This is the fourth in a series of conferences on library education held between British and Nordic educational colleagues. While the theme of the conference is established by a keynote address by Peter Enser, the many sessions tend to follow their own sub themes. The proceedings are a useful collection of library and information studies (LIS) educational developments in the UK and Nordic countries, and there is a small representation of papers from other parts of the globe. There are five sessions on curriculum issues; two on networks‐partnerships‐consortia‐mergers; one on heritage information management, a central theme to Enser’s paper; and a final paper on the economics of information management. Enser envisages a need for closer representation of the management of cultural artefacts in library education along with a closer liaison between the various agencies which manage these collections. He also suggests that we work closer with media content providers. Those of us who are in schools of media and information could be seen as doing just that, but the affinity will only work if staff meld their various curricula. It is apparent that government initiatives in the UK are impacting on the ways in which tertiary education in that country is delivered. Thus Enser’s conclusion includes the comment: “[t]o the three Cs in the title of this conference – continuity, culture and competition – I would add two more: collaboration and convergence” (p. 20).
A number of the nearly 30 papers are written by recognisable names in LIS education. They cover a broad range of curriculum issues, with three dealing specifically with Enser’s theme of education and research in heritage information management. These three papers, two from Nordic countries and one from the UK, also deal with collaboration and convergence. The remaining papers demonstrate the wide range of coverage which library schools attempt in curriculum design. Jorna’s research study is on the language imperialism of English in library studies curricula. While the author’s intentions are noble: to remove the monolinguilism of UK LIS departments, the task may not be as easy as it first seems. The logistics of presenting a curriculum in a variety of languages could be expensive and complex.
Where is LIS education in the UK and Nordic countries heading? Do the papers suggest a future or do they report the past? The papers on curriculum development include initiatives in Internet in both curriculum content and delivery of it, knowledge management, the library in society, information policy, health informatics and one paper on the integration of records and archives management into LIS programs.
The employability of graduates is approached in a paper by Middleton, who describes his study on skills expectations of library graduates in Australia. Its content fits well as background information for the recent Library and Information Science Education for the Knowledge Age (LISEKA) initiative of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). This is an enquiry driven by an Association undergoing change and a perceived need to review the Association’s approach to educational practices in Australia for formal and less formal LIS education. The need for continuing professional development (cpd) is a particularly strong theme of the LISEKA deliberations.
Indeed, the Broady‐Preston and Bell paper on motivating mid‐career LIS professionals focuses on an issue found in other countries: a perceived lack of advancement opportunities. This paper suggests postgraduate coursework study as a cpd way forward and recognises the short lifespan of LIS skills and the need to update. The feedback from participating students in the course suggests that it satisfies this need, though one wonders if it and courses like it will also satisfy the needs of the brave new teleworld described in papers by Fulton and by Preston and Allmand.
Not all of the papers in the Networks – … section are on licensing agreements. Kajberg describes the interesting communications frameworks for library educators in the European catchment area; the choice is fascinating for one so far away. In fact, Butler in her close of the conference, remarks on the paucity of networking opportunities evident for Australian LIS educators. The differences in LIS education and co‐operative ventures among LIS schools in Europe and surrounding countries are compounded by cultural variety. This is not an excuse which fits well in the Australian and New Zealand context where LIS educator networking remains informal at best.
There are significant national and international initiatives which some papers acknowledge as providing the necessary incentive for strategic thinking in LIS education: the UK Resource undertaking returns us to the theme of Enser’s paper; the Bologna Declaration of European Ministers of Education offers another strand.
Yet behind this government hype there is still the need, argues Tom Wilson, for solid foundations in the preparation and education of the LIS professional.
The majority of papers in these proceedings have been based on research projects. Yet only one, that by Oppenheim, Stenson and (another) Wilson, assure us that such intellectual rigour will continue as they describe an information management research project about to commence. These authors are mainly senior researchers. So, too, is Tom Wilson, who offers us his map for LIS education. His four foundation fields: information content, information systems, people and organisation, and policy, planning and strategy, must already be used in many LIS curricula. Yet Burke, in her closing remarks, identifies the request of several papers for a more radical approach to curriculum development. Even Burke’s bottom line is not new: she suggests we encourage LIS study with another cognate discipline, we use Tom Wilson’s map as a framework for first professional qualification, that cpd is important, and that post‐professional qualification should allow for specialisation. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by her plea for more LIS research and discussions on research methodology. Otherwise how will we move forward?
