuition and fees, which are limiting the amounts of increases that are and will be possible. In short, academic libraries are subject to the political economy of higher education at large, with the economics of information production added to the mix. It musí be emphasized here that there are foolish voices, influential individuáis who have precisely the wrong visión for libraries and library Services of the future. Jonathan Colé, a former administrator at Columbia University, is one such individual who should know better than to refer to libraries as “ruins.” He mistakenly asserts, Simply put, great universities should not be constructing large lecture halls, ñor should they be viewing the library as the central axis to a campus, since the nature o f libraries has already changed and ought to continué to evolve. Li­ brary content will be entirely online from anywhere in the world. The storage o f books and periodicals, to the extent that they require storage, should be done in remóte facilities. (Colé, 2016, p. 202)

Admittedly, I write as someone who uses many books in my own inquiry. While Colé dismissively admits to a valué to browsing, he claims that web browsers will soon be so effective as to make physical browsing obsolete. He is ignorant of the need for information literacy and the Consulting Services, including Consulting on the actual scholarship engaged in by faculty, which is provided by librarians. He also seems ignorant of the expenses related to technologically available information, as though somehow the resources will be free. Technology is indeed heavily used in college and university libraries, but not everything is available online. Indeed, the book is still a very effec­ tive technology for the absorption of some content. A more informed voice than Cole’s should hold sway on matters related both to libraries and to scholarship. The responses to these pressures will determine the health of academic libraries and, to a considerable extent, the success of students in US colleges and universities. REFERENCES American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (n.d.). Initiatives: Trustee outreach. www.goacta‘ org/initiatives/trustee_outreach.

What Roles Do Academic Librarles Play in Higher Education Today?

83

Berman, J. (2015, May 9). Class of 2015 has the most student debt in U.S. history. MarketWatch. www.marketwatch.com/story/class-of-2015-has-the-most-student-debt-in-ushistory-2015-05-08. Biemiller, L. (2016). The week: What you need to know about the past 7 days. Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(20), A l. Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brown, D. J. (2016). Access to scientific research: Challenges facing communication in STM. Berlín: Walter de Gruyter. Brown, S. (2016). How a retention plan at Mount St. Mary’s veered into a PR disaster. Chroni­ cle of Higher Education, 62(22), A6. Budd, J. M. (1997). A critique o f customer and commodity. College and Research Librarles, 55(4), 309-20. Budd, J. M. (2009). Higher education ’s purpose: Intellectual and social progress. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Budd, J. M. (2015) Democracy, economics, and the public good: Informational failures and possibilities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bums, C. S., Lana, A., & Budd, J. M. (2013). Institutional repositories: Exploration o f costs and valué. DLib, 19(\/2). www.dlib.org/dlib/januaryl3/bums/01bums.html. Cagle, E. (2016, April 18). House committee cautious about proposal for UM system oversight commission. Columbia Missourian. www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/ house-committee-cautious-about-proposal-for-um-system-oversight-commission/article_ 5d79f32a-025d-11 e6-a691-7f91a3e323 8a.html. Colé, J. R. (2016). Toward a more perfect university. New York: PublicAffairs. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin. Craig, R. (2015). College disrupted: The great unbundling of higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2015). Designing the new American university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Davis, P. (2014, July 22). Libraries receive shrinking share of university expenditures. Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/07/22/libraries-receive-shrinking-share. Flaherty, C. (2016, March 11). “Fake” tenure? Inside Higher Ed. www.insidehighered.com/ news/2016/03/11/u-wisconsin-board-regents-approves-new-tenure-policies-despite-facultyconcems. Flaherty, C. (2015, June 1). Trying to kill tenure. Inside Higher Ed. www.insidehighered.com/ news/2015/06/01/wisconsin-faculty-incensed-motion-eliminate-tenure-state-statute. Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democ­ racy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism 's war on higher education. New York: Haymarket Books. Gupta, T. (2015). The génesis and growth o f commercialization of higher education. Interna­ tional Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, 2(6), 4-16. Hacker-Cordón, C. (2002). Global injustice and human malfare (PhD dissertation). Yale Uni­ versity, New Haven, CT. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaschik, S. (2016, May 3). Vote of no confidence in U Wisconsin board, president. Inside Higher Ed, www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/05/03/vote-no-confidence-uwisconsin-board-president. ™eman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisión under risk. Lconometrica, 47(2), 263-92. Critique ofpure reason. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. uuhal, D. (2014, March 28). The Koch brothers’ influence on college campus is spreading. -Kngton Post. www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/28/the-kochLewh £rs'"influence-on-college-campus-is-spreading/. find December 1). Most college students don’t eam a degree in 4 years, study do S' Y°rk Times, www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-studentseam-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html?_r=0.

84

Chapter 3

Massy, W. E. (2016). Reengineering the university: How to be mission centered, market smart, andmargin conscious. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mayer, J. (2016). Dark money: The hidden histoiy of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. New York: Doubleday. Menand, L. (2010). The marketplace of ideas: Reform and resistance in the American univer­ sity. New York: Norton. National Association o f Scholars. (n.d.a). History ofNAS. www.nas.org/about/history. National Association o f Scholars. (n.d.b). Issues & ideáis, www.nas.org/about/issues_and_ideals. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of education statistics, 2013. Washing­ ton, DC: Author. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2016). Rankings by total R&D expenditures. In Higher Education R&D Survey. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method= rankingBySource&ds=herd. Ohmann, R. (2003). Politics ofknowledge: The commercialization of the university, the professions, andprint culture. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Primack, D. (2011, October 5). Occupation: From Wall Street to the university. Fortune, http:// fortune, com/2011/10/05/occupation-from-wall-street-to-the-university/. R. B. (2016). People watch. University Business, 19{4), 15. Rehman, J. (2012, September 23). Can the source of funding for medical research affect the results? Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/can-the-sourceof-funding-for-medical-research-affect-the-results/. RELX Group. (2014). Annual reports and financial statements 2014. www.relx.com/ investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2014/relxgroup_ar_2014.pdf. Shapiro, I. (2016). Politics against domination. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Stripling, J. (2016a). A higher-ed needler finds its moment. Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(31), A24—A27. Stripling, J. (2016b). The Mount St. Mary’s presidency was a corporate test case. It failed miserably. Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(26), A l. Students for Academic Freedom. (n.d.). Academic bilí of rights. www. studentsforacademicfreedom.org/documents/1925/abor.html. Súber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Toma, J. D. (2012). Institutional strategy: Positioning forprestige. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era. Baltimore: Johns Hop­ kins University Press. Touraine, A. (2001). Beyondneoliberalism (D. Macey, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. University o f Missouri. (2017). Mission. http://missouri.edu/about/mission.php. University of Wisconsin System. (2016, May 6). UW system president Cross, regents president Millner on May 2 UW-Madison faculty senate resolution. www.wisconsin.edu/news/ archive/uw-system-president-cross-regents-president-millner-on-may-2-uw-madisonfaculty-senate-resolution/.

Chapter Four

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

Few single issues have received as much attention over the last several years as education. Further, there have been some recent changes—including a revisión to the Standards for Accreditation—that have affected the educational landscape. This chapter will not delve deeply into the history of educa­ tion for the profession of librarianship; there are resources that are available if one desires a historical perspective. The concentration here will be on the contemporary situation and a review of current and recent commentary on education. Not long ago, a gauntlet was thrown down by Michael Gorman (2004b), who made education a major thrust of his presidential year of the American Library Association (ALA). He critiqued the curricula of programs, the makeup of programs’ faculties, and the seemingly thin line between training and education (among other things). In addressing accredita­ tion, he bemoaned the apparent reality that no standard curricular consistency is required; programs can choose not to inelude subject matter that Gorman sees as essential to the education of an aspiring professional. His polemic has attracted a considerable amount of attention since its publication. Prior to Gorman’s writing, the ALA convened a Congress on Professional Education in 1999 (Haycock, 2000). A number of issues were identified as key to the future of education: core competencies and valúes; preparing generalist and specialist practitioners; the domain o f the curriculum; accreditation, including by the American Library Association, the National Council for the Accreditation o f Teacher Education (NCATE) which works

85

86

C h a p te r 4

• • •

with ALA to accredit programs o f education for school librarians, and others; access to LIS education, involving issues o f geography, specialization and diversity; theory and practice; and experiential leaming. (Haycock, 2000, p. 4)

Background papers were commissioned on the topics, and the rather large group discussed each issue at some length. Among the conclusions drawn by the members of the congress were the need for more attention to accreditation, recruiting more-diverse student bodies, the role of national associations, and the creation and maintenance of a dialogue between practitioners and educators (Haycock, 2000). As we will see, the goals have met with uneven success, although there have been efforts by the ALA to achieve some progress. A few years after the congress, ALA president Leslie Burger established a task forcé to address educational concems. The task forcé held forums from 2004 to 2006 and discussed a number of topics, most prominent among them was the development of core competences for graduates from ALA-accredited programs. The Core Competences of Librarianship document was approved by the ALA Council in January 2009 (see www.ala.org/ educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/ corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf). The competences will not be discussed in great detail here. These offícial association activities, plus Michael Gorman’s opinions, form a kind of introduction to the more general examination that will follow. It should be noted that the task forcé was not the first effort at identifying competences. A survey was conducted under the auspices of the Western Council of State Libraries. The results should be consulted; they are reported by Catherine Helmick and Keith Swigger (2006). EDUCATION IN CRISIS? This is probably an appropriate venue to dispose of this question. “Crisis” denotes a State of affairs in which bedlam reigns and there is no agreement at all on directions for the near- and long-term future. In my opinión, there does not appear to be such a dire predicament at this point in time. This is not to say there are no serious concems and disputes when it comes to education for librarianship. Why discuss the matter at all? This topic is included principally because there remains a rhetoric of crisis, as well as some discourse on the extremes of the subject. Over the last several years, beginning more than two decades ago, the discourse of “crisis” has been rather common. Some years ago, Larry Ostler and Therrin Dahlin (1995) stated, “The crisis in library

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

87

education provides an opportunity to reconsider the foundations of our profession” (p. 683). Even then the term crisis was taken as a given. “Crisis” appears to have become entrenched in the professional rhetoric. Following Gorman (in time, if not in spirit), others picked up the term; Charles Seavey (2005) wrote, “Looking at some evidence gathered over the last three years, we may indeed be facing a crisis of sorts” (p. 54). Even in the Australian literature there is mention of crisis: “At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the profession of librarianship finds itself in a State of crisis” (Hillenbrand, 2005, p. 164). Yet another work, by Carla Stoffle and Kim Leeder (2005), is titled, “Practitioner and Library Education: A Crisis of Understanding.” These quotations are nonexhaustive, but they provide hints to the contení of the literature in a general sense. An opportunity is seized here to review the discourse and to analyze it employing logic and reason. As is shown above, Michael Gorman (2004b) has some defínite views about education. He expands upon them as he offers a resolution to the matter: • •

deliver a nationally agreed core curriculum to national standard levels; have a core faculty (not including adjuncts) capable o f teaching and doing research in all areas addressed by the core curriculum; • concéntrate on teaching and research in librarianship; • teach and do research in other areas only when they have a satisfactory coverage o f the core areas; • be accredited in terms o f national standards for function, structure, and performance; • cooperate with library practitioners in all kinds o f library to ensure both coordination o f library education in the schools and library training in the libraries and a smooth flow o f new librarians from library schools to librar­ les. (Gorman, 2004a, p. 101)

One individual who has offered an “amen” to Gorman is John Berry (2004) of Library Journal. His attention is drawn to what he sees as dissatisfied students: At every school I’ve visited in the past three years, students complain about the lack o f courses and choices in traditional library areas. The other very common grievance comes from recent graduates about the courses they were mandated to take, either because they were the only ones available or because they were required technology courses. Many found their studies o f little use on their first jobs. Many also found that they were required to study technological apparatus and software with which they were more familiar than their instructors. (Berry, 2004, p. 10)

It should be noted that this critique in general precedes Michael Gorman and ers*As Stoffle and Leeder (2005) point out, Samuel Rothstein recounted

C h a p te r 4

88

difficulties of relations between educators and practitioners that date back as far as 1887. And in the 1930s, Pierce Butler (1933) noted that “the librarían stands alone in the simplicity of his pragmatism” (p. xii). Not everyone has agreed with Gorman’s solution or Berry’s observation; even some (such as I) who have some sympathy for Gorman’s position can affirm each of the tenets. Among the dissenters are Andrew Dillon and April Norris (2005). They State, “The argument is based on a belief that the fíeld has shifted from a focus on libraries as spaces, where ordered collections are overseen by skilled professionals who serve as guides to users, to a focus on computational aspects of retrieval, where digital access interfaces people directly, and remotely, with unfiltered information” (Dillon & Norris, 2005, p. 282). The very idea of “space” cries for some clarification. Gate count, for example, has been stable for master’s institutions and has increased for bachelor’s and doctoral/research institutions (Budd, 2009, p. 7). This is an assertion that begs for examination, which will be offered in a later section. By contrast, Stoffle and Leeder (2005) suggest, “Technology, in and of itself, is not a source of fundamental change in our fíeld; it is only a symptom of other kinds of change” (p. 314). Blaise Cronin (1995) threw down a gauntlet of sorts when he made a case for the primacy of information Science and referred to librarians as the lumpenproletariat of information workers. The spirit of Cronin’s criticism was picked up by John King (2005). Bill Crowley summarized King’s position: • • • •

secure the appointment o f “information” over “library” faculty and thereby obtain control o f the ALA-accredited program; argüe the “information” is more research friendly than “library”; drop the word “library” from the ñame o f the program; and finally, emphasize information research and teaching over their library equivalents until the growth in the number o f “information” students allows the exiling o f “library education” and would-be librarians from one’s program if their demands for instructional relevance are determined by information faculty to have become too onerous. (Crowley, 2008, p. 92)

In an attempt seemingly to dismiss librarianship, John King offers a bitter polemic in an effort to assert the predominance of some viewpoints regarding purpose, curricula, and inquiry. His words should be taken for what they are: the specious rantings of one who feels threatened by successful programs in education for librarianship. They are presented here as a standpoint of one voice that may well have influenced others. As for curricular contení, later in this chapter is a set of core contení for education for librarianship. It should be evident to all readers that the core contení expands librarianship to the work of professionals with communities and the world of informational expansiveness.

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

89

Back to Andrew Dillon and April Norris. They summarize the arguments in favor of crisis and State: The argument is based on a belief that the field has shifted from a focus on libraries as spaces, where ordered collections are overseen by skilled professionals who serve as guides to users, to a focus on computational aspects o f retrieval, where digital access interfaces people directly, and remotely, with unfiltered information. (Dillon & Norris, 2005, p. 282)

Dillon and Norris (2005) note that at the time of their writing, there were predictions that the virtual world of information (including information seekers’ preferences) would soon eclipse the world of print. They further say that the corrective to such ambitious and simplistic claims are very likely to come from library and information Science (LIS) faculty (Dillon & Norris, 2005, p. 283). As part of their stance, they present dissertation titles of LIS graduates from their institution (the University of Texas) from 2000 to 2005. The contení of those dissertations, however, may be a partial function of the dissertation committee members. It may be instructional to compare those titles to ones from, say, 2011-2015. If the makeup of the faculty has changed over the years, the contení of the dissertations may have changed as well. Dillon and Norris (2005) do claim, though, that “technology has permeated all we do in this fíeld; it is foundational for the discipline in the twentyfirst century, not a component that can be ignored or taught separately, under the heading ‘information Science’ in our schools” (p. 294). The statement is not, in itself, false, but it is in opposition to what Stoffle and Leeder (2005) have to say about technology. In reality, technology’s inclusión in education for librarianship was a twentieth-century phenomenon. Decades before the tum of the century, the technology on integrated library systems, online searching, and information Science in general were common in curricula. I benefited from such courses both in conceptual ways (including the logic of Information retrieval) and practical ways (including helping to draft a request for proposals for an integrated library system). The employment of technology is not new and is something that, while perhaps not foundational to the intellectual core of educational programs, has been integral to the application of core knowledge and skills in programs. Perhaps some individuáis’ perceptions of crisis are connected with the idea of a foundational role for technolo­ gy. Another vocal critic of the State of education in recent years, with a l°mewhat different stance from the preceding commentators, is Bill Crowall 'a ke^ ns a Positi°n grounded in librarianship and takes a look at di SJ es the debate, finally coming down on the side of a concern for the info aCei? ent education for librarianship by information Science: “The Catión Science paradigm or meta-model of the world redefínes profes-

90

C h a p te r 4

sional librarianship, indeed ‘defines it down’ as a minor player in the information universe” (Crowley, 2008, p. 3). Crowley refers to an examination by Richard Apostle and Boris Raymond (1997) that suggested the information paradigm reduces libraries to little more than information centers. There has been a substantial amount of inquiry that shows libraries to be more than information centers. For example, the collection of works edited by John Buschman and Gloria Leckie (2007) demonstrates that libraries are complex social institutions in which the physical space influences the actions that take place within the buildings. Contra Andrew Dillon, while some may be tempted to dismiss the valué of place, libraries of all types provide social, informational, and even epistemological space in which people can thrive according to their own purposes. Further, libraries as institutions are not limited by any means to physical places. Leckie and Buschman (2009) have also collected research pieces on the role of technologies in libraries, demonstrating that librarianship embraces technology as a means for meeting hu­ man needs. The above works by Buschman and Leckie touch upon only some of the issues (and the inquiry into those issues) related to librarianship. A volume edited by Catherine Ross, Lynne McKechnie, and Paulette Rothbauer (2006) reports on research conducted into the nature of reading as connected to libraries and librarianship. In fact, research into reading has burgeoned in recent years, with librarians and educators contributing numerous works that advance knowledge in the field. One thing this research signáis is that the librarían community is concemed with issues that have an impact on their communities and that they reach into sociology and literary research to do contribute to this discussion. MORE ON THE DEBATE Beyond discussing the existence or nonexistence of a crisis, there is much more that has been said about libraries and information. The iSchool Caucus maintains a set o f criteria for membership that is intended to identify the unique qualities o f the group. Criteria for being recognized as a member o f the iSchools (“Member” or “member school”) are not rigid, but schools applying for membership are expected at a mínimum to have substan­ tial sponsored research activity, engagement in the training o f future researchers through an active, research-oriented doctoral program, a good reputation, and a commitment to progress in the information field. Schools that share these purposes and can provide evidence they meet the baseline characteristics described in the charter are encouraged to apply for membership. (iSchools Organization, 2014)

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

91

Ronald Larson (2010) claims that iSchools “address the relationship between information, technology, and people,” with an emphasis on information and its management (p. 3018). Apart from the latter emphasis, the purpose of iSchools is not materially different from education for librarianship. A potential distinction may be that libraries and information agencies could be less involved in the development of technologies, but that distinction may not be evident in larger and more complex library organizations. That said, some, including Gary Olson and Jonathan Grudin (2009), recognize that more traditional education for librarianship “were producing librarians but failed to meet the academic standards of leading research universities” (pp. 15-16). That assertion is one that may be more perceptual than factual. The perceptual aspect will be difficult to evalúate at this time since most of the iSchools happen to be affiliated with research universities. In attempting to offer a defmition of iSchools, Andrew Dillon (2012) writes, “Though considered by some to represent a major break with LIS education, Schools of Information [‘iSchools’] might better be seen as representative of efforts to extend concerns with information and human users beyond the agency model of traditional LIS approaches” (p. 267). Danny Wallace (2009) presents what may be the most balanced and cogent assessment of the current State of affairs: “The bottom line—which library and information Science educators have been attempting to reinforce for quite some time—is that library and infor­ mation studies education does not appear to be broken, that opportunities to broaden and extend the fíeld are decidedly more beneficial than harmful, and that the future appears to be quite secure” (p. 409). Dillon (2012) speaks of the interdisciplinary elements of iSchools. Interdisciplinarity is, rightly, of concern in the present climate of higher educa­ tion—and particularly research universities. One thing should be noted: li­ brarianship is also interdisciplinary and has been for some time. That said, the interdisciplinary imperative could be more fully realized. Catherine Dumas and I concéntrate on a particular element that is essential for interdisci­ plinary success—communication (Budd & Dumas, 2014). One of the points we make is that researchers from different disciplines employ their own language structures and terminology (at times, even when the same terminol°gy is used, there can be distinct meanings that are unique to each disci­ pline). As we write, “The intention of the [informational] structures and their use ls t0 enable and enhance to likelihood of being understood. For example, Problems must be categorized so that others can comprehend them” (Budd & mas>2014, p. 280). We advócate for a versión of semiotics as a means to communicate from domain to domain the conceptions that can be shared ^rough agreed-upon representation (see Budd & Dumas, 2014, p. 281, for i i P e^* *n an iSchool—and, increasingly, in programs educating for librarnaiv vf ^ at arC n0t ^ c^°°ls—faculty may well come from different discipliackgrounds. Successful communicative action is most likely to lead to

92

C h a p te r 4

epistemic collegiality and to the overall growth of the knowledge base that may lend definition to librarianship and information work. There is a serious concern regarding where theoretical background may come from so that inquiry into librarianship can progress. For example, Gloria Leckie, Lisa Given, and John Buschman (2010) have edited a work that presents summaries of potential contributions to theory. The extensiveness of the collection demonstrates the scope of interest in the field in the possibilities of conceptu­ al contributions from many disciplines and points of view. CONTEMPORARY IDEAS AND DOCUMENTS There are some notions that address the role of “information” in the grand scheme of education that should be mentioned here. As something of an extensión of the dispute, there are the claims made by Crowley (2008) in the form of myths: Mythic Fact # 1, or the assumption that information is the primary source o f growth in the globalized economy and that faculty will benefit from transforming ALA-accredited programs into information schools has proven partially correct.. . . Mythic Fact #2, or the assumption that subsuming library under informa­ tion is going to advance the career prospects o f professional librarians, represents a truly problematic versión o f wishful thinking. (p. 102)

Crowley deserves one cheer for presenting the myths; first by acknowledging that information is a component of global economy (one can refer to many works by Manuel Castells for affirmation). There is no doubt that data, which can be transferred into strategic information, has a role in the economy of the present and the future. Crowley’s statement of an assumption that “informa­ tion” is trying to subsume “library” under its umbrella is more of a challenge. One reason for the challenge is the unclear definition of information, especially as it may exist within the curricula of ¡Schools. The debate may well be more of a political one than an intellectual one. The exercise could be an effort at curricular and research dominance rather than a discourse on the merits of any library—as opposed to information focus. This political contest is real, but it is also somewhat fraught; it depends on local institutional dynamics as much as on a larger conceptual disagreement. Enter the Standards for Accreditation. These were recently revised and approved by the ALA Council on February 2, 2015. Of note is the reality that the term library and information Services pervades the standards. In fact» under the heading “Scope of Standards,” there is a rationale for the term: The phrase “library and information studies” is understood to be concerned with recordable information and knowledge, and the Services and technologies

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

93

to facilítate their management and use. Library and information studies encompasses information and knowledge creation, communication, identification, selection, acquisition, organization and description, storage and retrieval, preservaron, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis, dissemination, and management. This definition incorporates a field o f professional practice and associated areas o f study and research, regardless o f a degree’s ñame. (American Library Association, 2015, p. 2)

One thing that has remained constant in the last few iterations of the standards is that the curricula of programs to be accredited are not prescribed. The 2015 versión does, however, State that the curriculum “fosters development of library and information professionals who will assume a leadership role in providing Services and collections appropriate for the communities that are served” (American Library Association, 2015, p. 5). The addition of library, Services, collections, and communities emphasizes the place of libraries and what they do and are. The application of this standard will probably place some onus onto programs to prepare professionals, as well as to provide rationale as to how the curriculum accomplishes these goals. Quite recently, the University of Maryland’s iSchool supported a study on Re-envisioning the MLS. The authors, John Bertot, Lindsay Sarin, and Johanna Percell (2015), reported on a number of issues that formed the study. This study is recommended to all readers; it is a serious effort at looking forward with regard to education and attempts to answer some very challenging questions. It is likely that readers of the report may take issue with certain segments, but the scope of the effort is undeniable. In the key findings section, specifíc aspects should be noted (again, readers may disagree with the emphasis on some of the findings; however, unlike some polemical writings that have been mentioned, this report is not merely personnel opinión but has tried to gain perspective from a number of sources): • • • • •

The Shiñ in Focus to People and Communities Core Valúes Remain Essential Competencies for Future Information Professionals The MLS May Not Be Relevant/Necessary in All Cases Access for All Social Innovation and Change Working with Data and Engaging in Assessment Knowing and Leveraging the Community Leaming/Leaming Sciences, Education, and Youth Digital Access and Archival Thinking (Bertot, Sarin, & Percell, 2015, pp. iv-v)

0nere should be no doubt that people and communities are to be concentrated not^e ^°CUS *s close'y related t0 core valúes. This set of findings may particularly new to professionals who have been practicing for some

94

C h a p te r 4

time. Other findings reflect trends that education must pay attention to, and these inelude assessment and leaming. The core valúes will not be mentioned here, but they are numerous and, for the most part, indisputable (see American Library Association, 2015, pp. 3-4). One component of the report may raise hackles among some readers—the relevance of the master of library Science (MLS). “There was a sense that an MLS is not required—ñor perhaps desirable—for all aspeets of library work. For example, have human resources, business managers, Communications staff, information technology staff, Web designers, and other operations staffed by those with expertise and relevant degrees was preferable” (Bertot, Sarin, & Percell, 2015, p. 5). The authors admit that this element was a source of conflict among the study respondents. Some were adamant about the need for specific, nonlibrary backgrounds for certain positions and functions. Again, it is quite difficult to say that information technology specialists should not have training and education in technology design and application. That said, an argument can be made for the necessity of a deep understanding of libraries in order that the technology applications suit the needs of the organizations. Bertot, Sarin, and Percell (2015) further write, “Some [respon­ dents] insisted that the MLS was essential, and that the degree was not just about skills, foundations, and principies, but also signifíed the importance of the library and information professions and individuáis with the degree as professionals” (p. 6). A corollary argument could be that it is necessary for all professionals to be competent in the essential functions of libraries in order to function most effectively in business, technology, and Communica­ tions positions. CORE CONTENT The ALA Core Competences have been discussed and summarized above; their intention is to influence the contení of the curricula of ALA-accredited master’s programs. It is my opinión that the competences provide a reasonable beginning for issues and areas that can (and possibly should) be included in programs. This caveat has also been mentioned, but I did serve on the task forcé that articulated the competences. It should be stated that the suggestions of the competences do not necessarily comprise discreet courses but are areas that could be incorporated into courses. What follows is a more detailed suggestion for core contení that, I believe, should be part of every accredited master’s program. Further, the following is, in a way, recommended as first principies that should be presented to students as early &s possible in their programs. As is the case with the core competences, these are not presented as discreet courses but as essential content that ought to presented. One concern in the development of the content is that it is key

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

95

librarianship writ large. That is, it is intended to suit the work of the profession, regardless of the agency (and including all agencies) in which students may work. Beyond technology, there is today perhaps a more fundamental difference among those who are committed to the study of information and the practices related to information work. Michael Gorman (2006) articulated one side of this debate: I believe there is a discipline called librarianship; that the core concerns o f that discipline can be defended and codifíed into a core curriculum; that A L A ’s accreditation o f LIS programs should depend on the faculty o f those programs teaching and doing research into those central concerns; and that library educators and practitioners should work together through ALA to ensure that graduates o f ALA-accredited programs receive the training that will enable them to build on their library education to become productive librarians. (p. 3)

It is seldom, if ever, said, but there may well be those who would question (or even deny) the existence of the discipline of librarianship. Judging from the title of this chapter, it is evident that I am not among this group. To use analogies, medicine and law can be both disciplines and practices; so to can librarianship. The basis for the analogy is part of the reason why librarian­ ship is used here rather than library education. (I owe a debt to Ken Haycock for pointing out that education for librarianship is the proper term to use.) It must be emphasized strongly that the acceptance of librarianship as a disci­ pline does not deny like acceptance of the study of information as a disci­ pline. I will retum to this matter near the end of the chapter. This is an appropriate time to describe at some length the core contení of education for librarianship. As will be apparent, the core contení describes both discipline and practice, which are knowledge and skills that are needed for anyone to succeed at librarianship as it may be practiced in any of several environments. The core contení described here is not presented in priority order; rather it is conceived as a whole. No element should or could be omitted and have the following still comprise education for librarianship. Much could be added to this overall conception, but I contend that nothing can be left out.

