1SURVEY ON FACULTY OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCEEDUCATION IN JAPANKEITA TSUJI
Graduate School of Library, Information and Media Studies, University of Tsukuba,
1-2, Kasuga, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8550, Japankeita@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

YUKO YOSHIDA
Graduate School of Library, Information and Media Studies, University of Tsukuba,
1-2, Kasuga, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8550, Japanyyoshida@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

MAKIKO MIWA
Research and Development Department, National Institute of Multimedia Education,
2-12, Wakaba, Mihama-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba 261-0014, Japanmiwamaki@nime.ac.jp

HIROYA TAKEUCHI
Faculty of Letters, Chiba University,
1-33, Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japanhiroya@L.chiba-u.ac.jp

TOMOHIDE MURANUSHI
Faculty of Letters, Aichi Shukutoku University,
23, Sakuragaoka, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi 464-8671, Japanmuransky@asu.aasa.ac.jp

MASAMI SHIBATA
Faculty of Psychology and Welfare, Tezukayama University,
7-1-1, Tezukayama, Nara-shi, Nara 631-8501, Japanmshibata@tezukayama-u.ac.jp
As a part of LIPER research, a questionnaire survey was performed on Library & Information Science
instructors in Japanese universities. In quantitative terms, this research revealed the characteristics andteaching goals of LIS instructors, the similarities of librarian certification courses, and the overlap with
instructors of those courses. Also, an analysis of freeform question responses about LIS education revealed the
instructor’s varied thoughts on LIS education and also revealed awareness of problems related to profession
and curriculum issues and education goals.

1. Introduction
As a part of Library and Information Professions and Education Renewal (LIPER) project (Ueda et al.
(2005)) which studies the LIS education systems in Japan with the goal of possible reform of them, aquestionnaire survey was performed on LIS instructors in Japan. Japanese formal education of librarians
aims to produce qualified librarians (Shisho) and assistant librarians (Shishoho) for public libraries, andqualified teacher-librarians (Shisho-kyouyu) for school libraries. There is no formal education system inplace for other types of library and information professionals such as in academic and special libraries.
Shisho are set out in the Japanese Library Law and any student who takes all the 12 required courses andtwo elective courses out of five courses (completing a minimum of 20 credits as requested by the ordinance)
in universities or colleges is eligible to obtain a Shisho certificate.
Concerning Shisho certificate, in particular, there are many problems. For instance, Miwa et al. (2005)
estimated that more than 10 thousand students obtained the certificates in 2003 while the total number offull-time public librarians was only 14,664 (Statistics on libraries in Japan 2004) as of 2004. 1 Therefore,

1

Shisho certificate is not an academic degree and we should avoid naive comparison but the situation seems
quite different from that in US, where the number of public librarians and that of qualified students seems

2

only a few students can get the full-time jobs in public libraries even if they get the Shisho certificates. In
this situation, what are the university LIS instructors thinking? What kind of educational goal are theysetting and what are the problems? While surveys have been conducted by the Nihon toshokan kyokai
toshokangaku kyoiku bukai (Japan Library Association library education committee) (2000) and Shibata(2002), there are few attitude surveys that investigated the broad ranging attitudes of individual instructors.
The aim of this research is to reveal the current state of and problems facing LIS education in Japan, by
forming the data associated with Shisho certification instructors, such as their attitudes toward education,
what competencies they think necessary, their background and affiliation. 2

2. Method
Miwa et al. (2005) found that there were 296 universities and colleges which provided Shisho or Shishokyouyu certification courses in 2004 in Japan by using Nihon toshokan kyokai toshokangaku kyoiku bukai(Japan Library Association library education committee) (2000) and some directories as sources. An
anonymous survey questionnaire was sent to 835 full and part time instructors who led Shisho certification
courses in universities and colleges in 2004. The survey had multiple choice and freeform response sections
that asked respondents about the current state of and problems surrounding LIS.

