Technology, Diversity, Web Accessibility, and ALA Accreditation Standards in MLIS

Abstract

This paper discusses an interconnection between diversity and technology: web accessibility for all, including people with disabilities. Qualitative interviews were conducted with eight MLIS professors and two students or recent alumni. Findings showed attitudes regarding teaching web accessibility and recruitment of a diverse student body varied between professors who were familiar with web accessibility and those who were not. Participants who were familiar with web accessibility often thought it should be included within ALA Standards for Accreditation. Findings suggested that, in one school, incorporating diversity in their curriculum, including web accessibility, allowed recruitment of a more diverse student body and was furthering diversity-related curriculum content. At another school, a professor expressed concern about recruiting a diverse student body, particularly students with disabilities. The research suggests that stronger practices for teaching technology, teaching diversity, and recruiting diverse students could assist the field of LIS to further realize its inclusive goals.

Are Library and Information Science Educators Teaching Accessibility?

“…Next, we reviewed every course's title and description to determine if a course might address accessibility or disability. We compared each course's title and description with an inventory of relevant terms and topics (Table 1) drawn from our familiarity with LIS curricula and research (Alajmi & Alshammari, 2020;Guedes & Landoni, 2020;Jia et al, 2021;Mulliken, 2016;Ren et al, 2022;Shinohara et al, 2018). Of the hundreds of courses reviewed, 199 included relevant terms or topics.…”

Below the Surface: Analyzing the Level of Detail and Depth of Coverage in Library and Information Science Syllabi Addressing Disability and Accessibility

“…Of the 75 syllabi initially collected, 39 were selected for this analysis due to the presence of one or more of the curricula and research (Alajmi & Alshammari, 2020;Guedes & Landoni, 2020;Jia et al, 2021;Mulliken, 2016;Ren et al, 2022;Shinohara et al, 2018). To address our three exploratory questions for these syllabi, we employed a qualitative content analysis approach (Drisko & Maschi, 2015).…”

“…Of the 75 syllabi initially collected, 39 were selected for this analysis due to the presence of one or more of the following keywords or terms: “accessibility,” “disability,” “information access,” “Universal Access,” “Universal Design,” “usability,” or “User‐Centered Design.” These terms were selected due to our previous familiarity with LIS curricula and research (Alajmi & Alshammari, 2020; Guedes & Landoni, 2020; Jia et al, 2021; Mulliken, 2016; Ren et al, 2022; Shinohara et al, 2018). To address our three exploratory questions for these syllabi, we employed a qualitative content analysis approach (Drisko & Maschi, 2015).…”

Accessibility and Ability in LIS Curricula and Pedagogy

“…accessible and inclusive training (Lewitzky & Weaver, 2022) and how evaluating and designing accessible digital resources can improve disabled patrons' experiences using library services (Mulliken, 2016). Integrating accessibility content within a service-learning framework can help students become even more attuned to disabled patrons' accessibility needs and show students how to co-create inclusive library and information spaces (Copeland, 2019).…”