View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Gender Gap in Library Education. Historical Paper 6

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Gender Gap in Library Education. Historical Paper 6
Language: English
Authors: Harris, Roma M., Michell, B. Gillian, Cooley, Carol
Source: Journal of Education for Library and Information Science. Win 2015 56(1).
Availability: Association for Library and Information Science Education. 2150 N 107th Street Suite 205, Seattle, WA 98133. Tel: 206-209-5267; Fax: 206-367-8777; e-mail: office@alise.org; Web site: http://www.alise.org/jelis-2
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Library Education, Gender Differences, College Faculty, Specialization, Graduate Study, Role Models, Sex Role, Disproportionate Representation, Statistical Analysis
ISSN: 0748-5786
Abstract: Five directory issues of the "Journal of Education for Librarianship" covering a span of 18 years were examined in order to determine whether there are gender-related differences in teaching specialties within graduate programs of library and information science. The results of this inquiry revealed strong support for the gender-linked nature of teaching specialties within the discipline. Specifically, women tend to specialize in the teaching of services for children and young adults, cataloging, and classification, where men have tended to specialize in information science, research methods, library automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries. These patterns parallel those found in the courses selected by male and female students and in the career paths of M.L.S. degree graduates. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for library educators as sex-role models. (A list of references and notes is included.) [For the commentary on this article, "A Response to Ages Past. Commentary on Harris, R. M., Michell, B.G. & Cooley. C. (1985) The Gender Gap in Library Education", see EJ1073561.]
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1073559
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFpoqnx1OVWGwZ23sElYz8bAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGsUClA0H7JQIkRZjwIBEICBm86NZM0VaGVcmWfY8Nu0PrpJBkZqce0z6BcR47ielOU74imiuWyc91MFjInCtPpP6aetkkwZye6AXAcKj0F8tL0-DAbKz3vt255YdxrfQGGFem-pX6SVHLaJ8qBbC_AQdj3lU0HmeAL5zFznlTUeUpbAXKLOwtRpoCvscmGAUdB2naapj_QxSMr9zFKIpQHGZEVNeSY4fpYbWvAL
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0103336108;lii01jan.15;2015Jun22.13:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0103336108-1">The Gender Gap in Library Education </title> <p>Five directory issues of the Journal of Education for Librarianship covering a span of 18 years were examined in order to determine whether there are gender-related differences in teaching specialties within graduate programs of library and information science. The results of this inquiry revealed strong support for the gender-linked nature of teaching specialties within the discipline. Specifically, women tend to specialize in the teaching of services for children and young adults, cataloging, and classification, whereas men have tended to specialize in information science, research methods, library automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries. These patterns parallel those found in the courses selected by male and female students and in the career paths of M.L.S. degree graduates. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for library educators as sex-role models.</p> <p>LIBRARIANSHIP is viewed by many to be a "woman's profession" because the number of women outnumber the men in the profession by a ratio of approximately four to one. However, as is the case in other occupations, while women may be numerically dominant, the positions of power within the profession are, to a large extent, held by men. For example, 73 percent of the directors of academic libraries are men.1 This inequitable distribution of power is reflected in salaries as well, which tend, across job categories, to be higher for men than for women.2 In other words, there is a division or "gender gap" in the types of work performed by women and men within the profession of librarianship, and this division is reflected in an inequitable distribution by sex of prestige and salary.</p> <p>A similar situation exists in library education. As early as 1965, Carroll found that "men teaching in A.L.A. accredited graduate library schools were generally younger, higher salaried, held more advanced degrees, taught fewer different courses, held more administrative positions in their previous experiences, and earned administrative titles in their present positions in less time than women."3 At present, although the gap in terms of actual numbers of female and male educators in North American graduate schools of library and information science is not great, the numbers are not representative of the proportion of females to males in the profession. For example, in 1983 while approximately 50 percent of the full-time faculty in ALISE member schools were males, on the basis of the number of males in the profession, one would expect that number to be closer to 20 percent.4 Thus, within library education, relative to the total number of female educators, there are a disproportionately high number of males. Furthermore, women remain clustered in the lower academic ranks relative to men, earn lower salaries (in every rank except that of lecturer), and are less likely to be tenured than their male counterparts.5</p> <p>The most likely reason that a large number of men have become involved in library education is that graduate level teaching is a high status activity. It is consistently true that within academe, there are many more males than females, even within disciplines in which there are a large number of female students.6 It is also true that within the disciplines themselves, separate career paths are often followed by male and female academics. For example, Fossum