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
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
2
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
3
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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)
3 Between 11 and 15 Years 7 (12.3)
4 Between 16 and 20 Years 11 (19.3)
5 Between 21 and 25 Years 13 (22.8)
6 Above 26 Years 26 (45.6)
Total 57 (100)
PA
PE
R I
D: I
JIF
R/
V 1
/E
3/
00
1
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
4
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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)
3 Between 11 and 15 Years (n=7) 5(8.8) 6(10.5)
4 Between 16 and 20 Years (n=11) 7(12.3) 7(12.3)
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
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
5
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
S. No. Description Number of Respondents (n=57)
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
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
6
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
7
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
S. No. Description Number of Respondents (n=57)
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
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
8
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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)
3 Between 11 and 15 Years
(n=7)
5
(8.8)
3
(5.3)
5
(8.8)
3
(5.3)
4 Between 16 and 20 Years
(n=11)
7
(12.3)
8
(14.0)
7
(12.3)
7
(12.3)
5 Between 21 and 25 Years
(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
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
9
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
10
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
S. No. Description Number of
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
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
11
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
12
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
13
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
S. No. Description Number of
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
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
14
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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:
Information Science is dominant at the expense of Librarianship (13)
Obsession with technology (12)
Traditional LIS subjects are sacrificed and more ICT stressed (11)
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:
Traditional LIS subjects are sacrificed and more ICT stressed (21)
Information Science is dominant at the expense of Librarianship (20)
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:
Information Science is dominant at the expense of Librarianship (11)
Too much of nomenclature jugglery (10)
PA
PE
R I
D: I
JIF
R/
V 1
/E
3/
00
1
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
15
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
S. No. Description Number of
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
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
16
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
Between 11 and 15 Years (n=7)
4 (7.0) 5 (8.8) 6 (10.5)
4
Between 16 and 20 Years (n=11)
7 (12.3) 9(15.8) 10(17.5)
5
Between 21 and 25 Years (n=13)
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
S. No. Description Number of
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
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
17
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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)
2 Between 6 and 10 Years (n=0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
3 Between 11 and 15 Years (n=7) 5(8.8) 2(3.5)
4 Between 16 and 20 Years (n=11) 8(14.0) 5(8.8)
5 Between 21 and 25 Years (n=13) 11(19.3) 11(19.3)
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
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
18
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
Table 29 Views of Respondents on Governance
S. No. Description Number of
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
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
19
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
20
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
Table 32 Views of Respondents in Other Aspects of Crisis
S. No. Description Number of Respondents (n=57)
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
Between 6 and 10 Years (n=0)
0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
3
Between 11 and 15 Years (n=7)
4 (7.0) 5 (8.8) 1 (1.8)
4
Between 16 and 20 Years (n=11)
8 (14.0) 9 (15.8) 4 (7.0)
5
Between 21 and 25 Years (n=13)
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
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
21
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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
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
22
ISSN (Online):2347-1697 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATIVE AND FUTURISTIC RESEARCH ( IJIFR)
Volume-1, Issue-3, November 2013 Date of Publication: 30h November, 2013
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