Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey - IJIFR ramesh babu.pdf · Dr. B. Ramesh Babu, Dr. Sujin Butdisuwan: Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey An Enlightening

Dr. B. Ramesh Babu, Dr. Sujin Butdisuwan: Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey

www.ijifr.com An Enlightening Online Open Access Refereed Journal of Multidisciplinary Research IJIFR©2013

1

ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)

Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013

Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey

Dr. B. Ramesh Babu1, Dr. Sujin Butdisuwan

2

1Former Professor, Dept. of Library and Information Science, University of Madras, Chennai &

Visiting Faculty, Faculty of Informatics, Mahasarakham University, Thailand 2Dean, School of ICMT, Faculty of Informatics

Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand

Abstract

LIS Education for 21st century continues to face many of the uneasy tensions that have

been present since its beginnings in the 19th century. The profession of librarianship is in

crisis as stated by Davis. Hence in this paper an attempt has been made to examine the

factors causing the crisis in LIS education in India. The study has been framed with

objectives as, To identify the factors that cause crisis in LIS education in Thailand; To

seek the opinions on the factors of crisis in LIS education from the faculty and

professionals from Thailand; To analyse the respondent’s opinions on the crisis in LIS

and To offer suggestions for the overcoming of crisis. A structured questionnaire was

administered among faculty in LIS and the working professionals up to the cadre of

Assistant librarians in the universities. A total of 57 were responded based on the

judgment sample. It was found that the major factors of crisis are, Infrastructure;

Curriculum; Growth of LIS Education ; Theory Vs Practice ; Standards/ Quality

Assurance/Accreditation; Governance; Research; Librarianship vs. Information Science;

and Students.

Keywords: LIS education, Crisis, Factors, LIS professionals, LIS faculty, Survey Investigation, India

1 Introduction

Library education is closely related to the technological advances in information science. At the

beginning of the 21st century, the profession of librarianship finds itself in a state of crisis. This century

has been earmarked by various revolutionary and innovative developments such as information

revolution, ICT revolution, globalization and privatisation. Recent discussions of education for library

professionals have strongly criticized the state of most LIS schools which are portrayed as techno-

centric, male-dominated and out of touch with the needs of practitioners. There is a criticism among the

practitioners that the LIS courses are not matching the demands of present day library management. All

these developments have been coined most recently, but not for the first time, the term ‘crisis’ has been

used in the literature (Mulvaney and O'Connor, 2006). Hence in this paper an attempt has been made

to examine the factors causing the crisis in LIS education in India.

2 Concept of Crisis

Library and Information Science (LIS) Education in 21st century continues to face many of the uneasy

tensions that have been present since its beginnings in the 19th century. The profession of librarianship

is in crisis (Davis, 2005). Some of the tensions facing Library and Information Science Education are

as follows: Generalization versus specialization; Practice versus Theory; 1 year versus 2 year graduate

degree; Education for Information (the I word) versus Education for Library Science (the L word) or is

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



2



it LIS Education?; Cataloging education versus Knowledge organization (or organization of

information) approaches; Distance learning versus classroom delivery and Crisis Criers (O'Connor and

Park, 2001).

3 Objectives of the study

1. To identify the factors that cause crisis in LIS education in India

2. To seek the opinions on the factors of crisis in LIS education from the faculty and

professionals from India

3. To analyse the respondent’s opinions on the crisis in LIS education; and

4. To offer suggestions for the overcoming of crisis

4 Methodology

The study has been designed to elicit the opinions of LIS faculty and LIS practitioners up to the cadre of

Assistant librarians in the University libraries through the questionnaire. It does not cover the students,

research scholars, the policy makers and the administrators’ opinions. The study has been conducted

during summer of 2013. This study forms the part of major study conducted with the funds provided by

the Faculty of Informatics, Mahasarakham University, Thailand.

5 Analyses and Discussion

5.1 Classification of respondents by designation

As seen from table 1 that a total of 57 LIS professionals have participated and comprises of professors

(both in-service and retired), university librarians, university deputy librarians, assistant librarians,

associate professors and assistant professors. 19 (about one third of the sample) professors have

participated in the survey, followed by 14 (24.6% nearly one -fourth), and 10 (17.5%) university

Deputy Librarians. Thanks to the University Grants Commission’s programmes and guidelines, the

academic positions are linked with time bound and performance oriented under the Career

Advancement Scheme (CAS). Hence more number of professors is seen. Further in many universities,

university librarians are heading the Departments of Library and Information Science.

Table 1: Classification of Respondents by Designation

S. No. Designation Number of Respondents (n=57)

1 Professors (Retd.) 11 (19.3)

2 Professors 8(14.0)

3 University Librarians 14(24.6)

4 Associate Professors 8(14.0)

5 Assistant Professors 3(5.3)

6 University Deputy Librarians 10(17.5)

7 Assistant Librarians 3(5.3)

Total 57(100)

(In each table the figures in circular brackets indicate percentage)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



3



5.2 Classification of Respondents by Years of Experience

The data in Table 2 reveals that respondents were grouped into six categories. A majority (26 out of

57) of the respondents (45.6%) fall in the age group of above 26 years, followed by 13 (22.8%)

between 21 and 25 years and 11 (19.3%) between 16-20 years of experience.

Table 2: Classification of Respondents by Years of Experience

5.3 Classification of Respondents by State wise

As observed from the Table 3 a total of 9 States have participated in the survey and a majority (26) of

them are from Tamil Nadu (45.6%), followed by 11 (19.3%) from Karnataka state and 9 (15.8%) from

Andhra Pradesh (Fig. 1). By and large a majority of the survey covers the States from South India.