reported that women law professors tend to be overrepresented in the areas of family law and legal research and writing, in spite of the progress they have made toward becoming integrated into law faculties.7 Similarly, Kimmel reported that among psychologists, while there is a tendency for both sexes to be engaged in "applied" rather than "basic" research, this differential tendency is greater for women.8 Furthermore, the difference in the career paths of male and female academics can be observed world-wide. For example, Over found that in Australian universities, while there are few women in academic appointments, those who are appointed tend to be concentrated in the social and behavioral sciences, and in the humanities and education.9</p> <p>The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether the sex of educators in library and information science is linked to areas of teaching specialization. Based on evidence from other fields, as well as from evidence within the profession itself, it was anticipated that there would be a clear relationship between the sex of faculty members, and the nature of their teaching specialities as indicated in the directory issues of the Journal of Education for Librarianship. In particular, it was expected that the specialties of women would be consistent with the "service" orientation which has traditionally been a major component of women's sex roles, and that the specializations of male library school educators would be consistent with the "hard science" or "agentic" orientation which has been traditionally associated with male sex roles.10</p> <p>Method. The Journal of Education for Librarianship (now Journal of Education for Library and Information Science) publishes an annual directory issue in which are listed faculty who teach in North American graduate schools of library and information science as well as their areas of teaching specialization. To test the hypothesis that male and female educators would have different teaching specialities, we analyzed the data listed in the following directory issues: 1965, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1983. These issues were selected because they cover a sizeable span of time (18 years), and because new classification schemes for recording teaching specializations were introduced in 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1983. Thus, not only could we identify how teaching specialties changed over time, but how the different classification schemes were linked to "gender specialties." The 1971 classification scheme was retroactively applied to the lists of faculty teaching specialities that were listed in 1965 as there was no formal classification scheme in place at that time.</p> <p>Procedure. For each directory issue, the total number of faculty members of accredited graduate schools of library and information science in North America was included. A faculty member was defined for the purpose of this investigation as any teaching member of the school. Within each year, the total number of female and male faculty members was determined, as well as the total number of females and males teaching within each category. The data were analyzed separately by year because the classification schemes were so varied from year to year.</p> <p>Data Analysis. The expected numbers of male and female faculty members within each teaching specialty were calculated on the basis of the proportion of males to females in the total number of faculty members teaching in a given year. This expected value was then compared to the actual number of males and females teaching within each category. The comparison between expected and observed values across all categories was carried out by using the chi square statistic. The strength of the association was tested with the Cramer's V statistic. Where the obtained chi square value was statistically significant, that is, when the probability of obtaining an overall difference between the observed and expected values was less than .05, additional chi square tests were conducted to determine in which of the individual teaching categories these gender differences occurred.</p> <p>Results. The results of the analyses revealed support for our hypothesis that, for each year included in the study, there would be a significant difference between the expected and observed number of males and females across all the teaching categories. The chi square and Cramer's V values obtained for each year are reported in Table 1. These values clearly indicate that there are gender differences in areas of teaching specialization, and that the level of association between these variables remained consistent across the years studied.</p> <p>In order to identify the specific categories within which there were a disproportionate number of male or female faculty members, individual chi square tests were performed. On the basis of these tests, female and male teaching specialties were identified for each year. These are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>The results shown in Table 2 clearly indicate that there are sex differences in areas of teaching specialization, and that these differences have remained constant over the years studied. Most notable among these differences is the tendency for women to specialize in the teaching of services for children and young adults, cataloging, and classification, whereas men have tended to specialize in information science, research methods, library automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries.