Loading…
This event has ended. Visit the official site or create your own event on Sched.
Wednesday, February 7 • 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Session 3.2C - Juried Papers: Exploring Potential Barriers to LAM Synergies in the Academy: Institutional Locations and Publishing Outlets.

Sign up or log in to save this to your schedule and see who's attending!

In recent times, a range of “LAM” (or “GLAM”) initiatives concerned with addressing various issues of importance to collecting institutions indicate a push towards greater collaboration between the library, archive and museum professions (Zorich, Waibel & Erway, 2008; Glam Peak, n. d.). These initiatives are set against a backdrop of “small government” budget squeezes and the challenge that all LAM institutions face of remaining visible in an increasingly online, and increasingly crowded, information environment. It appears that libraries, archives and museums (including art museums) find themselves with much in common, including the upholding of shared goals around equitable access to education and ideas, the development of inclusive narratives of culture and history, and the free flow of information (Hedstrom & King, 2006).  
However, the closer working relationship between the LAM sectors does not appear to have translated to equivalent synergies in the educational sphere. For the most part, the education that supports the LAM professions continues to be conducted, at least at the university level, through separate programs and accredited by different professional (Given & McTavish, 2010). While examples of programs covering Library and Information Science (LIS) and Archival Science (AS) can be readily identified, with some being the product of the ‘iSchools’ movement (Cox & Larsen, 2008), examples of programs covering Library and Information Science (LIS) and Museum Studies (MS; we use the term here to include studies of art curation), such as at those offered at Kent State University and the Technological and Educational Institute of Athens, are rare, although they demonstrate that the implementation of a “LAM curriculum” is possible (Latham, 2015; Giannakopoulos, Kyriaki-Manessi & Zervos, 2012; Bastian, 2017).
One major obstacle to further implementation of a “LAM” curriculum would be a lack of institutional correlation between existing schools and departments of LIS and MS. The authors’ preliminary survey of MS programs in Australia confirmed the earlier observation by Howard, Partridge, Hughes and Oliver (2016) that “very few museum studies programmes were located in the same university as library and/or archives programmes.” While the MS and LIS programs in Australia are similar in number, the former are offered by many of the older, more established Australian universities, whereas the latter are offered by a more heterogeneous group of institutions. This circumstance points to two quite distinct histories of LIS and MS professional education in Australia (Barrett, 2011; Wilson et al, 2012; Carroll, 2016). The question arises as to whether differences in the institutional locations of LIS and MS programs are also to be found in other countries, with different traditions of LIS and MS education, and of higher education more broadly. The paper addresses this question by reporting on an environmental scan of professional-entry LIS and MS programs offered by universities in five English-speaking countries.
Another possible barrier to greater collaboration between academics across the LAM fields might be the different research and publishing traditions of the LIS and MS fields, likely to have been exacerbated by institutional divisions amongst the corresponding groups of academics. The extent to which the publishing traditions of Australian LIS and MS, and their venues of scholarly communication, remain divergent is reported in this paper through a bibliometric study of publishing outlets used by LIS and MS academics currently based in Australia.
SURVEY OF LIS AND MS PROGRAM LOCATIONS
A systematic survey of the institutional, and also the sub-institutional, location of programs of LIS and MS in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, was carried out. Specifically, it compared the levels of institutional coordination (and discoordination) between the two fields in the five countries. At the sub-institutional level, analysis is provided on the extent to which LIS and MS programs are situated in schools and colleges which represent divergent disciplinary paradigms, and the extent to which differences in sub-institutional location might be considered “historically accidental”. The survey was carried out with reference to authoritative list of LIS and MS programs offering professional-entry qualifications in the five countries. The institution and its first-order administrative unit in which each program is currently located, according to information found on the Web, was recorded. The disciplinary coverage of each administrative unit was classified into the first-level fields of education set out in the International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO, 1997). The operational prospects of an integrated LAM curriculum are discussed in light of these findings, with possible solutions to institutional discoordination suggested.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF LIS AND MS ACADEMICS’ OUTLETS
A bibliometric analysis of individual LIS and MS academics in Australia was conducted in order to gauge the extent to which the two groups use, and publish in, common journals and other research outlets. The LIS and MS academics were identified as those currently engaged in teaching and supporting the programs listed in the institutional survey, as indicated on the relevant websites. Publications data from Informit (a database of Australian scholarly literature), Scopus and Google Scholar were downloaded into Excel, de-duplicated and analyzed for common sources (journals, conference proceedings and books). In addition, the two lists of journals used to identify the “Library and Information Studies” field of research of research (coded 0807) and “Curatorial and Related Studies” (coded 2102) in the Australian Research Council’s most recent Excellence in Research for Australia exercise, were compared. Ways in which LIS and MS academics could increase the level of their interdisciplinary dialogue, as one step towards implementing more LAM initiatives in the academy, are considered.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook II

Attendees (2)