Mediation: Fitting Information to Users' Needs h Jibraries and other information agencies, people will have questions to lc they seek answers. Many of the queries that people have will involve inf ^ ex.comk*nati°ns of ideas or concepts or facts, and the manipulations of sibir^*011 sources may not be simple or straightforward. It is the responhave i Pr°fessi°nal t0 comprehend the complexity of the query and to c ear and thorough understanding of the resources that can be used to

96

Chapter 4

respond to the query. Because of the nature of the work, the educational experience must prepare graduates to respond accurately and adequately to complex queries. What would constitute such an educational experience? The first thing to recognize is that the educational contení has to mirror the complexity of the work setting itself. This means that students must be instructed in the multifarious nature of the information landscape. This is a large task, and one that may not be fully completed in a single course. For example, if a student’s career goal is to provide Services in a medical or health Sciences setting, there would probably need to be a specialized course that ineludes the extensiveness, form, and content of health Sciences resources. The specialized course might also have to cover the language of the health Sciences so that graduates will be able to comprehend the questions that are asked and will be able to transíate the questions into the language of the resources. A similar task may face those students who wish to concéntrate on law and legal environments. In fací, any program aiming to prepare graduates for a particular special environment should be obliged to offer the technical content of that environment, which would probably build upon the general resources that all stu­ dents should be competent with. Competence with the resources—general and special—is one element of the mediation competence. Another essential ability is that of working with the patrons as they develop their questions into modes of language that can be used in system queries. This aspect of the competence is manifold. For one thing, the librarían or information specialist has to be able to comprehend the terminology of the query, even when the patrón may not be fully aware of specialized terminology. For example, a student may be assigned the task of writing a paper on a particular, complicated topic. That student may not have sufficient wherewithal to frame a question in the complicated language of the assigned topic. Education for librarianship must entail the translation of stated queries into the actual information need. At times, this task involves what is traditionally called the “reference interview,” wherein a librarían draws out specific needs related to, in this example, the topic of the paper. This understanding requires comprehending the fínesse needed to suss out the actual paper topic as opposed to the initial question that may have been asked. In many instances, teachers in programs employ a form of authentic learning where a broad question is asked by one student to another and the latter student has to discern the actual assigned need. The replication of the authen­ tic question enables both students to work through the formation of a ques­ tion that entails the actual and anticipated content of an authentic response. Many instructors are very Creative at imbuing students with the skills ana knowledge they need to achieve competence in this element of the mediation content. Loriene Roy (2015) reports incorporating social aspeets of questioning and answering into instruction. This is only one example of the continu

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

97

ing work by instructors to make the learning experience as authentic as possible. Another aspect of mediation involves psychological and cognitive work. At its heart, this element has to do with the cognitive States of those asking questions. The mediator (librarían or information professional) should assess the State of the person making the query. This operation sounds very complex, but once the mediator has experience, he or she can evalúate the funda­ mental State of the questioner quite quickly. In part, the way a question is asked (and the contení of the question) can give clues to the questioner’s cognitive State. If the questioner is hesitant and uses very general terms, the individual may have incomplete knowledge of the topic that is at the heart of the question. At such a point in a transaction, the mediator may be able to offer possibilities relating to answers and ask further questions of the individ­ ual. These actions can assist the mediator in assessing the foundation of the questioner’s knowledge base. That provides an appropriate starting point for responding. The mediator can also avoid subjecting the questioner to cogni­ tive overload, providing the response that will enhance the individual’s knowledge without providing so much that the response cannot be assimilated. A remarkable source is Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson’s Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1995). They delve very deeply into the dynamics of communication, defining it in ways that are pertinent to the education process discussed here: “What the communicator intends to make manifest is partly precise and partly vague” (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p. 59). When someone has a question, there is a very good chance that the individual comprehends a certain portion of what he or she wants to know, but there is also likely to be some uncertainty. This is a phenomenon that is not always popularly accepted. The recipient of the communicative act—the mediator— needs to discern what is known by the questioner and what is not known. This is never a simple task; it requires engaging the questioner to figure out what is known and what is unknown. Sperber and Wilson (1995) present not °nly communicative but also cognitive elements that are part and parcel of the exchange. As they write, “Relevant information . . . is information that rciodifies and improves an overall representation of the world” (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p. 71). That modification is based on a cognitive transformahon that assists the recipient in building a clearer set of schemata. This Process is necessary to the educational program. Another component of education for mediation work is the fundamental owledge of the processes of information retrieval. There is an enormous amount of literature that can assist students in gaining understanding of this ^°niplex phenomenon. One source is that by Karen Fisher, Sandra Erdelez, pre Theories o f Information Behavior (2005). This work n s many ideas about retrieval and information seeking. It provides a

98

Chapter 4

substantive introduction to many ideas—conceptual and empirical—having to do with information retrieval. Readings can be selected to assist students at different levels of their educational programs so that they develop understanding progressively. Another key resource that is valuable for certain environments is Melissa Gross’s (1998) work on the “imposed query.” In school, as well as in college and university settings, the instructor may assign topics to students. In these circumstances, the student’s comprehension may be more vague. The predicament places particular onus on the mediator to discover what information will best respond to the query, both as it is presented and (more important) how it is intended by the instructor. These types of queries can be quite common (and may certainly occur in public libraries too), so students need to have a clear understanding of the diagnosis of the query and the best means of responding to the questioner. The foregoing practice offers chances for educational action in the classroom and in any practicum or intemship a student may experience. Along with instruction in the interpretation of questions, such as that described above, the teachers of mediation Service must imbue a sensitivity to the nature and extent of responses to questioners. There is a world of difference between a sénior researcher in, say, a medical setting and a novice student in high school or college. The former has a wealth of knowledge on the topic in question and is usually looking to build upon that foundation of knowledge, often in a specific domain. The novice may have a very limited foundation of knowledge, and it may be the case that it is the development of a foundation that is desired. The approaches to the different questioners will be vastly different; the mediator must develop the diagnostic skill to discem between and among the sorts of questioners who will require mediation. That discemment can be taught in the classroom and through practical experiences. Once again, the full educational experience may extend beyond a single course; there may be a basis of knowledge and skill communicated in a basic course, and an advanced course may build upon the basic knowledge. In this way, the teachers must be aware of the cognitive development and conceptual States of the students in their classes. A key to successful instruction is the instilling of an understanding of cognition and cognitive processes in the students. For more on a cognitive position, see Budd (2011).

Organization of Information (Broadly and Narrowly Defined) There may be some disputes as to what “organization of information” means. In the broadest sense, I take it to be the overarching project of making information ítems, and their content, accessible to audiences (both general and specialized). In practice in libraries, this can mean the cataloging an classification of physical objects, with the objective that seekers can lócate the objects that will fít their intellectual and other needs. While most libraries

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

99

make use of copy cataloging (which will not be discussed here), librarians and information specialists must have the ability to interpret catalogs for patrons and information seekers. This requires having a clear understanding of the language of catalogs, which at times may not be entirely intuitive to readers. It also requires clear understanding of the structure that allows users to employ cross-references and other features common to catalogs. This understanding is fundamental to helping people lócate physical informational objects. It is also necessary for students to comprehend precisely how the organizational structures work and how they are usable in an actual setting, such as a library (wherever it may be located). The ultímate goal is to help users enhance their knowledge through linguistic- and cognitive-based means. Cataloging and classification are by no means the end of the organization of information and knowledge. Many informational Ítems (perhaps particularly of a digital sort) will be organized according to the use of metadata. Metadata has its own set of structures and standards, which should be applied diligently so the organization is effective for information seekers. The struc­ ture of metadata is sufficiently complex and extensive that it may well be that educational programs will have to have discreet course offerings just to convey that complexity. Both cataloging and classification and metadata offer opportunities for authentic learning. There can be exercises that entail the application of structures and standards and that can then be evaluated for their retrieval efficacy. These opportunities can be incorporated into courses and/or can be integrated into practical experiences for students. The various organizational forms and functions follow some particular linguistic pattems that have been discussed in another essay. In particular, organization is of a pragmatic sort; the purpose is to enable information seekers to lócate informational Ítems (not limited to physical objects) by relation to contexts familiar to the seekers. Sperber and Wilson (2012) define what is being spoken of here: “Pragmatics contrasts with semantics, the study of linguistic meaning, and is the study of how contextual factors interact with linguistic meaning in the interpretation of utterances” (p. 1). The employnient of pragmatics can have the practical advantage of connecting the descnption of the informational item with what the information seeker is likely lo be aware of already. That is, by the use of language that is linked with the utterance itself, comprehension of the organizational structure is most likely ¡o kf successful. In order to accomplish this end, the Q-Principle of Stephen evinson (2000; referred to by Sperber and Wilson, 2012) can assist. The Pnnciple holds, “Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker your knowledge of the world allows” (Levinson, 2000, p. 76). The jmciple maintains that the organizer should attempt to optimize the stateent of aboutness” when describing Ítems.

100

C h a p te r 4

The intellectual, disciplinary element of organization is readily apparent in the linguistic requirements of description. Correspondingly, the practical element is also apparent. As is mentioned above, aboutness is a key element of organization. Stephen Yablo (2014) offers a succinct definition of about­ ness: “Aboutness is the relation that meaningful Ítems bear to whatever it is that they are on or o f or that they address or concern” (p. 1; italics in original). There is a connection between the item itself and the description of the item or what the item is indeed about. Yablo (2014) also suggests that in describing what an item is about, there are some necessary limitations. For example, it is not really possible for one term/descriptor to capture the entire truth of the item in question; the item is usually too complex and multifarious for a single tenn to describe the entirety of the item. Because of this phenomenon, Yablo (2014) posits what he calis “partial truth as truth of a part” (p. 17). He expresses what he refers to as a naive idea: “A hypothesis [or temí] is partly true iff [if and only if] it has parís that are wholly true” (Yablo, 2014, p. 11). In practical application, this can mean that, for example, one subject heading or one metadata point can describe a portion of the item truly. This does not mean that the descriptor or metadata point describes the entire item truly. Yablo’s hypothesis should make intuitive sense to those engaged in the organization of information/knowledge. Yablo adds another principie—this one has its roots in semantics. Despite what Sperber and Wilson (2012) say about pragmatics, semantics is also important (and pragmatics and semantics are not unrelated). An essential element of organization is the meaningful connection of description with contení. Yablo (2014) addresses this connection: Content-inclusion is implication plus subject-matter inclusión. Both o f these are relations in which a semantically important property is preserved: truth, in the one case, and aboutness, in the other. So the proposal can be put like this:

B is part o f A iff [if and only if] the inference from A to B is 1. truth preserving—A implies B 2. aboutness-preserving— A's subject matter ineludes that o f B. (p. 15)

This formulation is a stringent one; there is a lot of responsibility placed on the organizer of information. Organization, it seems inevitable, is linked to the theory of information (see chapter 1). There is a truth-related aspect to organization without which there may be no useful or legitímate organization of information/knowledge. Education for organization of information thus incorporates linguistic an veritistic elements if practice is to proceed effectively. Veritism is related to

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

101

social epistemology, which was discussed in chapter 2, on information literacy. On this matter, I write, Within the realm o f social epistemology, the time is ripe, given the evolving nature o f higher education in curricula and in access, for us in librarianship to place the library into the social context within which knowledge is possible. . . . The library is inevitably and necessarily a product o f a complex and elabórate social dynamic that, at its heart, is teleological (it has a purpose and that purpose is both established a priori and discovered individually by those who avail themselves o f what a library has to offer). (Budd, 2004, p. 362)

Access to Information (Including Financial Aspects) One may be tempted to equate this content to the traditional “collection development” education and activities. This would not be entirely incorrect; there will be physical Ítems (not limited to books) produced for some time to come, and professionals will have to understand the selection, fiscal management, and evaluation aspects of this part of the work. Some environments may be more involved with this than others, but the educational imperative cannot ignore the dynamics. An essential element of the work—and educa­ tion for the work—is comprehension of the demographics and activities of the community and assessment of the needs of the community. Understanding of the community is important with regard to the management and maintenance of physical materials and electronic or virtual resources. The evalua­ tion of community needs is itself a necessary leaming experience. Fortunately, there are resources that can assist with education and practice when it comes to many long-standing needs related to collection management, such as Peggy Johnson’s Fundamentáis o f Collection Development and Manage­ ment (2014). The collection, maintenance, and organization of materials is an impor­ tant element of access to information, but it is by no means the limit. An extremely important aspect is commercial databases of many types and aimed at many audiences. From school libraries to corporations, these re­ sources form invaluable tools for the community members of libraries and Information agencies. (It should be mentioned that a valuable resource exists, mlicense, to help librarians share data and communicate about licenses relating to databases and other tools. See http://liblicense.crl.edu/.) For the ormation seekers, these databases and aggregators provide informational content that can assist with learning and research, as well as with content that £ Used for entertainment and personal edification. The thousands of magaancT ^ourna^s thnt are available through these databases help libraries come1 0rmat*on a8encies meet their fundamental goals. These resources do man at. sabstantial costs, though. Academic and research libraries spend mi ^ons °f dollars on the totality of access mechanisms to which they

102

C h a p te r 4

subscribe or license. As parí of education for librarianship, the costs of these resources must be made known. It is possible, via any numbers of outlets (including individual libraries’ web sites), to discover the entire amount that may be spent on these resources. That said, students need to be aware that they may not be able to find out how much a particular library spends to license or subscribe to specific Ítems due to confidentiality imposed on li­ braries by the companies providing the databases for license or subscription. Students should also be made aware of the impact of the costs of electronic and virtual resources. Even in the days of print journal subscriptions, and since then, prices have tended to increase annually at significant rates. If library budgets are, more or less, static, the price increases for some re­ sources may well mean that less can be spent on other resources. For example, if the prices and rates of databases and aggregators increase by, say, 7 percent per year and the library’s budget increases by only 2 percent per year, that library may, in tum, be able to buy fewer books each year. In such predicaments, the library professionals must be completely aware of the needs of community members. In college and university settings, the needs of research in the humanities must be considered, especially the needs of the scholars in those fields that rely heavily on books for their work. (Public libraries must also meet their communities’ demands for books.) The educational and practical challenges consist of becoming aware of the Financial difficulties and also analyzing the local implications of those fmancial difficulties. Along with these challenges comes the task of communicating the nature of the problem—and its effects—to the library’s information users and potential users. Communication is a vital skill for all students to learn and all professionals to have, and the ability to communicate (as the matter of access demonstrates) is necessary on the larger scale as well as in one-on-one situations. Education related to access must also inelude letting students know about the free-access mechanisms that libraries and information agencies provide. It is here that there is overlap with education for mediation, but students must learn the structures of resources like Google (although certainly not limited to that one tool). The dynamics of searching free resources differ considerably from those of the above-described ones. Therefore, some knowledge should be acquired regarding structures and decisions relating to what re­ sources to employ when.

Managing and Leading Libraries and Information Agencies It is here that the organizational elements of libraries and other agencies come to the fore. As is the case with collections and access, there is a textbook that provides basic guidance on this topic. Barbara Moran, Rot,e Stueart, and Claudia Momer’s Library and Information Center Managewe

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

103

(2012) provides readers with a beginning understanding of this contení. It should be noted that this is one of several textbooks in our field devoted to management. While this source does offer a starting point, the intricacies of management and leadership are many. There may be as many perspectives on what contení to cover in the topics of managing and leading as there are teachers and writings. What follows is one person’s point of view regarding essential content (along with some modes of covering the content). With that as a preamble, the complexity of organizations is one of the essential elements. Organizations are dynamic, so there has to be an imbued cognizance of the changing nature of organiza­ tions. We musí remember that organizations are human institutions; as such, they are going to be as variable as human relationships. One individual stands out as a scholar of organizations—Edgar Schein. His writings on the subject are numerous, but an instructor would want to consult his book Organizational Culture and Leadership (2016). It is a thorough and readable treatise on the complex cultures of organizations. Schein has also written numerous joumal árdeles on this subject. He consistently emphasizes the human nature of organizational culture, taking an almost anthropological view of the formation and maintenance of various types of organizations, including not-for-profit ones. One necessity for the study of organizations is that, as is the case of many human endeavors, they can be functional or dysfunctional. Moreover, they can be functional or dysfunctional in many ways and for many reasons. There is a phenomenological (in the sociological sense) purpose behind the examination of organizations. They are what we can cali lived environments; they are settings where people live major portions of their lives and interact with other people. They are, in a very real sense, parís of our lives. It may even be said that each of us tends to have an organizational self. Organ­ izations have, at times, been likened to extended families, with strong relationships, weaker relationships, dominant relationships, and so on. Families may tend to function well when the members reflect on their own roles and on the complex relationships within which they live. The same can be said of organizations, including libraries and information agencies. There are domi­ nant members of the organization (and these are not always the administra­ o s), and there can be somewhat submissive members. In a moment, some of the more technical elements of management will be discussed, but all the technical aspeets have the human part at their core. The lived experiences of e people in libraries are shaped by the culture of the organizations and help tio ** ^ S^ort? PeoP'e m an organization are beings with wills, volin» and cognition. Those components of being and personality inevitably th^?lse strong influences on the functioning of the organization. Ignoring ornan elements tends to reduce organizations to mechanistic environ-

104

Chapter 4

ments that can be run like machines. Any sort of machinic approach to management is likely doomed to fail. With the human side of organizations in mind, contení can further inelude some more technical and structured aspeets. For example, libraries and information agencies tend to have fairly explicit purposes. Those purposes are going to be influenced by the larger environments in which libraries opérate. For example, a school library is a necessary parí of the school, and its purpose is in keeping with the purpose of the school. In one sense, this defines purpose and management; in another sense, it imposes even more complexity upon libraries and information agencies. The purpose of a university, a Cor­ poration, or a hospital are not uniform. Missions of the libraries in the many settings will mirror and support those of the larger organizations. Further, management does not stop within the library; it extends upward throughout the larger organization. In a university, for instance, the library director may well report to a provost or vice president. This can signal that authority for the library extends upward in the organization as well. Students need to become fully aware of these dynamics within the totality of the organiza­ tions. More will be said about this in a moment, but at the very least fínancial resources are determined outside the library. With purpose and mission in mind, the library or information ageney will establish goals and objectives for itself and for the people in the organization. In other words, sets of priorities are established, and these priorities are first in the operations and in the consciousnesses of the people. “People” here ineludes the entirety of the academic community. Emphasis should be placed on the latter portion of the previous statement. For a library or information ageney to be most successful, people should be fully knowledgeable about the priorities and should share them. If students are taught these kinds of principies, they may be more likely to live them within the organizations. Also, as graduates become leaders, they may be more likely to assist others in living these principies. A fací that must be kept before students is that they are preparing themselves to become professionals; this entails viewing the positions they occupy as lived experiences in meaningful ways. The foregoing statement is part of that realm frequently called personnel management, but that term may be a misnomer in organizations of professionals. A more effective way to view the action is as organizational govemance, which is a shared operation. The alternative is a top-down functioning, in which profes­ sionals are treated as employees to be “managed.” One of the most prominent and Creative voices in the literature on man­ agement is that of Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg is, for one thing, a skeptic when it comes to traditional business education; his stance is that business schools do not prepare their graduates to work in the real world of organiza­ tions. He says, “If you ask managers what they do, they will most likely te you that they plan, organize, coordínate, and control. Then watch what they

How Can We Effectively Edncate Librarians?

105

do. Don’t be surprised if you can’t relate what you see to those four words” (Mintzberg, 1989, p. 9). In this book, Mintzberg (1989) presents statements of folklore (which tend to match textbook definitions of management and managerial work) and statements of fact (which correct the folklore by depicting the lives of managers). Among other things, he says that academics get paid primarily to ask questions (Mintzberg, 1989). This is not a bad thing in itself, but it is incomplete. The missing component is answers. He further says that a missing link between questions and answers is intuition, and management technology has largely driven out intuition (Mintzberg, 1989, pp. 336-37). In general, schooling is concentrated on providing technologies and formulae for the analysis of problems; in doing so, the role of intuition (the gut feeling) is missing. The bureaucracy that forms the structure of most organizations of a certain size also may inserí rules and procedures so that intuition does not have an opportunity to be employed. Mintzberg’s work is a superior resource for the development of management contení in a curricu­ lum, but space does not allow depth into his thought here. While Mintzberg emphasizes intuition, the necessity of planning, organizing, and directing should not be dismissed. The starting point for education, especially of novice managers, should be the formal structure of directing an organizaron of professionals. During that component of education, the warnings of Mintzberg (and Schein and others) can be interjected so that students do not become fíxated on the mechanical, impersonal way of managing. A great amount could be said about the structural essentials of management; only a very few will be mentioned here. Planning, for example, is one of the essentials. As was stated above, articularon of purpose and mission, plus development of goals and objectives, cannot be ignored. One lesson should be part and parcel of this essential element, though: no organization can overreach when it comes to goals and objectives and hope to succeed. In fact, a library or information agency cannot expect to retain its focus if the goals and objectives are too numerous. A smaller library, in particular, has to keep goals limited, because there will not be the personnel or resources to attempt to do too much. Larger organizations may be able to afford greater ambition, but reality will still limit a larger library. Reality may especially come to the fore when it comes to innovation; no organization can spread itself too thin. Students have to leam this reality. There is also a reality when it comes to leadership. Ambition tends to c aracterize education relating to leadership, but there will be limits imposed y the workaday world. Someone in a leadership position cannot afford the ury of contemplation of innovative programs and the guidance that the organization will require to make the innovation a success. Warren Bennis is tio eXCfJ*ent búnker and writer on leadership and its workings in organizaics? ’ e articulated “Bennis’s First Law of Academic Pseudodynamoutine work drives out nonroutine work and smothers to death all

106

Chapter 4

Creative planning, all fundamental change in the university—or any institution” (Bennis, 1989, p. 15). Bennis agrees with Mintzberg in that both recognize the forcé of the routine, the daily occupations of time and thought on managers. Bennis also agrees with Mintzberg regarding the necessity for and the power of intuition. Bennis refers to this as being true to oneself and reflecting on what must be done and what can be done. In short, Mintzberg and Bennis are realists, not idealists. They see organizations as they actually opérate on a daily basis and understand what is needed to initiate and realize any change. One thing—and this is closely related to limiting goals and objectives to what can be achieved—is essential: for change to occur, there has to be a replacement of routine, a creation of a new normal. Accomplishing this change does require visión, not only for the innovative program itself but also for its implementation and replacement in the library. Once again, the foregoing statement does not portend that leadership is impossible or that it does not occur in libraries and information agencies. There are, however, some necessary elements that are related to effective leadership. One is the kind of reflection that focuses on the routine, ensuring that whatever constitutes routine work is effective at achieving goals and objectives. That sort of reflection can result in the design of the new normal. The effective leader, students should know, encourages similar reflection on the parts of everyone in the library so that innovation may arise in any location in the organization. In other words, the leader is a critical thinker who provides a model for critical thinking among everyone in the library. Students can and should be introduced to such critical thinking, not only with respect to the management contení but throughout the curriculum. The effec­ tive leader is a communicator. By that, I mean someone who can create understanding among the audience of organization members and who can share the meaning of messages that are communicated and understood by the members of the organization. The communication, perhaps, should begin with the core purpose of the library or information agency and then can move forward to the specific goals and objectives. The effective leader is also a guide to action. That can be accomplished, in large part, by direct involvement in processes, so that the professionals see the commitment of the leader. Effectiveness is measured in part by the alteration of the routine and the creation of the new normal, but it is also measured by critical followershipThe creation of critical followers signáis not only a uniformity of direction with the organization but also conscious and reflective choice by the profes­ sionals that results in commitment to the new normal. It must be reiterated here that the transmission of the management contení in a curriculum is not likely to be limited to a single course. For example> there are likely to be specific managerial challenges in different environments (with different parent organizations). Those particulars, however, may be best communicated if they build upon a foundation of management an

