Development Vectors of Foreign Librarianship: Time Challenges and Perspective

The paper presents the analysis of three concepts of the leading LIS scientists, which were developed taking into account modern development trends and future of foreign libraries. The purpose of this research is to highlight the priority development areas of foreign librarianship, which would allow Russian professionals to consider the challenges and perspective of the library sector. Such awareness could facilitate timely adjustments in the work of Russian libraries. The urgency of the issue is connected with the existence of different scenarios of librarianship development in the digital age. Over a long period of time, the scientific community has been pursuing answers to the question as to how libraries should change to operate successfully in new conditions. According to the first concept of David Lankes, which is based on the cybernetic theory, libraries should actively communicate with communities, inform readers about current events in society, encourage people to read and analyse, share ideas and broaden their horizons. The paper gives the areas of library work, which correspond to the above-mentioned tasks. The author of the second concept Wolfgang Ernst rests upon the theory of media studies, stating that digital environment crucially affects the form of knowledge presentation and organization, which is fixed in library documents, partially changing the nature of library services. In doing so, digital humanities methods are seen as a promising way of unlocking library knowledge. The third concept, authored by Ragnar Audunson, highlights two factors in the evolution of librarianship. The first factor is widespread digitalisation, which promotes open access to information. In this context, supporters of disintermediation emerge who believe that there is no need for libraries and librarians as intermediaries in the search for information now. The second factor is that modern libraries are institutions, which help to create civic engagement through conducting public debates. Digitalisation enables libraries to focus on their social mission instead of focusing on curating physical collections in this connection.

1. Svergunova N.M. Libraries on the Way from the Present to the Future, Desyatye Denis’evskie chteniya [The Tenth Denisyev Readings]. Oryol, 2014, pp. 74—77. Available at: http://www.buninlib.orel.ru/ekoll/denX.pdf (accessed 14.10.2021) (in Russ.).

2. Romanov P.S. Development Vectors of Foreign Library Science at Present Stage, Bibliosfera [Bibliosphere], 2011, no. 2, pp. 19—23 (in Russ.).

3. Lankes R.D. The New Librarianship Field Guide. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, MIT Press Publ., 2016, VIII, 226 p.

4. Conrad K.M. Public Libraries as Publishers: Critical Opportunity, The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 2017, vol. 20, issue 1. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0020.106.

5. Leonov V.P. The Future of Libraries as a Subject of Study, Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki [Scientific and Technical Libraries], 2012, no. 9, pp. 51—68 (in Russ.).

6. Ernst W. Die Unwahrscheinlichkeit von Wissenstradition und die Beharrlichkeit der Bibliothek, Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 2018, no. 42(2), pp. 379—386. DOI: 10.1515/bfp-2018-0038.

7. Knoche M. Wozu noch Bibliotheken? AKMB-news, 2018, no. 24(2), pp. 3—10.

8. Audunson R.A. Do We Need a New Approach to Library and Information Science? Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 2018, no. 42(2), pp. 357—362. DOI: 10.1515/bfp-2018-0040.

9. Harari Yu.N. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Moscow, Sinbad Publ., 2020, 516 p. (in Russ.).

10. Pask G. Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam, Oxford, Elsevier Publ., 1976, XIII, 402 p.

11. Katz S. Libraries Publish: How to Start a Magazine, Small Press, Blog and More. Santa Barbara, Libraries Unlimited Publ., 2021, XVI, 256 p.

12. Scharbert G. Literale Organisation von Wissen: Kanäle durch Bibliotheken, Geschichte und Neue Medien in Forschung, Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen: Tagungsband .hist 2003. Berlin, Clio-online Publ., Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Publ., 2005, pp. 115—128. DOI: 10.18452/17819.

13. Lynch C. Searching the Internet, Scientific American, 1997, no. 276 (3), pp. 52—56.

14. Sprenger F. Google Books als Medium im Medium, Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, 2012, no. 6 (1), pp. 237—240.

15. Nicholas D. Disintermediated, Decoupled and Down, Cilip Update, April 2012, pp. 29—31.

16. Demers P., Samek T. (eds.) Minds Alive: Libraries and Archives Now. Toronto, University of Toronto Press Publ., 2020, 288 p.

17. Library Bill of Rights, American Library Association. Available at: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (accessed 14.10.2021).

18. Promoting the Development of a Democratic Society: The Swedish Library Act According to the Legislator. Stockholm, Svensk Biblioteksförening Publ., 2015, 48 p.

19. Bjørklund B., Audunson R. Qualification Requirements in Norwegian Public Libraries — an Analysis of Job Advertisements, Information Research, 2021, vol. 26, no. 1, paper 889. DOI: 10.47989/irpaper889.

20. De la Peña McCook K., Bossaller J.S. Introduction to Public Librarianship. Chicago, ALA Neal-Schuman Publ., 2018, XXI, 410 p.

21. Knudsen T.B., Skahjem H. How Can the University Library at OsloMet — Oslo Metropolitan University Become an Important Arena for Culture, Art and Debate? Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 2018, paper 5, 11 p. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2018/usercentered/5 (accessed 14.10.2021).