LIS EDUCATION IN CHANGING TIMES
Gillian Hallam, Helen Partridge and Lynn McAllister
Bernie Sloan, an aspiring library and information science
(LIS) educator who is currently a PhD student at the
Feather notes that few industry professionals have time to
be concerned about LIS education; inevitably your personal and professional
focus is your own work. ‘Many of you
reading this will be practising information professionals. Many of you will have graduated from an LIS
department (or been to a library school!)
Some of you might even have pleasant memories of the experience. Many of
you, however, will not have set foot in a department since the day you left,
whatever you feel about what happened when you were there.’ This paper offers you the chance to capture a
glimpse of some of the concerns and initiatives that are central to LIS
education today, not only here in
These are indeed challenging times for educators who are charged with the development of the new information professional while contending with the multiple demands of students, employers, professional bodies, university managers and governments. The paper has been informed by the literature review undertaken by the authors as the initial component of a research project which aimed to explore the core knowledge and skills required by the successful modern day library and information professional. Drawing on the review of the literature, the paper will consider three main, and intertwined, issues currently affecting LIS education across the world: the focus of LIS education, the process of LIS education and the accreditation of LIS education.
The focus of LIS education
In 1998 a number of LIS academic staff felt that, to
understand the issue of change within the context of LIS education, there
should be a better grasp of the common denominators underpinning the
changes. Accordingly a significant study
was undertaken in the
Pettigrew and Durrance report on the six major trends in the education of LIS professionals which were identified in the study:
In addition to libraries as institutions and library-specific operations, LIS curricula are addressing broad-based information environments and information problems
§ The inherent transferability of library skills to other situations and information problems was evident in the creation and redesign of curricula so that the concepts and skills covered have broad implications and relevance.
§ Introduction of new courses to focus on information problems such as licensing and legal issues, ethics, the creation and marketing of information products, the organization and management of digital information.
§ Renaming or retooling of traditional LIS courses such as cataloguing, classification and reference, or redesignating them as electives instead of core.
§ Dropping the L-word and introducing the I-word.
While LIS curricula continue to incorporate perspectives from other disciplines, a distinct core has taken shape that is predominantly user-centered
§ Infusion of multidisciplinary perspectives into LIS curricula, eg from computer science, medicine, engineering, psychology, art and design, business.
§ Yet the development of a distinct core: the central domain covers cognitive and social aspects of how information and information systems are created, organized, managed, disseminated, filtered, routed, retrieved, accessed, used, and evaluated.
§ At the heart of the activities, issues and problems is the user.
§ Emphasis on the user included in LIS schools’ mission and vision statements.
LIS schools are increasing their investment and infusion of information technology into their curricula
§ Courses are integrating electronic technologies into their courses.
LIS schools are experimenting with the structure of specialization within the curriculum.
§ Schools are providing multiple courses within specific subject areas (eg health informatics, law librarianship) or are offering flexible programming so that students have choices within the core or can tailor their programs according to their own specific interests.
LIS schools are offering instruction in different formats to provide students with more flexibility
§ Eg campus-based programs, distance education, Internet-only course delivery.
§ Emerging forms of instruction include inter-university partnerships where students from one institution may take courses for credit at another LIS school, or through collaboration with universities in other countries.
LIS schools are expanding their curricula by offering related degrees at undergraduate, master’s and doctoral levels, or double degree combinations.
§ New continuing education programs, workshops and other alternative programs enable LIS schools to tap into expanded markets and provide another potential source of revenue.
Table 1: Current trends in LIS curricula (Pettigrew and Durrance, 2000)
Sutton has noted that Trends 3 and 5 represent the natural development of the use of information and communications technologies in both content (electronic information resources) and teaching and learning approaches (flexible delivery opportunities) in universities, and as such should not really be regarded as LIS specific. Other trends, such as the broadening of the curriculum, the introduction of new areas of specialisation and flexible options for higher education will be examined further in this paper to highlight some national and international responses to the issues and concerns.
