Mark Tyler Day, Associate Librarian
Reference, Indiana University Libraries
Bibliographic abstracts are available at http://php.indiana.edu/~daym/acrlpaperbib.htm
This paper examines contemporary challenges to the professional claims of academic librarians, who historically have been granted authority to organize academic library work. Many arguments for reorganizing library work along less bureaucratic, more market-driven, and more highly technological lines do not adequately consider the effect such changes have on professional authority. To better understand these effects, a review was undertaken of social scientific research on information technology, organizations and professions as it pertains to academic librarianship. It is suggested that we can strengthen our professional authority, practice, and recruitment by expanding our disciplinary knowledge through collaborative research in social informatics.
Introduction: ACRL's Professionalization Project and the Modern System of Professions
Since its founding in 1889 as the "College Library Section of the American Library Association,"(1) the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has been engaged in a "professionalization project"(2) to raise the occupational status of academic librarianship. This project occurred as part of that general "rise of the modern professions" which accompanied the process of industrialization.(3) As with similar projects, it involved the attempt to acquire exclusive control within a particular occupational jurisdiction based on the claim that librarianship exhibits the core traits of a profession, whose members possess "formally rational abstract utilitarian knowledge"(4) and are ethically committed to applying this knowledge in the provision of a critical and essential social service.(5) Embedded within the broader social economic regime of modern industrial capitalism, advocates of professionalization have engaged in a continuing competition for jurisdiction over particular occupational domains, creating what Abbott has described as a dynamic "system of professions."(6) Today's emerging "information society,"(7) with its "new organizational forms,"(8) and technologies, has created a brave new world of high-tech work(9) and upset the old balance of power within the occupational domain of "information professionals,"(10) as academic librarians struggle with a number of old and new competitors for control over what has come to be called "knowledge work." (a term coined by the founding guru of management consulting, Peter Drucker, in 1959/60).(11)
The Evolution of Modern Industrial Capitalism and the Rationalization of Knowledge Work
We can not adequately understand the contemporary challenges that the various professions face in our "postindustrial society"(12) society until we clarify the nature of the industrial society that gave rise to the system of professions. One of the most attractive and widely acknowledged features of modern capitalist societies is their ability to amass wealth on an unprecedented scale. This has been made possible because wealth is typically accumulated for its exchange value as commodities rather than for its specific use value, leading to a continuously expanding cycle of production, distribution, and reinvestment. A variety of social institutions support this system, all focused on private ownership of the means of production and grounded in the right accorded to the owners of property to withhold it from the use of society and the state if they wish, as opposed to feudal societies with their hierarchical structure of mutual rights and obligations.(13)
This modern form of capitalism arose out of a unique historical configuration in Western society that lead to a culture oriented around the core norm of "rationalization," according to "which every aspect of human action became subject to calculation, measurement and control."(14) The resulting system tends to turn everything into commodities that can be bought and sold on the basis of their calculated contribution to the owner's cost/profit margin--the famous bottom line. In this way modern capitalism can be distinguished from other historical types not only by its reliance on free, wage dependent labor and on capital accumulating entrepreneurs, but on the rationalization and centralization by these entrepreneurs of "technology and all other factors of production,"(15) including labor. The combination of private property (and its accompanying right of liberty from governmentally imposed obligations) with the generation of mass wealth (and its accompanying rise of a middle class) strongly encouraged the development of the modern, liberal democratic, nation-state.(16) It also created a built-in tension between the rationalizing desire to calculate means and ends in order to control the world and the entrepreneurial desire to invent means and ends in order to exploit it. Evolving capitalist economies thus exhibit what Schumpeter called "destructive creativity" in which change is an endogenous, institutionalized feature. For modern capitalism, technological innovation functions as the engine of change and capitalist enterprise functions as the engineer, "as it creates new markets through the introduction of innovations and new forms of organization in order to cope with a changing environment".(17)
