Open Source Conversion:

Moving from Preaching to Practice

 

Melissa M. Little

School of Library and Information Sciences

San Jose State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The open source software (OSS) movement seems very compatible with the goals of librarianshipto make information free and open to all. However, the open source movement has not been quickly embraced by the library world. This paper will examine the role of the American Library Association in the promotion and growth of the open source software movement as well as how Schools of Library and Information Science have advanced open source technologies in the education of future librarians. How have these two groups helped or hindered OSS and what can they do to increase its use and sustainability?

 

Open Source Conversion: Moving from Preaching to Practice

 

In a recent blog post on CNET.com, Matt Asay argues that in the age of open source proliferation, evangelism will no longer be needed. He concludes that "It's time for the next phase of open source, the practical phase where we focus on how to deploy open source, not why.(Asay, 2009). For those in the library world, a movement whose founders share the belief that information should be free and offers an alternative to proprietary corporations would seem to be a perfect fit. However, despite the fact that the free software movement has been in existence since 1983 (Wikipedia, n.d.), the library world seems slow to embrace open source software.

The answer to the question of how to make open source the foundation for library computer systems stems from Asay's conclusion. While librarians seem very cognizant of why open source software would be beneficial, there seems to be a disconnect in how to take advantage of its benefits. The lack of knowledge necessary to become proficient consumers of open source software needs to be addressed.

In the library profession, the American Library Association (ALA) and the universities educating future librarians should be leading the charge toward open source software usage. This paper will examine what these two groups are doing to prepare librarians to become movers and shakers in the open movement, specifically as it pertains to open source technology.

 

The ALA's Role

 

American Libraries serves as the news of record for the American Library Association. In that role, it should be a bellwether to librarians in reporting on open source technology. However, the first coverage found in relation to the library world and open source technologies comes from Library Software Review. The article outlines how to use the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server, and Samba to build a low cost library web server (Orr, 1998, p. 171). The first mention of open source by American Libraries comes from David Dorman in his column Technically Speaking. He notes the open-source software movement seems to be on a roll these days (Dorman, 1999, p. 102). The column reports on the new listserv oss4lib as well as the Open Source Digital Library System hosted by Jeremy Frumkin of the University of Arizona.

After this initial mention, open source software only has thirteen more acknowledgments by American Libraries (AL). Compare this number with its reporting on Microsoft, which retrieves twenty-seven items when a search of AL's archives is done. Nearly half of the references to open source are short notations in the technology column of the magazine. Of those remaining, most articles simply mention new open source alternatives that have become available in the library world. Evangelical content about open source software in the magazine is minimal.

However, in 2002, AL did a cover story entitled Open Source Software and the Intellectual Commons (Dorman, 2002, p. 51-54). In it, the technology columnist for the magazine proselytizes to the non-tech contingent about open source and briefly mentions Koha. He contrasts the restrictions to information that has evolved from stronger copyright law to the freedom of code available through open source software. Another positive open source article in AL details the author's experience with using the new (to him) web browser, Mozilla Firefox (Janes, 2005, p. 80). His explanation of why he used Internet Explorer for so long when he was not satisfied with it sums up what seemed to be the default attitude of the library community toward open-source, it seemed too much trouble to use anything else, so I just didn't.

One clue that might explain AL's light coverage comes from the introductory column written by Andrew K. Pace, who replaced David Dorman as the magazines tech columnist in April, 2004. He states at the beginning of his article If there's a schtick that I pull on occasion it's endeavoring to improve associations between libraries and their vendors. (Pace, 2004, April, p.93). Later in the column he shares his position on the OSS community: They say that nine out of ten restaurants failOSS projects should be so lucky. With so many of them out there, separating a clamor for attention from a real chance at success is a tricky business.(Pace, 2004, April, p. 93). He clearly does not share Dorman's positive feelings toward OSS.

While the coverage of OSS by American Libraries would be one indicator of the ALA's inclination away from open source technologies, one should also examine how the association has chosen to represent these technologies to its members. The Library and Technology Association (LITA), a division of ALA, does have an Open Source Systems Interest Group. Unfortunately, its area of ALA Connect and the LITA wiki have almost no content. Additionally, the last posted annual conference report dates from 2006. (LITA, 2009). However, in the LITA Divisions section of the website, LITA Open Source Systems Committees charge statement is found:

 

To encourage active participation in the Open Source community through developing, adapting, improving and fixing Open Source solutions for use in libraries. To promote the use of Open Source in libraries through education, distribution, and creating support structures to assist with appropriate implementation. To advocate for the development of appropriate standards and policies that are true to the spirit of the Open Source movement. (LITA, 2009).

