History in the Library and Information Science curriculum: outline of a debate.(Association for Library and Information Science Education's Historical Perspectives Special Interest Group )

Only a small minority of Library and Information Science (LIS) schools now schedule courses with a historical focus, and LIS faculty whose research specialty is history seem to be a vanishing breed. Yet some educators are committed to finding ways to preserve historical perspectives in the master's degree curriculum. At the 2004 conference of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) the Historical Perspectives Special Interest Group (SIG) discussed strategies and subsequently carried on the debate in an online forum. Theoretical justifications for including history in the curriculum appealed to both generalist and specific rationales that argued for "history as story" as well as "history as process," while practical suggestions included focusing on the preservation of documents, adopting the principles and methods of public history, and creating stronger avenues for collaboration among all historians of libraries and information science, no matter what their disciplinary affiliation. Overall, participants felt that in the current economic climate modestly scaled efforts stood the best chance of success.

**********

In 1989 the American Library Association's (ALA) Library History Round Table (LHRT) issued a Statement on History in Education for Library and Information Science (LIS) that urged all programs of library and information science education to "fully incorporate" into their curricula "history and historical methodology." (1) Yet fifteen years later a minority of LIS schools offer courses with a historical focus, and tenure-track faculty teach an even smaller number of these. An informal survey of the curricula that fifty-three North American LIS schools posted on their websites in the fall of 2001 showed that although seventeen schools (about one third) list courses in their catalog that contain both the words "history" and "library," "libraries," or "librarianship," eleven (about one fifth) scheduled such courses during the period 1999-2001, and at only seven schools (13 percent) were such courses taught by tenure-track faculty. Indeed, LIS faculty whose research specialty is history seem to be a vanishing breed, while history seems in general to have been pushed to the margins of LIS scholarship. One measure of such activity is the research areas of new doctoral dissertations in LIS. Of the 340 dissertations deposited since the beginning of the twenty-first century and assigned the subject term Library Science, only 6 (less than 2 percent) were also assigned the subject History, United States. (2) Few current job advertisements list history as a desired area of teaching and research interest, and without renewal through faculty recruitment, existing library historians must face the prospect that within a short while--perhaps another decade--history could disappear completely from the LIS curriculum.

But some LIS educators remain keen to keep history near the top of their agendas. At the 2004 conference of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) the Historical Perspectives Special Interest Group (SIG) drew an audience of about thirty to hear and respond to a panel discussion entitled "Dead or Alive? History in the LIS Curriculum." Panelists Joyce M. Latham, Lorna Peterson, and Lee Shiflett revisited the 1989 LHRT statement to consider the current situation in LIS schools with respect to history in the curriculum, whether the LHRT statement's recommendations have in fact been followed, and, if so, in what specific and practical ways. The subsequent debate continued online on the LIS educators' e-mail discussion list, jESSE. (3) Participants' comments made it clear that many feel strongly that history should still hold a place in the LIS curriculum, and they are willing to consider a variety of strategies for achieving this.

This essay extends their debate into print and draws on the 1989 LHRT statement, the 2004 ALISE Historical Perspectives SIG, and the subsequent jESSE conversation as well as published and unpublished commentary to assess these discussants' competing views of the place of history in the LIS curriculum from theoretical and strategic points of view. First, I consider two theoretical approaches that address the questions, "Why study history?" and "Why study history as part of the LIS curriculum?" I group possible answers into those that take a broader, generalist position and those that confine themselves to a narrower, more specific approach, both of which use the tropes "history as story" and "history as process." I go on to consider practical issues revolving around questions of "how, what, and who": How can history feasibly and helpfully form part of the LIS curriculum? What should be the content of such a contribution? Who is in a position to deliver it? Finally, I look at ways in which often hard-pressed LIS educators can collaborate with each other and with scholars in other fields in order to spread their intellectual load.

Theoretical Approaches: Why?

Generalist approaches that appeal to "history as story" tend to invoke broad philosophical principles. In this vein the 1989 LHRT statement begins with a quotation from Derek Bok, then president of Harvard University. "Rather than simply train students to be competent, successful practitioners," Bok wrote in 1986, "faculties need to make greater efforts to prepare people who will look beyond their practice and strive continuously to raise the standards of the profession and improve the system in which it functions.... Faculties could do much more to expand the vision of their students by encouraging them to study the history and structure of their profession." (4) Stressing the value of a classical, broad-based liberal arts education in implicit contrast to a utilitarian preparation for the workplace, this argument forms a rationale often advanced in favor of requiring a graduate degree in LIS. If gaining practical and technical skill is the main purpose of LIS education, then why go to the trouble and expense of setting up units within the university to achieve it? Surely we could dispense with the whole paraphernalia of a degree-based education (including faculty research, required educational standards for prospective students, and accreditation) in favor of apprenticeships in real-life libraries. Since few people currently teaching in LIS are seriously suggesting that we throw out the whole enterprise (though library practitioners sometimes argue otherwise), it would seem that Bok's appeal to the value of a broad-based education still receives general support.

Nevertheless, the question, "Why study history?" is unlikely to go away, even for mainstream historians. In an article posted on the American Historical Association's website, historian Peter Stearns articulates a "generalist" answer that many in LIS probably find satisfying, perhaps…