Second Masters Degree or Ph.D. in Information Science?
Until recently I have not given much thought about going back to school to get a second graduate degree or even a Ph.D. It was just too expensive for somebody who is still paying off "his and hers" student loans, has two kids, and has the rest of life's expenses. However things have changed, my employer's tuition reimbursement plan has made it so that it might be financially possible for me to go back to school. I am wondering, is it worth getting a second masters degree or a Ph.D.? It is no secret that some day I would like to become a library director. I realize a second masters degree or Ph.D. won't get me that library director position, but will not having it shut me out of some potential positions?
I realize this a fairly hot topic for debate within the academic library world. When I was going to library school the hot topic of conversation among library students was the about whether a second masters degree or a Ph.D. in a subject specialty was a perceived or real need. Not only were single master students (those who would just have a masters in library science) and dual masters students discussing the pros and cons about it, but both students found that the salary (often in low to mid 30's) did not match that value of dual advance degree.
There are many successful single masters degree librarians out there, many in the medical library world. So I don't think having one masters degree specifically limits your success, but does it limit you in your career advancement? Notice, success and advancement are not the same? (That is not a coincidence, one does not always beget the other.)
The article "Subject Experts Need Not Apply: Recent job postings and hires suggest that many academic libraries are losing interest in hiring humanities Ph.D.'s," in The Chronicle of Higher Education (July 1, 2008) by Todd Gilman implies the trend to hire librarians with subject specialty masters degrees or Ph.D.'s is lessening. "Many recent job postings for humanities librarians, reference librarians, or those specializing in research education do not list subject expertise as a requirement. In place of subject expertise, those job postings require relevant library experience (variously defined) and, more often than not, technology skills, neither of which, to my mind, makes up for a lack of advanced education in a particular discipline." Gilman, the librarian for literature in English at Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library, thinks libraries need advanced degree subject specialists because they can better serve the subject collection and they can be seen as "true partners in education" because they are "players in the same intellectual ballpark as professors."
Gilman is a librarian in the humanities, he is not a biomedical librarian. It is a rare occasion you find an M.D. who decided to get an MLS and become a librarian. Slightly less rare are the R.N.'s who are now librarians. There are quite a few librarians who have advanced degrees in the sciences (biology, chemistry, etc.) and even more that have undergraduate degrees in those subject. There are many successful medical librarians who have undergraduate degrees in non-science subjects and who don't hold any advanced degrees. What can an advanced degree do for the current medical librarian?
In May at MLA's Not-so Dangerous Liaisons: Best Practices for Library Liaison Work symposium I sat across from the speaker, Patrick McCarthy the Director of Saint Louis University Medical Center Library. He described the medical library's liaison librarians. These librarians are subject specialist medical librarians, their library jobs were their second career. He described a shift in his library and institution to hire medical librarians with advanced degrees in biomedical subjects. Their library website says, "The Medical Center Library's Liaison Program links our reference subject specialists with each health sciences department and program. The purpose of this program is to foster communication in research, teaching, and clinical care between the Library and the Schools it serves." At MLA McCarthy said this liaison program increased faculty involvement in the medical library. Is this the way things are now moving in medical libraries? I quickly looked at both Harvard and Yale's medical library websites, each list their library staff just like Saint Louis University. Neither Harvard nor Yale included any initials after the library staff names (unlike SLU) so it was difficult to determine at a glance if these big academic medical libraries are doing this as well.
So, I am still left with the question regarding advanced degrees and librarians. Is getting a second masters degree worth it? Does it help get a foot in the door for an interview and once you land the library job, does it pay for itself? At MLA McCarthy answered this a similar question. He said that his library increased salaries for those librarians with advanced degrees which in fact lured a few librarians away from a competing university. But is this the norm? Will having a second masters degree or a Ph.D. help towards getting a library director position? Are there director positions out there that require an advance degree as one of the job requirements or is that more of a "preferred" qualification allowing otherwise qualified candidates to have an equal shot at the position?
Labels: ContinuingEducation
posted by The Krafty Librarian @ 12:21 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I'm an RN working on my PhD in nursing but my topic is most definitely related to the information and library sciences and I sometime wonder if I should have worked on my PhD outside my field. BTW my topic is understanding information literacy in the nursing workplace.
Shouldn't the question be: will a second master's degree or PhD make a better, more capable librarian? The purely careerist question may truly be where you're coming from, and I think the answer to both is a resounding no.
Strong librarians are recognized as such by those who pay attention, as are weak ones. Letters after the name are irrelevant. A doctorate in "library science" is almost laughable. Will even an MD make a better medical librarian? Not likely. A PhD make a better director? Almost surely no.
It's interesting to me that the comments in support of PhDs only refer to image, not value or even intellectual presence. Being seen as "true partners" or "foster[ing] communication in research, teaching, and clinical care between the Library and the Schools it serves" or "increased faculty involvement in the medical library" all sound like phony approval-seeking motivations that say nothing of the value of subject expertise.