 

It is unclear if the lack of content stems from the change from an interest group to a committee, but searches of LITA yield no more information on this shift in title.

Conferences also would be a place that the ALA could show their support of Open Source Technologies. As early as 2000, LITAs Open Source Software Interest Group hosted Practical Solutions for Libraries: Open Source Software (Chudnov, 2000). At the ALA Conference in Chicago this past summer, a program titled The Open Library Environment Project: Building an ILS for Service Oriented Architecture Integration (2009 ALA Annual, n.d.) was presented. Contrast this single program to 2008, when meetings titled Drupal4Libraries Birds of Feather, Open Source Open Services, Open Source Legal Issues, and Building and Supporting Koha were all offered at the ALA Annual Conference. Additionally, the Next Generation Catalog Interest Group discussed open source alternatives as did the Top Tech Trends discussion group. Perhaps ALA has taken Asays stance that librarians no longer need to be sold on OSS. However, it remains to be seen what ALA will do to address the question of how librarians can integrate OSS in a sustainable way.

Much like American Libraries isolates it OSS content to the tech column, the ALA website tends to contain its OSS news in www.alatechsource.org--that section of the site geared toward more computer-savvy librarians. One could argue that by doing so they are continuing the tradition of giving each separate division of the Association a separate forum specific to their interests. However, while the interests of school librarians may vary from public librarians, for too long ALA has pocketed technology into a category for which only a segment of librarians need to have interest. In the digital information age, every librarian needs to become adept in technology. To be able to sustain OSS without reliance on outside sources librarians must be able to integrate its maintenance and development into their workload. Continuing to address open source systems information to only a segment of librarians is the logical equivalent of librarians not sharing research databases with every patron seeking information based on the patrons level of experience with technology; it makes no sense and sets up severe and arbitrary limitations.

 

Train Up a Child in the Way He Should Go

The degree to which librarians embrace open source can often be directly correlated to their comfort with technology in general. If schools of library and information science wish to encourage the open source software movement, then the first step would be to ensure all graduates of their programs hold a certain level of technological knowledge.

Currently, the ALA has given accreditation to 48 Masters programs in the United States. (ALA, n.d). In looking over the degree requirements for these schools, a standard technology requirement exists for all of them. The concern seems to be that the computer used by the student meets certain specifications, and while many of the program guidelines specify knowledge of MS Office Suite and comfort with email and the internet, no sites mention open source alternatives that might exist to fulfill these requirements. Offering suggestions and links to open source alternatives would save students money and expose them to these sources early in their careers.

 

Although knowledge beyond word processing may be unnecessary for students entering a Masters program, once completed, one would expect that the curriculum would prepare future librarians to take advantage of the open source alternatives that exist as well as the proprietary software they will be expected to use. However, of the 48 ALA-accredited programs, only one third require any sort of technology course. The table below shows the schools whose requirements include a technology component.

Graduate Library Science Programs Requiring a Technology Course

University of Alabama	University of Missouri-Columbia	University of Iowa
University of Albany	University of Pittsburgh	University of Michigan
UCLA	Queens College	University of Kentucky
Emporia State University	Simmons College	University of South Carolina
Kent State University	Wayne State University	Louisiana State University
University of Maryland

 

These schools have been chosen by the American Library Association for accreditation. Many employers only want graduates of the programs to whom ALA has given this official recognition. If ALA made requiring a technology course part of the accreditation guidelines, more schools would make this type of course a standard part of the curriculum. Even if ALA did not stipulate that OSS elements exist in the technology course offered, increasing technology skills among library and information science graduates would increase the likelihood that open source would become more widespread in libraries. Open source systems need maintained to remain sustainable, and the more schools are able to produce librarians comfortable doing this task, the more libraries will most likely embrace OSS.

 

Some schools offer alternatives to the Master of Library and Information Science which prepare the graduate for careers focusing on the more technological side of information science. Drexel offers as an alternative to the Masters in Library and Information Science, the Master of Science in Information Systems. This degree program emphasizes the computing aspects of librarianship. Indiana University offers the Master of Information Science which, like Drexels MSIS, prepares those information professionals who wish to focus on the more hi-tech aspects of the profession. The University of Maryland also offers a Masters of Information Management that meets the growing need organizations have for information professionals who understand the issues of information management; business management; computer science; and information systems (University of Maryland, n.d). The University of North Carolina offers both a Master of Science in Information Science and a Master of Science in Library Science. The MSIS focuses on the networking and programming end of Information Science, but the MSLS graduate has no required technology courses at all. North Carolina Central University School of Library and Information Sciences also divides the curriculum for Masters in Information Science and Masters of Library Science with the later focusing on traditional librarian skills and not requiring any technology courses.

