Passing the Taxi-Driver Test
by
Andrew Dillon and Mary Lynn Rice-Lively
Andrew
Dillon is dean and professor in the School of Information,
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
. Email: adillon<at>ischool.utexas.edu
Mary
Lynn Rice-Lively is associate dean in the School of Information,
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
. Email: marylynn<at>ischool.utexas.edu
The
birth of fields elicits both fascination and consternation for those involved
and for those observing from the sides. There is never one event, one moment,
one idea or one person who creates a new discipline, though hindsight often
latches onto one of these and writes history accordingly. Regardless, the
I-School Conference at
Penn
State
in 2005 will certainly go down in history as a landmark event.
The
conference was an eye-opener on many levels, from the academic and disciplinary
diversity of attendees to the amazing facilities of
Penn
State
’s cybertorium, but what many of us found most positive about the event was
the complete lack of territorialism. Unlike so many conferences in the LIS
world, there was a notable absence of the us versus them arguments
intended
to gain some form of ownership of an idea or to protect a legacy orientation to
the field. Instead, there was a genuine attempt at inclusion, exploration of
cross-disciplinary collaborations, with an appropriate nod to history as Tony
Debons and Glynn Harmon were recognized for their pioneering work in shaping the
field of information.
Perhaps
this spirit of inclusion led to the avoidance of any substantive answers to the
perennial and thorny questions, “What is information?” or “Is information
a field?” – but it did not prevent the expression of honest and thoughtful
concerns. As one person remarked, information is a promiscuous term so
there was little chance of us changing that characteristic at one meeting. Jack
Carroll was one of several speakers who noted that most conceptions of the field
failed to emphasize enough the importance of design and the need for graduates
to be skilled in creating artifacts for use. There was no disagreement with this
remark, but the point had to be made, and one can expect future discussions on
the topic.
The
purpose of the conference was set for the group from
University
of
Texas
during the taxi ride in from the airport. As we explained our visit to the
driver, he seemed bemused by the idea of a field of information. Revealing more
than passing knowledge of management and business from his own undergraduate
days, he just remarked, “I’m not sure I know what that is” when we spoke
of the I-School idea. He’s not the first person to say that and he will not be
the last, but the exchange encapsulated a very real concern, and the information
field must forge answers that pass the “taxi-driver test” before we can be
sure we have arrived.
Amid
all the positive discussion, the sense of inclusion and the almost unanimous
sense that something important was happening, practical concerns were raised.
Many junior faculty members in attendance expressed concern that the lack of
history and the diversity of credentials complicated the path to tenure.
Clearly, in a bootstrapping phase, the discipline is represented by schools in
transition or green-field programs. Additionally, many assistant professors in
information programs obtained their degrees in programs of library and
information science, psychology, computer science or business, where
expectations of productivity are established and where outlets for publications
and research are widely recognized. More than a few attendees noted their
concerns about how they would be assessed come tenure time when their home
departments were new or undergoing major changes. These are very human worries
associated with the emergence of a new field within the conservative environs of
a modern university, but many schools were able to point to notable successes in
crossing this hurdle at their institutions, which certainly increases optimism
that the field is here to stay.
Hearing
other schools outline their struggles, their history, their debates, their
clashes, their confusions and their home university’s views revealed a tale
with many commonalities. Despite the varied programs and degree offerings, there
is common ground in the origins and history of information programs among this
group and in the type of questions each is now seeking to answer. But this
commonality should not be seen as uniformity within the field. Information is an
open terrain. It is not yet time to define and delineate formally the boundaries
or to exclude from our discourses the many perspectives and contributions to be
made from others.
A
key attribute of information schools must be the values they espouse. In this
regard, it is important that we recognize and advance a vision that involves a
social agenda, and one that values humanistic as well as scientific orientations
towards the technologies and uses of information. That message may not have come
through as strongly as it should, but these are early days. However, when a
field nominates inter-disciplinarity as a defining characteristic of itself then
it needs to be careful that the quieter voices are given a fair hearing. That
said, observations from a group of doctoral students attending the conference
should give us hope. In sum, they opined that the conference confirmed that they
are in the right place at the right time, and that is really the most compelling
evidence that the future is bright.