3. Results
397 responses were received for a response ratio of 47.5%. An estimated 1,449 LIS instructors were thought
to be in Japan as of 1998 (Library year book 2001, p.106). If still valid, this estimate suggests that replies
were obtained from approximately 30% of all instructors in Japan. 105 responses were obtained fromwomen (26.4%), 288 from men (72.5%), and no sex was indicated on 4 responses.
As we previously mentioned, Shisho certification program consists of 12 required courses and fiveelective courses. The required courses and the numbers of their instructors (i.e., respondents to thequestionnaire) are as follows: Lecture on Lifelong Learning (50), Introduction to Libraries (124), Lecture on
Library Management (97), Lecture on Library Services (102), Lecture on Information Services (106),
Practice of Reference Services (116), Lecture on Library Materials (86), Lecture on Specialized Materials(96), Lecture on Organization of Library Materials (117), Practice of Organization of Library Materials(131), Practice of Information Retrieval (100), Lecture on Children's Services (60). The elective courses are
as follows: History of Books and Libraries (72), Lecture on Special Materials (61), Lecture on Information
Machinery (38), Lecture on Communication (21), Special Lecture on Libraries (76).
3.1 Instructor academic background
Table 1 shows respondent replies about their academic background. The columns and rows of Table 1
represent the types of academic degrees and the fields they majored in, respectively. We can see in Table 1
that only a half of the instructors have Master's degree (51.4%). And the number of instructors who majoredin LIS is relatively small.
3.2 Instructor work experience
Table 2 shows respondent replies about their work experience as information professionals for more than
one year (multiple replies were allowed). The most common type of work experience was working
university libraries, at 38.3%. Of all respondents, 25.9% replied that they had no experience. Incidentally,
Shibata (2002) found that 13 of 79 respondents (16.5%) had no experience. Whether the difference hassome meanings or just due to samples is interesting to consider.
well-balanced. For instance, the number of public librarians among the paid full-time-equivalent staff was45,114.5 in the fiscal year 2003 (National Center for Education Statistics (2005)) while the number ofstudents who got the ALA-MLS was 4,923 during the 2001-2002 academic year (ALISE (2004)).
2

While Buttlar & Du Mont (1996) investigated the attitudes of 726 library school alumni regarding thevalue of competencies in an LIS program, we focused on the attitudes of LIS instructors.

3

Table 3 shows respondent replies about their ages and how many years they worked as instructors. Oneof the most common type of instructors was the ones who were more than 60 years old and had worked as
instructors for four years or less (9.3%). We can see in Table 3 that relatively large number of instructors are
aged and have not worked as instructors for many years. Many of them might be librarian-turned-instructors
as shown in Table 2.
Table 1:Instructor academic background
College

University

MasterDoctoral

Other

Library & Information Science
Education
Humanities
Social Science
Natural Science
Engineering
Other
No response

17 (4.3)
1 (0.3)
11 (2.8)
1 (0.3)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)2 (0.5)1 (0.3)51 (12.8)
52 (13.1)
131 (33.0)
67 (16.9)
14 ( 3.5)
16 ( 4.0)
9 ( 2.3)
2 ( 0.5)

86 (21.7)
49 (12.3)
43 (10.8)22 ( 5.5)
3 ( 0.8)5 ( 1.3)
6 ( 1.5)0 ( 0.0)41 (10.3)
35 ( 8.8)25 ( 6.3)
9 ( 2.3)
3 ( 0.8)
6 ( 1.5)
3 ( 0.8)0 ( 0.0)

14 (3.5)
0 (0.0)3 (0.8)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (0.3)6 (1.5)Total

33 (8.3)

331 (83.4)

204 (51.4)

122 (30.7)

25 (6.3)

Table 2: Work experience greater than 1 year as an information professional
Work experience
Public Library
University Library
School LibrarySpecial Library
National Diet Library
Database Producing Organization
Database Surrogate Searcher
No experience
Other
No response

