Article Summary
The article critiqued in this paper is Change and innovation in European LIS education by Virkus and Wood. It was trying to explore contemporary trends and advances in university education and institutional responses to these paradigm shifts in a postmodern world. Specifically, it examined the role played by the Library and Information Science (LIS) programs in ICT innovation in the European Union (EU). The methods involved three case studies of LIS universities and their responses to educational change and contributions to technology development. They included the UK’s Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and Robert Gordon University (RGU) and Estonia’s Tallinn Pedagogical University (TPU).
The thesis advanced is that rapid educational change in universities is fundamental to sustainable innovation. The authors found that LIS institutions grapple with internationalization, competitive threats from other universities, quality demands, and the pressure to upgrade the departmental structure. Their recent responses have included the development of new programs/courses, new instructional methods, staff involvement in innovation, and integration of ICT into teaching.
Critical Evaluation
Research Question
A specific research question to focus on the inquiry is lacking. The authors only give a brief background to their study in which they highlight the key features of the information age and the role of higher education (HE) and training in the current societal restructuring. They then state the purpose of the research and its scope.
Articles on the Same Topic
The article fits well with pre-existing research hypotheses and findings on educational change and developments and solutions to HE challenges. It builds on other studies examining the trends in the HE sector and institutional responses to explore how LIS organizations have contributed to innovation in the EU. It analyzes the challenges that HE institutions face in the modern technology-driven era and illuminates related opportunities and specific actions undertaken by LIS universities based on literature.
Important Studies
The article mainly reviewed studies on innovation in LIS education. While the paper relies on a good theoretical basis for examining the pedagogical use of ICT by European HE institutions to respond to existential challenges, and inclusion of LIS research from outside Europe would have strengthened the review. Studies comparing standards and conventions in technology use in HE institutions across different national contexts are missing.
Problem and Methods
To some extent, the article’s research methods can be seen as the best fit for the problem being investigated. An exploratory study of pedagogical use of innovation in LIS programs would require a case study design to uncover the technologies utilized by departments in teaching and learning. The descriptive analysis was also appropriate; it presented the challenges and institutional responses to technological pressures. However, data collection methods seem to lack sufficient detail. For example, the demographic characteristics of the respondents and the features of the instrument used are missing. Further, the sample size (n=12) was small, and the sampling strategy – two institutions from the UK and one from Estonia – is not explained. Collecting quantitative data from more LIS institutions from diverse national contexts could give findings with greater external validity.
Reporting Consistency and Format
Overall, the findings are reported in a consistent and clear manner. The article describes with substantial clarity the ICT infrastructure that each of the three LIS departments has implemented in separate paragraphs. For example, based on respondent data, MMU’s most significant educational changes in the LIS department are identified as the introduction of an intranet-based ‘courseware’ platform for sharing lecture notes and WebCT – an online instruction delivery system. The developments in other LIS departments are reported in subsequent paragraphs. Verbatim quotes are included to strengthen the claims.
Problems in the Data
The article may have overlooked the demographic data of the staff respondents. Further, the sample size is not stated. Interview data were included in the discussion about LIS institutions’ contributions to innovation. However, pre-analysis statistics, such as the response rate and the number of questions/items, were overlooked.
Acknowledgment and Explanation of Limitations
The authors identify and explain one limitation of their study in the conclusions section. They point out that the use of only three case studies may have limited the results’ representativeness. They suggest that further research in this area should sample more LIS departments as well as professional organizations and firms.
Clarity of Logic and Support for Claims
The argument presented in the article seems logical and reflects valid reasoning. External forces – globalization, competition, and quality demands – are driving change in LIS departments. Their responses have included the pedagogical use of ICT in an incremental fashion. The article’s claims are well supported by verbatim statements from the interviewees. For example, direct quotes from three respondents are given to back up the assertion that innovation is aimed at improvement, including “innovation is needed to keep our heads above water” (p. 326).
Fallacies
No fallacies were spotted on reading the article. However, the variables investigated are not clear. Additionally, it is not stated if there was a causal relationship between external forces and educational change in LIS departments or not.
Personal Opinion
I agree with the article’s finding that there is a strategic use of ICT in pedagogy in LIS institutions. Certainly, technology advancement is driving sweeping changes in many sectors, including higher education. A logical institutional response would be to integrate ICT into teaching and learning. However, I am a bit skeptical of the finding that technology has had a positive impact on educational outcomes because the study seems to lack scientific rigor, relies on a qualitative design, and samples from only three LIS institutions.
Contribution to Knowledge and Its Implications or Applications
In my view, this article’s contribution to knowledge is significant. It uncovers specific institutional responses to technological changes, disproving the view that change in universities is slow. It demonstrates that HE institutions and departments are responsive to external developments. They have integrated ICT infrastructure into teaching and learning in a gradual and phased manner.
The article’s findings have implications for pedagogy in higher education. Each HE institution should develop and implement innovation in its departments to tackle the challenges of internationalization, quality demands, and competition. Successful strategy implementation would require the right people to lead the change. The profile of the target group (students) is also critical.
Suggestions to Improve the Research
The article relied on limited qualitative (interview) data to make its conclusions. I would suggest the inclusion of more LIS departments from European and non-European countries using a stratified sampling strategy to strengthen the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, a mixed-methods design would enhance the validity and reliability of the results. In this case, qualitative data (direct quotes) would help validate quantitative (objective) findings. Further, this research design will enable the researchers to establish a causal link between ICT infrastructure and improvements in pedagogical outcomes.