Bureaucratic organization represents just such a new form. It was developed first as a hierarchical form of governmental administration designed to rationalize the perceived corruption and inefficiency of traditional, paternalistic rule,(18) but soon was taken up by all modern organizations wanting to use the most rational and efficient means possible in the pursuit of organizational goals. Business firms in particular adopted it as a way of rationalizing market fluctuations and inefficiencies caused by bounded rationality and opportunism.(19) Although formal organization has emerged whenever "practical tasks involving information processing, communication, and control [have] exceeded those same capabilities of the unaided human brain," it "did not begin to achieve anything approximating its modern form until industrialization"(20) created a control crisis. This crisis began when large amounts of capital were invested in power-driven machinery and profit came to depend on how fast one moved one's "investments past one's fixed capital."(21) Profit thus provided the "incentive to process matter faster under industrial capitalism, [while] steam power provided the means,"(22) causing uniquely modern problems when the artificially increased speed, volume and complexity of machine driven production and transportation vastly surpassed the ability of naturally evolved human intelligence to coordinate and control the resulting flows of energy and materials. The result was a rapid expansion of qualitatively different organizational forms designed to resolve the crisis, beginning what Beniger has called a "control revolution."(23)
The use of formal organizations as control devices competes for dominance in the world of work with two other major means for embodying expert knowledge: human beings and computers. Each can function as a "generalized information processor" used to control and coordinate the activities of complex systems.(24) Modern expertise thus can be embodied in organizations (bureaucracies), in professions (persons), and in commodities (technology).(25) Pre-modern, "non-rationalist" modes for embodying expertise and organizing work continue to exist, of course, and post-modern modes may be created. However, they generally don't have a dominant effect in the world of modern capitalist work, where such work continues to be legitimized by "reliance on scientization or rationalization of technique and on efficiency of service" or production.(26) All three modes provide alternative ways of "institutionalizing expertise . . . in a set of social structures . . . governed by certain legitimating norms and values."(27) In particular settings, each of these institutions may be mobilized by interested parties to produce particular organizational configurations that form "negotiated political systems."(28)
As industrial corporations and governmental agencies grew and stabilized into large, established bureaucracies, they invested control into the formal organization itself by using scientific management to systematically extract expertise from pre-modern craftsmen, turning them into modern blue and white collar workers.(29) Simultaneously, in order to maintain a market for industrial capitalism's vastly increased productivity, and to obtain worker cooperation in maintaining that productivity, modern capitalism evolved what has come to be called "Fordism."(30) The dominant organization form became what Mintzberg calls "machine bureaucracy" which "depends primarily on the standardization of its operating work processes for coordination" and in which, therefore, "the technostructure--which houses the analysts who do the standardizing--emerges as the key part of the structure."(31)
Scientific Management and the Professional Bureaucratic Organization of Library Work
As expert knowledge became increasingly important within an industrializing society that was rapidly replacing traditional craft occupations with modern rationalized ones, most upwardly mobile Americans sought to be among the ranks of the managers and technocrats, rather than among the workers. It shouldn't surprise us then to find "an industrial society is a professionalizing one"(32) and seems to lead to the "professionalization of everyone."(33) For a long time, both practitioners and analysts thought of the professions as a sort of species of occupation that was defined by certain unique traits. An occupation that aspired to grow up to professional status would have to follow the "typical process by which the established professions have arrived."(34) Contemporary students of professionalism have largely abandoned these essentialist and natural history metaphors to focus on the process by which social actors use existing social models to reconstruct their status via professionalization projects.(35) Nevertheless, every profession exhibits the history of its origins. One of the reasons that the established professions, such as medicine, have retained so much autonomous authority in the face of continuing challenges, derives from the social inertia and prestige they originally acquired.(36) The current position of North American librarianship in general and of academic librarianship in particular, can be seen to result from a combination of its social origins and its professionalization strategies.
It is well known that library work has primarily been "women's work," placing it among the so-called "semi-professions."(37) Specifically, librarianship originated as "pink collar" clerical work and, while perhaps attaining a higher status than manual labor, remained a relatively low status occupation within a still predominately patriarchal culture.(38) From the very beginning the occupation was practiced within bureaucratic organizations, rather than set up as a private practice. Within this context, library leaders have long been known for their interest in promoting the rationalization of library work--from Melvil Dewey's interest in "business efficiency"(39) to Richard Dougherty's interest in "scientific management."(40) Following this lead, North American librarians, with support from the American Library Association and its affiliates, appear to have followed a professionalization strategy of trying to acquire primary jurisdiction over key parts of the organizations in which they work--i.e. the "technostructure," "middle line.," and "strategic apex"--turning their libraries into "closed system" forms of machine bureaucracy.(41) Such systems are dominated by a coalition of insiders (based in this case on a common orientation and interest in professional librarianship) who set the bureaucratic rules for the remaining (paraprofessional and support) workers in the organization and who attempt to maintain a carefully controlled interaction with the organization's environment. For academic librarians, this environment has consisted primarily of each library's parent institution of higher education.
