Accreditation for Library
and Information
Technology Programs in
Canada
A Proposal
Christina Neigel, University of the Fraser Valley
December 2011

This document includes an examination of accreditation, its role and function as a quality enhancement
process. It examines the benefits and challenges to establishing an accreditation program for Library
and Information Technology programs in Canada as well as recommendations for moving such a process
forward.

Contents
Introduction: Professional Context ............................................................................................................... 3
Self-Regulation .......................................................................................................................................... 3

The Framework for Accreditation ............................................................................................................... 11
Benefits of Accreditation ......................................................................................................................................12
Challenges of Accreditation .................................................................................................................................15
Examples of Library Education Accreditation ....................................................................................................19
Current Status of Reviews for Canadian LIT Programs ...................................................................................24

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Program Design ........................................................................................................................................... 29
1.

Design Task Force ..................................................................................................................................29

2.

Advisory Council / Committee ...............................................................................................................31

Shaping Accreditation Goals ....................................................................................................................... 32
Definition of Standards used to Evaluate Programs ................................................................................... 32
Process of Review ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Priorities for Creating a Successful Accreditation Program ........................................................................ 39
Appendix A: Accreditation Outline ............................................................................................................. 40
Appendix B: Procedures for Self-Study ....................................................................................................... 41
Appendix C: Resources for Accreditation Design Team .............................................................................. 43
Cited References ......................................................................................................................................... 44

2

Introduction: Professional Context
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation can be described as, “the actions of any individual or group to monitor
and control its own behavior” (El-Khawas, 1983 p. 57). Aside from the American
Library Association’s accreditation for MLS (and MLIS) programs, there is no other
mechanism of self-regulation in the library field in North America. The issues around
regulatory controls are extremely complex but it is important to understand how
accreditation fits within the context of self-regulation. Accreditation is an aspect of selfregulation in that it is, essentially, a process of developing accepted standards related to
educational practice that are subsequently reviewed and evaluated. This process
provides educational programs a vehicle for addressing problems that may be
experienced by multiple agencies and gives programs a collective voice for related
issues. However, the scope of accreditation IS limited in that it cannot serve to carry
out all of the activities that might be associated with self-regulation including
credentialing, development of standards within the profession and the enforcement of
such standards.
Traditionally, regulated professions are those that directly involve the safety and
security of the public. Examples include programs for nursing, childcare, social work,
law, health sciences, engineering, teaching, etc. It is generally understood that only
those with specific skills and knowledge can practice within these areas. In step with
the growth of new specializations and occupations, however, are increasing concerns
over accountability in a much wider range of specialties. As the library field continues to
define its relevancy in an era of significant technological change, it is valuable to
consider the role self-regulation may play. While accreditation is only a facet of selfregulation and the library field continues to struggle over its position as having parity
with other recognized professions, those interested in self-regulation may wish to review
Laura Bickerton’s (2009) suggestions that professions seeking recognition should lead
in the areas of:
• qualifications and competence, both pre-certification and once in practice
• control of those who may enter or remain in the profession
3

• definition of the nature of the work
• ethical standards and rules of conduct
• accountability of the profession to the public
While the broader issue of self-regulation must be addressed by the entire library
community, there is opportunity for educators to address and lead in the more specific
aspects of library technician education and preparation. What little research is
available, suggests that the turnover rates for library staff are fairly low (Inles et al, p.
101). Combined with an increasing emphasis on hiring library technicians to fill gaps
once occupied by librarians who are now filling managerial roles, there is a need to pay
closer attention to how library technicians are educated (p. 114). Consequently, some
matters related to accountability, competencies and the nature of work can be
addressed by more program-specific approval processes. Such activity can help better
identify the role, competencies, and conduct for this segment of library workers.

For many years in the U.S. and Canada, graduate programs related to information
science/studies have been eligible to apply for accreditation with the American Library
Association’s independent Committee on Accreditation. According to the American
Library Association’s Accreditation Policies, Processes and Procedures:
Accreditation is a voluntary, nongovernmental, and collegial process of selfreview and peer review. In higher education, accreditation has two goals: 1) to
ensure that post-secondary educational institutions and their units, schools or
programs meet appropriate standards of quality and integrity, and 2) to improve
the quality of education these institutions offer. (Committee, 2006, p.I1)
This perspective is not unique and accreditation has been a widely accepted system of
quality assurance in North America since the early 20th century. Beginning in 1956, this
process has remained restricted to graduate level programs. There is no recognized
system of accreditation for programs delivering library and information studies education
at the undergraduate or vocational levels in the United States or Canada.

4

The MLS project (creating an accredited designation for librarians) led to an attempt to
redefine librarianship by making the term ‘librarian’ the recognized term for these
graduates. Developed in the late 1960s, the “library technician” position emerged to
manage many of the day-to-day operational duties that occurred within libraries. The
role of library technician was seen as predominantly vocational, if not clerical, in nature.
However, advancements in technology, its effects on information production and
sharing, and increasing emphasis on interpersonal connections has enhanced all roles
in libraries Indeed, the MLS credential is not a requirement for many positions and
Keith Swigger, author of the MLS Project, asserts, “The economic and status gains of
those who have accredited degrees have been accompanied by sharp declines in the
status and pay of library technicians. Yet, it is not clear that the work itself is different”
(2010, p. 90). It is not unreasonable, then, to question why library technicians working
in the same environments, performing similar work, are not expected to attend
educational programs that meet quality assurance standards. Indeed, such processes
need to be recognized and respected as alternate models for preparing individuals for
library work.
It is hard to ignore the statistics collected from the 8Rs: The Future of Human
Resources in Canadian Libraries research report from 2005.

43% of library staff were

identified as paraprofessional (Inles et al, p. 38). This is a substantial number of library
staff and when anticipating challenges of the future. Further complicating matters is the
statistic that 78% of libraries surveyed were noted to have “paraprofessionals” doing the
work that was once performed by professional librarians and this was anticipated to
steadily continue (p. 11). What is troubling about this transition is not that it is occurring,
but that little attention has been focused on the educational requirements of this group.
Because most technicians in the 8Rs research indicated that it was structural barriers
(including time, money, and distance to an appropriate school) that obstructed them
from furthering their education and not their own indecisiveness (p. 53), there is room
for further exploration into the way in which programs receive recognition and how
different forms of library education may shape future librarians. The research also
reveals that there are a substantial number of working technicians who feel they are
simply too old to pursue higher levels of education (pp. 52-53).
5

In 2008, the Canadian Library Association (CLA) hosted a summit to address the
human resource needs of Canadian libraries. While the summit explored a range of
considerations and strategies, there was minimal discussion of non-MLIS personnel.
The prevailing focus was on MLIS educational options and the growth opportunities for
managers. Nevertheless, the summit did highlight key points that apply to non-MLIS
library workers. Mentorship, co-operative education, identification of competency
standards, and more synchronization between schools and employers were deemed as
relevant factors shaping the skills and attitudes of library employees. Review of the
report confirms that the library community continues to overlook the important role and
influence of non-MLIS staff, mad evident in the absence of representatives at this event.
Not only do they occupy a significant place in libraries, they are an obvious pool of the
library workforce that could be called upon to address staffing needs of the future
through further education, mentorship and/or promotion. There continues to be a lack
of agreement and vision as to how library technician education can be integrated with
human resource needs in Canadian libraries, even though they represent over 40% of
library staffing and already possess an interest in the field. It is a good opportunity for
library and information technology (LIT), programs to make some decisions regarding
the future of their own graduates, influencing the broader field and providing assistance
to deal with the changing expectations, composition, and needs of libraries in the future
(The Intersol Group, 2008).

