Academic Senate Self-Review - UCLA Academic Senate

ACADEMIC SENATE REVIEW 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION STUDIES 

SELF-REVIEW REPORT 

Submitted by 

Gregory H. Leazer 

Associate Professor and Chair 

November 16, 2011 

Introduction 

The Department of Information Studies began its consideration of its Academic Senate 

review over a year ago, in the fall of 2010. Concurrent with this review, and slightly 

preceding it, the department also began an accreditation review of its largest degree 

program: the MLIS (Master of Library and Information Science) degree, accredited by 

the American Library Association. The large majority of our students, our course 

offerings, and by extension much of the educational work of the department, is centered 

around the MLIS program. That review, which is typically exhaustive, drove much of 

the data gathering, and this current review was extended from that work. 

Throughout the previous academic year, two committees—the full executive committee 

of the faculty and the Professional Programs Committee (which oversees the MLIS 

program)—discussed the upcoming reviews, planned for self-studies and commissioned 

focus groups, discussed results, and outlined responses. The PPC in particular planned 

focus groups centered on the three specializations of the MLIS program (informatics, 

library studies, and archival studies) with our major employers and internship supervisors. 

At the focus groups, participants were asked about our curricular strengths and 

weaknesses, with a particular eye to evaluating our graduates. The PPC includes 

representatives of regular faculty, adjunct faculty, other outside professionals, staff, 

students currently in the MLIS program and serving as members of the IS Department’s 

Student Governing Board (SGB), doctoral students who have served as special readers for 

MLIS core courses, and alumni. The Doctoral Planning Committee conducted a 

thorough review of its curriculum and examination procedures two years ago, and has 

now implemented the changes, primarily in the sequence and design of course content. 

The DPC also conducts an annual review of all doctoral students. The DPC includes 

regular faculty, doctoral students, and departmental staff. 

The Dean of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies was kept abreast 

throughout the year. 

The chair also met several times throughout the year with the Library and Information 

Science Alumni Association (LISAA), which was provided with drafts of the more 

comprehensive accreditation report. 

Dept. of Information Studies Self-Review 1

The Student Governing Board (SGB) sends student representatives to all faculty 

meetings, as well as meetings of the Professional Programs Committee and the Doctoral 

Planning Committee, the major policy and curriculum review committees in the 

department. Furthermore, the SGB directs an annual evaluation exercise where it holds 

two town-hall meetings for MLIS students to comment on and discuss all aspects of the 

MLIS program. Reports from these meetings inform the work of the Professional 

Programs Committee and have been used for this self-study as well. 

Departmental staff served as members of all the aforementioned committees, participated 

in the planning for this study, provided data for it, and assisted with its drafting. 

Finally, the faculty held a retreat on October 14, 2011, to review the major findings of 

aforementioned studies—including, most substantially, the accreditation report for the 

MLIS program and the reports provided to us by Graduate Division. This report was 

outlined and discussed at that meeting. This report was circulated in early November, 

2011, and an email vote was conducted over the period of a week at the same time. The 

faculty endorsed this report in a vote of 10 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 not voting. 

Administrative History 

The Department of Information Studies was created following the disestablishment of the 

Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) after the Professional 

Schools Restructuring Initiative in the early 1990s. A Graduate Council review was 

conducted in 1996–97 to assess the creation of the department and its merger with the 

Department of Education to create the Graduate School of Education & Information 

Studies (GSE&IS). That report assessed the effects of the restructuring and concluded 

that “the unit has successfully transitioned into the new administrative structure.” 

The most recent Academic Senate review was conducted in 2002 and was the first 

regularly scheduled review since the merger with the Department of Education. The 

report remarked extensively on the new administrative structure of the IS department 

within GSE&IS. Despite initial trepidation about being the first to evaluate the 

department since the “upheaval that attended the dissolution of the [GSLIS] and the 

reconfiguring of that school as a department”, the reviewers found the status of the 

department “not only gives no cause for alarm, it gives every reason to be enthusiastic.” 

The report found “The department conducts its own affairs smoothly and effectively, and 

has neither been swallowed by the larger Department of Education nor ignored in the 

[GSE&IS]. Indeed it has emerged from the recent decade of uncertainty as one of the 

strongest academic departments at UCLA.” 

The subsequent ten years since that last evaluation has been one of general administrative 

stability. The current dean, Aimée Dorr, has served since 1999. There have been three 

chairs since the last report: Professor Virginia Walter, who wrote the last self-review, was 

followed for several years by Professor Anne Gilliland. The current chair, Professor 

Gregory Leazer, has served since June, 2009. There has been general programmatic and 


curricular stability: the most significant activities have been the creation of the MA in 

Moving Image Archival Studies (an Interdepartmental Degree Program shared with the 

Department of Film, Television and Digital Media, established in 2002) curricular 

refinement of the MLIS and Ph.D. programs, including focusing on a vision of 

Information Studies as a field of inquiry and of course faculty renewal. Along the way we 

have had to face the current budget crisis that has beset the entire university, and we face 

some other challenges as well. Both our achievements and our challenges are addressed 

in the remaining pages of this study. 

Administrative Structure 

The administrative structure of the Department of Information Studies has been 

consistent since its establishment in 1994. The Faculty Chair is appointed by the Dean of 

the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, with consultation with the 

departmental faculty. The departmental Faculty Executive Committee meeting 

(generally called the “departmental faculty meeting”) is held monthly and consists of all 

regular ladder faculty members. Key departmental staff and student representatives 

attend all faculty meetings; draft agenda are distributed a week in advance and 

attendance is open. The only restriction to open attendance is when the faculty moves 

into executive session, which is held almost exclusively for the discussion of confidential 

student or faculty personnel issues. The Faculty Secretary, elected by the regular faculty, 

is responsible for preliminary approval of the faculty meeting minutes before formal 

approval of the body as a whole, monitors faculty votes on personnel issues, and chairs 

faculty meetings in the absence of the chair. 

The regular faculty also participates in the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) of the 

GSE&IS. FEC has two elected departmental representatives from IS, and may, in 

addition, be represented by the two elected At-Large delegates and also the Chair and 

Chair Elect positions. Currently Information Studies faculty members hold both At- 

Large positions. IS faculty members have also served as the chair for the school-wide 

FEC. The department chair serves as an ex officio member of the school FEC. 

The department has several standing committees: 

• Admissions, Awards, and Recruitment Committee 

• Diversity Council 

• Doctoral Planning Committee 

• Instructional Services Committee 

• Professional Programs Committee 

Each committee has faculty plus appropriate non-voting staff and student representatives. 

The Diversity Council has been fairly quiet for the last couple of years, as it was cochaired 

by a faculty member who took leave and subsequently left the university for a 

leadership position at another university. The other co-chair was a prominent librarian 


at UCLA Libraries who sadly died at the time the faculty co-chair went on leave. We are 

now in the process of reconstituting this council. 

The Admissions, Awards and Recruitment Committee (AARC) is directed by Prof. 

Richardson, who served as an associate dean within the UCLA Graduate Division from 

2002-08. Thus he is well apprised of Graduate Division rules and regulations, including 

those that pertain to admissions. Typically, AARC reviews requisite admissions 

requirements at its first meeting every year. 

The IS faculty also participates heavily in the MA in Moving Image Archival Studies 

(MIAS) program’s Committee to Administer the Inter-Departmental Degree Program 

(CAIDP). This committee has two IS faculty representatives, as well as a chair. IS faculty 

has served almost exclusively as the chair of the CAIDP since its 2002 inception. 

Information Studies 

In the United States, the field of Information Studies certainly has its roots in the 

professional education programs dedicated to librarianship, and later archives. This has 

certainly been the case at UCLA, where the School of Library Service (founded 1958) 

eventually evolved to become the Graduate School of Library and Information Science 

(1978), and even today, professional education is a large part of what we do in the 

Department of Information Studies. However, at UCLA and elsewhere, the professional 

degree programs have spawned fields of inquiry dedicated to the role information, in its 

various forms, plays in society in the myriad ways human life can be characterized. 

Furthermore, our programs are dedicated to the development of innovative information 

practices and services, whether informal or formal; technological or bureaucratic. 

One common way of understanding Information Studies was developed in 1999 by 

Professor Marcia Bates, an emerita professor in our department. Writing in her article 

“The Invisible Substrate of Information Science”, she claimed that three big questions 

guided inquiry within Information Science: 

“1. The physical questions: what are the features and laws of the recordedinformation 

universe? 

“2. The social question: how do people relate to, seek, and use information? 

“3. The design question: how can access to recorded information be made most 

rapid and effective?” 

UCLA is a member of the iSchools Consortium, a group of similar programs, most of 

which are organized as independent schools within large research universities. The 

iSchools are interested in “the relationship between information, people and technology. 

This is characterized by a commitment to learning and understanding the role of 

information in human endeavors. The iSchools take it as given that expertise in all forms 


of information is required for progress in science, business, education, and culture. This 

expertise must include understanding of the uses and users of information, as well as 

information technologies and their applications.” 

Speaking on October 25, 2011, on National Public Radio’s Fresh Air, linguist Geoff 

Nunberg spoke on Steve Jobs’ legacy and the iSchool movement. “It isn't just about 

computer science anymore, either. That isn't where you go to find out how technology 

changes people's lives, and where it fails them, or how to make it less intrusive and more 

humane. Those are the questions people are taking up at the Schools of Information that 

have sprung up at research universities like UCLA, Toronto and Washington—iSchools, 

for short. It's a different i-, but it too stands in for a connection between technology and 

the social world.” It is worth noting as well that UCLA has had a strong success record at 

placing faculty at iSchools, including those at Toronto and Washington. 

Professor Nunberg’s characterization—and the iSchools’ as well—places information 

technology at the center of information studies. While technology is certainly a strong 

element of what we do at UCLA, we are unique amongst the iSchools, we feel, for our 

social justice mission that emphasizes equity of access to information, in all its 

manifestations, and a belief that information empowers and enfranchises individuals and 

communities. In brief, the GSE&IS mission statement claims “Our work is guided by the 

principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and 

commitment to the communities we serve.” The department’s vision statement says: 

The Department of Information Studies seeks to define, study, and evaluate interactions among 

people, information, and information technology in a pluralistic society. The Department values 

and promotes equity, diversity, accountability, and intellectual openness. 

The Department integrates wide-ranging scholarly, professional, technological, and institutional 

perspectives in its teaching, research, and public service. Across each of these activities, the 

Department engages with and is driven by real world information issues and communities and 

institutional needs. The Department also promotes the essential role played by information 

institutions such as libraries and archives as social, cultural, educational, and intellectual centers 

in our society. 

In particular, we examine and encourage: 

• The design of information systems and services for individuals, communities, cultures, 

disciplines, and literacies; 

• The creation, preservation, documentation, and curation of information in all its media 

and settings; 

• Access to information, in all its manifestations, that empowers and enfranchises 

individuals and communities in and over time; and 

• The framing of ongoing policy and institutional dialogue related to the social and 

intellectual implications of a global information society. 

Our MLIS program is accredited by the American Library Association, and as part of the 

our re-accreditation review the department created a series of goals for its MLIS program 


in 2007–2008. To a degree these goals can be viewed as generally guiding all of the work 

of the department: 

GOAL I. To educate MLIS students to become the top leaders, policy makers, and designers of 

information systems and services. 

GOAL II. To educate MLIS students with strong professional ethics and a sense of individual, 

institutional, social, and professional responsibility. 

GOAL III. To educate MLIS students with the skills to become change agents within their 

institutions and communities. 

GOAL IV. To educate MLIS students who are able to work effectively in culturally diverse 

environments. 

GOAL V. To educate MLIS students who are committed to their own lifelong continuing 

professional education. 

GOAL VI. To redesign our curriculum continuously to reflect faculty strengths and rapidly 

changing environmental demands. 

The goals of the MLIS Program have been used to inform the activities of the major 

standing committees of the department including planning for the doctoral program, and 

ongoing departmental and school strategic planning and evaluation activities. We believe 

that these goals are a strong statement of intent for our MLIS program and the 

department and that they fit well within the GSE&IS Mission and IS Vision statements. 

Significantly more information of the development of our mission and vision statements, 

how they fit into the curriculum of the MLIS program, and how we assess our students 

can be found in Sections I and II of the accreditation report attached as Appendix 1 to 

this self-study. 

Faculty 

The department currently has 13 full-time faculty members. Three of these faculty 

members are assistant professors (Ramesh Srinivasan, Steve Ricci, and Jean-François 

Blanchette). Four faculty members are associate professors (Gregory Leazer, Jonathan 

Furner, Christopher Kelty, and Ellen Pearlstein). Six faculty members are full professors 

(Christine Borgman, Johanna Drucker, Anne Gilliland, Leah Lievrouw, Beverly Lynch, 

and John Richardson). The department is fortunate to have several active emeriti faculty 

who regularly teach part-time (Marcia Bates, Robert Hayes, Mary Niles Maack, and 

Virginia Walter). Emeriti faculty and adjunct faculty greatly complement our course 

offerings. In the last year, two members of the regular faculty have announced their 

retirement: Professor Mary Niles Maack and Associate Professor Clara M. Chu. 

Professor Maack is a leading educator and scholar in the area of comparative and 


historical study of libraries. We expect her to remain an active emerita professor and to 

continue teaching in the department. Professor Chu left for a leadership position at the 

University of North Carolina-Greensboro. Professor Chu is a scholar who investigates 

multicultural aspects of librarianship, including diversity issues. 

The department recruits faculty from Ph.D. programs at top universities. For example, 

since our last accreditation report, we have hired junior faculty from Harvard University 

(Professor Srinivasan) and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Professor Blanchette). 

Our most recent hires (Professors Drucker, Pearlstein, and Kelty) are well acclimated 

within the department and have been terrific additions to the faculty. Professor Drucker, 

who is currently the inaugural Breslauer Professor of Bibliography, was previously the 

Robertson Professor of Media Studies in the English Department at the University of 

Virginia. Professor Kelty was previously an associate professor of anthropology at Rice 

University. Professor Pearlstein, who was previously adjunct faculty at the Conservation 

Center of the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, was hired as an assistant 

professor but recently was promoted to the associate rank with tenure. 

The faculty has seen several departures and hires in the last ten years, which are 

summarized in Figure 1: 10 Year Faculty Roster. As the figure reveals, we have delayed 

hiring on open lines as a way to manage our recent budget cuts. Not clear from the 

figure, however, is that one position is “shelled” under a temporary program that 

obligates the department to hold the position open. The departures have led to a 

temporary gap in faculty expertise related to children’s information services and in public 

librarianship. However, we have an even greater need in the area of archival studies and 

we are currently searching for a position to do research and teach in that area. This job 

was announced last year, and we brought three candidates to campus; all were members 

of under-represented ethnic groups in the professoriate and in the professional fields. 

However, none were suitable, and the search was held over to this year. 

The deferral of the archives position also meant a deferral of an additional search in the 

area of children’s librarianship, public libraries, and/or public services in libraries. The 

faculty is dedicated to getting someone that can teach in this area. However, we felt our 

current reviews, two tenure cases and the archives search was as much as we could 

manage in the current academic year, and we will do this library-related search next year. 

We recently developed a faculty renewal plan at the request of the provost. To 

summarize the plan, we anticipated 3 to 4 retirements or resignations in the period being 

planned. In fact, two retired last year, and third (though only .5 FTE in the department) 

has announced his resignation effective June, 2012. There is no general pattern or trend 

to these retirements. Our plan calls to replace one fewer faculty member than departs 

(i.e., if four depart in the period of review, then we will hire three in the period). The 

remaining line will be held open in anticipation of further budget pressures and will also 

be dedicated to hiring lecturers to provide instruction in professional classes. 

Research. The faculty has a broad and diverse range of specialties. As such, the faculty is 

able to carry out the major share of research, teaching, and service activities for our 


department. Indeed, full-time faculty teach a majority of courses in the department, 

including all of the core courses for the MLIS and Ph.D. programs, and faculty carry the 

vast majority of the research and service in the department. This provides ample 

opportunities for students to engage face-to-face with faculty in class and in office hours 

and for faculty research to be brought to bear on class discussion. The names of full-time 

regular faculty members, and their areas of research expertise are provided in Appendix 

2. Professors Kelty, Pearlstein and Ricci are joint appointments, shared with other 

departments 

According to the latest survey (2006) by Professors John Budd and Denice Adkins 

("Scholarly Productivity of U.S. LIS Faculty." Library & Information Science Research 28.3), 

our department ranks the 4th most productive and has the 3rd most highly cited faculty 

in the LIS field, as measured per capita of faculty. The same study found that our faculty 

also includes two of the top three most cited people in the field, Professors Marcia Bates 

and Christine Borgman. In 2000 Budd published rankings in Library Journal 70, UCLA 

ranked 8th and 3rd respectively. In 1996 Budd published rankings in The Library Quarterly, 

UCLA ranked 1st and 2nd respectively. Our archives program is ranked 4th in the 

country, despite our small size. 

Professional Service. The faculty is extensively engaged in professional service. As a 

professional school, it is paramount that we maintain strong ties to the major associations 

of the information professions in addition to the usual connections to scholarly 

associations and journals. Professors Furner and Borgman are particularly active in the 

American Society for Information Science & Technology. Professors Srinivasan and 

Lievrouw have strong connections to the Society for Social Studies of Science and the 

latter with the International Communication Association. Professor Gilliland has had 

frequent leadership roles within the Society for American Archivists and the International 

Council on Archives; Professor Lynch and several of our emeritae/i have had similar 

impact within the American Library Association. We also maintain strong links with the 

National Science Foundation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Sloan 

Foundation, the Getty Museum, the Library of Congress, the National Archives and the 

OCLC Online Computer Library Center. 

Teaching. All professors are expected to maintain an active teaching schedule of four 

courses per academic year, which is the same amount as faculty in our sister department 

within GSE&IS. Our master’s courses are taught in a mixture of large lecture courses 

(especially in the six “core” required courses in the MLIS program), smaller discussionoriented 

classes, and seminars, which predominate within the Ph.D. program. A limited 

number of course releases are available for major service commitments, sabbaticals, and 

for buy-outs on research grants. A minor and recurring student complaint is that the core 

courses are too large, so faculty members are encouraged to divide their core courses into 

two sections. Faculty previously received two course credits for teaching two sections of a 

core course; however, as budget cuts reduced our course offerings, this policy was 

eliminated so that faculty only receive one credit for two sections but are offered more 

support in the form of Special Readers if they teach in two sections. 


Our doctoral courses are generally smaller. Doctoral students take a combination of 

foundational and methodology courses. All faculty members are expected to participate 

in doctoral instruction. 

Adjunct Instructors. As a professional school, we also draw upon adjunct instructors to teach 

many of our professional courses. Part-time faculty members are chosen to complement 

the department’s curriculum because of professional expertise and experience. A list of 

the lecturers we have used in the last two years is provided in the Appendix 3. 

Education and Degree Programs 

Continuing Education. The department launched an ongoing continuing education program 

for practicing information professionals called the Friday Forum Series to serve three 

purposes: to provide revenue for the department; help meet the continuing education 

needs of alumni and other professionals in the information fields; and help raise the 

visibility of the department. However, after several years of administration by the 

department’s Digital Resources Librarian, we continue to lose money out of this 

program. The recent departure of the current DRL, David Cappoli, is allowing us to 

assess whether we should continue this rather incidental program. 

The department also has two summer programs administered by Professor Lynch. The 

Senior Fellows Program is a significant effort designed to build the leadership capacities 

of top managers of academic research libraries. The California Rare Book School is a 

continuing education program dedicated to providing the knowledge and skills required 

by professionals working in all aspects of the rare book community, and for students 

interested in entering the field. Founded in 2005, CalRBS is supported by an informal 

consortium of many of the academic and research libraries and antiquarian booksellers of 

Southern California. The director of CalRBS is Susan Allen, formerly the director of the 

UCLA Libraries’ Department of Special Collections head of the Getty Research Institute, 

currently serving in the IS department as an assistant adjunct professor without salary. 

Both of these programs are very highly esteemed. 

Undergraduate Program. The department currently offers two undergraduate courses per 

term, typically IS139: Letterpress Laboratory and one of IS20: Introduction to 

Information Studies, IS30: Internet and Society or IS180: Alternative New Media. The 

department also offers a few IS19: Fiat Lux courses per year. These are generally low 

enrollment courses that are well-received by undergraduate students. The catalog of 

Information Studies undergraduate courses is provided in Appendix 4. 

The department was in contemplation of creating an undergraduate major during our 

last review. The external reviewers in particular cautioned that the department was not 

well positioned to establish an undergraduate major and to take the time to define a 

robust intellectual program for the major. Initial drafts to do so did not receive crucial 

faculty support, and by the time consensus started to form, the enrollment growth funds 

that were essential for the establishment of the program were no longer available. In the 


opinion of some faculty members, the failure to create an undergraduate major was a 

missed opportunity; others feel the department maintained its focus on its core programs. 

Our potential involvement in an undergraduate program in the Digital Humanities is 

described below. 

MLIS Program. At UCLA, the MLIS program provides students with a blend of 

conceptual and theoretical knowledge and practical experience. In the classroom, 

students acquire a solid foundation in contemporary library and information science 

theory, information seeking and retrieval skills, and information technology expertise. 

Our internship program then gives students the opportunity to apply their theoretical 

insights and practical skills in a professional environment. 

Our students are mentored for leadership in whatever field of information work they 

choose to enter. We do this by providing: mentoring programs, individual advisors, 

internship opportunities at over 250 organizations, teamwork experience, support for 

student participation in professional organizations, and the opportunity for students to 

compile a portfolio in which they assess and present their career-related activities to date. 

MLIS students are required to choose from three specializations: Library Studies, 

Archival Studies and Informatics, each reflecting a different type of information 

profession. Students in all three tracks take six core courses: Information and Society, 

Information Structures, Information Access, Introduction to Information Technologies, 

Management Theory and Practice for Information Professionals and Ethics, Diversity 

and Change. All students take a research methods course. Students take a total of 18 

classes for 72 units to graduate. 

The majority of students take at least one quarter-long internship during their second 

year; many take three quarters. Our internship program is a major strength of our 

program. Keri Botello has served effectively for many years as the program’s internship 

coordinator, and maintains contacts in more than 250 internships sites in southern 

California. Our reviews continue to show the internship program is a respected and 

popular component of our program. 

MLIS students are required to pass either a portfolio or a thesis as a culminating activity. 

Most choose the portfolio option. The department offers both thesis advising and a 

professional development course dedicated to the portfolio. The guidelines governing 

both activities have been rewritten over the years based on student feedback, and the 

department also holds brown bag lunches explaining the processes. Many students like 

the portfolio, and faculty appreciate it as a way of developing student leadership, however 

it is a high stakes moment for students, and it generates a lot of student anxiety, which is 

often reflected in student comments. However, we continue to incrementally adjust and 

refine policies and procedures for both the thesis and portfolio to focus the experience for 

students. 


Overall, student satisfaction rates with the MLIS program are satisfactory. Most of our 

graduates get jobs, most of the time, though the last two years have been a little more 

difficult for our graduates. Employers and internship supervisors respect our program, 

and frequently prefer our graduates to those of other programs. Students, alumni and 

our major employers are a little concerned with our lack of faculty in public libraries and 

children’s services—gaps that we expect to address with future hiring and curricular 

revision. 

A complete description and review of the MLIS program is provided in Section II of the 

ALA Accreditation Report provided in Appendix 1. 

Doctoral Program. The doctoral program endeavors to prepare Information Studies 

students to pursue well-defined and highly individualized research agendas across a range 

of intellectual and methodological concerns. The challenge for the program is also its 

strength: The combination of diverse student backgrounds and interests is matched by the 

range of intellectual traditions in the faculty, while allowing for the flexibility to shape 

doctoral work in a manner appropriate to the individual student and the field. The 

program is structured in such a way as to expose students to a wide variety of 

methodological and theoretical approaches while also encouraging them to develop 

expertise within the focused area of their own specialized research. 

The doctoral program is organized around six required core courses taken in the first 

year by the entire cohort of newly admitted students. Since these are taught on a 

schedule that allows rotation of all faculty members through the core teaching cycle, the 

students will get a different set of offerings in different years. Students may elect, 

however, to take courses within the core in subsequent years if the content differs 

sufficiently to make this worthwhile. At present, the core works well to provide a diverse 

array of offerings across methods and theoretical approaches. This new schedule was 

discussed and developed during 2008–09 and was instituted beginning in 2009–10; 

feedback from students supports the current curriculum. In addition to their formal 

course work, doctoral students are required to take three quarters of research 

apprenticeship. 

The shape of the field of Information Studies as it is emerging in our program has a 

strongly distinctive stamp as a result of the interdisciplinary character of the faculty. For 

the students, this translates into a broad commitment to a coordinated vision built on the 

strengths of diverse contributions that underpin their own research while allowing them 

to develop focused research profiles in collaboration with their advisors. Doctoral 

students also take courses outside of the department and work with faculty from other 

disciplines as appropriate. All doctoral students have at least one outside faculty member 

on their dissertation defense committee. 

Formal course work and mentoring with an advisor are integral aspects of doctoral work. 

Students work closely with their advisor, who helps them select the courses that will best 

prepare them to pass qualifying exams and to write a dissertation. Student coordination 

and communication with an advisor are essential parts of the doctoral program. Students 


are assigned an advisor upon entering the program. The best possible effort is made to fit 

advisor and student interests, but students are free to change advisors if their interests, 

methods, or any other aspect of their development make such a change useful. Protocols 

for such a change are largely informal, involving discussion with all parties and filing of a 

change of advisor form. All involved recognize that intellectual development has its own 

course and that interests can change as a student goes through the program. No stigma 

attaches to such changes. 

Students must pass a qualifying exam to advance to candidacy. The qualifying exam 

process has two parts: a written qualifying examination in which they must answer one 

theory and one methods question and then a dissertation proposal that must be developed 

with a committee and accepted following a defense. 

Many of us would like the program to be larger, but lack of financial support for students 

has led us to admit small cohorts of students, an average of five for the past few years. 

Some faculty feel that we do not attract a large enough or strong enough applicant pool, 

but communicating the vision of the department, its vision, mission, research strengths, 

faculty interests, and the track record of our graduates would help raise the profile among 

potential recruits. Students themselves have two complaints about the program, with the 

lack of funding being by far their largest complaint. The second concern is the lack of 

teaching opportunities in a program with limited undergraduate course offerings. 

In the final analysis, we are producing doctoral students who are pursuing careers in a 

number of nontraditional settings as well as in universities throughout the country and 

who are following successful academic and professional tracks. 

MIAS Program. The MA in Moving Image Archival Studies was established as an 

interdepartmental degree program (IDP) between Information Studies and the 

Department of Film, Television and Digital Media, along with the UCLA Film and 

Television Archive. As mentioned above, the MIAS program is administered by the 

CAIDP. Because of its status as an IDP, the MIAS program will be reviewed this year 

separately from IS. However, IS is heavily invested in the MIAS program, and would 

likely offer to take the program into the department if FTVDM were ever to fail to 

continue its interest in the program. 

Digital Humanities 

In 2011–12, UCLA will be initiating its undergraduate Minor in Digital Humanities and 

its Graduate Certificate in Digital Humanities. This is an excellent opportunity for 

Information Studies to partner with this cross-school and inter-departmental 

interdisciplinary activity and to provide leadership in specific areas germane to our faculty 

expertise. The chance to raise our profile across the University, in particular in north 

campus with the Humanities, Social Sciences, Design | Media Arts, Arts, and 

Architecture is very timely and should allow us to leverage the interests and research 

profiles of our faculty and Ph.D. students for mutual benefit. Interest in the program is 


high, from across the participating schools and departments, but also, among our own 

students. 

For the department, this is a chance to extend our offerings to undergraduates and 

graduates outside of GSE&IS while getting some return in the form of TA support, 

faculty course buy outs, and additional enrollment figures. The university community 

will benefit from the availability of expertise in specialized areas of metadata and 

standards, information design, information search, scholarly publishing in digital formats, 

digital preservation, data curation, intellectual property, information visualization, 

repository development, network analysis, cultural diversity and digital media, and other 

areas where our engagement with digital technology and information studies has real 

value to the Digital Humanities. 

The role of IS faculty will include active participation in the core faculty of Digital 

Humanities, providing research opportunities for undergraduates and graduates to work 

on digital projects, supervision of undergraduate work, supervision of graduate 

internships and capstone projects, teaching in the undergraduate and graduate core, and 

enrollment of Digital Humanities students in our existing classes. Our existing IS20 and 

IS30 courses are a natural fit with Digital Humanities and might eventually be envisioned 

as among the required prerequisites for the minor. Many of the classes offered on a 

regular basis for the MLIS students, and even some of the Ph.D. core courses, have a 

direct application to the DH graduate certificate. Most importantly, these courses do not 

duplicate courses offered anywhere else in the university, and in areas such as metadata, 

information structures, informatics, and other topics central to the Information Studies 

discipline mentioned above, these contributions are absolutely crucial to what we already 

do in IS as well as to application in the Digital Humanities. 

IS faculty may elect to teach in the core courses in the undergraduate minor in Digital 

Humanities. At present the undergraduate core is constituted by DH101: Introduction to 

Digital Humanities, an internship or apprenticeship class, and capstone seminars. 

Because of the difficulty of cross-registering undergraduate and graduate students in the 

same courses, it is envisioned that IS courses and faculty will have a greater role in the 

graduate certificate than in the undergraduate minor, but for some instructors the chance 

to teach undergraduates and to engage our Ph.D. students in TA work will be attractive 

as well. One of the longstanding limitations of the IS doctoral program has been the fact 

that without an undergraduate program, we have not been able to offer TA positions to 

our doctoral students. Many are eager for this opportunity and, in fact, at present (Fall 

2011), two doctoral students are actively involved in helping create the undergraduate 

curriculum for DH101 and DH194 by selecting readings, evaluating their relevance, 

helping design the workshop/discussion and lab assignments. 

Logistical matters need to be addressed for this relationship to work smoothly. In 

particular, the question of double credit for courses taken by MLIS or Ph.D. students in 

IS from our departmental offerings and their use towards the certificate degree 

requirements has to be worked out with PPC and DPC. Because the spirit of Digital 

Humanities is to tie digital expertise to knowledge of a subject area in the Humanities 


(understood broadly as humanities, social sciences, arts, architecture, design, film, media, 

and so on), assuring some breadth of grounding and a solid intellectual connection to the 

humanities will be essential for MLIS and Ph.D. students in IS. However, the specific 

expertise of IS students has much to bring to the field of Digital Humanities, particularly 

given the team based approach to work in this area, so many partnerships are envisioned 

ahead. 

Costs to the department should be minimal, although impact on our enrollments will be 

watched to see at what point liabilities outweigh benefits. Given our limited resources, 

stretching to undergraduate teaching has to be weighed against the need to cover our 

own core courses in MLIS and Ph.D. program and to manage our advising and review 

responsibilities. 

Benefits will include the intellectual gain from cross-disciplinary engagement, the 

increased visibility of UCLA’s Information Studies department in the field of Digital 

Humanities at a national and international level, and within the University. A significant 

benefit will be the increase in preparation of graduates of our program for work in an 

employment sector that is growing rapidly—creation, management, design, and 

assessment of cultural materials in digital formats and environments. Employability will 

depend on constant upgrade and update of this rapidly changing field, but the 

importance of Information Studies in helping to shape that field is obvious. Excitement 

about the new minor and certificate are also resonating with the library, and the opening 

of the new YRL Research Commons coincides with the need for new kinds of spaces for 

instruction and research. Partnerships with IDRE-HASIS, the Center for Digital 

Humanities, the Digital Library, and other units, are also being cultivated by Digital 

Humanities faculty involved in teaching and research. Hopefully the present and future 

GSE&IS administration will be interested in support of infrastructure for pedagogy and 

research in this area as well. All in all, this is a timely initiative that will likely put some 

pressure on faculty and staff resources but should, hopefully, also justify allocation of 

resources ahead. 

Evaluation of Instruction 

The department administers course evaluations at the end of each quarter. The 

department takes student course evaluations very seriously. The evaluations are used to 

help the department determine teaching assignments and as evidence for all academic 

personnel reviews and decisions. We assign faculty to courses with the goal of best 

matching faculty strength with curriculum priorities. We prepare the teaching plan for 

two year cycles for the MLIS, so students can plan what to take during their time of 

residence in the program. To prepare our teaching assignments and for curriculum 

review, we gather information from a number of sources: 

• Faculty load distribution across core and elective courses in our various programs; 

• Student course evaluations for each class; 


• Meetings with individual students and meetings with groups of students at townhall 

events, the Student Governing Board, and brown-bag lunches; 

• The core faculty propose a teaching plan of courses that match their research and 

teaching interests; 

• Faculty make new course proposals to the department chair and PPC; and 

• A review of the results of our most recent student surveys. 

In 2009–2010, a detailed review of elective courses was delegated by the Professional 

Program Committee to subcommittees consisting of faculty and adjuncts with expertise in 

nine designated areas: information access; informatics; cataloging/metadata; 

management; archives; information policy; children & youth; preservation/museum; and 

special collections. Reviews of elective courses in the first three of these areas were 

completed in Spring 2010, and the recommendations of the respective subcommittees 

were presented and discussed at a curriculum retreat held in that quarter. The remaining 

six are currently under draft and will be completed this academic year. One major 

outcome of this process was the decision to streamline the curriculum by dropping from 

the catalog a number of elective courses that had not recently been offered (including 

several bibliography courses that had been cross-listed with other UCLA departments). 

Other outcomes included revising advising guidelines in the designated areas and 

including statements of desired learning outcomes, to help faculty advisors guide students 

in planning a coherent path through the program given their area of specialization and 

their proposed focus area. 

Instructional and Student Support Services 

Significant instructional support is provided by the department’s Multimedia and 

Instructional Technology (MIT) Lab. It is staffed by three professionals across 2.0 FTE: 

Keri Botello, Director; David Cappoli, Digital Resources Librarian; and Justin Scott, 

Systems Librarian. Recent budget cuts have eliminated the student support that kept the 

lab open during evenings and weekends. As a result, the department has also coordinated 

significantly with the GSE&IS Educational Technology Unit (ETU), which maintains 

computing labs in the GSEIS Building and Moore Hall. Furthermore, students are also 

being referred to the newly opened computing services in the Young Research Library, 

located nearby. David Cappoli has also just very recently announced his resignation from 

the department after twelve years of service. Given the recent state of flux in our 

instructional and computing services, the Instructional Services Committee is reviewing 

our current personnel and lab arrangements to assess whether they are meeting our 

needs. 

Student services are provided by the GSE&IS. A student affairs officer works fulltime in 

the GSEIS Building and is available during normal working hours to consult with 

students and faculty committees. At the time of the last review, students expressed 

significant reservations with the staffing of this office which was previously located at 

Moore Hall, and this issue has now been rectified. On occasion the faculty is concerned 

that current levels of staffing prevent us from tracking students effectively after their 


graduation. Students generally have not commented on student support services in our 

surveys. 

Diversity Issues 

The department greatly values diversity, including key gender and ethnic diversity, but 

also appreciates diversity in its many other manifestations as well. The department has 

achieved gender diversity in both the faculty and student body; however, as stated in our 

last report, our particular problem is that we are not as diverse ethnically or racially as we 

would like. Approximately 50% of our MLIS students are white, by our own analyses, 

with an uptick towards 60% in the last two years; participation by key under-represented 

ethnic groups remains low (see Figure 2: Student Demographics). We tend to do better in 

our Ph.D. program, and have graduated several African-American students in the last 

decade. These numbers generally reflect ethnic minority participation in the information 

professions that we serve, where the numbers are also depressingly low. We know, 

overall, that we can and need to do better. 

The department maintains a standing Diversity Council. However, as we previously 

mentioned, this committee has not met recently due to a key departure and a death 

amongst the two co-chairs of the committee. It has now been reformed with a mandate 

to increase minority student enrollments. Key to our efforts is our participation with the 

University Librarian at UC Riverside to recruit minority students currently working as 

clerical and paraprofessional staff in libraries and archives in Los Angeles and the Inland 

Empire. This project, called IE-LEADS, has received federal funding from the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services. Furthermore, our MLIS students have received more 

funding than any other similar program from the American Library Association’s 

Spectrum Scholars Program, whose awards we match with departmental monies. 

We know the most effective strategy to attract and effectively mentor students from 

under-represented groups is to have an ethnically diverse faculty, and yet we are less 

diverse than we were at our last review. Our two primary faculty of color were recruited 

away from us in the last period of review. We are committed to our mission of serving 

the underserved, a goal that is best achieved with high-quality students from diverse 

backgrounds. Consequently, our current and future faculty searches are and will work 

hard to ensure that we generate a diverse pool of applicants for all our job openings. 

Appendix 5 includes the job description for our current opening. The description has 

been widely circulated to multiple outlets, including publications dedicated to ethnic 

minority involvement in higher education. The search committee includes IS faculty, the 

Director of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, a professional archivist from 

UCLA Libraries, and two student representatives. The search committee itself is diverse 

in ethnicity and gender. This search is a continuation of one from last year, when Vice 

Provost Christine Littleton commended us for our efforts to develop a diverse pool of 

candidates. 