A high point in the success of this strategy may have come in the early 1970s with the issuing of Library Education and Manpower, an official ALA document that set professional standards for all librarians concerning educational credentials and organizational staffing.(42) Reeves used this document in his 1974 benchmark study on the library occupation's impact on library work arrangements. He was interested in "the problems of professionals working within organizations,"(43) which problems were assumed at the time to result from "the inherent tension between professional identification and bureaucracy."(44) "The study found that when the staff of a library, both professional and nonprofessional, had a 'professional orientation', that is, were guided in providing library service by the profession's definition of its task domain, the librarians in those libraries had control of their work."(45) Significantly, and in line with their professionalization strategy, he also found that it was the occupation itself, not the organization, that promoted bureaucratic forms of control.(46)
Academic Library Work, Post-Fordism, and the Commodification of Everything
In the same year that Reeves published his study, ACRL's own professionalization project achieved a significant success with the publication of a "Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians,"(47) which encouraged the granting of faculty status to librarians. The document is notable for being sponsored jointly by the Association of American Colleges and the Association of American University Professors, as well as by the American Library Association and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Academic librarians had, it appeared, co-opted their own primary clientele as supporters, rather than as competitors, in the system of professions. If fully implemented, the resulting organizational configuration would approximate Mintzberg's "Professional Bureaucracy,"(48) defined as an configuration dominated by "members of the operating core [who] seek to minimize the influence of the administrators--managers as well as analysts--over their work. That is, they promote horizontal and vertical decentralization. When they succeed, they work relatively autonomously, achieving whatever coordination is necessary through the standardization of skills."(49) This structural configuration is "common in universities, general hospitals, school systems, public accounting firms, social-work agencies, and craft production firms" and tends to be generated when a stable environment and technically unsophisticated production system call for "a coordinating mechanism that allows for standardization and decentralization at the same time."(50)
The literature discussing the implementation of faculty and academic status is immense.(51) One of the more revealing studies by Watson-Boone serves as a "mid-1990s work life benchmark for research on library and university communities currently challenged by various technological and society changes."(52) The author uses qualitative methods to elicit the meanings, values, and preferences that mid-level, non-administrative, professional academic librarians had concerning their work. The comments of her informants suggest that the library faculty model has not achieved dominance, but has been superimposed upon older models, creating a system of multiple classifications including "civil service librarians, . . . faculty service librarians, . . . academic professionals, and . . . temporary . . . one-year appointments."(53) The librarians spent most of their time at traditional library tasks (such as cataloging, reference, and selection), but framed the accomplishment of these tasks in terms of their professional, scholarly nature requiring autonomous expertise to accomplish. They focused primary on their own immediate colleagues and work world, with diminishing awareness of larger library, professional, and university issues.
