Discussions in the higher education literature regarding online teaching, where content is delivered primarily over the Internet rather than in face-to-face classroom meetings, have shifted in recent years from the general “is it wise and is it good for learning?” focus to a quest to discover and share best practices. While certain voices still call for more careful attention to whether teaching via remote access is in the overall best interest of student learning (Shieh, 2009), we nevertheless generally acknowledge that new delivery methods are here to stay. The current argument is more often centered not on whether to deliver the curriculum online, but how. Central to the “how” discussion needs to be a focus on retooling professors who, when teaching online, are shifting to a completely different teaching and learning environment.

We tend to teach the way our favorite professor taught, which for many of us was the lecture method, or what Brent (2005) refers to as “teaching as performance” and Bain (2004) calls “the transmission model of teaching” (p. 173). But an online learning environment differs from the face-to-face classroom, where human interaction, eye contact, facial expressions, and verbal cues help faculty and students engage in the learning process.

This paper explores the mechanisms used by college professors to adapt to online teaching environments, especially regarding concurrent efforts of their institutions to offer support in the midst of these changes. The paper includes the results of a study conducted to gauge the current availability and impact of such support systems within LIS graduate schools.

To inform this study, I looked for literature that described the importance of, or need for, faculty development in teaching and learning technologies, with an emphasis on online course design and development. Most of this research comes from online course evaluation studies or from IT-focused articles which evaluate the effectiveness of university investments in IT-based teaching and learning tools. I then searched for examples of best practices in technology-based faculty development. Some best practices were true examples of structured institutional support for online course development or for teaching and learning technologies; others simply articulated the need for these institutional supports in our changing environments. As the focus of this study is LIS institutional support, I paid special attention to examples in the literature from within LIS graduate programs.

Background and Literature

Allen and Seaman (2005) report that more than 2.3 million students were enrolled in online courses in the fall of 2004; they also report an 18% per year growth in online course delivery. Within the 62 American Library Association (ALA) accredited graduate schools of LIS, 41 programs (66%) offer some of their curriculum online and 14 other institutions (23%) offer their entire program online (American Library Association, 2009). This indicates that 89% of ALA-accredited LIS programs offer courses online. In the face of such growth, the issue of educational quality has been actively discussed in the higher education literature, and training faculty is core to that discussion. “The question is no longer whether online education is as good as face-to-face instruction, but rather how to prepare and support faculty in the online environment and ensure that students achieve important learning outcomes whether they study in online or face-to-face settings or both” (Moskal et al., 2006, p. 26).

Some institutions have addressed the concern of training faculty by separating course design from the content experts, creating what Wright (2005) calls “academic sweatshops.” Wright writes about the changes in academic culture as more teaching is outsourced, but one wonders if this marginalization of core faculty is in the long term interest of the faculty, the students, or the institution. Noble (1998) suggested something similar in his much-cited article suggesting “the automation of higher education . . . is not a progressive trend towards a new era at all, but a regressive trend, towards the rather old era of mass production, standardization and purely commercial interests” (Abstract, para. 1). Noble argues that distinct lines have emerged between student and faculty desires for quality learning, and administrators’ desires for the profitable economic model seen in online course delivery.

In his critique of online education, Speck (2000) comes to a similar conclusion regarding the power of the economic model; he develops three criticisms which together he calls a breach of ethics in the academy. His criticisms are: (1) the failure of the academy to evaluate learning effectively in the online environment; (2) the concomitant failure to prepare faculty to teach online courses; and (3) an assessment that the academy has chosen online course delivery due to an economic model rather than an educational one. Speck argues that these problems can be overcome; he is not philosophically against online teaching but rather against the afore-mentioned gaps in institutional preparation to move so quickly (and basically unprepared) into new learning environments. Writing about faculty preparation, Speck argues:

The academy not only fails to provide adequate training for professors to teach online courses but also undermines professorial authority by putting them in situations where they are dependent on others to deliver subject matter content . . . in doing this, the academy violates the contract it has with students—namely, the agreement that professors are credentialed as expert teachers. (pp. 76–77)

This concern is reflected as more published literature emphasizes the critical need to train faculty to use teaching and learning technologies effectively. For example:

Colleges have spent millions on ‘smart classrooms’ packed with the latest gadgets to assist teaching computerized projection systems, Internet ports at every seat, even video cameras with motion detectors that can track the movements of a lecturer. But colleges have spent far less time and money giving professors the skills to use even the simplest technology effectively. (Young, 2004, p. A31)

Lewis and Abdul-Hamid (2006) investigated how highly-qualified faculty members incorporate effective teaching practices in their online courses. Their research demonstrates that effective online teaching “is, at best, an elusive and confusing process” (p. 95). However,

Despite differences in online course platforms, one of the expectations for effective online instruction is for structured pedagogical approaches, which evolve around interactivity and the deliberate actions of faculty willing to provide careful attention to student needs. Evident from this study is that this type of environment is not one that emerges naturally or unwittingly in online courses. (pp. 95–96)

A significant concern with online courses is that the current deliverymechanisms seem to flatten the traditional multi-sensory learning environment. How do we learn to add back those critical multidimensional elements into the learning environment? One way is to take advantage of web conferencing systems. With web-based synchronous learning environments, professors and students can begin to recapture the human touch we miss in the frequently-silent online course structure. For example, Hofmann (2004) considers the instructor’s voice to be an essential tool in an online synchronous environment (p. 52). She recommends best practices such as using a script for guidance rather than for reading, using humor and positive reinforcement, and “smiling” with your voice.

How does a faculty member learn these skills and techniques? Even in institutions where good teaching is clearly articulated as part of the core mission, support structures for online teaching need to be examined. Reder (2007) challenges us to rethink our assumptions of “good teaching”; because an institution values excellence in teaching does not necessarily mean that the structures are in place to provide support for learning effective pedagogical practices. This is true for faculty in various disciplines, at various career stages, and in relation to emerging teaching and learning technologies. Reder writes of the need for formal centers of teaching and learning excellence for ongoing faculty development. This is especially necessary, says Carey (2006), for members of the baby boom generation, who struggle to teach Net generation students “in a manner that capitalizes on the group’s technology-driven lifestyle and fosters quality liberal learning” (p. 3).

Much research has focused on current student satisfaction with the use of information technology in higher education. The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research conducts an annual study of undergraduate students and their uses of IT in college. Their 2008 study shows increased ownership (80%) of laptop computers, a high rate of confidence in their own use of the Internet (80% report being “very skilled” or “expert” Internet searchers), and an 85% participation in social networking sites (Caruso & Salaway, 2008). Additional results from the study (Caruso & Salaway, 2008) indicate that “students perceive that more instructors need to use IT effectively in courses,” “students are increasingly mobile,” and “students expect IT to be available” (p. 4).

There is evidence that students come to college as expert users of information technologies, and expect to find a university infrastructure to support their use. Whether their courses are fully online or their professors are incorporating more teaching and learning technologies in their face-to-face classes, these expert users set the bar high for effective use of teaching technologies in the academy.

Because of changing student expectations and because of significant institutional investments in teaching and learning technologies, there have been ongoing efforts to evaluate their effectiveness. Focusing on the efforts to evaluate online teaching, a helpful starting point is the overview of research by Tallent-Runnels, Thomas, Lan, and Cooper (2006). Key points in their review include the importance of learner-centered course design for online courses, the importance of interactivity, and the key roles of faculty in online teaching. Berge (1999) emphasized instructional design over delivery mechanism, and Hansen
and Gladfelter (1996) drew conclusions regarding the perplexing nature of online pedagogy to many faculty. Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) provide many best-practice examples from research; they also evaluate the quality of research available in this emerging area of higher education study. Overall, they find:

Institutional aspects of these studies showed that few universities have written guidelines or policies for online courses. They also confirmed the lack of technical support for both faculty members and students engaged in online instruction. Faculty members want training and course development assistance as well as rewards for preparing courses to be taught online. Few faculty members said that they would require additional compensation for the work if they could get help developing and delivering courses . . . Appropriate and excellent course design and development may prove to be paramount to the success of students in online courses. (pp. 116–117)

Other reports from research regarding best practices in online course delivery include Barron (2003); Bouhnik and Marcus (2006); Bourne and Moore (2004); Chickering and Ehrmann (1996); Jones (1997); Kassop (2003); Pribesh, Dickinson, and Bucher (2006); and Smith, Ferguson, and Caris (2001), and on emerging centers for teaching and learning excellence in Lewis, Fino, Hungar, Wallace, and Welch (1994) and LeBarron and McFadden (2008). To maximize the potential of online course delivery, we must provide structured learning about best practices for online course design and development through formal institutional centers for teaching and learning.

One frequent method of developing quality teaching in online programs is to rely on early adopters among the faculty to provide inspiration and peer support for others. While individual leaders and innovators are essential to moving forward, dependence on these individuals is ill-advised. Harman (2008) cautions against this sort of dependence on the innovation and energy of a few, citing short-lived and spotty progress, inconsistent results, and limitations of scale across the institution (p. 25).

What is preferable is a system-wide approach to training and support as demonstrated by several programs included in Barron’s (2003) review of LIS progress in distance education. For example, when developing the fully online LEEP program at the University of Illinois, planners included a strong emphasis on faculty training and instruction:

The challenge [of moving to online teaching] was the time required to make the change from lecture in front of a classroom or a TV camera to this new design requiring change in methodology. The University of Illinois . . . had overcome this difficulty by providing faculty with a semester off before teaching and assigning the faculty member a single class the semester they taught the new class. (Woolls & Loertscher, 2003, p. 265)

Faculty training and a strong technological infrastructure were developed and maintained through deliberate regenerative funding using LEEP’s tuition (Estabrook, 2003).

Woolls and Loerscher (2003) reference the new skill sets required by the faculty in their description of San Jose State University’s preparation for online offerings. In their early days of online course delivery, San Jose received an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant to create a two-week intensive program for all kinds of library educators in the state (state library agencies, library staff development officers, etc.). The two week program provided instructors focused time with professional instructional design personnel.

Support centers for instructional design and technology training are described by Barron (2003) at the University of South Carolina, Kovacs (2003) at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Turner (2003) at the University of North Texas. Each of these authors reports on the necessity for faculty development and support when delivering online courses.

In other situations faculty have felt a lack of support from their IT department, or an absence of instructional design support, and have adapted an attitude of learned helplessness. In a podcast about faculty technology training issues, Carlson and Arbogost (2008) say that when learning new technologies, potentially innovative faculty who are not supported by their institution may exhibit learned helplessness and tend to “simply give up.”

Unfortunately, often “the digital reform of the academy has happened so quickly and with such little consultation with the faculty that the ‘transformation’ of higher education is being conducted without due regard for faculty expertise” (Speck, 2000, p. 77). Speck recommends that administrators provide adequate training for faculty before they teach online, an opinion reflective of the best practices described above.

