College and Research Libraries Book Reviews Stieg, Margaret F. Change and Challenge in Library and Information Science Edu- cation. Chicago: ALA, 1992. 206p. alk. paper, $37 (ISBN Q-8389-0576-5). Margaret Stieg's book constitutes an open invitation to research universities to discontinue programs of library and information science (or studies) (LIS) ed- ucation. Current trends in higher educa- tion, Stieg says, conflict with profes- sional traditions and interests. In the old . days-the 1950s, say-education for librarianship meant simply a one-year master's degree program, there was no such thing as information science, doc- toral programs were nonexistent or marginal, and the teachers had many years of practical library experience and were not expected to do much, if any, research. Universities have changed since then in the direction of Clark Kerr's multiversity, with very heavy emphasis on research and doctoral education, and heavy (and increasing) reliance on ex- tramural funding. To justify LIS pro- grams in research universities now, one must be able to argue that there is intel- lectually interesting and practically im- portant research to be done, and that there is support for a strong doctoral program. That is exactly what Stieg does not do. She does not discuss doctoral level edu- cation at all, but concentrates exclusively on master's degree programs, with chapters on faculty, curriculum, stu- dents, and administration that proceed largely as if the . schools she is talking about offered only master's degree pro- grams. (Other chapters include a histori- cal overview, discussions of the aims of professional education, the professional context, the university setting, and ac- creditation.) But in a research university, the case for a master's degree program has to show how it is and must be embedded in a larger context essentially involving doctoral education and re- search. Stieg does not do that, and so cannot seriously address the question of the place of LIS programs or schools in research universities; nor can she answer the questions she poses of what a good LIS school is and what a school's re- sponsibilities are. Stieg thinks it unfortunate that re- search is so much emphasized in LIS schools, and concludes that the profes- sions would be better served if edu- cational programs concentrated on teaching and new institutions were de- signed to produce the research that is needed. She has nothing at all to say about what kinds of research are actually done and what might be done. Her views on research are essentially dis- credited by her strikingly confused view of information science. She thinks the relationship between librarianship and information science is "probably the most complex intellectual problem" faced by LIS education; with big political and economic consequences-whiCh she does not address, except to suggest that .information science and scientists are likely to split off from library education. (She clearly reads LIS as "librarianship and information-science," not as "lh brary-and-information science," which she thinks does not and will not exist.) She argues that information science ed- ucation differs from library education in that there is no identifiable profession for which IS education prepares one; it is a nonprofession and very likely a non- science too. But she also says that both librarianship and information science are both professions and disciplines. On the one hand, she blithely asserts that "what was information science a generation 275 276 College & Research Libraries ago is now mainstream librarianship." On the other, she doubts that there is any such thing as information science: what, if anything, it is remains, she says, a matter of debate. She is not the only one to be confused about information science, but confusion on this subject is not an advantage when trying to de- scribe LIS education. Nothing she says suggests any reason for the multiversity to be interested in LIS programs. The picture she draws (apparently based on published docu- ments, accreditation records, and visits to eight schools) is a depressing one, of small isolated units with undistin- guished faculty members. The schools are unselective, admitting nearly all who apply. (She mentions Berkeley and UCLA as exceptions to this rule.) On their campuses, she thinks, they are not respected: they are seen as providing training rather than education, and are viewed as intellectually and profession- ally inadequate. They are expensive, and bring in little outside support for re- search. They have been attempting to transform themselves into schools for the information professions generally, but librarianship and information sci- ence are diverging socially and intellec- tually, as information scientists assert their intellectual superiority over tradi- tionallibrarianship. Stieg does not even try to defend the LIS educational pro- grams she describes in such unflattering terms; nor does she make any substan- tive recommendations for improvement. She thinks the schools fit awkwardly in the multiversity, and expresses no con- cern about the possibility that LIS educa- tion might go elsewhere. (She mentions alternatives such as undergraduate edu- cation and intensive workshops but has no recommendations herself.) She does say that it is hard to understand campus disdain for the "knowledge base" of the field, but only suggests vaguely that this may be because that "knowledge base" is essentially humanistic-a weird view of LIS, but she is thinking only of tradi- tional librarianship, not of information science or of the, for her, nonexistent library-and- information science. Her ig- May1993 norance of information science is crip- pling and dangerous; if others were to take her book as a competent account of the current state of research in LIS, it could be the end of LIS education in research universities. It has to be said that this is a pro- foundly reactionary book, showing a strong distaste for the kind of research, development, and professional practice in information work that is gradually growing from deep roots in bibliogra- phy and librarianship. It would be de- plorable if the fact that the American Library Association published this book were taken to imply corporate endorse- ment of its reactionary message. Stieg says her book is meant to clarify issues and increase understanding. It does neither. It will make work for deans, having to counteract within the univer- sity its regressive and misleading ac- count of the present and possible future of LIS education.-Patrick Wilson, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley. Harris, Roma M. Librarianship: The Ero- sion of a Woman's Profession. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1992. 186p. alk. paper, $22.50 (ISBN 0-89391-941-1). The year 1992 has been called "the year of the woman," and, indeed, some significant events justify that label. It was a year of historic firsts, ranging from the election of four women to the United States Senate, the announcement that an African-American woman would be the "poet laureate" at the new President's inauguration, and a clear indication that the new First "Lady" will have a post that matches her intelligence and accom- plishments. Reading Librarianship: The Erosion of a Woman's Profession against the backdrop of this supposed woman's year, however, brought a heavy dose of reality, reminding one how far librarians have come and how terribly far we, as individuals and as a profession, have yet togo. Roma Harris has written a book that will, I. expect by design, make some people extremely uneasy. She is unam- biguous about her purpose and unapol- ogetic about her theoretical orientation.