ARTICLES Core Competencies for the Information Professions and the Evolution of Skill Setsl by Stuart A. Sutton In this article, we consider the mechanisms necessary to distill new skill sets from the profession's core competencies along three out of four dimensions that define practice for information professionals in general and librarians in particular. We explore the emerging information universe and the environmental factors shaping it in order to cast light on the emerging professional contlicts over appropriate niches in the new universe of information work. Abbott's processes of reduction and abstraction as mechanism for the expansion of redefinition of a profession's domain are examined along three practice dimensions: (1) the tool making dimension, (2) the information management (tool use) dimension, and (3) the agency (service) dimension. Introduction As the close of the 20th Century approaches, the profession of librarianship will be confronted with some of the greatest chal­ lenges it has ever faced. Not only will it be challenged to adapt to a dramatically changing infonnation universe, but it will be challenged by others outside the profession who see U1e work Uwt has traditionally been viewed solely wiU1in U1e domain of librar­ ianshipas part of U1eir own. It is far from clear Umt the profession of librarianship can confront either of U1ese challenges success­ fully. To address both of U1ese inextricably related challenges, U1is paper will be divided into t11ree parts. First, t11e emerging information universe will be discussed in order to fnune t11e context of t11e domain of future professional practice �is well as . its core competencies. Second, t11e difticult question of how librarians might transfonn t11emselves in order to participate actively in t11at universe will be explored. And finally, some broad outlines of appropriate skill sets necessary to that tnmsfor­ mation will be drawn along t11ree (out of four) dimensions tlutt define professional practice in t11is field. Before it is possible to address t11e question of what core compe­ tencies will be needed in t11e 1990s and beyond, it is necessary to reach some level of agreement on what is meant when we speak of U1e core competencies of a profession. However, iliat question is inextricably bound to another-what is it t11at defines a profes­ sion? It is probably most useful in quickly answering boili questions to assume a rat11er simplistic view of boU1 ilie nature of professions and t11eir defining core competencies. As a lawyer illlll as an information professional and as a librarian, it appears to t11is autlwr tlwt professions are basically defined by ilie societal problem (or set of problems) tlwse professions choose to address. Given a finite societal problem capable of solution through service, U1e profession develops ilie tools, meiliodologies and service necessary to accomplish that task. For example, ilie lawyer's profession deals wit11 t11e social problems of conflict avoidmlCe and resolution. Over t11e centuries, lawyers (along wiili the judicial system) have developed procedural rules and meili­ odologies for interpreting and applying law in service of its defining social problem. Of course (ru1d tl1is will become important later in the discussion), I This paper is an adaptation of a talk delivered at the Special Libraries Association 85th Annual Conference, Atlan ta. June 1994. Much of the content is the result of numerous conversations with Nancy Van House, Acting Dean. School of Library and Information S t udies at the University of California at Berkeley. However, responsibility for the half-baked nature of some of the ideas rests with this author and not with Acting Dean Van House. A more thorough explanation of our thinking is forthcoming. -6 Education Libraries • Vol 1 8, No. 3 U1e lawyer's profession is only one of a number of professions U1at have carved out U1eir own niches from the context ofU1e smne societal problem-witness fmnily m1d marriage counseling and U1erapists of all sorts to say noU1ing of arbitrators. 1l1us, we must conclude U1at while the societal problem defines a domain of practice Ulat may be shared by more U1an one profession, each approaches resolution of U1e problem witl1in U1e context of a set of core competencies or functions U1at are more or Jess its own. Given U1is definition of a profession, t11e core competencies of librarianship are UJOse raU1er immutable and abstractly stated competencies which are central to its ability to solve U1e societal problem it has elected to address. We keep Ll1e definition of Ll1e societal problem U1e profession librarianship has chosen to address quite simple by framing it merely as U1e "infomJation problem"-U1e need for a mediated synapse between Wl individual information need and one or more infonnation stores containing potentially fulfilling answers. As an anchor to what remains to be said, we need to bear in mind as we look at the shift in what the infonnation universe is going to tie like U1at U1e core competencies of U1e profession will remain much U1e same. Ross Atkinson (1993, p.201) recenlly reassessed U1e defining competencies in stating tlutt U1c aspects of practice Llmt librarians do best are t11e "[s]electing, distinguishing, refer­ ring to, and ot11erwise privileging of individual infonnation units." We do not U1ink that Ll1ese core competencies are going to change