Faculty need to be prepared for online teaching, in terms of pedagogical shifts and technological tools. The emergence of teaching and learning centers in the academy indicates an acknowledgement of the importance of excellent teaching and of the distinction between subject expertise and pedagogical skills. Are centers for teaching and learning addressing the needs of the online learning environment? What other support systems exist for faculty in institutions offering online course delivery? These questions indicate a need for further study, beginning with the LIS education community.

Research Question

What support structures exist in LIS programs and their institutions to help faculty develop new skills in online course design, delivery, and content? An exploratory study was developed to investigate existing support systems in LIS education which assist faculty who are retooling for online teaching.

Limitations

This survey was limited to faculty in LIS programs, and did not try to survey the respondents’ university support structures for comparison to faculty responses. No component in this survey measured student satisfaction or teaching effectiveness. Rather, this study concentrated on faculty perceptions of support for their own development in online teaching and emerging course content. The study did not try to measure the effectiveness of one training method over another.

Methods: General Description

A questionnaire sent directly to faculty members was identified as the best research approach, as it was their experiences the study wanted to capture. Electronic survey tools distributed via the Internet make it possible to collect information rapidly from a large number of participants. SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com), a Web-based commercial software tool, was selected for its ease of use and for its built-in ability for email follow-up to non-responders. The survey (Appendix A) included multiple choice and open-ended questions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative questions provided concrete data regarding the range of support structures and an opportunity to gauge respondents’ attitudes and priorities. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS v.16 and NVivo.

Methods: Sample Selection

Using the ALA’s alphabetical list of accredited schools, LIS faculty and their email addresses were identified. All full-time faculty members of ALA-accredited master’s programs were sent an email invitation to participate in an online survey. The email included a brief description of the research project, an invitation to participate, and a link to the online survey. The email and the first screen of the survey assured the participants of anonymity and of the voluntary nature of their response.

Of the 907 emails sent to potential respondents, 883 invitations to participate in the survey were delivered, while 24 were returned due to bad email addresses or previously designated blocks of SurveyMonkey mailings by individual recipients. There were 331 total respondents, nine of whom declined to participate in the survey and did not advance further. Twenty-six respondents agreed to participate in the survey but did not respond to any of the questions; they are excluded from further analysis. The resulting number of total valid respondents is n = 296, although not all respondents answered every question. Percentages cited in this report are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Data Analysis

The survey consisted of 16 multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments on four of the questions, and a final question invited additional comments. The data from SurveyMonkey were downloaded into SPSS v.16 for analysis. NVivo software was used to identify word frequency counts in the qualitative responses. Narrative responses were further analyzed with hand-tabulation to identify common themes.

Results from Multiple Choice and Yes/No Questions

The majority of respondents (n = 243, 83%) were from institutions with over 10,000 students, with the remaining coming from smaller institutions (Table 1). The greatest number of respondents (n = 166, 58%) teach in LIS programs with more than 250 students.

Of the 297 respondents, 92% (n = 262) reported that their program offers some online courses; 36% (n = 103) reported teaching where the program is available fully online as an option. Approximately 69% (n = 198) of the respondents teach online courses or courses offered in a hybrid environment (partially face-to-face and partially online). These figures correspond well to the overall ALA statistics cited earlier in this paper; 89% of ALA accredited LIS programs offer courses online, and 23% of those are available fully online. It appears as though respondents to this survey are slightly more likely to be involved in a fully online program than the overall LIS faculty population reported by the ALA.

When asked if they had received formal and/or informal training in online course design and delivery (Table 2), 17% of respondents said little to no support was available to them. Sixty three percent rely on peers, confirming the observations expressed in the literature cited above. The next most frequent form of support came from university IT workshops (58%), and 44% cite formal university support as part of their preparation. Twenty percent cite formal training through their own LIS program as being a part of their training for online course design and delivery. (This question invited multiple responses, so the total is greater than 100%.)

Similar results were seen in the responses regarding support for faculty development in incorporating new technologies into LIS coursework, with the most support (64%) coming from peers, and the least support (18%) coming from within the LIS program.

Survey participants were asked to note incentives offered by the institution for developing online teaching skills. Ninety eight (24%) of the respondents said no incentives were available. Of the 405 total instances of institutional support cited, the most frequently cited (19%) was competitive faculty development grants, with support for conference attendance (15%), consideration in faculty review (15%), and case-by-case reimbursement for expenses incurred from outside training (14%) fairly evenly distributed. Thirteen percent of respondents cited the availability of a course release for developing new teaching skills for online course design and delivery (Table 3).

When asked about general support for new course development and professional development, 24% reported receiving financial support and 13% of respondents referred to course release time. No support for new course development and ongoing professional development was reported from 63% of respondents.

Additional analysis as done to assess if institution size made a difference with regard to support for developing new content. Table 4 shows the breakdown of incentives reported for developing new course content; respondents in the smallest and largest institutions reported the highest percentage of “no support is available” (76% and 77% respectively), with 61% of respondents from institutions of 5,000 to 10,000 students reporting no support in this area.

Whether training opportunities and incentives are offered by the institution is one issue; whether faculty take advantage of them is another. In this survey, the most frequent (n = 161, 56%) type of opportunity respondents reported taking advantage of within the past two years was informal instruction from colleagues. The next most popular (n = 126, 44%) response was conference attendance, with formal training through the university next (n = 104, 37%). Sixteen percent had not taken advantage of any opportunities during the past two years (Table 5).

Conferences attended most frequently were ALISE (51%), ALA annual and midwinter (40% and 36% respectively), and ASIS&T (39%). Respondents frequently attend more than one conference annually.

Respondents were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1–5 for confidence in online teaching (1 = not at all confident , 5 = highly confident). Sixty five percent rated themselves at a 4 or a 5; the mean score was 3.84. A related question asked respondents about their level of confidence in adapting their LIS course content to include emerging LIS practice tools such as social software and Web 2.0, with an overall mean of 3.61.

Examining the relationship between teaching some courses fully online and the degree of confidence in teaching online, there was a significantly increased level of “confident” and “highly confident” responses from those who teach online.

When formal support for instructional design is made available by the institution (reported to be the case by 155 respondents), 63% of professors report being confident to highly confident in their online teaching. Seventy percent at those levels of confidence report having IT workshops at their university; 77% report formal training being available through their LIS programs. Of the 179 respondents reporting informal peer-to-peer support, 70% report being confident to highly confident in their online teaching. Thirty five respondents report little to no support being available at their institution; 58% of those 35 still report high levels of confidence in online teaching.

Results from Open-Ended Questions

When asked in the two final questions for additional comments, including examples of what they would like to see offered by their institutions, participants expressed many needs. Content analysis of these qualitative comments indicated the most frequently expressed desires were for time, course release, financial support, instructional design support, and training. Some of these expressions overlap; “time,” for example, sometimes refers to course release, but also seems to refer to “time” in a more cosmic sense (e.g., “Is there ever enough time?”). Financial support refers to continuing education, course release (again), and infrastructure investments. Table 8 is a breakdown of common themes from the responses to the question “What support would you like your institution to offer?”

Other less frequently occurring support mentioned included: more access to teaching assistants, peer support from open sharing sessions, Web 2.0, XML, Web development training, andmore creative cyber spaces for online teaching.

162 total responses to this question; many included more than one reference.

A frequently expressed desire was for greater structure in the support offered; respondents mentioned the need for formal programmatic structures beyond the technology, from mentors to administrative recognition and institutional rewards.

Fourteen respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with the support provided by their institution, but there was often concern about finding time to take advantage of the learning opportunities. Respondents also expressed a need for the IT offerings to be more applicable to the LIS environment, and for instructional design support within the LIS program. These responses reflect a desire for customized services, and for support closer to home. This concern of the LIS school being underserved by the university was expressed as an outright tension in multiple responses; several comments referenced a lack of cooperation from the university’s IT department and a lack of attention to emerging technologies important in LIS (such as Web 2.0).

One faculty member mentioned an interesting problem: “As we try to be ahead of the curve in our teaching (with the virtual world Second Life, for example), we frequently find that we are ahead even of the IT support staff at our institutions.” Individual faculty members reported being ahead of some LIS peers, and the LIS program being ahead of the university. Another faculty member echoes this concern, saying: “. . . [it’s harder] to get a server or application in place and supported throughout the semester by our school IT staff . . . There is often a disincentive to introduce new tools into a class, because doing so puts a serious setup, administrative and IT support burden on the instructor.” Another respondent referred to a need for “courses aimed at higher levels of competence.” A few respondents pointed out that since online teaching is not a priority in their program, any lack of support for this kind of development is not unusual, although incorporating emerging technologies into the curriculum requires a strong IT support infrastructure.

The desire for release time for learning, reflection, and course refinement was a consistent theme in the narrative responses. Another commonly expressed need was for funding to take outside courses, including commercial continuing education opportunities. The top item on the wish-list was for release time to pursue the new learning required to adapt to online teaching environments, through a course release or simply expressed as “time.” As one respondent stated, “What I desperately need is time, even if to learn this stuff on my own, without a lot of strings attached. I don’t believe that this technology is that difficult, but there is a tremendous amount of it and it is constantly changing. . . . I can’t say this enough.” And, from another respondent, “TIME, TIME, TIME.”

Interpretation and Discussion of the Data

Connections to the Existing Literature

Several examples from this study confirmed previous findings and best practices. Speck’s (2000) call for adequate faculty preparation before online teaching was consistent with the high value this survey’s respondents placed on their preparation, whether it came from their peers or from other sources. Lewis and Abdul-Hamid’s (2006) emphasis on developing mechanisms for learning effective online pedagogies is mirrored in the respondents’ calls for LIS level and institutional level supports.

Respondents to this survey generally reinforce the observations from Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) in that LIS faculty members understand the importance of good training in creating successful online courses; they use it when it is available and they want it where it is not. They are looking for leadership to provide support structures, but when those structures are not there, faculty forge ahead and make things work to their greatest capabilities. This would indicate that people who teach online manage to gain the needed skills to do so; it is also possible that by gaining experience in online teaching the faculty member also gains the needed skills to feel confident. One could also say that those who do not feel confident simply opt out, when possible, of teaching in online environments. As one participant responded, “Aside from assistance from colleagues and occasional university workshops, the general approach is ‘sink or swim.’ So I stay out of the pool.”

This study supports the existing literature emphasizing the need to prepare faculty to teach online (Carey, 2006; Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006; Speck, 2000; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006; Young, 2004). For programs offering online courses, a more clearly articulated, systemic approach to faculty development for online teaching is essential.

