Librarianship and the Information Paradigm

An information studies lecturer (Raymond) interested in professionalism and a sociologist specialising in post‐industrial theory (Apostle) come to the shared realisation that sociological work, particularly Daniel Bell′s′′, occupies a central place in the professional disputes [surrounding librarianship]′′. They also find agreement in the theorem that the debates which have energised and to some extent divided librarianship reflect a fundamental paradigm conflict′′ between a library service paradigm and an information paradigm. The result of their collaboration is an admirable and altogether welcome specimen of academic cross‐fertilisation.

While the authors do not explain in detail what they mean by paradigm′′, they are evidently operating with the strong Kuhnian sense of a way of seeing the world′′. The library service paradigm is the traditional Victorian view espoused by most librarians until recently, comprising beliefs in the importance of books and their readers, in the conservational and custodial role of the librarian, and in a public service ethos. The new information paradigm, on the other hand, is predicated on the central importance of information and its (high) technologies, on the discipline of information management, and on the supremacy of free markets over community socialism. These two world views are supposedly in the throes of mortal combat for nothing less than the soul of librarianship′′. It is an exciting scenario, and it is set, refreshingly, in a Canadian context.

It soon becomes apparent that Apostle and Raymond are themselves opposed to the information paradigm. Chapter one launches a blistering a priori attack on many of its assumptions: that we are living in an information society; that librarianship and information science should converge; that information technology (IT) is all‐important; that information is necessarily what library patrons are seeking; that graduates of librarianship are likely to find work at the technical end of the information market. The rest of the book then presents various kinds of empirical evidence against such propositions. Thus, Chapter two shares the results of a questionnaire survey of the quantity of time allocated to different tasks by library professionals, demonstrating that IT is by no means the only important dimension of their work; except perhaps in special libraries, the authors conclude, the Information paradigm has limited applicability′′. Other chapters address the role of professional associations, the journal literature of librarianship and information science, the information market, and library school curricula.

The final chapter, Reflections: Librarianship in a Postmodern Era′′, returns to the philosophical plane. Despite its misleading title, the authors are still less than captivated by the information society thesis and its postmodernist pretences. They now position their views alongside other recent theoretical contributions to the debate on the future of librarianship, notably Michael Harris and Stan Hannah′s Into the Future: The Foundations of Library and Information Service in the Postindustrial Era (Ablex Publishing, 1994) and William Birdsall′s The Myth of the Electronic Library: Librarianship, and Social Change in America (Greenwood Press, 1994). Librarianship and the Information Paradigm is indeed best regarded as a Canadian complement to these key works. It is readable, erudite and research‐based. Regrettably, however, the inflated price may stop it from finding a large audience.