</p> <p>A number of teaching categories were sex-linked in some years and not others. For instance, book selection was a female teaching specialty in 1965,1971, and 1975, was not sex-linked in 1980, and was not included as a category in the 1983 classification scheme. Similarly, communication of knowledge and ideas was a male teaching specialty only in the years 1971, 1975, and 1980, as was international comparative librarianship in 1975 and 1983, and bibliography in 1965 and 1983. Courses related to library administration and management occasionally emerged as male teaching specialties, for example, library organization and administration was a male specialty in 1975 and 1980, management theory was a male specialty in 1980, and library buildings was a male specialty in 1980. To check the pattern of non-sex-linked teaching specialties, see Table 3 for the 1983 categories.</p> <p>Some of the variability in sex-linked categories from year to year is probably due to changes in the classification schemes and some confusion on the part of the respondents as to which areas of specialization to indicate as their own. However, despite these difficulties, the overall patterns of male and female teaching specialties were consistently observed over the years studied.</p> <p>Another noteworthy feature of the data involves the differences in the patterns of male and female teaching with respect to the total number of sex-linked categories (Table 4). Across the years studied, the males always specialized in a greater number and wider variety of teaching categories than the females. For the five years included in the study, the mean number of female teaching specialties was 3.80 (SD -- .45), and the mean number of male teaching specialties was 7.60 (SD =4.56). (The mean number of non-sex-linked specialties was 18.10, SD = 11.34).</p> <p>Discussion. The results of this investigation clearly support the hypothesis that there are male and female specializations within library education, and it appears that these have remained constant over the past 18 years. It is possible to view these sex-linked teaching specialties within the wider context of sex-role socialization. That is, as there tend to be generally acceptable patterns of male and female behavior within the culture as a whole, so, in library education there are such patterns for male and female educators. In other words, the trend for female educators to specialize in services for children is compatible with women's traditional role of child caretakers, just as the tendency for males to specialize in information science, research and quantitative methods, automation, and management is compatible with the traditional male role of "inquirer" and "builder." The so-called "hard science" specialties taught by men in library and information science faculties, are comparable to patterns of male participation in the natural and social sciences.</p> <p>Furthermore, the tendency for males to have a greater number of specialty areas than females within the profession parallels the overall patterns of male and female participation in the labor force. Women tend, in general, to work in a small cluster of occupational categories and find that within these categories they are underpaid, have few opportunities for advancement, and that their jobs have little prestige." Conversely, men tend to work in a wide variety of occupational categories, and relative to women, enjoy greater upward mobility, both with respect to salary and prestige.</p> <p>Moving from this large picture of the labor force in which males and females play different roles, we find a similar view of males and females within library education. Not only are male teachers specialists in a wider variety of categories than women, but male and female students appear to divide themselves along the same lines. For example, Plate and Seigel reported that male M.L.S. students were more likely than females to concentrate in areas such as information science/automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries, whereas female students were more likely to specialize in materials, and services for children and young adults.52 These authors also reported that following graduation males were more likely than females to work in administrative positions whereas females were more likely to work in cataloging and children's services positions. Associated with these differences in job categories were salary differences which favored males.</p> <p>In their discussion of the sex differences in graduates' positions and salaries, Plate and Seigel argued that males prepare themselves for administrative responsibilities by enrolling in "management oriented" courses during their graduate study, whereas female students tend to specialize in "service oriented" courses. Although they may be correct in characterizing the nature of the female students' course involvement, it is difficult to see how studying information science, automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries prepares male students for management positions. That is, there is nothing inherently management-related in these courses of study. What is more to the point, however, is that men are more likely than women to teach courses such as the history of the book, printing, or libraries, and that women are more likely than men to teach cataloging and children's services. In other words, the opportunity to study with educators of one's own sex may be the important dynamic in determining some students' selection of courses. Perhaps the roles modeled by male and female educators account, in part, for the sex differences observed in the career paths followed by graduates of M.L.S. programs.</p> <p>Our results raise other questions that future research might address, most obviously what the factors are that maintain these patterns of specialization and what might change them to a pattern which is not gender-based. Is it the case, for example, that library school administrators, who are overwhelmingly male,13 consciously or unconsciously influence faculty development along gender-related lines? Do female faculty members limit their own development? Do library educators, faculty and administrators alike, need programs to overcome traditional thinking comparable to those suggested for students and practitioners, such as assertiveness training14 or a service like that offered by the Career Development and Assessment Center for Librarians?15 Do previously documented sex-based salary and rank differentials16 become more extreme when correlated with gender-related teaching specialties?