N (Ratio)86 (21.7)
152 (38.3)
17 ( 4.3)
31 ( 7.8)
10 ( 2.5)
14 ( 3.5)
4 ( 1.0)103 (25.9)
41 (10.3)
13 ( 3.3)

Table 3: Ages of instructors and how many years they worked as instructors
-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-29
30No resp.
Total

20-39
40 (10.1)
15 ( 3.8)
1 ( 0.3)0 ( 0.0)0 ( 0.0)0 ( 0.0)0 ( 0.0)56 (14.1)

40-49
29 ( 7.3)
37 ( 9.3)
15 ( 3.8)
5 ( 1.3)
1 ( 0.3)0 ( 0.0)0 ( 0.0)87 (21.9)

50-59
32 ( 8.1)
24 ( 6.0)
23 ( 5.8)
19 ( 4.8)
14 ( 3.5)0 ( 0.0)
2 ( 0.5)
114 (28.7)

6037 ( 9.3)
31 ( 7.8)
15 ( 3.8)
11 ( 2.8)
18 ( 4.5)
22 ( 5.5)
3 ( 0.8)
137 (34.5)

No resp.
0 (0.0)2 (0.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)3 (0.8)Total
138 (34.8)
109 (27.5)
54 (13.6)
35 ( 8.8)34 ( 8.6)
22 ( 5.5)
5 ( 1.3)
397(100.0)

3.3 Course content and instructor overlap
The survey listed 51 knowledge skills required for library workers and for each item asked respondents
whether they “especially emphasized” that item or covered it in the classroom.
To avoid complexity, instead of asking every respondent about every course, instructors were asked to
reply based on all of their responsible courses. To do so, for only those instructors who were responsible fora single course, for each course, instructors were asked about “knowledge skills especially emphasized in
the classroom." The results are shown in Table 4. “N” in Table 4 refers to the number of instructors, and“Ratio” refers to the ratio of instructors who evaluated the item as “especially emphasized in theclassroom.” For instance, we can see that for “Lecture on Library Management,” two of five instructors
responded that they especially emphasize <maintenance and administration of library operation systems>.
(It should be noted that there were less than two instructors who teach only Introduction to Libraries,

4

Lecture on Library Services, Lecture on Library Materials, Lecture on Organization of Library Materials, orPractice of Organization of Library Materials, so they were omitted.)
As shown in Table 4, <information retrieval>, <Internet literacy> and <computer literacy> were the top
three knowledge skills emphasized for both “Practice of Information Retrieval” and “Lecture on
Information Machinery,” suggesting that there are similarities in the subject matter of these courses.
The knowledge skill appearing most frequently in Table 4 is <copyright>. Currently, there is no Shisho
certification course dealing mainly with the legal aspects of the discipline. Considering copyright awarenessas a template of society and how overlap among the different subjects could be reduced, the development ofa single, separate legal course to deal mainly with copyright issues could be considered.
Also from Table 4, for <Internet literacy>, for instance, “Practice of Information Retrieval” and“Lecture on Information Machinery” had ratios of 0.54 and 0.57, respectively. Courses like these withsimilar ratios for skills and techniques also have a high likelihood of having similar subject matter. Thus, thefunction ti(x) for a given course x is set as the value for ratio for the number i knowledge technique(1 ≤ i ≤ 51). Then, correlations of ti(a) and ti(b) were investigated for all combinations of courses a and b.
Table 5 shows the course combinations that had the highest correlation coefficients. The above correlation
coefficients are shown in the “emphasis coefficient” column of Table 5. Similarly, function si(x) for a given
course x is 1 when the instructor number i (1 ≤ i ≤ 397) is responsible for that course, or 0 when notresponsible for that course. Then, for all combinations of courses a and b, the correlation between si(a) andsi(a) were determined. The correlation coefficients for instructors are shown under the “instructor
coefficient” column in Table 5, and the ranks of these correlation coefficients are shown in the “Rank”
column.
Table 5 shows that there is a strong overlap in emphasized knowledge skills for “Practice ofInformation Retrieval” and “Lecture on Information Machinery,” and also shows that instructor overlap isalso relatively high, ranking 13th for correlation coefficient order. In other words, it is probable that one
instructor appropriately divides subject matter between courses and takes care to teach without overlapping.
Table 4: Knowledge skills especially emphasized in the classroom
CourseN