Although it is generally believed that all library technician diploma programs follow the
recently updated CLA Guidelines for the Education of Library Technicians, there is no
way to be certain. More troubling than this, however, is that there has only been limited
interest by library associations and their memberships to look at this matter in more
depth. The Guidelines are, “intended to serve as a national standard to be used both by
educational institutions in Canada and by employers who need to determine the
capabilities of program graduates” (2011, p. 1). Each program carries out its
interpretations of the Guidelines in complete and utter autonomy. It can be assumed
that, each institution does its utmost to follow these guidelines but there is no incentive
6

and no evaluative measures to ensure that this is done. More significantly, the
Guidelines are developed and edited by library technician program heads who simply
choose to participate in this undertaking. This is not a criticism of the contents of the
Guidelines, themselves, but of the process and the lack of industry support and
attention. For example, if a program falls under financial strain because of a lack of
institutional support, that program has no recourse for defending its need to protect its
resources because no one outside of that institution has influence over the outgoing
competencies of the program’s graduates. Informal discussions with LIT heads reveals,
that while many programs may have advisory committees, these rarely have significant
weight in the operational decisions of an academic institution because they are
structured to act in an advising capacity only.

It should also be noted that because there is no body representing the interests of
programs delivering library technician diplomas in Canada, participation in discussions
around core proficiencies, industry changes, innovation, and educational challenges are
limited. This phenomenon is grounded in the history of how library technician programs
were established and developed in the 20th century as entry-level vocational programs.
The growing pressures and complexities of the work performed in the field and the
evolution of educational institutions has the potential to fracture the already highly
autonomous activities of library technician education programs. In turn, this would do
very little to assisting the field, as a whole, in developing a clearer vision of the future for
library professionals. It also limits the examination of opportunities that could assist the
field in providing more flexible options for career advancement for those who already
are interested in library work. It is somewhat ironic, then, that despite the one third of
paraprofessionals surveyed in 8Rs:The Future of Human Resources in Canadian
Libraries report who wanted to pursue more education but felt they could not (Ingles et
al, 2005, p. 14), CLA’s national summit participants failed to address the solid
connection between library technician programs and the human resource challenges
faced by libraries.
Librarianship is not unique in the sense that its professional guidelines are shifting and
evolving. Library workers must accept that the profession is being redefined as some
7

specializations are being taken over by other fields as new prospects, ideas and
opportunities emerge. This means that the profession can benefit greatly by focusing on
efforts to establish ongoing processes that make redefining and reshaping the field
achievable. While not all of these processes occur in the initial educating of new
recruits, it is an area that warrants careful attention. Educational programs need the
time, money, opportunity and encouragement to investigate and explore the problems
and the innovations of the field in order to generate graduates that can, in turn, create,
innovate and partake. These new graduates can be better prepared to meet the
challenges of a changing global marketplace of ideas, legislation, products and services
that shape their competition and their opportunities. With the stresses of new
technology like e-books, the complexities of providing solutions for the informational
needs of our communities, is essential to ensuring the lasting value of libraries.
Education cannot always be quickly responsive to industry demands, particularly when
small programs (like library technician programs) are often poorly understood by their
governing institution. Thus, with the introduction of eBooks, digital rights, and other
technological developments, it becomes essential that these programs quickly respond
to change. Without a more cohesive and well-informed support network that extends
beyond the more “local” advisory committees such programs struggle to justify their
need to rapidly adapt curriculum, resources, and service. It is extremely important that
the profession, as a whole, can identify proficiencies that ensure that the work that
needs to be done can be done in the face of enormous change.

Over the last century, post-secondary institutions have been spending a great deal of
time and energy fostering a reductionist view on the world by encouraging faculty to
specialize in very granular topics. As information expands, so, too, does the need for
detailed understanding of subject areas. For example, a cursory look at the University of
Toronto’s Computer Science Research Groups shows computer science being broken
down into: Applied & Discrete Mathematics, Artificial Intelligence, Computational
Biology, Computer Graphics, Computer Systems & Networks, Database Systems,
Human Computer Interaction, Numerical Analysis, Programming Languages &
Methodologies, Software Engineering, and Theory of Computation (Computer Science
8

University of Toronto). However, as David Lankes points out, this view of the world
does not assist us in dealing with the complex and interrelated nature of our work and
our world. Those who work in libraries straddle educational expectations that focus on
the specifics of library work and the indefinite nature of the world. Such a dichotomy
pulls educational programs in many directions (2011, p. 177). It is critical that the use of
accreditation is clearly understood to be a mechanism for guaranteeing that programs
meet standardized educational requirements and that it is not a means of licensing or
certifying practitioners. It is very important to determine if accreditation is acting as a
social utility, providing members that the profession serves with enhanced quality,
service and accountability. It may be very beneficial to have an external process of
review for library technician programs that can help them to analyze their direction while
acknowledging and supporting their strengths. As library personnel move forward and
grapple with increasingly complex problems and activities, it is important that the
profession can look more holistically at what is done, how it is done, and how to prepare
for it.

Ultimately, it must be understood that the people served by librarians and technicians
do not care what these professionals choose to call themselves. It is likely a safe
assertion to say that ALL library employees must be well educated and well trained if
they are to meet the profoundly complex situations that presently challenge libraries.
The challenge is in determining what this education and training should encompass and
what the desired outcomes should be. While the profession continues to struggle over
these issues, there is urgency in solving some of these problems for library technicians
because they are a group who have taken a backseat in discussions about the future of
libraries and, yet, they have much to offer as part of the discussion and solutions with
their unique perspectives. One step to improving this situation is to develop a system
of standards, evaluation and feedback that encourages a broader base of professional
involvement from, other educators, librarians, working technicians, and library
administrators.
Because there are a small number of programs that have been using CLA Guidelines
as a foundation to their curricular activities, a specialized accreditation process that is
9

sponsored by an accrediting body of both institutions and individual practitioners may
empower such programs and warrants investigation. The following proposal is not
intended to limit the educational opportunities or options for those wishing to enter the
library field. It is intended to provide existing library technician programs with a means
of evaluating the quality of their programs through self-study, external review and
discussion. It is also intended to provide these programs with recognition for their
contributions to the greater library community by enabling them to document their
accomplishments, innovations and partnerships.

Libraries are already staffed with an incredible array of people who possess diverse
skills, knowledge, creativity and insight. All of those people deserve the recognition and
access to programs and education that enable them to perform their work with
confidence and profession. It is also important that educators and professionals come
together to ensure that appropriate and effective education is occurring in our postsecondary programs so that the profession can effectively meet the demands of our
future communities. In the interests of helping library technician programs take
responsibility for the role they play in the composition of the library workforce and the
potential positive impact these programs can continue to have on the field, this
document will examine various aspects of accreditation including its benefits in
challenges as well as providing a series of recommendations for further development.

10

The Framework for Accreditation
Accreditation is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:
Official certification that a school, course, etc., has met standards laid down by external
regulators; a professional endorsement or qualification of this kind. Also: the process of
assessment and certification.
Most post secondary educational institutions in Canada are accredited according to
standards set through provincial legislation. This includes colleges, university colleges,
universities, institutes, community colleges, regional colleges, and applied arts and
learning centres. When granted authority through government legislation, these
institutions (and some private ones) are considered “recognized” and have the authority
to grant recognized degrees, certificates and diplomas. There is no “overall” formal
national accreditation system in Canada. There is a voluntary organization that
supports accrediting organizations in Canada known as the Association for Accrediting
Agencies in Canada (AAAC). The AAAC provides training and advocacy and acts as a
support service and is not a regulating body. This means that there is no universal or
government endorsed method of quality assurance for specific programs across the
country (Morgan, 2006). The result is that quality assurance is determined by fieldspecific and provincially based accreditation programs. In the case of library and
information studies, accreditation is only available for Master’s degree programs.
The United States has a well-evolved, nongovernmental organization that provides a
centralized accreditation process for post-secondary institutions known as the U.S.
Council for Higher Education Association. Their document on the Value of
Accreditation, conveniently summarizes the use of accreditation:
Accreditation is both a process and a status. It is the process of reviewing
colleges, universities, institutions and programs to judge their educational
quality – how well they serve students and society. The result of the process, if
successful, is the award of “accredited status...
… All accrediting organizations create and use specific standards both to
assure that institutions and programs meet threshold expectations of quality and
to assure that they improve over time. These standards address key areas such
as faculty, student support services, finance and facilities, curricula and student
learning outcomes (CHEA, 2010) .
11

The scope of the accreditation has expanded, in step, with changing views of the roles
of post-secondary education. While accreditation served very limited professional and
regional associations in the past, it has moved from “judging” educational practice to
encouraging improvements and innovation (Young, 1983, p. 9). As demonstrated in
fields where risks to the public are great, it is evident that accreditation fulfills an
important function in modern society. There is, however, a balance between its use as
a means of strengthening educational programs and simply acting as a means of
“controlling” quality. Used improperly, it has the potential to generate a system of
compliance rather than introspection, self-discovery, and advancement.