The imposition of a "self-directed, faculty model on the library, a structured, bureaucratic organization, often has created division and fostered adversarial relationships between professionals and paraprofessionals."(54) We now live in an institutional environment of financial constraint and turbulent innovation that has created increasingly sophisticated information technologies and new occupational specialties while at the same time breaking career ladders and withdrawing the resources needed to increase rewards or hire more personnel. In these circumstances the dual labor market that we've created within academic libraries has become dysfunctional for all concerned.(55) Ironically, the political-economic changes that brought this situation about began with the collapse of the Fordist economic era(56) in the early 1970s,--just when ACRL and AAUP were recommending faculty status for academic librarians. The rise of intense global competition and the commodification of information has drawn our systems of higher education more deeply into the market economy and created great pressure on them to increase their efficiency by the further rationalization of operations.(57)
A widespread response of university and library administrators has been to restructure(58) and to "emphasize selective excellence, flexible specialization, and workforce dualization."(59) A major challenge facing professional academic librarians is to find a way to contain this crisis locally--to prevent further deterioration in the quality of working life caused by increased competition and resentment among the various information occupations. The promise of more interesting, more highly skilled, and better paid knowledge work is real, as is the threat of less interesting, less skilled, and lower paid service jobs. Empirical research suggests that which direction particular jobs and occupations go depends less upon what specific organizational or information technology is introduced and more upon the economic, political and ideological context.(60)
Conclusion: The Rhetorical Restructuring of Academic Librarianship as a Vocation and Collaborative Action Research in Social Informatics
Living within this turbulent period, it is unclear whether "we are witnessing the dawning of a new age, the information age . . . or an evolutionary phase of the ongoing Industrial Revolution."(61) The resulting situation of uncertainly produces a high degrees of anxiety and a search for magical means to make sense of and regain control over events.(62) Enthusiastic entrepreneurs undertake managerial projects to recreate pre-modern organic forms using post-modern information technologies to go "beyond bureaucracy,"(63) and "reengineer to achieve breakthrough performance."(64) Others undertake disciplinary and occupational projects that promote "post-professionalism."(65) Such provocative arguments clearly threaten the interests of established stakeholders and often create resistance to the very change they advocate.(66) They tell unbelievable stories based upon bad rhetoric using unsupported theories of social change.(67) One can just as easily narrate opposing stories about superficial changes in knowledge work being driven by the same old rationalizing logic of modern capitalism.(68) The result in academia is a civil war between privileged professionals arguing from positions of moral absolutism and beleaguered managers arguing from positions of organizational efficiency as they try to find substitutes for the bottom line in a non-profit environment where intellectual accomplishment can't be measured like commodities.(69) Is it any wonder that university administrators continue to base public claims about the high quality of their institutions' programs on rankings from The Gourman Report,(70) which was exposed as a fraud over a decade ago?(71)
Into this tumult, I believe that we, and other academic professionals, ought to reassert our ethical commitment to the vocation of preserving and advancing knowledge "as against both technocratic professionalism and ideological pseudoprophecy."(72) Rather than uncritically accepting or rejecting the latest nostrums of our modern management "witch doctors"(73) in order to become knowledge "managers,"(74) "engineers,"(75) and "workers,"(76) we should build on our experience with cooperative ventures and work with all interested parties on collaborative, interdisciplinary, evaluative, action research projects(77) in order to better understand and guide what's actually happening as we go about reconstructing our libraries.
Everyone agrees that times are changing. Most also agree that information technologies have a great deal to do with these changes. As suggested, we are inundated with widely promulgated utopian and dystopian myths predicting or decrying the inevitable coming of the "information society," and with demands to radically change our ways in order to create "learning organizations," and "virtual libraries." Few of us, however, have access to reliable and valid knowledge about how human beings actually create and use information technologies to change their lives for better or worse. Recently, many of those from a wide variety of intellectual disciplines and occupational practices who are interested in developing and applying such knowledge have come together under the interdisciplinary banner of "social informatics."
Social informatics refers to the body of research that examines the social aspects of computerization -- including the roles of information technology in social and organizational change and the ways that the social organization of information technologies are influenced by social forces and practices. Such research aims to ensure that technical research agendas and systems designs are relevant to people's lives--that technical work is socially driven rather than technologically driven. Such research thus often takes on the quality of action or evaluation research in which participants and researchers work together in order to plan, implement, and monitor change involving the introduction of information technologies.(78)
Indiana University's new Center for Social Informatics offers one source of high quality research on these topics.(78) It brings together faculty, graduate students, and professionals from a wide variety of fields and with a broad range of experience in order to promote research that is meaningful both to practitioners and to theorists. As a major networked research library undergoing significant organizational and technological changes, the IU Libraries represent an example of an organization greatly in need of the knowledge that social informatics research could provide. Likewise, the IU Libraries represent a site rich in research opportunities for those interested in advancing knowledge in the field of social informatics. Thus, an experimental Collaborative Research Program was developed this past year, which aims to provide opportunities for IUL librarians to work with CSI members and associates on problems of mutual concern. A trial collaborative project has been initiated to explore ways of analyzing and improving how the IU Libraries help staff to learn about and employ distributed information technologies. It is hoped that this form of "postmodern" research,(80) by involving a wider range of scholars and practitioners in more richly contextualized research environments, will produce better stories of social and organizational change and thereby improve professional practice.
