A review of professionalism within LIS
| Published date | 14 March 2017 |
| Pages | 142-152 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-07-2016-0053 |
| Date | 14 March 2017 |
| Author | Paul Cannon |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,HR in libraries,Library strategy,Library promotion |
A review of
professionalism within LIS
Paul Cannon
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of professionalism within Library and
Information Science (LIS) and in doing so draw comparisons with the education and medicine professions.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper provides a review of the extant literature from the three
professions and gives a brief review of the theoretical constructs of professional knowledge using the work of
Eisner and Eraut to explore knowledge types. It then relates these definitions to knowledge use within LIS,
education and medicine, before examining the roles that professional associations have on the knowledge
development of a profession. It concludes with a reflection on the future of professionalism within LIS.
Findings –The literature suggests a fragmented epistemological knowledge-base and threats to its practices
from outside professions. It does, however, find opportunities to redefine its knowledge boundaries within the
phronetic practices of LIS and in socio-cultural uses of knowledge. It finds strengths and weaknesses in
professionalism within LIS and its practitioners.
Originality/value –This review provides a contemporary update to several earlier, related, works and
provides useful context to current efforts to professionalise LIS by the Chartered Institute of Library and
Information Professionals.
Keywords Ethics, Professionalism, Professional associations,
Chartered institute of library and information professionals (CILIP), Professional knowledge
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
This paper reviews the nature of professionalism with reference to the Library and
Information Science (LIS) profession from a UK perspective, drawing on comparisons with
the education and medical professions. Education and medicine serve as useful comparators
to LIS where some have questioned whether it is even a profession (Kostrewski and
Oppenheim, 1980). Education can be considered a “fledgling”profession (Berkeley, 2001),
yet one that has successfully built a legitimate and publically recognised knowledge-base,
and medicine is a long-established profession (Archer and de Bere, 2013) with a considerable
body of literature on the themes of professionalism. These professions, therefore, give a
range of views and experiences across the various characteristics of professionalism and
offer routes for LIS to be considered a true profession.
Ethics and issues concerning professionalism have been prevalent in LIS since the first
code of ethics for the sector was published by the American Library Association Code of
Ethics Committee in 1938 (Kostrewski and Oppenheim, 1980). Early attempts to define the
profession started with occupational groups seeking to gain professional status which led to
debate on the professional characteristics that differentiated one set of occupational groups
from another (Broady-Preston, 2006). This development has parallels with that of medical
education where there was also a desire to define professional characteristics to enable the
profession to be delineated from others (Martimianakis et al., 2009), thus allowing a body of
professional knowledge to be built and controlled, in turn leading to public recognition and
trust in the profession (Kanes, 2010).
Library Management
Vol. 38 No. 2/3, 2017
pp. 142-152
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0143-5124
DOI 10.1108/LM-07-2016-0053
Received 20 July 2016
Revised 28 October 2016
Accepted 2 January 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm
This paper is based on an assignment undertaken as part the Professional Doctorate programme at the
University of the West of Scotland. The author would like to thank the peer-review comments of
Dr Stephen Day and Professor Ruth Deery in that assignment which helped to shape this paper.
142
LM
38,2/3
To continue reading
Request your trial