The continual changes in the LIS work environment have raised considerable debate not only amongst employers, but also amongst LIS educators and on the professional associations. Huckle, speaking for the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Profession (CILIP) in the United Kingdom, indicates the impact of curriculum change results in specific concerns for the professional body: ‘Over the last few years the current accreditation procedures and the Body of Professional Knowledge have not kept pace with the development and of the range and nature of programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate level in our dynamic and rapidly changing discipline’. As LIS educators, Brine and Feather have noted that ‘so far as the academic curriculum is concerned, there is probably general agreement about the broad scope of knowledge and understanding which the new entrant to the profession needs to acquire. There is rather less clarity and consensus about the skills which are needed if s/he is to function effectively’.
This view is supported by the literature reporting on the situation in all corners of the world (Middleton, Myburgh, Rehman, Koehler, Raju, Maceviciute, Irwin, Tedd). LIS educators propose a wide range of competencies, skills, knowledge areas, topics or modules for their courses. Terms include social informatics, knowledge management, information management, information economics, information resources development, IT applications, information systems, networking, Internet, virtual library, management of information organisations, human resource development, information organisation, information retrieval, collection and access management, professional ethics and so on. The role of skills in information technology comes to the fore in the analysis.
The Skills for the new Information Professionals (SKIP)
coordinated by the
Service management must recognise the changing nature of the role of the majority of professional librarians within LIS. Their changed functions will require new skills and training, and continual updating. At the present time, three areas in particular require attention for a significant number of such staff:
i) information and IT skills required to function in the networked information environment;
ii) an understanding of the nature of change taking place in the teaching and learning process in higher education;
ii) team working and team management skills, particularly within the context of multidisciplinary team working. 
disappointing to find that there have been no significant initiatives,
independent or collaborative, resulting from either the KALIPER or the SKIP
projects. However, a more proactive approach
has been adopted by the Special Libraries Association (SLA). The
has taken the
Of particular interest are the ‘Competencies of law librarianship’ published by the American Association of Law Librarians. This document outlines sixteen core competencies, which in the current context can be regarded as generic capabilities, and five ‘specialized competencies’ which relate to specific areas of practice: library management; reference research and client services; information technology; collection care and management; and teaching. Henczel indicates there would be value in mapping competencies such as law librarianship ones to the business competencies in order to enable employers to fully comprehend, in their own language, the value the law librarian adds to the organisation.
Middleton comments on the degree of ‘unease in a number of
quarters about the influence of competencies on (LIS) curricula’
due to the potential dangers of confusing vocational competency-based training
with professional education, to move beyond procedural knowledge into
analytical, evaluative, flexible and creative knowledge areas. In
A similar situation is found in the
Brine and Feather report on the Recording Academic
Professional and Individual Development Project (RAPID 2000)
project developed for the discipline area of building and construction
management ‘through which students and newly qualified professionals can
examine their own personal professional development and measure their levels of
competence in the subject-specific key skills as a means of identifying their
skill gaps and training needs’. The critical first step in the development of
a similar tool for the LIS discipline was, of course, to define the skill set
for the profession. The Centre for
Information and Computer Science (ICS), part of the Learning and Teaching
Support Network (LTSN) in the
The scope of the LTSN-ICS skill set is fairly similar to the
Brine and Feather indicate that the four core areas of the
LTSN-ICS are broadly reflected in the structure and content of academic
curricula, as well as in the benchmark statement for the library and
information management discipline developed by the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA). This body undertakes the assessment and audit
of the quality of learning and teaching in universities, and their academic
management processes, in the
1. The processes and techniques whereby information is created, captured, analysed, evaluated, moderated and managed in a variety of media and formats in the service of defined user populations.
2. The application of techniques for planning, implementing, evaluating, analysing and developing library, archive and information products, services and systems within the context of organisational culture, objectives and client base, professional statutory and ethical frameworks, and national and international legislation and regulations.
3. The broad concepts and theories of information systems and information and communication technologies in so far as they apply to the principles and practice of information management.
