ORGANIZATIONAL REALIGNMENT OF LIS PROGRAMS IN ACADEMIA: FROM INDEPENDENT STANDALONE UNITS TO INCORPORATED PROGRAMS
Charles R. Hildreth and Michael Koenig
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University/C.W. Post Campus
Brookville, NY 11548
This research includes both a descriptive and an exploratory study of 17 Library and Information Science (LIS) education academic units or programs that have been involved in mergers or administrative realignments that have positioned them in new organizational homes between the years 1982-2001. These LIS schools have been subject to a process that has moved them, willingly or not, from a status of relative independence and autonomy (and in many cases, cultural isolation), to that of partners in new alliances, or protected “adoptees” in new administrative and organizational homes. The authors wished to discover what took place when, and learn of the conditions surrounding the merger or repositioning of the schools. We also wished to explore why these changes were implemented and to learn as much as possible about the outcomes of these developments. For the descriptive part of the study we relied on available documentation, often online, and telephone interviews with key participants in the mergers. Deans, Directors, and senior faculty members were selected to make up a purposive sample for the exploratory, qualitative part of this study. A questionnaire consisting of twenty-three, mostly open-ended, questions was administered in telephone interviews. A follow-up brief questionnaire on specific outcomes was administered by email to the participants in the study. What we learned about the rationales, responses to, and outcomes of these mergers and realignments is reported here. While such mergers and relocations have been successful so far as survival strategies, many of the anticipated benefits have yet to be realized.
Mergers and administrative realignments of academic units and programs in the university are not uncommon. Senior administrators typically cite financial pressures and the need for cost-saving streamlining of program structures as justification for such initiatives. Understandably, those directly affected by these mergers and relocations, the faculty of the units, are concerned with the rationale, implications, and impact of such radical administrative directives and actions. One would be hard-pressed to discover a faculty handbook or faculty union contract that did not address the issues that surround department or school “disestablishments,” mergers, and realignments. It might be instructive to review some recent or proposed university department mergers encountered on the Web as a result of searching for “academic department unit mergers” on Google: Pharmacy and Nursing, Geology and Geography, Wildlife and Forestry, Agriculture and Home Economics, Theater and Dance, Biomedical Sciences and Biology, Exercise Science and Nutrition, Industrial Engineering and Management Science, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Information Science and …(you name it).
It appears that such mergers and administrative realignments (placing smaller units in new homes) are on the increase in the academy. While the 1980s has been characterized as the decade of mergers and acquisitions in the corporate world, it may well be accurate to label the 1990s as the decade of mergers and realignments in the academic world. As Walpole points out, “Such mergers between academic units have been one response to restructuring and downsizing initiatives, often referred to as retrenchments, which have occurred more frequently in colleges and universities in recent years.” [1]
Budget pressures and cost-savings to be achieved through organizational streamlining are frequently mentioned in support of these measures, but, often, the rationale for program mergers and eliminations are couched in broader terms. Consider this statement issued by a planning task force at a major U.S. university: “The Task Force also believes that most factors which address educational enhancement, viability, and economies of scale can most effectively be addressed within the current college/school structure through departmental/programmatic mergers, realignments, or eliminations.” [2]
There has been a modest amount of research on mergers and realignments of academic programs and departments in colleges and universities. [3-6] Most of this research has been exploratory in nature, focusing on circumstances, rationale, and effects of administrative retrenchment and downsizing through unit mergers and closures. The best of these studies examine the effects of academic mergers on mission performance effectiveness and organizational culture (e.g., identity, values, norms) from an organizational culture perspective. [4] This perspective is recommended by organizational theorists as an explanatory framework for understanding a wide range of organizational phenomena. According to Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, the success of any merger depends largely on the successful implementation of an appropriate acculturation process. [7-9] The more culturally dissimilar the merger partners, the more critical it is to confront this acculturation challenge.
