ERIC EJ1073581: Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS

2015·0.77 MB·English

by  ERIC

Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of
Museum Studies with LIS
Kiersten F. Latham
Kent State University, Email: [email protected]
This paper is an attempt to support and promote education programs that cover the
entire cultural heritage landscape (libraries, archives, museums) as an integrated, larger
meta-discipline. By taking a larger picture approach, professionals who do the work of
memory institutions can be more effective in their work, in the promotion of that profes-
sion, and increase public value of all related institutions and their purposes. Through
the description of the integrated museum studies specialization at Kent State University
School of Library and Information Science, this paper aims to provide one example of
how this can work, first by describing the role of Library and Information Science (LIS)
as a meta-discipline, next by discussing the changing landscape of cultural heritage
professional education, and finally by describing in detail the new Kent State integrated
museum studies specialization. The infusion of museum studies with LIS is discussed as
a part of a larger movement toward integration of training information professionals in
the entire cultural heritage sector.
Introduction established different historical identities
as well as distinct cultures (Trant, 2009).
Why museum studies in a library and In 2012 Kim reported that in the United
information science school? This is States there were only two LIS programs
a question I am asked often from my po- that offered museum studies as an option
sition as the coordinator of the museum within their LIS programs. Both of those
studies specialization within Kent State were certificates and one (Pratt) was spe-
University’s Masters in Library and In- cific to museum libraries, which is actually
formation Science (MLIS). From my per- a form of special library, not a museum per
spective, it makes perfect sense. But after a se. Kim ended the article by claiming that
long history of dividing, splitting, shifting, the time is ripe for museum studies in LIS,
and specializing in the many fields that that many LIS programs are now inter-and
comprise what we are now calling library multidisciplinary and more adaptable than
and information science (LIS) we have ar- in the past. If there was ever a time, it is
rived at our current situation (at least, in now. Ironically, one such program was
the United States) where such a scenario newly under way as Kim’s article went to
is questioned. Here we will not recount press. In Fall 2011, Kent State University
that trajectory, it can be found in many School of Library and Information Sci-
other places (eg. Rayward, 1983, 1985; ence (SLIS) launched a new, integrated,
Richardson, 2010; Simmons, 2010; see full museum studies specialization into its
Ribeiro, 2007 for European perspective) master’s of LIS.
but suffice it to say that training profes- This paper is an attempt to support and
sionals to work in libraries, archives, and promote education programs that cover
museums (LAMs) have distinct historical the entire cultural heritage landscape (li-
traditions that do not often overlap. The braries, archives, museums) as an inte-
meanings and methods of access in these grated, larger meta-discipline. By taking
kinds of institutions have been built upon a larger picture approach, professionals
traditions developed over time and have who do the work of memory institutions
J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 56, No. 2—(Spring) April 2015
ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2015 Association for Library and Information Science Education 130
doi:10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/2/4
Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS 131
can be more effective in their work, in the professionals that do this work in these
promotion of that profession, and increase institutions will be referred to as informa-
public value of all related institutions and tion professionals, unless otherwise indi-
their purposes. Through the description of cating their role in a specific institution
the integrated museum studies MLIS spe- type.
cialization at Kent State, this paper aims
to provide one example of how this can LIS Landscape as a Meta-Discipline
work first by describing the role of LIS as
a meta-discipline, next by discussing the A meta-discipline, as defined by Mar-
changing landscape of cultural heritage in- cia Bates (2012) is a field that cuts across
stitution education, and finally by describ- the entire spectrum of the traditional disci-
ing in detail the new Kent State museum plines (arts, humanities, social and behav-
studies specialization within its MLIS. ioral sciences, natural sciences and math),
The infusion of museum studies into LIS dealing with every subject matter by or-
is discussed as a part of a larger movement ganizing itself around a particular social
toward integration of training profession- purpose or interest—a lens. A meta-field
als in the entire cultural heritage sector. looks through that lens in order to address
practical and professional concerns as well
A Word about Terminology as more theoretical ones. Three examples
of these meta-fields, according to Bates
In order to avoid the tension that seems (2012), are communication/journalism,
to come with defining terms such as disci- education, and the information disciplines
pline and field, here we will use instead the (which include Library Science, Archival
words, landscape, area, and sector to dis- Science, Information Science, Knowledge
cuss the broader, more inclusive grouping Management, Museum Studies and more).