4. The dynamics of information flow in society, in and between nations, governments, organisations and individuals. 
At the same time, CILIP has been developing a ‘new framework
of qualifications’ to review and update the Body of Professional Knowledge in
order to facilitate multiple and alternative entry points into the profession,
as well as to offer strategies for career progression. The merger in April 2002 of the Library
Association and the Institute of Information Scientists to form CILIP brought
with it the challenge to develop an agreed framework of skills for professional
practice, with ‘the remit to broaden the two pre-existing outlines and
accommodate even more change in modern professional practice’. CILIP proposals include the idea of
certification to recognise the knowledge and experience of paraprofessionals
and encouraging career-long professional development for Chartered Members
through a revalidation process. The
chartered status of LIS professionals in the
At the local level, the authors have conducted a research project funded by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) which aims to help both LIS educators and the LIS profession as a whole to respond to questions such as those posed by Harvey and Higgins: ‘What is librarianship, or information studies? What skills and attitudes make for successful practice? Do Australian graduates in LIS possess these skills and attributes?’ The main aim of the research project was to identify and examine the skills and knowledge essential for the successful library and information professional in the twenty-first century, considering the two areas of discipline knowledge and generic capabilities.
The search of the literature
was extensive. In the area of generic
capabilities the literature examined included the fields of higher education,
human resources management, and library and information studies. In addition, materials published by the
professional library and information associations nationally and internationally
were studied. In the area of discipline
knowledge the search encompassed the literature in the professional areas as
well as the education areas. In
addition, the LIS courses and curricula offered by over 75 institutions for
higher education in
Focus groups were used as the vehicle to explore the desired generic skills and discipline knowledge, with 98 participants drawn from diverse sectors of the LIS profession in South East Queensland: public, State, academic, government and special libraries, LIS education and LIS employment services. The participants were employed in a variety of roles, from new graduates through to senior managers. Eleven 2-hour focus group sessions were held, five for the LIS discipline knowledge and six for the generic capabilities, with each session attended by between 6 and 11 participants.
The focus groups were presented with the initial findings obtained from the literature review, in the form of a one-page handout outlining the preliminary findings for each dimension: ten areas of discipline knowledge or ten generic skills. The focus groups began with a broad question: Are these the skills and knowledge required by the Library and Information Professional for the twenty first century? Under the guidance of the moderator, the group was guided through the topics and invited to provide comments and to ask questions. The discussions ended with the participants being invited to provide additional comment on any skills or knowledge that may have been omitted but which they believed should have been included on the initial list. The research project has been valuable in the way that it validates the work done in other countries. It has also established an open dialogue between current industry professionals, library science educators and the professional association on the traditional and evolving skills and knowledge required by LIS professionals to guide the development of current and future education of library and information professionals. The research project will ensure a high level of industry input into the development of a new master’s curriculum at QUT.
The process of LIS education
In the higher education sector, the traditional library
schools have disappeared, to be replaced by departments or schools within a
faculty. While library and information
work has in itself been subject to substantial change, the higher education
sector has itself experienced ‘seismic changes’ which are succinctly summarised
to incorporate the dynamics resulting from the creation of ‘new’ universities
and ‘new’ funding models in which resource allocation is explicitly linked to
student numbers. Additionally there are
concerns about the quality of teaching and learning in universities, with some
countries moving towards formal external processes to assess university
quality. The implications for academics
include new perspectives on the traditional relationship between research and
teaching, and a focus on new teaching and learning methods and modes of
delivery. Harvey and Higgins highlight
the funding issues in higher education in
A significant initiative in the United Kingdom has been the
establishment of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) which has the
overall aim ‘to provide, through a coherent and integrated network of subject
specific and generic centres, high quality information, expertise, and
resources on good and innovative learning and teaching practices, and to
effectively promote and transfer such practices to enhance learning and
teaching activity in UK higher education’.  The LIS discipline is supported by the
Centre for Information and Computer Science (ICS), based at the Department of
Information Science at
Other countries have seen the emergence of schemes to
support teaching and learning in higher education, eg the Council for the
Renewal of Higher Education in Sweden,
established in 2000 to support innovative teaching and learning activities in
universities. Here in
It should be noted, however, that while these Australian initiatives will hopefully encourage best practice in teaching and learning, they are cross-disciplinary in focus, rather than discipline specific.