There has been little research to date on mergers and realignments involving library and information science (LIS) schools. This is in contrast to the substantial amount of literature on the closing of LIS schools between 1978 and 1990, though the magnitude and the significance of the phenomenon are, arguably, quite similar. [10-18] Curry conducted an interview-based descriptive study of trends and issues in the seven Canadian schools of library and information science. [19] She reports that “five of Canada’s schools have either moved into new administrative units within their university, re-positioned themselves within their old units, or are currently considering such a move.” The rationale expressed most frequently is found in these words: “enhancing school survival potential” and getting “out of the line of fire for budget-cutting university administrators.” Curry suggests that these mergers have generated new partnership “opportunities,” but these opportunities are not spelled out and evidence for their realization and success is not provided.
One of the most thoughtful studies of a library school merger was conducted by MaryAnn Walpole. [1] In her case study of a single library school merger (not revealed by Walpole but now generally agreed to be UCLA), Walpole applies organizational theory to better understand the difficulties merged library schools face when required to construct a new organizational identity. Specifically, Walpole focuses on the “isomorphic forces at play in the construction of a retrenched unit’s new identity during a merger. [1] University administrators frequently speak of the positive benefits of unit mergers, for example, program enhancement, new “synergies,” improved intellectual environment, etc. Chiang’s and Walpole’s studies remind us that organizational identity and related cultural factors play a major role in the successful realization of these benefits. More alarming is Chiang’s findings-supported conclusion that most academic mergers have not produced the hoped-for improvements in organizational effectiveness, or substantial changes in organizational culture. [4]
Between 1978 and 1990, fifteen library schools and programs closed in the United States. This phenomenon, its causes and implications, continues to be a focus of investigation and professional debate. Mostly in the 1990s, but spanning the years from 1982 to 2001, at least seventeen LIS schools have been involved in mergers or other major administrative realignments. Fourteen have been participants in mergers. (See Table 1.) Generally speaking, these LIS schools have been subject to a process that has moved them, willingly or not, from a status of relative independence and autonomy (and in many cases, cultural isolation), to that of partners in new alliances, or protected “adoptees” in new administrative and organizational homes.
The authors designed and carried out a descriptive and exploratory study of these LIS school mergers and realignments. We wished to discover what took place when, and learn of the conditions surrounding the merger or repositioning of the schools. We also wished to explore why these changes were implemented and to learn as much as possible about the outcomes of these developments. For the descriptive part of the study we relied on available documentation, often online, and telephone interviews with key participants in the mergers. Deans, Directors, and senior faculty members were selected to make up a purposive sample for the exploratory, qualitative part of this study. A questionnaire consisting of twenty-three, mostly open-ended, questions was administered in telephone interviews. A follow-up brief questionnaire on specific outcomes was administered by email to the participants in the study. The interviews took place in the Spring, Summer, and Fall of 2001.
This study of LIS school mergers and administrative realignments addressed the following six research questions:
Table 1 provides an overview of the LIS schools and their merger partners and new homes.
|
School/Program |
Merger Partner Discipline |
Date |
|
Rutgers |
Communications/Media |
1982 |
|
Kentucky |
Communications/Media |
1993 |
|
Southern Connecticut |
Communications/Media |
1995 |
|
Alabama |
Communications/Media |
1997 |
|
Western Ontario |
Communications/Media |
1997 |
|
Buffalo |
Communications/Media |
1999 |
|
Alberta |
Education |
1991 |
|
UCLA |
Education |
1994 |
|
McGill |
Education |
1996 |
|
Missouri |
Education |
1996 |
|
Texas Woman’s U. |
Education |
2000 |
|
Hawaii |
Computer Science |
1996 |
|
Long Island |
Computer
Science |
2001 |
|
Dalhousie |
Management/Admin. |
1984 |
|
N. Carolina-Greensboro |
Repositioning in Education |
1989 |
|
British Columbia |
Relocation to Graduate Studies |
1990 |
|
Iowa |
Relocation to Graduate School |
1999 |
Table 1. Merger/Realignment LIS Schools/Programs in Study
Six schools partnered with communications (often including journalism and mass media units) programs, six partnered or stayed with education schools, two with computer science, and one with management. This should bring some relief to those traditionalists among us who fear we are moving “en masse” to information technology-dominated programs.