After submitting this paper, Harris and Hannah's Into the Future: the Foundations of Library and Information Services in the Post-Industrial Era came to my attention.(81) In a manner similar to this paper, Harris and Hannah also advocate viewing contemporary developments in academic librarianship from a much broader historical and social scientific perspective than is usually taken. More importantly, the structure of their argument closely follows that of this paper, so that they treat most of the same topics--but in the more extended manner befitting a monograph. For anyone interested in examining more deeply the role of librarianship as a profession in post-industrial society, this is the book you should read first.
1. Janet Krompart, "A Bibliographic Essay on Faculty Status for Academic Librarians," in Academic Status: Statements and Resources, 3rd ed., ed. Susan Kroll (Chicago: Academic Status Committee, Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, 1994), 29.
2. Keith M. Macdonald, The Sociology of the Professions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), 8-14.
3. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: a Sociological Analysis (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977); Michael F. Winter, The Culture and Control of Expertise: Toward a Sociological Understanding of Librarianship (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988),1-20.
4. Raymond Murphy, Social Closure: the Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1988), 245.
5. Ibid., 57-75; Keith M. Macdonald, The Sociology of the Professions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995); David Torres, "What, If Anything, Is Professionalism?: Institutions and the Problem of Change," Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8 (1991): 43-68.
6. Andrew Abbott, The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
7. Herbert S. Dordick, and Georgette Wang, The Information Society: a Retrospective View (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993).
8. Wolf V. Heyderbrand, "New Organizational Forms," Work and Occupations 16, no. 3 (August1989): 323-57.
9. Stephen R. Barley, The New World of Work (London: British-North American Committee, 1996); Randy Hodson, and Robert E. Parker, "Work in High-Tech Settings: a Review of the Empirical Literature," eds. Richard L. Simpson, and Ida Harper Simpson, Research in the Sociology of Work 4 (1988): 1-29. Michael Wallace, "Brave New Workplace: Technology and Work in the New Economy," Work and Occupations 16, no. 4 (November1989): 363-92..
10. Abbott, The System of Professions, 215-246.
11. Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 6; . John Micklethwait, and Adrian Wooldridge, The Witch Doctors: Making Sense of the Management Gurus (New York: Times Books, Random House, 1996), 70.
12. Marco Diani, "Postindustrial Society," in The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought, eds. William Outhwaite, and Tom Bottomore (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).
13. Robert L. Heilbroner, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism (New York: W.W. Norton, 1985); Robert L. Heilbroner, "Capitalism," in The New Palgrave: a Dictionary of Economics, vol. 1, eds. John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman (London: Macmillan, 1987), 347- 53.
14. "Rationalization," in The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed., eds. Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner (London: Penguin Books, 1994), s.v.
15. Randall Collins, ed., Four Sociological Traditions: Selected Readings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 36.
16. Peter L. Berger, The Capitalist Revolution: Fifty Propositions About Prosperity, Equality, and Liberty (New York: Basic Books, 1986); Robert L. Heilbroner, 21st Century Capitalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1993).
17. Roberto Simonetti, "Technical Change and Firm Growth : 'Creative Destruction' in the Fortune List, 1963-87," in Behavioral Norms, Technological Progress, and Economic Dynamics : Studies in Schumpeterian Economics, eds. Ernst Helmstdter, and Mark Perlman (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 151-52.
18. "Bureaucracy," in The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, s.v.; Reinhard Bendix, Nation- Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order, Enl. ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1996).
19. Jay B. Barney, and William Hesterly, "Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship Between Organizations and Economic Analysis," in Handbook of Organization Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 115-47.
20. James R. Beniger, "Conceptualizing Information Technology As Organization and Vice Versa," in Organizations and Communication Technology, eds. Janet Fulk, and Charles Steinfield (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 31-32.
21. James R. Beniger, The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 169.
23. Beniger, The Control Revolution.
24. Beniger, "Conceptualizing Information Technology As Organization and Vice Versa," 30-32.
25. Andrew Abbott, "The Future of Professions: Occupation and Expertise in the Age of Organization," Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8 (1991): 17-42.