Table 3: Classification of Respondents by State Wise

S. No. Years of Experience Number of Respondents (n=57)

1 Andhra Pradesh 9 (15.8)

2 Tamil Nadu 26 (45.6)

3 Kerala 1(1.8)

4 Karnataka 11(19.3)

5 Puducherry 4 (7.0)

6 Odisha 1(1.8)

7 Maharashtra 3 (5.3)

8 New Delhi 1(1.8)

9 Mizoram 1(1.8)

Total 57(100)

5.4 Views of Respondents on Infrastructure Facilities

Table 5 reveals that the situation is grave and very pathetic since more than three-fourths (77.2%) of the

respondents (44) have stated that there exists lack of teaching staff and lack of infrastructure facilities in

the LIS schools. It is true that the situation is critical in many LIS schools that the classes are conducted

by the library staff, contract lecturers / contributory lecturers, guest faculty and UCG visiting faculty.

The universities somehow could not appoint the required or approved staff due to the technical

problems, such as court cases, government intervention and sometimes reservation issues, and so on.

S. No. Years of Experience Number of Respondents (n=57)

1 Below 5 Years 0 (0.0)

2 Between 6 and 10 Years 0 (0.0)




6 Above 26 Years 26 (45.6)

Total 57 (100)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



4



Regarding other infrastructure facilities, many LIS schools do not have sufficient physical facilities or

ICT laboratories to teach ICT courses.

Table 5 Views of Respondents on Infrastructure Facilities

S. No. Description Number of Respondents (n=57)

1 Lack of Teaching Staff 44 (77.2)

2 Lack of Infrastructure 44 (77.2)

It is found from the table 6 that almost all the professors (18 out of 19) have stated the lack of

infrastructure facilities and lack of teaching staff. This is followed by 9 out of 14 university librarians

and 7 out f 10 university deputy librarians have endorsed the same views.

Table 6 Views of Respondents on Infrastructure Facilities Vs. Designation

S.No Designation Lack of Teaching

Staff

Lack of

Infrastructure

1 Professors (retd) (n=11) 11(19.3) 11(19.3)

2 Professors (n=8) 7(12.3) 6(10.5)

3 University Librarians (n=14) 9(15.8) 11(19.3)

4 Associate Professors (n=8) 5(8.8) 5(8.8)

5 Asst. Professors (n=3) 2(3.5) 2(3.5)

6 University Deputy Librarians (n=10) 7(12.3) 6(10.5)

7 Asst. Librarians (n=3) 3(5.3) 3(5.3)

Total 44 (77.2) 44 (77.2)

Table 7 Views of Respondents on Infrastructure Facilities Vs Years of Experience

S.No. Years of Experience Lack of

Teaching Staff

Lack of

Infrastructure

1 Below 5 Years (n=0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

2 Between 6 and 10 Years (n=0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)



5 Between 21 and 25 Years (n=13 10(17.5) 11(19.3)

6 Above 26 Years (n=26) 22(38.6) 20(35.1)

Total 44 (77.2) 44 (77.2)

22 out of 26 respondents (Table 7) falling in the age group of above 26 years stated that lack of teaching

staff and 20 out of 26 viewed the lack of infrastructure facilities. This is followed by 10 out of 13 in the

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



5



age group of between 21 and 25 years stated the lack of teaching staff and 11 out of 13 on the lack of

infrastructure facilities.

5.5 Views of Respondents on Curriculum

Table 8 Views of Respondents on Curriculum


1 No harmonization of curriculum among LIS schools 38(66.7)

2 No periodic revision of curriculum 34(59.6)

3 Lack of Innovation in curriculum 39(68.4)

4 Curriculum fails to address adequately the education of

librarians

40(70.2)

A majority of the respondents (Table 8), i.e , 40 out of 57 have stated that ‘curriculum fails to address

adequately the education of librarians’ (70.2%), followed by ‘Lack of innovation in curriculum’

(68.4%) and ‘no harmonization of curriculum among LIS schools’ (66.7%). It is true that many

universities in India do not frame the syllabus as per the UGC model curriculum. Each university has its

own Board of Studies and the members have their say in the framing of the syllabus. Many schools

teach age old traditional courses and of course there is no harmonization. In fact as early as 1986 the

IFLA has stressed it its conference about the harmonization.

Table 9 Views of Respondents on Curriculum Vs Years of Experience

S. No. Description Below

5

Years

(n=0)

Between

6 and 10

Years

(n=0)

Between

11 and 15

Years

(n=7)

Between

16 and 20

Years

(n=11)

Between

21 and 25

Years

(n=13)

Above

26

Years

(n=26)

1 No harmonization of

curriculum among

LIS schools 0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

20

(35.1)

2 No periodic revision of

curriculum 0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

5

(8.8)

16

(28.1)

3 Lack of Innovation in

curriculum 0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

6

(10.5)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

18

(31.6)

4 Curriculum fails to

address adequately

the education of

librarians

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

9

(15.8)

16

(28.1)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



6



As seen from the Table 9, that 20 out of 26 respondents above the age group of 26 years are of the

opinion that, ‘no harmonization of curriculum among LIS schools’ followed by 18 on ‘lack of

innovation in curriculum’ and 16 on ‘no periodic revision of curriculum’.

Table 10 Views of Respondents on Curriculum Vs Designation

S. No.

Designation No harmonization

of curriculum

among LIS

schools

No periodic

revision of

curriculum

Lack of Innovation

in curriculum

Curriculum

fails to

address

adequately

the

education of

librarians

1 Professors

(retd)

(n=11)

9(15.8) 9(15.8) 9(15.8) 7(12.3)

2 Professors

(n=8)

5(8.8) 4(7.0) 5(8.8) 4(7.0)

3 University

Librarians

(n=14)

8(14.0) 8(14.0) 9(15.8) 11(19.3)

4 Associate

Professors

(n=8)

6(10.5) 4(7.0) 4(7.0) 4(7.0)

5 Asst.

Professors

(n=3)

2(3.5) 2(3.5) 3(5.3) 2(3.5)

6 University

Deputy

Librarians

(n=10)

8(14.0) 6(10.5) 7(12.3) 9(15.8)

7 Asst.

Librarians

(n=3)

0

(0.0)

1

(1.8)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

Total 38(66.7) 34(59.6) 39(68.4) 40(70.2)

It is observed from the Table 10 that 14 out of 19 professors felt that ‘no harmonization of curriculum

among LIS schools’. This is followed by 8 out of 14 university librarians, 8 out of 10 university Deputy

Librarians and 6 out of 8 Associate Professors felt the same view, which is true in the Indian context.