We have identified five types of mergers or realignments in academia:
Given that program survival and “campus politics” are the most cited reasons for merging, it should come as no surprise that the LIS school is the junior partner in eleven of the fourteen mergers. Rutgers and Western Ontario may have a legitimate claim to being “equal partners” in their mergers. This assessment is left to the knowledgeable reader. The most recent merger involves the Palmer School of Library and Information Science and the computer science department at Long Island University. The Palmer School is the senior partner in a newly-formed College of Information and Computer Science. The Palmer School Dean is also the first Dean of the new College.
It can be said without a great deal of exaggeration that the elimination of fifteen library schools in the United States between 1978 and 1990 has been the primary motivational factor that explains this rush to new academic homes. And there is more than a little irony in the fact that the majority of the Canadian schools have embraced this strategy. As Curry reports: “The closure of several US library schools in the past decade has certainly engendered a feeling of vulnerability among Canadian schools….Survival tactics include becoming less conspicuous within a larger more powerful department or joining another unit of equal size and entwining the programs so that each is indispensable to the other. Both strategies appear to be effective as no Canadian school now feels directly under attack.” [19]
It is tempting to coin a phrase here, “merge or die.” LIS school mergers clearly have been one response to campus retrenchment initiatives and program reduction resulting from declining budgets and administrative streamlining efforts. The reasons given for a merger or move to a new home in the university vary with the source of the rationale. In ten of the fourteen mergers, the “prime mover” was a senior university administrator, from outside the LIS school and the LIS profession. In four cases, the initial momentum came from within the LIS school, via the Dean/Director or faculty, or some combination of both.
In the discussions of merger rationale, both actual and perceived, negative factors are the most frequently cited. These factors include survival, decreased vulnerability, budgetary protection, campus politics, from the LIS side, and cost-saving restructuring, elimination of program overlap and redundancy, and improvements in the quality of teaching and research through new “synergies” and higher standards of performance, from the university administrator’s side. Small or declining student enrollments did not seem to be as much a factor as the lack of vital undergraduate programs.
We also wished to learn of LIS faculty levels of support or resistance to the mergers and realignments. In only three cases was there strong, outspoken resistance to the proposed merger on the part of most faculty members. In five cases there was mild or mixed resistance to the proposed merger. In nine cases most faculty members were at least somewhat, if not enthusiastically, supportive. This may well be explained by “rational choice” theory, as the faculty pondered the alternative to merger, program disestablishment. This is not to say that positive motivating factors did not play a role in these situations. Frequently mentioned factors included the opening up of opportunities for new programs, interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching and research, and an enhanced intellectual environment.
The merger survival strategy seems to be working, at least in Canada. As Curry reports, “In summary, the isolated, self-sufficient library school no longer exists in Canada. Spurred by fear that like a tree they could easily be chopped down and carted away as an easy solution to a budget crisis, Canadian schools have changed into hedges, pushing their way into many parts of the university landscape and as a result, have become much more difficult to eliminate.” [19]
It is too early to know whether or not the former independent LIS schools will survive over the long run in any recognizable manner. Perhaps like General Douglas MacArthur’s “old soldiers,” they will not die but just fade away. We did identify ten outcome factors that could be assessed by the schools on a three-point scale ranging from “Better Off Than Before,” About the Same as Before,” and “Somewhat Worse Off Than Before.” (See Table 2)
|
FACTOR |
OUTCOME* |
|
Survival Prospect |
|
|
Resource Availability |
|
|
Student Enrollment |
« |
|
Dean/Director’s Status |
¯ |
|
LIS Faculty Morale |
« |
|
Campus Image |
« |
|
Program Expansion |
|
|
Curriculum Innovation |
« |
|
Intellectual Environment |