 

Additionally, even those schools that offer only an MLIS degree do have specializations addressing the technical knowledge needed by information professionals. Courses of study offered by the various schools include Information Technology, Digital Libraries, Networked Digital Information, Informatics, Information Architecture, Information Systems, Web Design, Technology and Networking, and Library Automation. Of the programs offered, only one consists completely of open source systems. The University of Arizona offers a Graduate Certificate in Digital Information Management. The goal of this program is to address a shortage of professionals who combine an understanding of the disciplines of libraries, archives, and data management and who also have the technical knowledge and learning skills needed to create and manage digital collections in a fast-changing environment.(University of Arizona, 2009). It consists of six on-line courses training students on a LAMP (Linux, Apache HTTP Server, MySQL, and PHP) software bundle.(University of Arizona, n.d.)

While having these choices does address the need for these skills in the digital age in which we live, making them electives has the same impact as ALAs segregation of technology issues. Only those students who have an affinity for the topic will select these specializations. Those sixteen schools requiring all students to be exposed to information technology increase the likelihood of them pursuing further coursework in an area which may have initially intimidated them.

 

For those librarians who entered the profession prior to the advent of the digital age, continuing education must be provided to help them become proficient with technology so that they too can assist with improving the independent sustainability of open source software. The Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) promotes excellence in research, teaching, and service in library and information science (LIS) education (Fitzgibbons, 2003). One function of ALISE is maintenance of the Library and Information Science Statistical Report and Database. While only members of ALISE have access to the database, in 2001, the editors of the database released Highlights of the 2001 ALISE Statistical Report with Five and Ten Year Comparison of Key Data Elements (Fitzgibbons, 2003). One finding of this report was:

Though 46 schools report some form of nondegree continuing education activity, two schools continue throughout the decade to report very high levels of continuing education activities: South Carolina and Wisconsin-Madison. Only nine schools employ a coordinator for continuing education activities.

 

Furthermore, an area where schools of library and information science could assist in the OSS movement would be to provide continuing education for librarians who cannot teach themselves the technology skills needed to be competent with cultivating open source software within their institutions. Schools of Library and Information Science should make this continuing education more of a priority and ALA should include that criterion in their accreditation requirements. This continuing education should focus on programming and computer knowledge as well as open source software alternatives.

While all ALA-accredited graduate programs offer information technology to some degree, less than half specify in their course catalogs that open source technologies will be taught. As mentioned earlier, University of Arizona has designed a graduate certificate based around OSS, but they also address the different OS alternatives available in all the information technology courses. UCLA, University of Illinois, University of Kentucky, Louisiana State University, University of Michigan, Simmons College, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee, and University of Wisconsin-Madison all use the Open Source Course Management System, Moodle. At Texas Womens University, Dr. Diane Neal used Koha with Class in her library automation course. (Kado, 2006). LibLime hosted the demo systems for the class pro bono, one would assume as a means to market their product to future librarians. A review of oss4lib.org reveals many university open source projects are mentioned, but they either are not at library schools or are being done at schools which have not achieved the ALA accreditation. Therefore, failure of library and information science programs to make OSS technology a more common part of the curriculum can be traced back to the ALAs failure to make them a requirement of accreditation.

 

Conclusion

As information sources have moved increasingly away from paper and toward computer-based collections, librarians have needed to adapt to these changes. While some have been quick to adjust, others have failed to diversify their skill set. The information explosion has made information a commodity and its networks, retrieval systems, and disseminators expensive. A failure to broaden horizons may be at the heart of the slow growth of open source software in the library world. Open source technologies would not only allow libraries to decrease operating costs and become independent of proprietary companies, it would also better adapt to the needs of patrons over time.

