theorywatch

Interesting question last night in 5033 regarding the changes in LIS and LIS education over the past 30 years. In responding, I focused more on the far greater number of opportunities available to our graduates today and less on another key issue that I suspect that some people in the class may be struggling with right now: the fact that it’s much harder to be “a generalist” these days, given the increasing amounts of relevant material to be “covered” or “uncovered,” as well as the push towards specialization throughout higher education.

Speaking as a natural-born generalist myself (and as a late, lucky survivor of the ALISE employment market, which also strongly favors specialization as a way of sorting potential faculty candidates), I sympathize with a desire not to be “classified/categorized” in one’s very first semester! On the other hand, as a member of our faculty, I too am constantly urging people to make their program choices early (largely, and I trust, laudably, so that they can “compete” more successfully in their chosen market upon “completion”.)

But Rick Detweiler, former professor and dean at Hartwick (a proudly liberal arts-oriented school in upstate New York, natch!) had a thought piece in College & Research Libraries last year that might encourage some of us to persist in this path of not-so-hasty generalization. After all, over time, and especially in times of great change, it is not necessarily the most highly specialized species that survive.

[As an addendum, I was about to put the obvious, "obligatory" link in the first paragraph above to noted sociologist Andrew Abbott's work on "the system of professions," but instead I was drawn via his website to his fascinating draft paper on "library research as a form of computation," which I hadn't seen before. So, in a way, it's also easier to be a generalist these days if that's your inclination— or even, perhaps, your addiction.]