Advertisement

Is It Worth It? The Library and Information Science Degree in the Digital Humanities

  • Hannah LeeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Multimedia Systems and Applications book series (MMSA)

Abstract

The last several years have seen a marked upturn in society’s use of electronic information as the internet has greatly altered the very nature of information access. Although academics and professionals in the library and information sciences (LIS) seek ways of improving the connection between individuals and information, public perceptions often question the importance of LIS-based work in a world where everything is so freely and readily available online.

Therefore, the question becomes how relevant is the library and information science degree today in the world of electronic information? Using the theoretical framework of system theory and cybersemiotics, this chapter seeks to investigate the importance of LIS in the growing discipline of the digital humanities (DH). More specifically by focusing on data analytics, this chapter will demonstrate the practicality of LIS in an online environment and its necessity in giving information structure and meaning.

Keywords

Digital humanities Professional advocacy Systems theory Cybersemiotics Library and information sciences introduction Data analytics 

References

  1. J. Baell, Dublin core: An obituary. Library Hi Tech News 21(8), 40–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. M.J. Bates, The invisible substrate of information science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50(12), 1043–1050 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Bellinger et al, The state of digital preservation: An international perspective. Council on Library and Information Resources. (Documentation Abstraccts, Inc., Washington DC, 2002). pp. 1–95.Google Scholar
  4. I. Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2013)Google Scholar
  5. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, O. Lassila, The Semantic Web (Scientific American, 2001), 284(5): 28--37Google Scholar
  6. C. Borgman, Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in The Networked World (MIT, Cambridge, 2015)Google Scholar
  7. S. Brier, Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough (University of Toronto Press Inc., Toronto, 2008)Google Scholar
  8. S. Brier, in Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. by F. Ibekwe-SanJuan, T. M. Dousa. The transdiciplinary view of information theory from a cybersemiotic perspective (Springer, New York, 2013), pp. 23–50Google Scholar
  9. C.T. Chisita, and I. Abdullahi. Rising Above the Grain Silo Mentality Through Collaboration: Creating Opportunities Between the Lis Educators and Prationners in Developing Countries. World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA General Conference and Assembly. Helsinki: IFLA, 2012. 1–16.Google Scholar
  10. Cisco, The Zettabyte Era: Trends and Analysis (Cisco Visual Networking Index, White Paper, San Jose, 2015)Google Scholar
  11. D. Cohen, Defining the Digital Humanities. Defining the Digital Humanities. Panel presentation at Columbia University (2011).Google Scholar
  12. R.J. Cox, E. Rasmussen, Reinventing the information professions and the argument for specialization in LIS education: Case studies in archives and information technology. J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. 38(4), 255–267 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. L. Dechman, Library of Congress to Cancel the Subject Heading “Illegal Aliens” (Library of Congress, Memo, Washington D.C., 2016)Google Scholar
  14. A.R. Diekama, A. Wesolek, C. Walters, The NSF/NIH effect: Surveying the effect of data management requirements on faculty, sponsored programs, and institutional repositories. J. Acad. Librariansh. 40(3/4), 322–331 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Dill. The Best and Worst Master’s Degrees for Jobs in 2015. (Forbes, July 15, 2015).Google Scholar
  16. Q. Dombrowski. Dirt: Digital Research Tools. 2014. http://dirtdirectory.org/resources/pie-slice Accessed 4 Sept 2016
  17. W.C. Dougherty, The Google books project: Will it make libraries obsolete? J. Acad. Librariansh. 36(1), 86–89 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. B. Franklin, Managing the electronic collection with cost per use data. IFLA J. 31(3), 241–248 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Furner, Information science is neither. Library Trends 63(3), 362–377 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. J. Furner, Philosophy and information studies. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44(1), 159–200 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Glanville Cybernetics: Thinking through the technology. In Traditions of Systems Theory: Major Figures and Contemporary Developments, by A Darrell, 45–83. New York: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. R. Guenther, S. McCallum, New metadata standards for digital resources: MODS and METS. Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 29(2), 12–15 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. M.Y. Herring, Are Libraries Obsolete? An Argument for Relevance in the Digital Age (McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, 2014)Google Scholar
  24. T. Hey, and A. Trefethen. The data deluge: An E-science perspective. In Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastucture a Reality, by F. Berman, G. Fox and T. Hey, 809–924. New York: Wiley, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn, V. Turchin, What are Cybernetics and Systems Science? (Principia Cybernetica Web, 1999).Google Scholar