We are proud of the emphasis we have placed on diversity issues within our curriculum. 

Around the time of our last review the department held a series of meetings that 

appraised diversity in our teaching. That effort led to several initiatives, most significantly 

the creation of a new core course required of all MLIS students, IS201: Ethics, Diversity, 

and Change. This course explores issues of diversity within a professional ethics 

framework, and also includes a significant service-learning project required of all students. 

It is fair to say that issues of diversity appear in nearly every one of our courses, and topics 

related to equity of access to information predominate amongst our student theses and 

culminating portfolios. The department also holds an annual “Diversity Paper Award” 

amongst its students, with a monetary prize. We plan to pursue additional funding 

opportunities to expand our diversity efforts. 

Comparison to the Previous Review 

The previous review, completed in 2002, did not find any overarching or egregious errors 

in Information Studies. However, the report did make several recommendations, which 

are presented in the following section along with our responses to them. 

MLIS. 

1. Raise the limit on the number of students admitted into the MLIS program. 

Response: Enrollments have increased from 60 to 90 students a year, matching 

the number that existed prior to the Professional Schools Restructuring Initiative. 

However, applications are not up significantly, similarly with other professional 

degrees such as the teacher education program, and we are a little worried about 

our selectivity rate. 

2. Internships should be made a formal requirement within the MLIS. 

Response: Despite our pride in our internship program, and the fact that it exists 

within a primarily professional degree program, some MLIS students take a more 

academic route through the program, and culminate their study with a masters 

thesis. An internship would discourage those students that are advancing their 

academic interests. The former review felt making the internship a requirement 

would flag its importance to incoming students. We have accomplished that 

flagging through advising and other means. We have, however, instituted a 

service learning requirement for all MLIS students. As the previous report noted, 

most MLIS students currently take internships. 

3. Courses should be freed of their association with traditional libraries in order 

to reflect the increasing interdisciplinary nature of the field. 


Response: A more diverse and interdisciplinary set of courses now exists, however, 

so do courses dedicated to the specializations within the MLIS, one of which is 

Library Studies. The field has grown more rigorous, to be sure, and yet courses 

that examine specific methods and modalities of information provision will almost 

certainly be a responsibility of professional education. Service learning and 

internship sites have diversified during the period of review, and archival studies 

has grown in relation to library studies as a specialization within the MLIS. 

Ph.D. program 

4. A comprehensive document should be prepared for advising students on the 

Ph.D. program. 

Response: All degree requirements for the Ph.D. program are published annually 

in the Student Handbook, available online. Furthermore, the previous upheavals 

around doctoral program planning have settled down in the last ten years due to 

the effective leadership of Professors Furner and Drucker, and increased 

consensus amongst the faculty and students regarding the doctoral curriculum. 

5. Bring graduate student funding up to an acceptable level. 

Response: This remains an important issue for the department. Increasing money 

available for financial aid remains the top priority for our development office, yet 

rising tuition costs have made it difficult for students in all of our programs. The 

recent action by the Board of Regents to raise tuition in July 2011 resulted, we 

believe, in a 5% loss in our yield rate as several students wrote the following week 

after the tuition increase was announced to say they could no longer attend our 

program. 

We continue to raise substantial graduate student support through research grant 

funding. Three students who completed their PhDs in the last two years have 

received full or almost full funding for their degrees from National Science 

Foundation research awards to faculty and gifts from Microsoft Corporation. 

Three other doctoral students currently in progress are expected to complete their 

degrees with full research funding from the NSF and Sloan Foundation. Some 

MLIS students also are employed on these grants. 

So far we have not pursued professional school fee differentials for the major 

graduate degree programs in GSE&IS nor have we made substantial use of fees to 

increase revenues. We have held off primarily for reasons that any such increase 

would work significantly against our diversity recruitment efforts, and we are 

committed to making access to education as wide as possible. For the MLIS 

program—our largest program—our largest competitor is the San José State 

University MLIS program. Their program is entirely online, significantly 


cheaper, and also significantly larger, with twenty times as many students as ours 

despite a regular faculty that is the same size as UCLA’s. It is also significantly 

lesser quality, and with a truncated curriculum, many of us believe it is a poor 

model of professional education, one we think will have long-term ramifications 

for the provision of information services in the state. Surprisingly, SJSU also 

offers a doctoral degree in library and information science in conjunction with 

Queensland University of Technology, despite provisions the California State 

University system to not offer the doctorate. SJSU, for our programs, represents 

significant downward pressure on our ability to raise tuition or fees. 

Despite this, we have recently formed a task force to evaluate our tuition and fee 

options. We know no money will likely be available from campus sources until we 

exhaust fee differential and self-supporting degree programming options. Tuition 

costs have now risen so significantly that a professional school fee differential 

might not raise tuition significantly yet may provide us with sufficient revenue and 

a more stable planning environment. 

6. Information Studies should not consider the Professional Schools 

Restructuring Initiative as the final word on our administrative structure. 

Response: There is very little talk of dissatisfaction with our current status as a 

department within the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. 

Most faculty members joined UCLA after the 1994 merger, and most of them 

view our partnership with Education as a major strength, even though the 

expected strong research or programmatic relations still have not formed between 

the two units. 

The search for a new dean is of great concern for our small department. For a 

school with two major units—one large and the other small—there will constantly 

be a fear that a new dean will not understand the nature of Information Studies, 

will seek to remake it into something that it is not, or simply divert resources from 

IS to Education. We are often overlooked within the GSE&IS structure—we’re 

smaller and less familiar. Such risks and anxieties will almost always certainly be 

with us. These concerns are exacerbated by the frequent self-referential use of the 

term “School of Education” by faculty and students in our sister Department of 

Education, thus publicly obscuring our existence. 

7. Information Studies should create the MIAS program and, if successful, should 

pursue other comparable interdisciplinary programs on campus. 

Response: The MIAS program has been launched, and in most ways has been 

highly successful. MIAS also requires substantial planning and other 

administrative costs, and the department has a limited amount of time and money 

to invest in such program. Start-up costs for such programs are also substantial, 


and there is a general lack of funds to support new programs, even when 

enrollment growth is approved and supported. 

On the other hand, the department is investigating the creation of self-supporting 

degree programs and certificate programs. This effort is part of the task force 

mentioned above that is investigating the appropriateness of professional school 

fee differentials. A self-supporting degree program might allow us to confront San 

José State University more effectively in the MLIS market in California, though 

IS faculty and students alike are opposed to the creation of a simple online degree 

program. 

Certificate programs are a significant option for IS. Our major summer 

programs—the Senior Fellows program and the California Rare Book School— 

provide the basis for two such certificates. Furthermore the joint appointment of 

Ellen Pearlstein presents us with the possibility of developing a conservation and 

preservation administration certificate program. Such a program, if feasible, 

could build on our relationships with the MIAS program and Ethnomusicology. 

Professor Pearlstein’s work is dedicated to the preservation of ethnographic 

cultural objects, i.e. materials from culturally diverse communities named through 

the research and collecting practices of a dominant European culture. The 

annual offering of IS432: Issues in the Preservation of Heritage Materials, offers 

Information Studies students insights into preservation principles of a diverse 

range of media, and our current classes are always designed around a real 

collection, for example the Ancient Art collections of the LA Unified School 

District, the American Indian Studies Center Library, or the Ethnomusicology 

Archive collections. The emphasis extends beyond the physical preservation of 

these diverse holdings and into discussions of the philosophical questions 

surrounding the particular collection, i.e. the importance of balancing 

preservation with public school student access through touching authentic objects, 

naming conventions in the case of culturally sensitive materials in an Ethnic 

Center library, and the preservation judgments brought to composite objects such 

as scrapbooks in an archive. 

Information Studies students with an interest in preservation are encouraged to 

further enroll in two classes cross-listed with the UCLA/Getty Master's Program 

in Archaeological and Ethnographic Conservation. Students may enroll in IS432 

and then in the two additional cross-listed electives, including Environmental 

Protection for Collections where students design and carry out an environmental 

assessment within a repository, and Collections Management for Museums, 

Libraries and Archives, where developing an intellectual and physical risk 

assessment tool is the main course outcome. Students interested preservation and 

conservation may complete internships or work-study experiences with the UCLA 

Library Preservation Office and/or in the Library Conservation Laboratory. 

Students may elect a thesis topic focusing on preservation or conservation issues, 

for example a current thesis topic is an investigation of the gap between 


conservation services applied to rare materials found in Special Collections, and 

the scarce books in circulating collections that have artifactual value. 

Building upon these resources, we are currently designing post-master's certificate 

of specialization in preservation. This degree is already offered on other topics 

within the department, for which we will propose a minimum of 36 units must be 

completed, selected from courses already available in the department and 

elsewhere on campus. Our intention is to encourage students holding the masters 

to pursue post-graduate professional and research goals within preservation and in 

particular, within the decision-making issues that arise when preservation requires 

cultural negotiation. 

8. Give careful consideration in proposing an undergraduate major. 

Response: As we discussed previously in this report, we abandoned our plans for 

an undergraduate major when we were unable to make plans for the major within 

the timeframe required to take advantage of enrollment growth funds. 

9. Student affairs support staff should be augmented. 

Response: The Student Affairs Officer, Susan Abler, has been relocated from 

Moore Hall to an office in the GSEIS Building where she is generally available to 

IS students. Given that we have lost a significant portion of our other 

departmental staff due to the recent budget cuts, we are happy to have the same 

level of staffing in the Student Affairs Office that was available to us ten years ago. 

Conclusion and Future Work 

The last ten year period has been one of relative stability and productivity for 

Information Studies. We have strengthened and focused both our major degree 

programs, participated in the creation of a third program, and stabilized our 

administrative structures. 

However, the economy has affected the University of California as much or worse than 

any other large public university. The last several years for IS can be characterized in 

many ways as a time of consolidating core programs and functions while trying to 

minimize disruptions as much as possible. One significant action undertaken due to the 

budget crisis was to reduce the department’s instructional lab. The impact of this 

decision was largely mitigated by better coordinating technology services with the 

GSE&IS Educational Technology Unit and UCLA Libraries. Our other significant 

budget action was to hold open faculty lines after the departures of several faculty 

members. This latter issue appears in our focus group meetings where our constituents 

identify recent gaps in faculty expertise relating to public libraries and children’s services. 


However, we believe our faculty renewal plans discussed in this document will rectify this 

problem. In the interim, we have used excellent adjunct faculty and recalled retired 

professors to the classroom to teach courses in these areas. 

We have also addressed the challenges we face with rising tuition costs, our efforts to 

diversity the faculty and student body, and the risks we face as we hire a new dean. 

We are also about to begin the process of reviewing all of our joint and concurrent degree 

programs. These are generally low enrollment programs, and we need to investigate 

whether these programs are fulfilling their objectives. 

Finally there is a final challenge that has not been identified thus far in this self-study. 

The campus has embarked on creating a new office for an Associate Vice Provost for 

Informatics and named Professor Art Toga, Professor of Neurology, to that position. 

There has not been central planning or discussion with all relevant parties regarding this 

position. We perceive ourselves to be a general informatics program, one with an 

orientation to social scientific and design approaches and methodologies, emphasizing 

user-oriented design and information-seeking as its basis. We also have active 

partnerships with a medical informatics group in Engineering with faculty drawn from 

the medical school, with shared grants, cross-listed courses, and students that attend or 

work in both programs. However, neither the medical informatics group nor IS has been 

approached by anyone on campus regarding the establishment of a central office of 

informatics on campus. The orientation of the central office is decidedly bio-informatic 

in its approach, and if the medical school were interested in creating such an office for its 

own internal purposes, we would not be concerned. Thus far we learn of these activities 

primarily through departmental participation in the campus-wide Information 

Technology Planning Board, though we do not receive agendas or circulated materials in 

advance. We were also approached by medical school faculty to participate in a large 

grant that established, in part, an Informatics Institute, and IS faculty names appeared on 

that grant. However, since the submission of that grant, we have not heard back from 

anyone in the medical school despite rumors that the proposal was accepted. We have 

pursued our interests in these efforts so far at the decanal level without satisfaction. 

Our work to lead and define “Information Studies” as a professional school in a leading 

research university continues. We are proud of our efforts the define the field first and 

foremost as a concern about how people and societies inform themselves and preserve 

their culture. We are secondarily concerned about the methods and various modalities 

by which this work is accomplished, including investigating the role of information 

technology within these processes. We have outstanding and productive faculty and an 

excellent student body in three major graduate degree programs. Our graduates work in 

libraries, archives, museums, universities movie studios, and e-businesses. They are active 

in professional organizations. Our doctoral students have served as faculty in other major 

information school programs. All of our students are mentored for leadership and 

engagement, and we are proud of the results. 


Ladder Faculty Appointments, Information Studies 

Professor Expertise 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 

white female 

Information seeking 

white female 

Scholarly communcation 

white female 

Communication and new media 

white female 

Academic libraries 

white female 

Comparative librarianship 

white male 

Reference services 

white male Information systems (2) (2) 

white male 

Moving images 

asian hispanic female* Underserved communities 

white female 

Preservation 

white female* 

Archives 

white male 

Information retrieval 

white female 

Children's services 

white male* 

Intellectual foundations 

white male Moving images (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

white male* 

Information systems 

asian male 

Information systems 

African American femaleAcademic libraries 

white female 

Special collections 

white female Conservation (1) (1) (1) 

white male Anthropology (3) (3) (3) 

LEGEND * foreign born = full prof = assoc prof = asst prof 

nominal strength 6/7/1 = 14 7/5/1 = 13 7/4/2 = 13 6/4/3 = 13 7/4/4 = 15 7/4/3 = 14 7/4/3 = 14 7/5/4 = 16 7/5/3 = 15 6/4/3 = 13 

effective strength 6/7/1 = 14 7/5/1 = 13 7/4/1.5 = 12.5 6/4/2.5 = 12.5 7/4/3.5 = 14.5 7/4/2.5 = 13.5 7/3/2.5 = 12.5 7/4/3.2 = 14.2 7/3.7/2.5 = 13.2 6/2.7/2.5 = 11 

notes: 

(1) Professor 50% appt = .5 

(2) Prof. on medical leave = 0 

(3) Prof. joint appt = .2

UCLA Dept. of Information Studies: Student Demographics 

Year 05-‐06 06-‐07 07-‐08 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12* 

Number of Professional 191 197 188 193 201 155 177 

MLIS 171 181 171 176 180 134 156 

MIAS 20 16 17 17 21 21 21 

Domestic 98% 97% 97% 99% 98% 97% 97% 

International 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3% 

Female 79% 77% 72% 71% 75% 81% 84% 

Male 21% 23% 28% 29% 25% 19% 16% 

African/African American 3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 

American Indian 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 

Asian/Asian American 14% 17% 18% 14% 18% 17% 15% 

East Indian/Pakastani 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 

Latina/o 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 6% 13% 

Pacific Islander/Fhilipina/o 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 

White 46% 47% 55% 49% 52% 55% 58% 

Other/Declined to State 15% 16% 7% 18% 12% 15% 1% 

*data reported on Jan. 1 of each yearl 2011-‐12 data is for MLIS only and is from Nov. 3, 2011. 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

05-‐06 06-‐07 07-‐08 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12* 

African/African American 

Asian/Asian American 

LaMna/o 

American Indian 

East Indian/Pakastani 

Pacific Islander/Fhilipina/o

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

05-‐06 06-‐07 07-‐08 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12* 

Axis Title 

MLIS 

MIAS 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

05-‐06 06-‐07 07-‐08 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12* 

Female 

Male

IS Department Revenue Analysis 

Activity FY 06-‐07 FY 07-‐08 FY 08-‐09 FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 

University General Funds 1,986,000 2,156,000 2,080,000 2,130,000 2,360,000 

Contract and Grant Funding 617,000 144,000 1,133,000 315,000 99,000 

Gifts and Endowments 113,000 122,000 407,000 261,000 239,000 

Sales and Service Accouts 161,000 162,000 134,000 109,000 106,000 

Other Fund sources 113,000 103,000 72,000 148,000 208,000 

Totals 2,990,000 2,687,000 3,826,000 2,963,000 3,012,000 

4,500,000 

4,000,000 

3,500,000 

3,000,000 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

0 

FY 06-‐07 FY 07-‐08 FY 08-‐09 FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 

University General Funds Contract and Grant Funding GiBs and Endowments 

Sales and Service Accouts 

Other Fund sources

General Funds only 

Activity FY 06-‐07 FY 07-‐08 FY 08-‐09 FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 

Regular Faculty salaries 1,123,000 1,236,000 1,313,000 1,244,000 1,261,000 

Librarian salaries 146,000 157,000 158,000 171,000 142,000 

Other Academic salaries 90,000 68,000 63,000 66,000 97,000 

Academic Student appointments 46,000 40,000 33,000 54,000 58,000 

Staff salaries 191,000 196,000 159,000 98,000 103,000 

Employee Benefits* 301,000 328,000 334,000 336,000 382,000 

Nonsalary 45,000 54,000 55,000 23,000 47,000 

Student Support 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals 1,942,000 2,079,000 2,115,000 1,992,000 2,090,000 

*includes fee remissions 

IS Department Expenditures Analysis 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

0 

FY 06-‐07 FY 07-‐08 FY 08-‐09 FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 

Regular Faculty salaries Librarian salaries Other Academic salaries 

Academic Student appointments Staff salaries Employee Benefits* 

Nonsalary

ProporMon of General Funds Spent by Category 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

FY 06-‐07 FY 07-‐08 FY 08-‐09 FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 

Regular Faculty salaries Librarian salaries Other Academic salaries 

Academic Student appointments Staff salaries Employee Benefits* 

Nonsalary

The UCLA Department of Information Studies 

American Library Association 

Committee on Accreditation Program Presentation 

November 2011 

In accordance with the 2008 Standards for Accreditation 

of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies 

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

Department of 


University of California, 

Los Angeles 

Program Presentation 

2011 

Submitted to: 

American Library Association 

Committee on Accreditation 

Oct. 5, 2011

(this page is intentionally blank) 

UCLA Department of Information Studies 

ii

Table of Contents 

Section 1: Missions, Goals, and Objectives..................................................................... 1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

1. Mission, Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................3 

1.1. Mission of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies ...........................3 

1.2. Vision for the Department of Information Studies.............................................................5 

1.3. Goals for the MLIS Program in the Department of Information Studies ..........................5 

1.4. Objectives for the MLIS Program......................................................................................6 

1.5. Principles for the MLIS Program ......................................................................................8 

1.6. MLIS Educational Experiences .......................................................................................10 

1.7. Assessing the Attainment of Goals and Objectives: Implementing Student Learning 

Outcomes....................................................................................................................................10 

1.8. Response to the COA Standards ......................................................................................30 

Section 2: Curriculum .................................................................................................... 33 

2.1: Introduction..........................................................................................................................33 

2.2: Objectives of the MLIS Program .........................................................................................34 

2.3: Structure of the MLIS Program ...........................................................................................35 

2.4: The Work of the Professional Program Committee (PPC)..................................................49 

2.5: Methods of Curricular Planning and Evaluation..................................................................54 

2.6: Planning for the Future of the MLIS Program.....................................................................68 

2.7: Response to the COA Standards ..........................................................................................69 

Section 3: Faculty............................................................................................................ 73 

Response to the COA Standards.....................................................................................................73 

Section 4: Students.......................................................................................................... 99 

Response to the COA Standards.....................................................................................................99 

Section 5: Administration and Financial Support ..................................................... 119 

Response to the COA Standards...................................................................................................119 

Section 6: Physical Resources and Facilities .............................................................. 135 

Response to the COA Standards...................................................................................................135 

The UCLA Library System .......................................................................................................137 

The Charles E. Young Research Library .................................................................................139 

The Multimedia & Information Technology Lab (MIT Lab) ...................................................140 


iii

(this page is intentionally blank) 


iv

Appendix List by Section 

Section 1 

1.1 2006-11 GSE&IS Strategic Plan 

1.2 Area Statements for Three Specialization areas 

1.3 Fall 2008 ad hoc Evaluation Task Force Report 

1.4 Two recently published articles describing planning efforts for future mission and 

identity of IS and its programs (p. 29) 

Section 2 

2.1 Student Handbook 

2.2 Core course descriptions 

2.3 Research methods course descriptions (208, 220, 280, 281, 282) 

2.4 Elective course descriptions 

2.5 Thesis Guidelines 

2.6 Major Paper FAQ 

2.7 Course syllabi 

2.8 Focus Group Findings 

2.9 Summary of 2011 SBG Town Hall Meeting 

2.10 2011 UCLA Graduate Council Report 

2.11 Internship Sites 

2.12 MLIS Advising Guidelines 

Section 3 

3.1 Faculty CVs 

3.2 Faculty Roster 

3.3 Adjunct lecturer roster 

3.4 Faculty Handbook 

Section 4 

4.1 MLIS thesis titles 

Section 5 

5.1 University of California Academic Personnel Manual section 245 

5.2 FEC By-laws 

5.3 ALISE Statistical Reports 


v


vi

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies 

P.O. Box 951521 

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 

Oct. 5, 2011 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please find enclosed the program presentation for the UCLA Dept. of Information 

Studies. This document was prepared for submission to the American Library 

Association’s Committee on Accreditation in our bid to reaccredit our MLIS 

program. 

This program presentation has much in common with our last one due to the fact 

that we are in many ways the same program. In 1993 the MLIS program went 

through a major upheaval due to changes in professional education at UCLA; the 

former Graduate School of Library and Information Science was merged with the 

Graduate School of Education. In our last review, we were judged to have 

successfully made the transition to the Department of Information Studies with our 

excellent faculty, students and curriculum intact. This time around, the changes feel 

less momentous than they did nearly twenty years ago. We have revisited our 

various mission and vision statements over the years, and found they continue to 

reflect our interests. Our mission statement has evolved gently. But in many ways 

we remain the same kind of program. 

How have we evolved in the last decade? We have placed greater emphasis on 

leadership, ethics, diversity, and community engagement in our goals (see section 1.3) 

and objectives (see section 1.4) for the MLIS program. We have developed a more 

thorough evaluation plan for assessing our achievements on those goals, based on 

student learning outcomes (see section 1.7). We have made progress with our 

curriculum to align it with our goals and evaluation plan. In particular we have 

developed a new required MLIS course, IS201: Ethics, Diversity and Change, with a 

required service learning component (see section 1.7, goal 1). And we have reshaped 

our innovative culminating portfolio assessment and our thesis assessments to focus 

on leadership and professional advocacy (see section 107, goals 2-4, and section 

2.3.5). 

However, as has been painfully obvious to everyone in academia, the last several 

years have seen a serious economic downturn, and the economy has likely affected 

the University of California as much or worse than any other large public university.

Thus the last several years can be characterized in many ways as a time of 

consolidating core programs and functions and trying to minimize disruptions as 

much as possible. One significant action undertaken due to the budget crisis was to 

reduce the department’s instructional lab (as described in section 6.4. The impact of 

this decision was largely mitigated by better coordinating technology services with 

the GSE&IS Educational Technology Unit and UCLA Libraries. Our other 

significant budget action was to hold open faculty lines after the departures of several 

faculty members. This latter issue appears in our focus group meetings where our 

constituents identify recent gaps in faculty expertise relating to public libraries and 

children’s services (section 2.5.1) and is discussed in section 3.1.2 where we describe 

our faculty renewal plans. The faculty is committed to these areas, however, and we 

describe our plans for future hiring decisions; in the interim, we have used excellent 

adjunct faculty and recalled retired professors to the classroom to teach courses in 

these areas. 

This program presentation was created with broad input from the Department of 

Information Studies community. The faculty created drafted outlines for this report 

over one year ago. Profs. Gregory Leazer, Jonathan Furner and Anne Gilliland, 

along with alumnus Patrick Keilty and staff members Andrew Vanschooneveld and 

Jennifer Clark were responsible for most of the writing, conducted over the summer 

of 2011. A careful reader will detect changes in narrative style that indicate the 

participation of many additional contributors that are too numerous to acknowledge 

here. A completed draft was circulated for review to the IS faculty, Dean Dorr, 

representatives of the Student Governing Board (described in section 4.5.1); 

representatives of the Library and Information Science Alumni Association (LISAA, 

described in section 1.7.1 goal 5); and representative adjunct faculty. 

Sincerely, 

Chair and Prof. Gregory H. Leazer 

UCLA Dept. of Information Studies

Section 1: Missions, Goals, and Objectives 

Introduction 

The UCLA Department of Information Studies is internationally recognized for its work 

in areas such as digital archives and libraries, cultural information, social implications of 

the Internet, organization of knowledge, and information policy. Researchers focus on all 

kinds of environments where information is stored and retrieved, including the World 

Wide Web, public libraries, academic libraries, archives, museums, corporations, and 

schools. The department educates future librarians, archivists, scholars, researchers, and 

information professionals, focusing on system design and end-users of information and 

their needs and studying the ways people search for and use information. 

The Department of Information Studies was ranked fourteenth in U.S. News & World 

Report 's last survey of Library and Information Studies programs. In addition to its 

overall ranking, it was ranked fourth in archives and preservation and ninth in digital 

librarianship. It is housed within the Graduate School of Education & Information 

Studies (GSE&IS), which is also a highly ranked program, typically in the top five 

nationally, where it is consistently the highest ranked public university. GSE&IS is also 

the highest ranked school within UCLA. 

Students can pursue several graduate degree and post-master's programs based on their 

interests and career objectives. Both academic and professional programs prepare 

students to develop and apply knowledge that enhances the creation, access, preservation, 

and use of information in all forms and formats by individuals and institutions, always 

with an eye to promoting equity and access in a multicultural society. 

At UCLA, the MLIS program provides students with a blend of conceptual and 

theoretical knowledge and practical experience. In the classroom, students acquire a 

solid foundation in contemporary library and information science theory, information 

seeking and retrieval skills, and information technology expertise. Our internship 

program then gives students the opportunity to apply their theoretical insights and 

practical skills in a professional environment. 

Our students are mentored for leadership in whatever field of information work they 

choose to enter. We do this by providing: mentoring programs; individual advisors; 

internship opportunities at over 250 organizations; teamwork experience; support for 

student participation in professional organizations; and the opportunity for students to 

compile a portfolio in which they assess and present their career-related activities to date. 

We believe our MLIS program is one of the most innovative and comprehensive in the 

country. We graduate highly successful and accomplished information professionals who 

go on to work in a wide variety of institutions. 

UCLA Department of Information Studies 1

The overall purpose of the Program Presentation is to provide, with respect to the Master 

of Library and Information Science (MLIS) program offered by the Department of 

Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the specific 

assurances of program quality that are required by the American Library Association 

(ALA) and outlined in the Standards for accreditation of master’s programs in library & 

information studies (American Library Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008). To 

reiterate, these assurances are that the program “(a) has clearly defined and educationally 

appropriate objectives expressed as student learning outcomes, (b) maintains conditions 

under which achievement of objectives can reasonably be expected, (c) is in fact 

accomplishing objectives substantially, and (d) can be expected to continue to do so” 

(American Library Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008, p. 3, emphases added). 

This re-accreditation review is the third one conducted since the UCLA Graduate School 

of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) was turned into the Department of 

Information Studies (IS) and merged with the Graduate School of Education to form the 

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS) in 1994. That merger 

effort, directed by the chancellor as part of a cost-cutting Professional Schools 

Restructuring Initiative (PSRI) was traumatic at the time, particularly because the original 

proposal was to close the GSLIS. The new organizational structure came with significant 

losses: a decrease in the budget particularly for instructional programs, a decrease in the 

Masters of Library & Information Science (MLIS) program’s annual admissions from 90 

students to 60 students, and a loss of visibility at both UCLA and in the professional 

communities. However, within ten years much of these setbacks were overcome, and we 

now expect to accept 90 new students every year, and both university and ALA reaccreditation 

reviews found the department and our academic programs are very 

successful. 

The most recent re-accreditation review of our program and an additional university 

review, both conducted in 2003, further established the successful merger of the MLIS 

program and the Department of Information Studies within GSE&IS. Furthermore, it 

provided us with the opportunity to present the results of substantial school- and 

department-wide strategic planning efforts, including new mission and value statements. 

In particular, the two years leading up the last program review were filled with strategic 

planning efforts, beginning with a school-wide faculty retreat in Fall 2000. It continued 

through a variety of small group task forces and meetings of the faculty as a whole. The 

result was a statement of mission and values for the school as a whole that was also fully 

embraced by the faculty of the Department of Information Studies. That resulting 

strategic plan included specific goals and objectives in the following areas: GSE&IS 

scholarship and the professions; academic programs in both information studies and in 

education; GSE&IS students; GSE&IS community, climate, and diversity; GSE&IS 

infrastructure; and the relationship between GSE&IS and the rest of the UCLA 

community. The school’s Faculty Executive Committee, the two departments’ faculties, 

and the dean’s office monitored progress in achieving our strategic plan, and the plan 

itself served as the backbone for much of the 2003 program presentation in our reaccreditation 

effort. 


The years subsequent to the 2003 review were dedicated to fulfilling the school’s and 

department’s planning efforts. For the department, in particular, this meant paying close 

attention to our academic programs, especially the MLIS curriculum, and expanding the 

diversity of the department’s students and faculty, and to bring forth similar changes in 

the curriculum. In many ways we were very successful: we recruited a diverse student 

body (e.g., UCLA has received more ALA Spectrum Scholarships than any other 

program) and we recruited and retained faculty of color as well. Within the MLIS 

curriculum, we launched a new core course utilizing a service learning component 

dedicated to ethics, diversity, and change, and we implemented a portfolio assessment 

requirement for students in the MLIS program. These were the primary mechanisms to 

not only achieve diversity, but also to impress upon our students their future professional 

responsibilities for leadership, innovation, and change in the information professions. 

1. Mission, Goals and Objectives 

1.1. Mission of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies 

The Department of Information Studies (IS), together with its sister Department of 

Education, is located within the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies 

(GSE&IS). The faculty, staff, and student constituents developed the following mission 

statement for the entire school as part of a campus-mandated strategic planning process 

undertaken in 2002, and was reaffirmed in the current strategic published in 2005. Since 

this time, the department has used multiple mechanisms to review its missions, goals, and 

objections, as well as develop a set of principles for the MLIS program, described below. 

Mission. GSE&IS is dedicated to inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, the 

improvement of professional practice, and service to the education and information 

professions. We develop future generations of scholars, teachers, information 

professionals, and institutional leaders. Our work is guided by the principles of 

individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and commitment to the 

communities we serve. 

Values. 

Regarding scholarship, we value: 

• The systematic pursuit of new knowledge and its application; 

• High academic standards and integrity; 

• An intellectually open, collaborative, and collegial environment; 

• The freedom to pursue one’s intellectual passions; and 

• The consideration of multiple points of view and rival hypotheses. 

Regarding teaching, we value: 

• The intellectual and professional development of students; 

• The development of students who excel as scholars, teachers, and 

professionals; 


• A nurturing, caring professional environment; and 

• The empowerment of individuals. 

Regarding our institution, we value: 

• Inclusiveness, which includes treating and involving all GSE&IS faculty, 

administrators, staff, and students as a team pursuing our mission; and 

• The creation of democratic environments. 

Regarding the broader community, we value: 

• The involvement of diverse audiences in planning and executing our 

professional outreach and research activities 

• The pursuit of social justice; and 

• A commitment to the public trust. 

The school’s most recent strategic plan was intended to cover a five-year period, 2006- 

2011. The current plan is fairly consistent with the previous strategic plan, published in 

2002, used in the last program review. The IS Department’s plans within that document 

were changed in 2007, as will be presented in the next section. 

This strategic plan as well as the previous one is a clear statement worked out in 

agreement between the dean and the faculty of GSE&IS. 

The GSE&IS strategic plan is set to expire this year, however the school is in the midst of 

searching for a new dean and thus a revision will be delayed until the new dean is in 

place. The current dean, however is participating in the planning for UCLA’s centennial 

in 2019, including a major capital campaign scheduled to begin in 2014. The dean’s 

office has been conducting focus groups to shape our participation and the GSE&IS 

message; these meetings have led us to believe that the school’s mission and values 

statements continue to be viable and receive general support. 

We can anticipate that there were be some reformulation of the mission following the hire 

of a new dean. However, the search for a new dean is proceeding with a clear 

understanding that the GSE&IS is strongly associated with our statement that “our work 

is guided by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of 

caring, and commitment to the communities we serve.” 

In Fall 2003, IS faculty, staff, and student representatives met to review the department’s 

mission, goals, and objectives. At that time we reaffirmed our commitment to the 

mission of the school as a whole, and there was consensus that it was also an eloquent 

statement of the Department of Information Studies’ mission and values. The mission 

statement was revisited again by the department and school in Fall 2005 as part of a 

campus-required strategic planning process, and was again affirmed as an excellent 

statement of the mission that guides the department in all its programmatic activities, and 

in particular, the scope, goals, and objectives of the MLIS program. Subsequently we 

have reviewed these statements every couple of years at faculty retreats and have 

confirmed their basic formulation. 


1.2. Vision for the Department of Information Studies 

In 2006, addressing one of the objectives stated in the 2006–2011 GSE&IS Strategic Plan 

(attached in appendix 1.1), the IS faculty, along with representatives members of the 

student body, alumni, and external constituencies, drafted a vision statement for the IS 

Department and its programs that is compatible with the GSE&IS mission statement and 

that defines the department’s distinctive intellectual and professional perspectives, 

strategic directions, and aspirations. The draft vision statement was circulated among 

faculty, staff, students, and alumni and the following version was adopted: 

The Department of Information Studies seeks to define, study, and evaluate 

interactions among people, information, and information technology in a pluralistic 

society. The Department values and promotes equity, diversity, accountability, and 

intellectual openness. 

The Department integrates wide-ranging scholarly, professional, technological, and 

institutional perspectives in its teaching, research, and public service. Across each of 

these activities, the Department engages with and is driven by real world information 

issues and communities and institutional needs. The Department also promotes the 

essential role played by information institutions such as libraries and archives as 

social, cultural, educational, and intellectual centers in our society. 

In particular, we examine and encourage: 

• The design of information systems and services for individuals, communities, 

cultures, disciplines, and literacies; 

• The creation, preservation, documentation, and curation of information in all its 

media and settings; 

• Access to information, in all its manifestations, that empowers and enfranchises 

individuals and communities in and over time; and 

• The framing of ongoing policy and institutional dialogue related to the social and 

intellectual implications of a global information society. 

1.3. Goals for the MLIS Program in the Department of Information Studies 

The Department of Information Studies currently offers three degree programs—a Ph.D. 

in Information Studies, a Master’s in Library and Information Science (MLIS), and an 

M.A. in Moving Image Archive Studies (jointly administered with the Department of 

Film, Television and Digital Media in the School of Theater, Film and Television), as 

well as several campus-required undergraduate courses in Information Studies. Two joint 

degree programs are also available: MLIS/MBA and MLIS/Master of Arts in Latin 

American Studies. An existing joint degree program with the History department was 

eliminated because the History Department no longer has an MA program that parallels 

our MLIS. A cohesive set of core courses is defined for each different degree program, 

although students may also elect to take courses in the other programs, if these are 

relevant to their chosen area of specialization. 


The department slightly modified its goals for the MLIS program in a thorough review in 

2007–2008. The changes reflect awareness of the growing range of settings, both 

traditional and non-traditional, in which librarians and other information professionals 

now work: 

GOAL I. To educate MLIS students to become the top leaders, policy makers, and 

designers of information systems and services. 

GOAL II. To educate MLIS students with strong professional ethics and a sense of 

individual, institutional, social, and professional responsibility. 

GOAL III. To educate MLIS students with the skills to become change agents within 

their institutions and communities. 

GOAL IV. To educate MLIS students who are able to work effectively in culturally 

diverse environments. 

GOAL V. To educate MLIS students who are committed to their own lifelong 

continuing professional education. 

GOAL VI. To redesign our curriculum continuously to reflect faculty strengths and 

rapidly changing environmental demands. 

The goals of the MLIS Program have been used to inform the activities of the standing 

committees that support the Program (the Admissions, Awards and Recruitment 

Committee (AARC), the Professional Programs Committee (PPC), and the Instructional 

Services Committee (ISC)). They have also been used to inform the development 

between 2005 and 2007 of area statements for each of the three specialization areas 

within the MLIS program (see appendix 1.2), the statement of curricular principles for 

the MLIS program (section 1.5), the development and ongoing review and revision of the 

core curriculum for the MLIS Program (section 1.6), and ongoing departmental and 

school strategic planning and evaluation activities. We believe that these goals continue 

to be a strong statement of intent for our MLIS program and that they fit well within the 

GSE&IS Mission and IS Vision statements. 