as U1e society moves deeper into U1e infonnation age and begins to traverse U1at mythical infonnation superhighway. As Atkinson points out, U1ese functions have been handled traditionally Uuough processes such as collection development, cataloging, and reference. In t11e future, t11e professional will perfonn the same functions but will do t11em in markedly differ­ ent ways. There will be different tools and different services models to accommodate U10se funcions in a ch�mging context; however, the core competencies will remain much U1e smne. 1l1at is why we call U1em "core"-L11ere is something slightly inunutable about what it is tlJat U1e profession docs best. Given U1at statement, it should become increasingly obvious U1at U1e profession should not be looking at Ll1e core competencies m; much as at tile processes by which new skill sets are derived from them to address new contexts in which those competencies will be played out. Notice U1at U1e inquiry should be focused on the process by which new skill sets are derived and not on Ll1e skill sets U1emselves. 1l1ese is a real and present danger here in gelling too caught up in particular skills. "Skills obsession" is perhaps appropriate in periods of professional stability, in periods when change is stable and paced slowly. But skills obsession in a period of swift environmental change c�m be catm;trophic. It is useful in helping beginning students in this field to under­ stmld the dangers of skills obsession by exploring their expecta­ tions of professional study. It is our impression that on the way to school on U1e first day, most students stop off at Scars and go to U1e tool department where they purchase a little red metal tool Education Libraries • Vol 1 8, No. 3 kit of U1e kind mechanics and carpenters use. They bring it to school wiU1 U1em U1e first day, U1ey set it down and say"fill it"­ give me Dewey, give me LCSH, give me some skills in how to search Dialog. Any many fill up U1e tool kit and march away at U1e end of Ll1eir fom1al education believing fuey are pepared for U1e remainder of U1eir professional lives. 1l1ere may have been a time when change in U1is profession was so slow that such a mind set would work, when one could sail through ones professional life wiU1 U1e tattered tool kit still intact and equally tattered skills still relevant. If tilere were ever such a time in this profession, it is gone forever. 1l1e "little red tool kit" sort of skills acquisition is not the answer to U1e challenges to come. Instead, we need to look at how we might educate infonnation professionals capable of continuously deriving U1e new skills from the core competencies which will be necessary to meet the challenges of a shifting domain of profes­ sional practice. 1l1ere are two ways of looking at how we might derive Ulose skills sets. One way is to look at U1e demands offue existing profession­ i.e., to look at the pressures on U1e profession's current tools and service models to determine what kinds of skill sets are necessary to handle today' s practice, For example, many librarians remem­ ber catalogs when U1ey were still made of cards. Suddenly, along came the computer and new skill sets were required to deal witll transaction processing facilitated by U1e machine. And many librarians acquired UJOse skills. But what fuey were actually doing was much the same, just made easier and somewhat more efficient by the computer. In oU1er words, fuese new skills made it possible to do U1e same tiling better. A second way to look at deriving new skills-and Ule one used here for U1e remainder of the discussion-is to absolutely assume a change of context: to assume Ulat we are in a period of extremely rapid change and U1at what we really need to be looking at is what is it U1at we might be doing U1at is new and better. What is i Ulat we could be doing Uutt will take us beyond Ule current constraints of our own profession? While U1is discussion will touch on tile first of these two ways of viewing U1e task at hand, it will dwell on the second. The Emerging Information Universe-Environmental Fac­ tors In order to underwmd U1e necessary development of new skill sets, we must first look at U1e information universe that is evolving. Second, we have to detennine how librarians are to continually realign U1emselves and what U1ey do as professionals in Uwt evolving context. For the most, U1e environmental factors that are shaping where U1e infonnation universe is going are quite familiar and only tile briefest statements of U10se factors need be chronicled here. Among UJOse factors are the following: 7 - Tlze fusion of computing and telecommunications: Moore's Law which states that computing power will double every eighteen months is holding true in all importantrespects. Communications technologies such as the evolving Asynchronous Transfer Mode (A TM) and the broadband networks are exciting ti1e interest of ti1e telephone, cable and utility companies nation wide. One cannot pick up the newspaper wit110ut finding someti1ing about "infonnation" �md t11ese companies. When t11ese two rapidly developing technologies are wed, what emerges is a totally new environment for infonnation storage, distribution, manipulation and use. The fusion ofmedia:Z ll1e digital revolution is giving rise to new acceptable forms of literacy born in multi­ and hypermedia ti1at are going to change funamentally our definition