Benefits of Accreditation

In a review of state uses for accreditation, CHEA reports that some states, like
Nebraska, encourage programmatic accreditation because it is, “an essential indicator
of program quality and a valid predictor of graduate employment” (Ewell, 2010, p. 16).
In addition, there are several other reasons why accreditation can be beneficial to
specialized programs like Library and Information Technology:

1. At its most elementary form, the process can encourage compliance with
outlined expectations for the professional field to ensure programs are
accountable through ongoing external evaluation and self-studies.
Measures are needed to ensure, however, that accrediting bodies do not
attempt to generate “carbon-copy” programs across the field so that
diverse views and innovation can take root.

2. Such a program can assure prospective employers that graduates have met
with widely accepted standards for entering the field of practice. While some
of this work is done with the CLA Guidelines, there is tremendous
opportunity to analyze these outcomes in more depth and move away from a
simple “shopping” list of proficiencies to a more detailed outline that looks
closely at interdisciplinary nature of the field and possible specializations.
12

3. Assisting students who are transferring between institutions as it may clarify
that program requirements and that certain levels of quality have been met
between accredited programs. With the introduction of distance learning
and the increasingly consumer-based behaviours of students, prior learning
and attending multiple post-secondary institutions has become more
common. Accreditation may assist in streamlining admissions but it is not
meant to simply allow for course-to-course transfers. Programs always
retain the right of determining transferability.

4. Parity with other applied fields through the use of self-regulation. As
observed by one LIT program coordinator, accreditation would put LIT
programs, “…in line with the professional accreditation given to the MLIS
programs, and will possibly establish a higher level of professionalism to the
Library Technician designation.” (James, Norene, personal communications,
October 15, 2011).

5. By examining the competencies outlined in the CLA Guidelines and
developing a set of well-analyzed standards for programs, there would
emerge an increased awareness in best practices by others in the field. In
turn, this may help employers enhance the definitions of roles within their
own workplaces as well as create a greater appreciation and understanding
of what library technicians are specifically educated to do.

6. Obviously, one of the greatest benefits of accreditation would be to
encourage an increase in the quality of services provided. The results of
this may be indirect in that it may not be that LIT programs would suddenly
become “better” at delivering education because this would suggest that
such programs are not already doing a good job. However, the improved
communication of standards and issues that would be examined through the
evaluative process would help all library practitioners understand the issues
13

and roles held by library technician graduates. Such heightened
understanding and clarity may assist library administrators and managers
with their own planning processes.

There are other more specific benefits of accreditation that should also be considered:

7. Accreditation can act as an external mechanism for defending and
requesting the use of resources from a program’s governing institution. This
is done in the interests of maintaining or enhancing quality.

8. Expand or maintain program depth and specialization, if desired, while
continuing to clearly present learning outcomes for graduates through the
review process. With a clear sense of direction, a program can gain a better
sense of what main objectives it must achieve to serve the profession by
having more coordinated input from the field in a way that can extend
beyond the more local advisory committee levels.

9. Justifiably track activities of graduates and monitor success with the aid of
well-articulated guidelines provided by the accreditation process. Although
some LIT programs undergo regular program reviews by their institutions,
these reviews tend to focus on institutional goals which may not enhance a
program’s understanding of its role in the broader community. Also the
information generated in institutional reviews may be used for purposes that
advance the institution’s interests and not those of the program.

10. Develop continuing education programs and activities for graduates that
correspond with recognized standards of practice defined through
accreditation. Without clearly defined expectations and goals, programs
may struggle to develop and defend continuing education programs that are
adequately synchronized with the field. A survey of the literature reveals
that there is a great deal of concern and confusion around the role of
14

continuing education in the field. With few standards and little coordination,
the continuing education landscape is uneven and unclear.

11. Provide students and programs with an increased self awareness regarding
industry expectations and needs. This will lead to more satisfied employees
that are able to clearly see educational expectations for promotion and
professional development.

12. Despite being unaffiliated with library technician programs, Kenneth
Young, eloquently articulates one of the most significant benefits of
accreditation, “To endeavor to protect institutions against encroachments
that might jeopardize their educational effectiveness or academic freedom”
(Young, 1983, p. 23). As relatively small programs within much larger
academic institutions, LIT programs cannot protect their programs from
encroachments as easily as programs that have larger student populations
and are better understood by the public (19-35). Accreditation can be a
powerful influence on educational institutions by informing these
organizations of the external expectations and requirements for their
graduates. In turn, this enables those academic institutions to be more
responsive to the needs of the professions they support.
Challenges of Accreditation
Introducing any system of self-regulation will have its challenges but anticipating these
and preparing to manage them is absolutely necessary for successful implementation.
While there will always be the unforeseen, there are some issues that should be
carefully considered when considering this path:

1. Cost . In order for there to be self-regulation, an accrediting council /
committee must be established. Reviews of documentation and site visits are
typical activities for an accreditation body. Program personnel must prepare
15

statistics and documents including a self-study. Typically, the cost of
accreditation is borne by the programs themselves. Since accreditation
committees can vary significantly in size, the costs can vary as well. Institutions
that are well established tend to understand and respect the role of accreditation
and are more likely to provide support. In some cases, smaller programs are
subsidized by larger ones. In other cases, accreditation may be partially funded
through the overseeing accreditation agency (not to be confused with the
accrediting body that performs the actual work of evaluation).

2. Acceptance. Both the industry and programs to be accredited must accept
the new system in order for it to have respect and validity. Time is an important
factor to consider as implementation would not be an immediate process. This
may, in fact, be advantageous as it would allow for significant consultation,
discussions, and time for careful development.

3. Balance. Ensuring a balance between the interests and needs of a program
and that of the accreditation program can prove challenging if tension between
academic educators and practitioners is not avoided through careful planning
and consultation. Understanding the misconceptions about accreditation can
maintain this balance. For example, all stakeholders must respect that
accreditation is not a system to force compliance but is, rather, a system to
enhance programs.

4. Flexibility. Again, accreditation is not about forcing compliance and it must,
therefore, remain flexible enough to adapt to changing teaching methods,
developments in the field and encouraging innovation. Standards must be
specific to the field of practice, but general enough to allow for adaptations that
suit the educational pursuits of each program.

5. Distance Learning. Distance education, predominantly online, has become
increasingly common. However, measures of its effectiveness have lagged and
16

it may be difficult to develop an accreditation program that recognizes the unique
characteristics of online and distance programs.

6. Workload. Once an accreditation committee / council has been established,
there remains a significant amount of work for programs undergoing evaluation.
A variety of materials will need to be collected by each program, much of which
will remain ongoing. With many LIT programs operating with minimal faculty, this
may prove onerous. Creative collaboration on accreditation design and
developing procedural expectations that respect the small configurations of
programs is essential.

7. Coordination. In order to establish any kind of accreditation program,
LIT programs will have to coordinate their input and interests in the matter. With
only an annual heads/coordinator’s meeting at the CLA annual conference, there
is no regular forum for establishing discussion and collaboration. In order to
begin the design and planning process, there will have to be a number of
dedicated volunteers to accomplish specific activities. As with any new project,
pulling people from their already busy working lives may be a challenge.

There are There are also several questions that need to be addressed when
considering accreditation including:

1. How are graduates from non-accredited institutions to be recognized? The
question was asked during preliminary consultations with existing technicians.
More specifically, the question was regarding how they will be treated by the
industry if their diploma predates any accreditation process.