How Can ¡Ve Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

107

leadership contení. This phenomenon is true of all the core contení areas, and, together in an extended manner, it fonns a universal formulation of contení throughout a curriculum. The intention of the phenomenon is to prepare all students for the essential and consistent work of libraries and information agencies. MORE ON CONTENT What has been discussed in this chapter will probably be grounds for dispute. My hope is that it will contribute to further conversation about the nature and purpose of education for librarianship. Some may argüe for the omission of some things that are presented here; others may argüe for the addition of some things; and still others may argüe for the reconsideration of specifics. The core contení in particular is intended for librarianship. I readily recognize that some information programs and work will require their own desig­ naron of core contení. There can be an enormous amount of educational contení that may be pertinent to, say, Systems design, construction of retrieval mechanisms, database architecture, and so on. Competence with programming languages may be something that is core to education for information work. Also, there may be some overlap between education for librarianship and education for information work. It is up to the designers of curricula and educational programs to determine where the overlap resides (if it resides). To emphasize once again, what is concentrated on here is education for librarianship. One thing that is alluded to in the discourse on core contení is the variation in library and information agency environments. It could be that some commentators would see the need for the variations to be integrated more fully into core contení. It is not that I dispute the inclusión of environmental diversity; I simply do not argüe here for that inclusión as core contení. That kind of contení may be what we could cali elective contení. It could even be strongly recommended elective content. A student with a career goal of, say, law librarianship should, perhaps, learn about legal and legal education organizations. That student may also be urged to gain practical experience in a law library in order to gain firsthand experience in the organizational type. My point is that this particular scope of educational experience is not somelng that every student need have. A similar argument could be made for specialized informational literatures and Services. Not every student need t^ m many intricacies about health Science literature, for instance, although may be real for some students. The principal point to be made here but ^ ^1Cre Can considerable extensiveness of a program’s curriculum, fliuch of the content may be specialized and aimed at students who seek

108

C h a p te r 4

career opportunities of particular sorts in particular environments. That extensiveness could be seen as a necessary component of curricula. There are some points related to the core content mentioned here that require some expansión, not with respect to individual areas but in general. Further, the expansión is intended to anticípate some critiques of the presen­ taron above. Some critics may notice the absence of discreet content on foundations and research. The lack is not because I do not believe these constitute important content. Rather, I believe the foundational and research elements of the fíeld should be integrated within the core content as presented above. For example, each component of the core content should inelude historical background so as to provide a context for the Services and functions as they exist today. The ideas about reference Services articulated by, among others, Samuel Swett Green (1876) should be communicated to students as an exemplar of Services as they were conceived more than a century ago. The historical foundations that provide a window into the past and a way to assess the present are necessary elements to each of the four core areas. They are not mentioned explicitly within the sections on the areas because they form a more unified view of the content as a whole. The foundational background is akin to the unified nature of the four areas themselves. Mediation cannot be covered completely without reference to organization, for instance. Similarly, research should be pervasive throughout the core content. Students should be required to read research works in all four core areas. Not only that, they should be instructed in the structure of the research and its methods. That is, the efficacy of the inquiry that is conducted should be an essential component of the instruction. Research into access to information or into information retrieval will enhance students’ understanding of the core content. Instruction without reference to research could be little more than dicta, statements about the content without grounding in the inquiry that tests various means of Service provisión, usability, or resulting practice. The in­ struction that ineludes research literature opens the opportunity to introduce the fundamentáis of research structure and its evaluation. What this means is that not only do the findings of inquiry enter the instructional picture but so too do the design elements of the studies. Such aspeets as formation of a research question, sampling (if appropriate), methodology, data collection, and so on become components of instruction. The inclusión of research in the core content does not mean that something like a sepárate course on research and its conduct cannot or should not be a part of the overall curriculum. The inclusión, however, does introduce students to the use of research findings as consumers. Graduates of the programs are better able to incorpórate inquiry into decisión making in all aspeets of professional work.

How Can We Ejfectively Edúcate Librarians?

109

CONCLUSION The supposed clash between librarianship and information Science, as the foregoing discussion has shown, is much more political than it is intellectual or conceptual. When it comes to elective curricula, there can be some sub­ stantive differences, and graduates can thus be prepared for different kinds of professional positions. Not only is there nothing wrong with that difference, it can provide a healthy breadth of course and experiential offerings by a school. Difficulties may arise within some places if one branch of the disci­ pline sees itself as somehow superior to the other. The most productive programs seek symbiosis and have respect for the intellectual and practical functioning of each element of the school’s offerings. The practical element of education for a profession cannot be understated. As Peter Brown, Henry Roediger III, and Mark McDaniel (2014) State, “Mastery in any field, from cooking to chess to brain surgery, is a gradual accretion of knowledge, con­ ceptual understanding, judgment, and skill. . . . Mastery requires both the possession of ready knowledge and the conceptual understanding o f how to use if ’ (p. 18; italics added). Absence of respect can cause problems, and unfortunately, there is more of a sense of superiority on the part of informa­ tion Science. There is no reason to go into any details about this sense; writers on both sides of the issue (see above) have articulated a variety of positions. The point to take away here is that the dispute is not necessarily rational, and any idea of crisis is unnecessary. Differences in employment opportunities should be seen as rich choices for students and not as a hierarchy of jobs. The most fruitful future for the disciplines and the fields may be to ignore the extreme voices and to seek the collegial ground in the middle wherein everyone can flourish. This may require ignoring Michael Gorman’s repeated claims that there cannot be a core curriculum for “library and information studies.” The most recent Standards for Accreditation renounce this logic and affirm that programs can indeed design cogent curricula. The future may also require ignoring John King and his reasoning that “people change ñames for good reasons, usually to signify something important to them. . . . We are wasting a lot of valuable energy and effort squabbling over this because of some baseless assumptions about what it all means” (King, 2005, p. 5, quoted in Crowley, 2008, p. 135). These positions are not going to resolve *ny íssues and they are likely to create (or enhance) a pointless divide. ^ gain, a cióse look at the standards reveáis a unitary offering for a richness to C^ UrSes’ faculty backgrounds, research interests, and so on. An openness iH iG anc* ^etter ^ ese standards can result in an interdisciplinary t^ a benefits all academic programs and all students and faculty. While previous sentence may seem particularly idealistic, it is intended to cony reality as it could be created in all schools accredited by the ALA.

110

Chapter 4

One of the things that I hope will be taken seriously here as a suggestion is that there is a possibility for the design of core contení for a program. Admittedly, there is likely to be some disagreement or, at the very least, some tweaking of the ideas presented here. The suggestions for the core contení are, perhaps, the most ambitious concepts in this chapter; I hope they are not seen as overly contentious. They are indeed presented as fodder for productive conversation. They may well not result in uniformity of Opinión or action, but they may lead programs to consider development of sets of core content that fit their missions and goals. The suggestions could be deemed a success if such action follows. REFERENCES American Library Association. (2015). Standards for accreditation. Chicago: Author. www. ala.org/accreditedprograms/sites/ala.org.accreditedprograms/files/content/standards/ Standards_2015_adopted_02-02-15 .pdf. Apostle, R., & Raymond, B. (1997). Librarianship and the information paradigm. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can’t lead: The unconscious conspiracy continúes. San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass. Berry, J. N. (2004). Don’t dis the LIS “crisis.” Library Journal, 729(16), 10. Bertot, J. C., Sarin, L. C., & Percell, J. (2015). Re-envisioning the MLS: Findings, issues, and considerations. College Park: University of Maryland. http://mls.umd.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2015/08/ReEnvisioningFinalReport.pdf. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The Science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Budd, J. M. (2004). Academic libraries and knowledge: A social epistemology ffamework. Journal of Academic Framework, 30(5), 361-67. Budd, J. M. (2009). Academic library data fforn the United States: An examination of trends. LIBRES, 79(2), 1-21. Budd, J. M. (2011). Revisiting the importance o f cognition in information Science. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 360-68. Budd, J. M., & Dumas, C. (2014). Epistemic multiplicity in iSchools: Expanding knowledge through interdisciplinarity. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 38(4), 271-86. Buschman, J. E., & Leckie, G. J. (2007). The library as place: History, community, and culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Butler, P. (1933). Introduction to library Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cronin, B. (1995). Shibboleth and substance in North American library and information Science education. Libri, 45( 1), 45-63. Crowley, B. (2008). Renewing professional education: A fundamental rethinking. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Dillon, A. (2012). What it means to be an iSchool. Journal of Education for Library ona Information Science, 53(4), 267-73. Dillon, A., & Norris, A. (2005). Crying wolf: An examination and reconsideration of the perception of crisis in LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46(4), 280-98. Fisher, K. E„ Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behaviorMedford, NJ: Information Today. n) Gorman, M. (2004a). What ails library education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30( h 99-101.

How Can We Effectively Edúcate Librarians?

111

Gorman, M. (2004b). Whither Library Education. N e w L ib r a r y W orld, 705(1204/1205), 376-80. Gorman, M. (2006). More on library education. A m e r ic a n L ib r a r le s , 55, No. 6, 3. Green, S. S. (1876). Personal relations between librarians and readers. L ib r a r y J o u rn a l. October, 74-81. Gross, M. (1998). The imposed query: Implications for library Service evaluation. R e fe re n c e a n d U s e r S e r v ic e s Q u a rte rly , 57(3), 290-99. Haycock, K. (2000, August 13-14). The congress on professional education in North America, 66th 1FLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel. Helmick, C., & Swigger, K. (2006). Core competencies of library practitioners. P u b lic L ib r a r ­ les, 4 5 (2 ), 54-69. Hillenbrand, C. (2005). Librarianship in the 21 st century— crisis or transformation? A u s tra lia n L ib r a r y J o u rn a l, 2 7 (1 ), 164-81. iSchools Organization. (2014, November). Charter. http://ischools.org/about/charter/. Johnson, P. (2014). F u n d a m e n tá is o f c o lle c tio n d e v e lo p m e n t a n d m a n a g e m e n t (3rd ed.). Chica­ go: American Library Association. King, J. L. (2005). S te p p in g up: S h a p in g th e f u tu r e o f th e f ie ld . arizona.openrepository.com/ arizona/bitstream/10150/10612 l/l/ALISE-05King.ppt. Larson, R. (2010). iSchools. In X. XXXX (Ed. by M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack), Encyclopedia of library and information Science (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis. Leckie, G. J., & Buschman, J. E. (2009). In fo rm a tio n te c h n o lo g y in lib ra r ia n sh ip : N e w c r itic a l a p p ro a c h e s. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Leckie, G. J., Given, L. M., & Buschman, J. E. (2010). Critical theory fo r library and informa­ tion Science: Exploring the socialfrom across the disciplines. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Levinson, S. (2000). P r e s u m p tiv e m e a n in g s: The th e o r y o f g e n e r a liz e d c o n v e r s a tio n a l im p lic a ture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mintzberg, H. (1989). M in tz b e r g o n m a n a g e m e n t: In s id e o u r s tr a n g e w o r ld o f o rg a n iz a tio n s . New York: Free Press. Moran, B. B., Stueart, R. D., & Momer, C. J. (2012). L ib r a r y a n d in fo rm a tio n c e n te r m a n a g e ­ m ent (8th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Olson, G. M., & Grudin, J. (2009). The information school phenomenon. In te ra c tio n s, 16, 15-19. Ostler, L. J., & Dahlin, T. C. (1995). Library education: Setting or rising sun? A m e r ic a n L ib ra ries, 2 6 (1 ), 683-83. Ross, C. S., McKechnie, L. (E. F.), & Rothbauer, P. M. (2006). R e a d in g m a tte rs : W h at the resea rch r e v e á is a b o u t re a d in g s , lib ra r ie s, a n d c o m m u n ity . Westport, CT: Libraries Unlim­ ited. Roy, L. (2015). Answering questions: Incorporating the human element into reference librar­ ianship education. R e fe re n c e L ib r a ría n 5 6 , 151-56. Schein, E. H. (2016). O r g a n iz a tio n a l c u ltu re a n d le a d e r s h ip (5th ed.). New York: Wiley. aeavey, C. A. (2005). The coming crisis in education for librarianship. A m e r ic a n L ib r a rie s , 56(9), 54—56. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). R e le v a n c e : C o m m u n ic a tio n a n d c o g n itio n (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. ^e^ er’ P*> & Wilson, D. (2012). Introduction: Pragmatics. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), St L*¡an*n& and r e le v a n c e . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0 le, C. J., & Leeder, K. (2005). Practitioners and library education: A crisis o f understandWaíl^‘J ° urn al o f E d u c a tio n f o r L ib r a r y a n d In fo rm a tio n S c ie n c e , 4 6 (4 ), 312-19. ace, D. P. (2009). The iSchools, education for librarianship, and the voice o f doom and

YablT n 0m?a/ °fAcademic L ib r a ria n s h ip ,

3 5 (5 ), 405-9. °’ • (2014). A b o u tn e ss. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chapter Five

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases of the Library and Information Professions?

The topic of ethics is a particularly challenging one. As professionals, librarians and information workers are constantly wondering what the right thing to do might be. Answers are very seldom straightforward or simple; the circumstances of human action render decisions quite difficult. Fortunately, many people have attempted address matters derived from settings in the real world and have suggested ways of examining choices and their outcomes. This chapter will concéntrate primarily on these kinds of real-world circum­ stances, with some background on the theories of ethics. At the outset, a key point should be made. John Mackie (1977) maintains that ethical valúes are not objective, that they are not “parí of the fabric of the world” (p. 15). In countering Mackie’s viewpoint, Bernard Williams (1993) asserts that ethics is not like scientific or factual knowledge: “The point of morality is not to mirror the world, but to change it; it is concemed with such things as princi­ pies of action, choice, responsibility” (p. 33). Williams’s words will be taken as a Foundation for what will be said here. In her recent book, The Good Life: The Moral Individual in an Antimoral orld, Cheryl Mendelson (2012) writes, “No academic training exists that Produces wisdom or goodness in its students; the best moral judges are certifíed by no boards and pass no qualifying exams” (p. 3). There are nuous ways of conceiving ethics and making moral decisions in practical ble atl/ ).ns’ chapter will not provide ultímate “skills” that lead to inevitaoutset aCt*°n* neec*t0 have some discussion of philosophy at the he thrust here, though, will be on practical ethics; we will be exam113

114

Chapter 5

ining what we should do when problematic and challenging situations arise. So this chapter takes its cue from Albert Borgmann (2006): Ethics is being equal to the claims o f persons and things, particularly to the claims that make us lesser people if we ignore them. . . . Ethics has to become real as well as theoretical and practical. It has to become a making as well as a doing. Real means tangible; real ethics is taking responsibility for the tangible setting o f life. Real also means relevant, and real ethics is grounding theoreti­ cal and practical ethics in contemporary culture and making them thrive again. (PP- 1 0 -H )

Before we delve into historical and contemporary background on ethics, we should examine some even more fundamental matters that can get us started in this consideration. Throughout time and across geographical space, there have many conceptions of ethics, people exploring just what ethics is. Robert Gibbs takes a somewhat different tack, and it is one that we should consider along with the traditional ways of studying ethics. His book is titled Why Ethics? (2000) and provides a starting point. At the very outset of his book, he makes some points that we need to keep in mind throughout the chapter: “The question Why? opens up a realm of ethics: an ethics of respon­ sibility, of an ability to respond arising in the exigency to attend to another’s questioning.. . . This book offers an ethics whose center is responsibility and not principies of autonomy or rational deliberation or optimal benefits” (Gibbs, 2000, p. 3). The idea of responsibility, as I hope we will see, is integral to a professional ethics, to guidelines for professionals whose reason for being is some form of Service. That said, we will also consider autonomy, rational deliberation, benefit, as well as justice, usefulness, and other ideas. We will consider more of what Gibbs has to say, along with the writings of some others whose work will be provocative (in the positive sense). For example, Adriaan Peperzak suggests a different way to approach ethics in Elements o f Ethics (2004). He writes, “More than a century ago, phenomenology carne to the fore as a reminder that ‘the issue’ itself should neither be forgotten ñor prematurely stylized by hasty adaptations to ‘natural’ or scientifíc treatments” (Peperzak, 2004, p. 9) I read this sentence as telling us that we should not lapse into seeking laws or strict rules, akin to physical laws, that díctate ethical action. “The issue” signáis the particular, including the particular people and institutions that must be considered. Peperzak (2004) labels one of the sections of his introductory chapter “The Situation of Ethics.” That seems to be something else that should stay with us throughout the chapter. Ethical problems, Pre' dicaments, and questions are indeed situated; they arise in the interactions among people within particular settings. This does not mean that there are not any regularities or common dispositions that tend to recur, but there is no absolute law that governs all interactions. Peperzak (2004) defines his own

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

115

program as being “(1) phenomenological, (2) analytical, (3) dialectical, (4) hermeneutical, and (5) contemplative” (p. 19). Right now these are difficult terms and concepts, but I hope to make them clearer as we continué to apply ethical thought within librarianship. One specific thing that Peperzak (2004) says is, 1 think, especially important: “Ethics cannot be separated from politics” (p. 21). To alleviate some potential concems with the application of ethics, we will be considering some actual case studies from libraries, as well as potential scenarios that would demand responses. Another consideration that is essential for both information ethics and professional ethics is provided by Philip Pettit (2014). He says, Your freedom as a person requires more than just being left along, just benefiting from noninterference; it requires richer assets than any that [X] enjoys. To be a free person you must first have the capacity to make certain central choices— choices about what religión to practice, whether to speak your mind, who to associate with, and so on— without having to seek permission o f an­ other. You must be able to exercise such basic or fundamental liberties, as they are usually called, without having to answer to any master or dominus in your life. (Pettit, 2014, pp. xiv-xv)

The foregoing statement offers an introduction to this chapter and to what will be discussed. The next section ineludes some historical background; the ethical thought and action of today has origins in the past and has been built upon over time. The background is presented here in an effort to contextualize the ethical necessities of contemporary times. SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS-CLASSICAL Thinking about ethics, of course, extends back in time and across geographical space. There are ways of thinking about ethics that are peculiar to place and time, but much of it waxes and wanes as other thinking and acting changes. Ethics changes as our approaches to politics change (and politics here is used very broadly). We will not be able to get into the question of which comes first, ethics or politics. Suffice it to say that they are interrelatef In the distant past, ethics was grounded in human qualities, especially in v|rtues that humans could embody. Courage, for example, was the primary vntue in Homeric times. Plato and Aristotle extended the virtues to inelude °ther features, including justice. As we will see, at times virtues were reP aced by faithfulness (primarily religious faithfulness) or the good of the t0 ^ or.r^ ts or utility. All of these are important; some are more important practical professional ethics than others, and the exploration of which a teatures are most vital to librarianship will comprise our quest. In one Uc -read book, Being Good, Simón Blackburn (2003) tells us that philoso-

116

Chapter 5

phy—including ethics—“is an enterprise of self-knowledge” (p. 5). That’s a tall order, but the enterprise is also vital to being a professional. He also says, “Ethics is disturbing” (Blackburn, 2003, p. 7). Immediately after, he says that he proposes that a full understanding of the situatedness of ethical problems requires telling stories. Classical ethics are derived from the teachings of Sócrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient Greek philosophers. There’s a frequently used painting of Plato and Aristotle walking along conversing with one another. Plato is portrayed as pointing upward. Aristotle is shown with a hand parallel to the earth. The painting is very telling about their different approaches. Plato, by way of Sócrates, tended to explore more mystical aspects of our existences; we should think about our lives in terms of a kind of spiritualism. Aristotle always urged people to consider their lives as they are lived here on earth. For him, what constitutes the “good life” is how people live their lives according to the virtues that are meaningful here and now. The original ethics of Aristotle and Plato are founded on a system that evaluates actions in terms of their capacity to produce happiness (aka eudaemonistic ethics). Plato saw moráis as valúes leamed through rigorous scientific training. Aristotle believed moráis are acquired through practice. Plato’s primary premise was that there were some people who are best fit to guide the others. The term usually used (not in the sense we tend to use it) is the aristocracy. These are distinct from oligarchs, who transfer their abilities, energies, and intelligence to the accumulation of personal advantage and wealth: “And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance the one always rises as the other falls” (Republic, Book 8, 550e). The aristocrats are those who possess and exercise the virtues that define the best in humanity. They are best equipped to ensure justice in the polity (the city or the State). Aristocracy is the form of govemment that is most likely to be just and to benefit everyone in the city/ State. Plato was no fan of democracy, because he—through Sócrates—be­ lieved democracy degenerates into oligarchy, the rule by those who seek personal advantage: “And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot” (.Republic, Book 8, 557a). We may disagree with Plato; many have over the years. His position depends on the idea that those who are most completely endowed with the virtues w/7/ always embody those virtues and put them into action at every turn. There are a couple of points that Plato makes that we should give caretu thought to, however. When it comes to leaders, he says, “Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govem is always t

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

117

best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are the most eager, the worst” (.Republic, Book 7, 520d). Reflect on leaders—library department heads, assistant/associate directors, directors; school principáis and superintendents; college and university deans, provosts, and presidents/chancellors; library boards; city/council members; mayors; city managers. How do they lead? On what basis do they govern their organizations? Is there a psychology that one can relate to their leadership? In addressing anarchies, Plato says, “In such a State of society the master fears and flatters his students, and the students despise their masters and tutors; young and oíd are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the oíd, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and oíd men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gayety” (.Republic, Book 8, 563a, b). If we take this out of a purely educational setting and think about the work of the professional, there may be a lesson for us here. Plato wrote (or took from Sócrates) more than is detailed in The Republic. While he said little about rhetoric (Aristotle wrote a great deal about this), he did recognize one ethical element in the dialogue Gorgias. We might be tempted to presume that techniques of persuasión are morally neutral. Plato, however, said that if such techniques are neutral, then it is morally irrelevant whether someone comes to hold a belief by reasoning or by nonrational means. Please think about this, for example, in terms of the ways libraries build collections. The first thing to note about Aristotle is that he is actually the essential practical philosopher. When you hear his ñame, you may think about the driest, most esoteric kinds of topics, but he was concerned about the world we live in and how we should live in this world. In particular, he was concemed with how we should live with one another, which is why his writings on ethics and politics remain so important today. This is a matter that some see as a distinction between Aristotle and Plato. In fact, the paintmg mentioned above is intended to illustrate the difference between them. At the outset of chapter 1 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle notes that ethics is not an exact Science; given that it is based in human action and not something like manufacturing, there is no way to make accurate measurement of any material variables. This means that our judgment is the most valuable tool we can apply ¡n making decisions. Chapter 2 ineludes his definition of virtue and the particular ways in which virtue can be defined: Virtue, then, being o f two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes its birth and its growth to teaching (for which it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result o f habit (whence it «ftS !tS name “éthiké,” which comes from a slight variation from “ethos” or abit ). From this it is plain that none o f the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. Nicomachean Ethics, Chapter 2, 1103a, 14-20)

118

Chapter 5

In chapter 7 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle observes that a carpenter and a geometrician approach things like the measurement of angles in different ways. The geometrician is concerned with absolute or ideal accuracy. The carpenter seeks a measurement that works for the purpose of construction; an error of a fraction of a degree does not matter. In our working lives, we are like the carpenter; we face predicaments that need resolution. That resolution is not likely to be perfect, but it can be workable. Aristotle says, “If happiness is an activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be with the highest virtue; and this will be that of the best” {Nicomachean Ethics, Chapter 7, 1177a, 12-14), and adds, “Happiness, therefore, must be a kind of contemplation” {Nicomachean Ethics, Chapter 7, 1178b, 32-33). Aristotle did maintain that judgment can be trained; as we apply reason and reflect critically on the situations we face, we can develop a heightened acumen. This, he says, comes in large part from experience. The ultímate aim in developing judgment is akin to what Aristotle says about happiness. It is to be the goal of a lifetime, not merely for a short time. We should seek to develop the ability to apply ethical judgment throughout our careers, in all situations we face. In order to ¡Ilústrate some of the points made here, and to bring the discussion into the present, a few case studies will be inserted; answers will not be provided, but the case studies will offer some food for thought.

Case Study 1 You are a librarían at a major university. One day a professor comes to you with an interesting scenario: In grading the final research papers from a gradúate course in public administration, she discovered one that paper appeared too professionally written when compared with previous assignments the same student had submitted throughout the semester. The professor feels this may be a case of plagiarism. She thinks she might have seen a similar essay in a book she remembers reading the year before, but when she called up the books on the library catalog, each of the ones she thought might contain the essay had been checked out, due back weeks after final grades are due. The professor realizes that few other students or colleagues would be interested in these particular books, so she thinks it would be an open-andshut case if she could discover whether this student has checked out the very volumes she suspects. She asks you to please check your records to see who has checked out these books. What is the ethical thing for you to do? We must remember, however, that Aristotle and all the other ancient Greeks were discussing moral obligation as viewed within their own customs an

WhatAre the Ethical and Moral Bases?

