The future of LIS programs (Nov. 30, 2007)

In late October, 2007, I was invited to a summit on the future of Library and Information Science (LIS) programs in our I-schools. The LIS specialization, particularly at Michigan, has been in some disarray. Surrounded by compelling and successful programs in areas such as archives and records management and human computer interaction, the LIS specialization has been seen by some as the rearguard program, supporting the last remnants of a profession that, if not dying, is assumed to be significantly threatened. This stands in stark contrast to librarianship, where in nearly every sphere (e.g., public and academic libraries) we see vital issues being addressed and new futures being forged. For the summit each invitee was asked to write a short position paper organized around the notions represented in the headings, below. Mine follows.

Introduction
I am an academic librarian who works in research libraries, so I see the questions being posed here (and the issue of LIS education generally) through that lens. My perspective is tied significantly to the interplay of information resources and the research uses to which they are put. There are, I think, many reasonable ways to approach these questions, but mine is about this interplay and the need for professionals in my sphere to support an array of activities around research and teaching, including authentication and curation of the products of research.

Technical and social phenomena we see coming in the next 10 years
The technical and social phenomena that seem most significant surround a tension in the perception that disintermediation plays an increasingly evident role in the information space of research institutions.

On the one hand, we see intensifying disintermediation, and along with that an increasingly rich array of tools and technology that facilitate academic users interacting directly with their sources, and directly with the means for dissemination. At the same time, in tension with this disintermediation, we see a drive by competing mediating open systems to facilitate that disintermediation: Google's preeminence makes it an obvious example of this sort of mediation; smaller players (Flickr, Facebook, others) may only fill niche roles, but have come to play the same sort of mediating role.

The irony in this dynamic is that many (or even most) of the most compelling resources have not been peer-to-peer resources, but networked resources like Google or even WorldCat. Consequently, in this world of growing disintermediation, we do not see, primarily, peer-to-peer services predominating, but rather very compelling social networking services that act as a powerful set of intermediaries. Openness at the network layer has become much more important than even "open source" because the services (rather than the software) are the destinations. At the outset, then, in this small space, what I would like to highlight is a growing sense of agency by users in the academic research world, and agency facilitated not by specialized software on their desktops, but by mediating services that those users can leverage to accomplish remarkable things.

In this context of what we've come to think of as "in the flow" (i.e., in the flow of engagement between the user and the mediating network resource), academic research libraries are challenged to perform core functions (functions, such as archiving and instruction, that have not diminished in importance) at the same time that they are challenged to perform their work with users "in the flow." Significantly, the research library must continue to serve a critical curatorial role for cultural heritage information despite the sense that the information being used is everywhere and perhaps thus cared for by the network. While they engage with this challenge of what sometimes feels like trying to catch the wind in a net, academic research libraries must craft a new role more clearly focused on engagement with scholarly communication. They must simultaneously reach out to and become a natural part of the working environment and methods of their users, and engage in the strategic curation of the human record.[1] Around this apparent or real disintermediation with increasingly powerful intermediaries, we need to ensure perpetual access and the right sorts of services to our communities.

Key unanswered questions that should drive research
The problem, as I see it, is that the set of questions evolves as quickly as the environment. So, for example, some current questions include:

• What are the tools, services and systems that optimize the information seeking, use and creation activities of our users? Even in the age of Google, Amazon and Flickr, academic research library systems play a role in discovery of information. For example, although Google Scholar has been shown to be more effective in discovery than metasearch applications, vast numbers of key resources are not indexed by GS and are only found through the cumbersome and arcane specialized interfaces provided by publishers and vendors.[2] Finding effective ways to intercede and assist users (without also putting cumbersome "help" in their way) is one of the challenges for our community. Similarly, a better understanding of the way our users interact with resources is beginning to make it possible for us to layer onto the network an array of tools (e.g., Zotero or the LibX toolbar) that make it possible for users to integrate networked resources into their scholarship. And, finally, libraries have become the equivalent of publishers in the new, networked environment, and ensuring that we perform that role along with curation in seamless and effective ways is one of our current challenges.[3] All of this raises a number of embedded questions, some related to understanding the behavior of users, others to deploying the most effective technologies, and yet others to judging what the next great technological innovation will be and where we can situate ourselves.
• How can we most effectively curate the human record in a world that is simultaneously more interconnected and, in some ways, more fragmented?
  