that involves the training and education of Each of these meta-disciplines can use, ap-
museum, library and archives profession- ply, and study any of the traditional disci-
als. Even these choices are tricky. How do plines. The information disciplines have in
we refer to the whole of libraries, archives common that they all concern themselves
and museums, what they do, who works in with “collection, organization, retrieval
them, and the overall purpose they serve in and presentation of information in various
society? Trant (2009) refers to the group of contexts and on various subject matters”
institutions that share the sector as memo- (Bates, 2012, p. 3). According to Bates,
ry institutions. Grenersen (2012) has used all information disciplines are becoming
the term document institution to describe more applicable to a broader range of in-
a center that holds all kinds of documents formation solutions as people begin to un-
for a culture, where those documents and derstand them in this light.
document complexes are preserved, used, In arguing her point that the informa-
organized, and interpreted. Another way tion disciplines are together a meta-disci-
they are characterized is as cultural heri- pline, Bates says that what unites all of the
tage institutions, used throughout the re- information professions (there are many,
cent literature of LIS. In this paper, the see the Encyclopedia of Library and Infor-
LAMs (i.e. Libraries, Archives, Museums mation Sciences by Bates & Maack, 2010
as a group) and the broader culture under for the diversity) is “that they manage the
which they fall will be referred to using record for our culture for all its uses, from
these descriptors. This entire sector is seen entertainment and education to preserva-
as part of the broader landscape of Library tion for future generations” (Bates, 2012,
and Information Science, the study of peo- p. 9).
ple and their relationships with informa- While Bates and others have been dis-
tion, making LIS a meta-discipline. The cussing the meta-disciplines, there has
132 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
been a movement dubbed the ‘conver- each other, sharing information, concepts,
gence of the LAMs,’ an acronym for li- and practices. This is not only efficient,
braries, archives, and museums (in some but is more logical and sensible. In fact,
areas, GLAM, adding in galleries). Tradi- there has been movement in this direc-
tionally, libraries, archives, and museums tion. One of LIS’s premier sources about
have divided their content into “piecemeal the landscape, the vast Encyclopedia of
offerings” based on the nature and fo- Library and Information Sciences (Bates
cus of their collections (Zorich, Waibel, & Maack, 2010) now includes many chap-
& Erway, 2008, p. 8). In recent years, ters on museum studies and museum-relat-
however, the desire to bring these differ- ed content. It will no doubt take time to
ent, yet interrelated services together has integrate several areas of study that have
gained prominence. At its core, the goal of traditionally been taught as distinct enti-
convergence is to create a system that will ties, but the period of lumping appears to
allow access to information across all col- have begun.
lections, in either a unified digital system
or, in some cases, a singular physical loca- Shared Foundational Knowledge
tion. This spirit of collaboration is driven
by the desire to create a fuller, more com- In 2008, a workshop and report sup-
prehensive experience for users of these ported by the Institute of Museum and Li-
institutions. brary Services (an independent U.S. fed-
eral funding and support agency) was set
Lumping and Splitting up to explore the current and potential fu-
ture relationships among cultural heritage
Long ago, my career path involved information professionals (aka, CHIPs)
studying human evolution. One of the in, archives, museums, and libraries (Cul-
ways human paleontologists (sometimes tural Heritage Information Professionals,
jokingly) referred to their foundational 2008). In addition they addressed the role
outlook on the evolutionary process was of educational training institutions in pre-
as “lumpers” or “splitters.” Splitters are paring professionals that will be needed in
those who see the fossil record as a series these types of organizations. The work-
of new species and when new discoveries shop’s goals were “to explore the ability
are found, often consider those new finds of educational institutions to support the
as new forms of hominids (human ances- information needs of cultural heritage or-
tors). Lumpers, on the other hand, see di- ganizations and to encourage a closer re-
versity in a smaller number of categories. lationship between education, continuing
A lumper would be more likely to place professional development, and practice in
a new find in an already existing species LIS, museum studies, and archival studies
but say that the range of diversity in this programs,” (Cultural Heritage Informa-
species is great. I am a lumper. I tell this tion Professionals, 2008 p. 1). As an ex-
analogy because it is how I see museum ample of one kind of heritage professional
studies as a part of LIS. Time has dealt us that intentionally cuts across all fields, the
a series of splitting moments (in both LIS CHIP is defined as one who: “uses or man-
and museum studies). Our larger purpos- ages information technology to organize
es—which we share across many kinds of and provide access to information resourc-
institutions—were seen as so different that es for all users of cultural heritage organi-
they should be considered and studied sep- zations, including libraries, museums, and
arately. What I am positing here is a period archives,” (Cultural Heritage Information
of lumping. By expanding our view of LIS Professionals, 2008, p.1).