A Model for a Culture of Support for Online Teaching

Three of the items in the top six listed in the themes from the survey’s narrative responses (Table 8 ) are also the top three mechanisms listed as boosting the professor’s level of confidence for online teaching (Table 7): course release, financial support, and LIS specific help or formal training infrastructure. This finding can guide administrators looking for the most effective ways to train faculty for online teaching, particularly because these three items also frequently appear as best practices in the literature. The same three important items appear in the results of this survey as being rarely offered. Only 13% of respondents reported the availability of a course release (Table 3) and only 20% reported formal training through their LIS programs (Table 2). This study also supports the effectiveness and desirability of peer support in faculty development; it is a support structure faculty are highly likely to use (Table 5).

Components of an effective model for faculty development therefore include a course release and/or a learning stipend, LIS-specific training in instructional design and online pedagogical skills, and structured mentoring. The importance of a strong program-level support structure which accounts for the special needs of LIS emerged as a recurring thread throughout the survey responses and should be an integral component of this model. The importance of a culture of support for innovation is indicated in the best practice literature and is supported by the findings in this study.

From close attention to the themes evidenced in this literature review and the findings in this study, a model emerges that combines best practices and faculty’s expressed needs for online teaching support. The model consists of a multi-layered support system which includes formalized structures for program- level support and training, institutional-level supports, and outside continuing education opportunities. In this model, faculty members share responsibility for their ongoing professional development specific to online teaching skills. This shared responsibility is appropriate within the higher education culture. The model is presented in Figure 1 and is described below.

Figure 1. Creating a culture of support for online teaching.

A desire for discipline-specific support from the LIS program, beyond the generic offerings from IT, was another theme. When formal support was offered through the LIS department, 76% of this survey’s respondents felt confident to highly confident in their online teaching skills (Table 6). There is significant room for growth in this area among LIS programs, as only 20% of respondents in this survey report formalized LIS-level online teaching support (Table 2).

Finally, respondents acknowledged the expertise of their students. Opportunities to partner with skilled student workers who could act as support personnel in faculty’s online courses were seen as highly valuable, and are suggested as part of this formal model.

Institutional Support

The institution is responsible for strong infrastructure investments in technology and in teaching and learning. Many university IT departments are still evolving from hardware and software support systems to multi-layered departments with complex demands. There is also a strong trend toward the development of centers for teaching and learning excellence in higher education. However responsibilities for online teaching support are divided among departments and personnel, a culture of support should include instructional design support and resources for online pedagogy best practices. Technical workshops should focus on campus-wide systems (such as the dominant course management system in place) and on basic technical skills associated with changing software and hardware environments. One-on-one technical training should be available to faculty who are working on special projects or interested in developing specific skills.

Finally, the institution is responsible for broader infrastructure issues such as specific incentive and reward programs, including positive components in retention and tenure policies and financial incentives such as development grants for outside learning. The institution has a unique opportunity to make a positive difference in the culture of support by creating thoughtful policies associated with online course design and delivery. These policies, for example, could mandate faculty training and impose strict
course caps to address the need for appropriate faculty workload in online courses and to ensure quality experiences for students. Policies such as these standardize best practices across the institution and protect individual faculty members from
having to negotiate for them on a case-by-case basis.

External Continuing Education

Conference attendance was second (to peer support) among the faculty development opportunities this survey’s respondents
acknowledged using in the last year. It could be assumed that this is ranked highly because it is the most readily available, but it is also an established part of higher education culture. Faculty members traditionally use conference attendance to keep current. Financial support for these learning experiences should be part of the culture of support. In addition, many skills associated with online teaching are available though local community college courses, or from within the institution’s own degree curriculum. Commercial programs are available locally or online which address a wide variety of technical and online course development skills.

Summary

This model provides a basis for institutions’ planning for helping faculty prepare new ways of teaching in a rapidly changing environment. Taken together, the structures presented in this model create a positive culture of support for online teaching.

Suggestions for Further Study

Additional research is needed in the design and testing of such a faculty development model within LIS programs. It would be useful to broaden this study by surveying faculty in other graduate programs, and undergraduate faculty. It would be useful to include university IT departments and Centers for Teaching Excellence to measure impressions from the service providers, and to assess the percentage of schools with online courses where there are formal policies about online teaching and course delivery. Studies which correlate specific aspects of faculty training with student success will be important as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.

Conclusion

As the number of courses delivered online continues to increase, faculty members must gain enhanced pedagogical skills for online learning environments. Universities should see their commitment to faculty development in this area as a significant investment in institutional quality. Results from research literature regarding best practices for online teaching development have been combined with a survey of LIS faculty to determine their existing structures and their perceived needs. The result is a
model for a culture of support which should be used to improve online teaching.

Appendix A: Survey Questions

1. (The first question indicated an agreement
   to participate in the survey.)
2. How many students attend your university as of Fall 2008?

          a. 1000–5000
          b. 5000–10,000
          c. Over 10,000

3. How many students attend your LIS program as of Fall 2008?

          Under 100
          100–250
          Over 250

4. Does your program offer online courses? (Yes / No)
5. Is your program available 100% online as an option? (Yes / No)
6. Do you teach any fully online or hybrid courses? (Yes / No)
7. Do you have formal and/or informal training for online course design and delivery? (check all that apply)

          a. Formal training programs through the university
          b. Informal training through university IT workshops
          c. Formal training through our own LIS program
          d. Informal peer-to-peer training among our own faculty
          e. Little to no training is offered

8. Overall in your teaching, do you have formal and/or informal instructional design support or training, such as assistance for course syllabus development, training for effective teaching strategies, and development of instructional materials? (check all that apply)

         a. Formal support at the university level via professional Instructional Design personnel on staff
          b. Informal support at the university level through IT workshops
          c. Formal training through our own LIS program
          d. Informal support among faculty for peer-to-peer training
          e. Little to no training is offered

9. What incentives does your institution offer to faculty to develop new teaching skills for online course design and delivery? (check all that apply)

          a. Funding via competitive faculty development grants
          b. Funding for faculty conference attendance
          c. Course release
          d. Positive factor in the university’s faculty retention and promotion policy
          e. Case-by-case reimbursement requests to fund outside training or courses
          f. None

10. As LIS programs face rapid changes in the profession, schools are responding with curriculum changes and additions to include such aspects as the use of social software tools. What support is available to you for course development and updates in your knowledge of today’s professional practice? (check all that apply)

          a. Course release for study and / or training
          b. Financial support for study and / or training
          c. No support is available for new course development at this time.

11. Which of these training opportunities and / or incentives have you taken advantage of in the past two years? (check all that apply)

          a. Formal training through the university
          b. Formal training through my LIS program support
          c. Informal instruction from my colleagues
          d. Formal training that I sought from outside sources, independent of my institution
          e. Course release
          f. Financial support
          g. Conference attendance
          h. None

12. Which conferences have you attended in the last 18 months? (check all that apply)

          a. ALA Annual conference
          b. ALA Midwinter
          c. ALISE
          d. ASSIS&T
          e. Internet Librarian
          f. None
          g. Other (please specify)

13. Overall, on a scale of 1–5 (1 being not at all confident, and 5 being highly confident), how confident do you feel in adapting your teaching methods to online environments?
14. Overall, on a scale of 1–5 (1 being not at all confident, and 5 being highly confident), how confident do you feel in adapting your course content to include emerging in LIS practice tools (such as social software andWeb2.0)?
15. What assistance would you like to see your university offer in relation to the development of new course design and delivery skills, and in the area of learning new LIS content? (open-ended)
16. Other comments: (open-ended)

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

American Library Association. (2009). Directory of ALA-accredited master’s programs in library and information studies. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/education/accreditedprograms/directory/i dex.cfm

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barron, D. D. (Ed.). (2003). Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5–11.

Bouhnik, D.,&Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.

Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (Eds.). (2004). Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Brent, D. (2005). Teaching as performance in the electronic classroom. First Monday, 10(4). Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1221/1141

Burnett, K., Bonnici, L. J., Miksa, S. D., & Kim, J. (2007). Frequency, intensity and topicality in online learning: An exploration of the interaction dimensions that contribute to student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 21–35.

Carey, S. J. (2006). From the Editor. Peer Review, 8(4), 3.

Carlson, S., & Arbogast, W. (2008). Professors and technology: Helpless or hopeless? Tech Therapy, [episode 20]. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Tech-Therapy-Helpless-or-H/3852/

Caruso, J. B., & Salaway, G. (2008, October). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology: Roadmap. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergr aduateStu/163291

Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles:Technology as
lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6.

Eastabrook, L. (2003). Distance education at the University of Illinois. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 63–73). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Graves, W. H. (2005). Improving institutional performance through IT-enabled innovation. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(6), 78–99.

Hansen, N., & Gladfelter, J. (1996). Teaching graduate psychology seminars using electronic mail: Creative distance education. Teaching of Psychology, 23(4), 252–256.

Harman, J. L. (2008). Moving teaching and learning with technology from adoption to transformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 24–25.

Hofman, J. (2004). The synchronous trainer’s survival guide: Facilitating successful live and online courses, meetings, and events. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Jones, M. (1998). Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. ITFORUM Paper 30. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html

Kassop,M. (2003, May/June). Ten ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source. http://technologysource.org/article/ten_ways_online_education_matches_or_surpasses_facetoface_learning/

Kingma, B., & Keefe, S. (2006). An analysis of the virtual classroom: Does size matter? Do residencies make a difference? Should you hire that instructional designer? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 127–143.

Kovacs, B. (2003). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Master of Library and Information Studies. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 169–176). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

LeBaron, J., & McFadden, A. (2008). The brave new world of e-learning: A department’s response to mandated change. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 143–156.

Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98.

Lewis, P. H., Fino, L. M., Hungar, J. Y., Wallace, W. H., & Welch, R. F. (1994). Campus based academies, institutes, and seminar or workshop series. New Directions for Higher Education, 87, 27–39.

Mellon, C. A., & Kester,D.D. (2004). Online library education programs: Implications for rural students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 210–220.

Montague, R., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2007). Web-based information science education (WISE): Collaboration to explore and expand quality in online education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 36–51.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C. D., Upchurch, R., Hartman, J., & Truman, B. (2006). Assessing online learning: What one university learned about student success, persistence, and satisfaction. Peer Review, 8(4), 26–29.

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1). Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Pribesh, S., Dickinson, G. K., & Bucher, K. T. (2006). A comparison of online and face-to-face cohorts in a school library media specialist graduate program:A preliminary study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 303–323.

Reder, M. (2007). Does your college really support teaching and learning? Peer Review, 9(4), 9–13.

Shieh, D. (2009, February 10). Professors regard online instruction as less effective than classroom learning. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/free/2009/02/11232n.htm

Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001, April 1). Teaching college courses online vs. face-to-face. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved January 08, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/15358

Speck, B. W. (2000). The academy, online classes, and the breach in ethics: Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84 (Winter), 73–81.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A, Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.

Turner, P. M. (2003) What can we learn from automating the card catalog? Distributed learning at the University of North Texas. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 177–183). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Speck, B. (Eds.). (2000). Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

WISE; Web-based Information Science Education. Retrieved January 08, 2009, from http://wiseeducation.org

Woolls, B., & Loerscher, D. V. (2003). Distance education at San Jose State University. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 263–270). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Wright, A. (2005, January 26). From ivory tower to academic sweatshop. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/01/26/distance_learning

Young, J. R. (2004, November 12). When good technology means bad teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, p A31–A32.