|
|
Overall |
|
= Better Off
« = About the Same
¯ = Somewhat Worse Off
Table 2. Merger/Realignment: Outcomes Assessment
After consolidating the responses from the individual schools, some surprising findings came to the surface. As expected, most of those involved in a merger or realignment reported that their survival prospects had improved. The only “Worse Off” factor was the title and status of the school’s head. In almost all cases a diminution of title and status occurred (e.g., Dean to department chair). A notable exception to this took place at Long Island University, where the LIS Dean was appointed Dean of the new College of Information and Computer Science. On key factors like student enrollment, faculty morale, and campus visibility or image, little progress was reported, but there were some notable exceptions. Resource availability improved at most of the schools, and program expansion was up, largely explained by the introduction or expansion of undergraduate programs frequently mandated by university administrators. When comparing the assessments of outcome factors provided by the “Education” group and the “Communications/Media” group, there appears to be no difference on any of the factors, not even “campus image” and “faculty morale.” One anomaly in these assessments stands out: most post-merger schools enjoy an enhanced intellectual environment, but LIS faculty morale is reported to be at pre-merger levels. This may be explained by the difficulties of achieving successful acculturation where there are conflicting unit identities and dissimilar missions or cultural values and norms. [4] Though we did not address the issue directly, we were left with the impression that little change has occurred in the interaction among the merged units. It seems “synergy” is as difficult to achieve as it is to define.
There are several strong, viable, thriving LIS schools that are still independent and, apparently, not likely to be presented with the “merge or die” option any time soon. These schools include Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Drexel, Florida State, Michigan, Washington, Illinois, and Indiana. What do these schools have in common that may account for their viable, independent status on their campuses? This study did not directly provide data that bear on this question.
|
(LIS) IT Deans Schools |
Incorporated LIS Schools |
|
Albany California - Berkeley Drexel Florida State Hawaii Illinois Indiana Long Island Univ. Michigan Pittsburgh Syracuse Washington |
Alabama Albany Alberta Buffalo California – Los Angeles Dalhousie Hawaii Iowa Kentucky Long Island University McGill Missouri North Carolina – Greensboro Rutgers Southern Connecticut Texas Woman’s University Western Ontario |
Table 3. Expanded and Incorporated LIS Schools
What is immediately striking is the comparatively little degree of overlap between the two lists, particularly since they both represent a sizeable proportion of a community with little more than fifty members.
The “incorporated schools” list represents for the most part those schools that have wound up being incorporated into larger units in which they are not the senior partner. The “IT Deans school list” is a self selected group who chose to attend the Computing Research Association sponsored meeting, and who, in almost all cases, have chosen to expand aggressively into broader IT related areas from an LIS base.
Examining the three instances of overlap between the two lists is instructive. Albany was attending the IT deans meeting because it is now considering whether to undertake a broad undergraduate program. Hawaii was represented by a computer scientist, not by someone from the LIS community. Long Island University is incorporated into a larger unit, but, uncommonly, it is the senior partner in that unit. If one regards Albany and Hawaii as anomalies in the “IT Deans” list, Albany because it was there as an observer not as a participant, and Hawaii because unlike the other LIS programs it was not represented by anyone from the LIS Community , and Long Island University as an anomaly in the “Incorporated” list because unlike its peers, it was the senior partner in its incorporation, then there is no overlap between the de-anomalized lists.
What is the
import of this striking degree of non overlap?
While one needs to be cautious in drawing conclusions about causal
relationships from such data, a very plausible hypothesis is that a very
effective strategy to avoid being the junior partner in a larger unit is to
expand aggressively into broader IT related areas from an LIS base. Or, put more colorfully, if you don’t want
to be absorbed into a larger unit, then
don’t stick to your knitting, expand.