</p> <p>Whatever the answers to these questions, our study shows that the intra-occupational segregation of library and information science is not confined to the professional workplace, and, like any other form of job ghettoization, it may indicate a wasteful underutilization of expertise and experience which needs attention if the field is to be strong and healthy in future,</p> <p>Summary. The results of this investigation reveal strong gender-related differences in teaching specialties in library education. These differences are consistent with the gender gap in career development which can be observed within the profession, and with the pattern of specialization among students in M.L.S. programs. The importance of these findings lies in their implications concerning the roles modeled by educators for their students. It is clear from our results that the gender gap is as pronounced within library education as it is in the professional work force; however, this finding begs the question as to whether the relationship between the two might not be a causal one.</p> <hd id="AN0103336108-2">TABLE 1. Overall Chi Square Values for the Expected Versus Observed Number of Female and Male Faculty Members per Year Across Teaching Specialties</hd> <p> <ephtml> <div class="table-size-normal table-border"><table border="1"> <tr> <td>Year</td> <td>Chi Square Value</td> <td>Probability</td> <td>Cramer's V</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1965</td> <td>178.37</td> <td>.001</td> <td>.40</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1971</td> <td>300.66</td> <td>.001</td> <td>.48</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1975</td> <td>321.79</td> <td>.001</td> <td>.49</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1980</td> <td>372.52</td> <td>.001</td> <td>.52</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1983</td> <td>269.72</td> <td>.001</td> <td>.45</td> </tr> </table></div> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0103336108-3">TABLE 2. Male and Female Teaching Specialties by Year</hd> <p> <ephtml> <div class="table-size-normal table-border"><table border="1"> <tr> <td>Year</td> <td>Percent of total Male Faculty</td> <td>Percent of total Female Faculty</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1965</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Female Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Children</td> <td>4</td> <td>34</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Young Adults</td> <td>4</td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Book Selection</td> <td>14</td> <td>31</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Male Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Special Literatures and Materials</td> <td>39</td> <td>22</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bibliography</td> <td>30</td> <td>23</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Science and Systems</td> <td>10</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1971</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Female Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Children</td> <td>4</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Young Adults</td> <td>4</td> <td>23</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Book Selection</td> <td>14</td> <td>21</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cataloging and Classification</td> <td>13</td> <td>20</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Male Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Science and Systems</td> <td>19</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Automation and Data Processing</td> <td>17</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Research Methods in Librarianship</td> <td>14</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>History of Books, Printing, and Libraries</td> <td>14</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Communication of Knowledge and Ideas</td> <td>15</td> <td>9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1975</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Female Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Children</td> <td>4</td> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Young Adults</td> <td>5</td> <td>22</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cataloging and Classification</td> <td>10</td> <td>15</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Book Selection and Acquisitions</td> <td>12</td> <td>17</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Male Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Science</td> <td>20</td> <td>9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Automation and Data Processing</td> <td>15</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Research Methods in Librarianship</td> <td>17</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Organization and Administration</td> <td>34</td> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Communication of Knowledge and Ideas</td> <td>11</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>History of Books, Printing, and Libraries</td> <td>11</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>International Comparative Librarianship</td> <td>7</td> <td>2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1980</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Female Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Collection for Specialized Groups</td> <td>8</td> <td>27</td> </tr> <tr> <td>User Oriented Services for Specialized Groups</td> <td>12</td> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Descriptive Cataloging</td> <td>6</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Technical Services: Subject analysis</td> <td>7</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Male