1.4. Objectives for the MLIS Program 

The current objectives for the MLIS program were also modified during 2007–2008, in 

order to focus on the student learning outcomes to be, and to strengthen our emphasis on 

diversity and commitment to individual responsibility, social justice, an ethic of caring, 

and to the communities we serve. This emphasis also supports the American Library 

Association’s policy 60.5, “Library Education to meet the Needs of a Diverse Society,” 

encourages graduate library and information science programs to ensure that their student 

bodies, faculties, and curricula reflect the diverse histories and information needs of all 


people that are served.” These objectives were modified after discussion by the 

Professional Programs Committee (PPC), an ad hoc Evaluation Task Force, and the 

departmental faculty committees, and included current students, staff, alumni, internship 

site supervisors, and other external constituencies. 

After completing the MLIS program, which includes a coherent program of basic 

study (the Core Curriculum) and one or more areas of specialization, graduates will: 

A. Be able to articulate key concepts, advocate fundamental values, formulate 

policies, and demonstrate the advanced intellectual, technological, and 

managerial skills to practice, lead, and innovate in the information professions. 

B. Apply the highest ethical standards in their professional information practice, as 

articulated by relevant professional organizations (e.g., American Library 

Association, Society of American Archivists). 

C. Appreciate the needs of diverse communities and be able to design and provide 

systems and services that are appropriate in a multicultural society. 

D. Maintain their knowledge and skills through active engagement with professional 

organizations and participation in an ongoing program of continuing education 

and professional development. 

The MLIS goals and objectives are frequently reviewed and utilized as part of our 

program planning and curriculum review processes. For example, the PPC held a series 

of meetings and a departmental retreat with significant representation from students, 

staff, internship supervisors, and adjunct professors to review the development of 

programs of focus within the curriculum, with special reference to student learning 

outcomes. These areas of focus are intended to provide model programs of study within 

the MLIS and the three areas of specialization, and demonstrate how to integrate specific 

courses within each learning area. Reviews for the areas of informatics, metadata, and 

cataloging and information access have already been completed, with additional work in 

the area of archives and other aspects of librarianship scheduled for the 2011–2012 

academic year. 

Much of the following report documents how we utilize students, faculty, major 

employers and internship supervisors, and alumni in the formulation of the department’s 

mission, vision, goals, and curriculum. We are proud of the inclusive nature of our 

planning. All major faculty committees include student participation from the Student 

Governing Board, an open student-elected body, and other visitors are always welcome. 

Agendas and minutes are published in advance of meetings. The PPC which oversees the 

MLIS program includes members of all our constituencies. The department holds annual 

retreats with broad and inclusive participation. 


1.5. Principles for the MLIS Program 

The Department of Information Studies is also in the process of developing a set of 

principles for the MLIS program. These principles are being developed in part to reflect 

our priorities in curriculum design and the development of mentioned model programs of 

study within the MLIS program, discussed in section 2. The full current draft of 

principles includes principles for the development of model programs of study. This 

document was created in the last year by the Professional Programs Committee, and has 

been useful for planning purposes, but has not been officially adopted by the entire 

faculty. 

Principles: 

Over the last several years, and certainly beyond that, our planning and evaluation 

efforts for the MLIS program have addressed a number of central concerns. Among 

these we have addressed: 

• The standardization and integration of student learning outcomes. 

• The integration of learning outcomes with school, department, and program 

objectives. 

• The individualization of the learning process. 

• The integration of formal knowledge, values, and relevant professional 

experience. 

• The development of habits of inquiry, innovation, and leadership. 

• The formation of our students' professional identity. 

1. One year of basic formal instruction followed by one year of individuated 

learning and professional experience. 

Generally, in the first year students will pursue core learning activities, 

including service learning. In the second year students will explore a set of 

topics and the further development of their professional identity in more depth 

through electives, internships, portfolio, or thesis. The educational process of 

individualization treats learners humanely, respects their different interests, 

abilities, and experiences, and encourages high achievement. Learners must 

develop the motivation and skill to teach themselves, stimulated by their 

classroom learning and their professional experiences. This learning spiral 

connecting prior knowledge, professional experience, the identification of 

problems and questions, and their formal study should be presented to students 

as the basis for a metacognitive approach to professional excellence. 

2. Information professionals must constantly integrate all aspects of their 

knowledge, skills, and values. 

Students need to understand and prepare for the integration of their 

responsibilities, knowledge, and skills and their learning should be integrated 

with their professional training and experience. To experience integration of 


skills and knowledge in a way that prepares them for their careers, first-year 

students should be provided with early professional experiences, and secondyear 

students should continue to have more intense exposure to the basic 

knowledge and values underlying their practice. 

3. A commitment to excellence involves developing the knowledge, skills, and 

values that advance free and equal access to information and culture. 

We are interested in developing the leaders and innovators that will improve 

information services in our city, our state, and beyond. Our educational 

program should assist our students in developing the abilities and aspirations 

to achieve excellence in their careers and the institutions they join. We should 

develop the expectation that information professionals play a broad role in 

society, and can make contributions even during their time in school. 

For the PPC reviews on the development of integrated coursework in specific 

learning areas: 

• Develop sequences of courses within specific areas of specialization to ensure the 

articulation and integration of curricular content. 

• Course learning outcomes should be integrated into a series of outcomes for the 

area of specialization, and should also make reference to the department's 

mission, vision statement, and program objectives. 

• With respect to curricular content, instructors should clearly identify core 

material. They should consider what is the most important knowledge in a 

course, and the skills and values associated with it. 

• Learners at all levels should not be obliged to spend time unproductively 

repeating activities they have mastered. We should make sure our prerequisites 

are well founded, firmly established, and utilized in subsequent coursework. 

Elective courses should substantively advance on the learning provided in the 

core, and internships should guarantee appropriate professional instruction. 

• Everywhere in the curriculum we should emphasize excellence in student 

achievement, and the transformation and improvement of professional practice. 

• Throughout their education, students require strong, engaged relationships with 

faculty members and other instructors and mentors that provide challenge, support 

and strong role modeling, as well as the opportunity for individual guidance. 

• Our programs must ensure that learners achieve levels of competence with respect 

to knowledge and performance in their areas of interest. 


1.6. MLIS Educational Experiences 

The MLIS program incorporates a variety of educational experiences and opportunities to 

support a well-rounded learning environment that integrates diverse aspects of theory, 

practice and research. These include face-to-face in class lectures and seminars, service 

learning, project-based learning, internships and field experiences, directed individual 

studies, research, and systems design activities. The MLIS internship program is 

coordinated by a full-time Librarian staff member of the department. Students are able to 

select from over 300 internships at over 200 internship sites in public, academic, 

corporate, government, not-for-profit, and community settings around Southern 

California. Students may take up to 12 credits of internships after they have completed at 

least four core courses as well as any electives (such as Subject Cataloging or American 

Archives) that might be required by the internship site or for the type of internship. In 

2006–2007, the Field Experience elective was expanded to allow students to undertake 

extended practical experience in international, national, and executive settings. 

The two culminating options—the portfolio and the thesis—also offer students different 

foci for their learning activities, professional leadership, and research respectively. 

Between 2005 and 2007, we undertook a revision of MLIS portfolio to support students 

staying abreast of the latest and flexibility in articulating their specializations, as well as 

to encourage further their development as future leaders. The first implementation of the 

revised portfolio was with students who graduated in June 2008. The PPC, in 

consultation with the full faculty and external panelists drawn from information 

professionals, continually monitor the expectations and processes involved with the 

portfolio in order to ensure optimal student learning outcomes. 

Student educational experiences are also enriched by a low faculty-student advising ratio 

(currently approximately 1:14) and the encouragement of a close advising relationship. 

Students are each assigned (or may select) a faculty member to be their graduate advisor 

and can receive regular, close, in-person advising in support of crafting a coherent 

personal program of study, articulating and pursuing their own career interests and goals, 

presenting their portfolio, and developing their plans for continued professional 

education. Two mentoring programs that pair students with individual professional 

mentors are also offered by the alumni association LISAA (described below in section 

1.7.1, goal 5) and REFORMA, the national association dedicated to the promotion of 

library and information services to Latinos and the Spanish speaking. 

1.7. Assessing the Attainment of Goals and Objectives: Implementing Student 

Learning Outcomes 

The IS Department, following its last accreditation review, began a process of 

formulating student learning outcomes for all of its courses. The department had initiated 

a thorough review previous to the last accreditation in order to assess how we were 

teaching diversity in our courses; in many ways the interest in student learning outcomes 

was a natural outgrowth in that type of thorough review as the faculty became 


increasingly sensitive to developing methods for the assessment of students. Our interest 

in developing the student portfolio as a culminating activity also dates to this period—we 

were interested in finding ways to assess student achievement, and also to design our 

curriculum in such a way as to accomplish basic instructional tasks. 

The department was well positioned to develop student learning outcomes for all of its 

courses. Professor Leah Lievrouw, in particular, was of tremendous help in this regard 

because of her background in instructional design. The department also accepted 

guidance from Joan Kaplowitz, who has been involved in the evaluation of instructional 

programs from her role in information literacy instruction as a librarian at UCLA. 

Finally the department benefitted from its association with the UCLA Center for the 

Study of Evaluation (CSE)/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and 

Student Testing (CRESST), a major research center on the evaluation of educational 

programs. The department held meetings for professors and doctoral students on 

curriculum design, and the Professional Programs Committee worked hard with 

professors to develop student learning outcomes for all course syllabi. In some ways the 

department anticipated the work on the ALA Committee on Accreditation’s interest in 

student learning outcomes, at times we were also informed by their work and also that of 

UCLA’s planning for reaccreditation with the Western Association of Schools and 

Colleges. 

Concurrent with this effort, the department was participating in the development of the 

GSE&IS strategic plan that was published in 2006. It became apparent that, while we 

were in alignment with the basic mission of the school and actively working on its values, 

we needed to develop a vision for the department and a series of objectives and goals for 

the MLIS program. Both the vision and goals statements function as a mediating layer 

between the school-level strategic vision and what we were trying to accomplish with our 

degree programs, and tied them to student learning outcomes. This work was 

accomplished for our own planning and assessment purposes, but, as we followed 

developments at COA, we knew such statements needed to be measurable and based on 

student learning outcomes. This work was accomplished with Professor Anne Gilliland 

serving as chair of the department in the period of 2007–2008. 

In the following section we will discuss how we achieve our goals and measure our 

progress. The first five goals—relating to leadership, ethics, community engagement, a 

commitment to diversity, and a commitment to continuing professional education— 

involve student learning outcomes, and are achieved through compulsory educational 

activities for all MLIS students. Generally we use IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change 

and the portfolio and thesis projects as the means to achieve those goals. We have 

concentrated on assessing our progress on our community engagement and diversity goals 

in recent years, and we report the results of an evaluation of these goals following their 

introduction below. The sixth goal, to design a curriculum that reflect faculty strengths 

and environmental demands, is achieved less through student achievement and more 

through curriculum planning efforts, and thus is described in section 2. 


1.7.1 Goals 

GOAL I. To educate MLIS students to become the top leaders, policy makers, and 

designers of information systems and services. 

Following the development of goals and objectives in 2005 and 2006, the IS Department 

created an ad hoc evaluation task force, chaired by Professor Leazer, to assess how to 

utilize student learning outcomes to assess our curricula. The task force completed its 

work in the Fall 2008; the final report is provided in appendix 1.3. The report concluded: 

MLIS core courses have generally well-developed statements of student learning 

outcomes. 

The Professional Programs Committee (PPC) and the Doctoral Programs 

Committee (DPC) should jointly prepare brief written guidance to assist 

instructors with the construction of student learning outcomes for their syllabi and 

means for assessing those outcomes. The PPC and DPC should separately review 

MLIS and Ph.D. course syllabi to ensure they contain adequate learning 

outcomes. 

The department has not adequately used student learning outcome statements as 

the basis of a more comprehensive assessment of departmental progress in 

achieving program objectives. A stronger curriculum evaluation regime would 

incorporate a more formal assessment of student learning outcomes. 

Statements of student learning outcomes from the MLIS core curriculum are well 

aligned with the recently developed MLIS program objectives and ALA COA 

standards, and generally provide a framework for assessing student learning 

outcomes. 

The department should charge the PPC with the responsibility to identify and 

assess MLIS objectives and collective student achievement on learning outcomes. 

The selected outcomes should be those that reflect the strengths and character of 

our program, those that are recently developed areas of focus, those that might be 

problematic in nature, and those that would be of specific concern to external 

constituencies such as ALA COA. 

Concurrent with this work, the faculty was actively engaged in consolidating its 

achievements with the recently implemented portfolio option as a culminating exercise. 

To our knowledge, UCLA was the first LIS program to include a portfolio option for 

MLIS students, and we refocused its requirements so that students were assessed less on 

stating and integrating their core MLIS learning (though this remains an important 

element of the portfolio), and more on articulating an important issue with their area of 

specialization and developing an action plan on that issue. The purpose of this work was 

to emphasize leadership and institutional change amongst our graduating students. As we 

state below in section 2.3.5, the goals of the portfolio are (a) “to determine whether the 


student has been able to identify a significant issue in the field and has shown the ability 

to articulate that issue and advocate for change, innovation, or a creative extension of a 

given service”; (b) “for the student to demonstrate leadership by suggesting ways that 

s/he would attempt to implement innovations or improvements to existing practices or 

services”; and (c) “to challenge students to reflect on their career goals and to present a 

selection of their best work . . . By "leadership" we do not mean that the student will 

necessarily become the president of an organization or professional society. Instead, we 

mean that the student has taken the initiative to define an agenda for the field. (Student 

handbook: 2010–2011, section 3.8.1.1, p. 34, available in appendix 2.1, emphasis added). 

The thesis remained an important option for graduating students, and is one that 

emphasizes scholarly innovation for those students that are perhaps more oriented toward 

academic investigation rather than professional work. 

In light of this work, the faculty decided to emphasize student performace on the 

portfolio as a major mechanism for assessing collective student achievement on MLIS 

learning outcomes. Simply put, all graduating students are assessed, through their 

portfolio or thesis, for their capacity for leadership. Those who fail in this essential 

regard do not graduate. In more detail, students are assessed in their portfolio on their 

demonstrated and potential leadership in relation to their chosen issue: 

i. We require that all students include a paper focused on the particular issue 

they wish to champion as professionals. 

ii. Students must provide a statement of their own leadership potential when 

they submit their portfolios. 

iii. We measure curricular learning objectives against external statements of 

desired professional competencies (e.g., ALSC, SAA, and the Library of 

Congress Working Group on Cataloging). 

The department also encourages the development of leadership in other ways, although 

not all of these involve direct faculty assessment of students, nor do we generally 

measure rates of participation in these activities. However, they do form important 

opportunities for the development of leadership, and the faculty is actively engaged in 

these projects: 

• The IS Department incorporates leadership issues throughout the core 

curriculum. This includes an ongoing review and revision of course learning 

objectives for all MLIS courses in order to ensure that the skills and outlook 

taught support and nurture leadership and innovation in students. All courses 

have student learning outcomes, and the Professional Programs Committee (PPC) 

coordinates the MLIS curriculum (see section 2.4). 

• Students are encouraged to participate at professional conferences. We provide 

some financial support for MLIS students if they are presenting a paper. We also 

encourage student publication in professional and scholarly journals, including in 

the school’s journal InterActions, which is edited and managed exclusively by 

students. 


• The department encourages student activism on professional issues. For example, 

students run reading programs at Nidorf Juvenile Detention Center and have 

developed and organized the UCLA LGBT Library and Archives as well as the 

Bruin Archives Project, which works with campus student organizations and the 

University Archives to document and archive materials relating to campus student 

life. The ALA Student Chapter worked in support of recent Los Angeles ballot 

measure enhancing library funding. We also encourage student organizations 

such as student chapters of professional associations. These organizations are 

described in section 4.5.2. 

• Implementation of service learning in core and elective courses (see Goal III 

below). 

• Students are exposed to professional leaders in a variety of settings. We use 

many distinguished practitioners as course instructors and guest speakers in our 

elective courses. The participation of LIS professionals as panelists is required 

for all portfolio assessments. The department maintains student mentoring 

programs organized by alumni and REFORMA. 

• Students participate in departmental and school governance, curriculum, and 

search committees. 

• The IS faculty recognizes exceptional achievement in the MLIS program. Since 

the last COA review, the Department implemented two new student awards. 

Annually, the faculty selects a student for the MLIS Award for Advancement of 

the Profession. The awardee is selected for his or her demonstrated potential to 

advance the profession through such activities as professional leadership, 

intellectual contributions, and vision, and comes with a $1000 prize. A jury 

comprising faculty members and outside professionals selects one or more 

students for the Diversity Student Paper award (also with a $1000 prize) for a 

paper that demonstrates leadership on diversity issues. The faculty also chooses a 

chancellor’s marshal for academic excellence. 

GOAL II. To educate MLIS students with strong professional ethics and a sense of 

individual, institutional, social, and professional responsibility. 

UCLA is located in one of the most diverse regions in the world in terms of race and 

ethnicity, sexual identity, and socioeconomic status. It is home to the nation’s largest 

urban populations of Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, and the residents of Los 

Angeles speak at least 78 languages. It is a city of change and demographic movement. 

The IS Department believes that this, and all the other kinds of diversity that characterize 

this city, poses immense challenges for traditional library, information, and archival 

practices. One aspect of these challenges has to do with the ethical challenges posed by 

this environment, particularly in terms of such issues as professional neutrality, advocacy 

and activism, equitable representation and services, and community protocols regarding 

cultural materials. 

Following our last review a group of MLIS students formed a Students Diversity Action 

Group and approached the IS Department concerned that the its MLIS curriculum was 


neither sufficiently responsive to the school’s social justice mandate nor to the needs and 

concerns of minority students and the external communities with which they identified. 

The student activism occurred at the same time the Professional Programs Committee 

(PPC), then chaired by Professor Maack, began an assessment on whether our MLIS 

courses taught diversity related issues. The students wished to see an increased 

pedagogical emphasis on critical information studies, information equity, and cultural 

sensitivity. At a faculty retreat, it was decided that a new core class would be added to 

the MLIS curriculum that would be a significant departure from the kinds of pedagogical 

approaches being employed in most other classes in the degree program. Drawing upon 

ideas integral to critical pedagogy, it would use a combination of service learning, 

reflective student journaling, in-class presentations, discussions, and debriefings to 

contemplate what kinds of equity, cultural, and transformational issues might arise in 

diverse community settings that in some cases were quite different from the formal 

information-oriented institutions where students routinely undertake their internships. 

These issues were placed within a framework of ethics that reflects our values as 

expressed in school and departmental mission statements. The class, IS201: Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change in the Information Professions, was first taught by Dr. Clara Chu 

in 2004 as an experimental elective. It has subsequently been a required class taught by 

several different faculty members and is usually taken by MLIS students during the first 

year of their 2-year program—the class is required of all MLIS students, regardless of 

their track or specialization in the MLIS program. This history was documented by 

Professor Chu in her 2009 article “Working from within: Critical service learning as core 

learning in the MLIS curriculum,” in Service Learning: Linking Library Education and 

Practice (ALA Editions, Chicago, pp. 105-123). 

Our ethical commitment is reflected by our interest in community engagement and 

cultural diversity as expressed in Goals III and IV. These goals are described in greater 

detail in the following subsections. General professional ethical frameworks, including 

discussions of social justice and professional values, are discussed in IS201: Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change in the Information Professions. In addition, statements of values 

and codes of ethics, such as the ALA Library Users Bill of Rights and from other 

professional organizations, form the basis of class discussion and the student final 

projects. Student engagement and participation in this class is our principal way of 

measuring student achievement in this area. The class is graded on a pass/fail basis, and 

includes the following learning objective, and a final paper to assess whether students 

achieved it: “Students will become familiar with various ethical frameworks and develop 

a personal, culturally-aware approach to being an ethical information professional.” The 

course is atypical of many courses, and requires student journals and reflection on ethical 

issues, including their mandatory service learning in community organizations. 

As with the previous goal and the following two, we have made student achievement on 

this goal a sine qua non of the MLIS program: an adequate reflection on ethics and 

professional values is a requirement in order to graduate from the program. Mandatory 

student participation in IS201 ensures it. 


Students have additional opportunities to demonstrate their ethical engagement. Because 

a commitment to ethics, leadership, diversity, and community service are hallmarks of 

our program, our students select our program partially for these reasons. Faculty 

members assess students’ applications for their motivation as well, as all MLIS students 

are required to provide a statement of motivation at the time of their application. 

Students usually engage in an ethical issue for their portfolios and theses. One goal for 

the portfolio, as we have stated, “is to determine whether the student has been able to 

identify a significant issue in the field and has shown the ability to articulate that issue 

and advocate for change, innovation, or a creative extension of a given service. The issue 

should be placed within its appropriate social, ethical, institutional and professional 

context” (Student Handbook 3.8.1.1). A perusal of thesis titles (given in appendix 4.1) 

and of portfolios demonstrates the majority of our students engage in issues that reflect 

professional values in their final assessments. 

Students are also encouraged to participate in elective activities, individually or through 

student or professional organizations. Many of our student organizations have a 

particular ethical focus, such as service to incarcerated teens, establishing collections for 

marginalized groups, and political activism. 

GOAL III. To educate MLIS students with the skills to become change agents within 

their institutions and communities. 

GOAL IV. To educate MLIS students who are able to work effectively in culturally 

diverse environments. 

The IS Department is engaged with a variety of institutions and settings in the world, and 

our students are required to participate in the provision of information services in order to 

develop their abilities to be effective in their future settings. We stress leadership and 

community engagement with diverse populations as the primary ways to accomplish these 

goals. We discussed our efforts related to leadership in Goal I. Here we discuss our 

major efforts in diversity and community engagement. 

Compulsory Service Learning. We utilize service learning in the required core course 

IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change as the primary means for assuring our students 

participate in community engagement. Although service learning has been growing in 

popularity as a pedagogical approach for LIS education, UCLA’s approach differs from 

most others. 1 Additionally, as of 2009, students may not select their own site for service. 

1 Ball, M. & Schilling, K. (2006) “Service Learning, Technology and LIS Education”, 

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 277-290; 

Cuban, S. & Hayes, E. (2001) “Perspective of Five Library and Information Studies 

Students Involved in Service Learning at a Community-Based Literacy Program”, 

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 86-95; 

Overall, P. (2010). “The Effect of Service Learning on LIS Students' Understanding of 


Rather, each student is carefully matched to a site based on the student’s skill set and the 

needs of the partner site, the student’s stated professional interests, and logistical 

considerations. The emphasis on issues of diversity, plurality, ethics, accountability, 

change, and personal agency resonate not only with the school’s social justice mission 

but also many of the preoccupations of social and community informatics and community 

archiving. 

Service learning is less commonly used in graduate education than it is in undergraduate 

education, but it can play an important role in graduate professional education such as 

that which occurs in Library and Information Science (LIS) and iSchool programs. Often 

misunderstood as a variant form of internship or practicum, service learning focuses on 

real-life settings and problems and is a specific and situated “teaching and learning 

strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to 

enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities … 

[Students] not only learn the practical applications of their studies, they become actively 

contributing citizens and community members through the service they perform” 

(National Service-learning Clearinghouse. “What is Service Learning?” Retrieved 

8/29/11 from http://www.servicelearning.org/what-service-learning). Whereas 

internships and practica provide students with opportunities to gain real-world experience 

through practice in institutional settings where they are supervised and potentially 

mentored by a qualified information professional, service learning responds specifically 

to community-identified needs where there is no on-site information professional and 

where often there is no formal archival, library, or museum unit. Instead, students must 

take on the role of the information expert. Service learning specifically emphasizes the 

contributions that students might offer to communities in ways that are mutually 

beneficial and in the contexts of those communities. 

Students in IS201 are required to perform a minimum of twenty hours of service learning 

in the course of the 10-week quarter in a variety of information settings. Almost none of 

the sites have formal libraries or archives, although all had identified short-term projects 

that required library, archival, or other information skills. The sites represented a 

spectrum of socio-economic, political, racial and ethnic, language, gender, sexual 

orientation, age, and ability status groups. Students wrote reflective journal entries and 

attended regular class meetings where they debriefed their experiences and discussed 

issues that had arisen relating to ethics or diversity in their service-learning sites, and the 

ways in which these were (or were not) addressed by the relevant professional codes of 

ethics. Class meetings were used for presentations on ethics and diversity topics as well 

as for student discussion and debriefing about the service-learning experience. 

Because enrollment in this course can range between 60 and 90 students at a time, 

identifying, building, and sustaining multiple academic-community partnerships in the 

Diversity Issues Related to Equity of Access”, Journal of Education for Library and 

Information Science vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 251-266; and Swain, D. “Taking the Classroom 

into the Community: MIS Students Supporting Computational Learning Labs”, Journal 

of Education for Library and Information Science vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 309-320. 


context of the class and maintaining them from year to year requires a significant amount 

of energy, time, and investment from all parties. Faculty provide a level of mediation 

between the partner sites, including making the initial contacts and helping to scope 

projects on which students might work, formalizing agreements about student work 

expectations, matching students with the sites, soliciting feedback from sites, and 

engaging in ongoing conversations and initiatives with both sites and students throughout 

and after the class. Many of the service learning partnerships have existed for several 

years, an indication that the experience has been beneficial to the service learning site as 

well as to the students and the department. A significant proportion of students have 

continued to work on a volunteer basis with their service learning sites after completing 

the class and even after graduating; some have gone on to develop their own partnership 

projects, and others have assumed responsibility for developing infrastructure for and 

staffing library and archival services within the sites on an ongoing basis, as in the cases 

of the Nidorf Project and the Rae Lee Siporin Library discussed below. 

Diversity. While the course originally placed students in community-based service 

organizations, libraries, archives, and academic resource centers, in the past two years, 

service learning partner sites have been nearly all non-traditional community or grassroots 

organizations that emphasize the development of information services to 

traditionally underserved communities. There are multiple ways in which a partner site 

might be identified. UCLA maintains a large service program at the undergraduate level 

associated with a minor in civic engagement, and many community groups already have a 

fairly good awareness of the campus’ receptivity to approaches about serving as partner 

sites. Each year, the department is approached by several organizations, groups, and 

individuals who have projects on which they would like student or faculty assistance. 

Department faculty also might approach a site wanting to collaborate; or students might 

suggest sites with which they are already engaged as volunteers, advocates or activists. 

In addition, students assisting with the course might compile a list of small local 

repositories or community-based projects. 

Evaluation of IS201. Notwithstanding the above positive outcomes, IS201 is 

controversial among the students and has a high administrative overhead. In addition to 

the routine class and site evaluations that are conducted for the class each year, an online 

survey was circulated by Professor Gilliland and her course assistants to those who had 

been required to take this class between 2005 and 2010. It was designed to solicit their 

feedback on the class and to identify its possible longer-term impacts on their 

professional and personal lives, with the intent that feedback would become part of 

curriculum design and reporting for this accreditation report. Items in the survey were 

constructed to situate the course within individual career trajectories, pre- through postgraduation. 

The survey especially emphasized the service-learning aspects of the class, 

seeking open-ended self-reflections on respondents’ personal and professional ethics, 

understandings of diversity, and how their service learning and the class overall might (or 

might not) have prompted any changes. 

The survey received 42 responses out of a possible population of approximately 400. 

Available electronic contact information for former students had been used and many of 


the contacts were returned as undeliverable. It is unclear, therefore, what the actual 

response rate is from those who received the survey and also how representative these 

responses are of the overall cohorts. The percentages of students from ethnically and 

racially diverse students within the MLIS program during these years has been in the 

region of 35–40%. Forty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they were white, 

38% indicated that they were of other ethnic or racial backgrounds, and 17% did not 

provide any information. 

More than half of our respondents (61%) reported playing some kind of leadership role in 

their profession (e.g., serving as an officer in a professional organization, developing 

outreach projects, serving on committees, or instructing in LIS). Half (55%) of 

respondents also currently volunteer or have volunteered with groups or organizations 

that include professional committees for the American Library Association, UCLA’s 

Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars, the Mayme A. Clayton Library 

and Museum in Los Angeles, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, 

the Sierra Club, and various public libraries. Four respondents have undertaken public 

lobbying since graduation, for example of the Los Angeles City Council. Almost half 

(45%) of respondents indicated that they continued to work with their service-learning 

site beyond the time commitment required for the course. Most of these individuals were 

completing projects that they had started during their service learning (including 

preparing to hand the projects on to another member of the organization), performing 

new tasks, or volunteering at events. Student journal entries and class discussion in the 

2010 class revealed considerable concern that without their work with often resourcepoor 

sites, the efforts in which students had been engaged would not be able to continue 

and might just disappear altogether. Based upon follow-up information from that class, 

approximately 35% of the 80 students had continued to work with their service learning 

sites after the end of the class. Taken together with the survey data, there would seem to 

be a strong indication of the awareness of current and former students of the challenges 

faced by grassroots community organizations and the importance of ongoing partnerships 

with information professionals and institutions. 

As we anticipated, reflections on IS201 varied widely. Many students disliked the 

diversity portion of the class in particular, citing various reasons why other students 

might need it but they personally did not. There were criticisms that the topic lacked 

intellectual rigor, was too uncomfortable to talk about in class, or that diversity is a nonissue 

in today’s world. Diversity within the information professions was construed to be 

an area of interest only to a subset of students, rather than being relevant to the general 

knowledgebase of aspiring information professionals. Some respondents, however, 

voiced enthusiastic support for the course. One respondent stated that ethics, diversity, 

and change are fundamental to the values of the profession, while another stated that 

issues stemming from diversity and professional ethics are likely present in every 

profession. 

A number of respondents indicated that they did not like that service learning was 

compulsory (“mandatory volunteer work”), while others stated that the length of their 

service learning work (i.e., 20 hours minimum over the course of a ten-week quarter—the 


university requirement for credit) was not of sufficient duration to complete their 

projects. Responses indicated confusion between service learning and internships, 

articulating discontent with having to perform what they viewed as menial tasks as part of 

their service learning duties (such as data entry, filing, copy cataloging, and other 

administrative tasks). While some respondents criticized the lack of supervisory 

direction at their service learning sites, others interpreted the lack of supervisory direction 

to be instructive, in that it forced them to assume a leadership role in contexts where no 

other information professional was present. Some of the respondents stated that their 

service learning was performed with communities with which they were previously 

unfamiliar, and that their service learning promoted a greater degree of understanding of 

those communities, particularly framed by the professional roles that they might play. 

One potential confounding aspect to the survey results stemmed from to the change made 

in 2010 from students selecting their own service learning site from a master list to being 

matched by the instructor with a site. While this change appeared to have been unpopular 

with the students based on in-class feedback and evaluations, the percentage of students 

(33%) who reported a change in their understanding of ethics and diversity directly 

attributable to the course more than doubled in 2010 from the 16% in previous years. 

Additionally, more of those who were assigned to sites (44% versus 26%) reported that 

the course prepared them for professional issues. The curricular change to site 

assignment was motivated by an attempt to move students out of their comfort zones, and 

to place them in settings where they might not have otherwise considered working. 

While the survey results suggest that this pedagogical change was for the better, it should 

also be noted that those who have taken the course most recently are likely to have had 

fewer professional experiences than those who graduated earlier, and consequently, might 

have less perspective on experiences that have catalyzed changes in their professional and 

personal ethics regarding diversity in the information professions. 

Overall, half (51%) of respondents indicated that IS201 was useful as a core requirement, 

rather than an elective. Despite the aforementioned criticisms, a number of respondents 

voiced enthusiastic support for the course, citing the importance of curricular offerings 

centered on diversity and the uniqueness of the course offering within UCLA’s program. 

The ability of such a survey to extrapolate longer-term impacts of the course after 

graduation is necessarily limited, and it needs to be supplemented with additional 

evaluation from the perspectives of our community site partners and this will be 

conducted in a future phase of our assessment. 

A major difficulty that emerged in our attempts to incorporate service learning within a 

broader curriculum is the management of multiple expectations, including student 

expectations for gaining professional knowledge and getting value for their tuition, 

academic expectations for rigorous educational training and appropriate site supervision 

of students, the community organization expectations for the activities that are performed 

with and for them by the students, and for the very nature of the students’ professional 

education and competencies. As some of the responses to the survey indicate, there are 

students in this class who expect an internship-like experience in which they will gain 

tangible “professional” experience and skills. The disconnect here seems to be both a 


more expansive construction of what are considered to be professional experiences and 

skills, and how the service learning component is interpreted within the larger goals of 

the course, and likely, within the larger professional degree program. 

Student-Led Community Engagement Projects. The IS201 class only speaks to one part 

of the larger programmatic structure of UCLA’s Information Studies degree programs. 

In the MLIS program, for example, students may elect to take a class in IS227: 

Information Services in Culturally Diverse Communities, or in IS289: Community-Based 

Archiving, in which students partner with a community of their choice (and often one of 

which they are themselves a member and/or with which they are already engaged), to 

work on an archival initiative. Recent projects have related to developing documentation 

supporting victims of human trafficking, recordkeeping and the blind, and building a 

transgender community archive. 

Arguably testaments to the development of a departmental culture of community 

engagement, several student-led, and often long-term community initiatives and projects 

have developed out of their curricular activities. This section will briefly discuss three of 

these—the Nidorf Collective, the management of UCLA’s Rae Lee Siporin LGBT 

Resource Center Library by the Library and Archive OUTreach student group (both 

multi-generation student projects. These examples contrast with the earlier descriptions 

of course-based community engagement in that they are reliant on the initiative of 

students for their sustenance and progress. 

a. The Nidorf Collective. In 2005, the head of the Department of Mental Health 

(DMH) at the Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall contacted UCLA’s Information 

Studies Department about getting some students to help develop the Nidorf school 

library, under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Office of Education 

(LACOE) into a functioning library, not only by organizing the materials in the 

library, but also by participating on a Library Committee with DMH, LACOE, 

and Probation Department representatives. Approximately 650 children and teens 

are housed for varying periods of time at the detention facility, which is located 

about 22 miles north of UCLA. 

Two students initially volunteered and in Spring 2006, Nidorf became a service 

learning site and several more students became involved—a non-trivial process 

since students must undergo a clearance procedure that includes being 

fingerprinted and photographed. Students began organizing and weeding the 

library and its collection. They soon realized that the youths who were being 

detained in the center were rarely brought to the library by their teachers, 

however, and were not allowed to check out any books. In their living units, the 

students found only religious materials available for the youths to read, and they 

consequently shifted their focus from the library to collecting and delivering more 

relevant and interesting books directly to the youths in their living units. After 

that, the volunteers also began holding one-hour, evening book talks in first one 

and then additional living units. Shorter book talks and deliveries were extended 


into the girls’ school (four classrooms) during the day and in 2006, the students 

formally organized themselves into the Nidorf Collective. 

The Nidorf Collective holds regular book drives on campus and also solicits 

donated books. They have applied for grants and where they have been 

successful, have been able to fund equipment as well as special speakers and 

programs and purchase books. Graduating students have recruited new 

generations of students to take over the project, and Nidorf continues to be a 

service learning site, with some graduated students who are now practitioners 

remaining closely associated with the project. The Nidorf Collective continues to 

work closely with Probation Department and DMH staff (the latter is required in 

particular to work with youth in the maximum security units) and there is also an 

ongoing working relationship between the senior administration of the IS 

Department and Nidorf Hall (see Minobe’s 2010 thesis Throw the book at them: 

juvenile correctional facilities in California: a survey of libraries and library 

services, their current status and potentialities). 

The Nidorf Collective was cited last year by the university as an example of the 

ways UCLA is engaged with Los Angeles in an awards event held in conjunction 

with the UCLA Community Day. 

b. Library and Archive OUTreach and the Rae Lee Siporin Library. The Rae 

Lee Siporin Library is part of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender 

(LGBT) Campus Resource Center. The Center serves as the primary bridge 

between LGBT student groups and campus administration, campus faculty and 

staff, campus services, and other students. Information studies students have been 

involved since 2005 in the management of both the Library and its archival 

collections. Library and Archive OUTreach, an IS student organization, supports 

LGBT information and access needs for the UCLA community at large and 

performs circulation duties and general maintenance of the library. With no 

library staff member within the center, management of the Siporin became a 

formal function of the OUTreach in 2007. 

In 2007, three students taking IS227: Information Services in Culturally Diverse 

Communities, one of whom was a founding member of OUTreach, conducted an 

information needs assessment of the Siporin and found that the library’s 

collection was not linked to the campus-wide library catalog. The students, 

together with the student volunteers from OUTreach and the LGBT Center staff, 

worked to identify possible bibliographic tools to enable online access to the 

Siporin’s holdings, and student volunteers have since converted the Siporin’s inhouse 

catalog. Center staff and OUTreach volunteers then successfully worked 

together to advocate for increased visibility of the Siporin by having the library 

collection represented in the university-wide online catalog. Students now 

undertake collection development, cataloging, and reference activities for the 

library on an ongoing basis. Working in conjunction with IS201: Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change, the Siporin also serves as a service learning site and 


thereby graduating students can recruit and train new generations of student 

library staff to work with the campus LGBT community. 

During their original assessment of the library, the students also identified a need 

to develop a plan for working with archival materials generated or collected by 

the Center. The students devised a detailed plan for the development of a campus 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning/Queer (LGBTQ) archive, 

including personal coming-out or campus-experience testimonies and campus 

LGBTQ group records and ephemera, to be housed initially at the Siporin with 

arrangement for transfer of older records to the University Archives. This plan 

was approved by center staff and included a sample collection mission and 

donation statement as well as a cost and sustainability analysis. However, due to 

turnover in center staff and graduation of the students who were originally 

involved, the plan fell through. In 2010, another student revisited the idea of 

forming an archive at the center and developed a blueprint for archiving 

documentation generated by LGBT student organizations on campus. 

The history of information studies student engagement with the Siporin illustrates 

one of the potential pitfalls of student-based community engagement. 

Unsustained or redundant contact with communities can occur across different 

generations of students. Students may repeatedly engage with various members 

of the academic community without continuity, and consequently without action, 

resulting in project memory loss and a high expenditure of time and energy on 

everyone’s part. The repetition of the archive planning project at the Siporin is 

particularly illustrative of this as it was affected by both community and student 

turnover. 

Taken together, curricular and student-led initiatives in the IS Department speak not only 

to the departmental commitment to diversity and social justice, but also to the 

development of an educational environment and culture that values, promotes and 

reinforces community engagement grounded in the actual social, political, and cultural 

conditions of diverse and often under-empowered communities. Sustainable and 

continuous community engagement, however, requires an ongoing and coordinated effort 

between students, community partners, and faculty members. A major challenge to 

continuity is that students, student groups, communities, and supervising faculty all 

operate on different temporal scales. In graduate programs, the available time of 

engagement for the student can be very brief, in some cases as little as ten weeks. 

Although the faculty might provide the continuity between generations of students, there 

is a certain onus on students (particularly officers of student groups) to ensure succession 

planning for long-term projects for which they have taken on responsibility. 

As the student-led community projects demonstrate, there are both benefits and 

challenges to working alone or in groups. Both the Nidorf and Siporin projects have 

benefited from long-term engagement of dedicated groups of students. In each case these 

volunteers have had a major impact at the community site and could serve as models for 

how to maintain successful student-community partnerships. The library work at Nidorf 


and the Siporin are both too large and too long-term to be successful with only short-term 

engagement or the effort of an individual student. However, it is essential that groups 

take measures to ensure continuity, especially since continuity issues can occur with any 

party and potentially lead to project failure. Individuals and small groups, however, can 

experience less inertia and fewer constraints than does an academic institution as a whole. 

This means that projects can be started relatively easily, but it might also mean that there 

is less coordination amongst interested parties, resulting in the kind of duplicative efforts 

found in the Siporin archives project. 

Shortcomings. The wide range of sites, their missions, and relative sizes point to a major 

difficulty in implementing the strategic approach to the community partnerships that we 

describe here. Inevitably, questions about the continuity and sustainability of community 

engagement initiatives have surfaced, many of which will stem from the duration of the 

ten weeks of the IS201 course. Yet another complicating factor is that sites range from 

individually-led endeavors to comparatively more established organizations that might 

have implemented a formal volunteer program. Most of the sites are not-for-profit 

organizations and are consequently entirely reliant on volunteer services. The 

information needs identified by students (both for the service learning requirement of the 

core course and the student-led initiatives) are also often extraneous to the explicit 

missions of the organizations, which might pose difficulties in establishing or even 

lobbying for more permanent solutions to bridge those information needs. An additional 

challenge is that typical academic heuristics for monitoring and measuring success (e.g. 

papers, presentations, reports, surveys) are not natural activities for many grass-roots 

community organizations. 

Despite our motivations, the survey results and the descriptions of the student-led 

projects described in this section indicate the complexities inherent in community 

engagement. The range of responses to the survey suggests that the implementation of an 

ethics and community engagement curriculum for graduate education can be met with 

vehement resistance or with wholehearted support from students. Other students seem 

unable to grasp the value of education-through-practice or discussions of diversity as part 

of their professional training. However, the success of this approach cannot be assessed 

necessarily in terms of uniformly positive agreement about its value because such an 

approach to graduate education is rooted in its focus on potential empowerment of 

students and their communities, which may or may not be immediately seen upon 

completion of a service-learning course or even completion of the program. Since the 

focus of critical pedagogy is on “critical consciousness” (as some call it), the rewards of 

critical pedagogy for educators, students, and their communities are less likely to be 

immediate and could ostensibly surface later on when students have accumulated 

professional work experiences. 

In contrast with the survey results, which might ostensibly be interpreted as attitudinal 

outcomes of a curricular implementation, expressions of critical consciousness might be 

more readily seen in the student-led initiatives described in the case examples. Whereas 

IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change is a requirement for the MLIS program, the work of 


the Nidorf Collective and OUTreach emanate out of students’ perception of critical 

information needs based in those communities. 

Finally, the IS Department is engaged in other activities for community engagement and 

diversity. Firstly, we sponsor a Student Diversity Paper Award competition, first 

awarded during the 2002-2003 academic year. The department also provides support for 

ALA Spectrum Scholars. Because of our emphasis on service and cultural diversity, we 

have received more Spectrum Scholarships than any other program, except for San José 

State University, whom we tied despite the fact that they have twenty times more 

students. Approximately 40% of our students come from under-represented groups. We 

are also actively engaged in recruiting faculty members of color. 

GOAL V. To educate MLIS students who are committed to their own lifelong 

continuing professional education. 

This goal, like leadership above, is accomplished through required elements of the 

student portfolio. The portfolio provides students with a structure for identifying their 

interests, thinking about their career directions, becoming involved in the intellectual life 

of the field, building their professional networks, and beginning or strengthening their 

involvement in professional activities and continuing education. Students are required 

and assessed on their ability to reflect on their career goals. The portfolio is also 

preparation for presenting professional dossiers that are required by many employers at 

the time of application. Students must identify an important issue of professional concern 

and generally describe a program of work inscribed within an ethic of professional 

values. Students are required to determine what additional skills—including continuing 

professional education and involvement with professional associations—are required to 

achieve their proposed program of work. 

The Student Handbook details required elements in the student portfolio. Following he 

issue statement, a student must provide “A statement outlining the student’s career goals 

and future activities in the profession, including the kind of continuing education that 

might enhance the student’s knowledge in the career path that he or she has chosen. This 

statement should … demonstrate the student’s ability to integrate learning from the 

classroom and the field as well as demonstrating knowledge of, and involvement in, one 

or two key professional associations in the area of concentration.” 

The IS Department provides additional opportunities for students and alumni to explore 

involvement with professional organizations and continuing education. There are several 

chapters of professional organizations present within the department, and staff and 

faculty frequently serve as high-ranking officials within those organizations. Our student 

and local chapters often win awards for chapter of the year, or for their programming 

activities. The department also offers a series of professional development programs for 

local professionals; these, of course, attract our alumni and are offered on a discounted 

basis to our students. 


The department, along with the Library and Information Science Alumni Association 

(LISAA), frequently organizes programs and mentorships for all our alumni and current 

students. LISAA is the department’s official alumni organization, with an independent 

board and officers. LISAA takes an active role in creating an alumni community, and 

plans several events over the course of the year, including continuing education activities 

and social events, and makes annual awards for service to the department and 

achievement in the profession, and also provides funds for an annual graduate fellowship. 

The GSE&IS Development Office coordinates meetings and communications for LISAA. 

The current president of LISAA is Sanjeet Mann. 

The department also provides a series of continuing education workshops called “Friday 

Forum.” The department’s Digital Resources Librarian, David Cappoli, manages the 

series. Friday Forums are held approximately every other week, and draw participants 

from the professional community of southern California, particularly alumni, who often 

serve as instructors as well. Students are welcomed as well, and receive discounted 

registration. 

GOAL VI. To redesign our curriculum continuously to reflect faculty strengths and 

rapidly changing environmental demands. 

Because this goal is tied to curricular planning efforts, rather than student learning, it is 

discussed in sections 2.4 and 2.5. 

1.7.2 Objectives 

In many ways, the objectives for the MLIS program, described in section 1.4, are a more 

succinct restatement of our goals. Thus, for each objective, we refer you to the 

appropriate goal and its assessment as described in the previous section. 

After completing the MLIS program, which includes a coherent program of basic 

study (the Core Curriculum) and one or more areas of specialization, graduates will: 

A. Be able to articulate key concepts, advocate fundamental values, formulate 

policies, and demonstrate the advanced intellectual, technological, and 

managerial skills to practice, lead and innovate in the information professions. 

See Goal I above. 

B. Apply the highest ethical standards in their professional information practice, as 

articulated by relevant professional organizations (e.g., American Library 

Association, Society of American Archivists). 

See Goal II above. 


C. Appreciate the needs of diverse communities and be able to design and provide 

systems and services that are appropriate in a multicultural society. 

See Goals III and IV above. 

D. Maintain their knowledge and skills through active engagement with professional 

organizations and participation in an ongoing program of continuing education 

and professional development. 

See Goal V above. 

1.7.3 Future Mission for the Department and the MLIS 

Faculty, students, alumni, and interested extramural participants have begun initial 

planning for the future mission and identity for the IS Department and our professional 

programs. This work was initially centered on innovations within the archival 

curriculum, and has included participants from other schools of information. These 

planning efforts have been described in two recently published articles, attached in the 

appendices. Next steps for the IS Department will be to further shape these principles in 

the Professional Programs Committee, and then engage our community in a planning 

retreat, likely to be scheduled in the spring, 2011. Principles currently under 

consideration are: 

• Conceptual expansion, for example, incorporating different conceptualizations 

of the information practice by different communities, particularly those with non- 

Western epistemologies. 

• Embeddedness, for example, locating field and service learning experiences 

within communities to gain a richer understanding of community needs. 

• Collaboration, for example, partnering with community-based organizations in 

efforts to cultivate equitable, mutually beneficial, long-term teaching, learning, 

and research partnerships. 

• Leadership, activism, and ethics, for example, expanding information services 

for underserved communities. 

• Sustainability, for example, planning and developing programs that are sensitive 

to the community’s resources and relevant to its cultural protocols. 


• Reflexivity, for example, critically examining the body of knowledge comprising 

information service theory and practice, but also the role and standpoint of the 

instructor, scholar, and professional. 

We are also planning around the following objectives: 

Objective 1: Historicize and contextualize library, archival and information 

theory and practice. 

By providing students with the intellectual lineages of information service practices, 

educators can contextualize them so that students learn to locate current professional 

practice within a specific historical place and time. Educating students about the ways in 

which current information service theory and practice reflects culturally-dominant views 

demonstrates how key concepts are culturally derived and not simply givens. Locating 

current practice within dominant traditions and norms also opens up the possibility of 

accepting multiple ontologies and epistemologies. 

Objective 2: Expand existing curricula to focus on core concepts and values as 

well as processes. 

In order to reflect the plural world in which we teach, learn, and live, curricula should be 

refigured as concept- rather than process-based. Core concepts such as trust, 

accountability, authenticity, authority, access, equity, openness, and permanence can 

form the bases of curricula rather than process-oriented approaches such as appraisal, 

arrangement, and description around which current, often highly linear, curricular 

standards and hence programs are structured. 

Objective 3: Encourage multidisciplinarity. 

One way to expand current information education is to actively encourage 

multidisciplinary approaches that inform professional work and practice. Information 

Studies students should be encouraged to enroll in courses in other departments, 

including those that are outside the areas traditionally regarded as ancillary to information 

studies, for example ethnic and gender studies, anthropology and ethnomusicology, in 

order both to enhance practice with approaches from other fields and inform other 

disciplines how information professionals approach their work. Interdisciplinary courses 

could be cross-listed and co-taught by faculty members across diverse departments. 

Multidisciplinarity can be built into the mentorship and advising processes so that 

students are assigned mentors outside of the department in addition to their information 

studies advisors. Within information studies courses, faculty can employ multiple 

frameworks such as those developed in cultural studies, post-colonial studies, ethnic 

studies, gender studies, and critical race studies as lenses through which to examine 

information phenomena. 


Objective 4: Strengthen community engagement. 

Educators can invite speakers representing different perspectives and communities to 

present in class; creative use of videoconferencing can bring in remote and international 

speakers to talk about and demonstrate their activities and projects. With their 

permission, such speakers could be taped and access to their talks could be provided 

online in order to include students in other countries who have limited access to print 

publications from elsewhere. Programs might also utilize formal titles and roles from 

within the academy such as Visiting Artist or Senior Fellow to bring community elders 

and other teachers inside the academy. By recognizing that students have multiple 

identities and are, themselves members of communities, educators can formalize student 

involvement in documenting their own communities through credit-granting service 

learning units. Educators can also solicit input from community members and 

practitioners on curricula to ensure that the theoretical frameworks and skills students are 

learning accurately reflect community needs. All of these approaches nurture a 

collaborative learning environment between community and classroom so that learning is 

located in communities and also community members and their interests are brought into 

classrooms. 

Objective 5: Promote meaningful service learning. 

Service learning opportunities have the potential to enhance and expand beyond the 

typical quarter-long fieldwork working in a traditional archival setting to span the entire 

duration of the master’s degree, resulting in a more meaningful commitment and 

comprising a high portion of degree credit earned. 

Objective 6: Pluralize doctoral education. 

Some of the strategies that can be employed by doctoral programs are to incorporate 

courses in diverse research methods and critical frameworks from an array of fields and 

to think broadly about what constitutes research in information studies. Students from 

diverse backgrounds may wish to research phenomena that programs have not 

traditionally considered to be within the scope of mainstream information theory and 

practice, but that address perspectives, needs, and situations specific to minority or other 

marginalized populations. 

Objective 7: Diversify the student body. 

Neither the information professions nor the student bodies within information studies 

programs sufficiently reflect the plural composition of our societies. As educators, we 

must make targeted efforts to encourage secondary school students and undergraduates 

from diverse backgrounds to attend information studies programs. For example, by 

developing an undergraduate minor in an area related to information, we can begin to 


educate college students about information work. Joint graduate degrees with ethnic, 

gender, and disability studies will also help to draw in students who might otherwise not 

have thought about pursuing information work. We must also provide meaningful 

financial and academic support so that a diverse group of community members and 

stakeholders in information work can be empowered to become information 

professionals. 

Objective 8: Ensure that pluralism and inclusivity remain priorities in 

information education and research. 

A crucial component of continuing this discussion is to identify and build infrastructure 

to support projects that explore and promote the development of innovative information 

service. A key component of ensuring that plurality remains a priority is engaging in 

self-reflexivity as individuals and as a profession. By engaging in continual and public 

self-reflexivity, educators can make their values explicit and encourage their students to 

do the same. Self-reflexivity also holds educators accountable by creating a culture of 

disclosure in which participants are open and honest about their standpoints and value 

systems. Admitting that we, as educators, can and should do better at teaching and 

thinking about our diverse community is an important first step in pluralizing the 

curriculum. 

1.8. Response to the COA Standards 

I.1 A school's mission and program goals are pursued, and its program objectives 

achieved, through implementation of an ongoing, broad-based, systematic 

planning process that involves the constituency that a program seeks to serve. 

Consistent with the values of the parent institution and the culture and 

mission of the school, program goals and objectives foster quality education. 

For evidence, see sections 1.2 Vision for the Department of Information Studies, 1.3 

Goals for the MLIS Program, and 1.4 Objectives of the MLIS Program. 

I.2 Program objectives are stated in terms of student learning outcomes and 

reflect 

For evidence, see section 1.4, Objectives of the MLIS Program, and section 1.7, 

Assessing the Attainment of Goals and Objectives: Implementing Student Learning 

Outcomes. 

I.2.1 

the essential character of the field of library and information studies; that 

is, recordable information and knowledge, and the services and 

technologies to facilitate their management and use, encompassing 

information and knowledge creation, communication, identification, 


selection, acquisition, organization and description, storage and retrieval, 

preservation, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis, dissemination, 

and management; 

As this standard deals primarily with the nature of the curriculum, please see section 2. 

I.2.2 

I.2.3 

I.2.4 

I.2.5 

I.2.6 

I.2.7 

I.2.8 

I.2.9 

the philosophy, principles, and ethics of the field; 

appropriate principles of specialization identified in applicable policy 

statements and documents of relevant professional organizations; 

the value of teaching and service to the advancement of the field; 

the importance of research to the advancement of the field's knowledge 

base; 

the importance of contributions of library and information studies to other 

fields of knowledge; 

the importance of contributions of other fields of knowledge to library and 

information studies; 

the role of library and information services in a diverse global society, 

including the role of serving the needs of underserved groups; 

the role of library and information services in a rapidly changing 

technological society; 

I.2.10 the needs of the constituencies that a program seeks to serve. 

I.3 Within the context of these Standards each program is judged on the degree 

to which it attains its objectives. In accord with the mission of the school, 

clearly defined, publicly stated, and regularly reviewed program goals and 

objectives form the essential frame of reference for meaningful external and 

internal evaluation. The evaluation of program goals and objectives involves 

those served: students, faculty, employers, alumni, and other constituents. 

See section 1.7, Assessing the Attainment of Goals and Objectives: Implementing 

Student Learning Outcomes; section 2.4: The Work of the Professional Program 

Committee (PPC); and section 2.5: Methods of Curricular Planning and Evaluation. 



Section 2: Curriculum 

2.1: Introduction 

It is our conviction, as members of the Department of Information Studies, that we 

continue to use resources effectively and efficiently in the provision of a high-quality 

MLIS program, and specifically in the design, development, operation, and evaluation of 

a curriculum that appropriately meets the needs and expectations of students and 

employers. In the sections that follow below, we firstly (Section 2.2) provide a summary 

of the various sets of objectives, defined at various levels of scope, that we use to guide 

our strategic planning; we go on to give (Section 2.3) an overview of the basic structure 

of the MLIS curriculum as it stands today in 2011, together with an account (Section 2.4) 

of the changes in that structure that have been completed during the period under current 

review (2004–2011), and summaries of the methods (Section 2.5) used to evaluate our 

progress; we outline (Section 2.6) some of our plans for the future; and conclude (Section 

2.7) with explicit demonstrations of the ways in which our program meets and exceeds 

each of the specific standards for curricula that are defined by the ALA (American 

Library Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008, pp. 7–8). 

The intention is that, taken together, these statements about our program’s meeting 

individual standards will supply the general assurances of program quality listed above. 

Care is therefore taken at all points to provide data of the kind that may be treated as 

evidence that the MLIS program indeed meets one of the four general criteria specified. 

In other words, we present data relating to (a) objectives, (b) conditions, (c) 

accomplishments, and (d) expectations, as follows: 

(a) Objectives. We seek to demonstrate: (i) that objectives have been defined by the 

department for the MLIS program; (ii) that, whenever they are expressed in any 

supporting literature, these objectives are defined clearly; (iii) that, whenever they 

are expressed in any supporting literature, these objectives are expressed as 

student learning outcomes; and (iv) that these objectives are appropriate to 

students’ learning requirements. 

(b) Conditions. We provide a description of the kinds of global and local conditions 

under which the specific objectives defined for the MLIS program are achievable, 

and seek to provide evidence of the department’s successful maintenance of 

conditions of these kinds. Such conditions include elements of the department’s 

responses to external factors such as California’s fiscal crisis, as well as aspects of 

the general learning environment formed as a result of the department’s decisions 

to make particular kinds of use of particular kinds of resources. 

(c) Accomplishments. We seek to provide evidence of the substantial 

accomplishment of the specific objectives defined for the MLIS program. 


(d) Expectations. We seek to provide evidence of the activities in which the 

department participates in order to maintain into the future the kinds of conditions 

identified as requirements for continued program success. These activities 

include assessments and evaluations (of various kinds) of resources and the uses 

(of various kinds) made of those resources. 

2.2: Objectives of the MLIS Program 

“Program goals and objectives are fundamental to all aspects of master’s degree 

programs and form the basis on which educational programs are to be designed 

and developed and upon which they are evaluated. Program objectives are stated 

in terms of student learning outcomes to be achieved.” (American Library 

Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008, p. 5.) 

The goals and objectives that guide the design, development, and delivery of an MLIS 

program can be categorized according to the level at which they are applicable. For 

example, the objectives (and the associated student learning outcomes) of the program as 

a whole may be distinguished from the objectives of individual tracks within the 

program, which themselves may be distinguished from the objectives of the individual 

courses and other activities that collectively constitute the program. Moving in the 

opposite direction, the objectives of the MLIS program may be distinguished from the 

mission of the parent institution. At UCLA, the work of the Department of Information 

Studies is guided by a number of interlocking sets of formally-stated principles, as 

reviewed in section 1: 

• the mission statement of the Graduate School of Education & Information 

Studies (GSE&IS): see http://gseis.ucla.edu/about/gse-is/mission-values and 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/about/goals.htm 

• the values of GSE&IS: see http://gseis.ucla.edu/about/gse-is/mission-values 

• the vision statement of the Department of Information Studies (IS): see 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/about/goals.htm and 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/admissions/mlis_admissions.htm 

• the goals of the MLIS program: see http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/about/goals.htm and 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm 

The last of these, the goals of the MLIS program, may be summarized as follows: 

(a) to educate MLIS students to become leaders with strong professional ethics and 

skills as change agents, who thrive in culturally diverse environments and are 

committed to lifelong learning; and 

(b) to redesign our curriculum continuously to reflect faculty strengths and rapidly 

changing environmental demands. 


Additionally, in the program presentation compiled for the 2004 ALA Accreditation 

exercise, a set of formal objectives for the MLIS program was defined as follows: 

(a) to implement a dynamic, flexible curriculum with three areas of specialization: 

Library Studies, Archival Studies, and Informatics; 

(b) to promote leadership in our students; 

(c) to facilitate a sophisticated knowledge of multicultural issues relevant to the 

information professions and to foster a sense of commitment to diversity as a core 

value; and 

(d) to increase the visibility of the MLIS program nationally. 

Two general objectives of our MLIS program as a whole are explicitly identified in the IS 

Department’s Student handbook (available on our website and provided in appendix 2.1) 

and in associated literature: that, upon completion of the program, our graduates are (a) 

prepared for professional practice and (b) mentored for leadership. 

Finally, we have recently been working towards a set of principles for the MLIS 

program, also summarized in section 1, that focus on the delineation of student learning 

outcomes, the integration of learning outcomes with program objectives, and the 

integration of formal knowledge, values, and relevant professional experience. 

With respect to the curriculum, and in light of the goals, objectives, and principles 

established in these existing statements, our planning for the future is guided by the 

results of our systematic, ongoing, broad-based assessments of the following conditions: 

• faculty strengths (as summarized below in section 2.4.5, and in greater detail in 

section 3); 

• environmental demands (notably, the constraints forced upon us as a result of 

the state’s fiscal crisis and a recent sequence of faculty movements and 

retirements; and an uncertain employment outlook for graduates); and 

• students’, alumni’s, and employers’ perceptions of program success (as 

summarized below in section 2.5). 

In the following section, we provide an outline of the structure of the MLIS curriculum, 

focusing on the ways in which that structure creates the most supportive conditions for 

accomplishing program objectives. 

2.3: Structure of the MLIS Program 

In 1994, the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS)—the “library 

school”—merged with the Graduate School of Education (GSE) to form the Graduate 

School of Education and Information Studies (GSE&IS), as part of the cost-cutting 

Professional Schools Restructuring Initiative (PSRI) mandated by the Chancellor. Since 

then, GSE&IS has consisted of two departments: the Department of Education and the 

Department of Information Studies (IS). The Master of Library and Information Science 


(MLIS) degree program is one of four programs of study offered or co-offered by the IS 

Department. (The others are a Ph.D. program in Information Studies, which was 

approved by the University as a Ph.D. in Library Science in 1977–78; an 

interdepartmental Master of Arts (MA) program in Moving Image Archive Studies 

(MIAS), inaugurated in 2002–2003; and a Post-Masters Certificate of Specialization 

program. The synergies between these four programs are described in section 2.3.6.) 

The MLIS program offered by the department is a graduate program in “library and 

information studies,” which is defined by the ALA as “a field of professional practice and 

associated areas of study and research” concerned with “recordable information and 

knowledge and the services and technologies to facilitate their management and use” and 

encompassing “information and knowledge creation, communication, identification, 

selection, acquisition, organization and description, storage and retrieval, preservation, 

analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis, dissemination, and management.” 

(American Library Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008, p. 3.) 

To complete the MLIS program at UCLA, a student must take a minimum of 72 units 

(i.e., in most cases, 18 four-unit courses) of graduate study. Because UCLA requires that 

masters students be full-time, a student will typically complete the program in two years 

(i.e., three courses in each of six quarters), on a model that dates to GSLIS’s adoption of 

the two-year master’s degree in Library Science in 1973–74. Upon completing the 

program, the expectation is that every student will be “prepared for professional 

practice” (Student handbook: 2010–11, section 3, p. 26, available in appendix 2.1). 

They will have acquired “a blend of conceptual and theoretical knowledge and practical 

experience,” including the “solid foundation in contemporary library and information 

science theory, information seeking and retrieval skills, and information technology 

expertise” that they develop in the classroom, as well as the experience of “apply[ing] 

their theoretical insights and practical skills in a professional environment” that they get 

from any internships or field experiences undertaken 

(http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm). They will also have been 

“mentored for leadership” (http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm) 

as a result of participation in internships, mentoring programs, and professional 

organizations; one-on-one meetings with faculty advisors; experience of teamwork in 

completion of course assignments; undertaking the portfolio development course; and the 

writing of a portfolio or thesis. 

In order to meet the twin objectives of preparing students for professional practice and 

mentoring for leadership, the MLIS has been designed in such a way that it exhibits the 

following characteristics, which together form a learning environment that is most 

conducive to successful accomplishment of our educational goals: (a) a robust, coherent 

and expansive core curriculum taught by full-time faculty; (b) a wide-ranging selection 

of elective courses taught by subject experts, including working practitioners; (c) 

required service learning and optional internship and fieldwork projects giving students 

opportunities to gain first-hand experience of real-life working environments and tasks, to 

apply knowledge acquired in the classroom, and to reflect on the interaction of theory and 

practice; (d) a requirement that each student choose an area of specialization, and 

construct a path through the program that reflects that choice; and (e) a requirement that 


each student write a thesis (in which they take an original approach to the sustained study 

of a chosen topic) or construct and present a portfolio (in which they present and assess 

their career-related activities to date as well as their knowledge and leadership stance 

related to their particular issue or concern of interest). 

Although we have three areas of specialization, our philosophy is that there should not be 

a reification or siloing of these areas and that students may straddle more than one of 

these areas in creating, with advisor input, a program that is tailored to their specific 

career goals and leadership area choices. 

Each of the above bolded features of the curriculum will now be considered in turn. 

2.3.1 Core curriculum 

In the Student handbook that each student receives upon admission to the program, 

students are informed that the MLIS program is one that provides “basic and specialized 

competencies” (Student handbook, section 3, p. 26, available in appendix 2.1). Required 

courses provide “basic professional competencies for work in the field” (Student 

handbook, section 3.2, p. 26, available in appendix 2.1) and allow students to “gain a 

strong conceptual base” (http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm), 

while elective courses allow students to “[focus] on an area of specialization” (Student 

handbook, section 3.2, p. 26, available in appendix 2.1) and to engage in “in-depth study 

and exploration of topics related to individual interests” 

(http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm). 

The six core courses that have been offered in the entire period under review are as 

follows. Full course descriptions for these courses are attached in appendix 2.2. The 

primary relationship of each course’s subject matter to the content of library and 

information studies as defined by the ALA (American Library Association, Office for 

Accreditation, 2008, p. 3) is indicated; it should be noted that all topics defined by the 

ALA are covered in the core curriculum, as indicated in italics below: 

IS200: Information and Society: Provides an overview of the ways in which 

information, informing processes, and related technologies shape and are in turn 

shaped by society, and the dynamics of these interactions. The nature of 

information is explored, as well as information-related social practices, tools and 

institutions that have developed over time. Key social issues related to 

information and information infrastructure are reviewed, including debates 

regarding the transition to an information society. Covers COA curricular 

statement “information and knowledge ... creation, communication.” 

IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change in the Information Professions: A 

service-learning course that serves as a forum to discuss, learn, and understand the 

ethical challenges of a multicultural information society that shape societal, 

professional, community, and individual views, and impact professional practice, 

decision-making, and public policy. 


IS245: Information Access: Provides fundamental knowledge and skills 

enabling information professionals to link users with information. Overview of 

the structure of the literature in different fields; information seeking behavior of 

user groups; communication with users; development of search strategies using 

print and electronic sources. Covers COA curricular statement “information and 

knowledge ... identification, selection, acquisition ... analysis, interpretation, 

evaluation, synthesis, dissemination.” 

IS260: Information Structures: Introduction to various systems and tools used 

to organize materials and provide access to them, with emphasis on generic 

concepts of organization, classification, hierarchy, arrangement, and display of 

records. The aim of the course is to provide the instruction, guidance and support 

that will allow participants to develop a mastery of fundamental concepts, 

problems, principles, techniques, and issues that comprise the field of 

organization of information. Covers COA curricular statement “information and 

knowledge ... organization and description, storage and retrieval, preservation.” 

IS270: Introduction to Information Technology: Introduction to theories and 

principles of information technologies and design and development of 

information systems. Background for further studies in information retrieval and 

design and maintenance of information systems. Covers COA curricular 

statement “technologies to facilitate ... management and use [of information and 

knowledge].” 

IS410: Management Theory and Practice for Information Professionals: 

Principles and practice of management in all types of organizations where 

information professionals work. Covers COA curricular statement “information 

and knowledge ... management.” 

The core curriculum provides a coherent program of study for all MLIS students. All 

core courses are taught face-to-face by regular faculty and are required to include the 

needs and perspectives of each MLIS specialization as well as address issues relating to 

diversity and multiculturalism. 

Every core course is offered every year, occasionally more than once in any given 

academic year (IS245: Information Access, for example, has been offered in the summer 

in addition to the regular academic year on several occasions). Full-time students, with 

the exception of Archival Studies students who must take at least 4 core courses and 

additional introductory archival coursework in their first year, are normally expected to 

complete all of the core courses during their first year. 

In addition to taking all six of these core courses, students are required to take one course 

in research methodology, selected according to relevance to their specializations and 

areas of interests from among the following options (full descriptions attached in 

appendix 2.3): 


• IS208: Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics 

• IS228: Measurement and Evaluation of Information Systems and Services 

• IS280: Social Science Research Methodology for Information Studies 

• IS281: Historical Methodology for Information Studies 

• IS282: Principles of Information Systems Analysis and Design 

Students may also substitute a research methods course offered by our own department as 

an elective or doctoral course, or from another department if that is approved by their 

advisor as particularly relevant to the student’s interests, for example courses in 

conducting oral history or in ethnographic field work. 

Coverage, coherency, and flexibility in the curriculum are supported by ongoing 

curriculum review and revision conducted by the Professional Programs Committee and 

then ratified by the entire IS faculty. Major curricular revisions are discussed in annual 

and special retreat sessions that include regular faculty, lecturers, and student, 

information professional, and alumni representatives. The PPC meets approximately 

monthly throughout the school year. Members of the PPC include regular faculty, 

adjunct lecturers (many of whom are practicing information professionals), the IS Student 

Affairs Officer, the Multimedia and Information Technology Lab and Library (MIT Lab) 

Director and Head of the Internship Program, and MLIS student representatives. 

Members of the IS Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) include all regular faculty 

(including active emeriti faculty), MIT Lab staff, the University Libraries liaison, the IS 

Student Affairs Officer, and Ph.D. and MLIS student representatives. Per UCLA 

requirements for all academic departments, major curricular change must also be 

reviewed by the school-wide Faculty Executive Committee and UCLA Graduate 

Council., working in concert with UCLA’s Graduate Division Each activity is 

documented by minutes. 

Based upon decisions made at a curricular retreat in 2004 that were then drafted into 

curricular recommendations by PPC and approved by the IS FEC in 2004–2005, the 

MLIS core was revised to incorporate two new courses, IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and 

Change, and IS270: Introduction to Information Technology, and eliminate one course, 

IS220: Design of Library & Information Services where it was deemed there was too 

much overlap with other core courses. More on the curriculum review and planning 

processes are described in sections 2.4 and 2.5. 

2.3.2 Elective courses 

Among their electives (72 total units – 28 required core units = 44 elective units), 

students may choose to take up to 12 units of internship or fieldwork, and/or up to 8 units 

of independent study and/or thesis writing units, and/or up to 8 units of courses outside 

the IS Department. The elective courses that have been taught in the most recent twoyear 

period (Fall 2009 to Summer 2011) are listed below, grouped under headings that 

indicate subject relationships. The typical student is in residence for two years, and thus 

our most recent graduating students would have, in theory, been able to take any of these 

courses. Short course descriptions for most of these courses are available in UCLA’s 


General catalog 2011–12 (http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog11-12-429.htm) 

and are also provided in appendix 2.4 (the exceptions are the IS289 courses, which are 

represented in the course catalog by a generic description of IS 289: Seminar: Special 

Issues in Information Studies). A collection of IS course syllabi is available for access by 

currently-enrolled students via UCLA’s Common Collaboration & Learning Environment 

(CCLE) at http://ccle.ucla.edu. Each syllabus specifies the particular student learning 

outcomes of the individual course. 

Information structures: 

“organization and description” 

• IS279: Information Architecture [i.e., Seminar: Information Systems] (11s, 10su, 

09f) 

• IS461: Descriptive Cataloging (11su, 11w, 10su, 10w) 

• IS462: Subject Cataloging and Classification (11s, 10s) 

• IS463: Indexing and Thesaurus Construction (11su) 

• IS464: Metadata (11w, 10w) 

• IS438B: Archival Description and Access (11w) 

Information technology: 

“storage and retrieval”; “technologies to facilitate information management and use” 

• IS233: Records and Information Resources Management (10f) 

• IS274: Database Management Systems (10w) 

• IS275: Development of Cultural Information Sources Using Digital Multimedia 

(11w) 

• IS276: Information Retrieval Systems: Structures and Algorithms (09f) 

• IS289: Information Visualization (10s) 

Information access: 

“identification, selection, acquisition” 

• IS246: Information-Seeking Behavior (10w) 

• IS250: Techniques and Issues in Information Access (11s, 10s) 

• IS289: Readers’ Advisory (11s) 

• IS448: Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Technique (10su) 

• IS438B: Archival Description and Access (11w) 

Information policy 

• IS203: Seminar: Intellectual Freedom and Information Policy Issues (11w) 

• IS204: Electronic Publishing (10f, 09f) 

• IS209: Seminar: Information Policy and Issues (11w) 

• IS227: Information Services in Culturally Diverse Communities (11w) 

• IS289: Censorship, Youth, and the Politics of Reading (11s) 


• IS289: Introduction to the Economics of Information (10f) 

• IS289: Intellectual Property Law for Librarians & Archivists (10su) 

• IS289: The Cultural, Ontological, and Digital: Global Perspectives (10f, 10w) 

• IS431: American Archives and Manuscripts (11w, 10w) 

• IS455: Government Information (10s) 

Library services 

• IS234: Contemporary Children’s Literature (11s, 10w) 

• IS289: Young Adult Services (10s) 

• IS422: Academic Libraries [i.e., College, University, and Research Libraries] 

(11w) 

• IS423: Public Libraries (11s, 09f) 

• IS424: Storytelling (10s) 

• IS425: Library Services and Programs for Children (11w) 

• IS426: Library Services and Literature for Youth (10f) 

• IS430: Collection Development and Acquisition of Library Materials (10f) 

• IS455: Government Information (10s) 

Archives; records management; preservation 

• IS233: Records and Information Resources Management (10f) 

• IS240: Management of Digital Records (11s) 

• IS289: Community-Based Archiving (10f) 

• IS289: Digital Preservation (10f) 

• IS289: Data, Data Practices, Data Curation: Part I (11w, 10w) 

• IS289: Data, Data Practices, Data Curation: Part II (11s) 

• IS289: Collection Management for Special Collection (10s) 


• IS432: Issues and Problems in Preservation of Heritage Materials (11s, 10s) 

• IS438A: Seminar: Advanced Issues in Archival Science: Archival Appraisal (10s) 

• IS438B: Seminar: Advanced Issues in Archival Science: Archival Description and 

Access Systems (11w) 

Special collections; digital humanities 

• IS237: Analytical Bibliography (10w) 

• IS239: Letterpress Laboratory (11s, 11w, 10f, 10s, 10w) 

• IS289: The Modern Art of the Book: Artists’ Books (11w, 10s) 

• IS289: History of the Book & Literacy Technologies (10f, 09f) 

• IS289: Digital Scholarship Design Workshop (11w) 

• IS289: Digital Collections Development (10w) 

• IS289: Collection Management for Archives, Libraries, & Museums (11s) 

• IS289: Museum Informatics (09f) 

• IS289: Visual Resources (10f) 



Professional development 

• IS289: Grant Writing (10su) 

• IS400: Professional Development and Portfolio Design (11w, 10w) 

In addition to these elective courses designed specifically for the MLIS program, MLIS 

students have opportunities to enroll in IS Ph.D. courses, Moving Image Archive Studies 

(MIAS) courses, and several courses offered by the interdepartmental programs in 

Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials (e.g., M238: Environmental 

Protection of Collections) and in Biomedical Engineering (e.g., M253: Medical 

Knowledge Representation) that are cross-listed in the IS course catalog. 

