Perspectives on LIS educational programs in knowledge management

The following statements emerging from the survey also underline the need for KM education in LIS programs.

a) KM should be a major priority for all providers of LIS education.

In respect of this statement 62.5% of respondents perceived KM education to be a major concern for LIS education providers. A relatively high percentage of respondents was also uncertain about this statement (21.2%) or did not agree with it (16.4%). This level of uncertainty or disagreement might be attributed to the fact that people still do not appreciate the strength of the argument for the involvement of LIS schools in KM education, or that they may recognize it, but not as a major element. As one respondent stated “I think all LIS programmes need something about KM, but the extent to which they need to cover it will depend on the nature of the programme”(QP).

b) To be effective knowledge workers, LIS professionals need to gain new skills.

As shown in Table 6.2 (P.156), a large majority of participants (93.3%) agreed that LIS professionals need to acquire new skills, if they want to engage effectively in KM. This perspective has been encountered in other recent research (Sarrafzadeh , Martin & Hazeri 2006). Within the literature, although there is endorsement of the value of traditional information skills for KM practice, there is also recognition that KM requires an expansion of skills among LIS professionals if they seek to play an effective role in this domain (for an example of such acknowledgment see Rehman and Chaudhry, 2005).

On the other hand, a small group of respondents (4.8%) disagreed with the perceived need to acquire new skills. Typical of these opponents, was a respondent who added the additional comment that: “Basically LIS professionals already have the skills and they just need re-naming to fit in with the current KM fad” (QP).

c) Knowledge-related competencies must be integrated into LIS curricula.

This statement was intended to shed light on the question of whether the major input to teaching KM should come from LIS programs or from other sources. It emerged that 95.2% (an overwhelming majority) of respondents, perceived the need to include the teaching of knowledge related competencies in the curricula. It is worth-noting that only 1.9% of respondents disagreed with this statement, with no respondent selected the ‘strongly disagree’ category of this question.

d) LIS curricula need to address the cultivation of business competencies.

Since KM is very much business-driven, the literature points to the need for LIS professionals to acquire greater understanding of business, and of relevant economic concepts (Abell, Angela & Wingar 2005; Corrall 1998; Koenig, Michael ED 1999; Lai 2005). Some 89.4% of participants agreed that LIS curricula should address the need to cultivate business competencies in their students.

e) LIS programs should help prepare graduates to play a wider organisational role.

A huge number of respondents (97.1%), agreed that LIS programs should promote organisational understanding among their graduates, leading to the conduct of wider organisational roles. The high level of agreement with this statement is possibly an indication of the interest within the LIS community in performing higher level organisational roles than those associated with the confines of traditional work settings. The importance of gaining a deeper understanding of organisational issues for knowledge professionals is reiterated throughout the LIS literature. For instance Southon and Todd (2001, P.16) maintain that: “It is clear that the phenomenon [of KM] implies a broader and more organisationally directed thinking on the part of information professionals if they are to engage successfully in this area” (See also (Krivonos, Scheffel & Minassians 2005).

f) LIS education needs to make a clear distinction between knowledge management and information management.

It emerged that 63.5% of the survey participants understood the essential difference between KM and IM, and considered LIS education as a basis for clarifying the distinction between the two. While the continued confusion between knowledge management and information management within the profession has been reported elsewhere (See for example Sarrafzadeh et al.(2006), it is nonetheless surprising that the significance of this distinction is not reflected within the education system for LIS. Hence, Hawamdeh (2003) points to the practice of relabelling existing information management programs, rather than the development of appropriate KM courses in the LIS sector. He argues that to develop new and relevant KM courses, it is necessary to understand the overlaps and distinguish the differences in the theories relating to information and knowledge. As has been observed by Todd and Southon (2001), there is a view reflected in the published literature that knowledge management is not the same as information management. The implication of such distinctions as they see it, is that formal education and training programs for knowledge management need to be responsive to overlaps and differences.

g) LIS educational programs need to focus on the management of internal as well as external knowledge.

A high majority of respondents to the survey (91.4%), drew a distinction between the management of internal and external knowledge within LIS education. Put differently, only 1.9% of participants did not see the need for such a distinction. This majority view indicates some movement away from the position reported elsewhere (Loughridge, Brendan 1999) whereby researchers were hesitant about involvement in the management of internal information, partly because in their professional education and previous experience they had concentrated on external sources of information, and partly because involvement in the management of internal information was perceived to offer little of value in terms of their own career development.

h) LIS programs need to focus on the management of both explicit and tacit knowledge.