as one large species that shares much di- While the intent and spirit of this project
versity, we begin to open up networks to is admirable, timely and smart, I would ar-
Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS 133
gue that even this does not go far enough. indeed some larger principles that all can
Its focus on technology as the tool that agree on and together stand upon these
cuts across the LAMs carves up the field philosophies. The multitude of disparate
in an unnatural way. Technology is not the cultural heritage sectors have been trying
only thread that can be found across the for years to come together around, for ex-
LAMs; there is an entire base—philoso- ample, ethical principles. But these ethical
phy, knowledge, and skill set—that can be guidelines, while good, still tend to stay
shared across these boundaries that runs in their corners, with each entity working
deeper than the technological aspect (Il- in seeming isolation. In reality, there are
jon, 1999; Kim, 2012). These foundational many larger issues that could be tackled
elements permeate the structural and func- together—across the LAM spectrum—and
tional activities of all heritage institutions with this integration, comes power. Trant
(see Iljon, 1999 pp. 1–2 for a list). LAMs (2009) succinctly summarizes the point:
in particular share common denominators;
While the traditions and historical areas of
to name a few: economic and sustain-
expertise in archives, libraries, and muse-
ability issues, best practices, technologi-
ums may differ, the new challenges facing
cal standards, intellectual property rights,
all collecting cultural institutions are best
preservation (physical and digital), infor-
addressed in concert, in an inter-disciplin-
mation literacy, evaluating services, user
ary forum that explores multiple solutions
experience, and frameworks and policies
and takes advantage of many skills. (p.377)
for selection and keeping of documents
(Iljon, 1999; Trant, 2009). Trant (2009) goes on to note that inter-
The entire network of LIS would ben- institutional, inter-disciplinary research
efit from identifying itself as a meta-dis- and practice requires more than a few
cipline that shares specific and unique shared courses across program streams,
features across all divisions and sub-divi- but rather an integrated approach built on
sions. This would entail a shift—an inten- a rigorous reexamination of traditional ap-
tionality—about the identity of the field. proaches, along with newer understandings
Rather than and “us and them” approach, of how people interact with information.
the various fields could be set up to work
for and with each other rather than against A Real Life Example
(or ignorant of) each other. Instead of de-
veloping (broad) standards, policies, eth- In 2011, Kent State University in the
ics, and practices in disparate ways (and in United States. created a new specializa-
a vacuum that no longer exists), the three tion in museum studies within the master’s
institutional entities that fall under the degree program of library and informa-
meta-discipline of LIS, can begin to work tion science (MLIS). While this is not en-
together to create a more powerful, vis- tirely unique in other parts of the world,
ible, and valuable sector. Integrating these it is a different tactic for training museum
foundational elements across professional professionals than most programs in the
training in the sub-fields is one step in this U.S. (Kim, 2012). The intent of creat-
vast effort (Trant, 2009). ing this specialization was to embed and
A philosophy and identity across the integrate the thinking and training across
meta-discipline would also help everyone information institutions such as libraries,
to come together to make powerful ethi- museums, and archives. The courses filled
cal agreements regarding collection, or- fast and continue to stay full, at the time
ganization, retrieval and presentation of of this writing, three years later—and our
information. While each division within graduates are now starting to enter the job
the meta-discipline will have its unique market. Students applying to the program
needs, statements and issues, there are understand the arrangement—their frame-
134 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
work is LIS but their specific knowledge using systems theory and thinking as a
and skills are museum-focused. They are base (Latham & Simmons, 2014). To our
taught within a broader context, one that students, we teach that the museum can
understands that LIS is about the interac- be likened to an ecosystem. An ecosys-
tion of people and information and this tem is a complex set of relationships be-
foundation cuts across all types of infor- tween a community of organisms and the
mation institutions and information work. environment in which they live. Similar to
This understanding, however, has not the way that each organism is composed
been as easy to elicit from many who do of systems, functioning in a way that al-
the training—academics and instructors lows it to survive as part of the ecosystem,
in other museum studies programs and a museum also exists as a functioning en-
in some LIS programs across the country tity within a larger system (which includes
are often confused by the conflation of the the whole cultural heritage landscape, as
two areas together into one program. This well as contemporary political and social
program was developed through a broader systems around it). Understanding the mu-
lens, a lens that sees the cultural heritage seum as one system within an ecosystem
sector (that which includes LAM) as part helps students understand how each part
of a meta-discipline (see Figure 1). relates to each other and, more important-
ly, how the parts affect each other. Muse-
A Holistic View ums are not isolated, floating entities; they
are embedded in a web of other memory
In the Kent State museum studies MLIS institutions as well as within a dynamic
specialization, we take a holistic approach external world beyond.