Therefore, we would like to suggest an effective strategy to avoid becoming an “adoptee” in a new university home, or a junior partner in a forced merger which some cynics have characterized as more like a capture than a rescue. The strategy is to expand and diversify aggressively, programmatically, into broader information management and technology areas from a traditional LIS institutional orientation. Van House and Sutton, among others, have articulated and have provided the theoretical basis for this strategy. [20] The authors call on ecological theory to help us understand the radical changes occurring in the information world and the academy, and to suggest adaptive survival strategies: “LIS is engaged in a struggle with other professions and academic disciplines both for jurisdiction over the information functions that have traditionally been the problem domain of LIS and of the emerging information functions brought about by changes in technology and society….We suggest that LIS education needs to further substitute an information-centered focus for its traditional institutional focus.” This does not mean we have to turn our backs on our library practitioners and their educational needs. We do not want to “throw out the baby with the bath water.” Van House and Sutton suggest that LIS schools “decouple” themselves from libraries, but one would be hard-pressed to justify this on either philosophical or economic grounds. It does mean that we must be enthusiastic, creative, and innovative in expanding and diversifying our mission and programs, both horizontally (e.g., updated curricula and interdisciplinary, extra-library research) and vertically (e.g., undergraduate and new graduate programs). These thriving, independent schools appear to be doing precisely these things. We wish them much success.
1. Walpole, MaryBeth. “Under Construction: Identity and Isomorphism in the Merger of a Library and Information Science School and an Education School.” The Library Quarterly 70, no. 4 (October 2000): 423-445.
2. University of Auburn Program reorganization Task Force Report.
Accessed 11-30-01: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/commission/reorganize/
3. Millett, John D. Mergers in Higher Education: An Analysis of Ten Case Studies. (Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1976).
4. Chiang, Min-Chin. Changes in Organizational Effectiveness and Culture Resulting From Mergers: An Empirical Analysis of Academic Department Mergers in Nine U.S. States (United States). (Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1990).
5. Gumport, Patricia J. “The Contested Terrain of Academic Program Reduction.” Journal of Higher Education 64 (May-June 1993): 283-311.
6. Gates, Gordon S. “Isomorphism, Homogeneity, and Rationalism in University Retrenchment.” Review of Higher Education 20 (Spring 1997): 253-275.
7. Nahavandi, Afsaneh and Ali R. Malekzadeh. “Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions.” Academy of Management Review 13 (January 1988): 79-91.
8. Malekzadeh, Ali R., and Afsaneh Nahavandi. “Making Mergers Work by Managing the Cultures.” Journal of Business Strategy (May/June 1990): 55-57.
9. Nahavandi, Afsaneh and Ali R. Malekzadeh. Organizational Culture in the Management of Mergers (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1993).
10. White, Herbert S. “Library Education Programs: Independence and Mergers. Library Journal 112 (June 1, 1987): 84-85.
11. Paris, Marion. Library School Closings: Four Case Studies.(Metuchen, NY: Scarecrow, 1988).
12. Paris, Marion. “Why Library Schools Fail.” Library Journal 115 (October 1990): 38-42.
13. Paris, Marion. “Library School Closings: The Need for Action.” Library Quarterly 61 (July 1991): 259-262.
14. Koenig, Michael E. D. “Buttering the toast evenly: library school closings at Columbia and Chicago are tragic; but they don't have to signal a trend.” American Libraries 21,no. 8,
(September 1990): 723-726.
15. Saracevic, Tefko. “Closing of Library Schools in North America: What Role Accreditation?” Libri 44 (1994): 190-200.
16. Barron, Daniel D. “Distance Education and the Closing of the American Library School.” Library Quarterly 61 (July 1991): 273-282.
17. Dalrymple, P. W. “The State of the Schools.” American Libraries 28 (1997): 31-34.
18. Pollicino, Elizabeth B. “LIS Education, Academic Libraries, and Higher Education Research: Partnership for Excellence.” (A Paper Presented at the National Conference of the Association for Library and Information Science Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 27, 1999). Accessed at: http://www.alise.org/nondiscuss/conf99_paper_pollicino.htm
19. Curry, Ann. “Canadian LIS Education: Trends and Issues.” Education for Information 18 (2000): 325-337.
20. Van House, Nancy A., and Stuart A. Sutton. “The Panda Syndrome: An Ecology of LIS Education.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 37, no. 2 (1996): 131-147.