119

culture. As we know, the world has changed and continúes to change. Let us take a quick look at some philosophical trends through the centuries. I hope it will be apparent how each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous to see just a little further. SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS—LATER Christianity offered a different perspective on the good life than did Aristotle. In some ways, this new way is simpler (compared with the hundreds of precepts of Mosaic Law)—commandments are reduced to two, and both are positively stated: (1) love God; (2) love your neighbor as yourself. On the other hand, fulfilling these commandments has always presented people with severe challenges. How do we act when someone does something that we disagree with? Imagine working with someone with whom you cannot get along. How do you get through the day? We do not have the time and wherewithal to address this here, but an extreme example is reaching into one’s conscience when hearing or reading about someone who has committed murder or some other heinous crime. In Mosaic Law, there was an idea of the “other” who had rights to property and life. (See the works of Maimonides, who employed Aristotelean thought as he translated the Torah.) In Christianity, the idea of the “other” was expanded and transformed. The “other” was to be considered as one considers oneself. Interestingly, this did not seem to mean an end to slavery. In fact, slave and master were both instructed to be kind and cooperative with each other, but the social system of slavery was left intact—a system we consider today to be a most grievous sociopolitical aberration. Early Chris­ tianity fundamentally espoused the idea of finding peace and happiness regardless of social position, economic status, health, security, and so on. Although their thinking was quite distinct from one another, the philosophies of Augustine and of Thomas Aquinas are in some agreement regarding the fundamental purpose of life. Augustine’s background was basically Platonic, while Aquinas’s was Aristotelean. Kant In the later eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) departed from njany of the prior conceptions of ethics and moráis. Opposed to the likes of avid Hume, Kant believed that moráis reside within reason. Given that ant ^ moral philosophy is deontological (i.e., based on duty), one musí first conceive of duty and rationally arrive at the application of duty within one’s (Kant Wntes’ “Duty w the necessity to act out o f reverence for the lawv teift^ ^ 5 ’ P* ^ta*Ics m original). He then inserts one of the principal e s of his thought on ethics: “Thus the moral worth of an action does not

120

Chapter 5

depend on the result expected from it, and so too does not depend on any principie of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result” (Kant, 1964, p. 69). The origin and the nexus between actions and moráis is duty; duty based in law. For Kant, there is no compromise when it comes to the foundation of moral philosophy. In addition to the deontological foundation, one of the most frequently cited of Kant’s ideas is that of the categorical imperative. He explains this very simply in Groundwork o f the Metaphysic o f Moráis (1964): “If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principie of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categoricar (p. 88; italics in original). The fundamental moral acts are categorical imperatives. He uses the example of truth-telling and lying to ¡Ilústrate his point. Take as a given that it is always one’s duty to tell the truth. Then imagine a situation in which you know the whereabouts of a person. A third person approaches you and asks where that person is, and you know this third person means to do your acquaintance harm. It is your duty to tell the third person where your acquaintance is. This sounds like an untenable action. Terry Eagleton in After Theory (2004) clarifies the predicament. It is indeed one’s duty to tell the truth at all times. It is also one’s duty to see to it that no harm comes to others. What we have is conflicting duties. Therefore, it is reasonable to choose to adhere to the duty of seeing to it that no harm comes to your acquaintance even though that means failing in your duty to tell the truth. It is not that it is right to lie; it is, however, right to see to it that your acquaintance is not harmed. One of the things that Kant’s complex thought means is that there is an “ought” attached to freedom. The disconnection from experience that Kant speaks of is actually the recognition that rests in Kant’s idea of the distinction between the will and action. The will knows no freedom in that it exists always within the laws of duty (and, henee, has no operative choice). In our actions, we can behave rightly or wrongly (our actions can be regulated). On what should our actions be based? Certainly not solely on experience, for Kant. As Eagleton (2004, p. 106) points out, experience is too variable and contingent to provide a stable (much less universal) set of norms. In fact, for Kant, humans must do all in their power to combat their spontaneous inclinations. As Michael Sandel (2006) States, Kant “argües that morality is not about maximizing happiness or any other end. Instead, it is about respeetmg persons as ends in themselves” (p. 105), and “the mere fact that the majority, however big, favors a certain law, however intensely, does not make the law just” (p. 106). Within this difficult conception, we can reenvision what “free' dom of information” means. According to Kant, there is no such intuitive or constitutive idea. Let me complícate things just a bit further. Information thing exists in what Kant referred to as the phenomenal world—the worl

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

121

reality as it appears to be or that can be known through our senses. Informa­ tion as idea, however, exists in Kant’s noumenal world—reality as it is in itself or something that causes the world to appear as it does. Within that context, how do we define freedom of information? How would we read the First Amendment? Imagine Kantian duty-based ethics in a library setting. Take it as a given, for now, that it is your duty to oppose censorship. Now, you are faced with the possible selection of a book that is getting a lot of publicity and is being requested in your library. You know, however, that the book contains inaccuracies that could lead to people harming themselves (or others). What do you do? Which do you see as the primary duty? If you do not select the book, have you abrogated your duty to oppose censorship?

Mili John Stuart Mili (1806-1873) elaborated on the idea of utilitarianism later in the nineteenth century. He disagreed with the notion that the ends justify the means and the fact that Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism does nothing to protect individual rights. Mili advocated the protection of individual rights within the context of utilitarian idealism. Instead of looking at the consequences of a particular act (now known as “act utilitarianism”), Mili advocat­ ed “rule utilitarianism,” determining the rightness of an act through the best rules of conduct. This is done by finding the valué of the consequences of following a particular rule. The rule that leads to the best overall conse­ quences is the best rule. He stated that utilitarianism recognizes purposes and motivations other than virtue as legitímate. If those other motivations are things other than virtue, this raises the question of just whose happiness is ascendant. Mill’s conception of utilitarianism ineludes a recognition of duty and also a commitment to justice. These are, without question, reasonable components of an ethical system. They do offer some indications that some­ thing more than consequences is important, but utilitarianism is, at its foundation, a consequentialist philosophy; the outeomes of actions are of foremost importance. It should be emphasized that utilitarianism is a problematic philosophy, one that can be misunderstood and misapplied. While Mili creates a brilliant úfense of liberty (including—rare for his time—equality for women), there are some questions about his utilitarianism. Again, utilitarianism is a conse­ quentialist stance (what we do has effeets beyond ourselves or even our uuentions); as such, it can be seen as attractive for professional ethics (see ¡ne ^f'ysis in Budd, 2006). One of the things to be wary of is the tendeney to utlhtarianism, including in Mill’s mature versión, to stress individualism Sa&d eXtreme Negree. Michael Sandel (2009, pp. 51-52) warns against this. e does admit, however, that he “regard[s] utility as the ultímate appeal

122

Chapter 5

on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a Progressive being” (Sandel, 2009, p. 50). If we were to take “utility” as “consequences,” I believe this expansión could be a foundation both for professional ethics and the ethics of information. There is a kind of selfish utilitarianism that we can identify today. In philosophy, this goes by the ñame egoistic hedonism. In short, this term means that individuáis seek their own happiness above all else. Both Bentham and Mili were talking about something more universalistic. At the heart of the matter, hedonism and utilitarianism disagree as to what constitutes “right.” To Mili, “right” is much more likely to be defined as what is right for the most people. For many decades, the American Library Association (ALA) advocated providing what could be termed the “best” reading for as many people as possible at a low cost. That sounds like it would warm the heart of Mili, but a closer look at the slogan reveáis some difficulties. What constitutes “best” reading, and who decides what is best? How do we deter­ mine “most” people? As we will see, there are some diverging ideas of community at work today. And “cost” is problematic as well. Does this refer to the lowest capital outlay, the lowest cost of access (geographically, physically, intellectually)? I mention this example to ¡Ilústrate that utilitarianism is not simple. Another case study may be useful here:

Case Study 2 You are working in a public library that takes that ALA motto to heart. “Best” is defíned by the director of the library as uplifting, moral, containing positive life lessons, and so forth. A user requests Fifty Shades o f Gray of you while you are working at the reference desk. Before you can respond, the director (who has overheard the request), insinuates himself into the conver­ saron and says, “I’m sorry, but we will not permit that sort of thing in this library. We will not be purchasing it.” The user asks if the library can use interlibrary loan to get it for her. The director declines and replies, “You don’t understand; not only will we not purchase it, we will not allow it in this building.” The director walks away; you are left there with the user, who could react any of several different ways. What do you do? We are beginning to see a stark difference between classical ethics (the Greek style) and modem ethics. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Greeks were concerned above all else with answering the question, “What is the good life?” Remember that “good life” is not that hedonistic existence; it ¡s genuinely based in goodness. Their concern was with how each person should live, what virtues one should possess, and how one uses those virtues

WhatAre the Ethical and Moral Bases?

123

within one’s own life. For Aristotle, the final answer—that is, did a person achieve eudaemonia, or possess a “good demon”—occurred only at death. Until one dies, there is always the chance he or she will lose the ideal of the good life. In the modern sense, the key question is, “How should we live?” or “What should we do?” G. E. Moore published his Principia Ethica (1971), in which (to some extent at least) he tried to unify these two ideas. He said that the main point of ethics is to figure out what should be and what we should do. Moore is well aware of an admonition that goes back at least as far as Hume: we cannot infer “is” from “ought.” That means that even if we can arrive at answers to the two concems Moore voiced, we still have to make them real. I should say that G. E. Moore struggled mightily with the question of ethics. He could see some merits to certain species of utilitarianism, but he also saw merits in other kinds as well (although he was not a virtue ethicist). We begin to see another feature of modern ethics—one that is very closely related to our concern with ethics and information. Ethics is closely connected to knowledge. It is incumbent upon us to know what should be and to know what we should do. To an extent, Moore overemphasized the split between “ought” and “is” (what is sometimes called the fact-value dichotomy). It is true that the two are not the same thing, otherwise when we determine what ought to be, we bring about what is. However, when it comes to knowledge (epistemology), we may not be talking about two different things when we mention “ought” and “is.” One of the twentieth-century philosophers who urged that we consider both was John Dewey. Alasdair Maclntyre in his Short History o f Ethics (1996), States, “For [John] Dewey the chief trap in all epistemology is the tendency to abstract our knowledge both from the methods by which we acquired it and from the uses to which we may put it” (p. 253). Perhaps the clearest example of Dewey’s point is the Manhattan Project. J. Robert Oppenheimer at first worked diligently on the project to design and build an atomic weapon, but increasingly he found it impossible to sepárate the Science and engineering that fascinated him about the task and the moral dilemma of how the weapon would be used. In some ways, Oppenheimer is the prototype of Dewey’s position. May be Oppen­ heimer is the real new Prometheus (in fact, a recent biography of him refers to him as the “American Prometheus”). While ethics had changed some in the more than two millennia from Plato t0 G. E. Moore, it would change at a much more rapid rate over the most recent one hundred years. Among other things, the changes in the lives of ü ^ y People in the Western world since 1900 have contributed to some egree of questioning of hitherto accepted ways of thinking. Theologians om all religions have tried to come to grips with the absence of a universal W eV^ W0U^ clearlY define ethics. Simón Blackbum (2003) suggests that lar n C^0se^ at m^es that are ¡ncluded in many texts—religious and secuo we follow these rules because of fear of retribution or because we

124

Chapter 5

believe they guide us to honorable action? In other words, is a thing right because it is the rule, or is it the rule because it is right? That’s an inescapable question, regardless of a person’s approach to ethical action. We still can’t get away from two questions that have been asked (at varying times and sometimes one at the expense of the other): How should I live? What should I do? I’ll admit that I find it impossible to sepárate the two questions. In the twentieth century, something has been added to these two ques­ tions. Note that only one form of the personal pronoun is used (“I”)* Some people began to wonder, what about “you”? That addition changes everything. Robert Gibbs in Why Ethics? (2000) asks a series of questions beginning with “why listen?” The question may appear to have an obvious answer, but IMl suggest that the answer is really a way of putting very stringent demands on each of us. First, listening is active; it requires work on the part of the listener to attend fully to what the other says. The action is more demanding than that, according to Gibbs (2000): “My listening provides a surplus of consciousness, making me exceed my own capacities to think and act” (p. 14). That short sentence is a diffícult one; allow me to attempt an interpretation. Prior to someone else speaking and our listening, each of us is in a comfort zone; we believe we know something and understand that knowledge. Then the other speaks. Suddenly, when we listen we are challenged; the other knows things we do not and/or questions what we take for granted as knowledge. What do we do? If we commit to listening, we have to confront our own consciousness plus the consciousness of the other. To put this into “what should I do” terms, we must accept the challenge and revisit our own consciousness. This does not mean simply accepting what the other says, but it does mean putting that speech onto equal footing with what we’re conscious of, then examining the whole very carefully. The action is not limited to what we know but also to what we accept as right and/or good. Gibbs (2000) follows up the first diffícult statement with another diffícult statement: “But to listen is to have responsibilities, is to be bound to serve the other person. Ethics then begins with a listening that brings me in relation with the Infinite, with an excess that is performed in another person speaking to me, calling me to answer” (p. 14). The questions we confront when we listen do not origínate with us; they come from a place outside us, from the other. Listening, then, requires an openness so that the questions of the other can be heard and accepted as questions worth addressing. Over the last hundred years or so, ethical thought has tended to exhibit tendencies associated with two species. One of these, as is noted above, we can cali consequentialism. Utilitarianism is one form; in general, the ethics we construct is ground most firmly in what happens after we do something. 1 you contribute, say, to the Central Missouri Food Bank, some people may not go hungry, so there is a benefícial consequence. If you shoot someone. that person may die (in general, a negative consequence). These are simple mat

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

125

ters, but what about plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler? A challenging instance is the action of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was a Lutheran pastor and theologian, but he committed himself to a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was executed by the Nazis in 1943. How could he have reconciled himself to his choice? The other large species, once again mentioned above, is deontology. This is exhibited most clearly by Kant. Kant said that, for example, lying is always wrong. There is no question about the rightness or wrongness of the act. The notion of sin is related to deontology. As you can expect, what exists for the most part today are subspecies. There are more or less consequentialist ethics, and there are mostly deontological ethics. I am not saying that this is wrong; extremes can get us in trouble. Which way the ethical schools of thought lean do matter, though. In the next section, we’ll explore some of those leanings as they are expressed today. One of the differences between classical/medieval ethics and today’s eth­ ics is acknowledged by Bernard Williams. We do not simply want things to be a certain way; we do not merely want a particular State of affairs to mark life. We want, among other things, freedom to act. We desire sets of rights that will allow for our choices. It is not that freedom has not been mentioned before current times, but related States of affairs have made the consideration of freedom much more likely today than it has been in the past. For example, Charles Dickens would not have been able to write many of his novéis if British society in the nineteenth century was genuinely free, if there had been social mobility, no iniquitous taxes, universal educational opportunity, and so on. Having a constitution or sets of laws is not sufficient for there to be any real measures of freedom. From the ethical standpoint, there have to be some specific aspects of society in place for there to be a discussion of rights and assertions of rights. John Rawls has written a great amount on the idea of justice and the practical political society that is needed for justice to be a reality. One of his principal points is that the political society cannot be voluntary. This means that if we are to live in the United States, we are all to follow the same set of laws and be govemed in the same way by those laws. One person cannot decide that the structure does not apply to him or her. Social position, wealth, connections, or other features should never alter the involuntary aspect or there can e no such thing as justice. I am taking justice here to be an ethical good, something we should strive for. For Rawls, the political structure demands at justice be meted and be assessed in terms of faimess, that there be equality within the structure for all so that political justice can make sense. ze^ S anticipates an objection to his idea of justice as fairness: “Citizens have conflicting religious, philosophical, and moral views and so they lrm the political conception from within different and opposing comprensive doctrines, and so, in part at least, for different reasons. But this does

126

Chapter 5

not prevent the political conception from being a shared point of view from which they can resolve questions concerning the constitutional essentials” (p. 32). Is there a reason we should care about the kinds of things Rawls writes about? Yes, if we are serious about creating and maintaining organizational structures that are committed to fairness within communities. SOMETHING TO PONDER The foregoing statement introduces one of the dilemmas of our profession. We will discuss this at length later, but just to whet your appetite, think about our traditional stance regarding censorship. By and large, it represents attention to “is” and a kind of value-neutral attitude toward “ought.” However, we have to admit that valué neutrality is itself a valué and is expressed repeatedly in many ALA documents. Hilary Putnam (2002), in trying to refute the fact-value dichotomy, reminds his readers that knowledge itself is fraught with valúes. Coherence and simplicity, he says, are among epistemic valúes. Validity in argumentation is likewise a valué. In other words, to State a fact such as atomic weapons were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not something completely autonomous. Along with it come the facts of the design of the weaponry, the engineering that made it feasible, the intention behind its creation, the politi­ cal decisión to use it in that way at that time, and the human action that delivered it. All the foregoing Ítems are points that could be discussed at length, but they are not “valué neutral.” There are genuine problems that have component parts that must be examined closely and systemically, but we are also required to reflect on the meaning of the problems and possible Solutions. That means looking closely at, as John Dewey maintained, where the problems carne from, whom they affect, and what the implications of the Solutions are. As Simón Blackbum (2003) says, Philosophy is certainly not alone in its engagement with the ethical climate. But its reflections contain a distinctive ambition. The ambition is to understand the springs o f motivation, reason, and feeling that move us. It is to understand the networks o f rules or “norms” that sustain our lives. The ambition is often one o f finding system in the apparent jumble o f principies and goals that we respect, or say we do. It is an enterprise of self-knowledge. (p. 5; italics added)

In the realm of modern ethics, our professional judgments should not be mere opinions, held and expressed on the basis of a whim. In other words, judgment is not merely a matter of personal preference. If Kant’s work has any meaning, then we must accept that there is professional responsibility- Eet me hasten to add that by responsibility, I do not mean orthodoxy. I am n0

Whcit Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

127

saying that there is a holy writ of librarianship and everyone called a librarían must hold to it. Here the connection with knowledge becomes clear. The responsibility does tum on being and doing. Being a professional means that one accepts and is able to carry out the requirements of intellectual and ethical work. It further means that one actually does the work. The former is individualistic; it can be seen to have some classical and medieval elements. In parí, we could try to identify the virtues of the professional. The latter is social; the doing is manifest in society and affects others within the society. In short, we engage in practical ethics. In a now largely forgotten work of the nineteenth century, W. K. Clifford (1999) wrote, in his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” “It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence” (p. 74). His statement has implications for religión that we will not get into, but if we leave it in the mundane setting, it has definite implications for ethics and information. For instance, you are at a professional conference and someone making a formal presentation categorically says, “I oppose censorship.” What would your response be? Would any questions come to mind? Suppose at another presentation at the same conference, someone says, “The days of the library and the librarían are numbered; information is free and needs no intermediary.” Now what would you think? Would your thought processes be similar in the two instances? Let me share a quotation by Alien Wood (2002), who wrote about Clifford’s essay: If we want to sum up the moral claims that lie behind Clifford’s Principie, we could do no better than to say that the duty it lays on us is the duty o f intellectual integrity. When we are unduly lax in regulating our beliefs, when we believe what it is comfortable to believe rather than what the evidence permits us to believe, when we deceive ourselves in order to make things easier or more pleasant, or let ourselves believe something because we wish it were true— in all these cases we show contempt for ourselves as beings with faculties of perception and reason, and we do a disservice to all those who might need our honest, good faith judgment in helping them to form their own opinions. Violations o f Clifford’s Principie are not always cases o f lying, either to others or to ourselves, but they are shameful in something o f the same way that telling lies is shameful. (p. 12)

I am not necessarily sanctioning Wood’s claim, but it is worth consideration professionals in any field. One challenge to the achievement of this goal is irrational or arational a^hon and thought. This is where some criticism of utilitarianism comes into P ay. If militarían action is really hedonistic (founded on human passions), and* UC^ ment *s much more likely to be immediate, transitory, individual, even capricious. At this time, there are businesses that are making deci-

128

Chapter 5

sions that they hope will maximize profits for the next quarter even as they admit that these decisions may prove unprofitable over the next few years. Most of us would say that this action is not rational because it is neither prudent ñor historical. When we are faced with people in highly placed positions, our ability to judge on the basis of rationality and purpose is severely limited. In the twenty-fírst century, utilitarianism has not disappeared, but it has adopted a particular shape, not necessarily by philosophers but by those in other fields. Utility has tended to be expressed in economic terms. This is, of course, measurable; those individuáis who have built more wealth must have made some ethical (utilitarian) decisions that have proven correct. Moreover, the economic decisions should be normative; they are the way we should approach every decisión opportunity. I am going to suggest here that this kind of “economistic” ethics is a perversión of something that has been problematic since the early seventeenth century in America. The Puritans who settled in New England carried with them an ethos that connected the “good life” with prosperity. That is, one who lived chastely, praised God, obeyed the law, and worked diligently should do well. If one didn’t do well, then there was likely to be something wrong with the person. This is an oversimplifícation, but the foundation has been with us—as Americans— since those early days. The notions of the self-made man, pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, and so on stem from that beginning. So today there is still an attachment of virtue to those who accumulate wealth. What has perverted the lesson is the diminishing interest in the means by which one builds wealth and focus almost entirely on the outcome. Sins may be forgiven if the result is still wealth. We have to examine very carefully any mention of justice, utility, or any other word that can be attached to ethics; beneath it may lie a rotten bed. It is generally expected that a profession will have some ethical founda­ tion. We could actually begin by asking whether that’s a reasonable expectation. Is there something about professions that raises such an expectation? I’m not suggesting that we really begin with this question; let’s take as a given that the nature of professions—expertise, responsibility, and effects on others—generates the expectation. A more productive place to start would be investing what characterizes a profession. Howard Gardner and Lee Shulman (2005) provide just about the most thorough and coherent description: Six Commonplaces Characteristic o f All Professions • •

Commitment to serve in the interests o f clients in particular and the welfare o f society in general Body o f theory or special knowledge with its own principies o f growth and reorganization

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases? • • • •

129

Specialized set o f professional skills, practices, and performances unique to the profession Developed capacity to render judgments with integrity under conditions o f both technical and ethical certainty Organized approach to learning from experience both individually and collectively and, thus, o f growing new knowledge from the context o f practice Development o f a professional community responsible for the oversight and monitoring o f quality in both practice and professional education (p. 14)

Only one of the above bulléis addresses ethics explicitly, but it could be argued (and I do) that there is an ethical element to each characteristic. For example, the development of a professional community requires that the professionals understand and recognize that there are responsibilities that accompany “community.” The commitment to serve is also ethically laden. What does Service mean? At whom is Service directed? What interests are served by the profession? In short, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important these ítems are to every profession. The primary reason for their importance is that they are both outer and inner directed. That is, each item admits to requirements and duties for the professionals themselves, but the requirements and duties are intended to be for others. Wallace Koehler (2015) adds some considerations that are particularly important to the profes­ sional ethics of librarianship, among which are: “confidentiality . . . democracy . . . diversity of opinión . . . equality of access . . . seek[ing] justice or faimess” (p. 25). In attempting to meet a collective responsibility, the ALA has an established a Code of Ethics (see, www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/ codeethics). The code States, in part, “Ethical dilemmas occur when valúes are in conflict. The American Library Association Code of Ethics States the valúes to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment” (American Li­ brary Association, 2008). As is stated at the outset of this chapter, ethics is engaged in change; in this instance, the code endeavors to alter the conduct of professionals so that it is aligned with a specific set of practices and behaviors. Numbers 6 and 7 in the code address the matters of openness and resPect for contení that is sought by community members, even if that content runs counter to beliefs held by practicing professionals. These tenets a^e, at times, been challenged by librarians who would wish to assert the Pnmacy of their own beliefs. Those actions can present obstacles to profes­ sional ethics when they seek to prevent community members from having access to desired informational materials. Bl i / Se k*nds °f characteristics of professions have similarities to what 0f burn calis foundations. The characteristics are not based on the whims ew Pe°ple but on acknowledged necessities, on reasons for the profes-

130

Chapter 5

sions themselves (Blackburn, 2003, elaborates on such reasons on page 109). I am calling attention to the connection between what Gardner and Shulman articúlate and what Blackburn says to highlight what the bases for professions might be. Also, we’re speaking generally here about all professions. Ethics is supposed to live through our daily practices. That said, we have been discussing various underpinnings for thinking about ethics, since the thought comes before practice. As we saw with utilitarianism, there are problems associated with defining happiness or welfare. Even so, actions have consequences; professional actions are supposed to have (beneficial) consequences. What we do should have positive effects on other people. Providing needed information should provide answers for people. Assisting searchers with framing questions can definitely have a benefit. More broadly, Bernard Williams’s (1985) thoughts can be helpful here: We do not merely want the world to contain certain States o f affairs (it is a deep error o f consequentialism to believe that this is all we want). Among other things we basically want is to act in certain ways. But even when we basically want some State o f affairs, and would be happy if it materialized, we know that we do not live in a magical world, where wanting an outcome can make it so. Knowing, therefore, that it will not come about unless we act to produce it, when we want an outcome we usually also want to produce it. (p.

62)

Schools of business and medicine have introduced ethics courses or instruction in recent years. Not all library and information Science programs have ethics courses; however, the number of courses has been growing in recent years. Is this a failing on our parí? Should this course, or one like it, be required? These questions come down to asking whether ethics is so funda­ mental to our professional practice that there needs to be formal instruction in it. If the response (not simply by us but by the profession at large) is that ethics should ideally be taught in some extensive way but practically it cannot fit into a tight curriculum, that may say something about us as professionals. There is also an assumption underlying professional ethics courses in disparate fields—there are things particular to the fields that require special courses and instruction. That may be a larger question. Perhaps the investiga­ ron into the need for specialized instruction in librarianship would best be addressed through some case studies.

Case Study 3 The town of Frostbite Falls is a community of about twenty thousand, located more than seventy miles from the nearest city of at least one hundred thou­ sand. Its citizens are solidly middle class, and the tax base for the public library is likewise solid. The public library has a staff of eleven, with foUf

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

131

professional librarians holding master’s degrees from accredited programs. The library’s collection has been purposely developed for many years to inelude popular fiction and nonfiction, works that have stood the test of time, some more avant-garde works (to meet the needs of a slowly growing population of younger people, migrating from larger cities), audio books, and some DVDs (mainly educational and documentary). The library also is part of a statewide consortium that provides access to some general databases of information. The professional librarians have intentionally sought to know as much as they could about the people in Frostbite Falls and to offer materials, access, and Services to as many of the people as possible. Recently, the sénior reference librarían retired, so a national search was conducted for a replacement. Based on educational qualifications, plus five years of experience in a medium-sized public library, James is hired as the new reference librarían. For the first couple of months, James works out well. He is intelligent and diligent and works well with the staff. One day, though, a patrón comes into the library and asks James about information on birth control. James begins to ask the patrón some fairly invasive questions, such as “Is this information for you?” and “Do you plan to share this information with minors?” The patrón is taken aback and lets the library director, Jennifer, know. Jennifer speaks with James, who says, “I have serious moral and religious objections to giving people information on birth control.” Jennifer tells him that he cannot ask prying questions and should treat such requests as being in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. He says he will try. About a month later, another patrón, who looks quite young, asks James for information about abortion. He States flatly that he will not provide such information, that she is too young to be asking for such things, and that abortion is murder. The patrón complains to Jennifer. She calis James into her office again and says that this is not acceptable professional behavior. He defends his actions, in part calling upon instances where pharmacists and physicians have refused to provide any abortion Services. He further says that any requirement that would forcé him to answer such questions would viólate his religious freedom. How can this predicament be resolved? There is no doubt that this is a thorny situation. It does strike at what it means to be a professional. We have to consider if being a librarían can be seen as eing sepárate and apart from being a person. That is, can a person have one e os that guides professional conduct and another that guides his or her Personal life? Suppose the predicament is a bit different.

