How we missed the boat: reading scholarship and the field of LIS

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons for the gradual extinction of reading scholarship in Library and Information Science (LIS) departments and to identify three problematic areas accounting for its dropping prestige: paradigmatic conflicts, the influence of the corporate university and low awareness of the potential of reading research. It also proposes possible solutions to each problem. Design/methodology/approach – Close reading and analysis of an extensive selection of sources with novel conceptualization and critical perspectives. Findings – The information science paradigm, which has dominated LIS, is not sufficient to accommodate reading research. The information science model has a detrimentally restrictive effect on reading scholarship. Library science, which should be considered an autonomous discipline rather than an appendix of information science, is more conducive to the study of reading. Non-specialization-based academic hiring to increase values-based diversity in LIS through a larger influx of reading scholars is advocated. Originality/value – Reading scholarship, unduly deemed “old-fashioned”, or euphemistically “traditional”, is one of the most potent areas of academic inquiry, to which LIS scholars are perfectly positioned to make a unique contribution. Reading research in LIS has great merit irrespective of its connection to information and technology; a set of evaluative questions to determine the quality of reading scholarship is introduced. Using a case study, the paper illustrates the potential of reading research for interdisciplinary connections, community partnerships and the enrichment of LIS education and professional practices. An honest look at one of the most exciting academic fields, regrettably neglected by LIS.

Readers’ advisory: can we take it to the next level?

“…The lack of visibility and 373 Readers' advisory prominence of reading scholarship certainly resonates in the state of LIS education for reading, starting with the fact that not many departments employ full-time, tenure-track faculty with the expertise in reading who have the capacity not only to deliver state-of-the-art courses but also to introduce the kind of scholarship that will advance both higher education and professional practice (Dali, 2015). Course offerings often depend on the (occasional) availability of adjunct instructors.…”

Reading work as a diversity practice: A differentiated approach to reading promotion in academic libraries in North America

“…Public libraries have been only partially successful in regaining and maintaining their leadership in leisure reading promotion, and more than one critic noted the stagnation in readers’ advisory services (e.g. Beard and Thi-Beard, 2008; Crowley, 2015; Dali, 2015a; Dilevko and Magowan, 2007).…”

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Educational and Disciplinary Backgrounds of American Librarians, 1950–2015

“…Of the specific professions highlighted in three of the four studies compared here, education seems to have peaked in the 1970s and declined since then. Although librarianship is still often affiliated with an educational bent, especially when considering its historical foundations and core values, a decline in this focus has been noted as a result of the field's alignment with information science (Dali, 2015). When compared with the contemporary IPEDS data, librarianship actually slightly lags the nation in undergraduate education degrees (5.27% nationally vs. 4.08% in librarianship).…”