5.6 Views of Respondents on Research

A majority (40) of respondents (70.2%) are of the view that “No research on theoretical foundations/

lack of relevant research’. This is followed by more than two-thirds (38) state that ‘no qualitative

research productivity’ and 61.4% opined on ‘more of quantitative research (use of statistical tools)’

(Table 11). This is true when we examine the research output much research is produced on the survey

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



7



studies like Library surveys, Scientometrics, Information seeking behaviour, etc where the use of

quantification of data is extensively made.

Table 11 Views of Respondents on Research


1 No qualitative research productivity 38(66.7)

2 More of quantitative research (Use of statistical tools) 35(61.4)

3 No research on theoretical foundations /

Lack of relevant research

40(70.2)

4 Less research out put 30(52.6)

As seen from Table 12 that a majority of the professors are of the view that there is ‘No qualitative

research productivity’ and ‘No research on theoretical foundations / Lack of relevant research’. On the

other hand a majority of the university librarians (11 out of 14) that there is ‘More of quantitative

research (Use of statistical tools)’. Whereas, a majority (8 out of 10) of the university deputy

librarians felt ‘No research on theoretical foundations / Lack of relevant research’.

Table 12 Views of Respondents on Research Vs Designations

S.No. Designation

No qualitative

research

productivity

More of

quantitative

research (Use

of statistical

tools)

No research on

theoretical

foundations /

Lack of relevant

research

Less

research out

put

1 Professors (retd)

(n=11)

11

(19.3)

8

(14.0)

10

(17.5)

4

(7.0)

2 Professors(n=8) 4

(7.0)

3

(5.3)

5

(8.8)

2

(3.5)

3 University

Librarians (n=14)

8

(14.0)

11

(19.3)

8

(14.0)

9

(15.8)

4 Associate

Professors (n=8)

5

(8.8)

3

(5.3)

4

(7.0)

4

(7.0)

5 Asst. Professors

(n=3)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

6 University

Deputy Librarians

(n=10)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

7 Asst. Librarians

(n=3)

2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

Total 38

(66.7)

35

(61.4)

40

(70.2)

30

(52.6)

Respondents ranging from 8 to 10 out of 13 in the age group of between 21 and 25 years have agreed to

the variables listed in the table 13. Similarly a majority of the respondents ranging from 7 to 8 out of 11

have agreed to the views as the causes of crisis in LIS research. On the other hand a majority (ranging

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



8



18 to 19 out of 26) in the age group of above 26 years state that , No qualitative research productivity’

and ‘No research on theoretical foundations / Lack of relevant research’.

Table 13 Views of Respondents on Research Vs Years of Experience

S.

No

.

Years of Experience

No qualitative

research

productivity

More of

quantitativ

e research

(Use of

statistical

tools)

No research on

theoretical

foundations /

Lack of relevant

research

Less

research

out put

1 Below 5 Years (n=0) 0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 Between 6 and 10 Years

(n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)


(n=7)

5

(8.8)

3

(5.3)

5

(8.8)

3

(5.3)


(n=11)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)


(n=13)

8

(14.0)

10

(17.5)

9

(15.8)

8

(14.0)

6 Above 26 Years (n=26) 18

(31.6)

14

(24.6)

19

(33.3)

12

(21.1)

5.7 Views of Respondents on Standards / Accreditation

One of the major issues involved in the LIS education is the standard and the accreditation process. It is

observed such practices are noticed mostly in US universities but it is not mostly seen in the Asian

nations. Keeping this in mind the investigators have sought the views of the LIS professionals on the

issue of standards and accreditation and opinions are given in Table 14.

Table 14 Views of Respondents on Standards / Accreditation

S. No. Description Number of

Respondents(n=57)

1 No accreditation agency like USA 53(93.0)

2 Quality Assurance body not created 45(78.9)

3 Quality Assurance body created but not in operation 22(38.6)

4 No established standards for LIS education 49(86.0)

It is found from the Table 14 that a majority of the respondents ranging from 78.9 % to 93% have

agreed the variables as ‘No accreditation agency like USA’ (93%); ‘No established standards for LIS

education’ (86%) and ‘Quality Assurance body not created’ (78.95). In India although it has been

stressed by the professional associations like Indian Association for Teachers of Library and

Information Science (IATLIS), yet the authorities did not make an attempt on this issue.

It is seen from the Table 15 that 17 out of 19 professors are of the opinion that ‘No accreditation agency

like USA’ and ‘No established standards for LIS education’. Similarly a majority (ranging from 11 to

13 out of 14) of the University Librarians state that ‘No accreditation agency like USA’ ; ‘Quality

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



9



Assurance body not created’ and ‘No established standards for LIS education’. Similarly, a majority of

the university librarians (7 to 8 out of 8) and deputy university librarians (ranging from 7 to 10 out of

10) expressed the same views.

Table 15 Views of Respondents on Standards / Accreditation Vs Designation

S.