2.3.3 Internships and fieldwork 

The internship and fieldwork programs in UCLA’s IS Department is routinely described 

by participants as one of the major strengths of the MLIS program. As stated in the 

Student Handbook (section 1.10.3, pp. 19–20, available in appendix 2.1), the purpose of 

an internship or fieldwork experience is “to acquire specialized competency through 

supervised work at the professional level in a site approved by the Department, and to test 

basic professional competencies as well as the capacity to meet professional-level 

performance requirements.” Site supervisors of internships are information professionals 

with MLIS or the appropriate terminal degrees in the case of non-library settings; interns 

meet regularly in class with the IS Internship Coordinator, who is the instructor of record 

for the course. Fieldwork is appropriate where the site supervisor does not have an MLIS 

or equivalent degree, when the location of the site is too far from UCLA to allow the 

student to attend the classroom component, or when the student will participate in 

executive opportunities, special technical projects, or other experiences that are outside 

the parameters of an internship experience; the instructor of record for a fieldwork course 

is a relevant full-time IS faculty member. Fieldwork projects are supervised directly by a 

faculty member with specialized knowledge relevant to the nature of the fieldwork. 

MLIS students may enroll in IS498: Internship or IS497: Fieldwork after completing 36 

units in the program, including a minimum of four core courses (plus IS431: American 

Archives and Manuscripts if enrolling in an archival internship or IS432: Issues and 

Problems in Preservation of Heritage Materials if enrolling in a preservation internship). 

For each four units of credit, 120 hours of work are required at the internship or 

fieldwork site. A maximum of three quarters (12 units) of internship and fieldwork may 

count towards the MLIS degree. 

Most MLIS students avail themselves of internship opportunities. The department has on 

staff an Internship Coordinator who assists and advises students on internships. The 

internship program is a popular element with students and fulfills our goals to provide a 

high quality professional education and have our students engage with the community. 

Like southern California, the internship program is very large and diverse, and our 

students are in great demand, allowing students to find meaningful experiences tailored to 


their interests and keep the quality of internships high. A list of recent internship sites is 

provided in appendix 2.11. 

2.3.4 Areas of specialization 

The wide range of topics covered in the elective courses that are offered each year in the 

MLIS program means that students are able to pursue whatever individual interests they 

might have in almost any type of information institution or information-related activity 

(http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/mlis/index.htm). Specifically, every student is 

encouraged to choose an area of functional specialization, or “track.” Descriptions of the 

scope of three areas of specialization—Library Studies, Archival Studies, and 

Informatics—have been included in the Student handbook since 2001 (see the Student 

handbook: 2010–2011, section 3.5.1, pp. 28–32, available in appendix 2.1), and are 

officially recognized by UCLA’s Graduate Division. These are to be joined in 2011– 

2012 by a fourth specialization—Special Collections—developed in recognition of 

faculty strengths, student interests, and employers’ demands in that area (see section 2.4.5 

for more on the Special Collections specialization). Specializations provide flexible 

frameworks for students to tailor their curriculum for their own career goals. 

Articulations of each area of MLIS specialization, including statement of scope, relevant 

internships and professional associations, and potential types of professional positions 

were developed by PPC (on the basis of drafts developed by ad hoc subcommittees 

comprising selected faculty, alumni, community members, and students, reviewed by 

retreat participants, and then revised and ratified by the FEC) between 2005 and 2007. 

In 2005, PPC developed advising guidelines that are available on the IS website 

(appendix 2.12) and identify coherent programs of study, including relevant courses and 

internships for the three areas of MLIS specialization and for areas of sub-specialization 

commonly pursued by students that fall within or that cross-specializations (for example, 

Digital Libraries). PPC monitors the specializations and advising guidelines on an 

ongoing basis, recommending revisions as necessary. PPC has also spent time in the last 

two years further developing additional advising guidelines. All students are assigned a 

faculty member to serve as his or her academic advisor, and both utilize the advising 

guidelines to determine coherent program of study appropriate to the student’s 

professional goals. 

Each student is also encouraged to develop a distinctive area of expertise (a.k.a. a focus 

area) within or across the designated specialization areas. For example, a student 

interested both in archives and information systems might prepare a focus area that 

included these two topics. Examples of carefully defined focus areas include 

“Informatics, with an emphasis on human–computer interaction and graphical userinterface 

design” and “Reference in an academic environment and service to culturally 

and ethnically diverse students.” 


2.3.5 Thesis and portfolio 

As well as completing course work, students must submit either a thesis or a portfolio. 

Thesis. Some important university-wide regulations and policies relating to the thesis 

option are recorded in UCLA Graduate Division’s Standards & procedures for graduate 

study at UCLA (March 2011). For example, it is stated there that every master’s degree 

program that includes a thesis plan (as the MLIS program does) requires the completion 

of an approved thesis that “demonstrates the student’s ability to perform original, 

independent research” (UCLA Graduate Division’s Standards & procedures for graduate 

study at UCLA, March 2011, p. 8). The student selecting the thesis option must therefore 

take an original approach to the sustained study of their chosen topic. The length of the 

thesis will depend upon the topic selected and the approach used to examine it, but most 

theses tend to be in the range of 60–90 double-spaced pages. Students are encouraged to 

develop their thesis proposal by the end of spring quarter of their first year, and the 

proposal should be approved by the thesis committee (made up of at least three faculty 

members including at least two from the IS Department) no later than the end of Fall 

quarter of their second year. In most cases, the student preparing a thesis will enroll in 8– 

12 units of directed study (IS596: Directed Individual Study or Research, or IS598: MLIS 

Thesis Research and Writing) in their second year (Student handbook: 2010–2011, 

section 3.7, p. 33–34, available in appendix 2.1). The titles of recent MLIS theses are 

partially listed in appendix 4.1, and they give an indication of the wide range of topics 

covered and approaches taken. In response to student concerns expressed at recent town 

hall meetings, we have developed a set of thesis guidelines to be disseminated in fall 

2011 (further described in sections 2.4.4 and 2.5.3). 

The thesis guidelines are provided in appendix 2.5. 

Portfolio. The process of preparing and presenting a portfolio is intended to be a 

culminating experience for the student completing the MLIS program, comparable to a 

thesis or to the comprehensive examination that was the previous alternative to writing a 

thesis. The written component of the portfolio includes a statement of a major issue in 

the field and examples of the student’s best work in designated areas. Copies of the 

portfolio are distributed in advance to a panel of two faculty members and one 

practitioner who evaluate the written work and the oral presentation given by the student. 

The goals of the portfolio evaluation are (a) “to determine whether the student has been 

able to identify a significant issue in the field and has shown the ability to articulate that 

issue and advocate for change, innovation, or a creative extension of a given service”; (b) 

“for the student to demonstrate leadership by suggesting ways that s/he would attempt to 

implement innovations or improvements to existing practices or services”; and (c) “to 

challenge students to reflect on their career goals and to present a selection of their best 

work in a polished, professional format” (Student handbook: 2010–2011, section 3.8.1.1, 

p. 34, available in appendix 2.1). Copies of portfolios by students whose presentations 

are especially meritorious (and thus designated as “Showcase”) are collected by the MIT 

Lab and are available for consultation by all students. 


Most students choose the portfolio option as their culminating activity, although the 

choice of thesis or portfolio often related to which is the more relevant to the career goals 

and specialization of the student. 

The portfolio is intended to demonstrate the growth and reflection of the student during 

the MLIS program as well as their leadership potential and presentation capabilities and 

thus students are urged to anticipate this project from as early as possible in the program. 

The student is advised to discuss potential issues with his or her advisor, with other 

faculty, and with an ever-widening circle of other professionals in the student's network. 

In particular, to promote such discussions, the student is required to provide his or her 

advisor and the Student Affairs Officer with a 50-word draft of an issue at the end of the 

student's first year in the program. In this process, the advisor should be an important 

source of information and mentoring. The student should show the portfolio in advance 

to the advisor, in order to get any needed feedback. 

The Department also offers a professional development course (IS400) designed to help 

students articulate their significant issues. It is not a required course, but it is offered 

each year for those students who wish to take it. IS400 provides students with the 

opportunity to workshop their written portfolio and rehearse their presentation. 

The portfolio contains the following elements: 

1. A 50-word summary of the issue and a 10-page issue paper. This short statement 

should precede the 10-page paper explaining a significant issue to a professional 

audience. The paper might include: a statement of the issue and its importance, major 

changes in the world that make it important now, the effect it may have on the work and 

reasoning of professionals in the future, new opportunities for service this issue brings to 

the field, which specific professionals are already doing relevant work and what 

knowledge they have gained as a result, and an agenda for future conferences and/or 

other professional activities. 

2. A statement outlining the student’s career goals and future activities in the 

profession, including the kind of continuing education that might enhance the student’s 

knowledge in the career path that he or she has chosen. This statement should be at least 

1,000 to 1,200 words and should demonstrate the student’s ability to integrate learning 

from the classroom and the field as well as demonstrating knowledge of, and involvement 

in, one or two key professional associations in the area of concentration. 

3. Examples of work: 

• One or more examples of work from a core course 

• One or more examples of work from an elective course in the area of 

specialization (not the major paper or thesis) 

• The major paper. The major paper requirement is met by completing a major 

paper in an elective course. The course must be taught by a member of the 

GSE&IS ladder faculty, and must count for at least 40% of the course grade. A 

letter grade of B or better must be earned in this course. Normally the paper will 


e in the student’s area of specialization. Students may NOT use the same course 

to satisfy both the major paper and the research methods requirement. See the 

Major Paper FAQ (included in appendix 2.6) for more information. 

4. A list of courses taken or in progress (both number and name). 

5. A record of the student's advising history. This should not be limited to one or two 

sentences merely stating that name(s) of the advisor(s) and the number of meetings 

during the program. 

6. A professional curriculum vitae. 

7. Any other supporting documentation that the student wishes to present. Because 

panelists will be reading numerous portfolios, students are encouraged to add additional 

materials sparingly. Students should consult with their advisor if they wish to submit 

additional materials and should only select items that represent their best work. 

Two regular faculty members and one outside member with professional expertise, often 

an alumnus or alumna of the program or an external working professional, evaluate the 

portfolio. The members of the review panels evaluate the portfolio and presentation 

based on the following criteria: 

• how well students have been able to articulate and advocate for the issues they 

have chosen 

• how knowledgeable they are in the area they have designated as their 

concentration 

• how well they have been able to demonstrate a synthesis of learning from 

coursework, work experience, and/or internship(s) 

• how well they are able to respond to questions regarding sensitive topics such as 

ethical issues and service to diverse populations. 

The department has refined the assessment process over the time in which the portfolio 

process has been in place, based upon outcomes and panel and student feedback. 

Currently, the panel assigns one of two grades: Pass or Fail. Panel members prepare a 

written evaluation on the performance of each student. For those who do not pass, the 

panel is instructed to clearly specify what aspects of the written work and/or oral 

presentation need to be corrected. All students will receive a copy of the completed 

evaluation form on the day of the presentation. In the case of students who did not pass, 

a copy of the form is also given to the student’s advisor and to the Chair of PPC. 


2.3.6 Relationships of the MLIS program to other IS degree programs 

The Ph.D. program in Information Studies (see the Student handbook: 2010–2011, 

section 6, p. 41–47, available in appendix 2.1, and 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/degrees/phd/index.htm), which was approved by the 

University as a Ph.D. in Library Science in 1977–78, has always been a source of 

enrichment for the MLIS program. Each year a number of the most promising master’s 

students enroll in doctoral seminars, and a few have been recruited directly into the 

doctoral program during their second year of study. In addition, a few students entering 

the Ph.D. program with degrees from other fields decide to complete the requirements for 

the MLIS while working toward their doctoral degree. 

The IS Department also offers a Post-Masters [formerly a post-MLS/MLIS Certificate. 

The change acknowledges the different graduate professional paths that archivists, media 

specialists, information technology professionals and others might have taken that would 

lead them to build further upon their existing graduate education] Certificate of 

Specialization program (see the Student handbook: 2010–2011, Section 5, p. 40, 

available in appendix 2.1), which meets students’ needs for the development of 

specialized professional and research skills in library and information studies and is 

highly customizable. A minimum of nine courses in IS or in other UCLA departments 

must be completed, along with a paper appropriate for publication in a professional or 

scholarly journal. Applicants must provide a well-articulated academic plan and find a 

faculty sponsor with whom they work closely to design a program that meets their 

learning needs and helps them update their skills and knowledge. 

An interdepartmental Master of Arts (MA) program in Moving Image Archive Studies 

(MIAS), administered jointly by the IS Department, the Department of Film, Television, 

and Digital Media, and the Film and Television Archive, was inaugurated in 2002–2003. 

It is a two-year disciplinary program, a synthesis of media studies and information studies 

that is grounded in the historical, critical, and theoretical, while offering practical on-site 

training and apprenticeships (see the Student handbook: 2010–2011, section 4, p. 39, 

available in appendix 2.1, and http://www.mias.ucla.edu/ for details). Students in the 

MIAS program enroll alongside MLIS students in IS260: Information Structures and 

IS431: American Archives and Manuscripts, while MLIS students may enroll in MIAS 

courses such as MIAS210: Moving Image Preservation and Restoration and MIAS230: 

Moving Image Cataloging. 

The IS Department regularly offers the following undergraduate courses (see the Student 

handbook: 2010–2011, section 2, p. 23–25, available in appendix 2.1, and 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/academics/undergrad/index.htm for details): 

• IS10: Fundamentals of Information Searching and Evaluation 

• IS19: Fiat Lux Seminars (topics have included “Asians in Latin America: 

Constructing and Representing Community and Identity,” “Voices of Color in 


Children’s Literature,” “Copycats: Celebrity Plagiarism and the Psychology of 

Fraud,” “Just Google It,” and “The Facebook and Beyond”) 

• IS20: Introduction to Information Studies 

• IS30: Information Technology in Society 

• IS180: Special Topics in Information Studies (topics have included “The 

Alternative and Activist Internet,” “The Social and Historical Study of 

Information, Software, and Networks,” and “Information Ecology and Ecological 

Informatics”) 

Both IS20 and IS30 satisfy the General Education (GE) requirement for the “Society and 

Culture” cluster in UCLA’s College of Letters and Science. Plans that were developed in 

the early 2000s for the establishment of an undergraduate major were eventually shelved 

in the face of the university’s budget cuts, but we are committed to continuing to offer the 

undergraduate courses listed above, so that UCLA’s undergraduate students have the 

opportunity to learn basic information literacy skills and to study a broad range of 

intellectual issues related to information in society. A few of the undergraduates who 

enroll in one or more of these courses later apply for admission to the MLIS program. 

2.3.7 Cooperative degree programs 

Historically, students have been able to develop areas of special expertise through 

enrolling in cooperative degree programs administered jointly by the IS Department and 

other schools and departments of the University. Such arrangements have allowed 

students to obtain two degrees in a shorter period of time than would be possible 

otherwise. Students wishing to participate in a cooperative degree program must be 

accepted into both host programs and complete course work that satisfies the combined 

set of requirements. There are currently two cooperative degree programs on offer: 

• MLIS / MA Latin American Studies: An articulated degree program between the 

IS Department and Latin American Studies. 

• MLIS / MBA: A concurrent degree program of the IS Department and the 

Anderson Graduate School of Management. 

These programs have not been a programmatic priority in the last few years. At this 

point, no students are enrolled in either program. We are planning on assessing our 

participation in these partnerships in light of recent university rules changes regarding 

joint programs. The articulated program with Latin American Studies was created with 

the leadership of two professors that recently retired from UCLA and has lost a little 

momentum. The MBA program is an older program without much support. 

Full details of course requirements are provided in the Student handbook: 2010–2011, 

section 3.1, p. 26, attached in appendix 2.1. 


2.4: The Work of the Professional Program Committee (PPC) 

The Professional Program Committee (PPC) is the IS Department’s committee that is 

responsible for overseeing the policies and procedures related to the MLIS program, and 

related programmatic and student concerns. Its members review the MLIS curriculum 

and course offerings, and make recommendations for change as appropriate (Student 

handbook: 2010–11, section 1.2.2.4, p. 2, available in appendix 2.1). Major 

recommendations are typically presented for an all-IS faculty vote at meetings of the IS 

Department’s Faculty Executive Committee. All new course proposals must be approved 

by vote of the IS Faculty Executive Committee as well as the GSEIS Faculty Executive 

Committee before being forwarded for campus approval. 

The members of the PPC include representatives of full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, 

other outside professionals, staff, students currently in the MLIS program and serving as 

members of the IS Department’s Student Governing Board (SGB), doctoral students who 

have served as special readers for MLIS core courses, and alumni. Meetings of the PPC 

are held regularly, at a minimum once per quarter, with executive sessions of PPC ladder 

faculty meeting separately to consider specific student cases and petitions. PPC meetings 

are supplemented by annual retreats, to which all IS faculty and staff are invited along 

with student representatives, and at which curricular development is usually one of the 

main topics for discussion. 

In recent years, the major achievements of PPC have included the following: (a) a review 

of the core curriculum (i.e., the six required core courses); (b) a review of elective 

courses; (c) a review of portfolio requirements; (d) a review of documentation for the 

thesis option; and (e) a review of areas of curricular strength and emphasis. Each of 

these will now be considered in turn. 

2.4.1 Review of core curriculum 

From Fall 2004 onwards, following a revision of the curriculum that was implemented in 

that year, each student has been required to complete six core courses, and one course in 

research methodology, for a total of 28 required units. All students who were enrolled in 

the program between 1991–92 and 2003–2004 had been required to take five core 

courses: IS200: Information in Society; IS245: Information Access; IS260: Information 

Structures; IS410: Management Theory and Practice for Information Professionals; and 

IS220: Design of Library and Information Services. In 2004 (i.e., just at the beginning of 

the period under current review), the decision was taken (i) to drop the last of these 

(IS220) from the core because it was duplicating aspects covered elsewhere in the core 

and some electives, and to replace it with a wholly new course, IS201: Ethics, Diversity, 

and Change in Information Professions; and (ii) to add to the core a course that had 

formerly been offered as an elective, IS270: Introduction to Information Technology. 

For two academic years, in the period 2007–2009, a comprehensive review of the core 

curriculum was the main priority of PPC. A series of all-day retreats was organized for 

all faculty (full-time and adjuncts) to discuss a number of topics and issues that included: 


(a) procedures for ensuring that clear statements of student learning outcomes are defined 

for core courses, and that these meet ALA standards; (b) procedures for ensuring that 

essential topics are covered in the core curriculum; (c) procedures for ensuring that any 

overlap in the coverage of core courses is kept to a minimum; (d) procedures for 

gathering data on stakeholders’ perceptions of the value of core courses; and (e) 

proposals to streamline the core curriculum by merging and/or dropping particular 

courses from the core. Faculty and students commented positively on the value of this 

kind of core course review. There was general agreement that the present core 

curriculum adequately covered the breadth of the field; and, although it was 

acknowledged that UCLA’s MLIS program has one of the most extensive set of core 

requirements among the library and information science programs surveyed by PPC, 

ultimately there was no formal recommendation to reduce the number of core courses or 

to significantly change the content of these courses that form the basic and coherent 

program of study for our students. 

2.4.2 Review of elective courses 

In 2009–2010, detailed review of elective courses was delegated by PPC to 

subcommittees consisting of faculty and adjuncts with expertise in nine designated areas: 

information access; informatics; cataloging/metadata; management; archives; information 

policy; children & youth; preservation/museum; and special collections. Reviews of 

elective courses in the first three of these areas were completed in Spring 2010, and the 

recommendations of the respective subcommittees were presented and discussed at a 

curriculum retreat held in that quarter. The remaining three are currently under draft and 

will be completed this academic year. One major outcome of this process was the 

decision to streamline the curriculum by dropping from the catalog a number of elective 

courses that had not recently been offered (including several bibliography courses that 

had been cross-listed with other UCLA departments). Other outcomes included revising 

advising guidelines formulated after the last COA visit (including statements of desired 

learning outcomes) in the designated areas, to help faculty advisors guide students in 

planning a coherent path through the program given their area of specialization and their 

proposed focus area. PPC’s recommendation was that the area-specific subcommittees 

become standing subcommittees, with a mandate to assist with the development and 

maintenance of advising guidelines. 

2.4.3 Review of portfolio requirements 

Data on students’ views of their experiences in the program (see, e.g., section 2.5.2) show 

that the portfolio requirement is a perennial source of high levels of stress for them, and 

specifically that elements of the assessment process are perceived to lack clarity or 

fairness. The view of PPC is that the bulk of these concerns are addressable by making 

procedural improvements, rather than by fundamentally changing the portfolio model 

itself, which is perceived by faculty to be an effective means of accomplishing the 

objectives outlined for it in the Student handbook (available in appendix 2.1 and repeated 

above, in section 2.3.5). In response to the concerns voiced by students during the period 

under review, PPC has made a number of changes to the details of the procedures that are 


to be followed by students in the process of portfolio creation and followed by faculty in 

the process of portfolio evaluation. In 2009–2010, PPC drafted revised guidelines that 

were intended to clarify evaluators’ expectations for the written and oral components of 

the portfolio, and appropriate edits were undertaken of all relevant literature (the Student 

handbook, the IS website, etc.) to reflect these revisions. It remains a priority of PPC to 

conduct continuous review on the efficiency and effectiveness with which procedures 

related to the portfolio are handled by students and faculty. 

2.4.4 Review of thesis documentation 

Data from town-hall meetings and student surveys (see, e.g., Section 2.5.3) indicate that 

some students have been dissatisfied with the extent and quality of documentation about 

the thesis option (see above, Section 2.3.5). This documentation was updated in Summer 

2011 to include a timeline and further details of requirements and best practices,. The 

new edition of the Student handbook and the website are being revised accordingly. 

2.4.5 Review of areas of strength and emphasis 

In 2010–11, the core component of the IS Department’s strategic planning for curricular 

development was the identification of three “traditional areas of strength” and three 

“emerging areas of emphasis,” specified below. This was the result of discussion, 

initiated by PPC and continued at all-faculty meetings, in which we examined areas of 

faculty expertise, topics of elective course offerings, and students’ focus areas, with a 

view to specifying some of the subfields of library and information studies in which our 

faculty and students have most clearly excelled in the past and promise to excel in the 

future. It is not our intention that this short list should be treated as an exhaustive 

summary of the strengths of our community’s members, but rather as an indication of the 

kinds of areas in which the department is recognized as a global leader. Our motivation 

is that it will also be recognized as the backbone of an MLIS curriculum that continues 

both to serve the increasingly sophisticated needs of students and employers, and to take 

advantage of the unique combination of interests and skills of our faculty. 

Traditional areas of strength 

• Information practices and policies. Information seeking and use; information 

behavior of children and youth; information behavior within communities; 

information needs of multicultural communities; social informatics. 

• Resource description and access. Knowledge organization: library cataloging 

and classification; archival arrangement and description, recordkeeping metadata. 

User-centered design for resource discovery, information retrieval, information 

access systems and services; information architecture. 

• Archival studies. Archival management; archival informatics; archival appraisal; 

archival description, media archives, community-based archiving. 


Emerging areas of emphasis 

• Cultural curation. Special collections management; preservation and 

conservation of cultural resources; community-based archives; cultural 

informatics; museum informatics; visual resources; digital culture. 

• eScience. Data curation; data archives; eScholarship. 

• Ethics, diversity, and professional identity. Leadership; in-service learning. 

Information ethics; professional ethics; institutional ethics. 

Evidence of the emergence of these latter areas of emphasis includes the following: 

• the introduction of the fourth area of specialization—Special Collections— 

planned for academic year 2011–12; 

• the design and development of a two-course series of electives on Data, Data 

Practices, and Data Curation (IS289), first offered in 2011 following the success 

of a single-course version in 2010; and 

• continuing review and development of the unique core course on Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change in Information Professions (IS201), still the only course of 

its kind to be offered as part of the core curriculum in an ALA-accredited LIS 

program. 

Cultural Curation and Special Collections. The IS Department is currently planning for 

a fourth specialization in special collections. Interest in special collections materials has 

intensified as many academic and cultural institutions seek to distinguish their libraries 

through these unique holdings. Special collections materials include rare books, 

manuscripts, maps, print artifacts, and artists’ books, among other materials. A renewed 

interest in study in the history of the book, print, manuscripts, and rare materials has been 

accompanied by a return of courses in book history, paleography, and print culture—as 

well as specialized courses in material history of texts. Scholars in many fields of 

humanities and the arts find training in this area an advantage for original research. 

Increased access to rare materials in digital formats has also whet the appetite of scholars 

for first-hand exposure to and knowledge of primary materials and their historical 

dimensions. 

UCLA has a unique set of resources to bring to this specialization, beginning with rich 

special collections materials across the Library system, including the Clark Library, the 

Arts Library, Biomedical Library, among others. In addition, UCLA is the home of the 

California Rare Book School which offers training to professionals, scholars, and 

students in intensive courses that promote hands-on, direct experience with rare 

materials. 

Special Collections Specialization. Special collections play a unique role in our cultural 

legacy. Stewardship of this particular legacy is an essential part of preserving the past 

and present for future generations. Rare works distinguish institutions and give them a 


unique profile, but also offer the opportunity for creative programming and research 

agendas. 

In addition to providing a foundation in history of literacy technologies from early 

writing and manuscript culture through print and digital format, the specialization 

addresses some of the challenges for thinking about digital scholarship and special 

collections. The specialization has a strong historical dimension, but also draws on 

courses in bibliography, archives, management, librarianship, and cataloguing. It engages 

in active discussion of the ways legacy collections meet diversity initiatives in expanding 

horizons for scholarship and research. 

The proposed special collections specialization will comprise a range of courses, handson 

experience, internships, and research opportunities. Courses will explore historical 

and professional aspects of special collections activities, including ongoing scholarship 

about the basic nature of literacy, the politics of publishing and distribution, censorship, 

history of production technology, the institutions of print culture, and history of libraries 

and intellectual property. We propose that all MLIS students in the special collections 

specialization will be required to take IS289: History of the Book and Literacy 

Technologies. Advanced seminars, internships, and special projects prepare students to 

play leadership roles in special collections management, cataloging, education and 

training, description and access, programming and outreach, curatorship, and 

preservation. Students will be encouraged to take a seminar in special collections, with 

topics vary from year to year, and to take advantage of California Rare Book School 

offerings (one week intensive courses for which credit can be arranged). In addition, 

electives in bibliography, management, preservation, archives, and digital humanities are 

useful for constituting a program of study in conference with an advisor. 

We will also propose that students may select additional electives from Information 

Studies and/or from the following areas: English, History, Classics, Medieval Studies, 

Renaissance Studies, Art History, and any other relevant field of languages, literatures, 

history, and the arts. In addition, students are encouraged to explore the relation between 

digital scholarship and publishing and special collections with the goal of incorporating 

online access and exhibits into the life of Libraries, Museums, and cultural institutions. 

Internships and research experiences will also be proposed. Examples of student projects 

within the Special Collections specialization might include: 

-‐ 

-‐ 

-‐ 

-‐ 

-‐ 

-‐ 

Development of a finding aid for a special collection 

Inventory of an invisible collection 

Cataloguing of rare materials 

Exhibits, both online and traditional 

Programming and outreach for diverse audiences 

Preservation projects 

Graduates will find employment in private and public institutions engaged in the 

preservation of cultural legacy materials in print artifacts, books, written manuscripts, and 


digital objects. They are likely to work closely with scholars and researchers, school 

groups and educators, as well as curators and collectors and to provide the vision for 21st 

century use of these rare materials in as yet unforeseen ways. 

In addition to promoting the highest professional standards in special collections 

activities, students will be challenged to provide leadership within their own field and to 

advocate for special collections concerns to a wider community. They will be challenged 

to consider creative ways to reach new and diverse communities and to make use of 

special collections materials in innovative ways. 

The department offers an outstanding environment for preparing students for practice and 

research in rare books, special collections, and related fields. Preparation includes courses 

in history of the book, hands-on work in special collections, knowledge of rare book 

cataloguing, basic bibliographical skills, library administration and management, and 

special collections librarianship. 

Students have expressed some concern that the department might not be able to support 

the creation of a new specialization with our current limited resources. A full analysis of 

demands on resources will be conducted as part of the evaluation of this proposal for a 

new specialization. However, almost all of the courses required for the specialization are 

currently being taught, and are in the process of being assigned regular course numbers. 

The expertise for the specialization is in place with the recruitment of Prof. Johanna 

Drucker, who was hired in part with a substantial bequeathal to support activities related 

to special collections and bibliography. We are further assisted in this regard by the 

recent addition of Prof. Susan Allen as an adjunct professor (see section 3.1.3). 

eScience. Planning efforts around eScience are still quite nascent, but include a sequence 

of courses currently taught by Prof. Borgman. 

2.5: Methods of Curricular Planning and Evaluation 

Systematic planning is defined by the ALA as “an ongoing, active, broad-based approach 

to (a) continuous review and revision of a program’s vision, mission, goals, objectives, 

and learning outcomes; (b) assessment of attainment of goals, objectives, and learning 

outcomes; (c) realignment and redesign of core activities in response to the results of 

assessment; and (d) communication of planning policies, programs, and processes, 

assessment activities, and results of assessment to program constituents.” (American 

Library Association, Office for Accreditation, 2008, p. 4.) The MLIS curriculum at 

UCLA is continuously subject to a program of rigorous, systematic evaluation with the 

following primary components: 

(a) continuous review of the MLIS program by the IS Department’s Professional 

Program Committee (PPC) and IS and GSEIS Faculty Executive Committees; 

(b) assessment of attainment of goals, objectives, and learning outcomes through a 

variety of instruments, including course assignments, focus-group meetings with 

employers, town-hall meetings with current students, surveys of current students, 


current students’ evaluations of individual courses, and external professional 

participants on portfolio review panels; 

(c) realignment and redesign of elements of the curriculum in the light of the results 

of PPC review and learning-outcome evaluation; and 

(d) communication of programmatic changes to students, instructors, alumni, and 

employers through mailing-list announcements, the departmental website, and 

online and printed resources such as the Student handbook (available in appendix 

2.1). 

The work of PPC in the period under review has already been summarized in section 2.3. 

In the following subsections, the features and recent results of the application of each of 

three other components of the curricular assessment program (focus-group meetings, 

town-hall meetings, and student surveys) will be reviewed; and in a concluding 

subsection, the program of evaluation itself will be assessed. 

2.5.1 Focus-group meetings 

Feedback on curricular matters is sought on a continuous basis from a number of 

different combinations of groups of stakeholders—including current students, alumni, 

and employers—in a number of different ways. We have found focus-group meetings to 

be an especially useful method of gathering data about the prevalent opinions of 

employers of our graduates. A series of four focus-group meetings, with employers and 

internship supervisors who had worked with recent MLIS graduates, were conducted by 

professor emerita Virginia Walter, a former chair of the IS Department, in May 2011. 

Three groups consisted of six employers in a particular sector (academic libraries, public 

libraries, and archives); the fourth group consisted of eight internship supervisors. Given 

the stated objectives of the MLIS program to prepare students for professional practice 

and mentor them for leadership (see section 2.2), the goal of the focus-group exercise was 

to get a better understanding of how well-prepared our students are, to perform and to 

lead at a professional level, by the time they complete the MLIS program. Full details of 

the findings are provided in appendix 2.8. Findings that surfaced from all four focusgroups 

(and that are correspondingly considered the more reliable) include the following: 

• UCLA MLIS graduates are highly motivated. Many focus-group participants 

talked about how eager our graduates are to “get their hands dirty” and put their 

classroom learning into practice. One public library employer commented: “... 

[W]e can always tell when they are UCLA grads without looking at where they 

studied. They carry themselves in a much more professional manner. They are 

much more flexible and willing to work with what you have to offer.” 

• UCLA MLIS graduates are generally well-prepared for beginning professional 

work. Several focus-group participants talked about the high quality of their new 

hires’ academic preparation. One academic-library employer commented: “We 

have hired six UCLA grads since I became the head librarian six years ago ... 

They’ve all been able to hit the ground running with almost no learning curve. 

No additional training has been needed, and they’ve been just great.” Particular 


elements of the curriculum that were singled out by some participants as strengths 

of the program include: the extensive opportunities offered for students to benefit 

from relevant internships; training in cataloging; and training in the use of 

technology (although, in contrast, other participants perceived that their hires 

from UCLA lack cutting-edge technology skills). 

• UCLA MLIS graduates have strong leadership skills. Several focus-group 

participants talked appreciatively of the emphasis that our program puts on the 

development of leadership skills, and of the initiative and problem-solving 

abilities exhibited by our graduates that allow them to position themselves quickly 

as candidates for supervisory and management posts. One public library 

employer commented: “One edge is the students’ ability to pull something 

together on their own, rather than being handed a set of instructions, especially 

when it is a broad, ambiguous job with minimal tools to work with.” 

• UCLA MLIS graduates compare very favorably with graduates of other LIS 

programs. Many focus-group participants expressed a conviction that, in general, 

our graduates are better prepared for professional work than their counterparts 

from library and information science programs at (e.g.) San José State University 

and the University of Washington. One public library employer commented: 

“They [UCLA graduates] are more sure of themselves than graduates of other 

schools. They’re taught to speak about their future and ambitions right away, and 

they project those ambitions into their work and goals.” Some of the conditions 

mentioned by participants as factors in the continued maintenance of high 

standards at UCLA include: the higher admissions standards at UCLA, which (it 

was suggested) serve to attract students of greater potential; and the high quality 

of the face-to-face classroom experience at UCLA, which (it was suggested) tends 

to outrank students’ experience of online classes at other programs. 

• The internship program is a significant factor in preparing UCLA MLIS 

graduates for professional work. Most focus-group participants expressed a 

positive opinion about our internship program, which was frequently 

characterized as an important, even essential, component of the UCLA 

experience. An academic-library employer commented: “If they haven’t had an 

internship ... we won’t look at them as applicants.” Several participants suggested 

that the opportunity to enroll in internships be extended to first-year students, so 

that they can begin to apply their knowledge, and gain practical experience of 

dealing with real-world issues—especially those (e.g., diversity issues; face-toface 

reference transactions) that are more difficult to teach in classroom 

settings—even earlier in their period of training. We interpret this finding as an 

indication that we are right to continue to strive to offer the best LIS internship 

program in the country. 

We were especially pleased to note that the focus-group data indicate that employers feel 

that their hires from UCLA have adequate training in cataloging, since cataloging was an 

area that in the past had been highlighted, in the feedback we gathered for our previous 


(2004) ALA accreditation, as one in which improvement was necessary. We offer this as 

a clear example of the effective operation of the quality-assurance process constituted by 

our participating in the accreditation exercise (summarized in section 2.1): we had 

discovered, through our evaluation of student learning outcomes in 2004, that we were 

not accomplishing, to the standard required, one of the objectives (viz, high-quality 

training in cataloging) that we had defined for our program; we acted to change certain of 

the conditions under which training in cataloging was provided (e.g., we hired an adjunct 

instructor for cataloging courses who regularly receives exceptional student evaluations); 

and we observed in our 2011 evaluation of student learning outcomes that our 

expectations, of improvements in the degree to which our objectives were being 

accomplished, were justified. 

The 2011 focus-group data now indicate that there are other areas in which there is room 

for improvement, and our plan for the future is to address these areas in a similar process 

to that in which the issues with the cataloging classes were addressed in the period under 

review. Areas identified by some focus-group participants as requiring attention include 

the following: 

• Strengthening the quality of students’ preparation in areas such as: reference work 

and public service; information technology; time management, project 

management, and budgeting. In particular, there was some agreement among 

focus-group participants that recent UCLA graduates seem less well-prepared to 

step into reference librarian positions than earlier graduates were, and that this 

might be a result of a lack of opportunities to take advanced reference electives 

beyond the required core course in Information Access. 

• Improving employer awareness of the department’s focus on diversity and social 

justice. Few of the focus-group participants expressed an awareness of the results 

of this focus. 

• Allaying public library employers’ concerns about the loss of faculty specializing 

in services to children, youth, and the public in general. While focus-group 

participants were reassured to learn that all of the courses relevant to public 

libraries and youth services were still being taught (mainly by adjunct faculty), 

they expressed concerns about the lack of good advising for students aiming for 

public-library careers. Virginia Walter’s report on findings from the focus-group 

meetings concludes: “Public librarians are watching the program carefully to see 

if one or more tenured faculty will be added to meet the needs of students 

preparing for careers in youth services. They understand that the courses are still 

being taught by adjunct faculty but want to see more sensitive and informed 

mentoring and counseling. Almost all of the organizations represented by focus 

group participants have faced their own budget shortfalls in recent years. There 

was, therefore, a lot of sympathy and understanding about the decrease in some 

course offerings that might have been the result of the department’s own fiscal 

restraints. In some areas—notably public libraries and youth services—they were 


looking for signs that the department had some kind of mid-range strategy for 

fixing gaps in faculty expertise when the financial outlook improved.” 