of literacy as it takes us well beyond t11e linear constraints of text. Many see t11is revolution already taking hold in their children and grandchildren. Multi- and hypern1edia are spawning whole industries in California's Silicon Valley �md San Francisco's Multimedia Gulch. Information abundance and complexity: As anyone who has been out on t11e Internet cm1 attest, when t11e first two factors are combined, t11e result is an abun­ dance of infonnation,3 a complexity of infonnation structures ti1at has never before been experienced, <�nd client/server computing models t11at incorporate i11e networking of geographically dispersed products of the intellect - from human expertise to t11e human record. Social Computing: And now, in ti1e 90s, we are expe­ riencing t11e rapid emergence of what John See! y I3rown from Xerox P ARC calls social (as opposed to personal) computing. Competition in the Information Universe ll1ese factors are defining rapidly a whole new environment for information storage, retrieval and management. And, in a logi­ cally parallel development, t11ese same factors are defining a new domain of practice for librarianship - a new domain in which other professions and other disciplines are also interested m1d will compete witl1 librarianship for t11e smne (or overlapping) niches. Many practitioners are already beginning to sense ti1e competi­ tion that is out t11ere. Information, as ti1e coinage of ti1e infonna­ tion age, will define economic power wit11 increasing frequency and create what a recent issue of Fortune magazine calls the ill­ perceived "new economy" t11at will reshape tl1is country and the world. ll1e lawyers and ti1e economists mnrmg us know that power attracts players. So, librariansbip as a profession is not alone in ti1is new domain. In fact it has very, very powerful company ti1at can be seen in t11e mad scrmnble of information content and information transport providers to merge and oilier­ wise realign. In all t11is activity to carve out niches and to realign domains, librarians should hear ti1is clarion call: libraries and librarians do not have very high visibility i1i this emerging domain. As profes­ sionals, librarians are going to have to work actively to stake a claim in ti1is new domain since it is far from obvious to t11e rest of ti1e world tllat ti1ey have a significant role to play. To illustrate t11e accuracy of tlmt statement, we like to tell tlle story of a statement allegedly made by Chancellor Munitz of tlle California State University system. Chancellor Munitz presides over t11e largest complex of higher education in the world which is getting ready to build t11e state-of-tlle-art campus for tlle 21st century at Fort Ord on Monterey Bay. According to a reporter for ti1e San Fran cisco Clzronicle, t11e Chancellor says t11at t11ere will be no library on t11e new cmnpus.4 Now, recalling Richard Ross' talk at t11e opening Plenary Session for this Annual Meeting concerning t11e natural rubber-band-like tension between organi­ zational vision and reality, some would say t11at tlle Chancellor's vision is an appropriate one, while ot11ers might say t11at ti1e hook on ti1e end of ti1e rubber band which should be attached to reality is missing. Whatever side one lands on, what is interesting here about t11e newspaper report is ti1e fact t11e Chancellor Munitz allegedly nmned t11e following sorts of partners in building t11e digital library that will exist at Monterey Bay - PacBell, Apple and IBM. Supposedly, tl1ere was not a single mention of librarians or t11e skills, tools or service models ti1at have been developed over t11e la<;t century: not a word. We ti1ink t11at should give us pause. It should also make us wonder how are we, as a profession, going to convince t11e Chancellor Munitzs of t11is world t11at we belong in ti1e emerging infonnation universe? In otl1er words, how are we to assert professional dominion over a niche in t11is emerging environment? Andrew Abbot ( 1988) provides us witl1 a mechanism for exam­ ining t11e phenomenon of shifting and expanding professional domains in his explication of t11e ecology of professions.5 We will review tl10se mechanisms briefly and t11en apply t11em to the context of librarianship. 2 Michael Buckland notes that the use of the term "fusion" in this context might not be accurate. In the context of digital storage, we are really addressing monomedia; however, even in that context, music remains music and images remain images and are. therefore, not "fused." 3 Note that we did not say necessarily "good" information. 4 In all fairness to Chancellor Munitz, this anecdote is based entirely on a single newspaper article. Having been frequently misquoted and having the context of our words distorted in the popular press, we think there is probably a more than 50/50 chance that the report is totally inaccurate. Nevertheless, it illustrates a point we believe to be �enerally true. We use Abbott's analytic framework without adopting his analysis of the information professions. - 8 Education Libraries • Vol 1 8 , No. 3 According to Abbot, when a profession wants to shift or expand its domain, there are two ways to argue U1e validity of such a shift or expansion - reduction and abstraction. Reduction shows Uwt U1e solution to some problems in the new domain (e.g.,cyberspace or how one wishes to define ti1at domain) is reducible to a solution which