Myburgh has commented on the
problems of offering LIS programs at the undergraduate level, with falling
enrolments and the poor quality of students resulting in a number of
institutions (eg RMIT, University of South Australia) closing down their
bachelor courses. In the
A post-bachelor Master’s degree should become the basic pre-professional training. The Graduate Diploma is not enough. It is not possible to meet the needs of the profession within this framework. We don’t need more superficialists, who train within a one-year time frame, and have a smattering of bits and pieces of knowledge across a discipline area that is too wide to capture within one year. It should be noted that a Master’s degree has become the first professional qualification internationally in LIS.
Harvey and Higgins, on the other hand, highlight the problems of industry recognition the higher degree:
bachelor’s qualifications awarded by nine of the twelve Australian LIS schools
are accorded the same professional status as graduate diplomas or masters
degrees. Holding a masters qualification
This view overlooks the fact that many LIS students enter the graduate course as part of their strategies for career change. The student cohort in LIS programs is an interesting one, with a wide diversity in academic background, employment history, personal interests and life experiences, all of which adds richness to the profession they join. Myburgh stresses that, in her experience:
Undergraduates (if they have come directly from school) typically do not have the life experience which is necessary to understand this complex and sophisticated blend of art and science that forms the backbone of the profession. It is only after more experience of human nature, individually and within organisations, that some appreciation of the role of information and knowledge (not reading or documents) can be fully understood.
Marcella and Baxter argue, however, that in the
The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) recommends that
‘Students should acquire a broad general education (topics
from other disciplines) as a significant preparatory component of the total
education program for the library/information professional’,
thereby encouraging the postgraduate avenue for LIS education. This is particularly important for academic
The debate focuses on the dangers of ‘by-passing LIS education’ which threatens to undermine the professionalism of the field. One institution is considering ‘a separate executive program for PhD’s who wish to pursue a (LIS) master’s degree’, as a fast-track option for people who want to be subject specialists, possibly via a three- to six-week immersion program covering collection development, bibliographic control, service, library values and the history of books ‘to socialize them into the profession’. Many critics believe that ‘it would be going down the slippery slope if librarians come to believe that it does not take a master’s degree to become a librarian’.
Yet simultaneously there have been efforts in the
These different scenarios highlight the need for flexibility both in LIS education and in individual career pathways. The ALA has adopted a policy statement ‘Library and information studies and human resource utilization’ which offers the concept of a ‘career lattice’, rather then a ‘career ladder’ to reflect the potential career routes a person can follow. The policy statement aims to recommend categories of library personnel and the respective levels of training or education appropriate for the different personnel. The document differentiates between undergraduate LIS programs which should be seen as a contribution to liberal education, rather than an opportunity to provide technological and methodological training. The objective of the master’s programs, on the other hand, should be ‘to prepare librarians capable of anticipating and engineering the change and improvement required to move the profession constantly forward. The curriculum and teaching methods should be designed to serve this kind of education for the future rather than to train for the practice of the present’.
It is important for employers to truly acknowledge the professional status of new graduates. Too many graduate librarians find themselves ‘functioning in that grey area inhabited by both the professional and para-professional’. It is important that new graduates are not viewed as apprentices, but are offered the opportunity to be engaged in professional work that draws on the analytical, evaluative and critical thinking that distinguishes university education from vocational education.
ALIA has its Library and Information Science Education for the Knowledge Age (LISEKA) project, which aspired ‘to develop an education framework to underpin career-long education of future generations of library and information workers, to sustain them throughout their careers’. Following a consultative process which involved a wide range of individuals, groups, institutions and associations, a draft framework incorporating education, training, levels of practice and membership was developed, which strongly supported the concepts of an entry-level qualification and an effective CPD program. A Stage 2 Working Party is currently developing programs and strategies to implement the framework.
The accreditation of LIS education
Harvey and Higgins indicate that due to the complex and
ever-changing nature of the LIS profession, it does ‘not speak with one voice
about the attributes and skills it expects new graduates to have’, meaning ‘LIS
educators often feel that they are walking a tightrope as they attempt to
accommodate the demands of the profession with their own perceptions of what
content is needed in the curriculum’. In an increasingly global economy, this
diversity has far-reaching implications.