Figure 1. A visual depiction of the museum studies specialization within Kent State’s MLIS.
Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS 135
A set of core values were first devel- braries, archives and other information
oped to guide the museum studies suite institutions—a part of a wider spectrum
of courses. They can be found in Table 1. that situates the work of information
Using this set of core values, including the professionals as that of dealing with ex-
holistic approach, courses were not devel- ternal memory in the form of “messages
oped using the traditional practice-oriented or performances stored in durable media
approach that is often found in many U.S. other than the memories of living persons”
museum studies programs (which often (White, 1992, p.250) that are created, or-
includes courses organized by function, ganized and used.
such as administration, exhibition work, Following Bates (1999), the underly-
collections management, education, etc.). ing assumption of this specialization is
Instead, courses were built based on the that the disciplinary (domain) content is
notion of museums as person-document not the crux of the matter, but rather that a
centered systems, ecologies of subsystems strong expertise in information, and all we
within larger systems (i.e. person/docu- can do with it, is what counts. With this in
ment interaction >> the museum itself >> mind, we have opened the courses to other
nonprofit system >> society) and the way departments’ students who are interested
in which they communicate, function and in museum work. This has made for a
interact with varying audiences. very interesting mix of perspectives in our
The resulting suite of courses (see Table courses because not only do we have stu-
2), if taken as a whole, provides the stu- dents with more typical LIS backgrounds
dent with a well-rounded understanding of represented such as English and History,
the whole museum, how it functions, what but now students with backgrounds in art,
it maintains, what it means in society, who art history, geology, visual communica-
its users are (and their needs), and what tion design, liberal studies, anthropology,
tensions may exist on multiple levels. It and others are joining the courses.
allows students a chance to explore mu- All MLIS students taking museum
seums in the larger information context. studies courses are situated and integrated
The courses were also designed to allow within the larger framework of LIS. Ev-
for other customizations, beyond a more ery student in our masters program must
institutional focus, to occur. For example, take the core courses, which help them to
if a student was not necessarily focused understand the entire life cycle of infor-
on museums as a whole but rather on col- mation as well as the foundations of LIS.
lections—how to manage, preserve, orga- Core courses include introduction to LIS,
nize, and interpret them—they could take access to information, organization of in-
other collections-related courses in our formation, management of information
program such as Selection and Acquisi- institutions, and information technology.
tion of Library Materials, Metadata Imple- Admittedly, it is taking some time for our
mentations and Architectures, Information school to adapt to the broad inclusion of so
Storage and Retrieval Systems, Digital many kinds of students with so many in-
Image Processing and Collection Manage- terests, but we, as a faculty, continue each
ment, or Foundations and Administration year to work towards integrating other
of Archives. In this trajectory, they could perspectives into all courses.
include the course Museum Collections
in the mix, giving the student a broader An Integrated Approach
perspective of collections and how they
are handled across the whole spectrum of “These disciplinary contextualisations have
memory institutions. to be integrated, so that each subject forms
The courses were built with the view a coherent whole,” (Hider, Kennan, Hay,
that museum studies is—along with li- McCausland, & Qayyum, 2011, p. 212).
136 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Table 1. Kent State Museum Studies Courses Core Values.
MUSEUM STUDIES—Core Values
To aid in structuring the museum studies specialization and to ensure that the courses fit into the
emerging educational environment within SLIS, a set of core values have been developed. These
courses recognize:
(1) Museums • Museums as places that create, organize, use, disseminate, and engage people
as Knowledge with information;
Centers • That museum objects play a significant role in museums and society, as meaning-
ful physical documents;
• That there are points of intersection between museums which do these things, and
libraries and archives which function as informational, educational, and cultural
institutions; and
• The extent to which digital information technology is further blurring the bound-
aries between libraries, archives, and museums.
(2) Holistic • Within these courses, the museum (as an information system) is the center of study,
Approach not content of the museum (e.g. art, history, science) in contrast to other programs
that take the subject content of museums as the focus for student training;
• Courses view the study of museums as the core starting point, allowing content to
filter in from previous degree work, other electives, or research;
• Because they are embedded in a library and information science structure, these
courses allow students to cut across spectrum of traditional academic disciplines;
• This approach strengthens the skills of the future museum professional by giving
them a broader perspective, larger skill set, and adaptability.