132

Chapter 5

Case Study 4 Crabapple Cove is a smallish city of about seventy-five thousand people. The population is, for the most parí, politically conservative but not overwhelmingly so. There are some indications that the city is a little provincial; when someone is “known,” that tends to work in the individual’s favor. Also, some diques exist that are difficult to break into. It can take a newcomer a while to be accepted. The public library is valued in the community, though not overgenerously supported. The library itself is not especially innovative; it tends to collect on the basis of demand and circulation more often than not. The city’s “insiders” do tend to frequent the library. About six months ago, a new librarían, Shirley, was hired. One day, she is working the reference desk and one of the city’s doyens comes up to her and asks, “Dear, I’d like to read that new novel by James Patterson. I hear it’s fabulous.” Shirley is sure she knows the book and checks online. She fínds that all ten copies that the library owns are checked out and there is a reserve list with seven ñames on it. She politely tells this to Ms. DeVille. Ms. DeVille titters and says, “Oh come on, you can move me to the top of the list; I won’t tell anyone.” Shirley replies, “I’m very sorry, but our policy is quite strict when it comes to reserves; some people have been on the list for weeks.” Ms. DeVille blows a fuse: “Do you know who I am young lady!?” Shirley is taken aback, but responds, “No, I’m afraid I don’t, but I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be displaced on the reserve list if someone else carne in.” Ms. DeVille, forehead veins now bulging, says in a voice that far too many people can hear, “I’m not ‘anyone else.’ I’m Ms. Horace DeVille! You’ll do as I ask this moment!” The library director, Cecil Vyse, rushes out from his office, ready to give the shouter a shivering glare, when he sees that it is Ms. DeVille. A weak smile deforms his mouth: “Ms. Deville; how lovely to see you.” Ms. DeVille turns her snarl his way and says, at the same volume, “Cecil, this . . . girl refuses to serve me.” Cecil is told the situation by both parties, and he turns to Shirley. “Shirley, it’s quite all right; move Ms. DeVille to the top of the list.” Shirley is red faced but refuses to say anything in a public place. After complying, she follows Cecil to his office and asks, “Is that the way things work here? Do the snobs always get whatever they want?” He turns a condescending eye to her and replies, “Shirley, Shirley. All people are not created equal. The quicker you learn that, the better you’ll get along.” He then turns his gaze to some papers on his desk. Shirley leaves his office, wondering about her future. FREE SPEECH AND INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM Free speech was not always what it is today in the United States, and in fact’ it was not always free. In a recent and very thorough accounting of prerevo

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

133

lutionary years, Stephen Solomon (2016) reports, “In Plymouth County, for example, a law in 1659 prohibited anyone who would ‘speak contemptuously of the laws’. . . . And the legal code in Rhode Island punished people with fines, whippings, and imprisonment for merely speaking badly of any acts of the assembly” (p. 18). In short, the legal apparatus of the early colonies were modeled on that of England, where democracy had its limits. In the 1730s, Andrew Hamilton, a very able attomey, defended Peter Zenger against seditious libel based on writings in Zenger’s newspaper. Solomon (2016) says, “Hamilton argued that the law should not permit the punishment of citizens who spoke truth, as their rights as free men depended on their freedom to challenge authority by speaking and writing” (p. 28). Solomon summarizes that State of affairs before the formation of the republic thusly: The printing press made it possible to circuíate books and pamphlets and thereby spread contrary ideas. To combat the threat o f dissent spreading through print, kings and parliaments began regulating the press and suppressing criticism. As a result, the printing and dissemination o f news and opin­ ión— had an agonizingly slow start both in England and the colonies. (p. 38)

Perhaps because of the threat to the free exercise of speech in print, some newspaper founders and editors adopted quite cautious measures. When the Virginia Gazette was founded in 1736, the editor openly stated that the newspaper would contain nothing that would upset the governor or the courts and would countenance no writing that would run counter to the existing laws or to prevailing religión (Hening, 1823). As the American Revolution approached, the debates and disputes about the desirability of free speech and a free press heated up. Sentiments were by no means uniform; about as many people were opposed to unfettered freedom as were in favor of it. The tide tumed somewhat as England imposed onerous taxes upon the colonists, and people, perhaps particularly newspaper editors, spoke out against the taxes. There were, however, numerous loyalists who continued to support cióse ties with the British Empire even in the face of indisputably unfair taxation. There are many anecdotes that ¡Ilústrate the oftentimes-angry confrontations between those who would urge separation from the Crown and those who pledged allegiance to it. For a thorough and quite readable critical compila­ ron of the events, see Solomon (2016). Solomon (2016) and Charles Slack (2015) recount the ugly years that mcluded the Alien and Sedition Acts, signed into law by John Adams. Solomon (2016) recounts, Although it was a powerful anti-speech law, the Sedition Act provides little traction for discovering what the founding generation meant by freedom o f exPression. Congress passed the law during what appeared to be an almost certain war with France, the world’s premier military power. The Federalists

134

Chapter 5 used it solely as a spear to impale their Republican critics. A crackdown on dissident speech was not particularly surprising under such circumstances. (p. 290)

Slack (2015) takes a less forgiving view of the Sedition Act. He provides many instances where the act was used willy-nilly to silence political enemies. Federalists, including John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were not true believers in the innate freedom of speech for the masses. On the other hand, Republicans, such as Thomas Jefferson, disputed the legitimacy of the Sedition Act and its application. Under the act several newspaper editors were imprisoned for varying lengths of time. Slack (2015) contends that the dispute over the extent of free speech has not died: “Would-be reformers mistrust individual rights and dismiss the marketplace of ideas as a sort of sly excuse for the strong to consolídate power against the weak” (p. 267). Slack (2015) notes that Stanley Fish, a literary and legal scholar, prefers the consequentialist stance, which, by and large, would impose some limits on speech as a means of keeping the intrinsic valué of the First Amendment (Fish, 2010). One thing we must remember is that the First Amendment was a contentious provisión from the outset of discussions regarding the Constitution. As Brubaker (1991) reminds us, what is now the First Amendment was drafted as the Third Amendment, so James Madison and others saw some rights as ascendant in the early days. Also, Brubaker (1991) relates that the Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights as a means of preventing large-scale opposition to the fundamentáis expressed in the Constitution. There has always been some questioning related to the rights as they are expressed now. The questioning continúes into current times. As the eminent scholar Leonard Levy (1985, p. 5) offers, freedom of speech and the press exist primarily because people see the truth of their opinions as relative rather than absolute. Brubak­ er (1991) counters, “If all opinions are relative, then the opinión in favor of free speech is itself relative. At this point, liberty is indistinguishable from license, it suddenly transforms to nihilism, for if all opinions are relative, then nothing is forbidden and all is permitted” (p. 90). Not all speech or writings in the press are permitted, and there are laws that speak to not only slander and libel but some measure of prior restraint (such as shouting “fire’ in a crowded theater or inciting mutiny on board a ship in the nation s Service). The freedom of speech under which we do live prohibits pnor restraint on the grounds of offense that might be taken by someone but is concemed with potential harm to an individual, a group, or the polity. This said, there are still disputes regarding the idea of “offense” as opposed to that of “harm.” Should consequentialism or absolutism be the rule of the day? Colin McGinn (1992) reminds us that “words can be as morally weighty as deeds” (p. 82). His point is that words can indeed harm others when they»

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

135

for example, incite to violence, viólate others’ personal privacy, among other things. This suggests that care should be taken and responsibility exercised— along with free expression. Given the need for responsibility (not acting in opposition to the law or other moral precepts), there is still the reality that free expression is a precious right. McGinn (1992) says, “To constrain freedom of the spirit with censorship is to attack our very essence” (p. 84). There are some, such as Larry Alexander (2005), who are skeptical about free expression being a fundamental right (he maintains that harm can follow free expression). McGinn does not agree with this kind of thinking. As he States, “Democracy and free speech are deeply connected valúes, which is why the suppression of free speech is a sure sign of dictatorship of one kind or another. Political subversión is in fact a good thing if it proceeds in this democratic way” (McGinn, 1992, p. 85; italics in original). In this sense, McGinn is following Mili in the liberal tradition. What is intellectual freedom? The ALA lists the following as their statements and policies involving intellectual freedom: • The Library Bill of Rights: http://staging.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm • The ALA Code of Ethics: www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/ codeofethics/codeethics.cfm • The Freedom to Read Statement: www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm • Libraries: An American Valué: www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ statementspols/americanvalue/librariesamerican.cfm According to the ALA, intellectual freedom “is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction” (Intellectual freedom and censorship q & a, n.d.). As we have explored this topic throughout this chapter so far, there are impediments to the realiza­ ron of this idea both from outside the profession and within. I do not mean impediments” in a solely derogatory manner. There are fervent defenders throughout the spectrum of access, from those who believe that a large amount of restriction is important (anything that goes against or threatens one’s beliefs) to those who believe that maybe a little restriction is a good |Wiig (children maybe should not have access to “everything”) to those who elieve that unfettered access is the best approach to information provisión. °r more on the statements, see my article “Toward a Practical and Norma!lve Ethics for Librarianship” (Budd, 2006). Also, in the same article I exam(20oar^UmentS Presentec* Martin Frické, Kay Mathiesen, and Don Fallís 0) and by Tony Doyle (2001) relating to rights and utilitarianism. abou ^ ^ S^ea^ ° frig h ts ” we should do so with care. We are not talking pnvileges or situations where certain actions should be taken; we mean

136

Chapter 5

something more specific and more explicitly binding. R. M. Haré (1981) addresses the issue in perhaps the clearest way possible: It is not perhaps an oversimplification to say that there are three distinct senses o f “a right.” In the first o f these 1 have a right to do something if I have no obligation not to do it. . . . In the second sense . . I have a right if others have obligations not to stop m e ... . In a third sense, I have a right if others (it is not always clear who) have obligations positively to see to it that I can do or have that to which I have the right. In this sense we speak o f a right to equal educational opportunities, or to work, or to enough to eat. (pp. 149-50)

Hare’s (1981) third sense may apply most closely to librarians’ and information workers’ professional ethics. His idea of “equal educational opportu­ nities” could be extended to the right to become informed, regardless of the subject matter of information. People who, for example, seek contení that is related to atheism should not be prevented from doing so by a librarían who holds fundamental Christian beliefs. The foregoing example of seeking information about atheism is a matter of belief. As such, the thought of Williams (1993) applies here, and there is a difference between belief and fact. What is important is the action and responsibility of the librarían and information professional. Williams (1993) does not express my own religious belief, but he does State a conclusión that is pertinent to moral philosophy and, so, to professional ethics: “The argument, in its simplest form, goes something like this. Either one’s motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra” (pp. 64-65). That is, an ethical stance regarding rights does not need to appeal to God; there is an obligation relating to action that centers solely on moral arguments. This secular position is the one that should give shape to professional ethics. According to Haré (1981) and, to a slight extent, contra Williams, there is a need to apply reason to ethics, and this need ineludes the admission of some kinds of faets: The rationality o f moral thought rests, indeed, on there being a system of reasoning for deciding which o f such principies to adopt. This system I have called “critical thinking.” It does not, and does not need to, ascertain any moral faets, though it does need to ascertain faets o f a more genuine sort. We are rational in our critical thinking if we make use o f the available faets, and reason in accordance with the logical requirements generated by the concepts used in the questions we are asking. (Haré, 1981, p. 218)

Professional ethics, as moral thought, is obliged to adopt the kind of critical thinking Haré describes. At this point, it should be noted that an earlier work of mine (Budd, 20U ) ineludes an examination of elements affecting professional ethics. There is

WhatAre the Ethical and Moral Bases?

137

ampie discussion of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, and writers in the fíeld of library and information Science in that piece; there is no need to duplícate the discussion here. It may be of special note that the earlier work covers the debate between Frické, Mathiesen, and Fallís (2000) and Doy le (2001). That debate is an important one; 1 urge readers to consult my 2006 article for a full treatment. There is also considerable coverage of the Library Bill of Rights (LBR) in that earlier article, so details of statements by the profession will not be discussed here. I stand by the previous analysis. All this said, another case study can be offered here that builds upon the LBR and other state­ ments. Case Study 5 You work in the grade school library of a small, generally conservative midwestern town. You are looking forward to reading the most recent Newberry Award winner and then ordering it for your collection so you can update your complete collection of Newberrys. As you read page 2, your eye scans across a word, scrotum. It is on page 2; all of the kids are going to see it. Many of them are going to ask about it. Parents may be angry with you because of the conversation that they will have to have with their children and the children’s possibly expanded vocabulary. Your job could be on the line if angry parents contact the school upset about the books that are available in the school’s library. Do you order the book to complete the set? Or do you not order the book? OBJECTIVE ETHICS? Michael Devitt (2010) develops the idea of a metaphysics of ethics more completely than just about anyone. He begins with two fundamental princi­ pies: M R l: There are objective moral facts. MR1*: There are moral statements that are objectively true. (Devitt, 2010, pp. 182, 184)

The “realistic” element of his proposition is that there are aspects of ethics and morality that are essentially mind independent. Also, the realist or naturalistic perspective demands that from an epistemological aspect, there is °% one of knowing, and that is the empirical basis of Science. The metaP ysical aspect holds that all facts are at their foundation based on physical acts (Devitt, 2010). This viewpoint is likely to be a bit controversial; the reason for bring it up here is that as Devitt (2010) explains, the antirealist ce adopt opposing tenets, such as “common moral feelings, leading

138

Chapter 5

to similar but not identical moral codes. That moral nature, not moral reality, is the cause of what is common in the codes” (p. 192). Since thinkers such as Luciano Floridi argüe for a metaphysics of information ethics, a brief excursus into moral realism seems appropriate. We can start with a definition: “General metaphysics ineludes ontology . . . ; it is concerned, on the whole, with the general nature of reality: with problems about abstract and concrete being, . . . the distinction between appearance and reality, and the universal principies holding true of what has fundamental being” (Auné, 1985, p. 11). It is necessary to acknowledge that philosophy should admit to the possibility of metaphysics. As Heil (2003) says, “Attempts to keep philosophy aloof from metaphysics are largely selfdefeating. Whether we approve or not, the world has an ontology. Theorists and theories are themselves parts of the world” (p. 1). What Heil says goes for moral realism as well; there is an ontology of ethics. That is, ethics, including ethics of librarianship and information, is not merely a matter of opinión. One thing that we must recognize is that ethical actions are intentional and that intentionality has an ontological quality. Heil (2003) further States, “The prospect for a naturalistic grounding for intentionality can be appreciated only if we have some sense of what the natural world has to offer” (p. 208). Russ Shafer-Landau (2003) provides the most succinct definition of moral realism: “Moral realism is the theory that moral judgements enjoy a special sort of objectivity: such judgements, when true, are so independently of what any human being, anywhere, in any circumstance whatever, thinks of them” (p. 2). A key element of this definition is the caveat “when true.” That component requires examination by concemed parties so as to determine the truth of the claim. Human responsibility is not abdicated, therefore, and some labor is needed to assess truth claims. Much more could be said about moral realism, but there is not space here to delve more deeply into this (potentially controversial) idea. INFORMATION For an extensive discussion of information, see the first chapter in this vol­ unte. To add a bit to what information is at this time, we can examine the economics that may impinge on the acts of informing and becoming informed. We can tum First to Borgmann (2006), who offers a cogent distinc­ tion between theory and action: “What the tissue of skin and flesh is to the human bone structure, practice is to ethical theory. Theories are hard and austere; practices are soft and rich. Theories are clear and precise; practices blend with one another and are ambiguous” (p. 90). Theory has to be tempered by some material reality. For example, the top four hundred Americans had a net worth of $2 trillion in 2013, which was more than the combined net

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

139

worth of the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households. The average net worth of these four hundred Americans was $5 billion. The lower 50 percent of house­ holds held 3 percent of the wealth in 1989 and 1 percent in 2013 (see https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States). Are there implications for creating and maintaining an informed populace? Do economic resources affect people’s abilities to receive information (in a meaningful sense)? If the answers to the questions are “yes,” there are ramifications for the creation, dissemination, and receipt (as well as comprehension) of information. The ethics of information is as complex as are professional ethics and deserve careful attention. Borgmann (2006) reminds us that “commodification has a clean and crisp definition—it is the process of moving something into the market so that it becomes available as a commodity—that is, for sale and purchase. Moved into the market from where? From the intímate sphere or the public sphere” (p. 61). Information is a commodity, so say many in the corporate world. It has tangible valué and can have a decided exchange valué. For example, data about the costs and profits of a company—particularly a privately traded company—has a certain kind of valué that can be used for tactical and even strategic purposes. Of course, information regarding the technical elements of producís and processes are usually proprietary and so has valué to the company. Should we ask questions about this valuation of information? Even if the answer to the question is “yes,” it remains to determine what kinds of matters of valuation we should inquire into. There is one potential answer (suspiciously akin to “it depends”) to the question that actually lends a bit of clarity. If someone creates something—a commercial process or product, a poem or song, a treatise on ethics or some other subject—that person or entity can exercise some ownership over the information. Sometimes the purpose of ownership is the act of sharing, albeit at a profit to the owner. Copyright and patents are in place to provide for the ownership of informa­ tion. The continued process of creativity is fostered by these legal actions. The other component of the answer addresses things sepárate and apart from the kinds of ownership just discussed. Borgmann (2006) expresses the dilemma succinctly: “Commodification of some intangible goods is morally objectionable because here a good commodified becomes a good corrupted” (P- 61). Michael Sandel (2012) takes the matter much further in his book. Debra Satz (2010) echoes some of what Sandel has to say; for example, she writes, “The kind of equality I advócate has noneconomic dimensions and depends on access to specific goods, such as education, health care, and employment” (p. 5). Both Sandel and Satz speak of “goods,” for the kinds of noneconomic” matters dealt with are in fací goods. But they are goods of a Particular sort; they do not form the kinds of fodder for transactions typified y neoliberal relations (see chapter 3, on higher education and academic raries). There is no material trade of money or other certain considerations

140

Chapter 5

for such things as health care (even as health care in contemporary times is assigned a price). One of the key points Satz (2010, p. 41) makes is that building upon Adam Smith’s thought, markets are essentially forms of social organizations, ways in which people devise means by which goods and Ser­ vices can be exchanged effíciently and effectively. Though Satz does not address it directly, information is one of the goods that can be exchanged via social networks. Also following Adam Smith, the transfer of information has an ethical dimensión. Satz, following Smith, says that “the pursuit of prívate gain . . . can sometimes lead to social loss” (Satz, 2010, p. 47). What is needed is an egalitarian economics wherein there is a redistribution of goods that do not adhere to the limitations of what markets have become (the optimization of customer preferences). INFORMATION ETHICS IN BRIEF The Journal o f Information Ethics has been with us for more than two decades now. It is not possible to review all the fine and appl¡cable papers that have been published in that joumal, but it must be emphasized that it is an essential resource for anyone interested in current empirical and conceptu­ al work in professional and information ethics. While space does not allow a full review of the contents, readers are urged to consult the joumal on a regular and frequent basis as a means of keeping current on the work on ethics. Founder and editor Robert Hauptmann has performed a major Service to the profession by creating this outlet for serious work on information ethics in all its forms If one wonders why the topic of ethics, including information ethics, is included here, Paul Sturges (2009) provides an answer when he says that information science’s “centre has shifted from a predominant concern with technique (starting with topics like acquisitions and moving through cataloguing and conservation to user education and beyond), towards a range of engagement with a range of issues (such as intellectual property, user privacy, and serving the socially excluded) in which the ethical dimensión predominates” (p. 241). Sturges (2009) continúes, “The development of infor­ mation ethics has been a wholly positive phenomenon, encouraging not only a principled reflection on a host of aspects of information and communication, but also opening up the potential for fruitful cross-disciplinary inquiry and debate” (p. 250). The inclusión of communication in this conclusión is vital since a major function of information is actually the “informing” pi*0cess in the root sense of the word—giving shape to those who receive infor­ mation, to those who are informed. Since there is limited space here to address information ethics, a select few themes will be discussed. While he does not provide the final word on

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

141

information ethics (again, consult the Journal o f Information Ethics), Lucia­ no Floridi’s work cannot be ignored. For example, in an earlier work on ethics, he States a set of “laws” of normative aspects: 1. entropy ought not to be caused in the infosphere (nuil law) 2. entropy ought to be prevented in the infosphere 3. entropy ought to be removed from the infosphere 4. information welfare ought to be promoted by extending (information quantity), improving (information quality), and enriching (information variety) the ionosphere. (Floridi, 1999, p. 47)

In that early work, Floridi (1999) posited that information ethics “has emerged as a non-standard, object-oriented, ontocentric theory” (p. 49). What he means by “ontocentric” is that information ethics is a “macroethics,” a universally binding (binding on everyone, all the time) philosophy that takes the client’s welfare as the primary mover for action. This is a bold assertion, and Floridi has expanded upon the idea in several subsequent works. In his 2008 paper, he clarifies that he intends information ethics to be taken as nonrelativistic (henee realistic) and that the ontological elements of information ethics be taken to refer to objeets and not merely to semantic contení (Floridi, 2008, p. 191). The ontocentric approach entails several key principies that help define what information ethics can and should be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

uniformity o f becom ing. . . reflexivity o f information processes . . . inevitability o f information processes . . . uniformity o f b ein g . . . uniformity o f ageney . . . uniformity o f non-being. . . uniformity o f non-being. (Floridi, 1999, pp. 43-44)

While there is not space to delve deeply into the matter here, Floridi’s princi­ pies inelude a decidedly phenomenological bent (see Budd, 2005, for more on phenomenology). Much more detail on Floridi’s stance can be found in his book on information ethics (Floridi, 2013). What the preceding primarily is intended to demónstrate is that ethics and ethical action are not simple matters. The profession demands certain kinds of behavior that reflect valúes of librarianship, and the very nature of infornmtion necessitates an attitude toward the content of information as well as e shape of what informs. The imperatives that are mentioned here are .amental and are constitutive and regulative of professional lives. What exists here is a beginning, but it is meant to be an indispensable beginning.

142

Chapter 5

REFERENCES Alexander, L. (2005). Is th e re a rig h t o f f r e e d o m o f e x p r e ss io n ? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. American Library Association. (2008). Code o f ethics of the American Library Association. www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics. Aristotle. (2014). A r is to tle 's e th ic s: W ritin g s f r o m th e c o m p le te w o r k s. J. Bames & A. Kenny (Rev. and Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Aristotle. (2014). N ic o m a c h e a n e th ic s . Trans. by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett. Auné, B. (1985). M e ta p h y sic s : The e le m e n ts. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Blackbum, S. (2003). B e in g g o o d : A s h o r t in tro d u c tio n to e th ic s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borgmann, A. (2006). R e a l A m e r ic a n e th ic s: T a k in g r e s p o n s ib ility f o r o u r c o u n try . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brubaker, S. C. (1991). Original intent and freedom of speech and press. In E. W. Hickok Jr. (Ed.), The B ill o f R ig h ts: O r ig in a l m e a n in g a n d c u rr e n t u n d e rsta n d in g . Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Budd, J. M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. J o u r n a l o f D o c u m e n ta r o n , (5/(1), 44-59. Budd, J. M. (2006). Toward a practical and normative ethics for librarianship. L ib r a r y O u a rte rly, 76(3), 251-69. Clifford, W. K. (1999). The e th ic s o f b e l i e f a n d o th e r e s s a y s . Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Devitt, M. (2010). P u ttin g m e ta p h y s ic s f ir s t: E s s a y s o n m e ta p h y s ic s a n d e p is te m o lo g y . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doyle, T. (2001). A utilitarian case for intellectual freedom in libraries. L ib r a r y Q u arterly, 7/(1), 44-71. Eagleton, T. (2004). A fte r th e o ry . New York: Basic Books. Fish, S. (2010, February 1). What is the First Amendment for? N e w Y ork T im es, http:// opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01 /what-is-the-fírst-amendment-for/?_r=0. Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation o f Computer ethics. E th ic s a n d In fo rm a tio n T ech n o lo g y , /(l), 37-56. Floridi, L. (2008) Information ethics: A reappraisal. E th ic s a n d In fo rm a tio n T ech n ology, 10, 189-204. Floridi, L. (2013). The e th ic s o f in fo rm a tio n . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frické, M., Mathiesen, K., & Fallís, D. (2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights. L ib r a r y Q u a rte rly , 7 0 (4 ), 468-91. Gardner, H., & Shulman, L. S. (2005). The professions in America today: Crucial but fragüe. D a e d a lu s, 1 3 4 (3 ), 14. Gibbs, R. (2000). W hy e th ic s? S ig n s o f r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Haré, R. M. (1981). M o r a l th in k in g : Its le v e ls, m eth o d , a n d p o in t. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Heil, J. (2003). F ro m a n o n to lo g ic a lp o in t o f v ie w . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hening, W. W. (1823). The s ta tu te s a t la r g e b e in g a c o lle c tio n o f a ll th e la w s of Virginia from th e f i r s t le g is la tu r e in 16 1 9 . New York: R. & W. & G. Bartow.