26. Ibid., 195.
27. Abbott, "The Future of Professions," 20.
28. Samuel B. Bacharach, Peter Bamberger, and Sharon C. Conley, "Negotiating the 'See- Saw' of Manaerial Strategy: a Resurrection of the Study of Professionals in Organizational Theory," Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8 (1991): 217-38; J. Victor Baldridge, David V. Curtis, George P. Ecker, and Gary L. Riley, "Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education," in Organization and Governance in Higher Education: an ASHE Reader, 4th ed., eds. Marvin W. Peterson, Ellen E. Chaffee, and Theodore White (Needham Heights, Mass: Ginn, 1991), 30-45; Douglas G. Birdsall, "The Micropolitics of Budgeting in Universities: Lessons for Library Administrators," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, no. 6 (November1995): 427-37; ; Ken Jones, Conflict and Change in Library Organizations: People, Power, and Service (London: C. Bingley, 1984); Henry Mintzberg, Power in and Around Organizations (Prentice Hall, 1983); Henry Mintzberg, Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993); G. Rhoades, "Governance Models," in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, vol. 2, eds. Burton R. Clark, and Guy R. Neave (Oxford ; New York: Pergamon Press, 1992), 1376-84; Harry Scarbrough, ed., The Management of Expertise (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996).
29. Reinhard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974); Andrew L. Friedman, "Taylorism," in The New Palgrave: a Dictionary of Economics, vol. 4, 612-13; Arthur L. Stinchcombe, "Social Structure and Organizations," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), 142-93.
30. "Fordism," in The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, s. v.; Alain Lipietz, "Fordism and Post-Fordism," in The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought, eds. William Outhwaite, and Tom Bottomore (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) s. v.
31. Mintzberg, Structure in Fives, 165.
32. William J. Goode, "The Theoretical Limits of Professionalization," in The Semi- Professions and Their Organization; Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Free Press, 1969), 266.
33. Harold L. Wilensky, "The Professionalization of Everyone," American Journal of Sociology 70, no. 2 (September1964).
34. Ibid., 137.
35. Stephen R. Barley, and Pamela S. Tolbert, "Introduction: At the Intersection of Organizations and Occupations," Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8 (1991), 1-11; Peter L. Berger, and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1967), 46-128; Winter, The Culture and Control of Expertise, 39-56.
36. Macdonald, The Sociology of the Professions, 162.
37. Amitai Etzioni, ed., The Semi-Professions and Their Organization; Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers (New York: Free Press, 1969).
38. Macdonald, The Sociology of the Professions, 124-56.
39. Melvil Dewey, "Office Efficiency," in The Business of Insurance: a Text Book and Reference Work Covering All Lines of Insurance, vol. 3, ed. Howard P. Dunham (New York: Ronald Press, 1912), 272-316.
40. Richard M. Dougherty, and Fred J. Heinritz, Scientific Management of Library Operations (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1966).
41. Mintzberg, Power in and Around Organizations, 334-54.
42. American Library Association, Library Education and Manpower (Chicago: American Library Association, 1970; reissued in 1976 with minimal revisions as Library Education and Personnel Utilization).
43. Ralph M. Edwards, "The Management of Libraries and the Professional Function of Librarians," Library Quarterly 45, no. 2 (January1975): 150.
44. Samuel B. Bacharach, Peter Bamberger, and Sharon C. Conley, "Negotiating the "See- Saw" of Managerial Strategy: a Resurrection of the Study of Professionals in Organizational Theory," Research in the Sociology of Organizations 8 (1991): 218.
45. Pauline Wilson, "Professionalism Under Attack!," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 7, no. 5 (1981): 289.
46. William Joseph Reeves, Librarians As Professionals: the Occupation's Impact on Library Work Arrangements (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1980), 101-17.
47. American Library Association , Association of College and Research Libraries , Association of American Colleges, and Association of American University Professors, "Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 35 no. 2 (February 1974): 26-7; reprinted as "Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians" in Academic Status: Statements and Resources, 3rd ed. Susan Kroll (Chicago: Academic Status Committee, Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, 1994), 7-8.
48. Mintzberg, Structure in Fives, 189-213; reprinted in Organization and Governance in Higher Education: an ASHE Reader, 53-75.
