Response to Cult of the “I”
| Date | 14 May 2018 |
| Pages | 668-671 |
| Published date | 14 May 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2017-0038 |
| Author | Jan Michael Nolin,Ann-Sofie Axelsson,Alen Doracic,Claes Lennartsson,Annemaree Lloyd,Gustaf Nelhans |
| 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 |
Response to Cult of the “I”
Jan Michael Nolin, Ann-Sofie Axelsson, Alen Doracic,
Claes Lennartsson, Annemaree Lloyd and Gustaf Nelhans
Swedish School of Library and Information Science,
University of Borås, Borås, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to respond to an earlier article in the Journal of Documentation:
The Cult of the “I”.
Design/methodology/approach –The method is a form of critical response.
Findings –Numerous problems regarding the The Cult of the “I”article are discussed.
Originality/value –This paper puts forward views about the iSchools Movement.
Keywords Branding, Library and information science, iSchools, Response, iField, Information Science
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the “Cult of the ‘I’” (Golub et al., 2017), three Scandinavian iSchools are compared with
three American iSchools. The purpose is ambitious, to “establish any potential differences
between American and Scandinavian iSchools”(p. 50). This is pursued through a statistical
analysis of curricula together with a qualitative study of three documents. The current text
is a response from researchers active at the only certified Swedish iSchool, the Swedish
School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS) at the University of Borås, one of three
Scandinavian schools studied. The “Cult of the ‘I’”article is written by colleagues at another
Library and Information Science (LIS) department in Sweden, situated within the School of
Cultural Sciences, Linnaeus University.
As information scientists, we sometimes perform research on research, primarily within
scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In such cases, there is a certain distance to that
which is studied. There is also a strong tradition of self-reflection within LIS, investigating
our own field. However, such practices also involve ethical aspects. If the intention is to
study colleagues, their educational practices and discourses at other departments in the
same country, then it is reasonable to expect that a rigorous and transparent approach
to research is adopted (as should always be the case). This is particularly pertinent if that
research is submitted for publication to a leading journal. In the “Cult of the ‘I’”article, there
is a persistent tendency of Scandinavian schools being portrayed in a negative way. This is
established from the start as the word “cult”usually describes socially deviant groups,
not a cluster of higher education institutions.
Such negative starting points are also involved in choice of the theoretical perspective of
organisational symbolism. As described by the authors, this implies that iSchools should be
understood as a hyped-up brand so that membership merely involves symbols of an elite
organisation while actual practices remain traditional. The conclusions drawn are that
Scandinavian iSchools have remained “in a soil with deeply rooted connections between
libraries and a more or less vocational LIS tradition”(p. 72). The iSchool profile is seen as
elusive and, for the Scandinavian schools, it is really LIS “business as usual”( p. 72).
Membership, at least for the Scandinavian schools, seems primarily to be an issue of
branding. The iSchool Movement is characterised as neoliberal.
The value of iSchools beyond the brand constitutes an important discussion involving
cultural differences between American and European traditions of LIS. In the case of the
Scandinavian schools, this encompasses both development of LIS as a research area in its
own right and a wealth of interdisciplinary collaborations within the human and social
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 74 No. 3, 2018
pp. 668-671
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-03-2017-0038
Received 21 March 2017
Revised 14 June 2017
Accepted 25 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
668
JD
74,3
To continue reading
Request your trial