Library and Information Science - Article Review

Academic Library and Information Science Review

I was struck by many historical details from the readings that pertained to the early development of libraries. The image of early medieval libraries, in which books were physically chained to shelves or lecterns, provided details that made me truly understand how libraries have developed from their early beginnings to their current status. The image of books chained to shelves is resonant with a sense of over-protectiveness about the books themselves - by contrast, the modern academic library is increasingly a place of open access to books. Library holdings in the present century are often not even physical books - e-books, microfiche, electronic holdings and digital-access journals have become the norm, and digital technology has served to "unlock" library-held media often without regard for the copyright controls relating to said holdings.

I strongly agreed with Rubin's view of LIS workers as educators first and foremost. I think that, because LIS professionals are not typically standing up in front of a classroom, there is a widespread perception that their work is not educational in nature. However, I personally feel that work in the LIS field is basically entirely educational in nature. Although LIS professionals may not be devising lesson plans or delivering lectures, they are often teaching library users how to use the library themselves. Further, LIS professionals commonly help individuals and groups perform specific academic research. To me, LIS professionals are teachers and helpers, not the protective gatekeepers of a library collection.

I disagreed with, or was uncertain about, Rubin's definition of "current" in terms of library and information science trends and development. Rubin (p.ix) acknowledges that, in the six years between publication of the first and third editions of the textbook, the field of LIS has developed rapidly and changed significantly. This is certainly true - digital media, state and institutional support for LIS professionals, and the physical landscape of libraries themselves have all changed drastically. In this context, Rubin's source texts were often outdated when used to buttress arguments about the current state of the LIS field (in 2010, the year the third edition of the book was published). I appreciate that contemporary data is often not aggregated and published immediately, but Rubin's reliance on statistics from 2004 through 2008 somewhat undermined his discussion of the current state of the LIS field, for me. By Rubin's own argument, the field in 2004 was different to that in 2010. Reliance on older data is largely unhelpful in discussing the current state of the field. However, of course, a discussion of clear trends and developments between 2004 and 2008 can be extrapolated to point at likely trends continuing into the current time and the future. However, I did not feel that Rubin's use of the data fit this way of examining past trends as informative for future predictions - he used the past data as direct evidence for his claims about the contemporary state of the LIS field.

Major questions arising from the readings, for me, centered on the study of the LIS field in the current time. As the text is intended as an introduction to the field - often as a required reading for new graduate students in LIS - the vagueness of many sections leads to a sense of uncertainty as to what LIS students will be, should be, or in fact are studying. Of course, this open approach to the field is exciting, as it means that the field is dynamic and open to individual interpretation and innovation. However, a student seeking clarity about careers in LIS may feel discouraged about the difficulty of defining the present field.

Reference:

Rubin, R.E. Foundations of Library and Information Science. New York: Neal Schuman Pub.