(3) Collaboration • Working with other people, departments, and institutions is considered a basic
& Connectivity theme across these courses;
• With collaborative ventures come more connectivity, and the creation of multiple
networks in-between;
• Embedding collaborative and connective attitudes as a foundational value instills
these values in our students, helping them to take these principles into the field
with them.
(4) Balance • Both theory and practice are instrumental in understanding the world of museums;
(Theory and • In all courses, an effort will be made to not only balance theory and practice but
Practice) to help them speak to each other;
• Instructors will demonstrate and instill in students the compatible and neces-
sary relationship between conceptual thinking (theory) and pragmatic endeavors
(practice);
• Students will understand the value of balancing these two traditionally conflicting
epistemologies and carry this value into their future careers;
• As part of this value, it is important to encourage the ethic of lifelong learning and
critical thinking skills in students thereby creating a generation of information pro-
fessionals who infuse the balance of theory and practice into their work environ-
ment after their formal training is complete.
(5) Real World • In all possible scenarios students will be expected to apply their classroom learn-
Experience ing to real situations, whether lab-facilitated or in a museum;
• Coursework will involve, whenever possible, application of principles in real
scenarios or in a physical museum environment;
• Volunteer work in museums is encouraged beyond these courses because work in
museums expands the learning process, builds resume material, and increases the
confidence levels of students.
Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS 137
Table 2. Suite of Museum Studies Courses in MLIS Specialization.
Museum Studies
Course Title Course Description Credits
Foundations of This course is intended for those interested in learning more about 3
Museum Studies* museums or specializing in museum studies; it could be described as a
museum literacy course centered on the museum as the area of study. The
goal of this course is to introduce students to various aspects of (all types
of) museums as dynamic networked systems positioned around objects,
people and ideas. The course is organized into answering the ques-
tions: When, what, how, how and why of museums and their study. This
includes: History and types of museums, the roles of objects and ideas,
structure, function, museum workers and users, and the purpose and
future of museums.
The Museum Museums are by their very nature complex and dynamic systems com- 3
System posed of people, objects and activities. Comprised of an “outer” subsys-
tem and an “inner” subsystem, museums as a whole function as an or-
ganic body, with all of its parts working together to function successfully.
This system exists within a larger landscape, one filled increasingly with
new types of interactions, unlimited access, and constant feedback. This
course explores this holistic system from both practical and conceptual
viewpoints, examining the role of administration throughout the system
as well as considering current issues such as sustainability, advocacy and
relationships with community and users add to an overall understanding
of the museum system.
Museum Museums communicate to the public in a multitude of ways: interpreta- 3
Communication tion, exhibition, publication, educational programming and using a web
presence. This course introduces important concepts, theories, applica-
tions, processes and technology used in museum interpretation and com-
munication. Students are provided with a balance of practical techniques
with thoughtful conceptual exploration.
Museum This course introduces students to the organization, care and meaning
Collections of objects held in museum collections. Through both theoretical and
practical concepts, basic collection management and registration skills
are introduced. In conjunction, students explore the meanings made of
museum objects.
Museum Users Families, individuals and students visit museums and community institu- 3
tions for a variety of purposes including leisure, education and curiosity.
Introduction to the research and theory on museum user experience.
Inquiry involves examining notions of learning, engagement, and transfor-
mative experiences of users, characteristics of users and the social dynam-
ics of the museum experience. In addition, reviews several programmatic
techniques and methods used in museums to increase engagement and
learning for users.
Museum Origins While the collecting of objects can be found as far back as ancient times 3 (on site in
in various parts of the world, the birth of the modern museum finds its Florence,
roots in Europe, especially in Italy. In the context of today’s world, stu- Italy)
dents will “go back in time” to understand the origins of western museums
and the meaning of publicly shared collections through a series of com-
peting dualisms in knowledge creation and organization. Students will
explore the history of the modern museum and spend two weeks visiting
actual sites and collections that played a role in this history. Exploring the
past in this way is geared specifically to help today’s museum workers
gain a better understanding of their own role and purpose in their com-
munity, society and nation.
*Prerequisite for all other museum studies courses except Museum Origins.