No Designation

No

accreditatio

n agency

like USA

Quality

Assurance

body not

created

Quality

Assurance

body created

but not in

operation

No established

standards for LIS

education

1 Professors (retd) (n=11) 10(17.5)

9

(15.8)

4

(7.0) 10(17.5)

2 Professors (n=8) 7 (12.3) 7 (12.3) 4 (7.0) 7 (12.3)

3 University Librarians (n=14) 13

(22.8)

12

(21.1)

5

(8.8)

11

(19.3)

4 Associate Professors (n=8) 8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

2

(3.5)

7

(12.3)

5 Asst. Professors (n=3) 2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

2

(3.5)

6 University Deputy Librarians

(n=10)

10

(17.5)

7

(12.3)

4

(7.0)

9

(15.8)

7 Asst. Librarians (n=3) 3

(5.3)

1

(1.8)

1

(1.8)

3

(5.3)

Based on the years of experience of the respondents that 10 out of 11 in the age group between 16 and

20 years are of the opinion that ‘No accreditation agency like USA ’and‘ Quality Assurance body not

created. On the contrary all the respondents (7) in the age group between 11 and 15 stated that, ‘No

accreditation agency like USA’; and ‘No established standards for LIS education’. With regard to the

respondents above 26 years, a majority (ranging from 22 to 23 out of 26) have felt that ‘No

accreditation agency like USA (23)’ ‘Quality Assurance body not created (22)’ and ‘No established

standards for LIS education (22)’(Table 16).

Table 16 Views of Respondents on Standards / Accreditation Vs Years of Experience

S. No. Years of Experience

No

accreditation

agency like

USA

Quality

Assurance

body not

created

Quality

Assurance

body

created but

not in

operation

No

established

standards

for

LIS

education

1 Below 5 Years (n=0) 0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 Between 6 and 10

Years (n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 Between 11 and 15

Years (n=7)

7

(12.3)

5

(8.8)

2

(3.5)

7

(12.3)

4 Between 16 and 20

Years (n=11)

10

(17.5)

10

(17.5)

5

(8.8)

8

(14.0)

5 Between 21 and 25 13 8 7 12

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



10



Years (n=13) (22.8) (14.0) (12.3) (21.1)

6 Above 26 Years

(n=26) 23

(40.4)

22

(38.6)

8

(14.0)

22

(38.6)

5.8 Views of Respondents on LIS Theory and Practice

There exists differences between theory and practice in any discipline and LIS is not an exception to

this. Considering the significant differences in the subject between theory and practice which

sometimes causes crisis, in the survey, a total of 8 variables have been considered on this aspect and

sought the respondent’s views.

It is observed from the Table 17 that, a majority of Indian respondents ranging from 41 to 47 out of 57

state the following reasons as causing crisis in LIS theory and practice. They are:

1 Rift between LIS teachers and Librarians 47 (82.5)

2. Mismatching between the productivity and the employer’s needs 45 (78.9)

3. Practitioners do not acknowledge the tremendous range of subject matter in LIS that LIS

schools must address in a semester 44 (77.2)

4. Less / No practice of Internship 41 (71.9)

It is true that in India many instances there exists rift between the LIS teachers and library staff.

And it is rightly pointed out by the respondents as a highly scored variable. The other highly scored

variables are also projects the reality in the Indian situation.

As far as designation of the respondents in India is concerned (Table 18) a majority of the professors

ranging from 13 to 17 out of 19 have marked all the eight variables causing crisis in the aspect of LIS

theory and practice. Similarly a majority of the University librarians 9 to 12 out of 14 have marked

seven variables with an exception to the first variable namely, ‘Mis-matching between theory and

practice’. Similarly all the assistant professors have marked the six variables. A majority of the

university deputy librarians ranging from 6 to 9 out of 10 have marked all the variables.

Table 17 Views of Respondents on LIS Theory and Practice


Respondents (n=57)

1 Mis-matching between theory and practice 33(57.9)

2 Rift between LIS teachers and Librarians 47(82.5)

3 Less / No practice of Internship 41(71.9)

4 Mismatching between the productivity and the

employer’s needs

45(78.9)

5 Practitioners do not understand the goals of LIS

education

38(66.7)

6 Practitioners do not understand the demands under

which these programmes operate

39(68.4)

7 Practitioners have failed to understand the needs of

LIS education

37(64.9)

8 Practitioners do not acknowledge the tremendous

range of subject matter in LIS that LIS schools must

address in a semester

44(77.2)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



11



It is noticed from the Table 19 that in the age group of above 26 years, a majority of the respondents

ranging from 15 to 23 out of 26 have opined on all the eight variables. Similarly, respondents in the age

of group of between 21 and 25 years have opted all the variables ranging from 7 to 12 out of 13

respondents. In the age group of between 16 and 20 years, all the variables have been marked by the

majority of the respondents ranging from 6 to 10 out of 11.

Table 18 Views of Respondents on LIS Theory and Practice Vs Designation

Ser

ial

No

.

Des

ign

ati

on

Mis

ma

tch

ing

bet

wee

n t

heo

ry

an

d p

ract

ice

Rif

t b

etw

een

LIS

tea

cher

s a

nd

Lib

rari

an

s

Les

s /

No

pra

ctic

e o

f In

tern

ship

Mis

ma

tch

ing

b

etw

een

th

e

pro

du

ctiv

ity

an

d t

he

emp

loy

er’s

nee

ds

Pra

ctit

ion

ers

do

no

t u

nd

erst

an

d t

he

goa

ls

of

LIS

ed

uca

tio

n

Pra

ctit

ion

ers

do

n

ot

un

der

sta

nd

th

e

dem

an

ds

un

der

wh

ich

th

ese

pro

gra

mm

es

op

era

te

Pra

ctit

ion

ers

ha

ve

fail

ed

to

un

der

sta

nd

the

nee

ds

of

LIS

ed

uca

tio

n

Pra

ctit

ion

ers

do

n

ot

ack

no

wle

dg

e th

e

trem

end

ou

s ra

ng

e o

f su

bje

ct

ma

tter

in

LIS

th

at

LIS

sc

ho

ols

m

ust

a

dd

ress

in

a

sem

este

r

1 Professors

(retd)