The practice of knowledge management posits a broader view of knowledge, incorporating not only internal and external information, but also explicit and implicit knowledge. Hence, “A major feature of knowledge management theories is the stress on the necessity of the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge” (McManus & Loughridge 2002, P.5). Therefore in this research, respondents were asked to comment on the question of whether LIS curricula need to address the management of both explicit and tacit knowledge. As can be seen from Table 6.2 (P.156), a high majority of respondents (87.5%) agreed with the statement. Interestingly, the level of disagreement with this statement was again low (7.7%), with no respondent choosing the option of ‘strongly disagree’. These findings compare with similar statements within the professional literature such as that which proclaims, “Library education would have to incorporate both tacit and explicit knowledge management” (Varaprasad 2006, P.1).

Accordingly, the findings of this part of the study indicate a shift of recognition within the profession towards the area of tacit knowledge, as has been noted:

“Explicit information – the expert area of the information professional – is clearly essential to the knowledge infrastructure, but it is only part of the picture. Knowledge is derived from expertise and ideas, and information specialists are moving into this area of tacit knowledge by catalysing the capture and sharing of important experience and expertise” (Abell, Angela & Oxbrow 2005, P.8).

i) Effective LIS programs will prepare graduates for work in KM teams; formed from various professional backgrounds.

88.2% of participants agreed that LIS programs need to prepare graduates for work in KM teams formed from various professional backgrounds. Only 2.9% of respondents disagreed with this statement. Interestingly, none of these respondents claimed to ‘strongly disagree’. This suggests that LIS professionals perceive knowledge management as characterised by team-working, and are willing to engage with other disciplines to implement KM. The LIS literature abounds with recognition of the multifaceted nature of KM, and of the importance of cooperation between different

groups in order to reach its goals. Hence, “KM… involves the coordination of a broad range of professionals and disciplines [and librarians should] develop their role in co operation with other professionals ...rather than competing in promoting their distinctive perspectives” (Todd, RJ & Southon 2001, P.322).

Table 6.2 Percentages of agreement/disagreement with statements that project parameters of LIS educational programs in respect of KM.

strongly disagree disagree don’t know agree strongly agree Overall11 (mean) a) KM should be a major priority for all

providers of LIS education.

2.9 13.5 21.2 40.4 22.1 Agree

b) To be effective knowledge workers, LIS professionals need to gain new skills.

1.0 3.8 1.9 32.7 60.6 Strongly Agree c) Knowledge-related competencies

must be integrated into LIS curricula.

- 1.9 2.9 48.1 47.1 Agree

d) LIS curricula need to address the cultivation of business competencies.

1.9 1.0 7.7 57.7 31.7 Agree

e) LIS programs should help prepare graduates to play a wider organisational role.

1.0 - 1.9 42.3 54.8 Strongly Agree

f) LIS education needs to make a clear distinction between KM and IM

1.9 16.3 18.3 38.5 25.0 Agree

g) LIS educational programs need to focus on the management of internal as well as external knowledge

- 1.9 6.7 60.6 30.8 Agree

11

The following scoring has been designed for the purpose of marking the overall perceptions of respondents in section 6.5.2: 1 to 1.44= Strongly disagree 1.45 to 2.44= Disagree 2.45 to 3.44= Don’t know 3.45 to 4.44= Agree 4.45 to 5= Strongly agree

strongly disagree disagree don’t know agree strongly agree Overall11 (mean) h) LIS programs need to focus on the

management of both explicit and tacit knowledge.

- 7.7 4.8 57.7 29.8 Agree

i) Effective LIS programs will prepare graduates for work in KM teams; formed from various professional backgrounds.

- 2.9 8.8 44.1 44.1 Agree

Further support for the need for KM courses in the LIS curriculum emerged during interviews:

6.5.3 The need for KM in the new economy

The significance of KM education for LIS professionals in the context of an economy in which knowledge would be the major form of organisational capital, was understood by a number of interviewees. Hence:

“There is a need to make sense of the proliferation of data and information. And I think that’s the skill set that KM has, that very few other disciplines get. They know that the people making decisions don’t want the raw data. They want to synthesize knowledge of that data. And the ability to present that to the decision makers is going to be more and more important” (IP12).

And again:

“We see it as because of the way the economy is going” (IP18).

IP18 raised the issues of innovation and learning arguing that “We need to learn about how to learn for innovation”. Therefore “The circle of knowledge and innovation and sharing and creating and this whole thing about sustainability will still be important and for this KM education will still be required”.