2.5.2 Town-hall meetings 

PPC collaborates with the IS Department’s student-run Student Governing Board (SGB) 

in arranging regular town-hall meetings and information sessions, open to all students 

and featuring rotating panels of faculty, with the dual aim of (a) providing students with 

information about program requirements that will help students make decisions (e.g., 

about selection of electives, and about the choice between the portfolio and the thesis 

options) and prepare for forthcoming activities (e.g., portfolio presentations), and (b) 

collecting data about the views of students on their experiences in the program. These 

town hall meetings, with SGB direction and reporting, have been institutionalized into an 

annual event. The composition of SGB is described in section 4.5.1. 

Our most recent student town halls were held in April 2011. As usual, two town-hall 

meetings were convened, one for first-year and one for second-year students in the MLIS 

program, with representatives of SGB but no faculty members present, to allow for open 

exchange of opinions among students. Eleven first-year students attended the first 

meeting; sixteen students attended the second. These numbers are a little lower than 

previous participation, but the nature of the review is quite comprehensive and appears to 

be reflective of general opinion. Summaries of the discussion were recorded by SGB and 

are included in appendix 2.9. Among the opinions on curricular matters expressed by 

members of both groups of students were the following: 

• The coverage of some core classes (e.g., IS245: Information Access, IS260: 

Information Structures, IS270: Information Technology, and IS410 Management 

Theory and Practice) is so broad that some important topics are not treated in 

sufficient depth. 

• At the same time, the degree of overlap between certain core classes (e.g., 

between IS200: Information in Society and IS260: Information Structures; and 

between IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change and IS410: Management Theory 

and Practice) is such that they should be combined. 

• The emphasis placed in some core classes on theoretical principles should be 

balanced by greater attention being paid to the development of hands-on, 

practical, workplace skills. 

• The relationship of individual core classes to the areas of specializations is not 

clear. 

• The proposal for a fourth area of specialization (Special Collections) is welcomed, 

but it is not yet clear how the department will be able to marshal its resources in 


support of the new track, given that those resources are already stretched thinly 

across the three existing tracks. 

• Faculty support is lacking for students preparing for careers in public libraries and 

in children’s and youth services. 

• Scheduling is becoming increasingly complicated, and time management skills 

are correspondingly becoming increasingly important, for students who are 

struggling to combine full-time enrollment in the IS program with full-time 

employment, volunteer work and internships, long commutes, family 

responsibilities, etc. The additional requirement for students in IS201: Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change to complete a service-learning component outside normal 

classroom hours exacerbates these scheduling problems. 

• The purpose of the programming prerequisite, i.e., the requirement for entering 

students to have completed either a college-level course in computer 

programming or the department’s own Intensive Technology Workshop (ITW), is 

not clear. Some students said that they did not see the point of this requirement 

since they did not have the opportunity in the MLIS program to build on the skills 

they learned in their programming class; some students said that they were 

disappointed with the lack of depth provided in ITW (especially when compared 

with the depth provided in programming classes). 

• In general, the quality of instruction provided by adjunct faculty is high. 

• The department’s decision to focus on the provision of high-quality face-to-face 

instruction, rather than on the development of online courses, is the right one. 

Some first-year students expressed wishes to receive a greater amount of feedback from 

faculty on students’ coursework; a greater amount of guidance on faculty expectations for 

the formatting of students’ papers and project reports; and a larger number of guest 

speakers (preferably those with recent practical experience) invited to classes. Some 

first-year students commented that the search skills that are taught in IS245: Information 

Access are so vital to success in the program that it would make more sense for that class 

to be offered in the fall, perhaps trading places with IS200: Information in Society, whose 

theoretical approach would be better understood by students if it were offered later in 

their first year. 

Second-year students were asked to comment on the portfolio and thesis options. Among 

the opinions expressed were that the portfolio is a “daunting” and stress-inducing 

prospect, and that the department provides insufficient support for thesis writers. The 

section of the Student handbook that discusses the thesis option is perceived to be brief 

and unhelpful. 


2.5.3 Student surveys 

In preparation for the Accreditation Report, we surveyed students and alumni in two 

additional ways. We conducted a survey through the UCLA Graduate Council; we report 

students’ responses to the open-ended questions below. We also surveyed recently 

graduated alumni, as part of the WILIS 2 research project, administered by the LIS 

program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The survey provides mostly 

quantitative data, which we report below. 

2.5.3.1 2011 Graduate Council Survey 

In Winter 2011, UCLA’s Graduate Council conducted a survey of all students currently 

enrolled in graduate programs at UCLA. Of the 182 surveys mailed to students in the IS 

Department (MLIS, MIAS, and Ph.D. students), 102 were returned, for a response rate of 

56%. A full report of the responses given by students in the IS Department, including a 

transcription of responses to open-ended questions, is attached in appendix 2.10. Each 

year, the UCLA Graduate Division surveys graduating students on their experience in a 

particular graduate program at the university. This includes a periodic survey of 

graduating MLIS students. Graduate Division then makes available a report to each 

department that assembles the results of the survey along with data from the Graduate 

Division Enterprise Information System and the UCLA Registrar’s Student Record 

Database. UCLA Graduate Division keeps student responses confidential. No faculty in 

the department is able to identify a particular student’s answers. 

Results from the most recent survey show that the vast majority of students have 

indicated that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with all or most aspects of the 

program. Specific to faculty, more than 70% of students reported that they were 

“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the quality of instruction in both seminars and 

lectures, availability of faculty members for consultations, and guidance and support they 

receive from departmental staff and faculty. Data show that students are especially 

satisfied with their primary academic advisor. More than 80% (sometimes as high as 

89%) of students “agreed’ or “strongly agreed” with statements concerning the 

willingness of their advisor to spend time advising them on academic matters, whether 

the advisor was knowledgeable about degree requirements, whether advisors could be 

relied on to give constructive criticism of a students’ academic work, whether students 

found their advisor approachable, whether the advisor was interested in the students’ 

goals and projects, and whether the advisor encouraged the students’ research ideas and 

interests. While the Department is not satisfied with student satisfaction in the 70th and 

80th percentiles, these statistics show that the vast majority of students feel that the 

department meets their needs and values across a broad array of criteria. 

An analysis of that transcription reveals the following opinions about curricular matters 

to be held by multiple students. (In all cases, quotations are representative, and not 

exhaustive, of students’ comments. The following results are limited to comments by 

MLIS students.) 


• The overall intellectual quality of the program is high. Students are continuously 

challenged to think deeply about the topics covered in class, and to produce their 

best work. 

“Professors treat students as peers, and as such expect a high level of 

intellectual quality. I feel perpetually challenged and supported in my 

academic work.” 

“There’s nothing comparable in bringing together different people from all 

over and putting them in a program that elicits passion and devotion. Not 

only do professors challenge minds to think in class, but students have set 

bars that I have a desire to meet and surpass.” 

“Truly impressed, not only with the content of the intellectual quality of the 

program, but with the altruism, humanism, and spirit of inquiry as well. The 

vast and frankly amorphous material is covered exhaustively and presented 

in a highly organized and principled format that is befitting of a science ...” 

• Too much of the curriculum is taken up by core courses of overlapping coverage 

and questionable practical value, leaving little opportunity for students to enroll in 

desirable electives, some of which are offered only once in any given two-year 

period. 

“There are too many required courses for a two-year terminal master’s 

program. This is problematic especially because many of the elective and 

seminar courses are only offered every other year, hindering students from 

taking the classes they are most interested in.” 

“[T]he core courses, along with required or semi-required classes like 

research methods and the portfolio course, crowd out useful electives, 

forcing students to take 4, 8, or even 12 extra units over the summer. So in 

reality, the program basically requires 7 quarters to complete, not 6.” 

“There are too many low-level, introductory courses which do not carry a full 

quarter’s worth of content. Several courses—including those dealing with 

management of library institutions, reference strategies and perhaps ethics— 

could be consolidated into one or two courses in order to allow students to 

explore their respective interests in more depth.” 

“The core curriculum is, by a wide margin, the program’s weakest aspect. 

Some courses, like Information in Society and Intro to IT, are interesting but 

only marginally related to librarianship. Others, like Information Structures, 

Information Access, and Ethics, Diversity, and Change, have so little content 

that they feel like one-day seminars that have been stretched and padded into 

35 hour courses. ...” 

“The faculty who teach the core classes need to communicate better with 

each other; there are redundancies and inconsistencies that could be easily 

remedied.” 


• Classes are too large to encourage useful discussion. 

“... [T]here is just way too many people in the core classes. It doesn’t make 

me feel competitive, it does not make it feel like grad school. I feel like I am 

in an undergraduate lecture with no accountability. The one seminar I had 

was great, 8 people, great level of interaction, perfect. The one core class I 

had that was split into two sections was also much better because there was 

about 25 people or less. Basically I rather just read a powerpoint at home 

than sit through an overcrowded lecture where all the professor does is read 

off their powerpoint.” 

“I have taken three seminar courses, and all three were enrolled to maximum 

capacity (30+), which created an atmosphere in the classroom that was not 

conducive to discussions or presentations.” 

“The first year requirements have been of little value ... the majority of these 

courses consisted of exercises in repeating certain ideas back to professors 

rather than ... critical thought and discussion. ... Being asked to rephrase the 

ideas the professor believes doesn’t make for critical thought; it just results in 

an enhanced ability to tell the professor what he or she wants to hear. ... in 

many of the first year required courses, it seemed that critical discussion was 

tacitly discouraged.” 

• Too much of the curriculum is oriented towards discussion of theory, instead of 

providing instruction in the practical and technical skills that are perceived to be 

more important for job-seekers. The internship program is a vital counterbalance. 

“The overall intellectual quality of the program is high, but there seems to be 

somewhat of a disconnect between the research focus of the faculty and the 

goals of a professional degree program. The program ends up feeling a little 

schizophrenic as a result. A lot of the best teaching is carried out by the 

adjunct faculty, who can bring their ongoing experiences in the professional 

world directly into the classroom. This isn’t to say that the full-time faculty 

are not quality teachers, but their focus tends to be more theoretical and less 

practical.” 

“I know that going to a UC means an emphasis on theory, but it doesn’t 

really serve the students very well once they graduate. I’m here to be 

prepared to succeed in the practice. I don’t want to teach. I don’t want a 

Ph.D. I just want the skills necessary to do the job.” 

“I am very glad that I went to UCLA for my Information Studies degree. 

However, I wish I had known before enrolling that the program has such a 

theoretical bent. I feel that the core coursework has prepared me for to 

become a Ph.D. student than to work in the field. Since it is a professional 

school, I didn’t think that theory would play such a big role in my degree. I 

was hoping to learn more hands-on, professional skills. I learned quickly 

that, if I wanted to learn professional skills, I would have to do that on my 

own time. I am thankful for the internship program, though, as it added a 

real-world component to the program.” 


“If this is a professional school, there should be a clear focus on the 

practical.” 

“I wish there were a great deal more technical training involved in my 

program (that is, a number of us wish we were being taught some 

programming, xml, a bit of web development, rapid prototyping tools, etc).” 

“One of the program’s strengths is its internship program. The wide variety 

of well-established internships offer excellent opportunities for gaining 

professional experience as well as developing professional relationships to 

assist with in the process of finding of a job.” 

• Recent faculty movements and retirements have created particular problems for 

students preparing for careers in public and academic librarianship, and in 

children’s and youth services. Some excellent classes are being taught in these 

areas by adjuncts, but students are finding it difficult (a) to obtain guidance on 

choice of classes and counseling on career options from faculty advisors with 

appropriate expertise; (b) to obtain appropriate guidance for planning and writing 

theses in these areas (since the thesis option requires the student to form a 

committee chaired by a regular faculty member); and (c) to complete the majorpaper 

requirement for the portfolio option (since this is a requirement for the 

student to submit a major paper, in their chosen area of specialization, that was 

written for a class taught by a regular faculty member). 

“This program is severely lacking in the resources to support public 

librarians. I understand that the archival and informatics tracks are strong, 

from my fellow students, but as someone who is interested in public 

librarianship, I experienced extreme difficulty in some of my efforts to 

prepare myself for my career. The program currently has only two ladder 

[i.e. regular] faculty who have any research interest in public libraries, and 

both are retired. The ultimate graduation requirement requires a major paper, 

preferably in your specialization, from a ladder-track faculty member; the 

number of classes taught by ladder faculty in this specialization are 

extremely limited, making this final requirement difficult. For public and 

youth services librarians, lack of access to faculty concerned with their same 

academic and professional interests hinders publication, research, and the 

thesis option.” 

“As a student interested in children’s/YA and public libraries, I have found 

that I end up either guiding myself or looking to second year students for 

advice, rather than faculty. I know it’s a specialized/small area of interest, 

but I feel a bit lost about what classes I should be taking, where I should 

intern, how I should be doing my portfolio, skills I’ll need, etc. The fact that 

most children’s classes are taught by adjuncts makes it quite difficult to write 

a major paper that’s relevant to the rest of my studies.” 


Other issues raised by varying numbers of students include the following points related to 

curricular matters (the following comments were made by individual students and thus 

likely do not reflect general MLIS student opinion): 

• The program’s emphasis on libraries, or archives, or informatics, is too strong. 

(Different students have different views on where the emphasis lies.) 

• Links should be forged with private-sector institutions in order to ensure the 

match of core course content to employers’ requirements. 

• The curriculum lacks flexibility, and the department should be more sensitive to 

the scheduling difficulties faced by students who are also in full-time 

employment. 

• Classes designed for both MLIS and Ph.D. students do not work, as the two 

groups have very different intellectual goals. 

• Some core classes are based on syllabi that have not been revised for years. 

• A class on collection development should be added to the core. 

• A class on information literacy instruction should be taught in the regular 


• Students should not be required to take a research methods class, as the topic is 

not important for everyone. 

• Admitted students should not be required to take statistics and programming 

classes before entering the program. 

• More guidance should be available for those choosing the thesis option. 

• The assessment procedures for the portfolio should be reviewed. 

• Some course descriptions are less than helpful. 

• Promotional and informational materials should be reviewed for clarity, accuracy, 

and currency. 

2.5.3.2 WILIS 2 

The WILIS 2 research project tracks UCLA alumni responses and allows us to compare 

the responses to the alumni responses of 39 other library and information science 

programs. The survey included our MLIS alumni who graduated within the last five 

years, with a majority of responses from alumni who graduated in the past two years. An 


analysis of the data reveals the following opinions about curriculum matters held by an 

aggregate of alumni who participated in the survey: 

• More than 90 percent of respondents feel that the program at least adequately 

prepared them for their first job. Nearly two-thirds of respondents felt the 

program prepared them well or very well for their first job. 

• Ninety-three percent of respondents are satisfied with LIS as a career, and 92 

percent feel they will continue working in LIS three years from now. 

• Ninety-five percent of respondents felt their experience of the program was fair, 

good, or excellent. Seventy-seven percent feel the program is good or excellent – 

slightly below that of other LIS programs (85 percent). We feel that this partly 

owes to the economic downturn in California, which has made securing a job in 

the region more difficult. We also feel that we have highly capable students with 

high expectations. On this point, please refer to section 3 of the report, which 

shows that the vast majority of our students attend some of the best undergraduate 

institutions throughout the country and enter the program with a 3.6 

undergraduate grade point average. 

• Ninety-four percent of respondents participated in an experiential opportunity as 

part of their capstone project, including practicum, field experience, internship, 

and experience in a library or information setting. This is slightly higher than 

other LIS programs (88 percent). 

• Sixty-seven percent of respondents participated in an independent study or 

research project as part of their capstone, a significantly higher percentage than 

other LIS programs (45 percent). 

• Twenty-five percent of respondents completed in a Master’s thesis as part of their 

capstone, a significantly higher percentage than other LIS programs (15 percent). 

• None of our courses are predominantly delivered online, a strong priority among 

faculty. We feel face-to-face courses provide more effective educational 

opportunities. As a result, course scheduling is more difficult, and some students 

feel it is less convenient. 

• Ninety-eight percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with basic knowledge of the field. 

• Eighty-nine percent of students agree or strongly agree that the program provided 

them with information seeking skills, only slightly below that of other LIS 

programs (94 percent). 


• Eighty-seven percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with research and evaluation skills, on average with other LIS 


• Ninety percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program provided 

them with organization of knowledge skills, on average with other LIS programs 

(87 percent). 

• Seventy-six percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with public service skills, on average with other LIS programs (79 

percent). 

• Eighty-one percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with collaboration skills, on average with other LIS programs (82 

percent). 

• Eighty percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program provided 

them with information technology skills, on average with other LIS programs (83 

percent). 

• Seventy-six percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with management skills, on average with other LIS programs (75 

percent). 

• Seventy-four percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with advocacy skills, significantly above that of other LIS 


• Seventy-three percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with realistic understanding of what it is like to work in the 

information field, on average with other LIS programs (72 percent). 

• Eighty-four percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that the program 

provided them with the skills they can apply on the job, on average with other LIS 


The data from the WILIS 2 research project reveal that alumni satisfaction with the IS 

Department is generally high, and averages about the same as other LIS programs. In 

addition to vocational skills, the department strongly emphasizes critical thinking, the 

ability to demonstrate analytic skills, and the ability to communicate ideas effectively 

through written and oral skills. While some students have expressed concern that the 

program is too “theoretical,” so much of the knowledge in any profession comes from 

working in that profession. It is for this reason that the department emphasizes 

experiential learning opportunities. The WILIS 2 report reveals that 94% of alumni, 

higher than other LIS programs, took advantage of the experiential opportunities the 


department provides, such as our internship program and connection to information 

institutions in the Southern California region. 

Although on balance we find the MLIS program is well supported by the students and our 

external constituencies, several problems are reported in these surveys. The Graduate 

Council survey results generally reflect good levels of satisfaction, comparable to the 

results of the Department of Education, which last year received a glowing evaluation 

from UCLA’s Graduate Council and Undergraduate Council. Variations between IS and 

Education scores often reflect differences between the distribution of students in research 

(chiefly the Ph.D.) and professional degree programs, with Education being more 

oriented in the proportion of students toward doctoral programs. The comments of the 

anonymous and online Graduate Council survey give a less confident endorsement of the 

MLIS program, and often go to identifying problems within it. One must remember that 

there is a generally high level of student satisfaction with the MLIS program when 

reading the written comments. 

That said, the written comments, particularly in the Graduate Council Survey, provide 

guidance on problems within the MLIS program. Some issues, like the lack of faculty 

support in children’s library services and public libraries, are addressed elsewhere in this 

report. We have also made concrete steps to address the programming prerequisite, and 

the Professional Programs Committee is currently making a proposal to eliminate it. 

Other issues are perennial, like the balance of theory and practice in a professional degree 

program in a research university. However, PPC is going through these results this year 

and making priorities on which of these problems need to be addressed, and developing 

actions plans for their resolution. 

2.5.4 Evaluating the evaluation process 

In attempting to determine the effectiveness of the procedures we have in place for the 

review of the MLIS program, it has proven useful to ask ourselves a number of specific 

questions as a kind of checklist for evaluating the evaluation process. For example: 

Q: Are these procedures broad-based? 

A: Yes. All the program’s stakeholders—current students, alumni, employers, internship 

supervisors, full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, staff—are engaged in the assessment 

program; and all the elements of the MLIS program are subject to review. 

Q: Are these procedures continuous? 

A: Yes. The review process for the MLIS program is set up as an ongoing responsibility 

of PPC. 

Q: Are these procedures evaluation-based? 

A: Yes. The review program involves specific procedures, described in detail above, for 

the assessment of attainment of specified objectives and outcomes. 

Q: Is action taken in direct response to the results of evaluation? 


A: Yes. Changes to elements of the MLIS program are made by the Faculty Executive 

Committee on the basis of PPC’s analysis of the data gathered using the instruments 

described above. 

Q: Are the assessment procedures and consequent actions documented thoroughly and 

openly, with explicit targets or deadlines specified for achievement of the objectives of 

the review? 

A: Yes. All changes to elements of the MLIS program are recorded in formal 

documentation issued by PPC. 

2.6: Planning for the Future of the MLIS Program 

To recap: With respect to the curriculum, and in the light of the goals, objectives, and 

principles established in the statements identified in section 2.2, our planning for the 

future is guided by the results of our systematic, ongoing, broad-based assessments of the 

following conditions: 

• faculty strengths (as summarized above in section 2.4.5, and in greater detail in 

section 3); 

• environmental demands (notably, the constraints forced upon us as a result of 

the state’s fiscal crisis and a recent sequence of faculty movements and 

retirements; and an uncertain employment outlook for graduates); and 

• student, alumni, and employer perceptions of program success (as 

summarized above in section 2.5). 

It is likely that the environmental demands noted here will continue to present the 

greatest challenges for the IS Department in the short- to mid-term future. We believe 

that, the department needs to press forward with plans for the implementation of the new 

area of specialization in special collections, for the development of new course offerings 

in eScience and data curation, and for the continued emphasis in the core curriculum on 

ethical issues and issues relating to diversity. The development of these areas of interest 

can be supported with current resources, and we can continue as well in department’s 

traditional strengths in information policies and practices, resource description and 

access, and archival studies. We are building appropriately in the areas in which our 

faculty are internationally renowned, and meeting the needs of employers and students 

for instruction in the knowledge and skills required for the management and use of 21stcentury 

information services and technologies. 

Several themes emerge from the data on student, alumni, and employer perceptions of 

program success presented in section 2.5. These themes can be distilled into a short 

checklist of issues to be prioritized for attention from PPC in the next two years, as 

follows: 

• monitoring the currency of, overlap between, and balance of theory and practice 

in, core courses; 


• providing adequate support for students specializing in public librarianship, 

academic librarianship, and children’s and youth services, ideally by hiring fulltime 

faculty with expertise and experience in these areas; 

• scheduling classes with greater sensitivity to the increasing complexity of the 

constraints under which students strive to combine employment, training, and 

personal activities; and 

• reviewing all documentation and description of courses, requirements, options, 

etc., for maximum clarity, accuracy, and consistency. 

2.7: Response to the COA Standards 

II.1 

The curriculum is based on goals and objectives, and evolves in response to 

an ongoing systematic planning process. Within this general framework, the 

curriculum provides, through a variety of educational experiences, for the 

study of theory, principles, practice, and values necessary for the provision of 

service in libraries and information agencies and other contexts. 

For evidence that the curriculum “is based on goals and objectives,” see section 2.2, 

Objectives of the MLIS program. For evidence that the curriculum “evolves in response 

to an ongoing systematic planning process,” see section 2.4: The work of the Professional 

Program Committee, and section 2.5: Methods of curricular planning and evaluation. For 

evidence that the curriculum “provides, through a variety of educational experiences, for 

the study of theory, principles, practice, and values necessary for the provision of service 

in libraries and information agencies and other contexts,” see section 2.3: Structure of the 

MLIS curriculum. 

II.2 The curriculum is concerned with recordable information and knowledge, 

and the services and technologies to facilitate their management and use. 

The curriculum of library and information studies encompasses information 

and knowledge creation, communication, identification, selection, 

acquisition, organization and description, storage and retrieval, preservation, 

analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis, dissemination, and 

management. 

For evidence, see section 2.3.1: Core curriculum, and section 2.3.2: Elective courses. 

II.3.1 The curriculum fosters development of library and information professionals 

who will assume an assertive role in providing services. 

For evidence, see section 2.3.5: Thesis and portfolio, especially the presentation of the 

goals of the portfolio evaluation. 


II.3.2 The curriculum emphasizes an evolving body of knowledge that reflects the 

findings of basic and applied research from relevant fields. 

For evidence, see, for example, section 2.4.5: Review of areas of strength and emphasis. 

II.3.3 The curriculum integrates the theory, application, and use of technology. 

For evidence, see the syllabi of core courses in appendix 2.7, IS270: Introduction to 

Information Technology in particular. 

II.3.4 The curriculum responds to the needs of a diverse society including the needs 

of underserved groups. 

For evidence, see syllabi of core courses (appendix 2.7), IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and 

Change in Information Professions in particular. 

II.3.5 The curriculum responds to the needs of a rapidly changing technological 

and global society. 

For evidence, see section 2.4.5: Review of areas of strength and emphasis, and section 

2.3.1, especially IS270: Introduction to Information Technology, and IS200: Information 

and Society. 

II.3.6 The curriculum provides direction for future development of the field. 

For evidence, see section 2.4.5: Review of areas of strength and emphasis. 

II.3.7 The curriculum promotes commitment to continuous professional growth. 

For evidence, see, for example, the attached syllabus (appendix 2.7) for IS400: 

Professional Development and Portfolio Design. 

II.4 

The curriculum provides the opportunity for students to construct coherent 

programs of study that allow individual needs, goals, and aspirations to be 

met within the context of program requirements established by the school 

and that will foster development of the competencies necessary for 

productive careers. The curriculum includes as appropriate cooperative 

degree programs, interdisciplinary coursework and research, experiential 

opportunities, and other similar activities. Course content and sequence 

relationships within the curriculum are evident. 


For evidence, see section 2.3.4: Areas of specialization, and section 2.4.2: Review of 

elective courses. 

II.5 

When a program includes study of services and activities in specialized fields, 

these specialized learning experiences are built upon a general foundation of 

library and information studies. The design of specialized learning 

experiences takes into account the statements of knowledge and competencies 

developed by relevant professional organizations. 

For evidence, see the appendix 2.7 for syllabi of elective courses. 

II.6 

The curriculum, regardless of forms or locations of delivery selected by the 

school, conforms to the requirements of these Standards. 

The MLIS program at UCLA is delivered only in one form (face-to-face classroom 

instruction) and at one location (the IS Department at UCLA). 

II.7 

The curriculum is continually reviewed and receptive to innovation; its 

evaluation is used for ongoing appraisal, to make improvements, and to plan 

for the future. Evaluation of the curriculum includes assessments of 

students’ achievements and their subsequent accomplishments. Evaluation 

involves those served by the program: students, faculty, employers, alumni, 

and other constituents. 

For evidence, see section 2.4: The work of the Professional Program Committee, and 

section 2.5: Methods of curricular planning and evaluation. 



Section 3: Faculty 

Response to the COA Standards 

III.1 The school has a faculty capable of accomplishing program objectives. Fulltime 

faculty members are qualified for appointment to the graduate faculty 

within the parent institution and are sufficient in number and in diversity of 

specialties to carry out the major share of the teaching, research, and service 

activities required for a program, wherever and however delivered. Parttime 

faculty, when appointed, balance and complement the teaching 

competencies of the full-time faculty. Particularly in the teaching of 

specialties that are not represented in the expertise of the full-time faculty, 

part-time faculty enrich the quality and diversity of a program. 

3.1.1 The school has a faculty capable of accomplishing program objectives. 

The IS Department faculty exemplifies the department’s mission and objectives. The 

faculty is “dedicated to inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, the improvement of 

professional practice, and service to the information professions.” Their “work is guided 

by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and 

commitment to the communities we serve.” The department values connecting theory to 

practice and developing “future generations of scholars, teachers, information 

professionals, and institutional leaders.” The faculty has made numerous contributions to 

the advancement of professional practice: developing standards for libraries, leading 

workshops, and serving as officers of national professional associations. These values 

extend through research, teaching, and service. 

UCLA is a major research university. Its regular faculty is expected to create knowledge 

through research and publication. Known for distinguished scholarship in the field, they 

have published extensively and delivered lectures around the globe. According to the 

latest survey by Professors John Budd and Denice Adkins (University of Missouri), our 

department ranks the 4th most productive and has the 3rd most highly cited faculty in the 

field of Library and Information Science, as measured per capita of faculty. 2 The same 

study found that our faculty also includes two of the top three most cited people in the 

field, Professors Marcia Bates and Christine Borgman. Our archives program is ranked 

4th in the country, despite our small size. 

Faculty research aligns directly with our program’s objectives. The faculty comes from a 

variety of disciplinary, cultural, and professional backgrounds and is continually 

2 Adkins, Denice and Budd, John. "Scholarly Productivity of U.S. LIS Faculty." Library & Information 

Science Research 28.3 (Autumn 2006):374-389. In 2000 Budd published rankings in Library Journal 70.2 

(April 2000):230; UCLA ranked 8th and 3rd respectively. In 1996 Budd published rankings in The Library 

Quarterly 6.1 (1996):1-20; UCLA ranked 1st and 2nd respectively. 


informed by a broad mix of perspectives. Faculty have worked in libraries, archives, 

museums, public administration, and as designers and computer scientists–in addition to 

their careers as researchers. All faculty hold an advanced, terminal degree related to their 

area of research. Faculty members primarily hold a Doctor of Philosophy in Library 

and/or Information Studies, or hold a Doctor of Library Science degree. Many of the 

regular faculty members—including Profs. Furner, Leazer, Gilliland, Lynch, Richardson 

and Borgman hold the MLIS degree and have professional experience as librarians or 

archivists. The faculty members employed in the department during the period of review 

include members with the Ph.D. in related fields, including Communications, Science & 

Technology Studies, Anthropology, Psychology, Ecriture, Public Administration, Design, 

and Film, to name a few. The faculty also represent a broad variety of institutional 

backgrounds and are alumni of some of the nation’s top universities, including the 

University of California, the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Columbia 

University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Wisconsin- 

Madison, the University of Illinois-Urbana, Trinity College Dublin (Ireland), Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, Université de Montréal (Canada), Indiana University, the 

University of Sheffield (England), the University of Cambridge (England), Stanford 

University, and the University of Southern California. The result is a rich mix of 

methodological, philosophical, and cultural approaches to professional issues and 

research questions. The diverse mix of perspectives provides students with a broad range 

of expertise for problem-solving and analysis. 

Faculty are also involved in cross-disciplinary program initiatives on campus. These 

programs include cross-listing courses with other programs, dual degree programs, an 

interdepartmental degree program with the UCLA Department of Film, Television, and 

Digital Media, and major research projects that are not only interdisciplinary but also 

inter-institutional and international. The department has degree program and research 

ties with Education, Genetics, Computer Science, Film & Television, Design & Media 

Arts, Digital Humanities, and Latin American Studies. 

Current research projects reflect the department’s multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, 

and multicultural approach. A sampling of research projects since the last review that 

have received major funding includes the following: 

• Alexandria Digital Earth ProtoType makes geo-spatial information resources 

intended for research purposes usable for teaching and learning at the 

undergraduate level. The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) provides access to 

geo-spatial resources in many media via sophisticated searching mechanisms. 

• The British Library Endangered Archives Program grant for “Strategies for 

Archiving the endangered publication of French India (1800–1923)” applies 

digital preservation and access approaches and international institutional 

collaboration to address the problem of how to rescue and make available primary 

information resources that were created by colonial administrations and are now 

“orphaned” in their post-colonial environments. 

• The Center For Embedded Network Sensing is a U.S. National Science 

Foundation Science and Technology Center based at UCLA that includes dozens 


of cooperating scientists, technologists, educators, and teachers (middle school 

and high school). CENS is a large, multidisciplinary research collaboration 

among multiple universities. It focuses on developing wireless sensing systems 

and applying this revolutionary technology to critical scientific and societal 

pursuits. 

• Homework Centered Outcomes, a project funded by an American Library 

Association research grant, seeks to develop models for evaluating the outcomes 

of public library homework assistance programs. 

• The Institute of Museum & Library Services grant for “Building the Future of 

Archival Education and Research” recruits, funds, and mentors a diverse cohort of 

doctoral students to become the next generation of academics in the U.S. The 

project initiates a new international forum (AERI) for academics and doctoral 

students in Archival Studies, including research exchange, training in a range of 

methodologies, mentoring, and scholarly infrastructure building. 

• “Pluralizing the Archival Paradigm: A Needs Assessment for Archival Education 

in Pacific Rim Communities,” funded by the University of California Pacific Rim 

Research Program, works in partnerships with other faculty, students, and 

community members to identify needs for pluralizing archival education and 

develop an international action agenda. 

• California Rare Book School is a continuing education program dedicated to 

providing the knowledge and skills required by professionals working in all 

aspects of the rare book community, and for students interested in entering the 

field. 

• Digital Portfolio Archives in Learning: Modeling Primary Content 

Transformation for Science Education seeks to develop a model for, and then use 

case studies to examine many of the educational, technological, and content issues 

connected with such digital transformation—how primary source materials in the 

natural and health sciences might be transformed into digital library content and 

then used to enrich K–12 science education. 

• English-Russian Dictionary for Library and Information Technology aims to 

increase international understanding and collaboration between English and 

Russian speaking library and information science professionals by assisting them 

in reading each other’s professional literature. 

• International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems 

(InterPARES) funded by multiple national and international public and private 

agencies on 5 continents aims at developing the knowledge essential to the longterm 

preservation of authentic records created and/or maintained in digital form 

and providing the basis for standards, policies, strategies and plans of action 

capable of ensuring the longevity of such material and the ability of its users to 

trust its authenticity. 

• The PacBell/ UCLA Initiative for 21st Century Literacies, a private-public 

partnership, has invested in projects that explore the meaning of literacy in an age 

of rapidly changing technologies and growing diversity through three critical 

areas: Educating the User, Improving the Information System, and Addressing the 

Policy Issues. 


• Pluralizing the Archival Paradigm Project sought to identify the current scope and 

extent of archival education in the Pacific Rim, and to encourage research and 

development activities that will promote 1) the development of culturally and 

politically sensitive education of qualified archival professionals in Pacific Rim 

communities, especially those which have no local archival education 

infrastructure; and 2) incorporation of the interests, needs, and cultural beliefs and 

practices of diverse communities into existing educational programs in the Pacific 

Rim area. 

• Question Master, an OCLC research project, sought to support the decision 

making process of librarians by automating some of more routine, fact-type 

reference questions they encounter and thereby to improve the accuracy of 

reference transactions as well as to increase end-user satisfaction. Its specific 

goal is to enhance the role and utility of OCLC Reference Services' databases 

including WorldCat and FirstSearch. 

These research projects reveal the Department’s commitment to inquiry, the advancement 

of knowledge, the improvement of professional practice, and service to the information 

professions. Individual responsibility, community service, social justice, and an ethic of 

caring are major aspects of each project. Each of these research projects connects theory 

to practice and incorporates students as research assistants or brings research to bear on 

class discussions. 

Our faculty members have also received a wide variety of awards that attest to the quality 

of their research and teaching. These awards include the Best Information Science Book 

of the Year from ASIS&T, Award of Merit from ASIS&T, the ALISE Award for 

Teaching Excellence in the field of LIS education, Paul Evan Peters Award – Coalition 

for Networked Information (CNI), recognition from the Association of Research 

Libraries (ARL), Contributions to Information Science and Technology Award – Los 

Angeles Chapter of American Society for Information Science and Technology 

(LACASIS&T), Harold & Lois Haytin Award for Outstanding Research in Teaching & 

Learning, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

American Printing History Association Individual Achievement Award, Sudikoff Fellow 

for Education and New Media, Joseph W. Lippincott Award (ALA), Sheldon and 

Caroline Keck Award, C.F.W. Coker Award, American Institute for Conservation 

Fellows, ALA Outstanding Paper, ASIS&T Outstanding Paper, Gregory Bateson Prize, 

Andrew Mellon Fellowship in the Humanities, Fellow of the Society of American 

Archivists, Margaret Cross Norton Award, Association of College and Research Libraries 

Special Recognition Award, and the Delegate and Vice Chair of the California 

Delegation White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services, to name only 

a few. 

Our faculty have also held visiting professorships, scholar-in-residence, and fellowships 

at the following institutions: the Royal School of Library and Information Science 

(Denmark), Lund University (Sweden), University of Tampere (Finland), Stanford 

University, Harvard University, University of California Santa Cruz, University of 

Glasgow, University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Education, Djerassi Foundation, 


Getty Foundation, Oxford University, Loughborough University, Rockefeller Foundation 

in Belagio (Italy), and Budapest University of Economic Sciences. 

Space has allowed us only to list a select number of awards and honors herein. These 

lists are by no means comprehensive and serve only as select examples. Some of these 

awards and honors have been awarded to multiple faculty members and some faculty 

members have received an award or honor more than once. We have included faculty 

CVs as an addendum to this report in appendix 3.1. 

In addition, the department offers a wide variety of courses taught by experts in a 

particular subfield. In each class, the faculty engage students in real-world problems, 

encouraging students to think critically and analytically while upholding the department’s 

values of individual responsibility, social justice, an ethic of caring, and a commitment to 

the communities we serve. Our courses, like our research, are also interdisciplinary, 

offering different methods and perspectives to problem-solving and analysis. Students 

are also encouraged to bring their own experiences to bear on classroom discussion and 

to challenge their received ideas about the world and the information professions. The 

faculty brings to bear their research, backgrounds, and expertise on class discussion. For 

example, IS201, “Ethics, Diversity, and Change in the Information Profession,” a 

required course for all first-year MLIS students, serves as an introduction to 

understanding ethical challenges of multicultural information society that shape societal, 

professional community, and individual views and impact professional practice, decision 

making, and public policy. The course is based on pedagogy of praxis, which entails that 

students serve an under-privileged community in a non-traditional information setting as 

part of their course work. Students are given time off from class in order to complete 

their service-learning. Class discussions and reading consider the ethical and 

multicultural issues in society and the information professions in particular. The course 

arose out of a request for such training by students in 2004. The course has been offered 

each year since 2005 by Professors Clara Chu (who left UCLA two years ago) or Anne 

Gilliland, both experts in multicultural issues who have pioneered novel curricula, as well 

as by Professor Virginia Walter and Professor Greg Leazer. See section 2 of this report 

on curriculum. 

