At ALA, we know that the future relevance of libraries and library professionals will depend on what we do for people rather than what we have for people. What isn’t entirely clear is what this evolution means for library education. A 2014 paper from Deloitte LLP’s Deloitte University Press, “The Lifetime Learner,” (PDF) offers a revealing look at higher education that may help us find some answers. It describes a new landscape in which individuals must weigh the increasing costs of a traditional education against the uncertainty of a future payoff; and the emergence of “a rich ecosystem of semistructured, unorthodox learning providers” to meet the “disparate needs and expectations of individual learners.” Is it worth it, they ask, to achieve a four-year, campus-based degree when technological advancements reduce the lifespan of specific skills and the globalized, automated workforce must constantly learn and retrain?
I can’t help but wonder where MLIS degrees fit in this new landscape. We library professionals take pride in our degrees, but our job requirements are changing rapidly, and many of us feel underpaid and underappreciated. Conversely, I’ve heard our new MLIS graduates feel lucky if they can even find a traditional library job. Retirements and relocations no longer guarantee open positions, and jobs are being eliminated or reclassified without an MLIS requirement.
I recently turned to some expert colleagues to get their thoughts on how online learning has affected higher education and where they think the MLIS is headed: John Carlo Bertot, program director at the University of Maryland’s College of Information Studies and coauthor of the recent report, “Re-Envisioning the MLS: Findings, Issues, and Considerations” (PDF); R. David Lankes, professor at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies and creator of the Expect More Collaboratory; and Sandra Hirsh, director of San José State University’s (SJSU) School of Information. All three had clearly had put a lot of thought into the subject. Their responses were pages long.
John contends that we need to reframe the question. The future of the MLIS, he said, is less a question of technology than of purpose. “We really need to rethink what we do,” he argued, “not just how we do it.” David, not surprisingly, feels we must expect more from our professional education. What we need, he said, are consistent undergraduate degree programs, mandates for continuing education, accredited training programs, and formalized apprenticeships that allow librarians to be true educators. “If we believe that libraries are places of continuous lifelong learning,” he asked, “why not prepare ourselves as well?”
For Sandra, user experience is paramount. She compared the situation faced by higher education to the evolution of movie theaters. When market pressures threatened movie theaters, she said, they responded by offering 3D experiences to differentiate themselves and provide unique value. If recognizing trends and adapting to them is the name of the user experience game, then SJSU is ahead of the curve. It has been offering 100% online degree and certification programs since 2009.
These are just a few of the many interesting ideas in play regarding the future of the MLIS degree. Our path forward may not be entirely clear, but one thing we can almost assuredly count on is that the presence of online degree programs will continue to grow. As of this writing, nearly half (47.5%) of the 61 ALA-accredited LIS schools already offer 100% online degree programs. Online education is the future, but how many MLIS degree program models must be developed and rejected before we reach our “aha!” moment? The only thing I know for certain is that wherever we’re headed, the values that bind us together as library professionals nationally and globally must be sustained in our library education. Our future depends on it.
I am glad to see that the profession is re-thinking the MLIS and how it needs to adapt to a changing societal landscape. That requires new types of abilities for problem recognition, problem solving and new ways of thinking about how we tackle our most wicked problems. I would urge the ALA committees reviewing MLIS education and accreditation to think about the idea of a Masters of Library Design. To my way of thinking, much of the everyday (and not so routine) work of librarians involves design. Designing instruction. Designing workflows. Designing interfaces. Designing learning objects. Designing public programs. How many librarians can say they consider themselves scientists? Many more I think would say they are designers (or use designerly skills). I wrote more about this here:
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/11/opinion/steven-bell/mld-masters-in-library-design-not-science-from-the-bell-tower/
I hope the folks re-thinking MLIS education will give more thought to what they are doing at places like the Stanford D. School and other professional degrees where the education is much more design focused and oriented to problem finding and solving.
Will getting rid of the MLIS help with the problem of being overworked and underpaid? Will it solve the problem of grads not finding jobs? No. It will only exacerbate the problem. We need ALA to move to the forefront of messaging what it is librarians do and how that provides value. We need to stop chasing and promoting the latest cool thing (like makerspaces and teen hang-out zones) that can be provided by people with nothing more than a high school degree, and instead trumpet the expertise that librarians provide for accessing information and helping people solve problems How are we helping scientists find the research they need to cure disease? How are we helping lead people to new jobs? How are we making information available? Trumpeting that message is what ALA should be doing, not denegrating library education.
How about addressing the issue of market saturation? It’s simply supply and demand – the more people who have the MLIS the less valuable the degree is. The degree would be valued more if the universities would limit the number of people who enter the program. Universities are admitting more people to balance their budgets and it’s hurting the ENTIRE profession by driving down wages and eliminating jobs by replacing them with cheap interns. The ALA needs to stop accrediting the programs who admit students straight out of their Bachelor’s program with ZERO library experience. When I worked at a business library I learned that the mark of a good MBA program compared to a diploma mill was that the good MBA programs require 5-10 years business experience to enter the program. Why can’t the MLIS be the same?