Tip of the Iceberg: Meaning, Identity, and Literacy in Preteen Virtual Worlds by Eric M. Meyers, p. 226

Studying Collaborative Learning Using Name Networks by Anatoliy Gruzd, p. 237

MPACT Family Trees: Quantifying Academic Genealogy in Library and Information Science by Terrell G. Russell and Cassidy R. Sugimoto, p. 248

Everything Old is New Again: The Evolution of Library and Information Science Education from LIS to iField by Laurie J. Bonnici, Manimegalai M Subramaniam and Kathleen Burnett, p. 263

Research Articles
Learning to Teach Online: Creating a Culture of Support for Faculty by Kate Marek, p. 275

Brief Communications & Research in Progress
The Maryland Modular Method: An Approach to Doctoral Education in Information Studies by Allison Druin, Paul T. Jaeger, Jennifer Golbeck, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Jimmy Lin, Yan Qu, Ping Wang and Bo Xie, p. 293

Editors’ Notes
Transforming LIS Education for the 21st Century: Best Conference Papers (2009) by Kathleen Burnett and Michelle M. Kazmer, p. 218

Formal Education in Work With Continuing Resources: Do Barriers Really Exist? by Sarah Sutton, p. 143

Integration of Knowledge Management With the Library and Information Science Curriculum: Some Professional Perspectives by Afsaneh Hazeri, Bill Martin and Maryam Sarrafzadeh, p. 152

On the Boundaries of Reference Services: Questioning and Library 2.0 by Lorri Mon and Ebrahim Randeree, p. 164

The Tenure Process in LIS: A Survey of LIS/IS Program Directors by Susan E. Higgins and Teresa Welsh, p. 176

Library and Information Science Doctoral Education: The Landscape From 1930 Through 2007 by Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Terrell G. Russell and Sheryl L. Grant, p. 190

Brief Communications & Research in Progress
LIS Curricula Introducing Information Literacy Courses Alongside Instructional Classes by Loyd G. Mbabu, p. 203

Reviews
Web-based learning through educational informatics: Information science meets educational computing by Nigel Ford. Reviewed by Caroline Haythornthwaite, p. 211

Editor’s Notes
Producers of Information by Michelle M. Kazmer, p. 127

Can Our Relationships be Reconceptualized? Librarians, Information Literacy, and Doctoral Learners by  Peter Macauley and Rosemary Green, p. 68

Information Literacy as Professional Legitimation: A Critical Analysis by Lisa O’Connor, p.  79

Engaging Students with Summer Reading: An Assessment of a Collaborative High School Summer Reading Program by Ya-Ling Lu, p.  90

Services to Older Adults: Preliminary Findings from Three Maryland Public Libraries by  David Piper, Serenity Palme and Bo Xie, p. 107

Brief Communications & Research in Progress

Remembering Elfreda Chatman, a Champion of Theory Development in Library and Information Science Education by Kim M. Thompson, p. 119

Editors’ Notes

JELIS Connections by Janet L. Capps and Christopher L. Hinson, p. 59

The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education: A Case Study of a Collection Development and Management Course bt Bharat Mehra and William C. Robinson, p. 15

E-government Education in Public Libraries: New Service Roles and Expanding Social Responsibilities, Paul T. Jaeger and John Carlo Bertot, p. 39

Brief Communications & Research in Progress
Personality and Research Styles: Why We Do the Things We Do? by Suellen Adam and Mary Lynn Rice-Lively, p. 50

Editors’ Notes
JELIS Turns 50! by Kathleen Burnett, p. 1

Keywords: Case-based learning, culture, globalization, information ethics education, intercultural information ethics, user-centered design, values, value-sensitive design,
grounded theory methodology.

Introduction

The information revolution enables interactions among individuals from a diverse array of national, local, professional, and organizational cultures. Such interactions often lead to value clashes (Begley & Boyd, 2003) and may lead to an increased number and diversity of ethical dilemmas faced by information professionals in the twenty-first century (Capurro, 2000). Consequently, it is important to prepare information professionals to consider the diversity of values held by different individuals and cultures, so that these information professionals are better prepared to resolve ethical dilemmas within an international environment. This paper describes the development and evaluation of highly structured educational cases that can be used to help students consider differing values and their interaction. The course, Information Ethics, is a new course designed and taught by Dr. Fleischmann at the University of Maryland in the fall of 2007 and then again in the spring of 2008. Students enrolled in the course included students in the University of Maryland’s Master of Library Science, Master of Information Management, and Ph.D. in Information Studies programs. During the first semester, the authors developed, used, and evaluated ten cases. The authors then significantly refined six of these cases based on student feedback from the first semester and used and evaluated these revised cases in the second semester. Each case includes multiple interacting roles, where each student plays different role (except for a few experimental formats which the authors used for part of the second semester), and each role faces a different ethical decision. The motivation for this research is to explore how these multiple roles may have helped students to understand the perspectives of others and thus may have helped to prepare them to face intercultural information ethics issues.

Background

This research builds on previous work to date in information ethics education (e.g., Buchanan, 2004; Carbo, 2005; Fallis, 2007; Koehler, 2003; Mason, 1990; Robbins, Fleischmann, &Wallace, 2008; Rogers, 1994; Winston, 2005, 2007), and, in particular, focuses on the relationship between information ethics education and globalization. Specifically, this paper focuses on how developing cases with multiple interacting roles can make information professionals more aware of different personal values and others’ national, local, professional, and organizational cultures.

It is important to consider research on the relationship between culture and ethics. Both nationality and culture are linked to variations in ethical decision-making (Ahmed, Chung, & Eichenseher, 2003; Aupperle, 1984; Ford, Nonis, & Hudson, 2005; Ford & Richardson, 1994; Hisrich, Bucar, & Oztark, 2003; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Peppas, 2002; Robertson, Crittenden, Brady, & Hoffman, 2002; Sims, 2006; Sims & Gegez, 2004). For example, Peppas (2002) finds significant differences in the ethical perspectives of Asians and Americans. Axinn, Blair, Heorhiadi, and Thatch (2004) demonstrate the interconnectedness of culture and values. Thus, it is important, in the global information age, for information professionals to be prepared to deal with ethical decision-making within an intercultural context and to consider the different values of other cultures.

Recent research shows that there is a connection between personal and cultural values (Fischer, 2006; Fischer et al., 2007; Kemmelmeier, Jambor, & Letner, 2006; Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002). Further, recent research demonstrates that the effect of personal values across cultures affects ethical decision-making. Research also demonstrates the presence of a relationship between values and ethical decisionmaking in general (Abdolmohammadi & Baker, 2006; Allen & Davis, 1993; Ashkanasy, Falkus, & Callan, 2000; Connor & Becker, 2004; Feather, 1988; Fritzsche, 1995; Fukukawa, Shafer, & Lee, 2007; Lin & Ding, 2003; Robbins, 2005; Robin, Reidenbach, & Forrest, 1996; Roozen,De Pelsmacker,& Bostyn, 2001; Shafer, Fukukawa, & Lee, 2007; Singhapakdi & Vitell, 1993). For example, Fukukawa, Shafer, and Lee (2007) find differences among Americans and Chinese in their views regarding tradeoffs about social responsibility and economic efficiency but also identify positive links between self-transcendence values and attitudes regarding socially responsibly behavior across the two countries. When comparing the values of people living in the U.S. and the Middle East, Ford et al. (2005) discover that these two cultural groups differ significantly in terms of their social, political, and religious values. This evidence provides further impetus for the development of information ethics courses with additional emphasis on an increasingly diverse and international society; one way to accomplish this goal is to create highly structured intercultural information ethics cases that can be used in courses.

While these findings point to the need for consideration of multiple cultural perspectives in educational cases, most information ethics cases occur within a specific (usually Western) cultural context. Further, the standard format for ethics cases is not particularly well suited to this goal. Most ethics cases consider a single perspective (Agich, 2001) or center on a single ethical decision. This paper describes an effort to build on the existing literature on case-based approaches to information ethics education (e.g., Ballenger, 2003; Buchanan, 2004; Carbo, 2004; Davis, 2007; Fallis, 2007; Jewels, 2003; Logan & Logan, 2003; Mitri & Cole, 2007; Spinello, 2003; Tavani, 2007; Wedel, Behnezhad, & Gray, 2004; White & Rea, 2003) by developing and evaluating educational cases where a small group of students interact by playing interdependent roles.

Methods

The authors collaboratively developed a new course, Information Ethics, which was taught by Dr. Fleischmann at the University of Maryland in the fall of 2007 and again in the spring of 2008. One of the principal pedagogical tools used in both semesters of the course was a set of highly structured educational cases. The course and the cases were significantly revised and refined between the first and second semester. A total of eleven students participated in the study, including six in the first semester and five in the second semester. All students volunteered, through formal informed consent following the protocol approved by the authors’ Institutional Review Boards, to participate in this study. This course was the first step in a collaborative research project, funded by the National Science Foundation, that aims to develop through user-centered design an interactive educational simulation to teach computing and information ethics to students enrolled in library and information science graduate programs as well as graduate programs in computer science and information systems. The cases will provide initial content for the simulation, which will be used and evaluated in future semesters of Information Ethics.

The authors developed ten cases for the first semester of the course. The authors then significantly refined six of these cases and used them in the second semester. These cases were based in part on data collected by Drs. Fleischmann and Wallace in a separate NSF-funded research project, the results of which have been previously published (Fleischmann & Wallace, 2005, 2006, In Press). In addition, many of the cases intentionally explicitly addressed intercultural information ethics issues, by placing the case outside of a purely American or Western context, and by involving roles from multiple cultures within the same case.

The cases included multiple roles and multiple decision points within a rigid and easily reusable structure. Following the procedure used throughout the first semester, at the beginning of each case, the instructor assigned students to groups, and students selected which roles they would play in the case. During one week, the instructor played one of the roles due to an excused absence by a student. Each case had three roles, with two separate groups completing each case. Students were instructed to discuss each decision faced by each student playing each role, but that the final decision would be made by the student playing the role, rather than through consensus or voting. After they chose their roles, students were presented with a scenario that ended with an open-ended decision that had to be made by the first role. After the students had time to discuss this open-ended decision, another sheet was handed out that contained a closed-ended decision that must be made by the student playing the first role, including two possible decisions. The decision made by the first role then determined the scenario faced by the second role, which proceeded similarly with an open-ended and then a closed-ended decision. Finally, the third role was confronted with a scenario, influenced by both the first and second decisions, that also contained an open-ended and a closed-ended decision. Following completion of the case, students were either provided with a hypothetical result of the case that was based on the decisions made by all three roles (in the first five cases of the first semester) or asked to provide a hypothetical result that would have occurred as a result of all three decisions made by all three roles (in the last five cases of the first semester). Figure 1 depicts the decision tree embedded within the cases. As indicated by this diagram, each case required the creation of a total of seven binary choices, although each group of students only encounters three of these choices on their way to reaching a result. Thus, creation of each case includes a total of seven choices, fourteen decisions, and eight results, although completion of a single case by a single group of students involves only three choices, three decisions, and one result. This structure allows the cases to be reused while still yielding different results, as different students can repeat cases while playing different roles within the same group or in different groups. In such situations, repetition of the cases can result in new learning opportunities, as the different individuals playing the roles may make different decisions, which would in turn lead to different choices and a different result.