138 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
In 2009, Trant called for an integrat- Perhaps one further step beyond the
ed approach to the educating of cultural Kent State approach of wholly integrat-
heritage professionals, reminding us that ing museum studies with LIS would be to
integration does not mean dissolving the eliminate, or reduce, institutional “walls”
particulars that make each unique: (as in libraries, archives, and museums as
separate institutions) in the conceptual as-
An integrated approach to training profes-
pects of teaching new information profes-
sionals to work in cultural heritage institu-
sionals across the entire program. While
tions needs to build on an understanding
institutions are indeed a part of the LIS
of and respect for the differences between
landscape, they are deeply bound in their
libraries, archives, and museums. Recog-
own histories and cultures. By dissolving
nizing the differences in the various kinds
those boundaries, it may be easier to teach
of work that occurs across the LAMs is
more holistically about the relationships
important (p.370).
between people and information. The an-
The ability to pay attention to the par- chor for a truly integrated LIS curriculum
ticulars while also understanding the might simply be stated as the study of the
whole is part of the system approach we interaction between people and informa-
use in teaching the museum studies spe- tion in different contexts. At Kent State
cialization at Kent State. The LAM sec- SLIS we are working towards this in our
tor in the current scenario is the whole; own core curriculum review and strategic
we can no longer effectively function in planning process.
compartmentalized categories and silo’ed In other parts of the world, we find LIS
structures (see Figure 2). schools are acknowledging this shift and
Figure 2. LAMs in context.
Lumping, Splitting and the Integration of Museum Studies with LIS 139
restructuring programs. For example, the not only slowing progress in each field’s
School of Information Studies at Charles advancements, but in keeping the poten-
Sturt University (CSU) in Australia rec- tial of valuable knowledge-sharing at bay.
ognized that the converging professional Bates’ concept of a meta-discipline serves
landscape was not matching their more as an excellent framework to use in un-
traditional curriculum (Hider et al., 2011). derstanding, teaching, and building cur-
They undertook a lengthy and complex riculum around the relationships between
process of redesigning their curriculum LAMs and other related disciplines. Mu-
to reflect current shifts in practice. Their seum studies integrates well with the LIS
new curriculum, designed so that students purview and vice versa. This integrated
could examine the complexities of knowl- approach will ultimately serve to achieve
edge across many organizational contexts, efficiency and excellence in the public
is centered on an information-people-tech- memory sector as a whole. The literature
nology nexus in generic fashion, providing reveals that an idea such as this is not new
a foundation for a wide range of special- (eg. Rayward, 1996; Iljon, 1999; Trant,
izations. In determining core subjects, the 2009; Hider et al., 2011). But old habits
key question was: What do all information die hard, and there appear to be only a
professionals need to know? CSU viewed small number of instances (at least in the
information studies as more than the sum U.S.) of putting these ideas into concrete
of its parts, but also as the relationships form (Kim, 2012). The new museum stud-
between these parts. In this redesign, CSU ies program at Kent State University is
applied the theory of convergence (Hed- still in its infancy, but it serves as a model
strom & King, 2003; Zorich et. al, 2008; that Kim was right: LIS and museum stud-
Waibel & Erway, 2009; Given & McTav- ies are ready for each other.
ish, 2010) to their entire curriculum. They A harmonization of curricula across the
believed that information professions entire cultural heritage information sector
have common foundational elements and will benefit emerging professionals, us-
their graduates will have a broad range of ers, and scholarly communities alike. In
knowledge and skills that can benefit both the five years since Trant (2009) made her
library and non-library employers. case for such a move, we have taken some
steps in the right direction, but only baby
Conclusion steps. As Trant (2009) pointed out:
Museum, archive, and library staff need
“. . . I believe that if our cultural and
new professional and research skills that,
memory institutions are to remain relevant
while building on the historic practices
in the information society and maintain the
of their disciplines, encourage openness,
intrinsic Values (with a capital V) which
collaboration, and ongoing learning and
they represent, they have little other choice
evaluation. Addressing these challenges
but to work together. Battles of influence
together will strengthen the sector as a
will not be productive because none can
whole, reinforcing the underlying cultural
win except the outsiders whose stakes are
significance of museums, archives, and
elsewhere!” (Iljon, 1999, p. 3).
libraries, and enabling a vibrant contribu-
tion to our evolving networked information
Iljon’s point is direct, honest and rings
society (p. 384).
true. From the training of professionals to
classification of cultural heritage institu- The time is now for an integrated ap-
tions, LAMs have more in common than proach to the education of future informa-
not; their grand purposes are similar, the tion professionals that still respects diver-
details are what differ. The current prac- sity. It will not be easy, but challenges can
tice of compartmentalizing is inefficient, yield great rewards.