One of the goals of the IFLA research project was to establish ‘a database of recognised qualifications world wide and the responsible sanctioning or accrediting body or bodies in each country’. Dalton and Levinson highlight their original aspirations for the database: ‘It was anticipated that the database would include information on the core body of knowledge and the accrediting process for professional level qualifications in each country and that this information could be later used to feed into work on standards and equivalency of qualifications throughout the world’.
Findings from the research highlighted the fact that there
are substantial differences across the world both in terms of the education system
and the structure and organisation of professional LIS associations.
Examples of quality control by governments focus primarily
on the standards of the higher education institution as a whole, as is the case
in many European countries (eg
The accreditation processes themselves have differing levels of significance within the professional associations. CILIP has adopted the procedures for the accreditation of courses developed jointly in 1999 by the Library Association and the Institution of Information Scientists, which ultimately merged to form the new professional association, CILIP. The current accreditation process looks carefully at course content, to establish a conceptual map of the core body of knowledge required by an LIS professional, with five current areas of priority:
Each of these five areas includes a number of topics that
make up the composite core body of knowledge, but CILIP further indicates that
there are opportunities for joint degree programs where a substantial component
of the core knowledge is combined with other areas of study. The context in which the course is offered is
important, to verify the level of institutional support for the program and to
ascertain the academic qualifications and professional experience of the
teaching staff. Enser
notes that in the
As a reminder, alongside these professional accreditation processes, there is now the introduction of an additional layer of formal government monitoring of universities through the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the United Kingdom and through the Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA) in Australia. The quality assurance process involves individual universities conducting their own self-assessment as well being the subject of an intensive audit visit.
The subject benchmark statement prepared by the QAA, discussed earlier in the paper, recognises the value of professional recognition: ‘Professional and vocational relevance is an important aspect of the degree programmes. Compliance with the relevant professional bodies is a key determinant of course design for those programmes seeking professional accreditation’. Enser notes, however, that the objectives of the QAA may differ from those of CILIP when they conduct an evaluation of an educational program, so that the professional association needs to carefully consider its role in the accreditation process.
The process of course recognition in
Martin reported that the task force garnered the support of
seven ‘colleague associations’ to be party to an external accreditation
process: American Association of Law
Libraries (AALL), Association of Library and Information Science Educators
(ALISE), American Society for Information Science (ASIS), Canadian Library
Association (CLA), Medical Library Association (MLA), Society of American
Archivists (SAA) and Special Libraries Association (SLA). An expression of support was also received
from the American Records Management Association (ARMA). However, there appears to be considerable
tension between different groups within the
The fact that the
The issue of the equivalency of academic qualifications has
been approached in
One of the most significant attributes of library and information work in the 21st century is its multidimensional nature: ‘the very pervasiveness of information work means that it has also become very diverse with many LIS graduates pursuing their careers far beyond the boundaries of the traditional job market in libraries and information centres’. Jones et al capture the essence of the professional world we live in:
Although the core of the profession remains the same, the methods and tools for information delivery and the scope of the enterprise continue to grow and change dramatically. While maintaining their client and content-centred approach, practitioners increasingly require advanced knowledge of information technology to realise their full potential. Continually emerging opportunities will propel the prepared profession into as yet unseen realms of advanced information retrieval, interpretation, synthesis, product development and virtual services on a global scale.
The authors believe that a clearer understanding of the discipline knowledge and skills, integrating both traditional and emerging aspects of the discipline, together with an understanding of the range of generic personal attributes, will help prepare new library and information professionals to respond to the continuing challenges they will inevitably face in their careers. However, the development of new professionals is not the sole responsibility of the LIS educator, but is viewed as a career-long learning process that involves the individual, the universities, employers and professional associations. At the same time, there needs to be greater harmonisation between higher education systems and increased recognition of qualifications across national boundaries. Flexibility is paramount, as the LIS profession – and the LIS professional – is ever-evolving:
The librarian of the future is perhaps a professional who will no longer bear the name librarian. It is a professional who encompasses a set of standards and values that operate smoothly and seamlessly in a technology driven environment. It is a professional who has a clear understanding of and appreciation for the traditions of librarianship. It is a professional who is multifaceted and multitasked. It is a professional with the characteristics of willingness to change; varied experience in training and background; adaptability to a quickly changing environment; ‘shareability’ between disciplines; and commitment. It is, finally, a professional we will not recognise as a librarian in the usual sense. If we do, then we have failed to evolve.’