2. What happens if a program does not meet accreditation standards? Firstly,
accreditation should be designed to be a supportive process that enables
programs to have a clear opportunity to view the standards of assessment. In
addition, accreditation should not be used to make all programs look and act
17

alike, providing opportunity for variations and specializations. There should also
be a process to accommodate appeals.

3. Will accreditation have an impact on quality of graduates? While there is
much literature to suggest that accreditation is a successful and beneficial
process, the proof rests in results and is specific to the field.

4. Can appropriate standards be developed?
5. “Can procedures be designed so that institutions bear the responsibility for
reaching standards that they themselves have helped to define? ” (Kinney, 1995,
p. 25).

While the answers to these questions are dependent upon the input of stakeholders, it
is feasible that many can be effectively addressed through careful and considered
discussion. In a literature review of the effectiveness of accreditation, Marcos Cerqueira
suggests that there are some important considerations when implementing a new
accreditation program that include:
-

Limiting accreditation to a minimum set of standards
Subsidizing small organizations
Separating quality control from quality improving
Reducing professional control over accreditation (2006)

Introducing any new system of quality assurance and oversight involves balancing the
interests of multiple groups and reaching consensus on substantial matters that include
standards, procedures, and policies. Nevertheless, there are many benefits to exploring
accreditation that deserve examination. Careful study of the few existing systems may
provide insight and assistance in considering the scope of involvement needed for a
successful accreditation program.

18

Examples of Library Education Accreditation

There are many fields of practice where accreditation is deemed a critical component to
self-regulation. Such fields include many areas of health science, forestry, law,
engineering, social work, accounting, architecture, early childhood education, and real
estate. How accreditation occurs varies significantly between them. However, there
are some key components shared by all such fields. Examples include self-study
reviews, site visits by accreditation panels, and data collection relating to student
enrollments, staffing, curriculum content and design.

There are three programs in the English speaking world that use a formalised LIS
accreditation/approval process: The United Kingdom’s Chartered Institute of Library
and Information Professionals (CILIP), the American Library Association (ALA) and the
Australia Library and Information Association (ALIA) programs. All of these use a
professional, non-governmental body to review education programs.
ALIA Accreditation – The Australian Library and Information Association actually
accredits specific courses, not programs in the field. These accredited courses are not
limited to master’s programs but, instead, look at a range of courses used in preparing
both librarians and technicians. Generally, eligibility for ALIA Membership is required
for work in Australia and to become a member, you must meet accreditation review.
“The phrase 'library and information professionals' refers to those members of the
profession who have completed an entry-level qualification in library and information
management at either Associate or Library Technician level” (Courses, 2009). The
Australian example rises out of 20th century developments where the Library
Association of Australia’s Board of Education determined that there could be multiple
pathways to achieving a library technician role in a library and it was an evaluation of
courses that formed a “national training package” that was deemed important and
necessary.

19

The Australian example is a complex one because ALIA’s efforts coincide with other
national quality assurance initiatives including the Australian Quality Training
Framework which “is the national set of standards which assures nationally consistent,
high-quality training and assessment services for the clients of Australia’s vocational
education and training system”. It is a significant departure from the American system
of accreditation (Training.com.au.).
The CILIP program in the U.K. shares many similarities with the ALIA accreditation
program. This is not surprising since ALIA used the U.K. model in its own design.
Individual courses are evaluated for accreditation purposes. Programs, as a whole, are
not evaluated. Those applying for to CILIP for certification (recognition of contributions
made in library and information work by “para-professionals”) must already be members
of CILIP. Taking accredited courses enables members to advance through the
“recognition framework” to become chartered members. The philosophy of this
approach appears to be rooted in the need to provide flexible options for candidates as
well as manage the diverse range of program options for these candidates. In other
words, unlike the ALA process which is quite prescriptive in how MLS programs are to
be designed, the Australian and U.K. systems must contend with a very diverse range in
library education programs and, therefore, graduate designations.
In other areas around the world, library science programs may be accredited by
government bodies and, in the case of Kazakhastan, programs may be accredited using
a collaboration of government and professional bodies like the American Library
Association (Champeny, 2006, pp. 20-24). There are many added complexities to
contend with when working with accreditation bodies external to the cultural context of a
given region. In the Kazakhastan example, the concepts of knowledge and information
use and their accompanying ethics are less ingrained than in North American curricula.
In other words, the programs do not look at some of the philosophical components that
are now deemed important and necessary to the examination of contemporary
information studies. Although such difficulties can be overcome with effort, it may be
argued that a national accrediting agency (if one exists) can address regional interests
with less difficulty.
20

The sole accreditation process for library workers in the United States is overseen by
the American Library Association. This program is managed by the Office of
Accreditation, carried out by the Committee on Accreditation (COA) and is restricted to
accrediting master degree programs, not individual courses. This program bases its
goals and measures using the 2008 revision of the Standards for Accreditation of
Master's Programs in Library & Information Studies.

While there are over 50 library technician programs in the United States, there is no
single place to easily compare or assess them. According to the Council of Library and
Media Technicians (COLT, 2009), there are 53 programs listed, but little analytical data
on these programs is published and readily available. The American Library
Association has recently made efforts to address the uneven nature of library support
staff education within the United States with the Library Support Staff Certification
Program. It began accepting applications in 2010 and is a project that is intended to
help with the recognition of standard competencies exhibited by non MLIS graduates.
The first goal of the LSSC program is, “To improve library service by increasing the
number of LSS who achieve certification by demonstrating nationally accepted
competencies of library service”. The program is intended to:
“resolve role definition and task overlap issues. The LSSC competencies define
the duties and responsibilities of LSS. Dr. Rachel Applegate recently compared
these competencies and the recently-adopted competencies for MLS librarians,
and concluded that the LSS competencies focused on practical aspects of library
service, rather than on the theoretical, leadership, and development aspects of
the profession”(Recognizing Value, 2007).
It remains unclear how library service will be improved and, in fact, how needs for this
certification program were determined. The LSSC narrative indicates that non-MLIS
graduates occupy one to two thirds of the public and academic library workforce in the
United States. Swigger suggests that the entire process of trying to define
competencies that differ from “librarians” has helped to cement a caste system “through
certification of support status and designation of competencies for support staff that are
different from librarian’s competencies” (2010, p. 99). Thus, when examining matters of
self-regulation and quality control, it is important for stakeholders to consider what their
21

ultimate goals may be. While the ratio of non-MLIS graduates to MLIS graduates is not
precisely the same for Canada, it offers a reason to tread carefully in the area of
competencies and be absolutely clear on the reasons for their use. In the case of
accrediting library technician programs, determining core educational goals would not
be for the purpose of role delineations in the field but to assure practitioners and
graduates that programs achieve specific outcomes.

Although it might be easy to suggest that all problems of quality control could be solved
by adopting the fledgling LSSC program, the program does not address quality control
for entire LIT programs. While the LSSC program reviews specific courses and is now
reviewing them in “blocks” for specific library support staff education programs, the
system does not address quality control concerns at the program level. In addition, the
focus of this program is on competencies of graduates, having met very specific
learning outcomes. The program does not evaluate the quality of teaching,
qualifications of faculty, a self-study (intrinsic to the review process), or facilities.
In Canada, the context for accreditation is, not surprisingly, unique. While there is
opportunity to model a program of quality assurance like that of the United Kingdom,
Australia, or, even, the United States, there is an opportunity to present something that
is both unique and sensitive to the context of Canadian LIT programs. Because there
are a small number of such programs in Canada, there is greater room for intimate
discussion and exploration of issues that affect these programs. In addition, the
geographical separation of LIT programs may have a substantial impact on the needs
and expectations of each program. Indeed, it would be valuable to tap in to this
diversity in an effort to encourage diverse and innovative solutions to library related
problems of the future. There are a total of 17 active library technician programs in
Canada, 7 of these exist in the province of Quebec. There is little research and
discussion of the differences between these programs. For example, in Quebec,
entrance requirements are set by the provincial government, not the educational
institution. With the advent of distance learning, the disparities become greater as
programs use different approaches and technologies to negotiate the challenges of

22

online and distance learning (Training Gaps, 2006, p. 5). Therefore, the entire process
of accreditation may initiate the development of new information and understanding
between programs that would, in turn, shape any collective movement to seek
standardization and quality control measures.
Library technicians enjoy significant recognition in Canada and, as the expectations for
information work expand, so does the call for technicians. According to the 8Rs, 38% of
all library paraprofessionals surveyed were technicians. Upon closer examination, 51%
of paraprofessionals in special libraries are technicians and 41% in academic libraries
with numbers significantly lower in public and school libraries (27% and 28%,
respectively) (Ingles et al, 2005, p. 40). It would be interesting to see further study in
this area as it is quite likely that the workforce composition varies substantially from
region to region as well.