Lecture on Lifelong Learning

27

Lecture on Library Management

5

Lecture on Information Services

3

Practice of Reference Services

7

Lecture on Specialized Materials

5

Knowledge skills especially emphasized in
the classroom
Social education/life education
Libraries and Intellectual Freedom
School/formal education
Communication ability
Basic knowledge of the social sciences
Business management
Library procedure application management
Library rules and regulations/standards
Inter-library cooperation / network
Other general education awarenessConfidentiality (Privacy)
Copyright
Information research – appropriate usage
Bibliography
Intellectual freedom/censorship
Information literacy education
Reference services
Information retrieval
Organization of information
Information research – appropriate usage
Subject-independent knowledge
Basic knowledge of the social sciences
Data storage/preservation/bookmaking
Information retrieval
Library materials

Ratio
0.59
0.37
0.30
0.30
0.26
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.29
0.14
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

5

Practice of Information Retrieval

13

Lecture on Children's Services

15

History of Books and Libraries

5

Lecture on Special Materials

4

Lecture on Information Machinery7

Lecture on Communication

5

Special Lecture on Libraries

5

Information retrieval
Computer literacy
Internet literacy
Information literacy education
Copyright
Services for children
Library materials
Copyright
Material selection / collection development
Confidentiality (Privacy)
Intellectual freedom/censorship
Library history / media history
Availability of information
Confidentiality (Privacy)
Data storage/preservation/bookmaking
Bibliography
Data storage/preservation/bookmaking
Basic knowledge of the humanities
Publication circulation
Social education/life education
Information retrievalInternet literacy
Computer literacy
Availability of information
Copyright
Information literacy education
Availability of information
Social education/life education
Communication ability
Cognitive Psychology
Copyright
Public relations
Information literacy education
Communication ability
Information research – appropriate usage

0.77
0.62
0.54
0.31
0.23
0.93
0.53
0.47
0.47
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.71
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.43
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20

Meanwhile, although there was strong overlap between the knowledge skills emphasized in "Lecture on
Lifelong Learning" and "Lecture on Communication," instructor overlap correlation coefficient and rank
were low, at 0.46 and 83rd place respectively. For these courses, we can see that instructors must
communicate closely with each other and take efforts to teach classes with minimal overlap. The same canbe said about “Practice of Reference Services" and “Practice of Information Retrieval,” and for “Lecture on
Information Services” and “Lecture on Information Machinery.”
The similarity of the educational goals could also be useful in future course consolidations or course
eliminations. Courses with similar educational goals and strong instructor overlap could be considered forconsolidation. Incidentally, “Lecture on Library Management” appears frequently in course combinations
and has the lowest overlap in emphasized knowledge skills, which suggests that course is relatively isolated
from the others. The courses with the highest si(a) - si(b) correlations are shown in Table 6. Table 6 showsthat instructor overlap is greatest between Lecture on Organization of Library Materials” and “Practice ofOrganization of Library Materials”.
3.4 Instructor history for each course
Table 7 shows those course instructors who have experience working as a librarian as well as those with
Shisho certificate or Shisho-kyouyu certificate. “Lecture on Library Management” was the course that had
the greatest ratio of instructors with experience working as librarians or with Shisho or Shisho-kyouyu
certificates. Meanwhile, “Lecture on Lifelong Learning” had the lowest ratio of instructors with noexperience working as librarians or who did not have these certificates (68.0%), followed by “Lecture on
Communication” and “Lecture on Information Machinery." These results could be useful when considering