already exists in the profession's current jurisdiction. A reductionist argument might be Uutt LCSH is as useful a tool for accessing information in cyberspace a<> it is in a traditional library. Basically a ludicrous idea since many believe Umt LCSH ill-serves our patrons even in the context of ti1e modem OPAC let alone in cyberspace. We conclude ti1at reductionist arguments will not work since few of ti1e tools designed to serve ti1e practice of librarianship as it exists have a direct application in tiwt environment. Abstraction is U1e second, and much more powerful, argument. Abstraction is a process by which U1e profession argues (and ultimately demonstrates) ti1at the abstract knowledge which underlies ti1e tools and service models in U1e profession's current domain are applicable in ti1e new one. A simple example of abstraction might be ti1e argument U1at classification ti1eory underlies many of ti1e tools we have developed, and Uwse theories have application to U1e development of new tools suit­ able to ti1e new domain. Thus, according to Abbott, professions use U1esc two meclla­ nisms (reduction and abstraction) to argue for ru1 appropriate niche and to develop new tools and service models which justify a move into new territory. Using Abbott's basic conclusions, ti1ese two mechanisms are ti1e weapons needed in ti1is profes­ sion's competition wiU1 the Pacl3ells, the Apples, and oti1ers. However, there is a problem, ru1d we believe ti1e problem is U1is: we can abstract all we wruH from our current set of tools and service models ru1d we can do reduction all we want ru1d we still will not win. We still cannot make that transition because of a third mechanism Abbott does not identify - new knowledge. If one looks at the faculties of the schools of library and infonna­ tion science in U1e United States Uwt arc moving forward success­ fully in prepruing themselves to educate professionals for the emerging domain, U1ey are developing interdisciplinary facul­ ties. They are incorporating people with backgrounds in cogni­ tive science, conununications, and a host of other disciplines and fields of concern to the "infonnation problem." They are actively trying to wed new knowledge wiU1 the profession's extant knowledge base in order to hybridize a new professional who can function in the emerging domain. If U1e schools of library and infonnation science do their jobs well, it will be to educate professionals who can do the kind of abstracting necessary to create ti1e new tools and service models for a new environment ti1at is just around ti1e comer. If we are are not able to do that, the profession of librarianship is in deep, deep trouble. Dimensions of Practice The deriving of new skill sets from tl1e core competencies for an expanding or shifting professional domain tllrough tlle processes of reduction, abstraction and new knowledge acquisition will take place (if at all) along four dimensions of professional practice: The tool making dimension, The information management (or tool use) dimension, The agency dimension (we like to call it serv­ ice), and 1l1e management of information organizations dimension. ll1e ordering here is significant. Perhaps, while not necessarily denoting U1eir importance in daily practice, we believe tlle order reflects ti1e survival order for ti1e profession; i.e., tlle order of mastery for survival of the profession as it transitions to tlle new environment. Tool Making Dimension 1l1e tool making dimension tends to confuse people; tlley do not understand what is meant when we speak of librarians as tool makers. As a profession, we use tools and service models to solve the problems that ti1e profession bas chosen to address. For example, LCSH is a tool; tl1e Dewey Decimal system is a tool.6 Dewey was a librarian but he was also a tool maker. Practitioners at tl1e Library of Congress and in Europe were librarians and tool makers when tl1ey laid the conceptual foundations for LCSH and oti1er organizational schemes. In ti1is profession and in tl1e schools of library and information science, we have largely abdicated our role as tool makers. There was a great period of tool making in librarianship - librarianship' s "golden age of tool making," if you will- in tlle late 19tll and early 20Ul centuries. ll1en, afer the First World War, sometlling happened. Tile profession went on auto-pilot; it went to sleep and its practitioners became mere tool users. Tool making was someone else's problem - now it's ti1e vendor's problem. As a result, we lost much of the power to enable tlle profession.7 An exrunple might help. In general, librarians tl1athave ventured out onto ti1e Internet witi1 Archie, Veronica, W AIS, World Wide Web ru1d ot11er access tools - and please note, tools created by someone else - have viewed ti1eir role in tl1e following sorts of tenns: 6 The phrase "tool maker" includes not only actual tools such as LCSl-l but also the service models developed to address the societal problem. 7 In general, special librarians may represent the only exception to this abdication. Unlike the public and academic libraries, the richly varied contexts of special library practice frequently required developing new designs. technologies and techniques in order to satisfy needs for nontraditional organizational schemes and service models. This stands in sharp contrast to the near rote application of existing tools such