Librarians should take pride in providing service and do it well. What will an advanced science degree allow one to do better? More sophisticated, valuable literature searches? Not likely. Our profession is struggling to demonstrate relevance. Empty gestures and academic chest-beating won't make us more relevant. In the health sciences, at least, we still have the opportunity to make a difference by saving clinicians time and helping them be better at what they do. Being good at this, rather than pointing at empty credentials, should be the goal.
If a directorship is truly your goal, then your 2nd master's should probably be an MBA or MPA. Librarianship is too interdisciplinary for a 2nd Master's to be of much use. Large academic health sciences centres serve multiple constituents, from undergraduate life sciences, to pharmacists to doctors to RNs and while a Master's might help you serve one discipline, it won't help you with the others. But too few librarians have the management skills to make them successful directors. We need to learn human resources, budgeting, marketing, strategic planning and other topics that relate to the business of running a library.
After earning my MLIS, I worked part-time for two years in an academic library, while seeking a full-time position. It was my impression that the requirement of the second advanced degree varied considerably, depending upon not only the position itself, but the institutional culture. It also seemed that there would be an increasing number of candidates w/ a second degree - which they had before earning their MLS. Prospects were not encouraging for someone w/out the second advanced degree.
Fortunately for me, I just landed a position as the librarian for a small community hospital - medical librarianship was always my first choice. I have dual bachelor degrees in science and medical records administration - but no second advanced degree, and no plans to earn one. However, I am planning to take a course in medical informatics as soon as I qualify for my tuition benefit.
Although I do not aspire to being a library director, if this were my goal, I would consider earning an MBA w/ as much emphasis on information and accompanying technology as possible. You're right about not many MDs earning MLSs, but more and more are earning MBAs and similar degrees. We can't deny the fact that healthcare is a business And certainly the departments that would support the library have a business model. The playing field should be as level as possible.
This is a great topic, Michelle! I have been pondering this as well. I hope that there will be more comments to your post!
I am leaning toward something techie for two reasons. 1. I am very interested in it. 2. They tend to have more classes online.
But I have heard from quite a few people the an MBA or masters degree in Heath Care Administration is the way to go.
Who knows I may just stay my single masters self. :)
The institution I work for, a small non-profit baccalaureate Nursing college, offers a tuition reimbursement plan. I have also wondered why I am not taking advantage of it since I love working here, but probably won't stay for 35 years. I am very lucky to be the Director of this little library, but I know better than to assume that title would get me another academic job someplace larger. I most likely would need another masters degree. I have also struggled with what to get that masters in, recently I've wondered about a Masters in Technology. At my institution I am pulled in two directions, the Director of the Library and as the IT Assistant because we don't have an IT staff as such. I have no desire to put myself through the hell of getting a Ph.D. though.
MBA all the way!
I've heard the MBA argument as well. At my last job, I worked with an employee of our university library that had responsibilities covering acquisitions and IT. He had an MBA and an MLS, and recommended an MBA, particularly for someone looking to rise in the acquisitions and business operations of library work.
An interesting question, and one that might be a suitable topic for a dissertation. :-) I've never had any ambition to be a director (systems geek is more in my line), but I have worked for a lot of people, and thought about what makes a good manager. The worst boss I ever had--childish, unprofessional, and abusive--was working on a PhD in management. The best boss never went beyond high school. The difference, I think, was that the former loved being in charge and having power over people, and you never really noticed that the other had power--he wanted things to run smoothly and did whatever necessary to make us all work together.
But to get slightly more on topic, my current boss seems to spend most of her time working on our ever-shrinking budget. I think an MBA might brighten up a resume more than a PhD.
I have both an MLS and a PhD in another field. The doctorate has not helped me at all; I think it's actually hurt my chances to get some library jobs. I agree with some of the other commenters that an MBA would be a more advantageous degree. Of course, a second master's in a technology field could be a good decision as well.
I've been pondering this as well. I do have an interest in being a director at some point. In the meantime, I would need to think long and hard about whether a second degree of some sort would a)provide any valuable skills that can only be obtained in that manner; b)pay off monetarily. I know a lot of older librarians who think a second or higher degree is a must for directors, but is that going to continue to be the case? Something to think about - thanks for doing this post!
I recently got my doctorate in education - I was able to study for free at the university where I worked. I didn't think the degree would advance my career (it wouldn't have if I had stayed in that academic library) but knew that I'd gain useful knowledge in research design and methodology which would make me a better librarian. However, right before completing my degree, a directorship opened at a research institute/cancer center/graduate school, and my EdD definitely caught the attention of the search committee (all scientific PhDs). It also boosted my hiring salary considerably. I do think that if you are interested in an academic directorship, a doctorate (or MBA as others have suggested) will improve your "worth" in the eyes of academics outside the library and possibly give you a leg up during the recruiting process. In my experience, the degree was completely worth the time and effort.
I'm a health sciences library director with only a master's degree. I'm currently considering going back to school myself.
While a second master's or PhD will help your application for a director position, it's not essential. You should take classes in subjects that interest you. That said, degrees in health administration, informatics or management are more likely to be useful to you 'on the job' than a PhD in library science.
Post a Comment
<< Home