Library and Information Science Doctoral Education: The Landscape from 1930-2007
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To anticipate future trends for doctoral education in library and information science (LIS), we examine historical progression and current landscape of doctoral degree programs in United States and Canada. By providing a comprehensive rendering of history and current state of LIS doctoral education, this work provides data not previously available. Data for this work come from MPACT, a database that provides listings of 3,014 LIS dissertations conferred by 38 ALA-accredited schools between 1930 and 2007. This work discusses degrees offered and focuses on changes in landscape within last ten years, in addition to an evaluation of schools that produce future faculty for ALISE institutions. Results confirm health and activity of LIS doctoral programs in North America. Keywords: education, LIS history, dissertations, survey, MPACT, doctoral education Introduction The doctor of philosophy in library and information science (LIS) originated as a research degree within a professional school - creating from beginning perpetual argument of whether information and library science is primarily a practicing profession or a researching discipline. Professionalization of library science arguably occurred in latter part of nineteenth century, marked by formation of American Library Association and establishment of Library Journal in 1876 (Brough, 1972). This was followed in 1887 by foundation of School of Library Economy at Columbia College by Melvil Dewey. Further formalization of library science as a discipline occurred during early twentieth century with organization of Association of American Library Schools (1915), formation of Board of Education for Librarianship by American Library Association (1923), and foundation of Graduate Library School at of Chicago in 1926 (Houser & Schrader, 1978). The Graduate Library School at of Chicago heralded a new standard in library education. Prior to opening of this school, degrees were defined by number of years of given programs; for example, Board of Education for Librarianship defined a Bachelor of Arts degree plus one year of study as a professional degree and a Bachelor of Arts degree plus two years of study as a degree. There was also considerable debate over need for professional degrees of Bachelor of Library Science, Master of Library Science, and Doctor of Library Science. The Graduate Library School was chartered in order to provide what some claimed had not been previously provided: facilities for development of cultural, literary, bibliographical, and sociological aspects of librarianship as a learned profession built upon ideals and charged with responsibilities as definite and as vital in their implications as those of any other learned profession, and requiring similar academic preparation to insure its highest development . . . [this school] . . . should be an organic member of a university group, with background, atmosphere, resources, and equipment afforded by such affiliation. (Lester, 1940, p. 6) As this was first school for library science, none of founding faculty held doctoral degrees in librarianship. Instead, their backgrounds included degrees in higher education, history, and theology (Houser & Schrader, 1978). However, they all stressed need for research in education of librarians - one faculty member remarking that graduate work means research, and research means extension of boundaries of knowledge (p. 42). Another faculty member asserted that the most important single responsibility of School is to meet standards of scholarship and research maintained by other departments of University (Houser & Schrader, 1978, p. 43). In this way, Graduate Library School championed idea that research and a theory-based education could serve needs of practicing professionals and would be a necessary component of professionalization (Houser & Schrader, 1978, pp. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».