(n=11)

10

(17.5)

10

(17.5)

9

(15.8)

10

(17.5)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

2 Professors

(n=8)

3

(5.3)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

4

(7.0)

7

(12.3)

3 University

Librarians

(n=14)

6

(10.5)

10

(17.5)

10

(17.5)

12

(21.1)

9

(15.8)

10

(17.5)

11

(19.3)

12

(21.1)

4 Associate

Professors

(n=8)

3

(5.3)

6

(10.5)

2

(3.5)

5

(8.8)

4

(7.0)

4

(7.0)

3

(5.3)

4

(7.0)

5 Asst.

Professors

(n=3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

6 University

Deputy

Librarians

(n=10)

8

(14.0)

8

(14.0)

9

(15.8)

9

(15.8)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

7 Asst.

Librarians

(n=3)

1

(1.8)

3

(5.3)

1

(1.8)

1

(1.8)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



12



Table 19 Views of Respondents on LIS Theory and Practice Vs Years of Experience

S.

No

Yea

rs o

f E

xp

erie

nce

Mis

matc

hin

g

bet

wee

n

theo

ry

an

d

pra

ctic

e

Rif

t b

etw

een

L

IS

teach

ers

an

d

Lib

rari

an

s

Les

s /

No

pra

ctic

e of

Inte

rnsh

ip

Mis

matc

hin

g

bet

wee

n

the

pro

du

ctiv

ity

a

nd

th

e em

plo

yer

’s

nee

ds

Pra

ctit

ion

er

do

n

ot

un

der

sta

nd

th

e

go

als

of

LIS

ed

uca

tio

n

Pra

ctit

ion

er

do

n

ot

un

der

sta

nd

th

e

dem

an

ds

un

der

w

hic

h

thes

e

pro

gra

mm

es o

per

ate

Pra

ctit

ion

er

ha

ve

fail

ed

to

un

der

sta

nd

th

e n

eed

s o

f L

IS

edu

cati

on

Pra

ctit

ion

ers

do

not

ack

no

wle

dg

e th

e

trem

end

ou

s ra

nge

of

sub

ject

ma

tter

in L

IS t

hat

LIS

sch

oo

ls m

ust

ad

dre

ss

in a

sem

este

r

1 Below 5

Years

(n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 Between

6 and 10

Years

(n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 Between

11 and

15

Years

(n=7)

3

(5.3)

5

(8.8)

3

(5.3)

4

(7.0)

3

(5.3)

4

(7.0)

4

(7.0)

5

(8.8)

4 Between

16 and

20

Years

(n=11)

6

(10.5)

8

(14.0)

8

(14.0)

9

(15.8)

7

(12.3)

9

(15.8)

10

(17.5)

10

(17.5)

5 Between

21 and

25

Years

(n=13)

7

(12.3)

11

(19.3)

9

(15.8)

11

(19.3)

11

(19.3)

11

(19.3)

8

(14.0)

12

(21.1)

6 Above

26

Years

(n=26)

17

(29.8)

23

(40.4)

21

(36.8)

21

(36.8)

17

(29.8)

15

(26.3)

15

(26.3)

17

(29.8)

5.9 Views of Respondents on Librarianship Vs Information Science

The subject of librarianship has seen a series of changes in its coverage and accordingly the

nomenclature has been changing from time to time. The terms of denoting the subject has a variety of

names such as Library Science, Library and Information Science, Information Science, Information

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



13



Studies, and so on. Therefore in the survey the investigators sought the opinion about the change in

nomenclature and its implications. A total of five variables have been used to collect the opinions of

respondents from both India and Thailand on this aspect and the results are shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Views of Respondents on Librarianship Vs Information Science


Respondents (n=57)

1 Loosing territory of Librarianship and marching towards

Information Science

38 (66.7)

2 Traditional LIS subjects are sacrificed and more ICT stressed 43 (75.4)

3 Obsession with technology 37 (64.9)

4 Too much of nomenclature jugglery 37 (64.9)

5 Information Science is dominant at the expense of

Librarianship

46 (80.7)

It is seen from the Table 20 that a majority of respondents (80.7%) felt that “Information Science is

dominant at the expense of Librarianship”, followed by about three-fourths state that, “Traditional LIS

subjects are sacrificed and more ICT stressed”. The other variables have been rated by two-thirds of the

sample. By and large all the variables have been marked with a majority of the respondents.

Table 21 Views of Respondents on Librarianship Vs Information Science Vs Designation

S.

No.

Designation Loosing territory

of Librarianship

and marching

towards

Information

Science

Traditional

LIS subjects

are

sacrificed

and more

ICT stressed

Obsession

with

technolog

y

Too much

of

nomenclature

jugglery

Information

Science is

dominant

at the expense

of

Librarianship

1 Professors (retd)

(n=11)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

4

(7.0)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

2 Professors (n=8) 5

(8.8)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

3 University

Librarians (n=14)

10

(17.5)

11

(19.3)

12

(21.1)

8

(14.0)

13

(22.8)

4 Associate Professors

(n=8)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

5

(8.8)

3

(5.3)

6

(10.5)

5 Asst. Professors

(n=3)

1

(1.8)

2

(3.5)

1

(1.8)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

6 University Deputy

Librarians (n=10)

5

(8.8)

7

(12.3)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

7 Asst. Librarians

(n=3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

It is observed from the Table 21 that a majority of the Professors (ranging from 12 to 14 out of 19) have

marked the variables as follows:

Information Science is dominant at the expense of Librarianship (14)

Traditional LIS subjects are sacrificed and more ICT stressed (13)

Too much of nomenclature jugglery (13)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



14



Loosing territory of Librarianship and marching towards Information Science (12)

On the other hand a majority of University Librarians (ranging from 10 to 13 out o f 14) have opined

the following variables:


Obsession with technology (12)


Loosing territory of Librarianship and marching towards Information Science (10)

By and large there is no much difference between the opinions of Professors and University Librarians

on this aspect except with the variable “Obsession with technology” where the Professors did not favour

much. Interestingly all the Assistant Librarians have rated all the five variables on this aspect.