Intellectual freedom and censorship q & a. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censor-

shipfírstamendmentissues/ifcensorshipqanda. Kant, I. (1964) G r o u n d w o rk o f th e m e ta p h y s ic o f m o r á is (H. J. Patón, Trans.). New York. Harper. Koehler, W. (2015). E th ic s a n d v a lú e s in lib ra r ia n sh ip : A h isto r y . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Levy, L. (1985). The e m e r g e n c e o f a f r e e p r e s s . New York: Oxford University Press. Maclntyre, A. (1996). A s h o r t h is to r y o f e th ic s. New York: Touchstone. Maclntyre, A. (2007). A fte r v ir tu e (3rd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Mackie, J. (1977). E th ics: In v e n tin g r ig h t a n d w r o n g . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. McGinn, C. (1992). M o r a l lite ra c y : O r h o w to d o the rig h t th in g. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

What Are the Ethical and Moral Bases?

143

Mendelson, C. (2012). The g o o d Ufe: The m o r a l in d iv id u a l in an a n tim o r a l w o r ld . New York: Bloomsbury. Moore, G. E. (1971). P r in c ip ia e th ic a . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peperzak, A. (2004). E le m e n ts o f e th ic s. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Pettit, P. (2014). J u st f r e e d o m : A m o r a l c o m p a s s f o r a c o m p le x w o r ld . New York: Norton. Plato. (1974). R e p u b lic . Trans. by D. Lee. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Putnam, H. (2002). The c o lla p s e o f th e f a c t/v a lu e d ic h o to m y . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer­ sity Press. Rawls, J. (2001). J u stic e a s f a ir n e s s : A r e s ta te m e n t. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sandel, M. J. (2005). P u b lic p h ilo s o p h y : E s s a y s on m o r a lity in p o litic s . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sandel, M. J. (2009). J u stic e : W h a t’s th e r ig h t th in g to d o ? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sandel, M. J. (2012). W h at m o n e y ca n ’t b u y: The m o r a l lim its o f m a rk e ts . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Satz, D. (2010). W hy so m e th in g s s h o u ld n o t b e f o r s a le : The m o r a l lim its o f m a rk e ts . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). M o r a l re a lis m : A d e fe n se . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slack, C. (2015). L ib e r ty ’s f i r s t c r isis: A d a m s, J effe rso n , a n d th e m isfits w h o s a v e d f r e e sp e e c h . New York: Grove Press. Solomon, S. D. (2016). R e v o lu tio n a r y d iss e n t: H o w th e f o u n d in g g e n e r a tio n c r e a te d th e f r e e ­ do m o f sp e e c h . New York: St. Martin’s Press. Sturges, P. (2009). Information ethics in the twenty first centuiy. A u s tr a lia n A c a d e m ic & R e se a rc h L ib r a r le s , 4 0 (4 ), 241-51. Williams, B. (1985). E th ic s a n d th e lim its o f p h ilo s o p h y . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, B. (1993). M o r a lity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, A. W. (2002). U n se ttlin g o b lig a tio n s : E s s a y s on re a so n , re a lity , a n d th e e th ic s o f b e lie f. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Chapter Six

What Is the Future of Librarianship?

To say the least, it is an ambitious undertaking to address (much less to predict) the future of librarianship. Only a fool would offer observations without drawing from the ideas that already exist in the literature, are proffered by organizations, or are presented by foundational research. Fortunately, there are resources available for consultation and evaluation. What will follow here will take such work into consideration. Quite a lot of critical assessment will be required to make sense of all that is out there. Some of the opinions will be subject to the kind of attention that may result in agreement or disagreement. Some of the empirical results that will be reviewed will be reviewed carefully to discem what they mean and what they hold for the future of librarianship. There are no guarantees here, and there are especially no guarantees when the look into the future exceeds the short term. Nonetheless, some exploration of what is to come is necessary as we all plan for an uncertain future. This chapter will deal with librarianship in the broadest sense. This means that larger societal trends will be examined, as well as the future of institutions that house libraries. The breadth creates a number of challenges since libraries and librarianship are affected by so many intemal and external forces. The national economy is certainly a factor that has an impact on all aspects of librarianship, including parent institutions, information produchon, cultural features, societal and individual behavior, and other things. In short, almost nothing can be ignored in the investigation of the future. There ls a'most too much to account for here, so forgiveness is requested if/when readers do find desiderata. Also, attention will be paid to what is said about 0recasts but, further, about what could be said about the possible directions, lncluding what may be considered desirable or preferred futures. Primary

145

146

Chapter 6

attention will be paid to analyzing those factors that are indeed addressed, and the effort will be placed on ensuring the quality of the analysis. READING Too many works have predicted the end of reading in general and books in particular to chronicle here. They will not be mentioned. Very recently, though, the Pew Research Center (Perrin, 2016) has published a report on reading. Among their findings, it is stated that “a growing share of Americans are reading e-books on tablets and smartphones rather than dedicated e-readers, but print books remain much more popular than books in digital formáis” (p. 2). The study is an exhaustive investigation into people’s reading activities in the last few years. It is stated that 65 percent of Americans read a print book in 2016, which is a higher level than in 2015 but lower than in 2011. A total of 28 percent of people read an e-book in 2016 as opposed to only 17 percent in 2011 (Perrin, 2016, p. 2). The data lend credence to the fmdings that people are using múltiple devices to read ebooks; the médium appears to be maturing as many tools can be employed. Also, more people listened to an audio book in 2016 than in 2011 (Perrin, 2016, p. 2). Another notable finding is that only 6 percent of Americans are digital-only readers, so print still has some validity for readers (Perrin, 2016, p. 4). The report also States that educational attainment is a factor in the results. For example, 86 percent of college graduates noted that they read a book in any format in 2016 (Perrin, 2016, p. 5). One of the more pertinent fmdings of the study is “Americans of all ages are equally likely to indícate they read (whether in book form or otherwise) for pleasure or to keep up with current events” (Perrin, 2016, p. 9). The data presented in the report cry for some speculative analysis (which may be the best one can do in trying to extrapólate from current data). One bit of analysis holds that the reading of books, regardless of the format, does not appear to be dead or dying. Americans have reasons for reading, and they actively engage in it. These actions by people suggest the need for additional data so that trends can be examined. One resource reports data relating to public library data (Public Libraries Association, 2015). Among the fmdings are that “registered borrowers per capita for the group of continuously responding libraries (N=230) has grown by 4.8% since FY2003___The fastest growth occurred between FY2007 and FY2010 and has declined across all libraries in the past year—more than ever before” (Public Libraries Associa­ tion, 2015). The period of growth corresponds with the recession that struck the nation. The decline since that time reflects a period of economic recovery. In general, the number of borrowers did increase 4.8 percent from 2003 to 2014. The data on borrowers is also reflected in total circulation figures as

What Is the Future of Librarianship?

147

well, with increases during the recession and declines during the recovery. A corollary to the above data is that libraries’ operating budgets began to de­ cline with the years of the recession (beginning about 2007-2008). A lesson to take away is that allowing for the recession, many of the operating data are up from the year 2003. Another major data point to consider is book sales. The Los Angeles Times notes, “In December, Nielsen BookScan reported that 571 million print books were sold in 2015, 17 million more than the year before. Meanwhile, e-books, which were once predicted to reach 50% to 60% of total book sales, hovered at just 25%” (Kellogg, 2016). The missed prediction relating to e-books is telling; printed books are more popular than has been anticipated. The Los Angeles Times article further says that there remains a need for works by more diverse authors and books with more diverse characters (Kellogg, 2016). If these concerns can be addressed in the publishing industry, the numbers of sales could increase further in the future. Of course, that speculation may or may not come about in the future, but the possibility exists. Millions of people read books every year (including e-books). A substantial number of book sales each year are to libraries of all sizes and types. Many of the books are borrowed from libraries. The data are quite clear on these actions even as skeptics speak of trends of the diminishing importance of books and reading. I am not attempting to play the Luddite here, but the data on reading and books cannot be ignored as we look to the future. For the foreseeable future, people will continué to write books, purchase books, borrow books from libraries, and read books. The profession of librarianship needs to be fully cognizant of this reality. Practicing professionals cannot afford to be general skeptics (by “general” skeptics, I mean ignoring the overall trends in sales, borrowing, and reading). That said, there are likely to be some specialized disciplines where books as such could have diminishing importance. However, even in such disciplines, there may well be continued reading of joumals and technical reports (most frequently in electronic formats) and/or web sites. The phenomenon of reading is a complex one; people have many reasons for reading, and the act of reading has numerous effects. Both professionals and students (as well as educators) should examine the dynamics of reading as a means to enhance the Services offered in libraries and information agencies. Wayne Wiegand has been a voice in favor of the study of reading and its Place in librarianship. In one of his older works, he tries to make a case for library and reading studies being prominent in educational programs (Wie­ gand, 1997). He borrows from other disciplines and melds what he sees with * e state of public libraries in particular:

148

Chapter 6 If literacy scholars are right about the necessity to understand the context in which literacy is practiced, if print culture historians are right about the act o f reading being a multilayered complex process, if reader-response theorists are right about readers being active agents who, in the reading process, creatively re-structure texts to make sense o f their worlds, if ethnographers o f reading are right about the act o f reading being a communal activity based on a social infrastructure with shared interpretive frameworks, then— based on my own understanding o f American library history— I would argüe the ubiquitous public library (to cite but one type o f library) has historically played a major role as one o f society’s most important sites in which this activity has taken place. (Wiegand, 1997, p. 321)

This effort by Wiegand attempts to unify literary studies inquiry with the place of reading in libraries. The communities play an essential role in his argument. In other words, it is the social and personal elements of reading that are important. The argument is a cogent one, and not merely for education for librarianship but for its practice as well. If Wiegand is correct, a future concern of the profession should be reading and reading practices since those take place in libraries and information agencies and will continued to do so for the foreseeable future. Moreover, the reading practices are community-driven phenomena. There is another element of reading that could form a component of future understanding in the profession. While Wiegand emphasizes the social and personal acts of reading (and it should be noted, he is not alone in this focus), there is the cognitive process of reading. Maryanne Wolf (2006) has written in detail on this matter. Reading is a dynamic process that has an impact on how we think and what we think about. It is, in its cognitive dimensions, a transformative process, altering the brain and its workings. It is not only the contení of what is read but the technologies that are employed that make a difference in the brain. The sort of work that Wolf (and others) are responsible for have considerable import for library and information studies. Refer to the core contení suggested in chapter 4, on education for librarianship, and the connection should be clear. Again, the importance is by no means limited to educational efforts; the work of such things as mediation and information retrieval is reliant on complex cognitive processes that are ineluctably linked to the study of reading. Is this aspect of reading receiving much attention in the profession at this time? Probably not, but it should be a component of a preferred or desired future. PUBLIC LIBRARIES If the American public cares about the future of so many essential aspects of life—literacy, public awareness of current events, reading in general, intellectual curiosity, and so on—public libraries will be among the most gener-

What Is the Fature of Librarianship?

149

ously supported institutions. If asked about the foregoing elements of public life, it is likely that few people would express any hostility or, indeed, anything but support. On the other hand, libraries are in competition for resources with vital Services that include pólice and fire protection. The current State of affairs ineludes fear and concern on the part of many citizens who are more willing to support protective Services and who are willing to relinquish some facets of personal and societal freedoms in order to ensure that protec­ tion. The USA PATRIOT Act is only one example of the public’s acceptance of official curtailment of freedom. Where do public libraries fall in such an atmosphere? Where will they fall in the near- and medium-term future? Financial-resource support is a major concern now and for the future; public libraries must be continuously innovative while not abandoning the traditional “goods” that they offer to their communities. Public libraries, if they attend to the Pew Research report, will continué to offer reading materials in a variety of formats to community members. Many individuáis do continué to have an affinity for the printed book, so there is no short-term reason to discontinué the acquisition of books. Simultaneously, more people are accessing reading materials in electronic formats and are using a multitude of devices to read the written word. So public libraries will have to keep ratcheting up access to e-books that can read on handheld devices, tablets, as well as dedicated e-readers. In short, reading is and will continué to be a prominent component of libraries’ mission. But public li­ braries are expanding their thinking about the communities they serve. As Lisa Peet (2016) reports, there is something of a movement at the present time and looking forward to enhance the user experience. She concludes, “The future, it turns out, may not be found in the technological advances that have driven libraries’ progress over the last half-century. Connections, relationships, and Services—using technology but not driven by it—are the big themes that libraries are tuming up as they look to their futures, and humancentered design may help uncover some answers” (Peet, 2016, p. 31). At the same time, many public libraries are attracting young and adolescent individuáis with the initiation and development of maker spaces. For an example of a success story, see K-Fai Steele’s article “The Future of Librar­ ies and Nontraditional Staffing Models” (2014) for a description of the programs instituted at the Free Library of Philadelphia. There is not time here to delve deeply into what maker spaces are, but Lauren Britton (2012) suggests some key components that describe what maker spaces are and seek to accomplish: Foster play and exploration Facilítate informal leaming opportunities Nurture peer-to-peer training Work with community members as true partners, not as users or patrons

150

Chapter 6 •

Develop a culture o f creating as opposed to consuming (p. 20)

A summary of what Britton has to say may center on the action of engagement. Librarians and community members learn from one another as the library provides the opportunity for common Creative action. One goal is, customarily, to involve younger community members in the process of learning and building. The matter of maker spaces is a complex one, with a number of considerations that should be taken into account when inaugurating and managing the Service. As Leanne Bowler and Ryan Champagne (2016) say, There is a sense here that knowing what you have will help you become a better maker. But there is a deeper level to these questions. As one teen explained, one o f her first actions when launching a maker project is to look around the space and ask herself, “What can I use to inspire me?” This speaks to the Creative influences that makers mobilize as a guiding forcé in their projects and suggests that the very nature o f the materials in a maker space serve as a muse to makers. In this sense, questions about the materials are intricately tied to questions about self-as-maker. (p. 121)

This observation carries with it an imperative that will be discussed near the end of this chapter; successful librarianship is a factor of phenomenological philosophical foundation. For now, it suffices to say that a primary component of phenomenology is integration of both self and other into what is done within the institution. The impact of looking upon the other as an other self cannot be overstated. One thing that becomes clear as we contémplate the future of public libraries is that Services, collections, access, and spaces will have to be as diverse as communities are and will be. This is a special challenge for librar­ ies in communities that are changing demographically. People will have many requests—even demands—on their public libraries. Fortunately, there are those such as Peet (2016), Britton (2012), Bowler and Champagne (2016), and many others who document what is happening in forward-thinking organizations. Among these individuáis and institutions is Linda Braun (2014). In her report, she concludes with what amounts to a warning and a cali to action: Today’s 42 million adolescents face an increasing array o f social issues, barriers, and challenges that many o f them are unable to overeóme on their own. With nearly 7,000 teens dropping out o f high school per day, and approximately 40% o f high school graduates not proficient in traditional literacy skills, the nation is in danger o f losing an entire generation, which in tum will lead to a shortage o f skilled workers and engaged citizens. Now is the time for public and school libraries to join with other key stakeholders and take action to help solve and alleviate the issues and problems that negatively impact teens, and

What Is the Future of Librarianship?

151

ultimately the future o f the nation. These challenges are not insurmountable. It is a moral imperative to leverage our skills and resources to effect positive change and better the lives o f millions o f teens. In turn, we will be providing an invaluable Service to our community and position the library as an indis­ pensable community resource. (Braun, 2014, p. 30)

Braun (2014) emphasizes opportunities in the report, along with many suggestions that can lead to vital engagement with teens on terms the teens can embrace and which will enable them to succeed in their lives. The report demonstrates very clearly the challenges that public libraries face, but also provides a road map to the development of Services that can reach one particular segment of the population. It would be arrogant here to suggest that the wisdom that appears in writings needs augmentaron. What is needed is for librarians to delve into the literature of the subject of the future of public libraries and to read the matter very closely as a means to design Services and access for the populations of the future. The literature is rich and contains concrete suggestions to be heeded. SCHOOL LIBRARIAN SHIP It may be said that no branch of the profession faces more challenges than does school librarianship. A major reason for this is that schools are facing such variability of funding that many schools are barely able to keep their doors open. Typical funding models for schools (usually property taxes) are such that there can be wide discrepancies even within a single municipality or district. In areas of a city where there is prosperity, there can be relatively high collections of taxes (both prívate and corporate), so schools in those areas may have high per-student financing levels. The results can inelude more teachers, smaller class sizes, more extracurricular offerings, betterresourced libraries, and ampie library staffmg. On the other hand, in another part of the city, property valúes may be depressed (in fact, there may be unoccupied properties) and there may be few businesses that are highly profítable. Consequentially, schools may be in poorer physical condition, there may be fewer teachers, larger class sizes, few resources to address students’ special needs, inadequate library collections and Services, and (perhaps) no full-time librarían in the school. Because of the inequities, some students receive high-quality educational opportunities while others experience deficiencies in almost every category of education. The foregoing example does not mean that if there were better-quality libraries in the poorer schools all ^ould be well, but with effective library collections, access, and Services— a°ng with complete integration of what the library has to offer with the mstruction in the classrooms—students would be in a better position to sucCeed academically.

152

C h a p te r 6

Susan Wolfe and Linda Reuling (2015) report on action taken in one school wherein the teacher (Wolfe) began to work closely with the librarían (Reuling) to offer students a chance to think about what sorts of library materials and Services would enhance learning and offer the kinds of engagement they would need to learn more and more effectively. The collaboration and the integration of students initiated some changes in the connection of the library to the classroom experiences of the students. This is merely one example of the progress that can be made when teachers and librarians see their jobs as a unified effort aimed at student success. Does this occur in every school building? Unfortunately, no. Everyone in a school is extremely busy and busy with determined (sometimes by extemal entities or agencies) types of work that frequently entails the meeting of standards. Wendy Stephens (2013) describes the potential predicament well: “Public education, in particular, seems poised to bifúrcate in a potentially cruel and even unconstitutional way. Under recent budget stagnation, local funds have begun to make a real difference. As with other public Services, some communities will invest to ensure that public resources remain available for all, while other communities will not contribute toward the ongoing development of its workforce” (p. 8). There is, of course, potential for progress in school librarianship, especially if the examples of the best thinking can be spread to as many school organizations as possible. Ross Todd (2012), who has studied intemational school librarianship for many years, fínds cause for optimism in some of the individuáis with whom he has spoken. One principal touts the effectiveness of librarians as what is referred to as coteachers: librarians who are intimately involved with student learning. He also cites teachers who adopt similar opinions. On the other hand, Todd (2012) recognizes that some principáis bemoan the fací that libraries are not accepted as the educational centers they could and should be. Todd’s work points to a desiderátum that could have an impact on the future. There are at present many principáis and teachers who view the library as little more than an informational resource. As such a resource, the library can do little more than affirm what is taught in class or provide access that can assist with assignments. The issue of what the role of school librarians should be, it must be mentioned, is not new. Renee Franklin (2009) cites a 1960 publication that outlines what librarians should be responsible for: 1- collaborate with classroom teachers and other faculty members to “make the school library o f optimum Service to them”; 2- stimulate and guide student reading; 3- plan and implement instruction to teach students how to effectively use the library’s resources; 4- serve the school as a book (and other materials) specialist; 5- serve on committees related to curriculum development; 6- assist with evaluating school textbooks; and 7- particípate in “co-curricular activities

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

153

o f the school” through which “he can make the greatest contributionT (American Association o f School Librarians, 1960, pp. 48^t9)

It should be of concern to all involved in librarianship that a very similar set of Ítems could be recommended now. The list tempers the optimism that those such as Todd express for the future. The 1960 list is an example of the integration of librarians and library access and Services into the full learning experiences of students. Within the recommendations is the idea of the librar­ ían as coteacher. The challenge remains how to make the recommendations a universal reality (by which I mean to say that these recommendations may well be accepted within some schools). As is the case with public librarianship, there are numerous very perceptive writings on the school environment. As we look to the future, an essential element that can influence what is to come resides outside the library to a considerable extent. Some of the works mentioned above point out, for ex­ ample, that there are principáis who see librarians as partners in the educational process for students. This kind of positive leadership should be much more common than it appears to be. The same can be said of teachers; some collaborate with librarians with regard to the optimal educational environ­ ment for students. The attitude occurs too rarely, though. If school librarian­ ship is to become an integral component of teaching and learning, one (at the least) paradigm of schooling needs to change. The culture of testing is clearly failing education. This is not to say that testing is not necessary, but the highstakes risks and rewards of mandatory testing is a broken model. The effect of the testing culture is the imposition of a purely instrumental mode of teaching, which has a deleterious impact on learning. Test-taking success is rewarded, so “teaching to the test” becomes the teaching model. So much depends on test scores that actual learning takes a backseat. Many educators speak out against the culture of testing, but the Ímpetus tends to emanate from govemmental entities, so the cause is removed from the effect. A com­ plete reappraisal of the State of affairs is needed. One other thing is needed. Teacher education should incorpórate the inte­ gration of collaboration with librarians. Future teachers can become aware of the possibilities of viewing librarians as coteachers and can expand the instructional possibilities at their command. Such teacher education prepara­ ron need not require (indeed, should not require) an additional course added to the curriculum. What is likely to be more effective is insinuation of the potential of the partnership into many existing courses. Where there are Programs that exist to prepare school librarians, faculty from both programs Can c°operate in demonstrating the effícacy of collaboration. Again, this kind 0 cross-disciplinary cooperation does take place occasionally, but it could be Wldespread. This cooperation could help to break down the instrumental

154

C h a p te r 6

factor of mandatory testing and could enhance authentic teaching and leaming. HIGHER EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP Academic librarianship is naturally influenced by the dynamics of the parent institutions. The future of librarianship in the world of colleges and universities is complicated by the uncertainty faced by academe plus the variability of future operations of colleges and universities of different sizes and types. What will occur within small liberal arts institutions is not going to be the same as the future for, say, research universities. In 2026, The Decade Ahead, a report written by Jeffrey Selingo (2016) for the Chronicle o f Higher Education, trends for the years to come are proposed. Selingo draws from several works to present an integrated projection for the future, largely based on recent data. In building from historical truisms, he writes, “The student market of 18- to 22-year-olds remains the lifeblood of many institutions and is also the most predictable segment to forecast since the others are heavily dependent on the health of the economy” (Seligno, 2016, p. 9). The percentage of high school graduates attending postsecondary institutions has been quite constant (at about 65 percent) for a number of years, and the number of high school students has been unsteady and is forecast to decline or be stable for the coming decade. That said, the ethnic and racial portions of the populadon will continué to shift in the future, as we will see. The demographic challenges make prediction even more of a challenge than it might otherwise be. The projected growth in the population of students will, according to the report, be concentrated in the South. By the time a decade has passed, the West will also contribute to growth, while the Midwest and the Northeast will probably lose students. Selingo (2016) notes, “The story of the South’s rise in college enrollment is centered largely in one State: Texas. Texas graduated 277,000 students in 2009. By 2028, it will gradúate nearly 100,000 more students” (p. 10). In the coming decade, a few other States, notably Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, will also contribute to the increase (Selingo, 2016, p. 11). A further dynamic is that white, non-Hispanic stu­ dents will form a smaller portion of students in the coming decades, and Hispanic student percentages will rise (Selingo, 2016, p. 13). The report also illustrates the trend that the middle class is shrinking and the percentage of low-income students (exceeding 50 percent of the student population) is growing (Selingo, 2016). “In 2000, there were only four States in which lowincome students exceeded 50 percent of the population; in 2013 there were 20” (Selingo, 2016, p. 15). The twenty States tend to be concentrated in the Sun Belt. The trend leads Selingo (2016) to conclude, “Given the demo-

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

155

graphic trends, colleges—especially the less-selective and less expensive ones—will need to shift more dollars to need-based aid in order to fill classes or dramatically cut costs in order to lower tuition for everyone. This strategy is not just about helping low-income students. It’s about survival” (p. 17). Academic libraries will have to be cognizant of the shift and should alter Services to assist a different student population. Jeff Denneen and Tom Dretler (2012) examined the finances of U.S. colleges and universities and found that a third of institutions face significantly weaker statements than prior to the 2008 recession. Moreover, another quarter of institutions are in danger of joining that group. The financial future is linked to enrollments. Seth Reynolds, Jill Greenburg, and Jeffrey Selingo (2016) report that 40 percent of institutions have enrollments of one thousand or fewer and another 40 percent enroll five thousand or fewer students. The colleges with under one thousand students have lost about 5 percent of their enrollments in recent years. A regular reader of the Chronicle o f Higher Education is aware of the closing of some colleges in the last few years, largely for fmancial reasons. In part, the fmancial sustainability predicaments of many colleges are due to a combination of declining enrollments and elevating costs, particularly (but not exclusively) health-care costs. Naturally, the prospect of closing or even of severe cutbacks have consequences for libraries and librarians. Their very existence may be threatened. Short of closure, though, cuts will inevitably affect the access and Services libraries can offer to their communities. Serious questions arise: Will faculty be able to keep up in their fields if access is curtailed? Will student success be threatened if there are fewer librarians to help students manipúlate the complex world of information and knowledge? Can the institution retain accreditation without sufficient support by librarians and informational resources? One reality is that States have been supporting public higher education to a lesser and lesser extent. The percentage of institutional fmances that come from state appropriations has been shrinking for some years. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2016), State support has not grown rapidly over the last couple of decades. In 1990-1991, State appropriations were about $35.8 billion; by 2013-2014, the total was approximately $62.7 billion (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). According to the Higher Education Pnce Index (HEPI), in order to keep pace with 1990-1991 appropriations, the 2013-2014 figure should have been $78.3 billion (Commonfund Institiite, 2016). If state support had kept up with the HEPI, public institutions w°uld be on much-sounder ground financially. As Selingo (2016) points out, though5the state fmances have not recovered in any real sense from the 2008 recession. With that fiscal predicament as a reality, it is difficult to foresee state appropriations growing in the near or middle term. Combine the States’ straits with growing amounts of unfunded mandates passed down to them—

156

C h a p te r 6

mandates that must be paid for—and the amount of money available for higher education is limited. Combine the State appropriations with enrollment numbers and the financial plight of colleges and universities becomes clear. Selingo (2016, p. 19) reports that over the years 2010-2013, only those institutions with the enrollments over ten thousand have experienced increases. Even at some larger universities, enrollment has not been increasing. The University of Missouri is an example; the fall 2015 total enrollment was 35,050, but the fall 2016 total is 32,777 (see, “Fall 2016 MU Freshmen Enrollment,” 2016). The reduction in student population translates to a substantial reduction in tuition and fees collected. The result has been an across-the-board budget cut on campus. When there are across-the-board cuts on any campus, a result is a strangulation of progress for departments and programs that are poised to make progress. It also signáis that weaker programs may continué to muddle through the predicament. In short, there is a halt to the positive work that can be accomplished on the campus. The lower enrollments and the across-theboard cuts tend to affect libraries as well. There may have to be reductions to collections and access resources, and there is the possibility of hiring freezes, which can have a deleterious impact on Services. For libraries and other academic programs, progress is stifled. It becomes quite apparent that everything that occurs on college and university campuses affect academic libraries and academic librarianship. This ineludes the dynamics of the faculty, which are not stable at this point in time. Selingo (2016) observes that only 35 percent of surveyed faculty intend to retire at the traditional age (of approximately sixty-five years oíd). It was expected some years ago that there would be a rash of retirements, but the recession of 2008 threw a spanner in the works. A number of faculty members are now reluctant to retire because of Financial need. A component of the reluctance is the fací that throughout the recession and beyond, salaries have been relatively fíat. Another factor is that investments in retirement funds have resulted in lower returns in recent years, damaging the retirement hopes of many. As a result both of choice and reluctance, many faculty are working past age sixty-five. An implication is, of course, that younger individuáis do not have the opportunity to be hired. The age and retirement dynamics that are common with faculty affect librarians as well. For a variety of reasons, librarians are reluctant to retire before age sixty-five. Implications of the aging of faculty and librarians can only be speculated on. Many individuáis older than age sixty-five are very open to new technologies and to innovative teaching and Services. Can it be said, though, that the majority of older faculty and librarians are so open to change? That is an open question that can be answered primarily by anecdotal reports. Since the reports may he questionable, they will not be addressed here. The principal effect of the

W hat Is the F u íu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

157

aging of the professions is the closed door (or only partially open door) to younger professionals. Another recent trend with faculty has what will perhaps be unexpected ramifications for librarians. In recent years, institutions have been hiring more and more part-time faculty and faculty who are not on the tenure track. These faculty tend to be employed at the pleasure of the college or university administraron, for one thing, so they have less job security than do tenuretrack and tenured faculty. Selingo (2016) suggests a few new models for the faculty of the future, but at this time the bifurcated faculty appears to be the norm. One variable related to the bifurcated faculty is the extent of involvement in curricular and other program decisión making that may be exercised by what we may cali the “nonregular” faculty. Do these individuáis have voting privileges in faculty meetings? Can they even attend faculty meetings? Do they have any say in the lives of the students they teach? These are questions that ultimately affect libraries and librarianship. For example, will the faculty who have less contact with undergraduate students comprehend a need for information literacy instruction aimed at student academic success? Will those faculty have an understanding of the informational resources that undergraduates need in order to fulfill their assignments and to extend the classroom learning experiences? If the bifurcation continúes into the future, such questions will become more pressing and more pertinent to the Services offered by libraries. In particular, it may fall to librarians to ensure the academic success for the present and the future programs of students. Under­ graduates who intend to continué their studies may not be as well prepared in the future to succeed in gradúate school.

Higher Education, Academic Libraries, and Technology in Teaching and Learning There are many advantages to traditional classroom instruction. A teacher (and the students) can see body language, hear inflections in voices, can watch one another’s reaction to what is said. Many educators valué such things extremely highly and may be skeptical of the employment of certain technologies in teaching and learning. It is not that these people are wrong; the advantages are real. But as we will see in a little while, there are obstacles to the realization of those advantages for many people. As Gillian Terzis (2016) says, “Education is often conceived as a public and social benefit—a nght rather than a privilege—but social and economic forces are conspiring 10 make tertiary education a luxury good” (p. 59). Terzis (2016) is not a fan of technologically mediated education, though. She further claims, “Perhaps 11 s not the case that online education will kill the university, but that it was a [eady dying, at least spiritually, with a bloated corporate husk in place where a soul used to be” (Terzis, 2016, p. 60). The fear of technology is real,

158

C h a p te r 6

but the potential of technology is just as real and needs to be taken for what it is worth—possibly for expanded learning opportunities. Technology represents neither utopia ñor dystopia; it is a human creation and must be understood as humans will use it. One fairly recent development in the delivery of educational contení is massive online open courses (MOOCs). A number of institutions have experimented with the offering of MOOCs, with varying degrees of success. The subject matter of MOOCs has been extremely varied, from specialized humanities topics to very broad subject matter in politics to STEM areas. Some of the courses carry academic credit, but many are completely open to anyone—whether affiliated with an institution or not—who may have an interest in the topic. It may be safest to say that many MOOCs have been a qualified success. Those who complete the course tend to offer positive reports regarding their experiences. However, in many instances, a majority of registrants drop out of the course. To an extent, that drop-out rate is expected and is not a drawback to the overall success of the courses. At the present time, however, success is an assessment that is still forming. Some librarians, such as Lura Sanbom (2015), are big fans of MOOCs: You can count me in the crowd that sees open digital education as the next big equalizer and simultaneous restructurer o f the academy. This restructuring is because o f the potential for a flexible and responsive digital education that adjusts to student learning and offers support in areas where and when the student needs it. (p. 97)

Sanbom (2015, p. 98) sees a particular opportunity for information literacy but admits that this type of offering may be some time away. Selingo (2016) begins by acknowledging that MOOCs are not in the news quite to the extent that they were a few years ago but that it is the conceptualization behind MOOCs that may have the most lasting effects. He notes that “MOOCs have shifted the conversaron on campuses about teaching, pedagogical practices, and how to better assess student learning” (Selingo, 2016, p. 6). Edward Maloney of Georgetown University notes that MOOCs have shaken the complacency of faculty members: “The MOOC momentum forced people to think about teaching in ways they hadn’t before” (quoted in Berrett, 2015, p. B35). Dan Berrett (2015) reports that some faculty members are a bit skeptical of the utility of MOOCs, stating that the teacher-centered model of education has simply transferred to large-enrollment courses. This kind of observation holds import for the future. Institutions and their teachers need to determine what kind of educational model they want for the future of teaching and learning (with special emphasis on the latter). The creativity oí using technology to reach students of all sorts is certainly a concern that many institutions (perhaps notably community colleges) share, but MOOCs

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

159

may be an experimental stage in the process of creating opportunities for students (including lifelong learners) to engage in new material and the growth of knowledge. The key for future development is genuine engagement, otherwise MOOCs may do little more than the video educational programs of several decades ago. In other words, some actual reinvention, using such tools as social media, may be required for the future. The State of MOOCs and their future in colleges and universities may constitute an open question at this time. There are a few reasons why the question is open and the future is uncertain. One, identified by Sarah Porter (2015), has to do with the purpose an institution may have for using the technology and model for instruction: “The motivation for universities to provide MOOCs is often of a longer-term, strategic nature such as attracting more applications from high-quality learners and to fulfil part of their public good role rather than to cover costs” (p. 56). In some ways, a MOOC may be used as a “loss leader,” attracting potential students with low- or no-cost courses in the hope that the best of the students (and those most highly motivated to leam) will enroll in the institution. This tactic may be a component of a larger “business model” developed by a college or university to manage enrollment. Like it or not, the present and the future, as is evident from what is presented above, depends on enrollment and the revenue generated from it. The landscape of the years to come is a complicated one for MOOCs. Porter (2015) States further, It is perhaps the challenge o f balancing accessibility (openness) and sustainability that is driving forward such fast change and fragmentation; both factors require sustainability, whether it is finding a model that will allow MOOCs . . . to continué to attract enough individuáis to sustain an online leaming community over the médium term, or whether it is to fmd the right business model to continué to pay for the recurrent costs o f MOOCs, beyond the initial capital investment. (p. 59)

While MOOCs may be employed in the coming years for certain purposes, versions of online education are here to stay. In part, online instruction is a response to the complex economic and work lives of students and potential students. Certainly, for the foreseeable future there will be individuáis who work part or full time and fmd it difficult (if not impossible in many instances) to avail themselves of traditional in-class instruction. The need does ^ d will express itself in terms of complete programs at many academic degree levels and in terms of specialized programs (including library and Jnformation Science). There are a number of platforms available for instrucüon; there will be increasingly dynamic possibilities as the companies proVl mg the platforms upgrade their producís. Will there be a perfect platform any ^me soon? Probably not, but those platforms that allow teachers the

160

C h a p te r 6

greatest flexibility while offering a sound structure for the most heavily used components of instruction may be the most popular in years to come. Some elements of online teaching and learning have to be considered in any look ahead in time. One thing that teachers with experience have certainly found is that online instruction is, in some ways, more time consuming than traditional classroom teaching. Front-end preparation is absolutely vital to the success of an online course. This means a considerable amount of time preparing a syllabus that fits the online environment, careful drafting of background information that every student will need to have, and (although this element is less delivery-mode specific) effective student assessment mechanisms. Students require a carefully built site that allows them to gain some knowledge from the contení itself. Once the course begins, the teacher has to be prepared to create a rich interactive environment whereby students leam from the teacher and from fellow students. Where necessary, there will need to be opportunities to collaborate and work in teams to leam from each other (and leam about the dynamics of collaboration). These are some of the present requirements of online instruction, as well as of structures and tools for the future. At the present time, online teaching and learning could be described as “uneven.” Many instructors go to great pains to build very rich learning environments that engage students fully in the learning experience. While this design work requires a great amount of time and effort, faculty throw themselves into the work and even seek assistance from instructional designers as a means to build the most effective sites. A number of campuses have such specialists whose jobs it is to help faculty achieve their design goals. Instructors (frequently those who put in the front-end work) also are diligent throughout sessions and work closely with students so that there are authentic and full intellectual experiences. The courses that are so designed tend to be demanding yet fulfilling. It may be no surprise that the faculty who put such enormous work into online courses are those who likewise spend a lot of time on their traditional courses. As is stated above, the time required to offer the highest-quality course offerings online is considerable—greater than that for traditional classroom courses. At certain types of institutions, the time required for online teaching may have a cost. There may be less time available to conduct scholarship of the traditional sense. On the other hand, there may be opportunities to inquire into the “scholarship of teaching” (see, for instance, Boyer, 1990). With the foregoing discussion as a prelude, the future also holds the opportunity for a less positive situation. As was just stated, many faculty are extremely Creative and diligent and labor to ensure optimal learning for their students. On the other hand, there are many faculty who put less effort (sometimes even minimal effort) into design and maintenance of the online teaching environment. In some instances, the background information (in the

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

161

form of, say, online lectures) is less than adequate for student learning. Some instructors are lackadaisical when it comes to devising and participating in online discussions. One result may be inadequate explanation of technical aspects of some course content. Students may receive poor learning experiences when faculty put little effort into the design and execution of the courses. I do not claim that these lesser efforts constitute a majority of online education, but students do report that their opportunities are stifled when the design and participation is minimal. The same, of course, can be said about poor teachers in traditional classroom settings. It must be recognized that in most institutions, high-quality teaching is not only valued but required. Lib­ eral arts colleges pride themselves on the engagement of students, regardless of the mode of course delivery. (This is not to say that student experiences cannot be less than optimal even in such institutions.) At larger universities, the pressures on faculty to accomplish objectives other than teaching can sometimes push high-quality teaching (again, regardless of delivery mode) to a lower priority. As we look into the future, we can predict that the dynamics of online instruction may well improve at many institutions as greater attention is paid to assistance with design and advice to faculty so as to improve online instruction. Colleges and universities of several types are hiring staff who are experts in instructional technology and design. These individuáis are there to consult with faculty in efforts to assist in the improvement of online course development. In increasing instances, libraries are hiring instructional designers who also are proficient in library functions and operations. The advantage these personnel bring to the table inelude integration of sophisticated informational resources into online courses. The dual expertise is a boon to the faculty who seek improvement of their online teaching. It is likely that larger libraries will be hiring more librarians who possess these múltiple knowledge bases. As evaluation of the successes of design librarians becomes more mature, the rise in recruitment of individuáis with these knowl­ edge and skills sets may well increase. Education, Libraries, and Assessment

The past several years and the foreseeable future can almost be referred to as an “age of assessment.” The Ímpetus for assessment and evaluation tends to emanate from govemments—federal, State, and local. Assessment is certain'y not limited to academic libraries and librarianship; P—12 schools are under mandates to evalúate student progress, among other things. In higher educa­ ron, these measures inelude such things as retention, graduation rates (usualy within six years of enrollment), grade point averages, scores on exams Oncluding the Scholastic Aptitude Test Gradúate Record Exam), and so on. raries are usually involved in the assessment in several ways. Some of

162

C h a p te r 6

these inelude the efficacy of information literacy instruction, integration of informational resources into instruction, and so on. As John Meier (2016) observes, “The role of librarians is shifting toward specialization and greater involvement in the entire research process, including data management and scholarly communication” (p. 264). While there are external forces behind assessment, there are also internal reasons to evalúate what the library and librarians do (and how well they do it). As Peter Hernon, Robert Dugan, and Joseph Matthews (2014) say, there is an objective of positive organizational change. That objective is not a simple one; success depends on what sorts of changes are desired and what organizational models help shape the efforts at change. Hernon and colleagues (2014) quote organizational theorist Kim Carneron (2005), who presents some altematives for models: 1. the goal model, which centers on the accomplishment o f goals and objectives; 2. the resource-dependent model, which focuses on the acquisition o f needed resources; 3. the intemal congruence model, which looks at the extent to which organizations function intemally in a consistent and efficient way; 4. the strategic (or múltiple) constituencies model, which deais with the satisfaction o f dominant stakeholders and strategic constituencies; and 5. the human relations model, which centers on a collaborative climate and the ability to engage the workforce. (p. 5)

Hernon, Dugan, and Matthews (2014, p. 188) note that number 1 in the above list has been the historically prevalent model, but number 4 has been of interest during a more recent period. It should be mentioned that the models are not exclusive of one another, ñor does the list exhaust all possibilities. The accomplishment of known goals and objectives will probably always be important, but a versión of number 5 is becoming of greater interest in many library and information environments. The need to function effectively in a collaborative climate is and will be necessary. That collaboration in higher education is complex and entails becoming partners in the educational process (especially enhancing student learning) and in research and other scholarly endeavors. In short, librarians will work more closely with faculty and students to meet their needs. This is something of a shift of emphasis, but it is one, as Hernon and colleagues (2014, p. 189) assert, that moves from organizational efficiency to institutional efficiency. The larger organizaron is responsible for assessing its functions and their working, and the library is a component of that overall evaluation. The advice of Hernon and colleagues (2014) would suit assessment in any type of library; it should be read carefully. Almost all libraries are part of something larger, so the objective of institutional efficiency is sound for today and tomorrow.

W hat Is the F u tn re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

163

An example of the importance of assessment can frequently be found in the documents of accrediting bodies. For example, the web site of the Higher Leaming Commission States: 4.B. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment o f student learning. 1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment o f student learning and achievement o f leaming goals. 2. The institution assesses achievement o f the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs. 3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student leaming. 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student leaming reflect good practice, including the substantial participation o f faculty and other instructional staff members. (https:// www.hlcommission.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.html Higher Leaming Commission, 2017)

These criteria are quite general, but the review of, say, a college or university will involve extensive review of data and narratives that demónstrate the institutional effectiveness clearly. The library can have a contribution to each of the criteria encompassing institutional review. For an extensive review of how the library fits into the assessment of higher education institutions, see Joseph Matthews (2015). What Matthews has to say comprises an excellent guide to future evaluation (it will not be summarized here). Assessment is not going away any time soon. Libraries and librarians will have to demónstrate very clearly how they foster the institutional and social successes that the parent organizations aim for. The concentration is, more and more, on the social goals; there is a desire on the parís of external bodies (including govemment bodies, as is stated above) especially for public insti­ tutions to benefit society as a whole. Libraries of many types have had a public mission for a long time; serving the public has found its way into the mission statements of colleges and universities more recently. If libraries can contribute substantively to the public Service mission—and show the contri­ bution in meaningful ways—they will be seen as essential on campuses. PERSONNEL AND THE FUTURE The recession that began in 2008 took a major toll on many public and quite a nuinber of prívate institutions. For example (as was mentioned earlier),

164

C h a p te r 6

property valúes declined for a few years, which tended to mean that property taxes declined in several communities. The decline in tax collections had an impact on public and school libraries since library support is frequently linked to tax collections. Hiring freezes were not uncommon in public librar­ ies; when librarians retired or moved away, their positions sometimes went unfilled as a money-saving measure. Municipalities are slowly emerging from the down times, but the recovery is proving to be just that—slow. In tight times, public institutions tend to be slow to recover. Employment is beginning to rise, but a criticism of the present economy is that a number of people are underemployed, so the housing market (among other markets) is likely to be relatively slow to bounce back fully for some time. There is also a possibility that some organizations may mándate cutbacks that become permanent. To some managers, functioning adequately with a reduced staff can become a rationale for maintaining the lower staffing levels. So to go out on a limb, a prediction of staffing in public libraries has it that staffing levels may not recover to pre-2008 levels. This is, of course, a dangerous prediction since it is expressed in global terms. Growing communities may well experience some prosperity and, thus, expansión of libraries and library Services. This prediction takes into account the communities that will have static, shrinking, or slow-growth economies. There is likely to be discontinuity in the economy at large—as well as even more demands on federal and State coffers—so growth will be problematic. It may be that the organizational type that has seen the most personnel retrenchment is school libraries. School districts have tended to be undersupported for some time. A result has been a reduction in the numbers of fulltime school librarians working in individual buildings. Some inquiry has demonstrated that school principáis tend to have a lesser-developed appreciation of librarians as full partners in the educational enterprise. With such an opinión, it is apparent that the principáis find it relatively easy to reduce costs in what is viewed as an “ancillary” function. The efficacy of the principáis’ attitudes notwithstanding, teaching and leaming are likely to suffer as students are not schooled in the informational foundation for much of what is taught. It may not be fully recognized that high school students—and even júnior high school and middle school students—need information literacy knowledge and skills. Classroom teachers may not be sensitized to the need for information literacy, particularly as it tends not to be a part of the testing models that pervade P—12 education. The testing culture is not likely to diminish any time soon. The personnel landscape for academic libraries is complicated. For one thing, in some research libraries there has been a suggestion that individuáis with advanced degrees in subject areas (history, geology, anthropology, etc.) might be preferable for certain library positions than individuáis with only master’s degrees in library and information Science. The rationale is that

W hat Is the Futiere o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

165

when library personnel are employed to be proficient with particular literatures and are to assist faculty and students with sophisticated research topics, the subject knowledge is a primary asset. There can be little doubt that an understanding of fundamentáis, methods, and background work in a subject area would be of considerable benefit. The question that arises is whether the subject knowledge is sufficient for Service positions in libraries. Actually, it could be asked whether the subject knowledge is a necessary condition. What is needed is a well-developed position description—one that ineludes all the duties that will be performed by the individual in the position. That totality should determine the background of the successful applicant. In the future, it is quite possible that research libraries will decide that the subject knowledge is a principal element of a position description. If that is the case, the advanced degrees in subject areas may well be determined to be desirable. Perhaps that qualification may become more desirable than a background in librarianship. In academic libraries of all types, there are considerations relating to the nature of work and whether a professional librarían is needed to perform certain kinds of work. This question has arisen in technical Services areas of libraries. If a given library uses copy cataloging for an extemal source, such as OCLC, there may be a decisión to reduce the number of professional catalogers on staff. (On the other hand, if libraries are involved with, for example, the creation of digital works, there may be a need for more profes­ sional librarians with expertise in metadata and knowledge organization.) Similar kinds of decisions may be made with functions like seriáis management and even acquisitions. Note: Acquisitions here is usually limited to the business side of purchasing ítems, managing an accounting system, and receiving the Ítems. Selection of what is to be acquired may be a sepárate function. A trend in academic libraries in recent years has been to shift some responsibilities from professional librarians to library staff. This trend is likely to continué until the vast majority of libraries has reviewed position descriptions and when hiring opportunities arise (e.g., a professional librarían retires and the position requirements are reviewed). One university library undertook a reorganization, looking carefully at classified staff and staff who have faculty status. Their conclusión was “there were two very large successes- First, the department’s role is more focused and there is a better balance between managing print and electronic resources. Second, we began to create a culture of cross-training and as additional duties have been assigned, staff uPgrades were either given or under consideration at the present time” (Erb, 2016, pp. 104-5). There are likely to be more reorganizations in libraries of aU sizes as they attempt to fínd the appropriate mix of staff and most effec**Ve specializations (for them). One thing to wonder about is the potential changes in the market for Professional librarians. The coming trends could have several effeets on edu-

166

C h a p te r 6

catión for librarianship and the programs providing degrees. One thing that is almost certain is that curricula will continué to evolve to meet the needs of libraries of all types. Another impact could be on enrollments in programs; enrollments have been uncertain since the beginning of the recession and are likely to continué to be uncertain in coming years. Library and information Science programs are likely to find enrollment management and recruitment challenging and, perhaps, problematic. One thing for programs to keep in mind from the previous chapter is that “librarianship” is not so institution specific. The knowledge, skills, and valúes that form the foundation of the profession can be applied in any number of kinds of organizations. That can open up the possibilities for professional employment. As we contémplate the work in the various institutions and in the study for the profession, there is a conceptual imperative that should be kept in mind throughout all processes and functions. THE NECESSITY OF PHENOMENOLOGY Phenomenology may seem foreign to many readers, but my goal here is to demónstrate that it is a straightforward philosophical framework that is necessary for the present time and essential for the future. To begin with, the purpose of the framework is to inform and improve practice. Toward that end, the words of Jürgen Habermas (1973) should be heeded: The mediation o f theory and praxis can only be clarified if to begin with we distinguish three functions, which are measured in terms o f different criteria: the formation and extensión o f critical theorems, which can stand up to scientific discourse; the organization o f processes o f enlightenment, in which such theorems are applied and can be tested in a unique manner by the initiation o f processes o f reflection carried on within certain groups towards which these processes have been directed; and the selection o f appropriate strategies, the solution o f tactical questions, and the conduct o f the political struggle. On the first level, the aim is true statements, on the second, authentic insights, and on the third, prudent decisions. (p. 32)

The last sentence is the most cogent of the paragraph (although the entirety is important). The three points are related to the fundamentáis of phenomenolo­ gy (Habermas was a student of Martin Heidegger) and, as we will see, are closely related to the necessity I am speaking of. Praxis refers to actions that form parts of free human action aimed at particular ends. When it comes to a definition of phenomenology, David Stewart and Algis Mickunas (1990) raise a point that cannot be ignored and that is related to praxis: “Basic to phenomenology is the contention that the world has no meaning apart from consciousness. But the relationship is reciprocal: consciousness has no meaning apart from the world” (p. 43). Their formulation

W hat Is th e F u ta re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

167

may seem odd at first glance, but the gist is that each of us must be fully conscious of the world in which we live and that the world shapes our conscious. The two parts actually form a whole; we cannot sepárate the conscious from the world. In this respect, phenomenology is a realist philosophy. In practice that means that as professionals, we must accept that there is a world to be perceived and that our perception/consciousness is parí of the world. One who could be considered the father of phenomenology also States the reality of the unity just described. Edmund Husserl (1962) says, We must, however, be clear on this point that there is no question here o f a relation between a psychological event— called experience (Erlebnis)— and some other real existent (Dasein)— called Object— or o f a psychological connexion obtaining between the one and the other in objective reality. (p. 108, sec. 36)

I have articulated another key element of the philosophy that has implications for practice (and education): Our consciousness— including the mental acts that accompany many o f our perceptions— is not merely a blank slate on which phenomena write. Con­ sciousness is intentional; it is directed; it has a purpose. Since consciousness is active, phenomenology must account for intentionality, for the realization that our perceptions are perceptions o f something. (Budd, 2005, pp. 46-47)

Another aspect of phenomenology is consciousness of the “I-you” relationship. “I” signifies the personal consciousness and the perceptions that accom­ pany it. But there are other personal consciousnesses sepárate from but simi­ lar to, one’s own consciousness (“you”). Every I interacts with a you, and the ethical manner of behaving is to treat each you as another I. This idea may come to the fore most obviously with mediation work, where the librarían must be aware that the person with a query is a unique consciousness. Man­ agement is another sphere of work where phenomenology is a necessary mode of acting; this may seem obvious since there is interpersonal action. The other essential functions of librarianship also fmd phenomenology nec­ essary because everything that is done in the profession is done for the other.” The intentional awareness of I-you can lead to personal and organizational success. The French philosopher Paul Ricouer may have expressed the ideal and Ihe imperative of phenomenology most succinctly and clearly (and in the most meaningful fashion). He States that the phenomenological goal is living tile good life (i.e., a fulfilled life filled with purpose) with and for one another ln just institutions (Ricouer, 1992, pp. 172-94). Every element of his maxim ^Pplies to a profession like librarianship and encompasses the phenomeno°gical goal. The importance of his words cannot be overstated: the purpose-

168

C h a p te r 6

ful life is one that has meaning; the I-you relationship is at the heart of life; the justness of the institution is something that everyone must strive for. If the future of librarianship will embrace the phenomenological purposes that are stated here, the work and the institutions will have clear goals can enhance all relationships and Services and functions. A FEW MORE WORDS I would be remiss if I did not address the elephant in the room. There have been predictions over the last few years of the death of the library. What has been said above (indeed, the very discussion of libraries and librarianship) signáis that I hold no truck with the predictions. That said, they are fairly numerous and should not be ignored. The themes in the writings have a certain sameness, but they should still be mentioned and addressed. Brian Sullivan (2011), himself a librarían, has claimed that the academic library is dead. He mentions a few ítems in his “obituary”: 1. Book collections became obsolete.. . . 2. Library instruction was no longer necessary___ 3. Information literacy was fully integrated into the curriculum.. . . 4. Libraries and librarians were subsumed by information-technology departm ents.. . . 5. Reference Services disappeared.. . . 6. Economics trumped quality. (Sullivan, 2011, p. A 24)

To be sure, Sullivan (2011) is engaged in a speculative scenario, but the premises of the obituary are erroneous. If one refers to the section above on reading, it is evident that book collections are not obsolete. The reader can glance at the respective chapter in this volume for refutation of Ítems 2 and 3. As for number 4, it is plain that “information technology” is not the same as “information.” The latter is a metaphysical entity and the former is a tool employed to manage artifacts (physical and virtual). Number 5 could be seen to have merit if one looks solely at statistics related to reference questions. It may point to a need to revisit what reference is rather than to proclaim its demise. The logic behind number 6 is flawed, and the utility of those higherpriced resources speaks for itself. Many of the claims of the death of libraries emanate from joumalistic reports. Not infrequently, a focus is on printed books rather than the library as an institution. The claims generally inelude a prophesy of digitization replacing the printed book. For instance, one source holds that “in reality, the future of libraries may rest on just two factors: the rate at which digitization and display technologies advance, and the evolution of laws and practices regarding copyrights” (“The Death of the Library?” 2005). Given that this

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib ra ria n sh ip ?

169

observation is more than a decade oíd, some evaluation can be made. Granted, digitization and display technologies have advanced substantively, but the printed book remains with us, even in many scholarly fields. If the prophesy had concentrated on joumals, the assessment would be different; most scholarly and research joumals employ display technologies effectively. However, the costs of the joumals require that libraries make the content accessible to readers. Some observers say some downright silly things about libraries. Tim Worstall (2014) says, “Let’s just cióse down the lending libraries and buy every Citizen an Amazon Kindle Unlimited subscription.” This solution would be fíne if every individual only wanted to read a particular known item. This, however, is not the case. Fortunately, some saner voices take up the cali. S. E. Smith (2014) counters, Librarians also provide highly unique and specialized Services, benefiting from years o f training to learn to serve patrons. It’s not just that a library provides access to books, but that it also offers access to brilliant individuáis who provide research assistance, guidance, book recommendations, and tools to help people empower themselves when it comes to researching and locating information. Giving everyone a Kindle doesn’t solve that problem.

Smith maintains that while the Kindle is a useful and successful commercial device, it is the library that exists to foster culture and citizenship—without a commercial connection. Smith recognizes what Worstall appears to be incapable of grasping: libraries should not fall prey to neoliberal ideáis wherein everything people engage in can be reduced to transactions of a corporate type. Remember also the aforementioned point that more people are using tablets and handheld devices for reading and that most people are reading printed books. Librarians do need to be aware of what Worstall says, but the profession also needs the acumen to see through his mistake. Occasionally pieces about the death of libraries have a nostalgic tinge, and some writers blame the profession for what they see as the end of an epoch in the history of books and reading. Martha Nichols (2010) writes about the Cambridge library and says, Regardless o f what administrators say, the current library aesthetic isn’t just about practicality. The new building encourages no Creative scattering. It may be a library scientist’s dream o f control, but it’s not mine. How different it would be if that glass box were crammed with books. From the park outside, we’d see far more than emptiness. And may be w e ’d come to believe in a visión of information that’s not constantly threatening to overwhelm us.

becomes evident that the public has different ideas about what a library snould be and what the future should hold. Are librarians between a rock and

170

C h a p te r 6

a hard place in trying to anticípate what is to come? The challenge is not inconsequential, and the decisions made in the profession are likely to upset some people. The reality is that the death of the printed book is not coming nearly as rapidly as some predict (or even desire). The reality also holds that many readers do read via screens. The medium-term future will require mixed media, much contení, and many Services. There is a message that we are left with here. With careful planning, examination, reflection, and thought, libraries can have not merely solid but vibrant futures. One of the trends that seems apparent throughout the profes­ sion of librarianship (and that is affirmed in education for librarianship) is a cióse attention to communities. There are environmental scans taking place by divisions of the American Library Association. There is an awareness of demographic shifts in municipalities and on campuses. There are efforts to reach out to community members with Services and access that people want and use. There are still numerous concerns, and the worry over resources is prominent among them. The rhetoric on the death of libraries is empty and easily refutable. What is most needed for the future of the profession is a rejection of corporatization (an entirely different matter) and critical thought about the directions of Services and access—with openness to communities at the fore. For every cause for concern, there is an equal and stronger reason to be optimistic if the profession embraces the ideáis that are at the heart of many of the documents that the profession has articulated. In summary, we can look forward to many challenges but also to the soundness of purpose that will stand the profession in good stead for years to come. REFERENCES American Association o f School Librarians. (1960). Standards for school library programs. Chicago: Author. Berrett, D. (2015). Teaching revival. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(26), B35-B37. Bowler, L., & Champagne, R. (2016). Mindíul makers: Question prompts to help guide young people’s critical technical practices in maker spaces in libraries, museums, and communitybased youth organizations. Library & Information Science Research, 36, 117-24. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Camegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Braun, L. W. (2014). The future o f library Services fo r and with teens: A cali to action. Chicago: YALSA. Britton, L. (2012). The makers o f maker spaces. Library Journal, 737(16), 20-23. Budd, J. M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. Journal o f Documentation, ¿7(1), 44-59. Cameron, K. (2005). Organizational effectiveness: Its demise and re-emergence through positive organizational scholarship. In M. A. Hitt & K. G. Smith (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development. London: Oxford University Press. Commonfund Institute. (2016). 2014 HEPI. Wilton, CT: Commonfund. www. commonfund. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CF_HEPI_2014.pdf. The death o f the library? (2005, May 1). MIT Technology Review. www.technologyreview. com/s/404030/the-death-of-libraries/.

W hat Is the F u tu re o f L ib r a ria n s h ip ?

171

Denneen, J., & Dretler, T. (2012, July 6). The financially sustainable university. www.bain. com/publications/articles/financially-sustainable-university.aspx. Erb, R. A. (2016). The impact o f reorganizaron o f staff using the core competencies as a framework for staff training and development. Seriáis Librarían, 68, 92-105. Fall 2016 MU freshmen enrollment slightly more than projected. (2016, August 22). Colnmbia Missourian. www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/fall-mu-freshmenenrollment-slightly-more-than-projected/article_06176c 10-68b 1-11 e6-af6e-e76aa72886f0. html. Franklin, R. E. (2009) What did you cali me? Results of a pilot study to investígate perspectives ffom future school library administrators about appropriate job titles. Education Librarles, 32(2), 13-20. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory andpractice (J. Viertel, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Hemon, P., Dugan, R. E., & Matthews, J. R. (2014). Getting staríed with evaluation. Chicago: ALA. Higher Leaming Commission. (2017). The criteria for accreditation and core components. www.hlcommission.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components. html. Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: General introduction to puré phenomenology. New York: Collier. Kellogg, C. (2016, December 31). 6 book trends for 2016: Look into the future. Los Angeles Times, www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-book-trends-20160103-story.html. Matthews, J. R. (2015). Library assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Meier, J. J. (2016). The future of academic libraries: Conversations with today’s leaders about tomorrow.portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(2), 263-88. Nichols, M. (2010, March 16). The death o f the library book. Salón, www.salon.com/2010/03/ 16/martha_nichols_public_libraries/. Peet, L. (2016). The future o f future. Library Journal, 74/(15), 26-31. Perrin, A. (2016). Book reading 2016. Philadelphia: Pew Research Center. Porter, S. (2015). The economics o f MOOCs: A sustainable future? Bottom Line: Managing Library Fmanees, 25(1/2), 52-62. Public Libraries Association. (2015). The 2014 Public Library Data Service statistical report: Characteristics & trends. Chicago: Author. http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2015/06/the2014-public-library-data-service-statistical-report-characteristics-trends/. Reynolds, S., Greenburg, J., & Selingo, J. J. (2016). Strength in numbers: Strategies for collaborating in a new era of higher education. Boston: Parthenon-EY. Ricouer, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University o f Chicago Press. Sanbom, L. (2015). The future o f academic librarianship: MOOCs and the robot revolution. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(2), 97-101. Selingo, J. J. (2016). 2026, the decade ahead: The seismic shifts transforming the future of higher education. Washington, DC: Chronicle o f Higher Education. Smith, S. E. (2014, August 18). What the “death o f the library” means for the future o f books. Week. http://theweek.com/articles/444844/what-death-library-means-future-books. Steele, K-F. (2014). The future of libraries and nontraditional staffmg models. Young Adult Library Services, 75(1), 11-14. Stephens, W. (2013). For every leamer, everywhere, all the time: The future o f school libraries. Young Adult Library Services, 12( 1), 4-8. Mewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the fleld and its literature. Athens: Ohio University Press. bullivan, B. (2011). Death by irony: How librarians killed the academic library. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(17), A24. ^erzis, G. (2016). Will MOOCs kill the university? New Philosophy, 12, 59-60. ^ (^012). Visibility, core standards, and the power o f the story: Creating a visible future for school libraries. Teacher Librarían, 39(6), 8-14. ■ • Department of Education. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015. Washington, DC: Author. https://nces.ed.gOv/programs/digest/d 15/tables/dtl 5_333.30.asp?current=yes.

172

C h a p te r 6

Wiegand, W. A. (1997). Out o f sight out o f mind: Why don’t we have any schools o f library and reading studies? Journal of Education for Library and Information Studies, 36(4), 314-26. Wolf, M. (2006). Proust and the squid: The story and Science of the reading brain. New York: Harper. Wolfe, S., & Reuling, L. (2015). Repurposing for the ñiture. Teacher Librarían, 43( 1), 25-29. Worstall, T. (2014, July 18). Cióse the librarles and buy everyone an Amazon Kindle unlimited http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/18/close-thesubscription. Forbes. libraries-and-buy-everyone-an-amazon-kindle-unlimited-subscription/#ldaa42275f4c.

Index

aboutness, 100 absolutism, 15, 16 Academic Bill o f Rights, 68 academic freedom, 66, 68 academic libraries, xi, 81-82, 154-161, 164-165 accessto information, 101-102, 129, 149, 165 accreditation, higher education, 155 accreditation, library and information Science. See Standards for Accreditation (ALA) Adams, Fred, 18 ,2 6 ,2 7 Adams, John, 133, 134 addressee, 6 admissions standards, colleges and universities, 59 adolescents, 150 Alexander, Larry, 134, 142 Alston, William, 14, 27 American Association o f School Librarians, 152, 170 American Association o f University Professors (AAUP), 66 American Council o f Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), 67, 82 Anderson, Anthony, 30, 55 Apostle, Richard, 89, 110 Aquinas, Thomas, 119 ^gument, 35 S., 30, 55

Aristotle, 54, 115-118, 119, 122, 142 Arizona State University, 71, 74-75 arXiv, 76 assessment, 34,42, 4 4 ,4 9 , 53, 93, 145, 161-163 Association o f American Universities, 60, 77 Association o f Research Libraries (ARL), 78 Augustine, 119 Auné, B., 138, 142 Austin, J. L., 5, 27 authenticity, 32, 33 authority, 38-39, 41, 4 2 ,4 3 , 44, 49 bachelor’s degree, 64-65 Bakhtin, M. M., 38 Balch, Stephen, 68 belief, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 33, 39, 40,45, 127 Belkin, Nicholas, 8, 27 Bennis, Warren, 105, 110 Bentham, Jeremy, 121, 122 Berman, Jillian, 65, 83 Berrett, Dan, 158, 170 Berry, JohnN., 87, 110 Bertot, John Cario, 93-94, 110 Bhaskar, Roy, 52 Biemiller, L., 58, 83 Biggs, John, 31, 55 Bill o f Rights, 134

173

174

In dex

Birner, B. J., 9, 12, 27 Blackbum, Simón, 115, 123, 126, 142 Bok, Derek, 70, 83 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 124 Borgman, Albert, 114, 138, 139, 142 Bowler, Leanne, 150, 170 Boyer, Ernest, 160 Braun, Linda, 150-151, 170 Brauner, Christian, 21-22, 27 Britton, Lauren, 149-150, 170 Brown, David, 76, 79-80, 81, 83 Brown, P. C., 109, 110 Brown, S., 59, 83 Brubaker, S. C., 134, 142 Bruce, Christine, 31, 55 Bruner, Jerome, 4 6 ^ 8 , 55 Buckland, Michael, 10, 22 Budd, John M., 3 -4, 5, 10, 11-12, 19, 23, 27, 30, 31, 35-36, 44,4 6 , 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 68, 69, 72, 81, 83, 87, 91,98, 100-101, 110, 121, 135, 136, 141, 142, 167, 170 budgets, libraries. See finances Burger, Leslie, 86 Burgess, Alexis, 13, 27 Burgess, Colleen, 40, 55 Burgess, John, 13, 27 Bums, C. Sean, 81, 83 Buschman, John, 31, 55, 89-90, 91,110,

111 business, schools of, 130 business models, higher education, 76, 159 Butler, Pierce, 87, 110 Cagle F., 67, 83 Cameron, Kim, 162, 170 capitalism, 57, 61, 63, 73 Carey, Benedict, 30, 55 cataloging, 98-99 categorical imperative (Kant), 120 categorization, 16 censorship, 121, 122, 127 Chalmers, David, 19, 46 Champagne, Ryan, 150, 170 Christianity, 119 circulation, library materials, 146, 147 citations, 38, 43 classification, 12, 16, 98-99 Clifford, W. K., 127, 142

Code o f Ethics (ALA), 129, 135, 142 cognition, 18-20, 26, 31, 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 54, 98, 148; embedded, 18; embodied, 18, 26, 37; enactive, 18; extended, 18 Colé, Jonathan, 82, 83 collection development. See access to information Collini, Stefan, 60, 83 Collins, John, 8, 27 commodification, 57, 60, 62, 71, 72, 138-139 communication, formal, 8, 11, 19, 24, 26, 77 communication, mass, 10 communication, multidisciplinary, 11-12, 91 communicative action, 4, 5, 23, 25, 32,38, 9 1 ,9 7 communities, 93, 129, 150; demographics, 150 Congress on Professional Education. See Haycock, Ken consciousness, 4, 51, 124, 167 consequentialism (ethics), 121, 124, 130 core competences, library and information Science, 85, 86, 93 core valúes, 93 cost, academic degrees, 65, 72 cost, information, 102 Craig, Ryan, 72, 83 crisis, library and information Science education, 86-90 Cronin, Blaise, 88, 110 Cross, Ray, 66 Crow, Michael, 71, 74-75, 83 Crowley, Bill, 88, 89, 92, 109, 110 Cruse, Alan, 6, 7, 27 culture, 4 6 -4 7 ,4 8 curriculum, higher education, 68, 72 curriculum, library and information Science, 85, 87, 8 8 ,9 4 -9 5 ,1 0 1 ,1 0 6 , 107-108,109 curriculum, schools, 152, 153 Dabars, William, 71, 74-75, 83 Dahlin, Therrin, 86, 111 data, 22, 93 databases. See information creation

In dex

Davis, Phil, 79, 83 “Death o f the Library”, 168, 169, 170 debt, college and university students, 65, 72 democracy, 1, 44, 116, 129 Dempsey, Megan, 35, 36, 55 Denneen, Jeff, 155, 171 deontology, 119-120. 125 Descartes, René, 19 Devitt, Michael, 137, 142 Dewey, John, 123, 126 dialogism, 19, 32, 38, 51 digital technology, 93, 102, 157-161 Dillon, Andrew, 88, 89, 91, 110 Dineen, Jesse, 21-22, 27 directedness, 4 disciplines, 1 9 -2 0 ,4 1 ,7 6 , 109 discourse, 41,64, 107 disinformation, 14 Drabinsky, Emily, 35-36, 55 Drestler, Tom, 155, 171 Dretske, Fred, 12, 1 4 ,2 1 ,2 5 Doyle, Tony, 135, 136, 142 Dubreuil, Laurent, 19-20, 2 6 ,2 7 Dugan, Robert, 161-162, 171 Dumas, Catherine, 11-12, 27,91, 110 duty, 119, 121 Eagleton, Terry, 120, 142 e-books, 146, 147 economic development, higher education, 60 education for librarianship, xi, 148 Einstein, Albert, 15 Elboume, Paul, 7 ,2 7 endowments, higher education, 75 entropy, 141 episteme. See knowing that epistemology, 9, 11, 15, 17, 31,44, 53,75, 123, 137 Erb, R. A , 165, 171 Erdelez, Sanda, 97, 110 ethics, xi, 23, 26,34; analytical, 114; classical, 115-118; contemplad ve, 114; dialectical, 114; hermeneutical, 114 evaluation. See assessment e*periential leaming, library and Information science, 86 e*plicitness, 10-11

175

extensión, linguistics, 7, 9 external funding, higher education, 72, 75, 77, 79-80 faculty, higher education, 60, 63, 65-66, 71, 156, 160 faculty, library and information science, 87, 88, 89, 95 faculty, schools, 153 faithfulness, religious, 115 Fallís, Don, 135, 142 falsehood, 14, 15 falsificaron, 2 Fanelli, Daniele, 43, 55 Fetzer, James, 21, 27 finances, 62,6 6 , 70, 71, 72, 76, 79-80, 81-82, 102, 148, 151, 155-156 First Amendment, 120, 134 Fish, Stanley, 134, 142 Fisher, Karen, 97, 110 Flaherty, Colleen, 65, 83 Florida State University, 69 Floridi, Luciano, 20-21, 23, 26, 27, 137, 140-141, 142 Foley, Richard, 20, 26, 27 foundationalism, 17 framework for information literacy. See Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education (ACRL), 35-42, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55 Franklin, Renee, 152, 171 free speech, 132-136 freedom, 115, 120 Freedom to Read Statement (ALA), 135 Frické, Martin, 135, 142 Fuller, Steve, 43, 55 future o f librarianship, xi Gardner, Howard, 128-129, 142 Garrison, Rebecca, 18, 2 6 ,2 7 generosity, 52 Gibbs, Robert, 114, 124, 142 Gibson, Craig, 40, 42 Giroux, Henry, 63, 83 Given, Lisa, 91, 111 global ization, 61 Goldman, Alvin, 44, 55

176

In dex

goodlife, 52, 116, 119, 122, 167 Google, 102 Gorman, Michael, 85, 86-87, 88, 95,

110-111 Green, Georgia, 9, 27, 108 Greenburg, Jill, 155, 171 Grettano, Teresa, 35, 56 Grice, Paul, 10, 12, 14, 21, 25, 27 Gross, Melissa, 97 Grudin, Jonathan, 91, 111 Gupta, Tania, 64, 83 Habermas, Jürgen, 136, 162-166, 171 Hacker-Carón, Casiano, 58, 83 Hamilton, Alexander, 134 Hamilton, Andrew, 132 Hannon, Michael, 20 ,2 7 happiness, 116, 118, 120, 126-130 Haré, R. M .,23, 27, 135-136 Harvey, David, 62, 63, 64, 65, 83 Hauptmann, Robert, 140 Haycock, Ken, 85-86, 95, 111 hedonism (ethics), 122, 127 Heidegger, Martin, 166 Heil, J., 138, 142 Helmick, Catherine, 86, 111 Hening, W. W., 133, 142 Hemon, Peter, 6, 161-162 Hess, Amanda Nichols, 42,4 9 , 55 higher education, xi, 2, 154-161 Higher Education Price Index, 155 higher education reform. See reform, higher education Higher Learning Commission, 163, 171 Hill, Heather, 52, 55 Hillenbrand, C., 86, 111 Hitler, Adolph, 124 honesty, 52 Horgan, Terence, 11, 27 Hume, David, 119, 122 Husserl, Edmund, 23, 27, 38, 166-167, 171 hypothetical imperative (Kant), 120 ideology, 63, 68 imposed query, 97 incommensurability, 15 inference, 10 information, 88, 92; defmition, 23-24, 27, 31; market, 37; theoiy of, x, 20-27, 30,

37; valué, 37 information as commodity, 37 information concems, higher education, 76-80 information creation, 37,42, 81, 145 information ethics, 138-141 information literacy, x, 82, 168; defmition, 36 Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL), 29, 34, 35-39, 53, 54, 55 Information Literacy Immersion Program (ACRL), 33 information processing, 18, 46 information production. See information creation information Science, 88, 89, 91, 92, 107, 109 information searching, 38, 40, 78, 98 institutional repositories, 81 instrumentalism, 14, 33, 47 intellectual freedom, 132-136 intellectual property, 34, 39, 140 intensión, linguistics, 7 ,9 intentionality, 4 -5 , 9, 2 3,24, 26, 37,39, 52 Internet, 54 interpretation, 9, 47, 52 intransitive objects, 52 iSchools, 9 0 -9 1 ,9 2 , 93, 111 Jacobson, Trudy, 3 4 ,4 0 ,4 2 , 53, 55, 56 Jaschik, S., 66, 83 Jefferson, Thomas, 134 Johnson, Peggy, 101, 111 Johnston, Bill, 30, 55 Journal o f Information Ethics, 140 joumals, scholarly, 70, 74, 76-77, 78, 80, 81, 102 Jucker, Andreas, 9 ,2 7 judgment, 118, 126, 127, 129 just institutions, 167 justice, 125, 128, 129 justification, 13, 14, 17, 39 Kahneman, Daniel, 50, 54, 55, 79, 83 Kant, Immanuel, 17, 25, 58, 83, 119-121, 125, 126, 142 Kellogg, C., 147, 171 Kindle, Amazon, 169

In dex

King, John L., 88, 109, 111 Kirkham, Richard, 12-13, 28 Klipfel, Kevin, 32, 55 knowing how, 54 knowing that, 54 knowledge, 11, 20, 25, 26, 39,42, 43, 44, 48, 52, 53, 54, 60, 63, 72, 73-74, 75, 95,98, 99, 109, 123, 126 Koch, David and Charles, 69 Koehler, Wallace, 129, 142 Kuglitsch, Rebecca, 40-41, 55 Kuhn, Thomas, 15, 28 Lana, Amy, 81, 83 Larson, Ronald, 91, 111 law, 44 leadership. See management and leadership leaming, 4 2 ,4 6 -5 0 , 57, 70, 76, 78, 129, 149, 152, 157-161; theory, 42, 49, 53 Leckie, Gloria, 89-90, 91, 110, 111 Leeder, Kim, 86, 88, 89, 111 Lélé, Sharachchandra, 11 Levinson, Stephen, 10, 28, 99, 111 Levinthal, David, 69, 83 Levy, Leonard, 134 Lewin, Tamar, 64-65, 83 liberal education, 68 liberty, 115, 121 Liblicense, 101 Libraries: An American Valué (ALA), 135 libraries, goals and objectives, 104 libraries, missions, 104 library and information Services. See Standards for Accreditation (ALA) Library Bill ofRights (ALA), 135, 136 library materials, storage, 82 Hfelong leaming, 31 Lingard, R. G., 4, 28 literacy, 148 Hterary study, 148 lived experience. See phenomenology (sociology) logic, 42 Lynch, Michael, 15-17, 25, 28 Lynch, Michael Patrick, 54, 55 Lyotard, Jean-Fran^ois, 4 1 ,5 1 , 55-56, 59-60 MLS, 93,94

177

Maclntyre, Alasdair, 123, 142 Mackey, Thomas, 34, 53, 56 Mackie, John, 113, 142 Madison, James, 134 Maimonides, 119 makerspaces, 150 Maloney, Edward, 158 management and leadership, 102-106, 153; innovation, 105 Manhattan Project, 123 markets, higher education, 61, 62, 64, 72, 76 massive online open courses (MOOCs), 158-159 Massy, William, 74, 75-76, 78, 84 master’s degree in library and information Science. See MLS Mathiesen, Kay, 135, 142 Matthews, Joseph, 161-162, 163, 171 Mayer, J., 69, 84 McDaniel, Mark, 109, 110 McGinn, Colin, 19, 46, 134, 142 McKechnie, Lynne, 90, 97, 110, 111 meaning, 3, 5-6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21, 22, 2 3 ,2 4 , 2 6 ,3 7 ,3 9 ,4 7 ,4 8 ,5 1 media, 32, 34, 37 mediation, 95, 98, 108, 168; cognition, 97; psychology, 97 medicine, schoolsof, 130 Meier, John, 161, 171 Menand, Louis, 73, 75, 84 Mendelson, Cheryl, 113, 143 messages, 6 metacognition, 53 metadata, 99 metaliteracy, 34-35, 37, 48, 53 metaphysics, 13, 16-17, 137-138 Mezirow, Jack, 49, 56 Mickunas, Algis, 51, 166, 171 Mili, John Stuart, 1-2, 28, 61, 121-122, 134 Mintzberg, Henry, 104-105, 111 misinformation, 14, 21 mission, institutional, 57, 59, 60, 78, 163 monologism, 38 Montaigne, Michel de, ix, xi MOOCs. See massive online open courses (MOOCs) Moore, G. E., 122-123, 143

Librarianship | Libraries Beta P hi M u Scholars Series

“John M. Budd has been at this a long time. As one of librarianship’s deepest thinkers, he regularly spins out provocative ideas that always generate discussion. By drawing from literature outside the profession, he addresses some of contemporary librarianship’s most intractable questions. Read and enjoy!” — WAYNE W IEGAND, F. William Summers Professor of Library and Information Studies emeritus, Florida State University This book addresses some of the most pressing issues in library and information Science. It offers informed insight and perspectives on six essential and timely questions facing the profession: • • • • • •

W hat is information? W hat is information literacy? W hat roles do academic libraries play in higher education today? How can we effectively edúcate librarians? What are the ethical and moral bases of the library and information professions ? W hat is the future of librarianship?

W ritten by John M. Budd, one of librarianship’s most respected educators and the author of twelve previous books, and copublished with Beta Phi Mu, the International Honor Society for librarianship, this is sure to become one of the profession’s most talked-about books. J o h n IVf. B l l d d is professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, where he taught for twenty-two years, and was also on the faculties of the University of Arizona and Louisiana State University. He worked for several years as an academic librarian and is the author of more than one hundred journal articles and book chapters. He has also written a number of books, including Democracy, Economics, and the Public Good and The Changing Academic Library. He continúes to be involved in association duties and is still an active writer.