A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada.
As Library and Information Science (LIS) educators, we teach our students about the changing and evolving role of the information professional in the twenty-first century. For many educators around the world, accreditation of LIS programs also shapes and legitimizes curriculum. This comparative stud...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Association for Library and Information Science Education
2019
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77691 |
| _version_ | 1848763895911546880 |
|---|---|
| author | White, Hollie Gibbons, Leisa |
| author_facet | White, Hollie Gibbons, Leisa |
| author_sort | White, Hollie |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | As Library and Information Science (LIS) educators, we teach our students about the changing and evolving role of the information professional in the twenty-first century. For many educators around the world, accreditation of LIS programs also shapes and legitimizes curriculum. This comparative study of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand seeks to identify similarities and differences in accreditation frameworks. This research shows that similarities and differences exist in programs, course designs, delivery methods, accreditation models, program specializations, and engagement with information science as a discipline. In conclusion we ask five critical questions about Australian LIS education and propose three areas for future research, including evaluating the purpose of accreditation. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:10:44Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-77691 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:10:44Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Association for Library and Information Science Education |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-776912020-04-20T08:57:16Z A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. White, Hollie Gibbons, Leisa As Library and Information Science (LIS) educators, we teach our students about the changing and evolving role of the information professional in the twenty-first century. For many educators around the world, accreditation of LIS programs also shapes and legitimizes curriculum. This comparative study of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand seeks to identify similarities and differences in accreditation frameworks. This research shows that similarities and differences exist in programs, course designs, delivery methods, accreditation models, program specializations, and engagement with information science as a discipline. In conclusion we ask five critical questions about Australian LIS education and propose three areas for future research, including evaluating the purpose of accreditation. 2019 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77691 10.3138/jelis.2018-0040 Association for Library and Information Science Education restricted |
| spellingShingle | White, Hollie Gibbons, Leisa A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title | A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title_full | A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title_fullStr | A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title_short | A Comparative Study of LIS Educational Frameworks in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada. |
| title_sort | comparative study of lis educational frameworks in australia, new zealand, united states and canada. |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/77691 |