  26. B. Hjorland, Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches – Traditional as well as innovative. J. Doc. 58(4), 422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. B. Hjørland, Library and information science: Practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Inf. Process. Manag. 36(3), 501–531 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. W. Hong, J.Y.L. Thong, K.-Y. Tam, W.-M. Wong, Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18(3), 97–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. J.B. Horrigan, M. Duggan, Home Broadband 2015. Washington D.C. (Pew Research Center, 2015)Google Scholar
  30. A. Konrad. On Inquiry: Human concept formation and construction of meaning through library and information science intermediation (Doctoral dissertation), 2007.Google Scholar
  31. S.D. Lee, Digitization: Is it worth it? Comput. Libr. 21(5), 28–31 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. A. Liu, The state of the digital humanities: A report and a critique. Arts Humanit. High. Educ. 11(1/2), 8–41 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. C.A. Lynch, Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal Libr. Acad. 3(2), 327–336 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Machlis, IBM to shutter dataviz pioneer many eyes. (Computer World, 2015).Google Scholar
  35. P.F. Marty, M.B. Twidale, Museum informatics across the curriculum: Ten years of preparing LIS students for careers transcending libraries, archives, and museums. J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. 52(1), 9–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. M. McLure, A.V. Level, C.L. Cranston, B. Oehlerts, M. Culbertson, Data curation: A study of researchers practices and needs. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 14(2), 139–164 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, 2008)Google Scholar
  38. M.D. Mesarovic, Views on general systems theory, in Preface, By M.D. Mesarovic, D.P. Eckman, (Wiley, New York, 1964), pp. xiii–xxvi.Google Scholar
  39. V. Moniarou-Papaconstantinou, V. Evgenia, A. Tsatsaroni, Choice of library and information science in a rapidly changing information landscape: A systematic literature review. Libr. Manag. 36(8/9), 584–608 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. C.H. Montgomery, D.W. King, Comparing library and user related costs of print and electronic journal collections. D-Lib Mag. 8(10), 1–14 (2002)Google Scholar
  41. N.A., Digital Humanities Lab (2016). http://as.tufts.edu/csaios/digitalHumanities/. Accessed 30 Mar 2016.
  42. S. Newbutt. What impressions do young people have of librarianship as a career? Thesis, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, 2008.Google Scholar
  43. J.E. Newhagen, S. Rafaeli, Why communication researchers should study the internet: A dialogue. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 1(4) (1996)Google Scholar
  44. NPR, Before The Internet, Librarians Would ‘Answer Everything’—And Still Do (National Public Radio, 2014).Google Scholar
  45. NYU Health Sciences Library, Data sharing and management snafu in 3 short acts. YouTube Video 4, 40 (2012)Google Scholar
  46. G. Oliver, in Seventh International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science. Transcending silos, developing synergies: Libraries and archives (Information Research, London, 2010)Google Scholar
  47. J. Oliver. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Infrastructure. New York, 2015.Google Scholar
  48. Z. Papacharissi, A.M. Rubin, Predictors of internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 44(2), 175–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. J.-R. Park, Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of the art. Cat. Classif. Q. 47(3/4), 213–228 (2009)Google Scholar
  50. C. Prabha, L.S. Connaway, L. Olszewski, L.R. Jenkins, What is enough? Satisficing information needs. J. Doc. 63(1), 74–89 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. E. Ridge, M. Rogers, Guerilla Analytics: A Practical Approach to Working with Data (Morgan Kaufmann, Massachusetts, 2015)Google Scholar
  52. L. Rosenfeld, P. Morville, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (O’Reilly, Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar
  53. J. Smith. The Best and Worst Master’s Degrees for Jobs. Forbes, 2012.Google Scholar
  54. Southern Semiotic Review, Peirce’s Categories of Signs. (Lowell, Massachusetts, 2013).Google Scholar
  55. J. Teglovic, C. Jordan-Makely, L. Boyd, L. Hofschire, What is the Value of an MLIS to You? Study (Library Research Service, Denver, 2012)Google Scholar
  56. C. Tenopir, Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studis. White Paper (Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, 2003)Google Scholar
  57. L. Treaude, LIBREAS interview: Semiotics in information science. LIBREAS Libr. Ideas 19, 70–77 (2011)Google Scholar
  58. University of California, Los Angeles, Projects. UCLA Digital Humanities (N.D.), http://www.cdh.ucla.edu/projects/. Accessed 03 Feb 2016.
  59. University Products, Inc, Archival Gold DVD-R: Lasts 100 Years! (02 Feb, 2010), http://www.universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=261 Accessed 03 Apr 2016.
  60. R. Van Noorden, Open acess: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495(7442) (2013)Google Scholar
  61. E. Vassilakaki, V. Moniarou-Papaconstantinou, Identifying the prevailing images in library and information science profession: Is the landscape changing? New Libr. World 115(7/8), 355–375 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. L. von Bertalanffy. The meaning of general system theory. In General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Application, by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, 30–53. New York: George Braziller, 1968.Google Scholar
  63. C. Zins, Conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(4), 479–493 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human and Organizational Development and Change Fielding Graduate UniversitySanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations