Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Bryn Geffert and Anna Staton. Bryn is Dean of Libraries at the Universith of Vermont. Anna is a student at Colby College who served as an intern in this project.

This essay is an abridged preface to the study found here.

Librarians wrestle with the question of what it means to be a “professional librarian.” Which persons — possessed of which qualifications and which “terminal degrees” — should and should not bear the title? The question has existed as long as university libraries have existed, but the rapidly and radically evolving nature of library work — coupled with the ever-expanding boundaries of the academic library’s remit — make the question newly difficult and newly controversial. Indeed, it would be challenging to name a debate among academic librarians more perennially contentious or important than that of credentialing.

To understand philosophies and practices around credentialing in the United States, we sent a survey in the summer of 2023 to the top library official at each of the 274 R1 and R2 research universities in the United States: 167 completed the survey for a response rate of 61%.

The results lead us to three conclusions: (1) our profession remains deeply split on the question of credentialing; (2) the Association of College and Research Library’s statement on the matter, crafted to forge consensus, has failed to do so; and (3) emerging practices in university libraries argue for more diverse credentialing options — options that reflect the diversity of practices already in play.

Our survey asked respondents to reflect on their rationale for requiring or not requiring a Master of Library Science (or Master of Library and Information Science or other variant — all of which we designate hereafter as “MLS”) degree, and they offered multiple arguments for and against making the MLS degree a mandatory credential for anybody designated a “librarian.”

Arguments for a mandatory MLS

Arguments in favor of a mandatory MLS constitute a minority. Only 31% of top administrators “strongly” or “somewhat agree” that a professional who works in an academic library without an MLS degree should never hold the title “librarian,” and only 17% oppose efforts to recruit as librarians candidates who hold a PhD but not an MLS.

Proponents of the minority position argue that the MLS alone can “teach the basics of what it means to be a librarian,” expose practitioners to “all facets of librarianship,” and expose candidates to “the depth and breadth of the profession.” Dropping an MLS requirement, warned some, would tempt administrators to hire librarians at lower salaries. Llack of an MLS might signal insufficient devotion to the profession: the MLS serves as a “marker of commitment to librarianship as a distinct profession.” Several suggested making the MLS optional would “demean” the profession, lead to “deprofessionalization,” and negatively affect “salary, tenure, and status.” Absent a library degree, wrote one, “we are merely clerks, as much of society sees us.” Apocalyptic notes emerged: “Eliminating MLS requirements won’t make the profession more inclusive; it will eliminate it altogether”; we “already battle people not understanding our value and education. Now, our own profession is trying to do the same — eating the young so to speak. It is appalling.”

Some mandatory-MLS proponents evidenced a hunger for clarity, which they believe only an MLS can provide: “When I meet a candidate with the MLS degree, I can make the assumption that [the candidate has] a certain awareness of critical issues facing libraries.” Some asserted that a librarian without an MLS will never acquire the requisite values and mores of our profession — “a shared understanding of the field and its values.” Others argued that those without an MLS — particularly those with a PhD in another field — are one-dimensional and lack the range of interests essential for librarianship.

Some offered tautological arguments, namely that an MLS is necessary to be a librarian because a librarian must have an MLS. “The MLS = librarian,” wrote one. Another: “Can paraprofessionals do the job just as well? Yes. But without the degree they aren’t librarians; they are information professionals.” Common was an argument from resignation, with multiple variants on the following: alternative credentials may be well and good, but change at my institution is impossible, and thus the question is moot.

Arguments against a mandatory MLS

The 57% of respondents who “strongly” or “somewhat disagree” that a professional who does not hold an MLS should never hold the title “librarian” outnumber proponents (the 31% who “somewhat” or “strongly agree” with the same statement) by just under two to one. Optional-MLS proponents argue that librarians with other degrees are as engaged or more engaged than those with an MLS. They identify fewer fundamental skills necessary for success and believe those without an MLS often possess those skills. They dismiss arguments that non-MLS-holders may claim sole title to library values. And they deny that other degrees pose a threat to the profession’s credibility. In fact some suggest that a subject PhD “lends credibility” or “puts librarians on a more level playing field among non-library faculty.” “I know lots of folks with an MLS who have no business being librarians, and lots who have no MLS but are better, smarter, and more knowledgeable than most librarians I have working for me.”

MLS-optional proponents assert that acculturation need not (or even does not) come from library school. Having “hired many non-MLS degree holders … over the years,” I can say that “helping them understand the roles and responsibilities of the library and librarians is necessary and not difficult.”