Different procedures were used and evaluated during the second semester of the course. In addition to having each student play a different role within the same case, one new variation that was used in one case was to have each student complete the cases individually, working alone and playing all of the roles in the case. Another new variation that was used in two caseswas to have the students collaborate on each decision. In this variation, instead of playing individual roles, the entire group made the decisions for each role. In this variation, students were instructed to reach

Figure 1

Figure 1. Choices, Decisions, and Results.

decisions through a consensus-building process. Due to the smaller class size during the second semester and the need for the number of participants to evenly divide into three, especially for the three cases which followed the structure used in the first semester and the need to have enough participants for discussion in the entire group variation, the instructor played a role in four of the cases, while a guest who sat in on the class played a role in another case. Finally, based on the feedback from the first semester that the binary choices tended to be limiting, some closed-ended decisions used in the second semester included three choices instead of the standard two choices of the first semester cases.

When completing the cases, students were asked to write down the factors that influenced their decisions for both the open-ended and closed-ended decisions, and the instructor collected these notes at the completion of each case. Students were asked a series of written questions about what they learned following the completion of each case. Students were also given an extensive list of written questions both at the start of the course and at the end of the course. Table 1 provides a subset of the written questions asked at the end of the course (specifically, since a total of 35 open-ended questions were asked, Table 1 lists only the nine questions that triggered answers that are discussed in the findings section below). The qualitative data was analyzed using grounded theory, such that the themes emerged from open coding of the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As the volume of data collected goes beyond the scope and length constraints of this paper, the results section focuses on data related to the theme of using educational cases to prepare information professionals for intercultural information ethics dilemmas.

Findings

This research found that this new approach to developing and evaluating educational cases can be beneficial for educating future information professionals about intercultural information ethics. This section presents the results of analysis of feedback provided by students on the last questionnaire relevant to the need to consider a wide variety of ethical perspectives and values, including those of different national cultures as well as individual variation.

Students demonstrated through their answers that they learned to understand other perspectives on information ethic issues beyond their own.

Table 1. Partial List of Questions Asked at the End of the Course

• Did this class help you to confront ethical challenges in your academic career?
• What did you learn from the cases used in this class?
• What did you learn from cases where different roles were confronted with different decisions?
• What did you learn from the open-ended discussion before each decision?
• Please explain how the group interaction helped you to learn about ethical theories, if at all?
• Please explain how the group interaction helped you to learn about your own values and other people’s values, if at all?
• What did you learn about ethical theories during the semester?
• What did you learn about your values during the semester?
• What did you learn about other people’s values during the semester?

For example, when asked, “What did you learn from the cases used in this class?” one student responded, “How to fully consider all sides of an argument and determine the best ethical outcome.” Another student responded, “It was usually the discussion around the ‘edges’ of the cases that was the most enlightening. Viewpoints [that] are so far different from my own yet often so right.” These quotes illustrate the diversity of perspectives that students can be exposed to through this approach.

Further, students in the class connected their learning about different perspectives directly to international issues. Students were asked “Did this class help you to confront ethical challenges in your academic career?” One student responded, “It helped me [to] understand the different points of view out there and to appreciate the fact that one could be right in one situation but wrong in [another]—based on many factors [such as] geography, etc.” This student invokes geography—and thus, national and regional culture—in answering this question. The student also refers to a contextual basis for considering multiple perspectives that is tied to one’s geographical location.

Responses to other questions further reinforce the finding that students were able to consider other perspectives through use of multiple roles and multiple decision points in the cases. For example, when asked, “What did you learn from cases where different roles were confronted with different decisions?” one student responded, “You may see [that] different people have different viewpoints based on some [other] reason[ing].” Another student, when asked, “What did you learn from the open-ended discussion before each decision?” replied, “The advice and discussion from peers provides valuable experience and different viewpoints that help inform my decisions.” Thus, these students clearly benefited from perspective-taking.

Students’ learning was directly related to consideration of the different decision-making processes and perspectives of different individuals from different cultures. For example, when asked, “Please explain how the group interaction helped you to learn about ethical theories, if at all?” one student replied “Group interaction was critical in helping me understand different considerations and sides to ethical arguments.” Another student explained, “The group dynamic was great because it gave me a glimpse into other people’s thought process[es].” A third student added, “Being in a group raised point[s] that I did not think about.” Finally, a fourth student commented, “It was helpful to listen to how information is regulated in [list of geographical locations and professions of students enrolled in the course].” Thus, group interaction facilitated by the cases specifically aided ethical decision-making when faced with intercultural information ethics problems by promoting learning from analyzing differences in other perspectives.

Specifically, the cases helped students to consider others’ values, which is closely related to both culture and ethics. For example, students were asked, “Please explain how the group helped you to learn about your values or other people’s values, if at all?” One student commented, “Learning [about] other people’s values seems to serve as a great way to force me to question my own.” A second student answered, “I gained a better understanding of other people’s values because of the passion they had when they made their case. Sometimes I was forced to change my decision after looking at things [from] their perspective.” A third student stated, “[I] explored perspectives Iwould not have [otherwise] considered.” A fourth student explained, “It helped me to learn about other people’s values because it forced me to consider views I wouldn’t have thought about very much on my own.” Finally, a fifth student replied, “Even though most of the group interaction shared similar opinion from the class, there was still a relatively large difference of result”— again, illustrating how even subtle differences in cultural backgrounds can lead to very different outcomes. Thus, students clearly learned about the diversity of values related to intercultural information ethics through the cases.

Students learned about ethical theories and their own values through the cases. For example, in response to the question, “What did you learn about ethical theories during the semester?” a student replied, “They vary from society to society. Technology is creating a borderless world where it could change the way people view the world around them.” Another student commented, “[I] particularly found the non-traditional theories most helpful. Glad we studied those.” These quotes bring into clear relief the importance of intercultural information ethics education in the global information age. Another question asked was, “What did you learn about your values during the semester?” One of the students answered, “I’m tolerant of lots of ideas but ultimately I go with how I was raised.” Thus, the cases appear to have broadened the perspectives of some students, but may not necessarily have always influenced the final outcome of their decision-making.

Students also learned about cultural variations in defining right and wrong, an important part of intercultural information ethics. When asked, “What did you learn about other people’s values during the semester?” a student stated, “That people’s values might be different but that doesn’t make them wrong.” Another student responded, “People want to do the right thing. It’s just [that] nobody can agree [about] what is right.” Yet another student commented, “That it is extremely useful to hear out other people’s values even when they don’t agree with your own as theywill either lead you to modify your own views or help you to reinforce your reasoning for your own views.”

These students paint intercultural information ethics decision-making as having multiple right answers, demonstrating the need to be sensitive to the needs of others, a critical component of intercultural information ethics. Thus, students in this class not only learned about intercultural information ethics but they were also driven to amore pluralistic view of right and wrong.

Based on analysis of the processes used by the students over two classes, different class composition appears to impact use of the cases. Specifically, in the first semester, one-third of the students were international students, leading to more internationally sensitive discussions during both the cases and regular class discussions. However, in the second semester, all of the students were domestic students, and
Table 2. Four Key Themes.

the class demonstrated less cultural sensitivity in cases and discussions related to international issues than the first semester’s class. One sample statement from a student during the second semester highlights the importance of this distinction, as in response to the question, “Please explain how the group interaction helped you to learn about your own values and other people’svalues, if at all?” the student stated, “If we had [a] more diverse group, [I] probably would have learned more.” This data thus provides preliminary evidence that the effectiveness of internationally-focused information ethics materials, including interactive cases, is impacted notonly by the educationalmaterials but also by the composition of the class, especially in terms of diversity of students’ national origins.

Four key findings can be identified as a result of this analysis. The first theme was diversity, including both individual and geographic diversity of different people’s ethical decision-making. The second theme was perspectives, including the benefits of taking new perspectives and learning from other perspectives. The third theme was values, including considering others’ values and understanding one’s own values. The fourth theme was pluralism, including both the importance of a pluralistic view of right and wrong and understanding the pluralism inherent in intercultural information ethics. These four key themes are depicted in Table 2.

Discussion

Overall, students in the class learned about the range of different values and the influence of culture on ethics and values, as recommended in the literature discussed above. The class and the cases around which it was built can be a valuable experience in preparing future information professionals to deal with ethical dilemmas raised by the global information age, especially when the class includes a diverse range of students in terms of national origin and other factors.

Specifically, the incorporation of multiple interacting roles (played by different students or student teams) confronting different ethical decisions based on the choices of other roles appears to be highly compatible with intercultural information ethics education. While most information ethics cases are built around a single role or a single decision, and thus a single perspective, the cases employed in this course included much more diversity in the number and types of roles and (interdependent) decisions. As a result, while other information ethics cases seem to promote normative and mono-cultural approaches to ethical decision-making, cases with multiple interacting roles may be particularly suited to teaching moral pluralism, which may be more appropriate in the small, highly interconnected world found in the information age.

Future Directions

While the cases developed for this course have provided a strong start for this project and for the goal of encouraging students to consider information ethics issues within a diverse international context, many improvements can also be made in future iterations of the cases and the course. First, the cases tended to be overly formulaic, with a standard reliance on three roles, three decisions, and (at least in the first semester) two choices per decision. While the reasons for these design choices are clear and understandable under the circumstances—for example, the limited number of students in the class, the novelty of all of the cases and of the approach to building and implementing the cases, the time spent designing the eight different trajectories that the students might pursue based on the three-level binary tree structure, and the goal of developing closed-ended cases that will be possible to implement in software—it will be beneficial in future semesters to diversify the number of roles, their relationships to each other temporally, and the number and realism of choices to better simulate real-life situations when information professionals from/in locations around the world are faced with ethical dilemmas. Significant progress was made during the second semester, as the number of decisions faced by a particular role was often varied and expanded from two to three answers, and also as different formats for playing the roles were used.

Another important future direction for this project will be to develop robust pre- and post-tests that can be administered before and after each case tomeasure student learning during the case. It is important that these pre- and post-test can demonstrate student learning. Specifically, the pre- and post-test should allow the research team to quantitatively analyze the effectiveness of the cases in terms of the students’ development of an awareness of how ethical dilemmas are considered by individuals from/in other cultures as well as understanding the underlying personal values that are associated with the various approaches to resolving ethical dilemmas. For example, it has been shown that a deontological approach, in some situations, is related to one’s belief in and application of norms [citation omitted due to double-blind review].