Teaching-Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Science</td> <td>15</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Automation</td> <td>12</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Systems Analysis</td> <td>8</td> <td>2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Quantitative Methods of Analysis</td> <td>8</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>History of Libraries</td> <td>8</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Research Methods</td> <td>9</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>History of Books and Printing</td> <td>9</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Communication</td> <td>10</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Data Processing</td> <td>7</td> <td>4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Collection: Rare books</td> <td>5</td> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Buildings</td> <td>4</td> <td>.05</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library Organization and Administration</td> <td>11</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Systems</td> <td>10</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Networks</td> <td>9</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Management Theory</td> <td>7</td> <td>4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1983</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Female Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Materials and Services for Specialized Groups</td> <td>11</td> <td>32</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Subject Cataloging</td> <td>5</td> <td>12</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Classification</td> <td>6</td> <td>11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Descriptive Cataloging</td> <td>7</td> <td>11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Male Teaching Specialties</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Science</td> <td>16</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Automation</td> <td>14</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Data Processing</td> <td>10</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Systems Analysis</td> <td>10</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Research Methods</td> <td>10</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>History</td> <td>14</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bibliography</td> <td>13</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>International and Comparative Library and Information Science</td> <td>7</td> <td>3</td> </tr> </table></div> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0103336108-4">TABLE 3. Non-sex-linked Teaching Specialties, 1983</hd> <p> <ephtml> <div class="table-size-normal table-border"><table border="1"> <tr> <td></td> <td>Percent of total Male Faculty</td> <td>Percent of total Female Faculty</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Collection Development</td> <td>14</td> <td>11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Library and Information Services in Society</td> <td>12</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Education for Library and Information Specialists</td> <td>11</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Special Materials</td> <td>23</td> <td>20</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Information Systems, Networking and Cooperation</td> <td>11</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bibliographic Instruction</td> <td>5</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Preservation of Materials</td> <td>5</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reprography</td> <td>2</td> <td>.03</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Indexing and Abstracting</td> <td>7</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Facilities Planning</td> <td>7</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>On-line Search Services</td> <td>10</td> <td>9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Communications</td> <td>8</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reference</td> <td>18</td> <td>17</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Technical Services</td> <td>6</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Introduction to Library and Information Science</td> <td>11</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Management of Libraries and Information Systems</td> <td>37</td> <td>38</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Other</td> <td>7</td> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Intellectual Freedom and Censorship</td> <td>5</td> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Public Relations</td> <td>3</td> <td>3</td> </tr> </table></div> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0103336108-5">TABLE 4. Proportion of Sex-linked and Non-sex-linked Teaching Specialties Over Time</hd> <p> <ephtml> <div class="table-size-normal table-border"><table border="1"> <tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td colspan="2">Female Specialties</td> <td colspan="2">Male Specialties</td> <td colspan="2">Non-sex-linked Specialties</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Year</td> <td>Total Number of Categories</td> <td>No.</td> <td>% of Total</td> <td>No.</td> <td>% of Total</td> <td>No.</td> <td>% of Total</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1965</td> <td>17</td> <td>3</td> <td>18</td> <td>3</td> <td>18</td> <td>11</td> <td>65</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1971</td> <td>17</td> <td>4</td> <td>24</td> <td>5</td> <td>29</td> <td>8</td> <td>47</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1975</td> <td>27</td> <td>4</td> <td>15</td> <td>7</td> <td>26</td> <td>16</td> <td>59</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1980</td> <td>56</td> <td>4</td> <td>7</td> <td>15</td> <td>27</td> <td>37</td> <td>66</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1983</td> <td>31</td> <td>4</td> <td>13</td> <td>8</td> <td>26</td> <td>19</td> <td>61</td> </tr> </table></div> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0103336108-6">References and Notes</hd> <p>1. Heim, K.: The Demographic and Economic Status of Librarians in the 1970's, With Special Reference to Women. Advances in Librarianship, 12: 1-45, 1982.