Our survey asked no questions about library schools or MLS curricula, and yet respondent after respondent volunteered sharp criticism of the same. Dissatisfaction with MLS programs in the United States appears to be rampant among senior administrators. “I have come to believe that librarianship, as taught in MLS programs, and libraries are increasingly unconnected.” In fact some administrators have concluded that library school is inferior to other graduate education. “Librarians realize the MLS is a poor quality, low-differentiating degree, and thus they naturally feel the need to ‘police its boundaries’ in order to support a job market in which they can be competitive against candidates who have more current or higher-level skills.” “I’ve been a librarian for decades now and we keep having this conversation, while we keep sending students to these programs that apparently don’t prepare them for the jobs we need to fill. It’s exhausting.”

Administrators named concerns about homogeneity in our profession (including but not limited to a lack of racial and ethnic diversity), concluding that diversification requires new paths into the profession. “To increase diversity and to fill difficult-to-fill vacancies, we need to be more open to other advanced degrees.” Because we “struggle to recruit underrepresented minorities,” we should look for “PhDs rather than MLS-holders.” “The lack of diversity in library school student populations guarantees that our librarians will continue to be predominantly white and female if we insist on the MLS.”

Respondents named particular skills as difficult or impossible to fill under MLS mandates. “Because libraries have broad-ranging needs and support an even broader audience, it is arrogant to presume that only one specialization is needed to meet needs.” “Each position is different, and a PhD may be more appropriate” for some. On this topic, strong criticisms of MLS programs again arose. The “altered library landscape” demands skills library-school graduates simply do not possess. Criticisms of MLS programs emerged particularly around failures to transmit research and teaching skills. “The deep subject expertise and intimate familiarity with the research and publishing process is not typically available from MLS-only librarians.” “Many PhD holders have at least some experience teaching undergraduates, which MLS holders rarely do.” Opponents of a mandatory MLS were quick to cite knowledge and skills they cannot find amongst MLS-holders: STEM expertise, social science-expertise, art curation, spatial studies, organizational development, computer science, “disciplinary fields,” “area studies” of all types, scholarly communications, data visualization, research-data services, data management, IT and systems work, geographic information systems, digital scholarship, data science, “data-intensive” fields, assessment, computational methods, fundraising, communications, publicity and marketing, and “information policy.”

Optional-MLS proponents are sanguine that applicants without an MLS will acquire skills on the job. “MLS/librarian skills can be learned if you hire based on potential to learn.” “I am a firm believer in hiring the best people and teaching them the missing skills.” Finally, many who embrace alternative credentials do so because they’ve worked with good, non-MLS librarians and readily offered testimonials.

Accounting for controversy

If any doubts about the controversial nature of credentialling preceded the administration of this survey, none survived the results. MLS-optional proponents offer varied theories on why the issue remains so fraught. Several suggested that MLS-mandates stem from the universally human need to be taken seriously. “I think it’s a question of respect. Librarians often don’t receive respect as professionals and pointing to our credentials is one way to try and command that respect.” Credentialing is “one way to gain validation.” Many librarians “feel insecure and need to gatekeep.” “Gatekeeping is one way to respond to threats.” “Some people may feel that ‘if I had to get this degree, so does everyone.’”

Other explanations proved considerably less charitable. Our profession is beset by “status anxiety,” wrote one. “The profession has an inferiority complex due to our degree not being a doctorate, yet we interact with faculty who mostly do [have doctorates].” “Many current degree holders ‘settled’ for an MSLIS rather than a terminal degree in their original field of interest,” thereby falling prey to “imposter syndrome.”

Some cited fear of change in general. “Change is hard,” wrote the respondent with the most concise thesis. Some attributed demands for an MLS degree to “longstanding, deep insecurity about the actual value of library education” or a “basic professional chauvinism” and a “deep-seated fear that MLS holders will be outshone by those with more substantive credentials.” Some attributed exclusionary positions to “arrogance” and “snobbery.”

To note these explanations is not necessarily to endorse them, but simply to indicate how heated the question of credentialing remains. The more contentious the issue, the more inclined are disputants to impugn the motives of those with different opinions. And much impugning on both sides is now ubiquitous.

Beset by squabbling over an issue fundamental to our profession’s identify, we badly need a resolution to the question of credentialling. There is, we submit, a resolution readily at hand, evident through a fair-minded analysis of qualitative and quantitative data gathered across R1 and R2 universities and a close reading of arguments offered by administrators of the same.