Table 22 Views of Respondents on Librarianship Vs Information Science Vs Experience

S.

No

Years of

Experience

Loosing

territory

of

Librarians

hip and

marching

towards

Informati

on

Science

Traditio

nal LIS

subjects

are

sacrifice

d and

more

ICT

stressed

Obsession

with

technology

Too much of

nomenclature

jugglery

Information

Science is

dominant at the

expense of

Librarianship

1 Below 5 Years

(n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 Between 6 and

10 Years (n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 Between 11 and

15 Years (n=7)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

4 Between 16 and

20 Years (n=11)

6

(10.5)

9

(15.8)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

9

(15.8)

5 Between 21 and

25 Years (n=13)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

9

(15.8)

10

(17.5)

11

(19.3)

6 Above 26 Years

(n=26)

18

(31.6)

21

(36.8)

14

(24.6)

15

(26.3)

20

(35.1)

As observed from the Table 22, a majority of the respondents ( ranging between 20 and 21) from India

above 26 years of experience have opted the following two variables:



On the other hand the a majority of respondents with the experience (ranging between 10 and 11) of

between 21 and 25 years have opted the following variables:


Too much of nomenclature jugglery (10)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



15



Interestingly, the maximum of respondents ( ranging between 5 and 6 out of 7) in the experience of

between 11 and 15 years, have preferred all the variables as the causes for crisis in LIS education.

5.10 Views of Respondents on the Growth of LIS Education

Education in LIS is growing exponentially and sometimes such growth might harm the professional

values of the subject. In India there exits mush room growth of LIS education.

Table 23 Views of Respondents on the Growth of LIS Education


Respondents (n=57)

1 Mushroom growth of LIS schools 42 (73.7)

2 Distance education is predominates in LIS 47 (82.5)

3 Failure of LIS schools to market themselves

adequately

46 (80.7)

More than three fourths of the respondents have marked all the three variables (Table 23). On the

contrary, respondents between 63 to 65 % have preferred the following two variables:

Mushroom growth of LIS schools (65.4%)

Failure of LIS schools to market them adequately (63.5%)

Table 24 Views of Respondents on the Growth of LIS Education Vs Designation

S. No.

Designation

Mush room

growth of LIS

schools

Distance

education is

predominates

in LIS

Failure of LIS

schools to market

themselves

adequately

1 Professors (retd) (n=11) 11(19.3) 9(15.8) 9(15.8)

2 Professors (n=8) 6(10.5) 7(12.3) 6(10.5)

3

University Librarians

(n=14)

10

(17.5)

14

(24.6)

13

(22.8)

4

Associate Professors

(n=8) 4(7.0) 6(10.5) 6(10.5)

5 Asst. Professors (n=3) 2(3.5) 2(3.5) 3(5.3)

6

University Deputy

Librarians (n=10)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

7 Asst. Librarians (n=3) 2(3.5) 2(3.5) 1(1.8)

It is seen from Table 24 that a majority of the Professors (ranging from 15 to 17 out of 19) have

favoured all the three variables causing crisis in LIS education. Similarly University Librarians (ranging

from 10 to 13 out of 14) and university Deputy Librarians (ranging from 7 to 8 out of 10) have

followed the Professors.

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



16



Table 25 Views of Respondents on the Growth of LIS Education Vs Experience

S.

No.

Years of Experience

Mush room

growth of LIS

schools

Distance

education is

predominates

in LIS

Failure of LIS

schools to market

themselves

adequately

1 Below 5 Years (n=0)

0 (0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

2

Between 6 and 10 Years (n=0)

0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

3


4 (7.0) 5 (8.8) 6 (10.5)

4


7 (12.3) 9(15.8) 10(17.5)

5


9(15.8) 10(17.5) 11(19.3)

6

Above 26 Years (n=26) 22(38.6) 23(40.4) 19(33.3)

It is observed from the Table 25 that, majority of respondents (ranging 22 to 23 out of 26) in the years

of experience with above 26 years has preferred the following variables:

Distance education predominates in LIS (23)

Mushroom growth of LIS schools (22)

But most of the respondents (ranging from 9 to 11 out of 13) with the experience of 21 and 25 years

have agreed to the variables. On the other hand respondents ranging from 9 to 10 out of 11 have opted

the following variables:

Failure of LIS schools to market themselves adequately (10)

Distance education predominates in LIS (9)

5.11 Views of Respondents on Students

With regard to the quality of students opting to the LIS courses, there is a debate whether the students

are joining the course out of love and commitment to the course and profession. Many a times it

happens students who do not get admission in science and technology courses, will join the courses in

LIS. It is observed from the table 26 that a majority (75.4%) of Indian respondents (43 out of 57)

stated that , ‘No good quality with professional zeal take the course’.