6

whether LIS instructors should be expected to have much experience with libraries through work experienceor certification.
Table 5: Courses with the highest correlations between emphasized knowledge skills
Pair of Courses
Practice of Information Retrieval / Lecture on Information Machinery
Lecture on Lifelong Learning / Lecture on Communication
Practice of Reference Services / Practice of Information Retrieval
Lecture on Information Services / Practice of Information Retrieval
Lecture on Specialized Materials / History of Books and Libraries
Lecture on Information Services / Special Lecture on Libraries
Lecture on Information Services / Lecture on Information Machinery
Lecture on Information Machinery / Lecture on Communication
Lecture on Information Services / History of Books and Libraries
Practice of Reference Services / Lecture on Information Machinery

Emphasis
coefficient

Instructor
coefficient

0.847
0.624
0.562
0.550
0.510
0.501
0.479
0.434
0.419
0.371

0.285
0.046
0.125
0.135
0.146
0.242
0.017
0.076
0.071
-0.021

Rank

13
83
61
57
56
19
92
73
75
103

Table 6: Courses with greatest instructor overlap
Instructor's
corr. coeff.
0.752
0.626
0.363
0.350
0.343
0.332
0.331
0.323
0.313
0.296

Pair of Courses
Lecture on Organization of Library Materials / Practice of Organization of Library Materials
Lecture on Information Services / Practice of Reference Services
Lecture on Specialized Materials / Lecture on Special Materials
Introduction to Libraries / Lecture on Library Management
Introduction to Libraries / Lecture on Information Services
Introduction to Libraries / Lecture on Library Materials
Lecture on Library Materials / Lecture on Specialized Materials
Lecture on Library Management / Lecture on Library Services
Introduction to Libraries / Lecture on Library Services
Introduction to Libraries / Practice of Reference Services

3.5. Instructors and especially emphasized knowledge skills
Of the 51 prerequisite knowledge skills for librarians, the following five items had the highest emphasis
ratios. They are reference service (66.5%), confidentiality (56.9%), copyright (55.4%), information retrieval(51.1%), and communication ability (45.3%).
Table 7: Instructors having work experience or librarian-related certification
N
Lecture on Lifelong Learning
Introduction to Libraries
Lecture on Library Management
Lecture on Library Services
Lecture on Information Services
Practice of Reference Services
Lecture on Library Materials
Lecture on Specialized Materials
Lecture on Organization of Library Materials
Practice of Organization of Library Materials
Practice of Information Retrieval
Lecture on Children's Services
History of Books and Libraries
Lecture on Special Materials
Lecture on Information Machinery
Lecture on Communication
Special Lecture on Libraries

50
124
97
102
106
116
86
96
117
132
100
60
72
61
38
21
76

Work
exp.
30.0
80.6
89.7
79.4
84.9
83.6
81.4
76.0
80.3
79.5
59.0
78.3
72.2
75.4
44.7
42.9
76.3

Certif.
28.0
85.5
89.7
89.2
89.6
86.2
84.9
78.1
85.5
86.4
68.0
85.0
77.8
80.3
60.5
47.6
82.9

No exp.
/ certif.
68.0
3.2
2.1
2.9
3.8
4.3
2.3
12.5
4.3
4.5
22.0
10.0
9.7
14.8
36.8
42.9
10.5

7

Table 8: Knowledge skills in which differences were seen for instructor groups
Knowledge skill
Bibliography
Publication circulation
Foreign language (English)
Organization of Internet data
Data storage/preservation/bookmaking
Social education/life education
School/formal education
Social survey / statistics
Administration of local public entities