Finally, faculty members are leaders in a variety of areas outside of research and 

teaching. The department faculty members are leaders and participants of major 

information institutions and professional organizations worldwide. Some faculty 

members have been head of major organizations. Again, there are too many 

organizations to list, but some include the American Library Association, International 

Society of Knowledge Organization, American Society of Information Science & 

Technology, Association of Library and Information Science Education, Society of 

American Archivists, American Society for Aesthetics, Association for Computers and 

the Humanities, Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing, and the 

American Printing Historical Society, to name only a very select few. In each of these 

capacities, our faculty upholds our commitments to inquiry, knowledge production, the 

communities we serve, and demonstrate their commitment to service. 


Faculty members also serve on a wide variety of departmental and university-wide 

committees concerning students, faculty, and university administration. Please refer to 

the enclosed faculty CVs in appendix 3.1 for a detailed list of service responsibilities for 

each faculty. This participation is also described in section 5. 

3.1.2 Full-time faculty members are qualified for appointment to the graduate faculty 

within the parent institution and are sufficient in number and in diversity of 

specialties to carry out the major share of the teaching, research, and service 

activities required for a program, wherever and however delivered. 

UCLA and the IS Department expect faculty to meet high standards. These standards are 

detailed in the UCLA Faculty Handbook and Resource Guide 

(http://www.apo.ucla.edu/facultyhandbook). Every appointment must be consistent with 

the university’s overall criteria for excellence in teaching, research, professional activity 

and university service. The department has established policies consistent with those of 

the university. All new tenure-track appointment and promotion recommendations are 

reviewed and approved by the full faculty, the dean of the Graduate School of Education 

and Information Studies. The department generally requires all tenure-track faculty being 

considered for appointments to hold a Ph.D. or terminal degree in a relevant field, such as 

a J.D. for law or M.D. for medicine. Ellen Pearlstein, a newly tenured professor in our 

department, holds the terminal degree in her field, an M.A. in preservation from 

Columbia University. All appointees must posses a commitment to the department’s 

mission and goals, as quoted in section 3.1.2, as well as a commitment to 

interdisciplinary research. Appointees must also have the potential for excellence in 

teaching, research, and service. 

The department currently has 13 full-time faculty members. Three of these faculty 

members are assistant professors (Ramesh Srinivisan, Steve Ricci, and Jean-François 

Blanchette). Four faculty members are associate professors (Gregory Leazer, Jonathan 

Furner, Christopher Kelty, and Ellen Pearlstein). Six faculty members are full professors 

(Christine Borgman, Johanna Drucker, Anne Gilliland, Leah Lievrouw, Beverly Lynch, 

and John Richardson). The department is fortunate to have several active emeriti faculty 

who regularly teach part-time (Marcia Bates, Robert Hayes, Mary Niles Maack, and 

Virginia Walter). Emeriti faculty and adjunct faculty greatly complement our course 

offerings (see section 3.1.3 below). In the last year, two members of the regular faculty 

have announced their retirement: Professor Mary Niles Maack and Associate Professor 

Clara M. Chu. Professor Maack is a leading educator and scholar in the area of 

comparative and historical study of libraries. We expect her to remain an active emerita 

professor and to continue teaching in the department. Professor Chu left for a leadership 

position at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. Professor Chu is a scholar who 

investigates multicultural aspects of librarianship, including diversity issues. 

The department recruits faculty from Ph.D. programs at top universities. For example, 

since our last accreditation report, we have hired junior faculty from Harvard University 

(Professor Srinivisan) and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Professor Blanchette). 


Our most recent hires (Professors Drucker, Pearlstein, and Kelty) are well acclimated 

within the department and have been terrific additions to the faculty. Professor Drucker, 

who is currently the inaugural Breslauer Professor of Bibliography, was previously the 

Robertson Professor of Media Studies in the English Department at the University of 

Virginia. Professor Kelty was previously an associate professor of anthropology at Rice 

University. Professor Pearlstein, who was previously adjunct faculty at the Conservation 

Center of the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, was hired as an assistant 

professor but recently was promoted to the associate rank with tenure. 

The faculty has a broad and diverse range of specialties. As such, the faculty is able to 

carry out the major share of research, teaching, and service activities for our department. 

Indeed, full-time faculty teach a majority of courses in the department, including all of 

the core courses for the MLIS program, and faculty carry the vast majority of the research 

and service in the department. This provides ample opportunities for students to engage 

face-to-face with faculty in class and in office hours and for faculty research to be 

brought to bear on class discussion. Below please find the names of full-time regular 

faculty members, their research areas of expertise, and their regular teaching repertoire 

specific to the MLIS program. Profs. Kelty, Pearlstein and Ricci are joint appointments, 

shared with other departments: 

• Jean-François Blanchette: Authenticity of electronic information, social and 

political dimensions of information security, digital preservation, sociology of 

mathematics, privacy and data retention. Teaching: IS270: Introduction to 

Information Technology; IS240: Management of Digital Records; IS274: 

Database Management Systems; IS282: Principles of Information Systems 

Analysis & Design; IS289: Digital Preservation. 

• Christine L. Borgman: Digital libraries, scientific data use and policy, scholarly 

communication, information retrieval, electronic publishing, information-seeking 

behavior, bibliometrics, and information technology policy. Teaching: IS204: 

Electronic Publishing; IS289: Data, Data Curation and Data Practices; IS273: 

Information Technology & Libraries. 

• Johanna Drucker: History of written forms, typography, design, visual poetics, 

aesthetics, and digital humanities. Teaching: IS139 and IS239: Letterpress 

Laboratory; IS289: Modern Art of the Book; IS289: History of the Book; IS289: 

Digital Scholarship Design Workshop. 

• Jonathan Furner: Concepts of documentation; the logic of classification; 

information sources and services in the arts and humanities; subject access to 

cultural objects; the ethics of library and information services; historical research 

methods for information studies; and computational text analysis. Teaching: 

IS208: Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics; IS260: Information 

Structures; IS276: Information Retrieval Systems; IS289: Museum Informatics; 

IS289: Visual Resources; IS438: Advanced Seminar in Archival Description & 

Access; IS262: Subject Cataloging & Classification. 


• Anne Gilliland: Information technology, recordkeeping and cultural heritage, 

recordkeeping metadata, social justice and human rights issues as they relate to 

archives and records, and archival education. Teaching: IS 201: Ethics, Diversity 

& Change in Information Professions; IS 233: Records & Information Resources 

Management; IS 289: Community-based Archiving; IS 289: Comparative 

Archival Traditions; IS 431: American Archives & Manuscripts; IS 438: 

Advanced Seminar in Archival Description & Access. 

• Christopher Kelty: Science and technology studies; specifically internet culture 

and history, intellectual property, the public sphere, free and open source 

software, public domains, commons, authorship and ownership, and the history 

and philosophy of science and technology, in the U.S., Europe, and India. 

Teaching: IS289: Introduction to Openness; IS298: Introduction to Ethnographic 

Materials. Prof. Kelty has a joint appointment (0% with IS) with the UCLA 

Center for Society and Genetics. 

• Gregory H. Leazer: Bibliographic control; organization of information; 

bibliographic works and relationships; cataloging and classification; evaluation of 

bibliographic retrieval systems. Teaching: IS260: Information Structures; IS400: 

Professional Development & Portfolio Design; IS461: Descriptive Cataloging; 

IS462: Subject Cataloging & Classification; IS463: Indexing & Thesaurus 

Construction. 

• Leah A. Lievrouw: Information society; social and cultural aspects of 

communication/information technologies; scholarly communication; 

communication and knowledge. Teaching: IS200: Information & Society, IS209: 

Information Policy & Issues; IS246: Information Seeking Behavior; IS280: Social 

Science Research Methods for Information Studies; IS400: Professional 

Development & Portfolio Design. 

• Beverly P. Lynch: Structures of complex organizations; organizational 

environments; measurement and evaluation of library performance; libraries as 

organizations. Teaching: IS203: Intellectual Freedom & Information Policy 

Issues; IS228: Measurement & Evaluation of Information Systems & Services; 

IS410: Management Theory & Practice for Information Professionals; IS422: 

Academic Libraries. 

• Ellen J. Pearlstein: American Indian tribal museums and how museum staff 

defines cultural preservation; the effects of environmental agents on ethnographic 

and natural history materials and how display and storage standards are devised; 

introducing context into cultural materials’ conservation education; and 

curriculum development. Teaching: IS289: Collection Management for Archives, 

Libraries & Museums; IS232: Issues & Problems in Preservation of Heritage 

Materials; ISM238: Environmental Protection of Collections. Prof. Pearlstein has 

a joint appointment (50% with IS) with the UCLA Cotsen Institute of 

Archaeology. 


• Steve Ricci: Moving-image archives, film history. Teaching: IS289: Moving 

Image Archival Studies; IS289: Curatorship; MIAS200: Archiving History & 

Philosophy. Prof. Ricci has a joint appointment (50% with IS) with the 

Department of Film, Television and Digital Media. 

• John V. Richardson: History of education for library and information science; 

decision-making and information policy (United States, federal level); process of 

general question answering—numerical modeling and implementation as 

expert/knowledge-based systems. Teaching: IS273: Analytical Bibliography; 

IS245: Information Access; IS250: Advanced Techniques in Information Access; 

IS280: Social Science Research Methods; IS255: Government Information. 

• Ramesh Srinivisan: Development of information systems within the context of 

culturally-differentiated communities; how an information system can function as 

a cultural artifact, as a repository of knowledge that is commensurable with the 

ontologies of a community; how an information system can engage and requestion 

the notion of diaspora and how ethnicity and culture function across 

distance. Teaching: IS200: Information & Society; IS227: Information Sources in 

Culturally Diverse Communities; IS275: Development of Digital Cultural 

Information Sources; IS289: Cultural, Ontological & Digital: Global Perspectives; 

IS238: Archival Appraisal. 

Again, we direct you to our faculty CVs and faculty roster, which have been provided as 

an addendum to this report in appendix 3.1 and 3.2, for further information on teaching, 

service, research, and awards and honors. 

Faculty Renewal. The recent budget cuts in the last five years have had an impact on the 

size and diversity of the faculty. In the last several years Professors Virginia Walter, 

Clara Chu, Marcia Bates, and Mary Maack have all retired; Professor Chu retired from 

the faculty to take a leadership position at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. 

In addition, Professor Ethelene Whitmire, who was here only for one year, left for a 

position at the University of Wisconsin, further decreasing our faculty diversity. 

Professor Phil Agre also left his position. 

Departures since last review 

Faculty 

Joined 

Dept. Left Dept. Specialization 

Agre, P. 1998 2009 Informatics 

Chu, C. 1990 2011 diversity and information use 

Bates, M. 1981 2004 information seeking 

Maack, M. 1986 2010 information access in libraries and 

comparative librarianship 

Walter, V. 1989 2008 children’s public library services 

Whitmire, E. 2005 2006 diversity and academic libraries 


There is no particular general cause to these departures: most were simple retirements, 

and one case was a well-deserved opportunity for promotion to a leadership position. 

However, unrelated to their retirements, there is an unfortunate trend in the departures: 

many of the departed faculty concentrated in the areas of public librarianship and/or 

public services within libraries. 

And the timings of the departures were also difficult for the department. In a more 

typical time period, the department would have simply replaced departed professors with 

new appointments, typically at the assistant rank. We added three professors in 2008– 

2009: two were opportunities to make joint appointments, and one was an opportunity to 

take advantage of an endowment providing funds for special collections. All of these 

hires added personnel resources to the department with a nominal cost of FTE. 

But 2008 and onwards, when most of the departures occurred, has not been a typical 

period. The funding crisis in California higher education hit with full force. One 

departing faculty member was on an FTE line that was held by the university, and the 

department fulfilled a budget cut by returning that line to the campus. Other cuts were 

met by holding lines open, in essence serving as a hiring freeze. Because the most recent 

departures were in librarianship, and those lines were held open, the department has lost 

expertise in librarianship. These losses have been felt most particularly in the areas of 

children’s services and public librarianship. This need joined another long-standing need 

to hire in the area of archives. 

With an eye to recent loses and rebuilding the faculty, the department recently 

participated in a campus-wide effort to develop a three-year hiring plan. The plan called 

for an immediate search for someone to teach in the area of archives—an emerging area 

of strength for UCLA—and that search is currently underway. We have also identified a 

need to hire a faculty members of color to complement our institutional and 

programmatic priorities as reflected in our mission statements. We hope to be successful 

in this regard, and plan to hire someone for the next academic year. UCLA is currently 

recruiting only a handful of professors, and our current search is an indication of general 

campus support for the department. The three-year hiring plan also calls for two more 

additional hires, contingent on retirements, in the next two years. Our current hiring plan 

is to conduct a search in the area of children’s’ services and public libraries. 

In the interim, the department continues to be committed to librarianship. We have 

significantly increased our hiring of lecturers and continue to recall retired professors to 

meet this need. As students have rightfully pointed out in their surveys, however, this 

still leaves the department in need of people who can serve as advisors and also conduct 

meaningful research in these areas. 


3.1.3 Part-time faculty, when appointed, balance and complement the teaching 

competencies of the full-time faculty. Particularly in the teaching of specialties 

that are not represented in the expertise of the full-time faculty, part-time faculty 

enrich the quality and diversity of a program. 

Several excellent new adjunct instructors, who constitute our part-time faculty, have been 

added in recent years in the areas of digital preservation, database design, archives, 

information retrieval, collection development, copyright law, and reader's advisory 

services. All part-time faculty complement the department’s mission and goals. Parttime 

faculty members are chosen to complement the department’s curriculum because of 

professional expertise and experience. Below please find the names and current 

professional position of most of the adjunct professors in the department, as well as his/ 

her teaching repertoire for the MLIS program. A roster of adjunct lecturers is also 

included in appendix 3.3. It should be noted that the faculty listed below are not 

necessarily hired to teach every year. Instead, they teach as needed for the department. 

• Susan Allen has previously directed the Getty Research Institute and UCLA’s 

Special Collections. She is currently Director of the California Rare Book 

School. Prof. Allen teaches classes in rare book and special collections 

librarianship. 

• Murtha Baca is Head of Digital Art History Access at the Getty Research Institute 

in Los Angeles. Her publications include Introduction to Metadata (revised 

edition, 2008) and Introduction to Art Image Access (2002), and she is one of the 

editors of Cataloging Cultural Objects: a Guide to Describing Cultural Works 

and Their Images (American Library Association Editions, 2006). She is 

currently working on a collaborative digital facsimile edition of a late 17thcentury 

Italian inventory of works of art, written in the form of a poem. Professor 

Baca regularly teaches classes on indexing, abstracting, and metadata. 

• Snowden Becker is co-founder of the Center for Home Movies and the 

international Home Movie Day event. Along with her colleague Katie Trainor, 

she leads the "Becoming a Film-Friendly Archivist" workshop for the Society of 

American Archivists. She is a doctoral student at the University of Texas-Austin. 

Professor Becker teaches classes on moving image cataloging. 

• Lynn Boyden works on information architecture projects at the University of 

Southern California. She previously held positions in industry, where she 

pioneered the use of search analytics to improve findability of key content. 

Professor Boyden teaches classes on information architecture. 

• Michael Friend is an archivist and Curatorial Consultant for Sony Pictures, in 

charge of Sony Pictures’ restoration of moving images. He is the former director 

of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Professor Friend teaches 

classes in moving image studies. 


• Loretta Gaffney is a Ph.D. candidate in Library and Information Science at the 

University of Illinois. She teaches classes on Young Adult Literature, Young 

Adult Services, and Intellectual Freedom and Library Services to Youth. Before 

returning to academia in 2005, Prof. Gaffney worked as a middle school librarian 

at the University of Chicago Lab Schools. 

• Mahnaz Ghaznavi has held appointments as a records manager for the J. Paul 

Getty Trust, as Information Technology Officer for the National Histrical 

Publications and Records Commission and as an archivist for CSU, Dominguez 

Hills. She teaches courses on records and information resources management. 

• Joan Kaplowitz was heavily involved in information literacy instruction at the 

local, state, and national levels for her entire career and continues to be active in 

this area despite her retirement from the UCLA library system. Prof. Kaplowitz 

teaches classes on information literacy and bibliographic instruction. 

• Cindy Mediavilla is currently a library programs consultant for the California 

State Library, following an 18-year career as a public librarian. Prof. Mediavilla 

teaches courses on public libraries, professionalization, and library programming. 

• Luiz H. Mendes is the Electronic Resource Librarian for California State 

University, Northridge. Prof. Mendes teaches classes on descriptive and subject 

cataloging. 

• Mary Menzel is the director of the California Center for the Book, a reading 

promotion agency affiliated with the California State Library and the Center for 

the Book in the Library of Congress. She teaches classes on reader’s advisory. 

• Eva Mitnick is the Manager of Youth Services at the Los Angeles Public Library. 

Prof. Mitnick teaches classes on children’s librarianship. 

• Rachel Pergament is director of the Roseville Public Library in Roseville, 

California, which serves a population of 105,000 residents. Professor Pergament 

teaches classes on collection development. 

• Maureen Whalen is the Associate General Counsel for the J. Paul Getty Trust 

where she is a transactional lawyer responsible for Intellectual Property. She 

teaches classes on intellectual property. 

In addition, the department is fortunate to have many of its emeriti professors teach 

courses regularly in the department. Professor Marcia Bates teaches classes on 

information seeking and theoretical traditions within Information Studies; Professor 

Robert Hayes teaches classes on library economy and management; Professor Mary Niles 

Maack teaches classes on historiography; and Professor Virginia Walter teaches classes 

on children’s literature and storytelling. 


III.2 The school demonstrates the high priority it attaches to teaching, research, 

and service by its appointments and promotions; by encouragement of 

innovation in teaching, research, and service; and through provision of a 

stimulating learning and research environment. 

The IS Department has established high standards and expectations for faculty in 

teaching, research, professional activity and university service. A faculty member’s 

academic career customarily begins with appointment to the rank of assistant professor. 

The position of associate professor, which confers tenure, is awarded after through 

departmental and campus review for “superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both 

in teaching and in research or other creative achievement” (Academic Personnel Manual 

210-1d). Progress through each rank can be deferred or accelerated according to 

individual merit, though deferrals are limited and all professors must be reviewed every 

five years. Promotion to associate or full professor rank is not automatic and requires 

thorough review at the departmental, school, and campus levels. 

For all faculty members in the regular Professorial Series (sometimes called “ladder 

faculty” in the UC system), the criteria for advancement, briefly stated, are: 

1. Teaching 

2. Research and creative work 

3. Professional activity 

4. University and public service. 

These criteria are indispensable qualifications for appointment or promotion to faculty 

positions. At UCLA great attention is paid to every faculty member’s ability and 

achievement as a teacher, and there are numerous awards (University-wide, departmental, 

and student-generated) for good teaching. 

3.2.1 Teaching 

In judging the effectiveness of a faculty member’s teaching during promotion and 

advancement reviews, the faculty considers such points as the following: the candidate’s 

command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize 

material and to present it with force and logic; capacity to awaken in students an 

awareness of the relationship of the subject to other fields of knowledge; fostering of 

student independence and capability to reason; spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the 

candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students, to 

encourage high standards and to stimulate advanced students to creative work; personal 

attributes as they affect teaching and students; extent and skill of the candidate’s 

participation in the general guidance, mentoring, and advising of students; and 

effectiveness in creating an academic environment that is open and encouraging to all 

students. Under no circumstances does the committee recommend tenure unless there is 

clear documentation of ability and diligence in the teaching role. 

Among significant types of evidence of teaching effectiveness are the following: 


1. Opinions of other faculty members knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, 

particularly if based on class visitations, on attendance at public lectures or 

lectures before professional societies given by the candidate, or on the 

performance of students in courses taught by the candidate that are prerequisite to 

those of the informant; 

2. Opinions of current students; 

3. Opinions of graduates who have achieved notable professional success since 

leaving the University; 

4. Number and caliber of students guided in research by the candidate and of those 

attracted to the campus by the candidate’s repute as a teacher; 

5. Development of new and effective techniques of instruction. 

All cases for advancement and promotion will normally include: 

1. Evaluations and comments solicited from students for most, if not all, courses 

taught since the candidate’s last review; 

2. A quarter-by-quarter or semester-by-semester enumeration of the number and 

types of courses and tutorials taught since the candidate’s last review; 

3. Their level; 

4. Their enrollments; 

5. The percentage of students represented by student course evaluations for each 

course; 

6. Brief explanations for abnormal course loads; 

7. Identification of any new courses taught or of old courses where there was 

substantial reorganization of approach or content; 

8. Notice of any awards or formal mentions for distinguished teaching; and 

9. Where the faculty member under review wishes, a self-evaluation of his or her 

teaching. 

10. Evaluation of teaching is required in all cases of formal review for merit 

advancement or promotion. The specification of the meaning of "peer review" 

varies by department, with each department having established its own guidelines 

for developing the requisite peer review of teaching. 

3.2.2 Research and creative work 

The department and the tenure/ promotion committee seek evidence of a productive and 

creative record in the faculty member’s published research or artistic production. The 

University requires evidence that the candidate is continuously and effectively engaged in 

creative activity of high quality and significance. Appraisals of publications or other 

works in the scholarly and critical literature provide important testimony. Due 

consideration is given to variations among fields and specialties and to new genres and 

fields of inquiry. 


3.2.3 Professional activity 

The faculty member’s professional activities are scrutinized for evidence of achievement 

and leadership in the field and of demonstrated progression in the development or 

utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems. 

Many professors demonstrate achievement in this area by serving in some capacity in 

scholarly organizations, refereeing manuscripts, developing conferences or participating 

in the review of academic organizations and personnel. 

3.2.4 University and public service 

The faculty plays an important role in the administration of the University and in the 

formulation of its policies. Recognition is therefore given to scholars who prove 

themselves to be able administrators and who participate effectively and imaginatively in 

faculty governance and the formulation of departmental, school, and University policies. 

Services by members of the faculty to the community, state, and nation, both in their 

special capacities as scholars and in areas beyond those special capacities when the work 

done is at a sufficiently high level and of sufficiently high quality, is likewise recognized 

as evidence for promotion and advancement. Faculty service activities related to the 

improvement of elementary and secondary education or of community libraries, archives, 

museums, or non-traditional information settings are an example of this kind of service. 

Similarly, contributions to student welfare through service on student-faculty committees 

and as advisers to student organizations is recognized as evidence. 

3.2.5 The school provides a stimulating learning and research environment 

The department provides a stimulating learning and research environment in a variety of 

ways. As previously mentioned, faculty bring their research experience to bear on 

classroom discussion. Doctoral and master’s students assistant faculty as graduate 

student research assistants, hourly workers, or volunteers. Students are also encouraged 

to attend meetings of larger research teams. Faculty and doctoral students regularly give 

presentations on their work within the department and around the University. Students 

are encouraged, as well, to engage with the research in other departments at the 

University, and the department promotes talks, colloquia, and symposia that occur 

throughout the Southern California region. 

Under the period of review, the department has had faculty associated with a number of 

research centers. One center is housed within the department, the Center for Information 

as Evidence, which serve as an interdisciplinary forum for research and outreach in the 

field of archives. The department participates in a school-run journal InterActions: 

UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, which is administered by student 

from Information Studies and Education. 

Additionally, the department hosts a number of scholarly events, including the Friday 

Forum series, a series of continuing education workshops; endowed annual lectures, such 

as the Frances Clark Sayers Lecture and the Samuel Lazerow Memorial Lecture; and a 


series of events that surround the California Rare Book School. The department also 

hosts a weekly colloquium series, which meets on Thursday afternoons. The series 

invited noteworthy guest lecturers to discuss recent research or contemporary issues 

affecting the information professions. In the past year (2010-2011), lecturers have 

included the following: Michael Buckland (Professor and Dean Emeritus, UC Berkeley), 

Sharon Traweek (Associate Professor, UCLA), Michele Cloonan (Professor and Dean, 

Simmons College), Rory Litwin (Publisher, Library Juice Press and Litwin Books), 

Elizabeth Yakel (Professor, University of Michigan), Ron Day (Associate Professor, 

Indiana University), and Jerome McGann (Professor, University of Virginia), as well as 

many other well-known international professional leaders and scholars. See also section 

3.6.4 of this report. 

III.3 The school has policies to recruit and retain faculty from diverse 

backgrounds. Explicit and equitable faculty personnel policies and 

procedures are published, accessible, and implemented. 

3.3.1 The school has policies to recruit and retain faculty from diverse backgrounds. 

The IS Department and UCLA are deeply committed to recruiting and retaining faculty 

from diverse cultural and intellectual backgrounds. To that end, the University has 

established the UCLA Faculty Diversity Development office, which provides resources 

for faculty members and search committees on diversity initiatives. You can find these 

resources and University-wide initiatives at http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu. The 

department is currently searching for someone to teach in the area of archives—an 

emerging area of strength for UCLA. We expect the appointee to reflect our commitment 

to diversity and social justice. We have also identified a dire need to hire a faculty 

member of color to complement our institutional and programmatic priorities as reflected 

in our mission statements. We expect to be successful in this regard, and hire someone 

for the next academic year. 

Since our previous accreditation report (2003), the department has hired several faculty 

members from diverse cultural, geographic, and disciplinary backgrounds. Professor 

Jean-François Blanchette, who originates from Quebec, has a background in computer 

science and science and technology studies. Professor Ramesh Srinivisan, who is of 

Southeast Asian descent, has a background in engineering, media arts, and design. In 

2005, we hired Professor Ethelene Whitmire, who is of African American descent, with a 

background in information studies. Subsequently, Professor Whitmire left UCLA to 

return to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Professor Johanna Drucker, who holds 

the Breslauer Chair in Bibliography, has a background in the history of writing, history of 

the book, art criticism, and digital humanities. Professor Ellen Pearlstein earned her 

degree in conservation, while Professor Christopher Kelty earned his degree in science 

and technology studies and has taught anthropology. Prof. Richardson frequently 

engages in issues in former Soviet states and Prof. Blanchette writes on European 

information policy. 


New Hires 

Name Rank/Step Year Hired 

Blanchette,Jean-Francois Assistant Professor 

2004-2005 

Srinivasan,Ramesh 

Assistant Professor 

2005-2006 

Whitmire,Ethelene 


2005-2006 

Drucker, Johanna 

Professor 

2008-2009 

Pearlstein, Ellen 


2008-2009 

Kelty, Christopher 

Associate Professor 

2008-2009 

Currently, the 13 full-time faculty consists of seven men, one of whom is a faculty 

member of color (Professor Srinivisan), and six women. Three of our professors are 

foreign nationals (Professors Anne Gilliland, Jonathan Furner, and Jean-François 

Blanchette). Most of our faculty do a significant amount of their research relating to 

issues of cultural diversity: Professor John Richardson researches issues relating to 

Eastern Europe; Professor Ramesh Srinivisan researches issues relating to South Asia and 

South Asian diaspora; Professor Ellen Pearlstein researches issues relating to American 

Indian communities; Professor Anne Gilliland’s research relates to issues concerning the 

Pacific Rim (including the Pacific Islands, Eastern Asian, Latin America, Native 

Americans, and Australian Indigenous communities) as well as issues relating to Croatia 

and South Asia; Professor Christopher Kelty researches issues relating to South Asia; and 

Professor Emerita Mary Niles Maack, who still actively teaches, researches issues 

relating to French West Africa. This past year, Professor Clara M. Chu retired from the 

faculty to take a leadership position at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. 

Professor Chu is a scholar who investigated multicultural aspects of librarianship, 

including diversity issues. 

According to recent campus-based analyses, GSE&IS has the most diverse faculty of any 

school at UCLA. However, within the IS Department, we have lost our racial diversity 

with our recent departures; our gender diversity remains. We recognize the need to 

rebuild the cultural diversity on our faculty. The department is committed to expanding 

the range of cultural diversity research and teaching currently offered by its faculty. We 

actively recruit faculty members with a diverse background and we expect to hire a 

faculty member of color in the next academic year. 

As part of the department’s commitment to diversity and diverse backgrounds, our 

adjunct faculty reflect the wide-range of cultural diversity found in Southern California, 

including diversity relating to culture, ethnicity, religion, age, ability, sexual orientation, 

gender, and geographic origin. The experiences of our adjunct faculty complement the 

department’s mission and objectives and bring invaluable knowledge to the classroom. 


In response to the Winter 2011 Graduate Council survey, students were asked about what 

factors in our program helped them progress toward their degree. Some of the quotes 

from that survey reflect the department’s commitment to diversity: 

Another student replied: 

“The Information Studies department is quite socially diverse and serves 

students of many different backgrounds. That diversity is useful for 

challenging one’s assumptions about the field in and out of class.” 

“…the commitment of the faculty, staff, and students to diversity in our 

profession and professional field, in all respects of the word. Meeting with 

other students in other MLIS programs, I have been incredibly proud of the 

efforts and successes of my department in this respect.” 

3.3.2 Explicit and equitable faculty personnel policies and procedures are published, 

accessible, and implemented. 

There are three resources that detail the policy and procedures governing faculty. The 

UCLA Faculty Diversity & Development office publishes on its website the University’s 

affirmative action, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity and employment policies 

(http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/affirm/index.htm). The University also publishes 

the UCLA Faculty Handbook and Resource Guide, which details equitable faculty 

personal policy and procedures, last revised in 2002 (the Faculty Handbook is provided 

in appendix 3.4). Departmental polices comply with the University-wide policies, 

enumerated primarily in the University of California Academic Personnel Manual (APM) 

and the UCLA CALL, both available at http://www.apo.ucla.edu/publications.html. We 

take every step to ensure equitable personal policies and procedures. 

III.4 The qualifications of each faculty member include competence in designated 

teaching areas, technological awareness, effectiveness in teaching, and active 

participation in appropriate organizations. 

3.4.1 The qualifications of each faculty member include competence in designated 

teaching areas, technological awareness, and effectiveness in teaching. 

Faculty teach in their areas of disciplinary and/or professional expertise. Because we 

nurture a faculty who engage in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching and 

research, we have a vibrant and dynamic mix of instructors and courses. Section 3.1.2 of 

this report outlines the disciplinary and professional expertise of each of the full-time and 

part-time faculty members and lists the courses they regularly teach for the MLIS 

program. That outline reveals that the instructors’ expertise coincides with the courses 

they teach. 


In the most recent survey of our students by the UCLA Gradate Division (provided in 

appendix 2.10), between 70% and 74% of students felt “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with 

the quality of lecture and seminar classes in the MLIS program. While we certainly hope 

to improve those numbers going forward, the survey reveals that the vast majority of 

students feel that the instructors are competent and effective teachers. 

In response to the 2011 Graduate Council survey (section 2.5.3.1), students were asked 

about what factors in our program helped them progress toward their degree. In 

response, one student wrote that “professors who encourage independent thought and 

scholarship” helped him/her progress toward their degree. Another student replied, 

“clear set of course requirements, flexible and accessible faculty and departmental staff” 

helped him/her progress toward their degree. Still another replied, “Excellent professors 

in my areas of interest.” These quotes, and many others, reflect the effectiveness of our 

teaching. 

We take teaching seriously at UCLA and in the IS Department. We have already 

described that all faculty members and instructors are reviewed for their achievements 

and abilities in teaching, and that we make annual awards for teaching quality. Junior 

faculty members all receive mentoring for their teaching and research. In the occasion 

that a member needs more help, the campus maintains an Office of Instructional 

Development to assist a faculty member to become a more effective teacher. 

3.4.2 The qualifications of each faculty member include active participation in 

appropriate organizations. 

Faculty members engage in sustained and extensive participation in professional 

organizations. We have included faculty CVs as an addendum to this report in appendix 

3.1 that itemize each professor’s participation in a wide range of professional and 

scholarly organizations. Because our faculty members are extremely active participants 

in professional and scholarly organizations, both as leaders and members, there are far 

too many to enumerate here. The following offers a sample of recent activity in 

professional organizations by full-time faculty members: 

• Christine Borgman, Editorial Board, JASIS&T 

• Johanna Drucker, Editorial Board, Interdisciplinary Studies Review 

• Jonathan Furner, Secretary, International Society for Knowledge Organization 

• Anne Gilliland, Director, Archival Education Research Institute, Editorial Board 

Library Quarterly and ACM’s Journal of Computing and Cultural History. 

• Beverly Lynch, Chair, Organizing Committee, U.S./China Library Conference 

• Ellen Pearlstein, Fellow, American Institute for Conservation 

• John Richardson, External Review Panel, ALA Committee on Accreditation 

• Ramesh Srinivisan, UCLA Digital Humanities Steering Committee 


III.5 

For each full-time faculty member the qualifications include a sustained 

record of accomplishment in research or other appropriate scholarship. 

Faculty in the IS Department have a strong and sustained record of research. We are part 

of one of the world’s leading universities, and it is our responsibility to maintain the 

University’s standards for research performance. Proven ability, top performance, highlevel 

and sophisticated research is a necessary condition for hiring a faculty member. 

The quantity and quality of research are very important criteria for tenure and promotion. 

The list of research projects receiving major funding, as described in section 3.1.1 of this 

report, attests to our department’s ability to accomplish and sustain a high level of quality 

research activity. Again our faculty CVs, included in appendix 3.1, provide detailed 

information for each faculty member. 

Further evidence of the quality of the IS faculty is provided in section 3.1.1, as is an 

enumeration of positions held by our faculty members such visiting professorships, 

scholar-in-residences, and fellowships at the following institutions. 

III.6 The faculty hold advanced degrees from a variety of academic institutions. 

The faculty evidence diversity of backgrounds, ability to conduct research in 

the field, and specialized knowledge covering program content. In addition, 

they demonstrate skill in academic planning and assessment, have a 

substantial and pertinent body of relevant experience, interact with faculty of 

other disciplines, and maintain close and continuing liaison with the field. 

The faculty nurture an intellectual environment that enhances the 

accomplishment of program objectives. These characteristics apply to 

faculty regardless of forms or locations of delivery of programs. 

3.6.1 Faculty hold advanced degrees from a variety of academic institutions. 

The IS Department’s faculty hold degrees from some of the world’s finest universities. 

Interdisciplinarity is a core value of the department. Below please find a table of our fulltime 

and emeriti faculty and the institutions at which they earned advanced degrees: 


Advanced Degrees Held by Full-Time & Emeriti Faculty 

Faculty Name 

Bates, Marcia 

Blanchette, Jean- 

François 

Borgman, Christine 

Drucker, Johanna 

Furner, Jonathan 

Gilliland, Anne 

Hayes, Robert 

Kelty, Chris 

Leazer, Greg 

Lievrouw, Leah 

Lynch, Beverly 

Maack, Mary Niles 

Pearlstein, Ellen 

Ricci, Steve 

Richardson, John 

Srinivasan, Ramesh 

Walter, Virginia 

Degrees 

Ph.D. and MLS, UC Berkeley 

Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; MSc, Université de 

Montréal 

Ph.D., Stanford University; MLS, University of Pittsburgh 

Ph.D., UC Berkeley 

Ph.D. and MS, University of Sheffield; MA, University of 

Cambridge 

Ph.D., University of Michigan; MS and CAS, University of 

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; MA, Trinity College Dublin 

Ph.D., UCLA 

Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

DLS and MS, Columbia University 

Ph.D., University of Southern California 

Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison; MS, University of 

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 

DLS and MS, Columbia University 

MA, Columbia University; Adv. Certificate in Conservation, 

New York University 

Ph.D., UCLA 

Ph.D., Indiana University; MLS, Vanderbilt University 

Ph.D., Harvard University; MS, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

Ph.D., University of Southern California; 

MLS, UC Berkeley 

3.6.2 The faculty evidence diversity of backgrounds, ability to conduct research in the 

field, and specialized knowledge covering program content. 

The faculty represent a variety of disciplinary cultures. Please find their CVs, attached in 

appendix 3.1, as evidence of the diversity of intellectual backgrounds and their ability to 

conduct research. Faculty CVs provide detailed documentation for each professor. We 

discussed gender and cultural diversity in sections 3.1.1 and 3.3.1 above. 

All tenure-track faculty must demonstrate an ability to conduct research in their fields, 

and each faculty must have conducted substantial research relating to the courses they 

teach. The IS Department has developed a world-renowned reputation for conducting 

research. Indeed, in order to receive tenure at UCLA, one must (among other things) 

have acquired a national reputation and specialized knowledge in some aspect of the field 

or a related field. The specialized knowledge of each faculty member and the specific 

classes they teach (program content) are detailed is sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this report. 


