While all of these issues are certainly legitimate, perhaps the greatest challenges of all are related not to what we offer in readers’ advisory courses, but whether or not education for readers’ advisory is a part of the MLIS curriculum at all.
Readers’ Advisory Courses in MLIS Programs
When Watson and CODES solicited information and syllabi related to readers’ advisory courses from the fifty-six ALA-accredited MLIS programs, only fourteen schools identified such offerings.21Shearer and Burgin received thirty-four responses to a 1999 survey of readers’ advisory coverage in ALA-accredited programs in the United States and found that the majority of respondents gave attention to readers’ advisory principles and techniques in elective course, but few included them in core courses that introduced students to the theoretical foundations to the field.22
My sense that readers’ advisory offerings have grown in number is reinforced by a survey of the MLIS course descriptions found on the Web sites of the accredited programs (excluding Montreal and Puerto Rico). My analysis suggested that twenty-eight of the schools currently offer relevant courses (one school is included twice in the following breakdown). Six schools offered courses with the term “readers’ advisory” in the title, and another eight schools had courses on “reading” or “reading interests.” Fifteen of sixteen “adult services” courses included descriptions that explicitly or implicitly suggested attention to readers’ advisory services. The difference in numbers may be due to the different methodologies or an actual increase in related course offerings. Of those courses for which format could be determined, five were offered through distance education formats. All of the courses that listed dates have been offered within the past year or will be offered in the spring 2008 semester.
Nevertheless, it appears that about half of the MLIS programs offer courses that teach students about readers’ advisory. While this is certainly a marked increase from the 25% or so reported in 1999, it is still a figure that gives rise to the theme that traditionally appears in discussions of readers’ advisory: why is readers’ advisory not more widely taught in schools of library and information science?
Instructors of RA Courses
Full-time faculty members (and one emerita) were listed as instructors of record for 9 of the courses, as were 6 adjuncts and one visiting professor. No instructor was listed for 12 of the courses. An analysis of LIS faculty positions advertised from July 2006 through October 2007 on JESSE, a discussion list for library and information science educators, found that of 35 listings, expertise was sought to fill positions in the following areas: youth services (6 positions), digital libraries (6), technology (5), technical services (4), school library media centers (3), academic libraries (2), archives (2), health information (2), reference (2), information architecture (2), research methods (1), information science (1), information security (1), and readers’ advisory (1). The opening for readers’ advisory was the only advertisement for a part-time instructor to teach the course, which is being offered online.
Students who are engaged and excited by the theories and concepts to which they are introduced in readers’ advisory or adult services classes and who decide to pursue doctorates may find that they are hard-pressed to find a doctoral program in a school of library and information science that meshes well with their intended area of study and research. At a time when we are desperately recruiting the next generation of library and information science educators, we are often driving students from our doctoral programs in library and information studies to cognate disciplines, such as adult education, reading, literary criticism, communication, popular culture, or media studies, where they can pursue their interests. Some of these leave with every intention of returning to teach in a school of library and information science; some never do.
When preparing for this article, I took advantage of opportunities to meet with others whom I know to be committed to readers’ advisory service. I explained that I was going to write a piece on issues and challenges. I was surprised when the first issue that arose was the use of adjunct faculty to teach readers’ advisory courses in a number of schools. I was taken aback because the comments came from outstanding librarians who actually teach these courses. When I asked why they thought this was a problem, it became clear that they were not concerned about the quality of the courses, but felt that use of an adjunct signaled that the course was not considered integral to the curriculum, that assignment to an adjunct, no matter how qualified, implied a lower value for that course, and that without an advocate on the full-time faculty, the courses might disappear at a whim. Use of adjuncts to teach specialized courses is a growing practice in LIS education, and the Standards for Accreditation approve of this practice. Standard III Faculty states: “Particularly in the teaching of specialties that are not represented in the expertise of the full-time faculty, part-time faculty enrich the quality and diversity of a program.” On the other hand, Standard III also stipulates that “Full-time faculty members are qualified for appointment to the graduate faculty within the parent institution and are sufficient in number and in diversity of specialties to carry out the major share of the teaching, research, and service activities required for a program, wherever and however delivered.”23 Many educators are concerned that adjuncts are not fully integrated into the academic endeavor and are not given sufficient support and guidance. The Association for Library and Information Science Education has observed this trend and in the past year has undertaken several initiatives to recognize the contributions and needs of librarians who teach in MLIS programs.
A theme that traditionally appears in discussions of readers’ advisory is the apparent lack of value attached to it in MLIS education. Among reasons advanced for the apparent dearth of readers’ advisory–related courses are the ascendance of information as commodity; a fascination with technology as subject, rather than tool; failure to appreciate the interdisciplinary grounding and rigorous research that underpins reading; the value of story; association with public and school libraries; and appearance of fun.24 These discussions appear elsewhere. I will suggest a few others.
Perceptions of Training and Education
Readers’ advisory has been given impetus from the field. Practicing librarians are among the strongest advocates for excellence in service and are responsible for creating many of the tools and resources that are used to support readers’ advisory training. This may be one of the reasons that more schools do not offer readers’ advisory or do not consider it the intellectual equivalent of other courses. We have somehow come to regard readers’ advisory as a branch of reference that can easily be grafted to the basics of reference, rather than an area of expertise and investigation in its own right.