  • It’s worth noting that even though the network holds out promise for unifying formally-defined "library collections" in a way never before imagined, the fact that many resources are rare or valuable or have significant artifactual value means that the "scatter" of unique parts of collections that we already know well will only become more pronounced (if only by contrast). For example, our making digital surrogates available will remove most, but not all, need for scholars to travel to Michigan to use the papyrus collection.
  • This problem of the artifact obviously represents a marginal case. More significantly, as we are increasingly able to provide electronic access to our print collections, we are faced with the need to develop effective strategies for storing print and balancing access with minimizing waste. It obviously doesn’t make sense to store a copy of ordinary works at each of more than 100 research libraries in the United States, but how can an amalgamation of collections be performed in ways that respect current user preferences for print and takes into account bibliographic ambiguity (e.g., is my copy the same as your copy, and when there are differences, how much variation should be preserved)? We need to document this in a way that ensures a comprehensive sense of curatorial responsibility so that, for example, one institution does not withdraw a "last copy" of a volume by assuming (incorrectly) that it is acting in isolation.
  • Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, there is the question of what constitutes effective digital curation and how (and to what extent) we should balance that curation with access. There is much that we know about appropriate digital formats, migration, and the design of effective archiving services, but this has not been put to the test with the grand challenge that is looming. Moreover, as we provide access, we are challenged by questions of usability, and even more by the question of how we best situate our access services relative to network services. We should not duplicate Google's work in Google Book Search, but there are services Google may not or will not offer, and that we should in agile and relevant ways.

The curriculum we should provide to train professionals in this changing environment
Working from this perspective, it strikes me that the LIS curriculum should focus on developing a method of engagement rather than primarily training to answer specific questions. Of course that focus on methodology must be grounded in an exploration of specific contemporary questions, but it should be made clear that the circumstances of those questions are likely to change (i.e., the journey will be more important than the destination). Perhaps this is obvious or has always been the case, but the incredible fluidity of the environment now calls for precisely this type of response. Some recent experience may help to illustrate this:

• In our efforts to better understand how mass digitization work succeeds and fails, we have needed to understand the distribution of certain types of materials in our collection. Being able to articulate the question and then pursue strategies for mitigating problems (and increase opportunities) has called for analytical skills and an understanding of research methods, including statistical skills. In a recent specific case, we needed to understand the interaction between particular methods of digitization and different methods of printing (e.g., reproduction of typescript versus offset printing). The methods of digitization are squarely within the field of current librarianship, as is an understanding of the types of materials we collect and own; and it is equally true that both the digitization methods and types of materials will change with time. What I would emphasize is that it is the skills involved in the inquiry that are paramount. Though they are in no way divorced from the specific problems that one tackles, they are the most important part of the educational process.
• In filling the niche left by Google because of legal constraints and a genuine lack of interest in academic uses of materials, we have embarked on a process of system design and software development. This effort has required of staff not only the ability to write effective code (or manage writing that code), but also the ability to chart courses informed by usability, by an understanding of the law (particularly copyright law), and by a deep understanding of the digital archiving effort (both in formats and in strategies for storage). There is no doubt in my mind that librarians will continue to play a role in the effective design of information systems, and that navigating these parameters (i.e., usability, legal issues, sustainability of the systems and, more importantly, the content) will continue to play a role in the systems we design. Just as with the previous example, those skills cannot be developed or exercised in some way that is abstracted from the materials, the users, and the uses. Again, just as with the previous example, current contexts will change, and the skills and instincts will continue to be the enduring element in our future librarians.

Because of space constraints, these are only two examples, but examples that show the range of skills and approaches necessary in the current environment. The current environment is extremely fluid in the ways that information is made available and in the ways that users, specifically those in our academic community, interact with it. Too often, academic libraries are defined by that which is held in them (witness the importance of the ARL volume count for defining research libraries). Libraries are, above all else, the people, processes, and resources that connect users and information and, unlike organizations like Google or Amazon, libraries are predicated on a commitment to enduring, reliable access to that information. Libraries curate the growing body of human knowledge and through that curation ensure its longevity and reliability; libraries need to make sure that the right kinds of services and interactions are taking place "in the flow," where (disintermediation or not) users have much more agency and much more direct interaction with networked resources. LIS education should focus its efforts on ensuring that the next generation of academic librarians has an awareness of the issues and an aptitude for designing solutions in that world.

Notes
[1] It is probably also the case that libraries, in order to have the opportunity to play these service roles in the future, must prove the importance of the curatorial function and their ability to perform it.
[2] For example, see Haya, Glenn et al. "Metalib and Google Scholar: a user study," in Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, 2007, pp. 365-375.
[3] See, for example, the work of the UM Library's Scholarly Publishing Office (http://spo.lib.umich.edu/) in creating new scholarly publications with sustainable methods, or Deep Blue, the Library's institutional repository (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/).