A first attempt was made at implementing such pre- and post-tests during the second semester, and the refinement of these tests and the evaluation of this data will continue to progress as the overall project develops.

Overall, the major future direction for this project will be to develop an interactive educational simulation based on the cases created for and evaluated in this course and to develop best practices for delivery of the cases and the course as a whole. Once the simulation has been completed, the authors will freely disseminate the simulation, as well as other materials used in the course, via the Web. Through the development and dissemination of this simulation, the authors aim to make significant contributions to intercultural information ethics education in graduate programs in library and information science around the world, helping to prepare information professionals for the global information age.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants IIS-0724894, IIS-0724899, and IIS-0724879. The authors would also like to thank the students who voluntarily participated in this study and the reviewers of an early version of this article that was presented as a juried paper at the Association for Library and Information Science Education 2008 Annual Conference.

References

Abdolmohammadi, M.J., & Baker, C.R. (2006). Accountants ’value preferences and moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 11–25.

Agich, G.J. (2001). The question of method in ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics,
1, 31–41.

Ahmed, M.M., Chung, K.Y., & Eichenseher, J.W. (2003). Business students: Perceptions of ethics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 89–102.

Allen, J., & Davis, D. (1993). Assessing some determinant effects of ethical consulting behavior: The case of personal and professional values. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 449–458.

Ashkansky, N.M., Falkus, S., & Callan, V.J. (2000). Predictors of ethical code use and ethical tolerance in the public sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 287–253.

Aupperle, K.E. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social orientation. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 6, 27–54.

Axinn, C.N., Blair, M.E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S.V. (2004). Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 103–119.

Ballenger, R.M. (2003). A database design and development case: Elk County Pediatric Medical Center. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 275–283.

Begley, T.M., & Boyd, D.P. (2003). Why don’t they like us overseas? Organizing U.S. business practices to manage culture clash. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 357–371.

Buchanan, E.A. (2004). Ethics in library and information science: What are we teaching? Journal of Information Ethics, 13, 51–60.

Capurro, R. (2000). Ethical challenges of the information society in the 21st century. The International Information & Library Review, 32, 257–276.

Carbo, T. (2004). Models for ethical decision-making for use in teaching information ethics: Challenges for educating diverse information professionals. International Journal of Information Ethics, 2, 1–9.

Carbo, T. (2005). Information ethics education: A brief overview of current issues. CSI Communications, 28(12): 25–28.

Connor, P.E., & Becker, B.W. (2003). Personal value systems and decision-making styles of managers. Public Personnel Management, 32, 155–180.

Davis, C.K. (2007). Two information technology classroom minicases: Benefits assessments and implementation issues. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 15–20.

Fallis, D. (2007). Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25,
23–36.

Feather, N.T. (1988). Moral judgment and human values. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 239–246.

Fischer, R. (2006). Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my values reflect my culture’s values? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1419–1431.

Fischer, R., Smith, P.B., Richey, B., Ferreira, M.C., Assmar, E.M.L., Maes, J., & Stumpf, S. (2007). How do organizations allocate rewards? The predictive validity of national values, economic and organizational factors across six nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(1), 3–18.

Fleischmann, K.R., & Wallace, W.A. (2005). A covenant with transparency: Opening the black box of models. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 93–97.

Fleischmann, K.R.,&Wallace,W.A. (2006). Ethical implications of values embedded in computational models: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Austin, TX.

Fleischmann, K.R., & Wallace,W.A. (In Press). Ensuring transparency in computational modeling: How and why modelers make models transparent. Communications of the ACM.

Ford, C.W., Nonis, S.A., & Hudson, G.I. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of value systems and consumer ethics. Cross-Cultural Management, 12, 36–50.

Ford, R.C., & Richardson, W.D. 1994. Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 205–221.

Fritzsche, D.J. (1995). Personal values: Potential keys to ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 909–922.

Fukukawa, K., Shafer, W.E., & Lee, G.M. (2007). Values and attitudes toward social and environmental accountability: A study of MBA students. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 381-394.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hisrich, R.D., Bucar, B., & Oztark, S. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of business ethics: Cases of Russia, Slovenia, Turkey, and United States. Cross Cultural Management, 10, 3–28.

Jewels, T. (2003). The Dag-Brucken ASRS case study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 247–257.

Kemmelmeier,M, Jambor, E.E.,&Letner, J. (2006). Individualism and good works: Cultural variation in giving across the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 327–344.

Koehler,W. (2003). Professional values and ethics as defined by the LIS discipline. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 44(2), 99–119.

Lin, C., & Ding, C.G. (2003). Modeling information ethics: The joint moderating role of locus of control and job insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 335–346.

Logan, P.Y., & Logan, S.W. (2003). Bitten by a bug: A case study in malware infection. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 14, 301–305.

Mason, R.O. (1990). What is an information professional? Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 31(2), 122–138.

Mitri, M., & Cole, C. (2007). A systems analysis role play case: We Sell Stuff, Inc. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 163–168.

O’Fallon, M.J., & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the ethical decision-making literature: Designing Educational Cases for Intercultural Information Ethics 13 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

Peppas, S. (2002). Attitudes toward business ethics: Where East doesn’t meet West. Cross Cultural Management, 9, 42–59.

Robbins, R.W. (2005). Understanding individual and group ethical problem solving: A computational ethics approach. Doctoral dissertation. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Robbins, R.W., Fleischmann, K.R., & Wallace, W.A. (2008). Computing and information ethics: Challenges,
Education, and Research. In R. Luppicini & R. Adell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Technoethics (pp. 391–408). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Robertson, C.J., Crittenden, W.F., Brady, M.K., & Hoffman, J.J. (2002). Situational ethics across borders: A multicultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 327–338.

Robin, D.P., Reidenbach, R.E., & Forrest, P.J. (1996). The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical decision making of ad managers. Journal of Business Research, 35, 17–28.

Rogers, S.L. (1994). Accredited library school education in ethics. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 35(1), 51–55.

Roozen, I., De Pelsmacker, P., & Bostyn, F. (2001). The ethical dimensions of decision processes of employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 33: 87–99.

Shafer, W.E., Fukukawa, K., & Lee, G.M. (2007). Values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 265–284.

Sims, R.L. (2006). Comparing ethical attitudes across cultures. Cross Cultural Management, 13,
101–113.

Sims, R.L.,& Gegez, A.E. (2004). Attitudes towards business ethics: A five nation comparative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 253–265.

Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S.J. (1993). Personal values underlying the moral philosophies of marketing professionals. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 12, 91–106.

Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F., & Schwartz, S.H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-Nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 188–208.

Spinello, R.A. 2003. Case studies in information technology ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tavani, H.T. (2007). Ethics and information technology: Ethical issues in an age of information and communication technology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Wedel, T.L., Behnezhad, A.R., & Gray, G.L. (2004). A data modeling case: Writers Guild of America, East. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15, 13–17.

White, D., & Rea, A. (2003). The Jing An Telescope Factory (JATF): A network security case study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 307–317.

Winston, M. (2005). Ethical leadership: Professional challenges and the role of LIS education. New Library World, 106(5), 234–243.

Winston, M. (2007). Ethical leadership and ethical decision making: A meta-analysis of research related to ethics education. Library and Information Science Research, 29, 230–251.

Keywords: education, LIS history, dissertations, survey, MPACT, doctoral education

Introduction

The doctor of philosophy in library and information science (LIS) originated as a research degree within a professional school—creating from the beginning the perpetual argument of whether information and library science is primarily a practicing profession or a researching discipline. Professionalization of library science arguably occurred in the latter part of the nineteenth century, marked by the formation of the American Library Association and the establishment of Library Journal in 1876 (Brough, 1972). This was followed in 1887 by the foundation of the School of Library Economy at Columbia College by Melvil Dewey. Further formalization of library science as a discipline occurred during the early twentieth century with the organization of the Association of the American Library Schools (1915), the formation of the Board of Education for Librarianship by the American Library Association (1923), and the foundation of the Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago in 1926 (Houser & Schrader, 1978).

The Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago heralded a new standard in graduate library  education. Prior to the opening of this school, degrees were defined by the number of years of given programs; for example, the Board of Education for Librarianship defined a Bachelor of Arts degree plus one year of study as a professional degree and a Bachelor of Arts degree plus two years of study as a graduate degree. There was also considerable debate over the need for the professional degrees of Bachelor of Library Science, Master of Library Science, and Doctor of Library Science. The Graduate Library School was chartered in order to provide what some claimed had not been previously provided:

facilities for development of the cultural, literary, bibliographical, and sociological aspects of librarianship as a learned profession built upon ideals and charged with responsibilities as definite and as vital in their implications as those of any other learned profession, and requiring similar academic preparation to insure its highest development … [this school] … should be an organic member of a university group, with the background, atmosphere,resources, and equipment afforded by such affiliation. (Lester, 1940, p. 6)

As this was the first graduate school for library science, none of the founding faculty held doctoral degrees in librarianship. Instead, their backgrounds included degrees in higher education, history, and theology (Houser & Schrader, 1978). However, they all stressed the need for research in the graduate education of librarians— one faculty member remarking that “graduate work means research, and research means the extension of the boundaries of knowledge” (p. 42). Another faculty member asserted that “the most important single responsibility of the School is to meet the standards of scholarship and research maintained by other graduate departments of the University” (Houser & Schrader, 1978, p. 43). In this way, the Graduate Library School championed the idea that research and a theory-based education could serve the needs of practicing professionals and would be a necessary component of professionalization (Houser & Schrader, 1978, pp. 46–47).

The Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago, which was established in 1926 and began instruction in 1928 (Carroll, 1970) offered doctoral degrees from its inception and was the only source of doctoral degrees in library science until the opening of doctoral programs at Illinois and Columbia in 1948. Since then, 38 schools have offered LIS doctoral degrees. However, many of the original schools offering doctoral degrees have since closed (including The Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago) and new schools now dominate the doctoral landscape of LIS. A timeline of these openings and closings and the number of doctoral dissertations conferred during these times provides greater insight into both the history and future of LIS doctoral education.

Literature on LIS doctoral education is fairly scarce. A few surveys covering select time periods have been compiled, but none of these are comprehensive and the majority lack data from the last few decades. In addition to the surveys, there have been a few bibliographies on library science dissertations; however, these vary considerably in their inclusion criteria, and the most comprehensive include dissertations based on content, not the school/program in which they were completed. While a useful tool in gathering literature, these bibliographies do not provide us with an accurate portrait of doctoral education in LIS schools.

