• The Characteristics Associated with Perceived Quality in Schools of Library and Information Science

      Mulvaney, John Philip (1992-01)
      The purpose of the present study is to determine, by building a model that predicts a judgment of perceived quality, what the profession means by "perceived quality of schools of library and information science." The study examines quantifiable characteristics of two groups of library schools: those ranked in both of Herbert S. White's perception studies and those not ranked in both. Multiple regression and discriminant analysis were used to build a model that showed clear differences between the two groups of schools. On the basis of several variables that define aspects of a program's size, finances, age, leadership, and rigor, the analysis showed that ranked and unranked schools form two mutually exclusive groups whose membership can be predicted with better than 98 percent accuracy. It also showed the perceived quality of a school's master's degree (M.L.S.) program is associated with the following variables, listed in decreasing order of importance: the half-life of the school's doctoral graduates, its budget and outside income, its age, its faculty's productivity, and the number of its students.
    • The Characteristics Associated with Perceived Quality in Schools of Library and Information Science: An Update and Prediction

      Mulvaney, John Philip (1993-04)
      This article is an expansion of another research of the author that was published one year ago in Library Quarterly. It explores new statistical methods to predict whether or not a school would be ranked. By "ranking", the author refers to having a top-quality master's program or having faculty who contribute significantly to the advancement of the professional.
    • Come Together for LIS Education

      Mulvaney, John Philip (2003)
      This article is a call to practitioners to participate in the process of Library and Information Science (LIS) program accreditation by the American Library Association as a way of connecting educators and practitioners.
    • Determining Sufficiency for Standard VI. Physical Resources and Facilities

      Mulvaney, John Philip (2003)
      This article takes campus libraries and computer labs as some of the physical standards in the evaluation of LIS programs. It uses both outputs and inputs of a program to measure its presentations.
    • LIS Faculty Research and Expectations of the Academic Culture versus the Needs of the Practitioner

      O'Connor, Daniel; Mulvaney, John Philip (1996)
      Library and information studies (LIS) education may be misreading the academic community's expectations. A program's viability may hinge on a counterintuitive premise, where the academic culture allows each discipline to create its own criteria for its own evaluation. LIS programs may have unwittingly assumed that adopting the scientific mode might gain them currency in the academic realm; yet there is little evidence that LIS programs had the prerequisite infrastructure to compete with a science discipline in terms of sustained funded research, teaching assistant and postdoctoral assistant services, laboratory equipment, and other resources. There is an irony that many LIS students and faculty do not come from the scientific disciplines, and this further inhibits their ability to compete in that arena. LIS program and faculty evaluators have used criteria from the sciences to measure LIS progress and to determine an individual's suitability for promotion. We contend that this application of inappropriate criteria has done unnecessary harm to LIS and the individuals in it. An examination of selected COA self-study responses and other sources indicates that LIS may misread the academic culture because LIS does not appear to be central to university governance. Finally, the waning of LIS's affiliation with libraries may do LIS irreparable harm. LIS's focus may need to be recentered on educating librarians.
    • Response to Elitism

      Mulvaney, John Philip (1990-09)
      This article argues the improper of terming "elite" in the evaluation of LIS programs by Herubel's research. It disagrees with Herubel about her definition and analytical strategies.