Page 169 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 43

169
Extended English abstracts of articles published in the Chinese edition of Journal of Library Science in China 2017 Vol.43 169

No. 3

The iSchool myth: A reflection on iSchool movement’s conception of LIS,
iField and their relationship

YU Liangzhi〇 & LIANG Sichen
〇a*
Against the backdrop of the rapid and global advancement of iSchool movement, and based on
an extensive reading of iSchool related literature, this paper reflects on the conceptualizations of
LIS (Library and Information Science), iField and their relationships by iSchool proponents from
the perspectives of disciplinary history, rationality and legitimacy. This exercise is conducted to
inform future development of the iSchool movement in general and the participation of Chinese
LIS sector in particular. The study shows that, essentially aimed at LIS education reformation,
the iSchool movement has instigated nevertheless a disciplinary restructuring as well, with LIS
being the primary target to transform and iField the target to achieve. To legitimize both iSchool
movement and iField, LIS is conceptualized as an institution-based discipline serving primarily
the library sector; by contrast, iField is conceptualized as an interdisciplinary field focusing on the
interactions between people, information and technology. Little is explicitly mentioned about the
relationship between iField and LIS, however, the objective of iSchools to rebuild their education
programs based on a new discipline mandates implicitly the substitution of iField for LIS, which in
turn, mandates the decomposition of LIS so that iField can take everything related to information
(the I content of the previous LIS)into its core and shove everything related to the static library
(the L content as perceived by iSchool proponents)to the periphery. From what the iSchool
movement has unfolded so far, this appears indeed the fate awaiting LIS. Seen from the perspective
of disciplinary history, the above conceptions have not only distorted LIS as a discipline, but
also disconnected iField from LIS legacies that might help to define it. Having jettisoned these
legacies, iSchools resort to three discrete elements-people, information and technologies to define
iField. However, this way of defining iField has made it almost impossible to logically delineate
its boundary, which exposes the field to a problem of rationality if not a problem of legitimacy.
This paper warned the LIS-turned iSchools that the historical trajectory of sciences indicates that
we may be witnessing a new wave of disciplinary specializations surrounding information and
information technologies, and that identifying themselves with a vague, all-encompassing and
logically flawed discipline may risk losing the opportunity to demonstrate their uniqueness and
unsubstitutability in comparison with other information related communities. This paper suggests
that iSchools revisit the crisis of LIS education while distinguishing between LIS as a discipline
* Correspondence should be addressed to YU Liangzhi, Email: lzhyu@nankai.edu.cn, ORCID: 0000-0003-0905-397X