It is interesting to note that the Training Gaps Analysis performed by the Cultural
Human Resources Council in 2006 observed that, “The competencies considered most
important and most difficult to fulfill when recruiting library technicians include the ability
to respond flexibly to change, information technology skills, and public service skills.”
Yet, it was also observed that, “Current LIT students were most likely to suggest that the
program could be improved with better course content, while employers were most
likely to suggest better technology skills training and more specialized training.”(p. 8).
There is a marked disconnect between expectations of LIT administrators, employers
and students and, although students were satisfied with their overall education, there
remains the concern that there is no agency that is closely observing changes to this
aspect of the field and anticipating potential methods of preparation for the future. It is
important to note that this training gaps analysis also encouraged, “MLIS and LIT
programs [to] have greater contact to discuss the foci of their programs and curricula,
and how they are addressing core competencies” (p. 13). Indeed, the report suggests
that LIT programs create a formal national venue of interaction in that competency
standards can be identified and discussed. While this analysis also recommended that
CLA regularly maintain the Guidelines for the Education of Library Technicians, there is

23

a false assumption that CLA takes a leadership role on this issue. There exists a
disconnect between the Canadian Library Association and LIT programs. Despite the
highlighted recommendation, “That MLIS and LIT educators as well as employers and
associations come together on a regular and formal basis, under the leadership of a
national organization such as the Canadian Library Association, to exchange viewpoints
and knowledge on the competencies needed and the education/training capacities to
meet these needs” (p. 16), this is currently not done. While this may stem from the
need to give education programs their academic freedom, it puts the responsibilities of
meeting industry needs solely on the shoulders of individual programs. There is
opportunity to design a program that meets the specific needs and interests of
Canadian library technician programs.
Current Status of Reviews for Canadian LIT Programs

One measure of quality control for academic institutions is a program review. Typically,
such reviews look at a breadth of data about student enrolments, retention, student and
faculty observations, and curricular design. There may be external reviewers who work
in conjunction with faculty within programs. These reviews are conducted according to
policy and procedures of the institution and do not reflect the interests of other
professional or public organizations. This is one way in which LIT programs may be
evaluated. However, this process does not, typically, address a program’s impact and
relationship with its own professional community. It can be an inwardly focused review
process that examines program performance from a limited, institutional view.

Because some programs go through a regular review cycle with their governing
institution, it may be possible to bridge this activity with an accreditation program so that
there is not a duplication of effort and the results of the processes can be used
collectively to further the program’s goals. This can be achieved by having the
institutional review process timed to be in-step with the accreditation process. Work like
data collection (enrolment, graduation, class size statistics, etc.), the development of a
self study and interviews can be done to fulfill the information needs of both processes.
24

It is important to reinforce the point that even if an institution undergoes an internal
review process, there is no formal (and very few informal) opportunities for programs to
share information about their programs and changes they are experiencing from the
industry. The rapidly changing context of information work needs to be examined
collectively by educators if the profession is to produce graduates that can successfully
adapt. Lack of collaboration and discourse does not enable programs to take greater
control over change and lead students in a way that prepares them for a turbulent
future.

There is a significant range in how and when LIT programs are currently reviewed.
Cycles range from 5 to 10 years¸ with some schools not yet having an opportunity for a
review, depending on how the program fits with institutional priorities. The nature of
data collection varies greatly in depth, depending on the scope of the review process.
This makes it very difficult for programs to analyze data in relation to other programs as
well as identify trends that could have an impact on curricular development and industry
needs.

25

Recommendations
Despite the limited resources available for establishing a collective agency to actively
represent the broader interests of library technician programs in Canada, there is
incredible opportunity to set a plan in motion to bring these programs together for the
purposes of setting standards, goals, and explorative discussions. For this reason, the
following recommendations are based on a 2 step process. Step one involves the
introduction of an approval program that will lay the groundwork for a possible
accreditation program. The second step involves the establishment of a fully developed
accreditation program. Through the process of developing an approval program, many
discoveries and conversations will occur. This initial step will function as the foundation
in which benefits and challenges to quality assurance will be more fully explored. At this
initial stage, a pilot program should be established. Such a program will assist the
design team in clarifying standards, processes, policies and procedures. Based on an
examination of issues relating to LIT programs in Canada, it is likely that this
investigation will begin with a small group of interested parties and will expand as ideas
take hold. The following recommendations are intended to provide some ideas and
clarity on how LIT programs can proceed.

The U.S. Council on Postsecondary Accreditation sets out some very useful
recommendations for establishing an accreditation program:
1. The agency must acknowledge that the institutions in which programs are to be
evaluated have the right to be evaluated in a manner that is consistent with the
purposes that are recognized by their greater institutions and their educational
communities.
2. Must develop and analyze criteria in a manner that encourages program
freedom and autonomy.
3. Always consider the evaluative process within the context of the goals and
plans of the whole institution and its educational outcomes.
4. Supports, permits and encourages innovation. (1983, p. 416-420)
In creating an accreditation process, the program designers must remain sensitive to
avoiding a high degree of conformity. While accreditation would outline minimum
standards and benchmarks, it is not desirable to create carbon-copy versions of
26

programs across the country. This is one of the most significant challenges of
accreditation – balancing minimum standards with program autonomy. Some ambiguity
must be tolerated and viewed as a conduit for innovation.
As indicated in the article, “The Power of Accreditation”, “accreditation is neither neutral
nor benign; it is not apolitical” (Harvey, 2004, 207). Consequently, it is critical that any
system of accreditation that may be implemented respects the academic freedom of
higher education. For this reason, the first recommendation for the implementation of
accreditation is to ensure that requirements set out in the process remain minimal. In
other words, accreditation outlines the minimum standards for library technician
programs, acknowledging that programs can specialize and expand on these base
requirements. These requirements would have to be collectively determined by the
accreditation design team and would be part of the initial phase of development. By
carefully considering the minimal conditions for accreditation and discussing the impact
of these conditions, designers can work to ensure that there is not a power imbalance
between practice and education. Such an imbalance impedes the pursuit of research
and exploration that is essential to the academic process and can occur if there is not
an open and involved discussion of what programs require for their continued
development.

There are many potential participants in any modern-day accreditation process and it is
very important that inter-agency relationships are fostered. For example, whether the
accrediting agency worked under the auspices of the national association (the Canadian
Library Association) or it was a new entity, it will require leadership and input from many
segments of the library community. The process would NOT occur in isolation of the
greater library community as this would greatly limit the program’s effectiveness in
coordinating with other agencies. It must also be noted that accreditation would remain
a voluntary process (as it is with most accreditation programs) with educational bodies
deciding, on their own accord, whether the process would be beneficial to them.

27

In order to begin either process, certain guidelines and terminology must be
established. Once this activity is complete, implementation can be phased in according
to the needs determined by the participants. The difference between the two stages
would be in the extent of implementation. Approved programs would act as potential
pilot projects in which problems and solutions can be identified.

Once a program of accreditation has been established, Marcos Cerqueira advises that
the responsible agency must ensure that it conducts research on the impact of
accreditation, focusing on qualitative data (2006).