Table 26 Views of Respondents on Students


Respondents (n=57)

1 No good quality with professional zeal take the course 43 (75.4)

2 Less number of students are opting the courses 32 (56.1)

Table 27 Views of Respondents on Students Vs Designation

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



17



S. No Designation

No good quality with

professional zeal take

the course

Less number of

students are

opting the courses

1 Professors (retd) (n=11) 9 (15.8) 5 (8.8)

2 Professors (n=8) 6 (10.5) 5(8.8)

3 University Librarians (n=14) 11(19.3) 8(14.0)

4 Associate Professors (n=8) 5(8.8) 5(8.8)

5 Asst. Professors (n=3) 3(5.3) 3(5.3)

6 University Deputy Librarians (n=10) 6(10.5) 4(7.0)

7 Asst. Librarians (n=3) 3(5.3) 2(3.5)

It is observed from the Table 27 that, most (15 out of 19) of the professors and 11 out of 14 University

Librarians has opined that, ‘No good quality with professional zeal take the course’. Similar views have

been endorsed by all the Assistant Professors and Assistant Librarians.

Data in Table 28 reveals that, 19 out of 26 respondents with the experience of above 26 years and 8

out of 11 with the experience of between 16 and 20 years are of the opinion that, ‘No good quality

with professional zeal take the course’. Equal number of respondents (11) with the experience of

between 21 and 25 years has marked both the variables.

Table 28 Views of Respondents on Students Vs Years of Experience in India

S. No Years of Experience No good quality

with professional

zeal take the

course

Less number of

students are opting the

courses

1 Below 5 Years (n=0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)





6 Above 26 Years (n=26) 19(33.3) 14(24.6)

5.12 Views of Respondents on Governance

A majority of the respondents (82.5%) are of the opinion that, Lack of or no role being played by the

professional associations’ is a major factor leading to crisis in LIS education. This is followed by 78.9%

viewed that, ‘Lack of suitable leadership with in the field and Lack of connectivity among the other

departments’. More than two-thirds state that, ‘Government apathy on LIS courses’ is also causes crisis

(Table 29)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



18



Table 29 Views of Respondents on Governance


Respondents

(n=57)

1 Government apathy on LIS courses 38 (66.7)

2 Lack of or no role being played by the professional

associations

47 (82.5)

3 Lack of suitable leadership with in the field 45 (78.9)

4 Lack of status in the home universities 40 (70.2)

5 Lack of connectivity among the other departments 45 (78.9)

Table 30 Views of Respondents on Governance Vs Designation in India

S.

No

Designation Governme

nt apathy

on LIS

courses

Lack of or no

role being

played by the

professional

associations

Lack of

suitable

leadership

with in

the field

Lack of

status in

the

home

universi

ties

Lack of

connectivity

among the

other

departments

1 Professors

(Retd.) (n=11)

8

(14.0)

10

(17.5)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

10

(17.5)

2 Professors (n=8) 4

(7.0)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

4

(7.0)

4

(7.0)

3 University

Librarians

(n=14)

11

(19.3)

11

(19.3)

12

(21.1)

12

(21.1)

12

(21.1)

4 Associate

Professors (n=8)

5

(8.8)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

6

(10.5)

5 Asst. Professors

(n=3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

1

(1.8)

1

(1.8)

6 University

Deputy

Librarians

(n=10)

7

(12.3)

6

(10.5)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

9

(15.8)

7 Asst. Librarians

(n=3)

1

(1.8)

3

(5.3)

2

(3.5)

3

(5.3)

3

(5.3)

It is noticed from the table 32 that in India, almost all the Professors (18 out of 19) are of the opinion

that, ‘Lack of or no role being played by the professional associations’ is the major reason for the crisis

in LIS education. This is followed by 14 Professors state that, ‘Lack of suitable leadership with in the

field’ and ‘Lack of connectivity among the other departments’. Similarly a majority of the University

Librarians ranging from 11 to 12 out of 14 and 6 to 9 out of 10 University Deputy Librarians have

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



19



marked all the variables that cause crisis. All the Assistant Librarians have preferred the variables

such as, ‘Lack of or no role being played by the professional associations’; Lack of status in the home

universities’ and ‘Lack of connectivity among the other departments’.

Table 31 Views of Respondents on Governance Vs Years of Experience in India

S. No Years of

Experience

Governmen

t apathy on

LIS courses

Lack of or no

role being

played by the

professional

associations

Lack of

suitable

leaders

hip

with in

the

field

Lack of

status in

the

home

universit

ies

Lack of

connectivity

among the

other

departments

1 Below 5 Years

(n=0)

0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

2 Between 6 and 10

Years (n=0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 Between 11 and 15

Years (n=7)

4

(7.0)

7

(12.3)

6

(10.5)

7

(12.3)

7

(12.3)

4 Between 16 and 20

Years (n=11)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

7

(12.3)

8

(14.0)

9

(15.8)

5 Between 21 and 25

Years (n=13)

9

(15.8)

12

(21.1)

12

(21.1)

9

(15.8)

10

(17.5)

6 Above 26 Years

(n=26)

18

(31.6)

20

(35.1)

20

(35.1)

16

(28.1)

19

(33.3)

As seen from the Table 4.48, in India a majority of the respondents (20 out of 26) with above 26 years

of experience and 12 out of 13 with the experience of between 21 and 25 years are of the view that,

‘Lack of or no role being played by the professional associations’; and ‘Lack of suitable leadership with

in the field’. Respondents ranging from 7 to 9 out of 11 with the experience of between 16 and 20 years

have marked all the variables.

5.13 Views of Respondents on Other Aspects of Crisis

In the foregoing pages the variables causing crisis in LIS education have been analysed under various

sub-headings. The variables which do not fall in those categories have been grouped as “Other Aspects

of Crisis”. .

It is seen from Table 34 that a majority of the Indian respondents (ranging from 71.9 % to 78.9%) have

preferred the variables namely, ‘Lacks vision and mission’ and ‘Lack of regional language publications

on LIS’.

The data in Table 33 reveals that a majority of the professors ranging from 13 to 14 out of 19 and 10 to

12 out of 14 University Librarians and 5 to 6 out of 8 Associate Professors are of the opinion that

there is lack of vision and mission and lack of regional language publications in LIS.