The two factions in the best position to communicate the benefits of OSS to the library community would be the American Library Association and the Schools of Library and Information Science which they have accredited. Currently, open source alternatives have been presented by these two groups, but only to those librarians and future librarians who express interest in the world of information technology. To truly grow OSS and take advantage of all its benefits, both of these groups need to make digital expertise a core competency and a requirement of all library professionals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

2009 ALA Annual (n.d.). Retrieved from the ALA/LITA wiki: http://wikis.ala.org/lita/index.php/2009_ALA_Annual

 

American Library Association (n.d.). Alphabetical list of institutions with ALA-accredited programs. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/education/accreditedprograms/directory/list/index.cfm

 

Asay, M. (2009, October 27). R.I.P., open-source evangelism. Message posted to http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10383730-16.html.

 

Chudnov, D. (2000, July 10). ALA #2: LITAs OSSIG, the Big Event. Message posted to http://oss4lib.org/

 

Department of Information Studies, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles (2008). Student Handbook 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/students/forms/handbook/handbook_2008/Handbook2008-2009.pdf.

 

Dorman, D. (1999). Technically Speaking. American Libraries, 30(5), 102. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Dorman, D. (2002). Open Source Software and the Intellectual Commons. American Libraries, 33(11), 51-55. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Drexel University iSchool (n.d.) MSIS Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/PS/GraduatePrograms/msis.

 

Emporia State University School of Library and Information Management (2009, March 19). Master of Library Science Curriculum. Retrieved from http://slim.emporia.edu.

 

Fitzgibbons, S. (2003). Association for Library and Information Science Education. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Second Edition 192-205. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/

 

Free Software Movement. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from www.wikipedia.org.

 

Orr, G. (1988). Building a library web server on a budget. Library Software Review,17(3), 171-176. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from ABI/INFORM Global.

 

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science. (n.d.). School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University Bloomington MIS Degree Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.slis.indiana.edu/degrees/mis/.

 

Janes, J. (2005). Internet Librarian. American Libraries, 36(1), 80. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Kados (2006, November 27). Koha with Class: Future Librarians Train Using Koha ILS. Message posted to http://oss4lib.org.

 

Kent State University School of Library and Information Science. (n.d.). The Master of Library and Information Science Degree (M.L.I.S). Retrieved from http://www.slis.kent.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=13

 

Library and Information Technology Association. (2009, September 16). LITA Open Source Systems Committee Charge. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita-roster.cfm?committee=lit-igopens.

 

Louisiana State University School of Library and Information Science (n.d.). Degrees and Programs Offered. Retrieved from http://slis.lsu.edu/academic/degrees.html#mreqdc.

 

North Carolina Central University School of Library and Information Sciences. (n.d.). Master of Library Science Program. Retrieved from http://www.nccuslis.org/.

 

Pace, A. (2004). Technically Speaking. American Libraries, 35(4), 92-93. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Queens College Graduate School of Library and Information Studies. (n.d.). Course Catalog. Retrieved from http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/GSLIS/coursecatalog.html

 

Simmons Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences. (n.d.). M. S. Core. Retrieved from http://www.simmons.edu/gslis/academics/courses/core/index.php.

 

University of Alabama School of Library and Information Studies. Degree Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.slis.ua.edu/Degree_Req.html.

 

University of Albany College of Computing and Information. Master of Science in Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/cci/informationstudies/msis.shtml.

 

University of Iowa School of Library and Information Science. (n.d.) Current M.A. Chart (effective for students after 2008). Retrieved from http://www.slis.uiowa.edu/drupal/?q=node/33.

 

University of Kentucky. (2009, August). School of Library and Information Science School Bulletin August, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/SLIS/bulletin/2009fall.pdf.

 

University of Maryland College of Information Studies. (n.d.). Master of Library Science (MLS). Retrieved from http://ischool.umd.edu/programs/mls.shtml.

 

University of Michigan School of Information. (n.d.). MSI Degree Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.si.umich.edu/msi/msi-reqs.htm.

 

University of Missouri-Columbia College of Information. (n.d.). Master of Arts. Retrieved from http://education.missouri.edu/SISLT/LIS/LIS_Master_of_Arts.php.

 

University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science. (n.d.). Degrees and Programs Overview. Retrieved from http://sils.unc.edu/programs/.

 

University of Pittsburgh School of Information Sciences. (n.d.). Course Descriptions. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.pitt.edu/lis/courses/descriptions.php#2600.

 

University of South Carolina School of Library and Information Science. (n.d.). Course Descriptions. Retrieved from http://www.libsci.sc.edu/program/newcoursesoffered.htm

 

Wayne State University School of Library and Information Science. (n.d.). Required Classes. Retrieved from http://slis.wayne.edu/degrees/master-required.php

 

.