Bernie Sloan, ‘Changes in LIS education: a bibliography’
John Feather, ‘Whatever happened to the library schools? (2003) Update
 K. E. Pettigrew, K.E. and J. C. Durrance, ‘KALIPER: Introduction and overview of results’ (2001) 42 Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 170.
 S.A. Sutton, ‘Trends, trend projections, and crystal ball gazing’ (2000) 42 Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 241.
Marion Huckle, ‘The new framework for qualifications:
a progress report’ (2003) 6 Impact 1
 Alan Brine and John Feather, ‘Supporting the development of skills for information professionals’ (2002) 20 Education for Information 253, 253.
 Michael Middleton, ‘Skills expectations of library graduates’ (2003) 104 New Library World 42.
 Sue Myburgh, ‘Education directions for NIPs (new Information Professionals)’ (2003) (Paper presented at the 11th Information Online Exhibition and Conference, Sydney, 21-23 January 2003 <http://conferences.alia.org.au/online2003/papers/myburgh.html> at 25 April 2004.
 Wallace Koehler, ‘Professional values and ethics as defined by “The LIS discipline”, (2003) 44 Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 99.
 J. Raju, ‘The “core” in library and/or information science education and training’ (2003) 21 Education for Librarianship 229.
 Elena Maceviciute, ‘Information management in the Baltic, Nordic and UK LIS schools’ (2002) 51 Library Review 190.
 Ray Irwin, ‘Characterizing the core: what catalog descriptions of mandatory courses reveal about LIS schools and librarianship’ (2002) 43 Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 175.
Lucy A. Tedd, ‘The What? And How? of education and training
for information professionals in a changing world: some experiences from
Skills for the new Information Professional (SKIP), Home page
Penny Garrod and Ian Sidgreaves, ‘Skills for the new
Information Professional: final report’ (1998)
Special Libraries Association (SLA), ‘Competencies of the special librarian of
the 21st century’
Special Libraries Association (SLA), ‘Competencies of the information
professional of the 21st century’ (2003)
Sue Henczel, ‘Competencies for the 21st
century information professional: translating the
American Association of Law Librarians, ‘Competencies for law librarianship’
(2001) <http://www.aallnet.org/prodev/competencies.asp> at
 Henczel, above n 19.
 Middleton, above n 7.
Information Services National Training Organisation (isNTO),
Home page <http://www.isnto.org.uk> at
European Council of Information Professionals (ECIA), ‘Euroguide
LIS: the guide to competencies for European professionals in library and
information services’ (1999) <http://www.aslib.com/pubs/2001/18/02.html>
 Brine and Feather, above n 6, 255.
 Brine and Feather, above n 6, 255.
 Ibid., 255f.
 Ibid., 256.
 Brine and Feather, ‘Building a skills portfolio for the information professional’ (2003) 104 New Library World 455.
Quality Assurance Agency, (QAA), ‘Subject benchmark statement: Librarianship
and information management’ (2000) <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/librarianship.pdf>
Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), ‘CILIP
Framework of Qualifications’ (2004)
Biddy Fisher, ‘Skills for the 21st century. The challenges for our
professional practice’ (2003) 6 Impact
1 <http:// ww.careerdevelopmentgroup.org.uk/impact/winter03/21censki.htm>
Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals (CILIP),
Ross Harvey and Susan Higgins, ‘Defining fundamentals and meeting expectations:
trends in LIS education in
 Feather, above n 2.
 Harvey and Higgins, above n 38.
Learning and Teaching Support Network – Centre for Information and Computer
Sciences (LTSN-ICS), Home page <http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk> at
Council for the Renewal of Higher Education, Home page
Australian University Teaching Committee, Home page
Australian University Teaching Committee (AUTC), Learning and teaching in
 Myburgh, above n 8.
 Harvey and Higgins, above n 38.
 Myburgh, above n 8.
 Rita Marcella and Graeme Baxter, ‘The demand for undergraduate course provision in information and library studies’ (2001) 19 Education for Information 277.