The goal of this work is to describe the past and current landscape of LIS doctoral education by providing a quantitative timeline of all dissertations granted by U.S. and Canadian schools of LIS and evaluating the placement of the most recent graduates. By providing a visual, comprehensive, and up-to-date rendering of the history and state of LIS doctoral education, this work will provide a backbone of data that has not been previously available. This information can be interpreted in the context of other historical information in order to understand the changes in doctoral education and provide a tool for predicting future trends of LIS.

Literature Review

Many historical works on LIS briefly mention the rise of the advanced graduate degree, but do not treat it singularly nor discuss it beyond its inception. While these provide valuable contextual information on the progression of LIS education from a training/apprenticeship model to that of a degree-granting discipline, they do not focus with any depth on doctoral education and LIS dissertations (Berelson, 1949; Bramely, 1969; McNally, 1993; White, 1976).

One of the early comprehensive reports on doctoral education in LIS was conducted by Danton (1959) in the late 1950s. Danton reviews six doctoral programs that awarded doctorates between 1930 and 1959, lists the 129 dissertations produced in these schools by name, title, school and year, and classifies them into categories by content. Danton further examines the objectives of the programs, attrition and retention rates of LIS doctoral students, and the positions held by recent doctoral graduates, and then discusses the value of the doctoral degree to the profession and the discipline. The study is a rich source of data on early LIS dissertations and doctoral studies; however, this information is sorely in need of updating as the number of doctorates in the field has gone from just over 100 in 1959 to more than 3,000 as of 2007.

Abrera’s (1987) literature review on doctoral programs, dissertations and graduates uses the Danton study as a chronological anchor, studying the literature in the “pre-Danton period” (1926–1958) and the “post-Danton period” (1960–1980). Abrera classifies the contemporary literature on doctoral programs, dissertations and graduates as being either quantitative or non-quantitative. Of those studies examined in the post-Danton period, only 23% (14) of the studies were quantitative (no quantitative studies were identified in the pre-Danton period). Those quantitative studies were further categorized by type: one citation analysis, six surveys, and six examinations of lists of dissertations. Abrera noted that although there were a number of studies on the different aspects of doctoral programs, dissertations and graduates, very few publications covered all three aspects. Thus, Abrera called for further quantitative research in this area. Houser’s (1982) literature review on the doctorate in library science provides more examples of the scarcity and brevity of literature on this subject, highlighting the lack of evidence in the various histories of LIS and then describing the bibliographic survey of Danton as well as those by Cohen (1963) and Schlachter and Thomison (1974). However; the inclusion criteria for the latter two surveys were based on content rather than the school at which the degree was conferred and are thereby less useful for the examination of LIS doctoral education.

Three surveys require mention here as they have provided broad evaluations of LIS doctoral education: the first is Bobinski’s 1986 survey and the other two are those done by Whitbeck in 1989 and 1990. Bobinski’s survey of LIS doctoral programs in the U.S. and Canada uses school catalogs, the ALISE Statistical Reports, and the bibliographies by Schlachter and Thomison (1974) and Davis (1980) to trace the developments of doctoral education from 1930-1980, with special emphasis on the late 1970s. Using this information, Bobinski’s report lists the 24 schools offering doctoral degrees up to 1980 and discusses the number of degrees awarded, the full- and part-time enrollments, tuition, fellowships and assistantships, and admission and program requirements at these institutions. Additionally, Bobinski surveyed thirteen deans of doctoral degree-granting LIS programs. One of the questions assessed the impact of the doctoral program on the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree to which the plurality of the deans responded that it was a “healthy” impact with some going as far as to call the Ph.D. “a necessity since without it the program would be a small, marginal professional school on campus” (p. 711). Bobinski’s survey was able to capture the opinions of more than half of the deans at doctoral degree-granting institutions at the time. However, this survey (comprising four questions) provided only a glimpse into LIS doctoral education and is now more than two decades out of date.

Whitbeck’s (1991a) original study ofLIS doctoral programs surveyed sixteendoctoral degree-granting schools with a wide-ranging questionnaire. The study, a follow-up to a 1970 study by Carpenter and Carpenter (1970), addressed a number of issues relating to doctoral education including: admissions criteria, the lengths of time it took students to complete major milestones in their programs (e.g., qualifying exams and graduation), institutions from which applicants had received previous degrees, time between previous degrees and entering the doctoral program,methods for choosing doctoral committees and chairs, and the positions of employment for past graduates from the programs. Whitbeck’s (1991b) subsequent study examined similar data a year later, but also incorporated data from the ALISE statistical reports and included an open-ended survey. The open-ended questions investigated the perceived problems for doctoral programs, important criteria for admissions, new curricular trends, and the employment opportunities for new graduates, among other issues.

The remainder of the literature on LIS doctoral programs and dissertations examines singular populations (Franklin & Jaeger, 2007) or issues—such as the effects of doctoral programs on faculty productivity (Petigrew & Nicholls, 1994), online Ph.D. programs (Klinger, 2007), citing patterns of LIS dissertations (Buttlar, 1999), and the teaching load of faculty at doctoral degree-granting institutions (Koenig&Hildreth, 2004). While these contribute to the understanding of doctoral degree programs, there is a need for a current and comprehensive examination of LIS doctoral programs and dissertations conferred.

Methodology

This work will examine all LIS dissertations conferred between 1930 and 2007 in the U.S. and Canada. The dataset for this work comes from the MPACT database (http://www.ils.unc.edu/mpact/), which provides a comprehensive listing of the 3,014 LIS dissertations conferred by 38 ALA-accredited schools in the United States and Canada between 1930 and 2007. University of British Columbia and University of South Carolina currently offer a doctoral degree in LIS; however, since no degree had been conferred at the time of this writing, they were not included in this study. This d ataset, which includes dissertation committee, title, and abstract information, was primarily collected using ProQuest’s Dissertations and Theses database. For each school, the database was searched using the keyword information systems or library science. Previous studies on MPACT showed this to be the most inclusive set of search terms yielding a much higher rate of return than using ProQuest’s subject function or another set of keywords. Although this returned a high rate of dissertations that were not within the field, we chose to go with an inclusive search strategy rather than an exclusive one, for fear of missing any potential dissertations. The results were then manually examined to determine whether the dissertation was conferred by the appropriate school/department (for example, the above search returned dissertations from education, computer science, business, etc.). In some cases, this meant examining more than 500 results to add less than a dozen dissertations to the dataset. Also, the information regarding the department/school appears on the dissertation itself and not the bibliographic surrogate, so this information varied by dissertation and school. In some cases, the conferring department/ school had to be discovered by examining the information on the document for advisor name(s) and acknowledgements. Unfortunately, the Dissertation and Theses database does not allow searching by exact departments/disciplines, and the department names vary across the LIS discipline; therefore, this method provided the most thorough way of gleaning names of all authors for the given time period. In cases where there were significant problems finding complete data, the list of authors was augmented by contacting the individual schools and requesting lists of recent doctoral graduates. The dataset was additionally verified using WorldCat, online public access catalogs (OPACs), and bibliographies (such as those by Bobinski, Danton, and Davis). Formore information on how the MPACT database was populated and verified, please see Marchionini et al. (2006) and Sugimoto et al. (2008).

Once this list of graduates was compiled, a descriptive analysis was made of the number of degrees offered by each school for all years. In addition, the names of the graduates from the last ten years were compiled and checked against the ALISE directory, to provide an analysis of the number of graduates who are currently employed by ALISE member schools.

Results and Discussion

This section will first provide a description and general overview of LIS doctoral education from 1930 to 2007 with a focus on evolution by decades. The second part of this section will provide a visualization of the dissertations awarded with respect to geographic distributions. The final part will focus on the most recent decade of doctoral education, with an emphasis on implications for the future.

General Doctoral Landscape: 1930–2007

There have been 3,014 dissertations conferred in the 38 ALA-accredited LIS programs in the United States and Canada between 1930 and 2007. Figure 1 provides a visualization of these degrees over time.

As can be seen in Figure 1 and in Table 1, there was a dramatic increase in the number of LIS dissertations conferred in the 1960s and again in the 1970s, with the average number of degrees rising from 6.5 in the 1950s to 16.1 in the 1960s and 61.4 in the 1970s (Table 1).

Figure 1. LIS dissertations granted between 1930 and 2007.

Table 1: Average Number of Degrees-per Year Conferred, by Decade.

Table 2: Dissertation Activity by Institution (each bar represents a single year, height of bar represents number of degrees conferred that year).

This increase may be due to the increased number of schools granting doctoral degrees during those time periods. As shown in Table 2, only one institution (University of Chicago) was granting LIS doctoral degrees in the 1930s and 1940s. However, in the 1950s, four additional schools began granting doctoral degrees and, by 1970, there were 11 schools granting degrees. Additionally, Abrera has made a convincing argument that the increases in the 1970s were due to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title II-B). The number of degree-granting institutions nearly doubled in the 1970s and saw relatively smaller increases over the next few decades. In addition, there is a rising trend in the number of total graduates during each decade since 1930.

Although seven of the schools have closed, this does not indicate a stagnation of the LIS doctoral landscape. On the contrary, with a nearly 13% increase in the average number of degrees conferred from the 1990s to 2000–2007 and five new schools conferring their first degrees in 2000–2007, it shows the landscape is merely changing.

In addition, the first institutions to offer degrees are not necessarily those that have graduated the largest number of doctoral students. In fact, when ranking the institutions by the total number of degrees granted, two of the schools within the top ten did not offer their first degree until the 1970s (Table 3). There is a long tail in terms of the number of doctoral degrees granted by each institution, with the majority of institutions each contributing less than 3% to the total number of doctoral degrees conferred between 1930 and 2007.

Further examinations of the LIS doctoral landscape can be made by grouping the schools according to the decade in which they first conferred doctoral degrees (see Table 2). Five schools first offered degrees between 1930 and 1959. Of these schools, three no longer offer doctoral degrees: the University of Chicago granted doctoral degrees for 65 years, Columbia University granted doctoral degrees for 48 years, and Case Western Reserve University granted doctoral degrees for 29 years. As can be seen in Table 2, the University of Chicago dominated the landscape until the 1950s, when Illinois, Columbia and Michigan began granting degrees. Columbia University then began to command the scene granting
as many as 11 degrees in one year. However, Illinois and Michigan are the only two of these initial institutions still offering degrees (notably, they are also the only ones to be a part of large state university systems). Illinois has granted more degrees (186) than Michigan (167) and has seen an upward trend since 2003, while Michigan has seen a downward trend since 2004. It is interesting to note that in 2016, with this trend, Illinois will be the longest continuously running doctoral-degree granting program in LIS (66 years).

Six institutions graduated their first doctoral students between 1960 and 1969. Of these six institutions, two no longer offer doctoral degrees (Berkeley and the University of Southern California). The University of Pittsburgh has shown a very steady dominance, granting the highest number of doctoral degrees of any institution in LIS history (358). However, Pittsburgh saw a decline in the number of degrees awarded after the 1980s and has granted fewer degrees since 1990 than Rutgers—Rutgers has granted 136 between 1990–2007, while Pittsburgh has granted 123. Madison has maintained a small albeit steady number of doctoral degrees (96 total; 2.34 per year, on average); Indiana’s output has been more irregular, but has seen a greater number ofgraduates (165 total; 4.13 per year, on average).