Work
exp.
20.7
21.5
39.8
24.8
11.8
19.5
9.8

No work
exp.
10.2
8.2
26.5
35.7
24.5
36.7
21.4

ShishoSpecialized

7.3
12.0

22.6
25.8

When investigating whether emphasized skills were different between those instructors who had andwho did not have work experience, items with significance greater than 0.05 were obtained for the items
listed in Table 8. The ratio of instructors emphasizing library studies or foreign language (English) was
higher for instructors with work experience than for those without. Most of the above described individuals
who had library work experience had university library backgrounds. These results may be due to theirexperience cataloguing Western books at universities. Although preservation of materials is regarded as themost important function of libraries, materials are disposed almost daily in actual libraries -- especiallypublic libraries -- and bookmaking of magazines are frequently outsourced to external vendors, so storage
knowledge is not necessarily a prerequisite for librarians. The difference seen in Table 8 for <material
storage/protection/bookmaking> could be attributable to this difference between concept and reality.
This survey investigated whether the instructors belong to Shisho course or LIS specialized courses andfound that 150 belonged to the former and 31 belonged to the latter. The bottom part of Table 8 shows thoseknowledge skills with a significant difference of 0.05 between them. While the small sample size of
specialized course instructors may be the source of the observed effects, the number of knowledge skills
showing significant differences was few. However, management and administration (14.7% vs. 29.0%),
material selection/collection management (33.3% vs. 51.6%) showed significant differences when thesignificance criteria was set to 0.1. Judging from the results shown in Table 8, it is possible that there aremany specialized subject instructors who place emphasis on the perspective of managers.
3.6 Current state of and issues facing LIS education
Table 9 shows the current state of and problems facing LIS education. Table 9 shows the ratio of instructors
to overall respondents who responded "Agree" for the items listed on the left, with items with the highest
ratios at the top. “Shisho” in Table 9 is the ratio of those instructors belonging to Shisho courses andanswering “Agree” and “Specialized” is the ratio of those instructors belonging to specialized LIS courses
who agreed. “*” in the rightmost “DF” column of Table 9 indicates items where the ratio of respondents
who answered “Agree” for Shisho courses and specialized courses differed to a 0.05 degree of significance.
For instance, although 66.7% of Shisho course instructors agreed that at their universities, librarian
education is less emphasized than attracting students through certification, only 45.2% of specialized course
instructors agreed, showing a difference with a 0.05 degree of significance. Table 9 reflects the strong
dissatisfaction toward universities which tries to increase the number of students rather than improve thequality of education. Insufficient faculty and student abilities and motivation are other source ofdissatisfaction. The results also suggest that Shisho course instructors struggle more with educational
facilities and teaching environment than specialized course instructors.

8

Table 9: Current state of and problems surrounding LIS education
Current State / Problem
University overall is emphasizing attracting students with degrees, notquality of librarian training.
Not enough dedicated instructors specializing in LIS.
Basic academic abilities are growing worse every year.
Many students have little awareness, motivation or interest in anythingother than certification.
Many students do not see any relation between studying LIS and nonlibrary careers.
Opportunities to consider curriculum or future plans are limited.
Insufficient integration and balance with other certification courses.
LIS discipline is not well understood within the campus.
Difficult to find part time instructor candidates.
Instructor workload is too great.
Student numbers are too high.
LIS has less clout and weaker voice than other certification courses.
Instructor course load and administrative tasks interfere with research
activities.
Hiring of part time instructors is restricted by budget or headcountlimitations.
Little interest from students other than those planning careers in public
or school libraries.
Current curriculum is insufficient.
Restrictions or difficulties in utilizing campus library for lab work or
reserving book collections.
Difficult to obtain research materials.
Difficult to obtain permission for library training or library tours.
Teaching materials for lab work are frequently in short supply.
Difficult to find joint research partners in the same field.
Difficult to get a seat in or join in academic societies or research.
Course and curriculum area of responsibility not related to area of
research.
Difficult to secure classrooms with IT facilities (lab rooms, etc.).
Restricted access to of presentation equipment (DVD players, PC
projectors, etc.).
Difficult to obtain research funding on campus.
Insufficient IT resources (server resources, etc.).
Overlap with other disciplines on campus, such as Information Scienceor Communication.