28

Program Design
The following outline of program design is only a suggested framework and requires
further discussion and exploration from stakeholders. It must be observed that the
rigour of accreditation should be dependent on many factors, including wide
consultation, establishing minimal standards and others that have been previously
outlined. All recommendations for design take into account that this process can be
introduced in at least two phases, approval and accreditation. The following points
highlight the key areas that are necessary to begin the process.

1. Design Task Force

In order to begin the design process, a task force that consists of stakeholders
must be formed. The central participants should be heads of library technician
programs or their faculty designates. Other possible participants include
technician graduates who have demonstrated an interest in this process. Other
constituents should include representatives of library technician associations and
interest groups. Other members of the library community, including employers,
should be consulted for input on factors that include outgoing competencies but
may not, necessarily have a role on the design team in its initial stages. The
community is broad and while representation and input is essential in the final
outcome of accreditation, the design process must be limited to a reasonable
number of invested and dedicated people who have a deep knowledge of library
technician curriculum and the library technician context.. While it is up to the task
force to determine the number of participants, it should not exceed 9 members in
the interest of efficiency.

The task force should be led by a chair and also have

a separately appointed secretary. This task force would guide the
approval/accreditation process through the following steps:

a) Establishing major objectives for an Accreditation/Approval Agency. The
task force will have to determine the scope of authority and control that
such an agency would possess.
29

b) Identifying possible representational bodies for overseeing the process.
Because the Canadian Library Association is intended to, “build the
Canadian library and information community and advance its information
professionals” (Canadian Library Association), it would seem logical to
have a national force to support this process. Certainly, such a role was
identified in the Training Gaps Analysis (2006). However, the task force
may be interested in developing an agency that work independently of
CLA for the sole purpose of accrediting programs. Such an agency could
be comprised of representatives from across Canada, pulled, potentially,
from provincial associations. This may be an option if CLA is unable to
support the project. It will be up to the task force to identify partners to
build an accreditation agency, whether it is with CLA or a newly developed
group. Once this is done, a member of the task force should be appointed
the role of liaising with these partners while the accreditation agency and
process is further developed.

c) Reviewing CLA Guidelines for the Education of Library Technicians for the
purpose of creating a Outcomes Assessment. Using the Outcomes
Assessment Model included in this document, the task force can begin to
outline program inputs for accreditation review and outcome measures.
This activity is essential to clearly identifying what factors will be
considered important to the evaluation process and how this process can
be clearly mapped. Doing so will ensure that the process and standards
are clear to programs when they prepare for the review process.

d) Begin compiling outgoing proficiencies for library technician graduates.
Although standards would, ultimately be defined by whatever accreditation
body is established, the groundwork can be done at the Task Force level
by a careful review of the CLA Guidelines.

30

2. Advisory Council / Committee

Once a design task force has established its stakeholders, identified its
objectives, and has begun the process of identifying core competencies for the
purposes of defining standards, an Advisory Council or Committee should be
established to oversee the actual approval process. Unlike the design team, this
council would be the authority that manages accreditation and would represent a
wide variety of participants from the field. It is important to clearly articulate what
the scope of this council or committee would be to ensure that members have a
clear understanding of their responsibilities.

Scope of Council/Committee
a) It is a non-governmental body.
b) Demonstrates operational independence for making objective
judgments relative to accreditation status, policies, procedures, and
criteria.
c) Possesses sufficient staff to maintain effective evaluation procedures.
d) Fully discloses and makes public its evaluation policy as well as its
decision making processes.
e) Ensures all professional and academic qualifications of administrative
and evaluative members are made publicly available.
f) Reviews and modifies accordingly its evaluative criteria and
procedures regularly.
g) Clearly defines all terminology associated with accreditation process.
h) Provides evaluation reports to institutions and programs
i) Maintains confidentiality, […] in sofar as possible, of those aspects of
the accreditation process which if disclosed would jeopardize the
purposes of accreditation and weaken the process.
j) Enables faculty, staff, administration and students to have the
opportunity to discuss issues during an on-site visit.

31

k) Creates a method for relevant data collection which will, ultimately,
provide self-evaluation for the purposes of improvement.
l) Provides consultative guidance throughout the process. (COPA¸1983,
p. 416-419)

Shaping Accreditation Goals
It is important to distinguish between what the library profession wants graduates to
have and what they need to have in order for them to be successful and productive in
the workplace. Accreditation designers need to identify the core competencies of
graduates from library technician programs, in order for the goals of accreditation to be
synchronized with industry expectations and educational programs. However, these
competencies should not simply be a shopping list of things “technicians can do”.
These competencies need to:






Focus on the performance of the end-product or goal-state of instruction
Reflect expectations that are an application of what is learned in the immediate
instructional program
Be expressible in terms of measurable behaviour
Use a standard of judging competence that is not dependent on the performance
of other learners
Inform learners as well as other stakeholders about what is expected of them
(Albanese & Mejicano, 2008, p. 252)

Once a core of competencies is known and agreed upon by the accreditation design
team, they will have a clearer understanding of what the goals of accreditation will be. It
should be noted that, “...the definition of competence is inextricably bound to local
political, social and economic circumstances” (Albanese & Mejicano, 2008, p. 253).
Consequently, much time and attention should be given to this exercise, if evaluation
criteria are to be clear and measurable.

Definition of Standards used to Evaluate Programs
A definition of standards is integral to developing any form of measurement. Standards
outline the scope of factors that will be examined in an approval/accreditation process.
32

Refer to the Appendix A: Accreditation Outline in this document as a visual
breakdown of standards used by the Association of Technology, Management, and
Applied Engineering to assess programs using qualitative and quantitative data. The
outline is most helpful in visualizing a process for assessment and is one of the few
accreditation flow charts available that is very clearly expressed. Data is collected using
two central processes:

1. The development and use of a program self-study. This study encompasses a
reflective examination of the program, demonstrating some type of internal audit
process (usually involving a variety of reports).

2. A site visit by an accreditation team where interviews, visual inspection and
clarification of self study data occur.
The outline in Appendix A is a flow chart that illustrates how program inputs influence
program operations and, in turn, interact with outcome measures. Together, these
three categories allow those reviewing programs to understand the role of various
inputs and their impact on final outcomes.

Program Inputs: these encompass the range of activities that influence the program
from its core goals and mission to the actual curriculum. Much of the data for this
process is collected through existing documentation on policies, standards, and
statistics.

Program Operation: whether a program is accredited or not, all of the information
amassed through program inputs are ultimately designed for the successful operation of
the program. The operation of the program is most effectively measured through a
program self study. Self-study can demonstrate that the effectiveness of instruction that
includes
o Motivation and counseling of students
o Scheduling of instruction
33

o Quality of instruction
o Observance of ethical standards
o Availability of resource materials
o Teaching and measurement of competencies
o Supervision of instruction
o Placement services for work experience (Slivak, 2010, p. 7)

Course syllabi provide clear guidance and should be incorporated into the selfstudy to articulate details of instruction including texts and other reference
resources, evaluation criteria, content, course objectives, and student activities.

Outcome Measures: This area of investigation looks at the final outcomes of programs
and their impact and influence on the industry in which graduates are being prepared.
While there have been some informal studies done that have examined LIT graduate
satisfaction, like annual surveys done for University of the Fraser Valley graduates, it is
insufficient to accurately measure the success and relevancy of LIT education. Such
surveys do not look beyond local communities and they are not developed in
consultation with other programs. Their focus, therefore, is narrow. The outcomes
measures include, but are not limited to:
o Determining graduate satisfaction.
o Whether students continue their education with advanced studies (i.e., a
degree) as a measure of continued commitment to professional
development
o Employer satisfaction with graduates
o Job advancements of graduates
o Advisory committee support and approval of the program
o Faculty participation in the development to the profession
It is possible to use the American Library Association’s standards of accreditation as an
aid to developing LIT accreditation standards. However, it is critical that the nuances of
library technician education be carefully considered. For example, ALA accreditation
34

standards are established for graduate level programs where students will already
possess certain competencies that students new to LIT programs are not expected to
have.