Ten schools offered their first doctoral degree between 1970 and 1979. Of these, only one school (Minnesota) is no longer granting doctoral degrees. Florida State University (FSU) has produced the greatest number of doctoral graduates of these ten (217). FSU’s output has remained relatively steady, while the University of North Texas has been graduating an increasingly larger number of students in the past few years, graduating as many as 18 in 2007 (the most doctoral degrees to ever be granted in a single year by an LIS school). Syracuse, Maryland and Drexel have also seen increases in the number of their graduates in recent years, but not as dramatic as the increase seen at North Texas.

Table 3: Total number of LIS Doctoral Degrees Granted by Each Institution.

The following decade (1980–1989) saw an additional 4 schools granting doctoral degrees in LIS. Of these, only one is no longer granting doctoral degrees (SUNY, Buffalo). The other schools have seen fairly steady output since their inception, granting 2.79 (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), 2.54 (Texas Woman’s University), and 2.15 (University of California at Los Angeles) doctoral degrees per year. All schools in this category have seen a decline in the number of graduates in recent years.

Eight new schools began granting doctoral degrees between 1990 and 1999 (Figure 6). Of these, SUNY, Albany and the University of Hawaii have produced the greatest number of doctorates (49 and 36, respectively). However, in 2007, the University of Arizona granted 11 doctorates, more than was granted by any other school in this category since their inception. McGill and Emporia State also saw increases in the number of graduates in 2007.

In recent years (2000–2007), five schools have granted their first LIS doctorate. While it is still premature to tell what the trajectory of these schools will be, it is noticeable that Université de Montreal and University of Washington-Seattle have seen increases in the number of graduates each year since they granted their first degree. Long Island University and University of Washington-Seattle have each graduated the largest number (7) of graduates in this time period.

Geographic Distribution

Examination of the geographic distribution of LIS doctoral degrees shows an uneven landscape. The degrees are highly concentrated in the Midwestern and Northeastern United States and Southeastern Canada. The other three states in the United States contributing a large number of degrees are California, Texas, and Florida (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of LIS dissertations granted in the U.S. and Canada between 1930-2007.

Aside from these states, relatively few degrees have been conferred in the western United States. This may be a reflection of the lower proportion of schools per state and the delayed opening of schools in the western part of the United States as compared with the eastern part of the country. Future work could be done to examine whether the geographic distribution of LIS doctoral degrees differs significantly from the pattern of the doctoral degree programs in other disciplines.

Recent Doctoral Landscape: 1998–2007

There have been 841 LIS doctoral degrees from 33 institutions conferred in the last ten years, for an average of 84.1 per year. As with the general landscape of doctoral degrees, the last ten-year period also has a long tail, with more than 85% of the schools contributing less than 5% of the total graduates each. The top schools, in terms of production of graduates over the last decade, can be seen in Figure 3. As the doctoral degree is one of the major requisites for teaching in a library school, the number of doctoral graduates who become faculty members is an important calculation. A student who becomes a faculty member affects both the profession (as an instructor for those in the professional degree) and the discipline (as a producer of research, a large component of a faculty position). Checking the names of all 841 graduates from 1998-2007 against the 2007 ALISE directory provides some of these data. Out of the 841 LIS doctoral graduates in the last ten years, 25.56% are currently teaching at ALISE schools in some capacity (lecturer, adjunct, or full-time) and 22.12% currently hold full-time positions in ALISE schools. The University of North Texas has the largest number of students from the past decade currently in full-time positions (21), followed by Illinois and the University of North Carolina (each with 18), Florida State (14), and Pittsburgh (13). However, although North Texas claims 11.29% of the total number of recent grads in full-time positions, only 22.34% of their recent graduates are currently in full-time positions. The two schools which graduate proportionately more “future faculty” are the University of North Carolina and the University of Illinois—48.65% of the graduates from the last ten years from these programs are currently in full-time positions. Toronto is next, (47.83%), followed by Seattle (42.86%), and Western Ontario (41.18%). (See Figure 3 for details on the percentage of graduates from the last ten years in full-time faculty positions for all top-producing schools.) According to the 2004 ALISE Statistics Report, 92% of LIS faculty have earned doctorates. Of those, 58% hold doctoral degrees in library and information sciences (according to the report, these include: information systems and technology, information transfer, and information resource management). Of the non-LIS degrees, the most common are computer science (16%), education (15%), history (8%), communication (6%), and psychology (6%). Combining this dataset with the data above produces some interesting questions: if 22% of LIS graduates from the last decade are in full-time faculty positions and if 58% of LIS faculty members hold degrees in LIS, why are the remaining 78% of doctoral graduates not holding faculty positions? Are they not applying for these positions? Are non-LIS doctorates being hired over LIS doctorates? From a cursory look over the previous ALISE statistics (1999–2004) it appears that we may actually be in a decreasing trend of the percentage of faculty holding a doctoral degree in our field. This trend, along with the motivations of the 78% of doctoral graduates not holding faculty positions, suggests a need for further investigation.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This study has provided evidence that LIS doctoral education is still healthy and active in the United States and Canada. By examining the historical progression of doctoral degree programs, one can begin to see patterns that show the changes in the doctoral landscape and provide predictive powers for anticipating future disciplinary trends.

Three issues for further study are discussed below. The first is the relationship between the health of the doctoral program and the health and ranking of the school as a whole. Accreditation for LIS programs is currently only done at the master’s level; however, the impact of the doctoral program at these schools needs to be reconsidered. For example, in the most recent ranking by U.S. News and World Report (2008), all of the top 15 programs for LIS have doctoral programs. Of the top 25, only four programs do not have doctoral programs (these are Wayne State University, Kent State University, Catholic University of America, and Louisiana State University-Baton Rouge). It is necessary to further investigate the ways in which the presence or absence of a doctoral degree affects the professional degrees at these schools.

Another issue for consideration is the curricula at those schools that have the highest doctoral degree output. Noting the types of concentrations at these institutions and the disciplinary models taught at these schools may enable the researcher to predict future trends in the profession (both in terms of researching and practicing professionals). When the University of Chicago began granting doctoral degrees in the 1930s, the entire faculty had degrees in other fields, predominately history and education. The disciplinary models that they brought with them carried through and dominated the emerging field for years—the emphasis on history and education in the early literature of the field is apparent. Now we are hiring faculty from computer science, communication and psychology, among other fields. The implications and the effects of this interdisciplinarity need to be examined.

Lastly, we are faced with a new phenomenon: eight out of ten of the top-producing schools (Figure 3) and eight out of ten of the schools graduating the most future full-time faculty are part of the iSchool caucus (iSchools, 2008). The fact that the iSchools dominate the list of the most productive doctoral programs and those that contribute a large proportion of the future faculty for ALISE schools makes it necessary to further investigate the focus of the iSchool movement and the projected impact of these schools upon the trajectory of the discipline and the profession. Given the long tail of graduates from each institution, it is difficult for a single institution to bring about dramatic change for the discipline and profession; however, when the top-producing schools all belong to a singular movement and work together to re-brand the field, the implications are far-reaching.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kathy Wisser, Paul Solomon, Gary Marchionini and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on this work. In addition, we would like to thank all the members of the MPACT team for contributing to this rich source of data.

References
Abrera, J.B. (1987). Doctoral programs, dissertations, and graduates: Characteristics of the literature, 1926–80. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 28(1), 38–51.

ALISE. (2008). Library and Information Science Education Statistical Report. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://www.ils.unc.edu/ALISE/

Berelson, B. (Ed.). (1949). Education for librarianship. Chicago: American Library Association.

Bobinski, G.S. (1986). Doctoral programs in library and information science in the United States and Canada. Library Trends, 34(4), 697–714.

Bramely, G. (1969). A history of library education. London: Clive Bingley.

Brough, K.J. (1972). Scholar’s workshop: Evolving conceptions of library service. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Buttlar, L. (1999). Information sources in library and information science doctoral research. Library & Information Science Research, 21(2), 227–245.

Carpenter, R., & Carpenter, P. (1970). The doctorate in librarianship and an assessment of graduate library education. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 11(1), 3–45.

Carroll, C.E. (1970). The professionalization of education for librarianship with special reference to the years 1940–1960. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Cohen, N.M. (1963). Library science dissertations: 1925–1960. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Danton, J.P. (1959). Doctoral study in librarianship in the United States. College & Research Libraries, 20(6), 435-453.

Davis, C.H. (Comp.). (1980). Library science: A dissertation bibliography. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Franklin, R.E., & Jaeger, P.T. (2007). A decade of doctorates: An examination of dissertations written by African American women in Library and Information studies, 1993–2003. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(3), 187–201.

Houser, L.J. (1982). The PhD dissertation in library science. Library Research, 4, 95–107.

Houser, L. J., & Schrader, A.M. (1978). The Search for a Scientific Profession: Library Science Education in the U.S. and Canada. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

iSchools. (2008). iSchool caucus. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://www.ischools.org/oc/conference08/ic08_about.html

Klingler, S.L. (2007). Online Ph.D. programs: A look at a JESSE listserv discussion thread. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 5–12.

Koenig, M.E.D., & Hildreth, C.R. (2004). Teaching load and doctoral supervision: Recognition/release time provisions among ALA accredited programs offering a Ph.D. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 242–250.

Lester, R.M. (1940). Greetings from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. New Frontiers in Librarianship. Chicago: The Graduate Library School, The University of Chicago.

Marchionini, G., Solomon, P.,Davis, C., & Russell T. (2006). Information and library science MPACT: A preliminary analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 28(4) 480–500.

McNally, P.F. (1993). Fanfares and celebrations: Anniversaries in Canadian graduate education for library and information studies. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 18(1), 6–22.

Pettigrew, K.E., & Nicholls, P.T. (1994). Publication patterns of LIS faculty from 1982-1992: Effects of doctoral programs. Library & Information Science Research, 16(2), 139–156.

Schlachter, G.A., & Thomison, D. (1974). Library science dissertations, 1925–1972: An annotated bibliography. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Sugimoto, C.R., Russell, T.G., Meho, L.I., & Marchionini, G. (2008). MPACT and Citation Impact: Two Sides of the Same Scholarly Coin? Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 273–281.

U.S. News andWorld Report. (2008). Best Graduate Schools. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/lib/search

Whitbeck, G.W. (1991a). Doctoral programs in library and information science: A descriptive
study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31(4), 314–328.

Whitbeck, G.W. (1991b). Doctoral programs in library and information science: An update. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 32(3/4), 178–187.

White, C.M. (1976). A historical introduction to library education: Problems and progress to 1951. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.