International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2001‐2002

Citation

Nicholas, D. (2003), "International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2001‐2002", Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330310460617

The introduction to this book tells us it is a thematic, refereed annual covering current issues, emerging trends, best practice and future scenarios in the broad field of library science and information management. It is said to be for “reflective practitioners”, who turn out to be “information professionals interested in keeping abreast of developments and prepared for critical engagement with views expressed by authors in the Yearbook”. Plainly, all the marketing buzzwords are here to sell a work like this.

A book like this then succeeds or fails largely on four factors – its coherence, topic selection and appropriateness, authority, and currency. Let us look at the first two – coherence and topic selection. The questions are what holds it together and how really interesting, buzzing and topical are the subjects selected?

The 14 articles are gathered under the following sections:

• •

  the evolution of information services;

• •

  information services in different types of libraries;

• •

  the delivery of information services;

• •

  information literacy – a key service; and

• •

  the measurement of information services.

The main principle of division or theme is difficult to spot and it seems more a rag‐bag of topics being offered here. But what of the articles within these sections? A bit of a mess here. Take the “Information services in different types of libraries” section. Information behaviour in the electronic age (Linda Banwell) is lost in this section. It is also difficult to understand the reasoning behind placing Youth services in an electronic environment (Susan Ellen Higgins) next to Organisational development in Denmark’s Electronic Research library (Jakob Petersen). As for topicality and interest the index and contents page show there is nothing here on WebTV, or digital interactive television, or information kiosks, or information policy, or new media, or the evaluation of Web sites – all things my students find fascinating.

What then of the authority and currency of the material? The Yearbook is alleged to be refereed but no details of this process are mentioned, nor are the referees named. This undermines the claim somewhat. To be truthful, many of the authors are unknown to me and my students, and are certainly not represented in abundance on their reading lists. Let us take a section with which I am very familiar to investigate this matter further – “The measurement of information services section”. A disappointing number (two) papers constitute this surely strategic section. The two papers are Measurement and evaluation of electronic information services (Ronald Powell) and Monitoring the e‐turnstile: developing digital library user profiles (Patrick McGlamery). Powell gives Web log analysis, a key method for evaluation and monitoring, a passing note of about four lines. McGlamery is the Map Librarian of the Map and Geographic Information Center at the Homer Babbidge Library at the University of Connecticut. He does give more attention to Web log analysis but from the “reflective practitioners” point of view provides very few references to actual studies (and no UK ones, of course, which questions the international pedigree of the publication).

On a positive note references appear generally to be current but nevertheless in the case of McGlamery’s paper, perhaps the one that requires the most up‐to‐date material, around a third of the references are now five years old or more.

Talking to a representative from the book publishers, Sage, recently I was told that they had an aversion to edited books on the grounds that they found it was difficult to sell them. The requirement in the market seems to be for single authored books, presumably on the grounds that there is more “integrity” in such books. I understand their aversion.