I was recently made Honorary Secretary of CILIP’s Library and Information History Group committee. Thanks to everyone for the emails of congratulation. It is an appointment I am very proud of.

In way of marking this, here follows the slightly controvertial article which may have played a part in my being picked up by the group. This was published in the 11-24 July edition of CILIP’s Library + Information Gazette:

Should Library History make a return to the prospectus?

In 2006 I presented my MSc. Dissertation to the University of Strathclyde. It was boldly titled The Nature of Librarianship and took a deeply historical approach to literature review. I wanted to challenge the idea that we live in a time of excessive change by showing that the history of librarianship is riddled with such periods; that we are constantly in a state of developmental flux; but that a thread of intrinsic values has been present from the libraries of antiquity to the modern day service. Some of these values were practical while others were moral or intellectual. With our hands on this balustrade we would see that there is no particular threat from a rise of “leisure industries” and that HTML should be no more feared or adored than the scroll, the codex, the videotape or anything else one might label as a “paradigm shift”. In recognising these lessons from history, we would have a moral and practical guide to which to turn when change really does occur.

When constructing the initial proposal, I wasn’t sure I would be able to run with this at all. Library History wasn’t listed as a research interest by any of the departmental staff. One ray of hope lay in Dr. Paul Burton’s interest in “Social effects and impacts of ICT”. I pitched it to him and he caught it. But it was a lucky catch and I was glad for it: I really didn’t want to spend three months distributing questionnaires about the benefits of installing coffee machines in public libraries or wondering why SPSS hates me.

After a bit of research, it appears that Library History is largely dispensed with in the modern library school. Vestiges of the subject survive among academics who once lectured in it and are still ready to engage with it at the dissertation or PhD level; it also seems to have survived in some slides accompanying ‘Introduction to Librarianship’ modules. But looking for Library History in the modern library school is much akin to the cultural archaeology practiced by Library History itself. History, if you’ll indulge a silly joke, is a thing of the past. Perhaps this is due to the shifted perspective that Library Studies now constitute science rather than art. Or perhaps it is due to a perception that Library History is no longer relevant.

Let us not dwell on the science versus art debate and turn to the problem of relevance. “Our ignorance of history,” writes Goethe, “causes us to slander our own times”. History is always relevant and what history could be more relevant than that of one’s own discipline? We want to know about family histories; the histories of nations and the comparatively short histories of our favourite bands or television shows so why not that of our profession? One could posit that it transcends mere relevance and heads into the territory of the essential: the history of libraries takes on the war against censorship, the proliferation of science, the changing of formats, the rise of open access, the need for social inclusion, the politics of change and the rise of consumer society.

The marketing process and the installation of plasma screens are not what make librarianship an exciting discipline. A knowledge of Library History makes librarianship exciting and consequently contributes to the dynamism and importance of our services.

Bring Library History back to Library School. It disserves its own module and not to be crowbarred into existing classes. A healthy understanding of our history can only lead to a healthy design for our future.