Specialized

Overall
58.4

Shisho
66.7

45.2

DF
*

57.7
55.7
48.6

61.3
61.3
51.3

51.6
71.0
35.5

42.3

48.7

35.5

41.8
41.8
40.6
40.6
39.5
36.3
34.0
32.2

45.3
48.0
48.0
46.0
40.7
35.3
43.3
34.7

41.9
32.3
35.5
41.9
58.1
29.0
25.8
48.4

29.7

28.0

41.9

29.0

27.3

32.3

27.5
24.7

34.0
26.7

12.9
25.8

23.4
23.9
22.9
22.4
19.6
17.6

26.0
28.0
26.0
26.7
24.7
23.3

22.6
9.7
12.9
35.5
12.9
19.4

17.6
17.1

26.0
22.0

0.0
3.2

*
*

16.6
15.4
12.1

22.7
20.0
10.7

6.5
3.2
22.6

*
*

*

*

3.7 Responses to freeform questions
The response ratio for the freeform question “regarding the state of LIS education in Japan” was 59.2% (235
out of 397). Responses were sorted using content analysis software (ATLAS.ti ver.5). Analysis was
performed by assigning keywords to each comment. A total of 380 keywords were extracted. By grouping
similar items, these sorted into 11 categories, as shown in Table 10.
Below, we consider the (1) human aspect (items from 1 to 3), (2) educational aspect (items 4 to 8), andpolicy aspect (items 9 to 11).
(1) The human aspect
Of the comments received, many pointed out the weak awareness of the conditions under which instructors
conduct their activities. This is connected to the problem pointed out regarding the gap between curriculum
and the instruction environment. There were also comments that students attending Shisho course lectures
had simplistic attitudes or thoughts that Shisho certificate will be useful in finding a job. The problem of low
awareness of the profession received by far the most comments. In addition to recalling the problem of lackof awareness of the profession, there were also many comments which aimed to increase the social
awareness of the library profession. Many opinions were also received that suggested that in order to deal

9with address problems with libraries not being regarded as a specialized profession, instructors should
approach government to require placement of librarians. Also, while there is negative opinion that various
professions other than full-time employees (part time workers, seasonal workers, temporary workers,
contractors) are taking jobs away from full-time workers, some proposed that accepting the reality that the
number of non-full-time workers is growing, and that non-full-time jobs should be regarded as the goal for
Shisho certificate.
(2) The education aspect
Opinions were received suggesting both that LIS should be made into a general education course and that itshould be made into a graduate course. With regards to education programs, negative opinions about thecurrent state of Shisho courses being offered at colleges, the overall number of courses, and library
programs, were prominent, and there were many opinions suggesting that efforts should be directed towardmaking specialized curriculum into graduate-level coursework. On the other hand, some proposed that thediscipline should be divided into general education and professional librarian education. Opinions on thisbranched model were clearly split, either calling for specialized and general courses to be divided between
different universities, or setting the specialized branch as graduate level coursework while keeping thegeneral branch as a bachelor level coursework. This suggested the possibility of education programs run
jointly by several schools, or the certification of curriculum by a related organization.
Advanced information professions were envisioned to be divided into (1) personnel that would work as
librarians in specialized facilities or work in library-related organizations (museums, art galleries, orarchives), (2) personnel with background knowledge in the main subject areas, and (3) personnel with highlevel IT skills that can gather, organize and make available digital content.
The low degree of freedom and the high degree of overlap for curriculum were pointed out. Also, there
were several opinions pointing out that current core subjects are geared toward public libraries and are
insufficient to develop the skills needed in non-public library and information professions, and that
education on key issues is not being done. “Digital content / electronic library related courses,” “academic
related courses” and “courses for each type of library” were suggested.
Regarding certification, an overwhelming number of comments suggested the establishment of different
library grades, national testing, or the introduction of a licensing scheme. These comments indicate revealthat instructors view the current regulations as insufficient.
(3) The policy aspect
Many lamented the difficulty of finding work in libraries. Some comments also described the growing
numbers of non-full-time workers working in libraries. These comments indicated that Shisho courses
should aggressively teach students how to get the jobs.
In addition to citing problems with low understanding and awareness of libraries overall, comments thatwarned of the weakening and decay of libraries through outsourcing were also conspicuous. On the other
hand, some offered opinions that these policies should be accurately understood. Many comments also
urged appeal of the importance of libraries and their local contributions. There are mentions of governmentand related organizations in the environment surrounding LIS education. There were many opinions
suggesting that LIS educators or library persons should reach out to government.