Process of Review
Without clearly defined goals, the process of evaluation can become unnecessarily
complicated. Essentially, the review process should focus on programs:
o Demonstrating clear educational goals and objectives
o Applying evaluation criteria that ensures graduates possess a level of
competency in the area that they are being prepared
o Conveying their mission into measurable goals
o Possessing a systematic and predictable means of gathering data
(Andrews, 1983, p. 449-356)

Evaluation should incorporate the use of qualitative and quantitative data if such a
process is to be comprehensive and objective. However, it should be noted that while
there may be many ways to approach the assessment of a program, focus should be on
the measurement of quality, accreditation’s key purpose. The use of program selfexamination is central to this process because it stimulates the internal process of
reviewing policies, procedures, and other records and gives the external review team
very useful contextual information about the program’s contribution to the field. In
addition, the process gives programs a basis for future planning and research. Author
H.R. Kells asserts that effective review requires that the self-study needs to be internally
motivated and not simply a “response” to the accrediting body. In addition, he suggests
that the program leader must be committed to the self-study process and the design
must be relevant and meaningful to the program and its context within its institution.
Finally, accreditation must be well led, producing a readable report that acts as an
enhancement of the self analysis, with self-improvement as the major product (1983).
Following Kells guidelines will help avoid a costly administrative data collection process
that may lose focus on quality enhancement. Without careful planning and leadership,
review processes can fall prey to becoming procedural busywork. Thus, the self-study
35

remains central to the process of accreditation as they can maintain focus on graduate
benefits and encourage diversity (COPA, 1983, pp. 415-433). Ultimately, the selfanalysis that is involved better equips programs to make enhancements to their
program and provides them with an opportunity to articulate the program’s philosophies
and goals.

36

Stakeholders
Essentially, the process of quality assurance must be driven by the educational
programs seeking it. Thus, the primary stakeholders for an accreditation process would
be library technician programs in Canada. Ideally, there should be involvement by the
Canadian Library Association as well as provincial associations. Most importantly,
however, is input and involvement by existing library technician graduates through their
library technician interest groups and associations. While it is helpful to have input from
all library sectors, the process of accreditation is intended to only examine the context
and quality of library technician programs and not all librarians and administrators will
have intimate knowledge of the nuances of these education programs. Library
technician program advisory groups can also provide helpful advice and input, but they
are also limited in providing guidance without direct authority and control. This is due to
the autonomous nature of academe and the university (and college) model where they
collaborate with industry but are not directed by industry. Those who have experience
delivering post-secondary education and have a keen interest and understanding of
library technician education are most valuable in assisting in the design of an evaluative
process.
This does not negate the important role served by those working in the broader library
and information science industry. For this reason, participation in the actual process of
accreditation should include members of the library community. Employers would have
a vested interest in supporting the process of review because they would be hiring staff
who would be impacted by that process. Consultation with employers throughout the
development and deployment of accreditation is essential to its success.
It is also absolutely critical to emphasize that the development and, later, composition of
an accreditation design team and agency must be done carefully. It is vital to minimize
the risk of creating a system where the interests of a limited cause influence the design
and implementation process. In other words, the goal of accreditation is to remain
focused on quality improvement and not become a method of advancing the interests of
special groups. The library community must be clear that the process is NOT intended

37

to certify practitioners, as this can, “result in an effort to use accreditation
inappropriately, and ineffectively, as a means for assuring the qualifications of individual
practitioners” (Bender, 1983, p. 79). In fact, “accreditation should be used in ways that
do not compromise its essential characteristics as a voluntary, self-regulatory,
nongovernmental evaluation procedure (p. 75).
After library technician program administrators and faculty have identified the core goals
of accreditation, it is logical to have those same individuals participate in the
identification of accreditation planners as these “planners” will serve to support these
core goals. Those who proceed with the process must remain sensitive to the fact that
the process may take on additional stakeholders as time progresses to ensure that
goals are broad and flexible. Thus, the accreditation development process, is an
exploratory one where flexibility and adaptability are critical – much like libraries
themselves.

38

Priorities for Creating a Successful Accreditation Program
No matter what path is chosen for developing and encouraging quality improvement for
library technician programs in Canada, there are some essential elements that are
necessary for a healthy future of such programs:
1. Leadership. Those wishing to participate in accreditation development need
to provide guidance and leadership to their respective communities in order to
garner understanding and support. A process of development needs to be
determined including setting agendas, meetings, and on-going discussions.
2. Recognition. Practitioners and their affiliated associations (including the
Canadian Library Association, provincial and special interest associations)
need to recognize the need for LIT input in discussions around human
resource management for the field. In addition, any quality assurance system
for LIT programs needs the recognition and respect of those in the field by
providing ample opportunities for discussion, collaboration and participation,
both in the design and implementation processes.
3. Committed Design Team. Those who choose to participate in the design
process of accreditation must demonstrate a strong interest and commitment
to the process. The need for consultation and discussion requires individuals
prepared to ask difficult questions about the role of LIT graduates and their
role in the profession.
4. Resources. Volunteer time to develop a process is an absolute necessity.
Volunteers would come from faculty in the programs, association
representatives and employers. The process will also necessitate securing
other resources and qualified people to carry out the work of design, planning,
and implementation. It may be possible to find support from professional
organizations and grants.
5. Clearly Defined Expectations. Initial meetings with an accreditation design
team require defining the goals and outcomes of the project. It is essential
that stakeholders have a clear sense of what the process will encompass and
how it will be accomplished. Determining the process, procedures, and
policies will provide the outline for the development of standards and,
ultimately, the final program.

39

Appendix A: Accreditation Outline
The Outcomes Assessment Accreditation Handbook provides an excellent model in which to
base an accreditation model. This is meant to be an illustrative guideline, not specific
recommendations.
Outcome Assessment Accreditation Model
Program Inputs
1.1
Program Title, Mission
& General Outcomes

Outcome Measures

Program Operation

1.2

1.12
Graduate Satisfaction with
Program and
Identification with the
Library Profession
1.13
Employment of
Graduates

Competency Identification
& Validation
1.11
1.3
Transfer Course Work

1.4
Identification of
Competency
Competency Measures
Identification &

Program Operation

1.14
Job Advancement of
Graduates

Motivation of Students

1.15
Employer Satisfaction
with Job Performance

Scheduling of Instruction

1.16
Graduate Success in
Advanced Programs

Instruction

Validation

1.18
Development of the
Profession

1.5
Program Structure &
Course Sequencing

1.6
Student Admission &
Retention Standards

Observance of Ethical Standards

1.7
Student Enrollment

Availability of Resource Materials

1.8
Administrative Support &
Faculty Qualifications
1.9
Facilities, Equipment &
Technical Support

1.10
Program Goals

1.19
Advisory Council
Approval of Program

Teaching & Measurement of
Competencies
Supervision of Instruction
Program Improvement

Placement of Graduates
1.20
Outcome Measures Used to Improve

(The Association of Technology Management, and Applied Engineering, 2011).
Program

40

Appendix B: Procedures for Self-Study
An effective self-study process is crucial to evaluation and it is an activity that all
programs should be encouraged to develop, regardless of accreditation needs. The
following recommendations from H.R. Kells’ article, “Improving Institutional Performance
Through Self Study” provide an excellent starting point to developing an effective
system of self-study.1
Answer Three Primary Questions:
1. What are the program’s intentions or goals? Are they clear and appropriate?
Useful?
2. Are the human, fiscal and physical resources used in the operation of the
program available? Are there threats to their future availability?
3. Are the program goals being achieved? How can evidence that should be
systematically acquired improve the program?
If self-study is used for the purposes of accreditation, one final question must be
considered:
4. Are the standards set out by the accreditation body being met?
The following are basic steps to guiding the self-study process.
5 Steps to the Self-Study Process
1. Prepare for and Design the Study Process
a. Establish leadership and internal motivation
b. Draw up a specific list of local needs or issues
c. Identify local circumstances to take into account in designing the study
2. Organize the Study Process
a. Define tasks and roles
b. Establish a means for guiding the study – a steering structure
c. Select, orient, and train people
d. Obtain resources
e. Define the sequence of events
f. Establish coordination and communication mechanisms

1

Kells, H.R. (1983). Improving institutional performance through self-study. In K.Young et al (eds.)
Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and Practices in Evaluation of Educational
Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 126-130.

