Cult of the “I”. Organizational symbolism and curricula in three Scandinavian iSchools with comparisons to three American
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2016-0042 |
| Published date | 09 January 2017 |
| Pages | 48-74 |
| Date | 09 January 2017 |
| Author | Koraljka Golub,Joacim Hansson,Lars Selden |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Cult of the “I”
Organizational symbolism and curricula
in three Scandinavian iSchools with
comparisons to three American
Koraljka Golub, Joacim Hansson and Lars Selden
School of Cultural Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of the paper is to analyse three Scandinavian iSchools in Denmark, Norway and
Sweden with regard to their intentions of becoming iSchools and curriculum content in relation to these
intentions. By doing so, a picture will be given of the international expansion of the iSchool concept in terms
of organisational symbolism and practical educational content. In order to underline the approaches of the
Scandinavian schools, comparisons are made to three American iSchools.
Design/methodology/approach –The study is framed through theory on organisational symbolism and
the intentions of the iSchool movement as formulated in its vision statements. Empirically, the study consists
of two parts: close readings of three documents outlining the considerations of three Scandinavian LIS schools
before applying for the iSchool status, and statistical analysis of 427 syllabi from master level courses at three
Scandinavian and three American iSchools.
Findings –All three Scandinavian schools, analysed, have recently become iSchools, and though some
differences are visible, it is hard to distinguish anything intheir syllabi as carriers of what can be described
as an iSchool identity. In considering iSchool identity, it instead benefits on a symbolic level that are most
prominent, such as branding, social visibility and the possible attra ction of new student gr oups.
The traditionally strong relation to national library sectors are emphasised as important to maintain,
specifically in Norway and Sweden.
Research limitations/implications –The study is done on iSchools in Denmark, Norway and
Sweden with empirical comparison to three American schools. These comparisons face the challenge of
meeting the educational system and programme structure of each individual country. Despite this, findings
prove possible to use as ground for conclusions, although empirical generalisations concerning, for instance,
other countries must be made with caution.
Practical implications –This study highlights the practical challenges met in international expansionof
the iSchool movem ent, both on a practi cal and symbolic leve l. Both the iSchoo l Caucus and indivi dual
schools considering becoming iSchools may use these findings as a point of reference in development and
decision making.
Originality/value –This is an original piece of research from which the results may contribute to the
international development of the iSchool movement, and extend the theoretical understanding of the iSchool
movement as an educational and organisational construct.
Keywords Denmark, Norway, Sweden, iSchools,
Library and Information Science education, Organizational symbolism
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction and background
There is something elusive about the iSchool movement. On the one hand, there is an
openness which allows for any department dealing with information to apply for
membership, and on the other there are well-defined criteria that need to be met by a school
or department in order to come into consideration by the governing iCaucus. Initially, the
criteria included “requirements that the chief academic officer (typically a dean) report to the
Provost, that the school was active in research, offered a Ph.D. program, and attracted at
least a milliondollars of externalfunding per year to supportits research”(Larsen, 2016, p. 14).
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 73 No. 1, 2017
pp. 48-74
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-04-2016-0042
Received 4 April 2016
Revised 7 July 2016
Accepted 12 July 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The authors would like to thank the representatives from all six iSchools in the sample, who helped
find the appropriate courses and attain the correct syllabi for analysis. Many thanks also to
Boris Badurina for his constructive feedback on the initial manuscript.
48
JDOC
73,1
These criteriawere designed to match requirements of the US system for higher education
and research funding, yet the expansion of iSchools today primarily takes place outside
the USA, making it, defined as a “movement”, a highly international as such. In 2016, the
criteria were updated to a less rigid framework and now include “substantial sponsored
research activity, engagement in the training of future researchers (usually through an
active, research-oriented doctoral programme), and a commitment to progress in the
information field”(iSchools Organization, 2014; see also Seadle, 2016, p. 27). Today there
are more iSchools outside the USA than those within the USA.
Furthermore, while most American iSchools are in fact American Library Association
(ALA)accreditedprogrammesinLibraryand Information Science (LIS), the idea of
iSchools is based on an interdisciplinarity in programmes and research “harnessing the
power of information and technology, and maximising the potential of humans”(iSchools
Organization, 2014). The iSchools began in the USA in the late 1990s and comprised
former library schools that “recognized that ‘information’was not an established field.
If they were to succeed as information schools, they needed to create a discipline”
(Seadle, 2016, p. 26). It is the curricular content that is central to this paper, rather than
research and external funding.
When iSchools have been the interest of scientific study, the question of what is unique
about them has often been in focus. Specifically, the relation to their library-oriented
heritage has proved to be ambivalent (Bonnici et al., 2009). Wedgeworth (2013) shows
that there are significant differences between non-iSchool LIS schools and iSchools in
terms of, for instance, size of faculty, size of ALA master’s degree enrolment, total school
income, total school external income, types of courses in the ALA master’sprogrammes,
types of research degrees held by full-time professorial faculty, quantity of research by
full-time professorial faculty, the range of journals in which faculty research was
published and the level of journal co-citation among the full-time professorial faculty.
Other studies point in different directions. In a major curriculum study Chu (2012) has
shown that, in terms of what is actually taught, there is little difference between iSchools
and ALA-accredited non-iSchools in the USA. This result is supported by Heting (2012)
who analysed five iSchools and five other LIS schools offering ALA-accredited master
degrees, and compared them for programme requirements, core courses, concentrations and
specialisations and other related parameters, observing few distinctive differences; the differences
were in more course offerings by the iSchools and more concentrations/specialisations
by other schools.
Within the iSchool movement itself there is a spectrum of views on what iSchools
actually are, not least in relation to more traditional LIS. Bruce (2011, p. 5) defines iSchools
as “intellectual communities”and a “welcoming venue”working primarily on a symbolic
level, stating that “the clarity of messaging an iSchool value proposition has also been a
factor of success of individual iSchools”. Commenting on international expansion, he argues
that LIS schools are joining the iSchools Organization to establish “their own identity and
the quality and impact of their work”(Bruce, 2011, p. 6).
At the other end of thespectrum iSchools are seen as something new and exclusivewith a
need to develop a unique iSchool ideology followed in practice by a change in curricula at
various levels. Seadle and Greifeneder see this as particularly important in relation to
traditional library schools and LIS departments. They define the character of iSchools as LIS
schools that have their focus beyond paper and media library collection to embrace
“information in the broadest sense that includes potentially everything in the internet and
every form of information found in the world”(Seadle and Greifeneder, 2007). Where Bruce
argues for a curriculumbased on “information as a thing”, with referenceto Buckland (1991),
consisting of information behaviour, information needs, seeking and use, knowledge
organisation, information systems evaluation and the study of information contexts such as
49
Cult of the “I”
To continue reading
Request your trial