49. Ibid., 153.
50. Ibid., 189.
51. Thomas G. English, "Librarian Status in Eighty-Nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries 44, no. 3 (May1982): 199-211; Janet Swan Hill, "Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians As Faculty," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 20, no. 2 (May1994): 71-76; Janet Krompart, "Researching Faculty Status: a Selective Bibliography," in Academic Status: Statements and Resources, 39-55; Janet Krompart, "A Bibliographic Essay on Faculty Status for Academic Librarians," in Academic Status: Statements and Resources, 29-38; Charles B. Lowry, "The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: a Twenty-Year Perspective," College & Research Libraries 54, no. 2 (March1993): 163-72; Emily Werrell, and Laura Sullivan, "Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: a Review of the Literature," College & Research Libraries 48, no. 2 (March1987): 97-98.
52. Rebecca A. Watson-Boone, "A Qualitative Study of How Librarians at a Public Research Library-I University Envision Their Work and Work Lives," Ph. D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1996, 1.
53. Ibid., 157.
54. Peggy Johnson, "Managing Changing Roles: Professional and Paraprofessional Staff in Libraries," in Managing Change in Academic Libraries, ed. Joseph J. Branin (New York: Haworth Press, 1996), 84.
55. Larry R. Oberg, "The Emergence of the Paraprofessional in Academic Libraries: Perceptions and Realities," College & Research Libraries 53, no. 2 (March1992): 99-112; Larry R. Oberg, Mark E. Mentges, P. N. McDermott, and Vitoon Harusadangkul, "The Role, Status, and Working Conditions of Paraprofessionals: a National Survey of Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 53, no. 3 (May1992): 215-38;.Allen B. Veaner, "Continuity or Discontinuity--a Persistent Personnel Issue in Academic Librarianship," eds. Gerard B. McCabe, Bernard Kreissman, and W. Carl Jackson, Advances in Library Administration and Organization 1 (1982): 1-20; Allen B. Veaner, "Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Regained? A Persistent Personnel Issue in Academic Librarianship, II," College & Research Libraries 55, no. 5 (September1994): 389-402.
56. Michel Aglietta, A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience, Translated by. David Fernbach (London: New Left Books, Verso, 1987); David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989), 125-97.
57. John Smyth, ed., Academic Work: the Changing Labour Process in Higher Education (Bunckingham, England ; Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 1995).
58. Linda Basch, and Lucie Wood Saunders, "Restructuring Academia and the Negotiation of Academic Power," Anthropology of Work Review: AWR 15, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 12-19; Mary C. Edwards, "The Decline of the American Professoriate, 1970-1990," Anthropology of Work Review: AWR 15, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 21-28; Robert N. Horn, and Robert T. Jerome, "When Corporate Restructuring Meets Higher Education," Academe 82, no. 3 (May 1996- June1996): 34-36; Wesley Shumar, "Higher Education and the State: the Irony of Fordism in American Universities," in Academic Work: the Changing Labour Process in Higher Education, 84-98.
59. Clyde W. Barrow, "Beyond the Multiversity: Fiscal Crisis and the Changing Structure of Academic Labour," in Academic Work: the Changing Labour Process in Higher Education, 159-78; Karen Thompson, "Marginalized Near the Center: Part-Time Faculty and the Need to Reform and Refinance the University," Anthropology of Work Review: AWR 15, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 18-20; Jagna Wojcicka Sharff, and Johanna Lessinger, "The Academic Sweatshop: Changes in the Capitalist Infrastructure and the Part-Time Academic," Anthropology of Work Review: AWR 15, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 1-11
60. Joanne H. Boelke, "Quality Improvement in Libraries: Total Quality Management and Related Approaches," Advances in Librarianship 19 (1995): 43-83; Charles Jean-Noel Despres, "Information, Technology and Culture: an Ethnography of Information Technology and Modernist Business Organization," Technovation 16, no. 1 (1996): 1-20; Randy Hodson, Gregory Hooks, and Sabine Rieble, Customized Training in the Workplace, Ameritech Fellowship Program: Institute for Development Strategies, Indiana University, 1991); Guillermo J. Grenier, Inhuman Relations: Quality Circles and Anti-Unionism in American Industry (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988); Randy Hodson, "Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited," American Sociological Review 61, no. 5 (1996): 719-38; Rob Kling, and Mary Zmuidzinas, "Technology, Ideology and Social Transformation: The Case of Computerization and Work Organization," Revue Internationale De Sociologie / International Review of Sociology (Nouvelle Serie / New Series) 2-3 (1994): 28-56; Wanda J. Orlikowski, "Learning From Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation," in Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed., ed. Rob Kling (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996), 173-89; Mike Parker, Inside the Circle: a Union Guide to QWL (Boston: South End Press, 1985); Sim B. Sitkin, and Darryl Stickel, "The Road to Hell: the Dynamics of Distrust in an Era of Quality," in Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, eds. Roderick M. Kramer, and Tom R. Tyler (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 1-15; Alan Tuckman, "The Yellow Brick Road: Total Quality Management and the Restructuring of Organizational Culture," Organization Studies 15, no. 5 (1994): 727-51.