</p> <ulist> <item>2. Ibid.</item> <item>3. Carroll, L.D.: Teachers in A.L.A. Accredited Graduate Library Schools. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 5: 149, Winter 1965.</item> <item>4. Association for Library and Information Science Education. 1983 Library and Information Science Education Statistical Report. State College, PA, AL1SE, 1984.</item> <item>5. Ibid</item> <item>6. Cole, J.R.: Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. New York, The Free Press, 1979. 1. Fossum, D.: Women Law Professors. American Bar Foundation Law Review, 4: 903-914, 1980.</item> <item>8. Kimmel, E.B.: Job Mobility of Men and Women Psychologists in the Southeast. ERIC Document: 078 798, HEE004432.</item> <item>9. Over, R.: Women Academics in Australian Universities. Australian Journal of Education, 25:166-176, 1981.</item> <item>10. For a discussion of sex role socialization see, for example, Frieze, I.H., Parsons, J.E., Johnson, P.B., Ruble, D.N., and Zellman, G.L.: Women and Sex Roles: A Social Psychological Perspective. New York, Norton, 1978.</item> <item>11. See for example, Armstrong, P., and Armstong, H.: The Double Ghetto: Canadian Women and Their Segregated Work. Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1978.</item> <item>12. Plate, K.H., and Seigel, J.P.: Career Paths of Ontario Librarians. Canadian Library Journal, 36: 143-148, 1979.</item> <item>13. Kilpela, R.: A Profile of Library School Deans, 1960-81. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 23: 173-192, Winter 1983.</item> <item>14. Sukiennik, A.W.: Assertiveness Training for Library-School Students. In: Heim, K.M., ed.: The Status of Women in Librarianship. New York, Neal-Schuman, 1983, pp. 99-138.</item> <item>15. Hiatt, P.: Should Professionals Be Managers?", Journal of Library Administrators, 4: 21-39, 1983.</item> <item>16. Heim, K.M., and Estabrook, L.S.: Career Profiles and Sex Discrimination in the Library Profession. Chicago, American Library Association, 1983.</item> </ulist> <aug> <p>By ROMA M. HARRIS; B. GILLIAN MICHELL and CAROL COOLEY</p> <p></p> <p>Harris is Assistant Dean, Michell is an Associate Professor, and Cooley was an M.L.S. student at the School of Library and Information Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6G 1H1. Mss. received 5184; accepted 8184.</p> </aug>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1073559
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1073559
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Gender Gap in Library Education. Historical Paper 6
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harris%2C+Roma+M%2E%22">Harris, Roma M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michell%2C+B%2E+Gillian%22">Michell, B. Gillian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cooley%2C+Carol%22">Cooley, Carol</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Library+and+Information+Science%22"><i>Journal of Education for Library and Information Science</i></searchLink>. Win 2015 56(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Association for Library and Information Science Education. 2150 N 107th Street Suite 205, Seattle, WA 98133. Tel: 206-209-5267; Fax: 206-367-8777; e-mail: office@alise.org; Web site: http://www.alise.org/jelis-2
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Library+Education%22">Library Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Specialization%22">Specialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Study%22">Graduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role+Models%22">Role Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Role%22">Sex Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-5786
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Five directory issues of the "Journal of Education for Librarianship" covering a span of 18 years were examined in order to determine whether there are gender-related differences in teaching specialties within graduate programs of library and information science. The results of this inquiry revealed strong support for the gender-linked nature of teaching specialties within the discipline. Specifically, women tend to specialize in the teaching of services for children and young adults, cataloging, and classification, where men have tended to specialize in information science, research methods, library automation, and the history of books, printing, and libraries. These patterns parallel those found in the courses selected by male and female students and in the career paths of M.L.S. degree graduates. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for library educators as sex-role models. (A list of references and notes is included.) [For the commentary on this article, "A Response to Ages Past. Commentary on Harris, R. M., Michell, B.G. & Cooley. C. (1985) The Gender Gap in Library Education", see EJ1073561.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1073559
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1073559
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Library Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Specialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Role Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Gender Gap in Library Education. Historical Paper 6
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harris, Roma M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michell, B. Gillian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cooley, Carol
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-5786
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1