This theoretical essay uses tacit knowledge, the often-undocumented wis dom of expert practitioners and practitioner communities, to explore fu ture prospects for the academic librarian. Traditional and emerging valua tions of the academic librarian held by higher education stakeholders are identified. The practical implications of these views for university funding and other support are explored using the philosophical stance of cultural pragmatism and by applying the sociological perspective of the "stranger," tacit knowledge gained by the author as a researcher and a faculty mem ber in an LIS program and as chair of a university Committee on the Li brary, and insights from a spectrum of publications. In the process, the March of Dimes, an organization that successfully repositioned itself after accomplishing its primary purpose, is examined as a possible model for enhancing the academic librarian's perceived value.

No abstract

The author begins by advancing several hypotheses regarding forces transforming schools of library and information science (LIS) into schools of information (SI). After applying the "social worlds" concepts of Anselm Strauss to the process, he addresses the amalgam of idealistic and self-serving motivations underlying faculty advocacy of the "information" model for LIS education. Among these motivations is a rational response to university norms for research. Less positively, the author discerns a now-stereotypical striving by "nonlibrary" faculty in professional schools to refashion programs to reflect their "home" disciplines. This latter strategy seeks to retain the stability in enrollment and restriction in competition for supplying certain library markets that results from American Library Association accreditation. It is stressed that the price for such "information" transformation is a further distancing of full-time faculty from the worlds of practice. The author also addresses the errors flowing from the misapplication of ecological theory to LIS professional education. As an alternative, he advocates an intensified interest in-as well as support of-all aspects of LIS education by the many worlds of LIS practice. He further argues that a cultural model of LIS better positions both the "library" and "information" professions for a new millenium.

The author begins by advancing several hypotheses regarding forces transforming schools of library and information science (LIS) into schools of information (SI). After applying the “social worlds” concepts of Anselm Strauss to the process, he addresses the amalgam of idealistic and self‐serving motivations underlying faculty advocacy of the “information” model for LIS education. Among these motivations is a rational response to university norms for research. Less positively, the author discerns a now‐stereotypical striving by “nonlibrary” faculty in professional schools to refashion programs to reflect their “home” disciplines. This latter strategy seeks to retain the stability in enrollment and restriction in competition for supplying certain library markets that results from American Library Association accreditation. It is stressed that the price for such “information” transformation is a further distancing of full‐time faculty from the worlds of practice. The author also addresses the errors flowing from the misapplication of ecological theory to LIS professional education. As an alternative, he advocates an intensified interest in—as well as support of—all aspects of LIS education by the many worlds of LIS practice. He further argues that a cultural model of LIS better positions both the “library” and “information” professions for a new millennium.

This essay describes how valuable tacit knowledge (personal knowledge) becomes explicit knowledge (recorded knowledge) and vice versa. It ascribes considerable responsibility for practitioner ignorance of community and organizational realities to American Library Association programs that lack required courses in marketing and advocacy, Finally, it describes how tacit knowledge becomes a basis for determining stakeholder needs and establishing the relationships necessary to develop relevant service programs and funding.