61. Dordick, and Wang, The Information Society: a Retrospective View.
62. Arthur L. Stinchcombe. Constructing Social Theories (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968),82-83.
63. Warren G. Bennis, and Warren G. Bennis, Beyond Bureaucracy: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organization, Jossey-Bass Management Series (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).
64. Carla J. Stoffle, Robert Renaud, and Jerilyn Veldof, "Choosing Our Futures," College & Research Libraries 57, no. 3 (May1996): 214.
65. Blaise Cronin, and Elisabeth Davenport, eds., Post-Professionalism: Transforming the Information Heartland (London: Taylor Graham, 1988).
66. Daniel O'Conner, and Philip Mulvaney, "LIS Faculty Research and Expectations of the Academic Culture Versus the Needs of the Practitioner," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 37, no. 4 (Fall1996): 306-16
67. Donald N. McCloskey, If You're So Smart: the Narrative of Economic Expertise (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Donald N. McCloskey, The Rhetoric of Economics (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985).
68. David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity; Doug Henwood, "Post What? Economics in the Postmodern Era," Monthly Review 48, no. 4 (September1996): 1-12.
69. Peter F. Drucker, "An interview with Peter F. Drucker," interview by Howard Muson and Charles B. Lowry, Library Administration & Management 4, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 3-5.
70. Jack Gourman, The Gourman Report: a Rating of Graduate and Professional Programs in American and International Universities, 7th ed. (Los Angeles: National Education Standards, 1996); Jack Gourman, The Gourman Report: a Rating of Undergraduate Programs in American and International Universities, 9th ed. (Los Angeles: National Education Standards, 1996).
71. David S. Webster, "Who Is Jack Gourman, and Why Is He Saying All Those Things About My College?," Change (November 1984-December 1984): 14-56.
72. Peter L. Berger, and Hansfried Kellner, Sociology Reinterpreted: an Essay on Method and Vocation (Anchor Press: Garden City, NJ, 1981).
73. Micklethwait, and Wooldridge, The Witch Doctors : Making Sense of the Management Gurus.
74. Richard E. Lucier, "Towards a Knowledge Management Environment: A Stategic Framework," Educom Review November/December (1992): 24-31.
75. Jerry D. Campbell, "Shaking the Conceptual Foundations of Reference: A Perspective," RSR: Reference Services Review 20, no. 4 (1992): 29-35; Amitai Etzioni, "An interview with Amitai Etzioni," interview by Charles B. Lowry, Library Administration & Management 4, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 5-7.
76. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society, 64-66, 83-96; Allen B. Veaner, Academic Librarianship in a Transformational Age: Program, Politics, and Personnel, Professional Librarian Series (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1990), 454.
77. Colin Eden, and Chris Huxham, "Action Research for the Study of Organizations," in Handbook of Organization Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 526-42; Egon G. Guba, and Yvonna S. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989); Ernest T. Stringer, Action Research: a Handbook for Practitioners (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996);
78. Social Informatics Home Page, February 17, 1997. Available: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/SI/.
79. The Center for Social Informatics, February 17, 1997. Available: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/.
80. Mary Biggs, "The Role of Research in the Development of a Profession or a Discipline," in Library and Information Science Research: Perspectives and Strategies for Improvement, eds. Charles R. McClure, and Peter Hernon (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991), 72-84; Ron Day, "LIS, Method, and Postmodern Science," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 37, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 317-24.
81. Michael H. Harris, and Stan A. Hannah. Into the Future: the Foundations of Library and Information Services in the Post-Industrial Era. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993).