41

3. Pay Attention to the Mechanics of the Study Process
a. Work with stated intentions (goals) – clarify them and study them for
consensus, completeness, and priority
b. Examine input, environment, program, and process
c. Review accreditation standards – use useful and valid criterion levels
applicable to the institution or program
d. Use instruments to assist with gathering facts and opinions
e. Undertake goal achievement (outcome) studies
f. Discuss results and prepare a useful report
g. Use the results – implement changes
4. Use Peers
a. Use consultants
b. Use the team visit [where applicable]
c. Work well with outside organizations
5. Establish Cycles of Study and Planning
a. Use self-study as a basis for planning
b. Increase ongoing institutional research

42

Appendix C: Resources for Accreditation Design Team
American Library Association Office for Accreditation
Provides documentation and links to resources associated with the ALA’s
process of accreditation for master’s programs.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/accreditation/index.cfm
Association of Accreditating Agencies in Canada (AAAC)
A support organization that provides training programs for accreditation teams
http://aaac.ca/English/WhoWeAre.html
Association of Technology Management, and Applied Engineering.
Outcomes Assessment Accreditation Model. A clearly expressed outline of
accreditation as seen through the eyes of this organization.
http://atmae.org/accred/Outcomes_Assessment_Model%20022210mdsc.pdf
Australian Library and Information Association Accreditation of Courses
Provides information on the process for accreditation of courses.
http://www.alia.org.au/education/courses/accreditation.html
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) Accreditation
Instrument
While it is possible to peruse the entire CILIP site, this resource specifically
outlines the process of accreditation including expectations from prospective
applicants.
http://www.cilip.org.uk/filedownloadslibrary/qualifications/accreditation%20(web)..
Pdf
CLA Guidelines for the Education of Library Technicians
The revised guidelines for Canadian LIT programs.
http://www.cla.ca/Content/NavigationMenu/CLAatWork/InterestGroups/LibraryTe
chnicians/CLA_LTIG_guidelines.pdf
Library Support Staff Certification (ALA)
Although not an example of “accreditation”, this site can provide perspective on
the direction ALA has chosen to take with addressing library support staff training
and education.
http://ala-apa.org/lssc/

Young, K. (1983). Accreditation, a complex evaluative tool. In K. Young et al. (eds.)
Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and
Practices in Evaluation Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Despite the date of publication, it is a seminal work, providing tremendous
background to the process of accreditation.
43

Cited References
Albanese, M. A., Mejicano, G., Mullan, P., Kokotailo, P., & Gruppen, L. (2008). Defining
characteristics of educational competencies. Medical Education, 42(3), 248-255.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02996.x
The Association of Technology Management, and Applied Engineering. (2011). Outcomes
Assessment Accreditation Model. Retrieved September 11, 2011 from:
http://atmae.org/accred/Outcomes_Assessment_Model%20022210mdsc.pdf
Bender, L. (1983). Accreditation: misuses and misconceptions. In K. Young et al (eds.)
Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and Practices in
Evaluation Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bickerton, L. (2009). Understanding Professional Self-Regulation in British Columbia. BC
College of Teachers. Retrieved October 5, 2011 from
http://www.bcct.ca/documents/FormsandPublications/UnderstandingProf/underst_self_re
gulation.pdf
Champeny L. and A. Bergalieva. (2006). Developing a Master in Library and Information
Science (MLIS) curriculum for Central Asia: integrating Kazakh, Russian and North
American concepts of libraries and librarianship. KIMEP (Kazakhstan Institute of
Management, Economics and Strategic Research) Almaty Kazakhstan Meeting: 145
Division of Education and Research. August 2006, Seoul, Korea:
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/index.htm
Cerqueira, M. (2006). A literature review on the benefits, challenges, and trends in
accreditation as a quality assurance system. Retrieved from Dspace at the University of
Victoria. September 21, 2011 from:
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8443/bitstream/handle/1828/1497/cerqueira_marcos.pdf?s
equence=1
CHEA. (2010). The Value of Accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation. Retrieved September 16, 2011 from:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/Value%20of%20US%20Accreditation%2006.29.2010_buttons.p
df
COLT. (2009). Council of Library and Media Technicians. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from:
http://colt.ucr.edu/ltprograms.html#Resources
Committee on Accreditation. (2006). Accreditation Process Policies and Procedures. 2nd ed.
Retrieved September 10, 2011 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/accreditedprograms/standards/AP3SecondEdition_revised1-0911.pdf
Computer Science: University of Toronto. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2011 from:
http://web.cs.toronto.edu/research/groups.htm

44

(COPA) Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. (1983). Provisions and procedures for
becoming recognized as an accrediting agency. In K. Young et al. (eds.),
Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and Practices in
Evaluation Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Courses in library and information management. (2009). Australia Library and Information
Association. ALIA. Retrieved October 4, 2011 from:
http://www.alia.org.au/policies/courses.html
El-Khawas, E. (1983). Accreditation: self-regulation. In K. Young et al. (eds.), Understanding
Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and Practices in Evaluation
Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 54-70.
Ewell, P., M. Boeke & S. Zis. (2010). State Uses of Accreditation: Results of a Fifty-State
Inventory. Washington D.C.: Council For Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved
September 16, 2011 from: http://www.chea.org/pdf/State_Uses_of_Accreditation.pdf
Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: views of academics. Journal of Higher
Education Policy & Management, 26(2), 207-223. doi:10.1080/1360080042000218267
Ingles, E et al. (2005). 8Rs: The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries. Retrieved
October 10, 2011 from: http://www.ls.ualberta.ca/8rs/8RsFutureofHRLibraries.pdf .
The Intersol Group. (Oct. 6-7 2008). National Summit on Library Human Resources: Report for
the Canadian Library Association (CLA). Ottawa, ON: CLA. Retrieved October 12,
2011 from:
http://www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=7131&TEMPLATE=/
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Kells, H.R. (1983). Improving institutional performance through self-study. In K.Young et al.
(eds.), Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and
Practices in Evaluation Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kinney, Lucien B. (1995). Designing accreditation. Journal of Higher Education. 26(1), pp. 25.
Retrieved September 2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1978112 .
Lankes, D. (2011). The Atlas of New Librarianship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morgan, N. and M. Louie. (2006). Post-Secondary Quality Assurance Practices. Retrieved
September 12 from:
http://www.fnesc.ca/iahla/Attachments/Research_%20Papers_Reports/Accreditation%2
0Paper-Final%20Apr%2006.pdf
Recognizing value – encouraging growth: the national library support staff certification program.
(2007) submitted to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Retrieved
October 21, 2011 from: http://ala-apa.org/lssc/files/2010/03/Grant2IMLSNarrative.pdf

45

Slivak, C. (2010). Outcomes Assessment Accreditation Model for Child and Youth Care
Programs. (Unpublished).
Swigger, Keith. (2010). The MLS Experiment: An Assessment After Sixty Years. Scarecrow
Press..
Training.com.au. (n.d.). Australian Quality Training Framework. Retrieved October 4, 2011
from:
http://www.training.com.au/Pages/menuitem91cdbaeb7a2bc0e2cd9ae78617a62dbc.asp
x
Training gaps analysis for librarians and library technicians executive summary. (2006).
Cultural Human Resources Council. Retrieved October 19, 2011 from:
http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/CHRC_Librarians_and_Library_Tech_TGA-summaryen.pdf

Young, K. (1983). Accreditation, a complex evaluative tool. In K.Young et al. (eds.),
Understanding Accreditation: Contemporary Perspectives on Issues and Practices in
Evaluation Educational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

46