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



20



Table 32 Views of Respondents in Other Aspects of Crisis


1 Lack of regional language publications on LIS 41 (71.9)

2 Lacks vision and mission 45 (78.9)

3 Gender inequity/ Gender divide 16 (28.1)

Table 33 Views of Respondents in Other Aspects of Crisis Vs Designation

S. No. Designation Lack of regional

language publications

on LIS

Lacks vision

and mission

Gender inequity/

Gender divide

1 Professors (retd) (n=11) 7(12.3) 9(15.8) 4(7.0)

2 Professors (n=8) 6(10.5) 5(8.8) 1(1.8)

3 University Librarians (n=14) 10(17.5) 12(21.1) 5(8.8)

4 Associate Professor (n=8) 6(10.5) 5(8.8) 1(1.8)

5 Asst. Professors (n=3) 3(5.3) 3(5.3) 0(0.0)

6 University Deputy

Librarians (n=10) 8(14.0) 8(14.0) 3(5.3)

7 Asst. Librarians (n=3) 1(1.8) 3(5.3) 2(3.5)

Table 34 Views of Respondents in Other aspects of Crisis Vs Years of Experience

S. No. Years of Experience

Lack of regional

language publications

on LIS

Lacks vision

and mission

Gender

inequity/

Gender divide

1

Below 5 Years (n=0)

0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

2


0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

3


4 (7.0) 5 (8.8) 1 (1.8)

4


8 (14.0) 9 (15.8) 4 (7.0)

5


10 (17.5) 12 (21.1) 5 (8.8)

6

Above 26 Years (n=26)

19 (33.3) 19 (33.3) 6 (10.5)

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



21



It is noticed from the Table 34 that, a majority of the respondents (19) with experience of above 26

years and 10 to 12 out of 13 with experience of between 21 and 25 years stated that, there exists lack of

regional language publications in LIS and lacks vision and mission.

6 Suggestions and Recommendations

Based on the analysis and discussion of the data the following suggestions are provided:

Restructuring of LIS courses: LIS has grown in to trans-disciplinary area and there is no need

to continue traditional topics. It is time that the contemporary topics should find more space in

the curriculum. The curriculum should match/reflect with the present and futuristic

environments of libraries (Ramesha and Ramesh Babu, 2007).

Harmonization of LIS education: There shall be collaborative curriculum development among

the universities /institutions which would result in the harmonization of LIS education. Such an

effort would result in the promotion of quality in LIS education and training. The outcome of

the designing of the LIS curricula shall emphasize the slogan “TEACH AND LEARN

BEYOND THE NATION” and on par with the other developing countries (Butdisuwan and

Ramesh Babu, 2013).

Symbiosis between LIS teachers and librarians: Practicing Librarians with rich experience,

innovative ideas, with hands-on experience in handling different situations in the Library and

Information Centers, should be involved in the teaching and practice. The mix of theory and

practice based on real life situations will help the LIS students to understand the subject to

choose their path in the profession.

Enhance standard and quality and sustain the performance of LIS education. Quality control

measures need to be evolved and practiced.

Networking of Schools of Library and Information Science

Integrate LIS schools with libraries which is the domain where theory and practices are handled

simultaneously

7 Conclusion

This study reveals that there are many constraints and problems faced by the LIS schools in India that

contribute to the crisis. The library schools should assume the role of leadership and responsibility to

produce competent manpower for the present as well as future needs of different kinds of information

centers including University libraries. To quote Lancaster, “We must shift the focus of our professional

concern away from the Library as an institution and towards the skilled professionals, who will become

a professional practitioner on par with medical and legal practitioners” (Lancaster, 1983). Teaching

and practice should go hand in hand to get better products with practical skills. As LIS education and

training seeks a wider role in society, there is a need to prepare students for careers in a rapidly

changing world. This requires multidisciplinary education, greater emphasis on core knowledge and

fully-articulated graduate programmes to meet the requisite of LIS professionals. Quality in teaching

and research is the backbone for LIS as a discipline to stand up as a strong professional course. LIS

education in the 21st century is challenging and opens the opportunities for the LIS departments to

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1



22



improve the image of the profession by training the skilled professionals. LIS education will move

forward and even thrive in this digital age when the field not only makes intelligence use of the

technology but also changes in other dimensions as the society advances.

8 Acknowledgement

The authors thank the authorities of the Faculty of Informatics, Mahasarakham University, Thailand for

funding this project. The authors are grateful to the respondents participated in the survey.

9 References [1] Butdisuwan, Sujin and Ramesh Babu, B (2013). LIS Education in Thailand and Tamilnadu : A study in

comparison. In: Libraries in the changing dimensions of digital technology Vol.2. Delhi: B R Publishing

Corporation, pp. 707-721

[2] Davis, Candy (2008). Librarianship in the 21st century-crisis or transformation? Public Library

Quarterly, 27 (1).

[3] Lancaster, F.W. (1983). Future librarianship: Preparing for an unconventional career, Wilson Library

Bulletin, 57(9): 747-753.

[4] Mulvaney, John Philip and O'Connor, Dan (2006). The crux of our crisis. American Libraries 37( 6) :

38-40.

[5] O'Connor, D O and Park, S (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity, Library and Information Science

Research 23(2): 103-106.

[6] Ramesha and Ramesh Babu, B (2007). Trends, Challenges and Future of Library and Information

Sciene Education in India. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 27 (5): 17-26

[7] Wormell, I (1993). Crisis and survival strategies at library schools, 26 (1):15-19.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/57317389?accountid=27563

PA

PE

R I

D: I

JIF

R/

V 1

/E

3/

00

1

Documents

Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey - IJIFR ramesh babu.pdf · Dr. B. Ramesh Babu, Dr. Sujin Butdisuwan: Is LIS Education in India in Crisis? : A Survey An Enlightening