10

Table 10: Freeform question analysis results
Category(1) Faculty(2) Students(3) specialized careers(4) Research(5) Education goals(6) Education programs(7) Curriculum(8) Certification(9) Career(10) Libraries(11) Surrounding environment

Details
LIS instructors or researchers
Shisho course attendees
Library / information related careers
Research related to Shisho course curriculum, LIS research
Education goals in the course being taught
Level of education, state of specialized education, curriculum
development
Education program details for library or information specialized
careers
Shisho certificate, credits, or LIS graduates
Human Resources or Market
Situation or problems facing libraries.
Environment or society surrounding related groups,
government, or universities

No. ofComments

34
17
93
21
45
74
144
65
41
21
22

4. Conclusion
Aiming at the reform of LIS education in Japan, a questionnaire survey was performed on Shisho
certification instructors. This study showed their background and attitudes toward education which had notbeen clear so far and revealed the state of and problems facing LIS education. This time we focused on the
instructor side. Next we would like to focus on student side and consider the effects of LIS education.

References
ALISE (2004) ALISE library and information science education statistical report 2003. USA. (Available
from http://ils.unc.edu/ALISE/2003/Contents.htm).
Buttlar, L., & Du Mont, R. (1996). Library and information science competencies revisited. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 37(1), 44-62.
Miwa, M., Muranushi, T., Takeuchi, H., Yoshida, Y., Tsuji, K., & Shibata, M. (2005). Daigaku ni okeru
shisho, shisho-kyouyu kyoiku no jittai (Current status of librarian and teacher-librarian education in
Japanese universities). In Proceedings of the Nihon Toshokan Joho Gakkai Shunki Kenkyushukai(Spring Conference of Japan Society of Library and Information Science) (pp.39-42). Tokyo: JSLIS.
(Text in Japanese).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). E.D.TAB: Public Libraries in the United States: Fiscal
Year 2003. USA. (Available from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005363.pdf).
Nihon toshokan kyokai toshokangaku kyoiku bukai (Japan Library Association library educationcommittee). [Ed]. (2000). Nihon no toshokanjohogaku kyoiku (Library and information scienceeducation in Japan). Tokyo: Japan Library Association. (Text in Japanese).
Nihon toshokan kyokai toshokan nenkan henshu iinkai. [Ed]. (2001). Toshokan nenkan (Library year book)2001. Tokyo: Japan Library Association. (Text in Japanese).
Nihon toshokan kyokai toshokan chosa jigyo iinkai. [Ed]. (2005). Nihon no toshokan: Tokei to meibo(Statistics on libraries in Japan) 2004. Tokyo: Japan Library Association. (Text in Japanese).
Shibata, M. (2002). Efforts of career training and cultivation side. Toshokankai, 54(2), 94-92. (Text inJapanese).
Ueda, S., Nemoto, A., Miwa, M., Oda, M., Nagata, H., & Horikawa, T. (2005). LIPER (Library andInformation Professions and Education Renewal) project in Japan. In Proceedings of the World Library
and Information Congress: 71st IFLA General Conference and Council. (Available fromhttp://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/051e-Ueda.pdf). Oslo: IFLA.