 International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA), ‘Guidelines for professional library/information education
programs – 2000’ <http://www.ifla.org/VII/s23/bulletin/guidelines.htm> at
 Peter Dalton and Kate Levinson, ‘An investigation of LIS qualifications throughout the world’ (Paper presented at the 66th IFLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, 13-18 August 2000 <http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/061-1613.htm> at 25 April 2004).
 Norman Oder, ‘New movement towards PhDs to work in academic libraries’ (2003) 128 Library Journal 16.
 John N. Berry, ‘But don’t call ‘em librarians’ (2003) 128 Library Journal 34.
 Clare McInerney, Alex Daley and Kay E. Vandergrift, ‘Broadening our reach: LIS education for undergraduates’ (2002) 33 American Libraries 40.
American Library Association (ALA), ‘Library and information studies and human
resource utilization’ (2002) <
 Ibid., 8.
 Mary Carroll, ‘The well-worn path’ (2002) 51 Australian Library Journal 117.
 American Library Association, above n58, 9.
 Fisher, above n 36.
Australian Library and Information Association, ‘Library and information
science education for the knowledge age (LISEKA)’
 Harvey and Higgins, above n 38.
Peter Dalton and Kate Levinson, ‘An investigation of LIS qualifications
throughout the world’, (2001) IFLA Section on Education and Training, 2 SET Bulletin 12, 15
 Ibid, 16.
Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), ‘Courses in library and
information studies’ <http://www.alia.org.au/education/courses/> at
American Library Association (ALA), ‘Accreditation’
Peter Enser, ‘The role of the professional body
accreditation in library and information science education in the
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), Home page <http://www.qaa.ac.uk> at
Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA), Home page
Hartley and Virkus offer valuable insights into
quality assurance processes, see R.J. Hartley and Sirje
Virkus, ‘Approaches to quality assurance and
accreditation of LIS programmes: experiences from
 Enser, above n78.
Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), ‘ALIA recognition of
 Australian Library &
Information Association (ALIA), ‘ALIA
Board of Education policy statements’
 Australian Library & Information
Association (ALIA), ‘The library and information sector: core knowledge,
skills and attributes’ <http://www.alia.org.au/policies/core.knowledge.html> at
 ALIA, above n 85.
Library Association (ALA), ‘Accreditation process policies and procedure’
(2003) <http://www.ala.org/ala/accreditation/acccredstandards/ap3.htm> at
Susan Martin, ‘External Accreditation Task Force Chair’s perspective’ (2002) 10
John N. Berry, ‘For openness in
Jane Robbins, ‘Everything old is new again’ (2002) 10 Prism 2 <http://www.ala.org/ala/accreditation/prp/prism/prismarchive/Spr02v10n1.pdf>
 American Library Association (ALA), ‘Overview: Accreditation under 1992 Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies’ (2000) <http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oa/overview.htm> at 4 June 2000, cited in Dalton and Levinson, above n 52.
American Library Association (ALA), ‘Standards for Accreditation of Master’s
Programs in Library and Information Studies 1992’ <http://www.ala.org/ala/accreditation/acccredstandards/standards.htm>
‘The European Higher Education Area: Joint Declaration of the European
Ministers of Education. The Bologna
Declaration‘ (1999) <http://www.ntb.ch/SEFI/bolognadec.html> at
European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) and National Academic
Recognition Information Centres (NARIC), ‘Gateway to recognition’
Jan Gaebler, ‘Educators and practitioners scrutinise the kaleidoscope of LIS
education’ (2000) InterALIA
 Maureen Nimon, ‘The search for the philosopher’s stone: balancing librarianship education in core and evolving knowledge’ (2001) 50 Australian Library Journal 253, 258.
 Brine and Feather, above n 6, 258.
 Rebecca Jones, Eileen Abels, John Latham, See Magnoni and Joanne Gard Marshall, ‘Competencies for information professionals of the 21st century: introduction’ (2003) 7 Information Outlook 11.
 Anne A. Salter, ‘Wanted – new creations: dinosaurs
need not apply’. (2003) In Karl Bridges (ed) Expectations of librarians in the