3.6.3 In addition, they demonstrate skill in academic planning and assessment, have a 

substantial and pertinent body of relevant experience, interact with faculty of 

other disciplines, and maintain close and continuing liaison with the field. 

The ability to undertake academic planning and assessment is demonstrated by the 

lengthy and distinguished faculty CVs attached to this report in appendix 3.1. Doing so 

is part of the university service requirement for achieving tenure, and faculty are expected 

to continue that service with success through the length of their career. Faculty members 

engage continuously in multiple research, teaching, and service projects. All senior 

faculty and many junior faculty members have chaired committees and provided 

leadership in professional organization, departmental committees, and University-wide 

committees. Faculty participate in an on-going effort to plan our curriculum, as detailed 

in section 2 of this report. Faculty members also hold numerous leadership and 

membership roles in a wide variety of professional and scholarly associations within the 

field, as discussion in section 3.4.2 of this report. 

Department faculty members interact with a wide variety of faculty from other 

disciplines. As discussed in section 3.1.1 of this report, faculty are involved in crossdisciplinary 

program initiatives on campus. These programs include cross-listing courses 

with other programs, dual degree programs (such as the MLIS/MA Latin American 

Studies and the MLIS/MBA program), an interdepartmental degree program with the 

Department of Film, Television, and Digital Media (MA in Moving Image Archives), and 

major research projects that are not only interdisciplinary but inter-institutional and 

international (see the list from section 3.1.1 of this report or go to 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/research). 

The department has degree program and/or research ties with Education, Law, Genetics, 

Computer Science, Film & Television, Design Media Arts, Asian American Studies, 

Digital Humanities, Latin American Studies, and the John E. Anderson Graduate School 

of Management, to name only a few. Several of our core faculty are cross-listed on the 

faculty rosters of other departments at UCLA due to the number of cross-listed courses 

they offer. For example, the following faculty are listed on the roster of the Department 

of Film and Television: Jean-François Blanchette, Jonathan Furner, Gregory Leazer, 

Anne Gilliland, Christine Borgman, Leah Lievrouw, and Steve Ricci, who holds a joint 

appointment with the Department of Film and Television and the IS Department. In 

addition, both Professors Ramesh Srinivisan and Johanna Drucker are cross-listed with 

the Department of Design Media Arts. Professor Christopher Kelty has a primary 

appointment with the UCLA Center for Society and Genetics. Professor Ellen Pearlstein 

has her primary appointment with the UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 

3.6.4 The faculty nurture an intellectual environment that enhances the accomplishment 

of program objectives. These characteristics apply to faculty regardless of forms 

or locations of delivery of programs. 

As discussed in section 3.2.5 of this report, the IS Department provides an intellectual 

environment that enhance and accomplishes our program objectives. Not only do faculty 


ing their research experience to bear on classroom discussion, but doctoral and master’s 

students assist faculty as graduate student research assistants, hourly workers, or 

volunteers. Students are encouraged, as well, to engage with the research in other 

departments at UCLA, and the department promotes talks, colloquia, and symposia that 

occur throughout the southern California region. 

Additionally, the department hosts a number of scholarly events, as described in section 

3.2.5. 

III.7 Faculty assignments relate to the needs of a program and to the competencies 

and interests of individual faculty members. These assignments assure that 

the quality of instruction is maintained throughout the year and take into 

account the time needed by the faculty for teaching, student counseling, 

research, professional development, and institutional and professional 

service. 

3.7.1 Faculty assignments relate to the needs of a program and to the competencies and 

interests of individual faculty members. 

As discussed in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.6.2 of this report, faculty members teach in 

the areas in which they have conducted substantial research and have a great deal of 

interest. Research interests and students course evaluations help determine which classes 

a faculty member is competent to teach. Student course evaluations are discussed in 

section 4 of this report. We give great care to faculty teaching and service assignments to 

ensure that our teaching program contributes to fulfilling our mission, goals, and 

objectives. 

The chair of the department and the Professional Programs Committee (PPC) faculty, 

with the advice and support of the Student Services Office, work together to determine 

what courses will be taught, when, and by whom. Major revisions to curriculum require 

the support of the majority of faculty. Each academic quarter, we review and adjust the 

course offerings and the assignment of teachers to courses, with the full academic year in 

mind. We discussed in section 2 the courses we offer and process we follow in 

evaluating and re-planning the curriculum. 

We assign faculty to courses with the goal of best matching faculty strength with 

curriculum priorities. We prepare the teaching plan for two year cycles for the MLIS, so 

students can plan what to take during their time of residence in the program. To prepare 

our teaching assignments, we gather information from a number of sources: 

• Student course evaluations for each class; 

• Meeting with individual students and meetings with groups of students at townhall 

events, the Student Governing Board, and brown-bag lunches; 

• The core faculty propose a teaching plan of courses that match their research and 

teaching interests; 


• Faculty make new course proposals to the department chair and PPC; and 

• A review of the results of our most recent student surveys. 

The department chair and PPC take these inputs and formulate a teaching plan that relies 

primarily on full-time faculty with a complement of part-time faculty as needed. As 

discussed in section 3.1.3 of this report, the department hires part-time faculty to instruct 

courses to which they are suited, when their experience and expertise will enrich the 

program, on an as needed basis. This method balances curricular priorities with the needs 

of the program and the competencies of the faculty. 

3.7.2 These assignments assure that the quality of instruction is maintained throughout 

the year and take into account the time needed by the faculty for teaching, student 

counseling, research, professional development, and institutional and 

professional service. 

A normal teaching load for a full-time faculty member in the department is four courses 

per year. Faculty teaching loads are designed to allow time for careful planning and 

execution of courses, as well as time for student counseling, research, professional 

development, and institutional professional service. Faculty members are paid on a ninemonth 

basis, with summers reserved for research and external professional service. 

The chair of the IS Department is in charge of accounting for different types of leaves 

and course releases when planning the course schedule. If a faculty member requests a 

course release (for research or other purposes), the chair reviews the request, and may 

grant it if it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the department. 

Additionally, faculty may receive course release for chairing a departmental or 

university-wide committee. For example, the chair of the Doctoral Programs Committee 

traditionally receives a course reduction for serving as the chair each year. Some external 

chairmanships, such as those in professional or scholarly organizations, can also count as 

a credit, with the consent of the department chair. UCLA, facing budget constraints, has 

implemented a policy of reducing course releases, but the department continues to 

provide them in particular circumstances. 

The teaching and service load of each faculty takes into consideration time necessary for 

counseling students and institutional and professional service. Each faculty member 

holds office hours each week and is expected to be available by appointment for those 

students unable to meet at a professor’s regularly scheduled hours. Each MLIS student is 

assigned a faculty advisor and can freely change advisor without consequence at any 

point in the program. Advisors meet with their advisees at the beginning of the program 

and advisees are encouraged to meet with their advisors on a regular basis. 

III.8 

Procedures are established for systematic evaluation of faculty; evaluation 

considers accomplishment and innovation in the areas of teaching, research, 


and service. Within applicable institutional policies, faculty, students, and 

others are involved in the evaluation process. 

The IS Department follows careful processes to evaluate faculty, consistent with the 

policies and guidelines from the University. The department has a number of systemic 

evaluation methods: the UCLA Graduate Division administers a periodic survey of 

graduating students, known as the Graduate Council Survey; the department administers 

student course evaluations for each course at the end of each quarter; and personnel 

reviews are carried out by the department and considers input from students. The criteria 

and evaluation process for faculty tenure and promotion are detailed in section 3.2 of this 

report. The evaluation for tenure and promotion strongly considers innovation in 

teaching, research, and service, as described above. For a complete look at University 

policies on tenure and promotion, please consult the UCLA Academic Personnel Office’s 

manual on appointment and advancement, which can be found at 

http://www.apo.ucla.edu/publications_appointment.html. 

The procedures and results of the Graduate Council Survey are provided in section 

2.5.3.1. 

Additionally, the department administers course evaluations at the end of each quarter on 

the last day of class. To ensure confidentiality, faculty members are not permitted to be 

present when students take the course evaluation survey. The evaluation is a 

questionnaire, which covers course curriculum and instruction, and was designed in 

consultation with faculty committees, national experts on assessment, and 

recommendations from the UCLA Office of Instructional Development (OID). In 

addition, OID has established a Faculty Consultation Service, which develops 

questionnaires for special needs. 

The IS Department takes student course evaluations very seriously. The evaluations are 

used to help the department determine faculty teaching assignments and as evidence for 

all academic personnel reviews and decisions, along with evidence concerning research 

and service, as detailed in section 3.2 of this report. 



Section 4: Students 


IV.1 

The school formulates recruitment, admission, financial aid, placement, and 

other academic and administrative policies for students that are consistent 

with the school's mission and program goals and objectives; the policies 

reflect the needs and values of the constituencies served by a program. The 

school has policies to recruit and retain students who reflect the diversity of 

North America’s communities. The composition of the student body is such 

that it fosters a learning environment consistent with the school's mission and 

program goals and objectives. 

4.1.1 The school formulates recruitment, admission, financial aid, placement, and other 

academic and administrative policies for students that are consistent with the 

school's mission and program goals and objectives. 

The IS Department’s academic and administrative policies reflect our mission (available 

at http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/about/goals.htm) to “develop future generations of scholars, 

teachers, information professionals, and institutional leaders. Our work is guided by the 

principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and 

commitment to the communities we serve.” The department integrates wide-ranging 

scholarly, professional, technological, and institutional perspectives in its teaching, 

research and public service. Across each of these activities, the department engages with 

and is driven by real world information issues and communities, and institutional needs. 

The department also promotes the essential role played by information institutions such 

as libraries and archives as social, cultural, educational, and intellectual centers in our 

society. We provide expert career guidance and community engagement. Our mission 

cuts across policies that guide our work in recruitment, admission, financial aid, 

placement, and other academic and administrative policies. 

• Recruitment: Since 2003, the Student Affairs Officer (SAO), part of the Office 

of Student Services, has offered an information session for perspective students 

each Summer and Fall term, from 7pm–9pm. Between 2003–2006, the SAO 

also attended Graduate Recruitment Fairs throughout the state. Budget cuts 

have not allowed attendance at these events since then. Beginning in Fall 2006, 

one additional information session has been offered at the San Francisco Public 

Library, when the SAO has attended Graduate Recruitment Fairs at different 

California institutions. Since 2007 the Office of Student Services has only been 

able to support one SAO attending the two events sponsored by the California 

Forum for Diversity in Graduate Education (this has been the IS SAO). We 

maintain up to date material about the department at or website. Finally, we are 


participants in an IMLS funded project to recruit librarians from the Inland 

Empire (a region of California that includes Riverside and San Bernardino) 

called IE LEADS: Inland Empire Librarians Educated to Advance Diversity and 

Service (http://library.ucr.edu/?view=ieleads). The Inland Empire has large 

populations of underrepresented ethnic minorities within the information 

professions. More on the IE LEADS project is described in section 4.1.1. 

• Admission: We welcome applications from all undergraduate majors across the 

country. We especially encourage applications from under-represented 

minorities, different age groups, and foreign students. This allows us to admit 

students who bring diverse ideas and creative approaches and to admit those 

with the strongest potential for professional success. Our holistic application 

and decision policy ensures that we carefully evaluate each application in full 

against our mission and standards for admission. We do not require that 

students state their specialization (Libraries, Archives, or Informatics) in order 

to enter the program, given that many students decide to change specialization 

once in the program. 

• Admission Prerequisites: The department requires a college-level statistics that 

may be satisfied in the Fall quarter of the students’ first year. The statistics 

prerequisite requirement ensures that students have the necessary statistical 

skills to evaluate research within the field. We are currently transitioning to a 

new policy that states that admitted students should be assessed for technology 

skills, and advisors work with the student to develop a plan to make sure that 

the student attains the appropriate technological skills for his or her future 

professional aspirations. Our previous policy included a prerequisite in 

computer programming, however this policy was dropped after curricular 

review revealed that we were not supporting the further development of these 

skills in our advanced informatics classes, and students commented upon it in 

student town halls. Programming, many felt, is not a uniformly required skills 

for most of the positions our students are entering. 

• Financial Aid: We evaluate each applicant for not only admission but also for 

scholarships. The department has steadily increased its total financial support 

over the years for students enrolled in the MLIS program, providing an average 

of $19,937 per capita for students receiving financial assistance over the past 10 

years. This past academic year alone (2009–2010), the department provided 

$25,306 per capita of financial support for the nearly 80% of the MLIS students 

who receive some kind of support, including student employment (from the 

Graduate Council Report, attached in appendix 2.10). The department works 

hard to continue to provide significant financial support, despite a decrease in 

state funding for higher education in California. Scholarships are offered based 

on broad criteria that demonstrate a student’s ability, interests, background, and 

professional goals are in line with our mission and program objectives. 

Students are then matched with available monies from the department’s general 

fund, UCLA Graduate Division, the Graduate School of Education and 


Information Studies, and alumni endowments. The IS Department makes 

available a wide-variety of awards, and students in the department have been 

very successful in receiving awards from professional and other external groups 

such as the American Library Association. In line with our mission and goals, 

the department especially endeavors to match the Spectrum award for all ALA 

Spectrum Scholars. The department controls several fellowships for its 

students, including (partial list, with typical annual disbursements): 

• Naomi Broering Fellowship in medical librarianship: $2,337 

• Andrew Horn Fellowship for general scholarship: $10,000 

• Kenneth Karmiole Fellowship in rare books and manuscripts: $10,000 

• Library and Information Science Alumni Assoc. Fellowship for 

demonstrated leadership: $7,000 

• Lubetzky Fellowship in cataloging/bibliography: $10,000 

• Mardellis Fellowship in interest in foreign languages: $13,000 

• Osborn Fellowship in youth services: 2 at $10,500 each 

• Walker Fellowship in children’s services: $2,000 

• Powell Fellowship in librarianship: $8,000 

• Williams Fellowship in Gay/Lesbian information or HIV needing funds: 

$10,000 

• Yuan Family Fellowship related to Tsing Hua University or the National 

Library of China: $5,000 

In addition, the Department offers a funding database on our website and 

hyperlinks to financial support from a variety of organizations. UCLA, 

particularly the UCLA Library, is an excellent resource for part-time jobs. 

Many of our students work part-time within one of UCLA’s 12 libraries. The 

department maintains a reliable list of jobs, both full- and part-time, 

electronically and on paper in the department’s MIT Lab. 

• Placement: The Internet and developments in technology have changed the face 

of job placement activities across all industries. Individuals take more direct 

responsibility for their job search process. No longer are students limited to 

learning about job openings through mailings to the department or 

advertisements in periodicals. In light of this, the department augments 

information to which students have access in the following ways: 

o Maintenance of a job posting database, culled from listservs 

and websites, available through the department’s website; 

o Postings to department lists of job openings; 

o Hosting interview opportunities for employers; 

o Supporting and providing co-sponsorship of career events organized by 

student chapters of professional organizations, such as CareerFest or 

resume review workshops; 

o Holding an annual spring Internship/Career Fair event; 


o An in-house Internship Coordinator, who provides additional guidance 

for students and maintains these services and resources; 

o A robust and wide-ranging internship program, maintained by an inhouse 

Internship Coordinator, which takes advantage of the plethora of 

information institutions in the Southern California area, provides 

students with a necessary experiential opportunity for securing a job 

(and in some cases, students secure a job through their internship); 

o Regularly holding resume building workshops with alumni and students; 

and 

o Hosting the “Grow Thyself” program with the California Library 

Association, which offers guidance on making the transition from 

student to librarian. 

o In addition, UCLA provides comprehensive career services at the UCLA 

Career Center, which includes a full compliment of career counseling, 

workshops, databases, and career fairs. 

4.1.2 The policies reflect the needs and values of the constituencies served by a 

program. 

The IS Department serves the students and the institutions that employ them. In the most 

recent survey undertaken by UCLA Graduate Division of our program in 2011 (described 

in section 2.5.3.1, and attached in appendix 2.10), the vast majority of students have 


program. Specifically, more than 70% of students reported that they were “satisfied” or 

“very satisfied” with the quality of instruction, sense of community among graduate 

students, availability of faculty members for consultations, guidance and support they 

receive from departmental staff and faculty, and quality of instruction in both seminars 

and lectures. Additionally, 81% of students reported that they were “satisfied or “very 

satisfied” with the department’s resources (library, laboratories, equipment) provided for 

student research and scholarship. Data show that students are especially satisfied with 

their primary academic advisor. More than 80% (sometimes as high as 89%) of students 

“agreed’ or “strongly agreed” with statements concerning the willingness of their advisor 

to spend time advising them on academic matters, whether the advisor was 

knowledgeable about degree requirements, whether advisors could be relied on to give 

constructive criticism of a students’ academic work, whether students found their advisor 

approachable, whether the advisor was interested in the students’ goals and projects, and 

whether the advisor encouraged the students’ research ideas and interests. While the 

department is not satisfied with student satisfaction in the 70th and 80th percentiles, these 

statistics show that the vast majority of students feel that the department meets their 

needs and values across a broad array of criteria. 

Students are required to participate in service learning as part of their course 

requirements in the first year of the program. The course “IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and 

Change in the Information Profession” emphasizes a pedagogy of praxis in which 

students receive course credit for serving under-privileged groups in non-traditional and 


non-professional information settings. Serving under-privileged groups in non-traditional 

information settings reflects the department’s missions and objectives of individual 

responsibility, social justice, an ethic of caring, and a commitment to the communities we 

serve. IS201 was added as a result of student participation in department governance. In 

2004, students asked that the department require a course on issues concerning people of 

color and under-privileged groups. By 2005, the course had been added as a requirement. 

The department receives glowing reviews in our annual survey of service learning sites. 

In our most recent survey (2011), 100% of service learning sites reported that they had a 

“good experience” working with our department’s students, faculty, and staff as part of 

the service-learning program. Each site indicated that they would participate again next 

year. What’s more, many students continue working as volunteers with their servicelearning 

site well after the course has ended. 

The department also includes alumni, major employers, and internship coordinators on its 

major curriculum review committees, panels and retreats, as described in section 2. 

4.1.3 The school has policies to recruit and retain students who reflect the diversity of 

North America’s communities. 

In keeping with the IS Department’s missions and goals of social justice and cultural 

diversity, we recruit people of color, people with disabilities, people from all 50 states, 

foreign students, non-traditional students, LGBT students, and underrepresented 

populations into our program. We also seek to develop a student body with a wide 

variety of employment and intellectual backgrounds. The department’s official policy 

states: “The IS commitment to diversity is central to its function as described in its policy 

on cultural diversity. Its efforts are three-fold: recruit and educate students from diverse 

groups; hire faculty and staff from diverse groups; and promote understanding of 

diversity through course content and programs” 

(http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/about/explore_diversity.htm). Each student is required to provide 

an appropriate statement of motivation as part of his or her application to study at UCLA, 

and these are carefully assessed by faculty members to help make sure students are 

comfortable with the department’s commitment to service. 

The department faculty is committed to incorporating both theoretical and applied issues 

of cultural diversity into its curriculum. Following a comprehensive review of diversityrelated 

topics as presented within the curriculum in 2002, the department adopted a threetier 

curricular model, thereby offering courses with a primary emphasis, a distributed 

focus, or an elective focus on cultural diversity. 

Over 300 local internship sites, many in multicultural environments, have been 

established to provide students with opportunities to explore and learn about information 

services. Fieldwork study offers students the additional opportunities to work and learn in 

information institutions and settings beyond Southern California and abroad. In addition, 

directed individual study and thesis development courses enable students to conduct 

specialized inquiry under the guidance of leading researchers. Membership in specialized 

and ethnic professional associations enables students to gain professional development. 


In particular the student-directed Activist Librarians & Educators Group and Library and 

Archive OUTreach are committed to promoting equity in information services and 

through their activities, they support actions that advance inclusion in all aspects of our 

profession. 

Additionally, the department has worked to establish, in partnership with UC Riverside 

and ten libraries in the Inland Empire, the Inland Empire Librarians Educated to Advance 

Diversity and Service (IE-LEADS). With a large grant from the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services (IMLS), IE-LEADS works to encourage careers in librarianship among 

students in the Inland Empire, an area hit hard by the recent recession, and which consists 

of large populations of Mexican-American, Latino, and other Hispanic groups. Awards 

provide fellowships, internships, and professional development support for up to 25 

Inland Empire library employees from partner institutions, as well as graduate students 

and graduating seniors from UC Riverside and the University of Redlands, to pursue an 

ALA-accredited graduate program in library and information studies. 

UCLA is internationally recognized for its outstanding academic research and resources, 

including its programs in area and ethnic studies. UCLA was the first university to create 

an ethnic studies program, and has more such programs now than any other American 

university (http://www.ethnicstudies40th.ucla.edu). Our students can take advantage of 

UCLA's many extra-departmental courses and expertise on ethnic and racial issues. For 

example: four ethnic research centers (American Indian, Asian American, Bunche 

(African American), and Chicano/a Studies), each with its own library, publications, and 

research expertise; critical race theorists at the law school; joint Master's degree program 

with Latin American Studies; and individually articulated joint Master's degree programs 

with ethnic or other academic programs, including Women’s Studies and LGBT Studies. 

4.1.4 The composition of the student body is such that it fosters a learning environment 

consistent with the school's mission and program goals and objectives. 

While the IS Department has a diverse student body consistent with our social justice 

goals and objectives, we remain unsatisfied with the level of diversity. California Law, 

especially Proposition 209 that prohibits public institutions from considering race, sex, 

and ethnicity in their recruitment and retention programs, along with directives from the 

University Regents, has hampered efforts to target underrepresented students for 

admission. However, the department’s Diversity Council and our reputation as an 

academic department that values and teaches diversity have resulted in a relatively 

diverse student body. 

For academic year 2009–2010, the most recent data available, nearly 19% of the student 

body identifies as Asian, not including Filipino, which constitutes another 2.5% of the 

student body. The number of students entering the program who identify as Asian has 

more than doubled since our last accreditation report (2003). The increase has remained 

constant over the past five years. Nearly 12% of our student body identifies as Chicano, 

Mexican American, Latino, or other Hispanic (represented on the chart below as 

“Latino”). American Indians constitute anywhere between 0.5% and 1% of the student 


ody. African Americans constitute 4.5% of the student body. While the number of 

foreign students in the past academic year is around 2% of the student body, international 

students have averaged nearly 5% of the student body over the past ten years. Students 

who identify as Caucasian continue to constitute the majority of the student body, but 

only barely at 52%. Finally, 73% of students identify as women. These data are derived 

from the Graduate Council Report, attached in appendix 2.10. 

While the numbers of African American and American Indian students roughly match 

those of the profession, and while the number of Chicano, Mexican American, Latino, 

and other Hispanic students far exceeds that of the profession, 5 the department is 

dissatisfied with the number of students among its student body from these three 

constituent groups, especially given our location in one of the world’s most diverse cities. 

As mentioned above, however, the department has developed, along with UC Riverside, 

the Inland Empire LEADS program to help address this issue. The department also 

makes abundantly clear in all of its literature and on its website its commitment to 

diversity and social justice. The department is currently seeking a professor of color who 

can teach in these areas and will complement our curriculum’s continued commitment to 

issues facing minorities. The department also has a Diversity Council—a periodic 

committee consisting of faculty, staff and students—that addresses issues of cultural 

diversity. We also endeavor to match the ALA Spectrum award for all Spectrum 

5 For statistics of African Americans, Chicano, Mexican-American, Latino, and other Hispanic in the 

library profession, see the latest survey of ALA members (revised 2007), entitled “Diversity Counts”: 

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/diversity/diversitycounts/diversitycounts_rev0.pdf 


Scholars. Issues of diversity also regularly make their way into our department’s 

Colloquium series as well as talks hosted by the department’s Center for Information as 

Evidence. 

While statistics are not available for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) 

students, people with disabilities, non-traditional students, or other racial and ethnic 

groups not identified above, the department strongly encourages all minorities and 

underrepresented populations to apply to the program. The department also offers 

guidance and financial support for the efforts of student groups to address the issues these 

constituencies face. For example, in 2005, students established Library & Archive 

OUTreach, a student group devoted to addressing LGBT and related issues. The group 

holds an annual symposium and invites guest speakers to address these issues. 

Additionally, the group administers the Rae Lee Siporin Library, UCLA’s LGBT 

resource center library, one of the largest such libraries in the country. 

IV.2 

Current, accurate, and easily accessible information on the school and its 

program is available to students and the general public. This information 

includes announcements of program goals and objectives, descriptions of 

curricula, information on faculty, admission requirements, availability of 

financial aid, criteria for evaluating student performance, assistance with 

placement, and other policies and procedures. The school demonstrates that 

it has procedures to support these policies. 

4.2.1 Current, accurate, and easily accessible information on the school and its 

program is available to students and the general public. 

The IS Department places a high priority on providing in-depth information for 

prospective and current students and for the general public. The current website, 

http://is.gseis.ucla.edu, serves as the primary source of information, and includes the 

information about the school, mission, program goals, objectives, admissions, current 

faculty research, course listings, department news and events, directories of students, 

faculty, and staff, and additional resources for students (jobs database, funding 

information, intranet access, and list-servs). The department has recently completed a 

redesign of its website, making information about the department more accessible. The 

website also includes a searchable database for information contained within it. 

Additionally, the department maintains a newsblog, http://uclainfostudies.blogspot.com, 

and a page on facebook.com, through which it disseminates department news and events. 

The department also provides students with an annually updated Student Handbook 

(attached in appendix 2.1), which includes information concerning the academic 

calendar, administration, programs sponsored by the department, department facilities 

and resources, campus facilities and resources, student support services, communication, 

policies and procedures, programmatic information, opportunities for publication, 

commencement, course outlines, and faculty advisors, to name only a few. The 

handbook is also available on our website. 


Staff in the Office of Students Services are available during normal business hours should 

students feel the need to see someone in person without an appointment. Faculty readily 

make themselves available and hold regular office hours, which are also posted on the 

website and on course syllabi. 

The department also maintains numerous list-servs: a list-serv for major department 

announcements, chat list-servs, list-servs for specific programs and specializations, and 

list-servs for particular interests or student groups. Additionally, some of the talks in the 

department colloquium series are podcast and available on the website. The department 

makes brochures about each of the specializations within the MLIS program (Libraries, 

Archives, Informatics) available in public spaces around the department—hallways, 

salons, common areas, etc. 

Finally, students are members, either as SGB representatives or by IS appointment, of the 

major governance and curriculum committees of the department, and participate in the 

developments of their degree programs. 

4.2.2 This information includes announcements of program goals and objectives, 

descriptions of curricula, information on faculty, admission requirements, 

availability of financial aid, criteria for evaluating student performance, 

assistance with placement, and other policies and procedures. 

The department goals and objectives are available online and on our brochures. 

Descriptions of curricula are available on the department website and through the UCLA 

General Catalog of courses, published by the Registrar’s Office, which students can 

access online or in print. Course descriptions include the scope and focus of the courses, 

faculty who will be teaching the course, and when the course will be offered. The 

department also makes available tentative course schedules for 2–3 terms in advance, so 

that students are able to plan their courses accordingly. All course registration at UCLA 

occurs at a central location online, https://www.ursa.ucla.edu. 

When changes in degree requirements are implemented, the department takes special care 

to communicate with students. The department regularly holds brown-bag lunches, town 

hall meetings, and students are encouraged to attend the colloquium series, where the 

faculty regularly make announcements. Faculty members also disseminate department 

information in their classes. 

The department website includes information about faculty, staff, and students. 

Information online concerning faculty includes phone numbers, email addresses, external 

websites, office hours, CVs, recent publications, research interests, and teaching 

repertoire. 

The website includes an entire section devoted to admissions requirements, including a 

detailed summary of each of the degrees offered by the program. That same section 

includes information on deadlines for admissions, necessary forms, where to apply, goals 


and objectives of each program, a course catalog, and information for incoming students. 

The department also offers workshops for prospective students annually. 

Another section of the website and student handbook includes information on financial 

aid, entitled “funding.” This section includes a funding database, updated regularly with 

all recent scholarships brought to the attention of faculty and staff. The website includes 

additional information on graduate support from the UCLA Graduate Division and the 

American Library Association. 

In the section of the Student Handbook entitled, “Essential IS and University Policies and 

Procedures,” also available on the department website, we give a detailed account of the 

University policy for evaluating students, including information on letter grading and 

what each letter means. According to University policy, graduate students must maintain 

a GPA of a “B” average (3.0) or better in order to graduate. We also include information 

on student files, registration, leave of absence, probation, change of name/address, and 

University nondiscrimination policies. 

The website has an entire section devoted to assisting students with job placements, 

entitled “Job Listing.” See section 4.1. We list web pages that contain listings for all job 

postings that are received by the department; this includes those received by post and 

those received through email. We also include University-wide resources for job 

placement, job listing and resources for librarians, job resources for the Los Angeles area, 

and links to online career networks. Students can also find job placement information at 

our student-alumni events, university-wide career fairs, our department resume 

workshops, and through our in-house internship program. 

4.2.3 The school demonstrates that it has procedures to support these policies. 

The department’s Professional Program Committee (PPC) oversees all of the policies 

regarding the MLIS program. PPC is also responsible for overseeing the curriculum 

requirements. It plays a significant role in driving the direction of the curriculum and in 

determining related policies and procedures with input from the department chair and the 

Office of Student Services. Major decisions require a full faculty vote. PPC is more 

fully described in section 2.4. 

The department’s investment in professional student affairs has been instrumental in 

achieving its enrollment goals and in supporting the policies and programs of the 

department. 


IV.3 

Standards for admission are applied consistently. Students admitted have 

earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution; the policies and 

procedures for waiving any admission standard or academic prerequisite are 

stated clearly and applied consistently. Assessment of an application is based 

on a combined evaluation of academic, intellectual, and other qualifications 

as they relate to the constituencies served by a program, a program's goals 

and objectives, and the career objectives of the individual. Within the 

framework of institutional policy and programs, the admission policy for a 

program ensures that applicants possess sufficient interest, aptitude, and 

qualifications to enable successful completion of a program and subsequent 

contribution to the field. 

4.3.1 Standards for admission are applied consistently. 

The standards for admission are applied consistently and thoroughly. The IS 

Department’s Admissions, Awards, and Recruitment Committee (AARC) oversees the 

admission of students to the MLIS program and makes decisions about those fellowships 

over which the department has control. AARC is composed of three faculty members; 

staff support is provided by the Office of Student Services. Applicants must hold a 

bachelor's degree, or equivalent, from an institution of recognized standing. The 

department also requires a statement of purpose, résumé, and letters of recommendation. 

The University requires GRE scores, TOEFL scores if relevant, and a minimum GPA of 

3.0 (a “B” average). 

Additionally, there are multiple layers of oversight to the admissions procedure at UCLA. 

Graduate Division provides oversight to our admissions process and ensures that our 

procedures follow university policy, such as procedures for the provisional admission of 

a student with an average GPA lower than 3.0. 

The UCLA Graduate Council also examines institutional data about admissions and 

makes determinations about the process and results. A significant lowering of average 

GRE scores of incoming students, for example, would be questioned. We believe that 

our admissions process is consistent and fair. 

The department also maintains an appeals process for those students who feel they were 

unfairly denied admission. 

4.3.2 Students admitted have earned a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution; 

the policies and procedures for waiving any admission standard or academic 

prerequisite are stated clearly and applied consistently. 

Students’ undergraduate transcripts are checked as part of the admissions process to 

verify the bachelor’s degree has been conferred from an accredited institution. On our 

website and in our prospective student workshops, we clearly state our admissions 

criteria and qualifications. 


In addition to a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, the department requires 

a statement of purpose, résumé, and three letters of recommendation. The University 

requires GRE scores, TOEFL scores if relevant, and a minimum GPA of 3.0 (“B” 

average), which can be waived upon approval of the UCLA Graduate Division if a 

student shows exceptionally strong qualities in other aspects of his or her application. 

Students must also complete an application form and pay a fee for the Graduate Division, 

and all students entering UCLA complete an application for fellowships from UCLA 

Graduate Division. 

4.3.3 Assessment of an application is based on a combined evaluation of academic, 

intellectual, and other qualifications as they relate to the constituencies served by 

a program, a program's goals and objectives, and the career objectives of the 

individual. 

Our admission standard is selective, based on a holistic review of the applicants’ 

qualifications and promise. Our selectivity is in keeping with UCLA’s standing as one of 

the top public institutions in the United States. Our admissions process is designed to 

support our mission and objectives through building and maintaining a student body that 

supports our key program characteristics (leadership, social justice, commitment to 

communities, interdisciplinary, equity, diversity, intellectual openness, and practical 

engagement). To do this, we admit students from diverse academic and geographic 

backgrounds with diverse ethnicities, life experiences, work experiences, and career 

goals. We balance all of the elements in a student’s entire application. 

As an example of this holistic approach, as stated above, while the university requires a 

minimum undergraduate GPA of 3.0 for graduate admission, the requirement can be 

waived upon approval of the Graduate Division if a student shows exceptionally strong 

qualities in other aspects of their application, such as leadership, work experience, or 

leadership potential. The statement of purpose, transcripts, GRE scores, GPA, letters of 

reference, and résumé each indicate, in different ways, an applicant’s potential to conduct 

graduate study and contribute to the profession. Particularly the résumé, letters of 

reference, and statement of purpose demonstrate an applicant’s leadership potential, 

ability to work with others, and commitment to service and social justice. The statement 

of purpose in particular must demonstrate solid writing skills. We specifically ask 

applicants in their statement of purpose to consider the vision of the department and 

indicate why they believe that our program and its areas of specialization are a good 

match for their particular background, experience, outlook, professional interests, and 

personal passions and aspirations. 

The department provides a consistent and thorough approach to admissions processing 

and decision-making, and follows guidelines and standards set by the UCLA Graduate 

Division. Applicants not approved for admission have the option of reapplying and/or 

requesting feedback on the department’s decision. 


4.3.4 Within the framework of institutional policy and programs, the admission policy 

for a program ensures that applicants possess sufficient interest, aptitude, and 

qualifications to enable successful completion of a program and subsequent 

contribution to the field. 

The IS Department maintains consistent standards across all admissions decisions. We 

take great care only to admit those students with an interest in the field of information 

and specifically in our department’s mission and goals. The statement of purpose largely 

helps us to determine which students best suit the program in this regard. In writing their 

statement of purpose, we ask applicants to consider the vision of the department and 

indicate why they believe that our program and its areas of specialization are a good 

match for their particular background, experience, outlook, professional interests, and 

personal passions and aspirations. 

We look holistically at each application to consider the aptitude and qualifications that 

suggest the student will succeed in our program and as a professional. We consider the 

applicant’s statement of purpose, transcripts, GRE scores, GPA, letters of reference, and 

résumé. Taken together, these criteria help us determine which students are right for our 

program and the profession. While no one factor determines admission, we are pleased 

that a number of our admitted students indicate strong academic achievement as 

undergraduates and show considerable promise to succeed in our program and in the 

profession through previous work experience, résumés, transcripts, reference letters, 

leadership opportunities, life experiences, and marketable writing skills. 

We pay close attention to those students who fit the department’s mission and goals. We 

are, therefore, especially interested in students who are dedicated to inquiry, the 

advancement of knowledge, the improvement of professional practice, and service to the 

education and information professions. We are also especially interested in potential 

leaders within the information professions. We look for students whose work is guided 

by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and 

commitment to their communities. As previously noted, the department’s Admissions, 

Awards, and Recruitment Committee (AARC) oversees the admission of students to the 

MLIS program. Each applicant is reviewed for financial aid and scholarships both by the 

AARC and the UCLA Graduate Division. AARC is composed of three faculty members 

and staff support is provided by the Office of Student Services. 

The department offers a rigorous academic program, as overseen by the Professional 

Programs Committee (PPC), and we communicate this with our applicants and students 

to help them make informed decisions about their enrollment. The department indicates 

the rigor of the program in the Admission and Academic sections of its website. We also 

communicate the rigor of the program again during incoming-student orientation. For the 

past ten years, the department averages roughly 200 applicants, of which we admit an 

average of 63%. The enrollment success rate for 2009–2010 was just over 70%. We 

enrolled our largest cohort of students in the Fall quarters of 2005, 2006, and 2008, each 

nearing 100 new registrants. Our more moderate cohorts enroll between 70 and 80 

students. The size of a given cohort reflects the size of our faculty and what we believe is 


appropriate given our current resources. The size of a cohort also reflects how many 

students to whom we feel we can deliver quality instruction and support and ensure 

rigorous academic and professional standards. Eighty-five percent of the Fall 2008 

cohort graduated by Spring 2010, thereby completing their degree in the fastest time 

possible for our 72-unit, full-time two-year degree program. Over the last ten years, an 

average of 87.5% of our students finished their MLIS within two years. 

IV.4 

Students construct coherent programs of study that allow individual needs, 

goals, and aspirations to be met within the context of program requirements 

established by the school. Students receive systematic, multifaceted 

evaluation of their achievements. Students have access to continuing 

opportunities for guidance, counseling, and placement assistance. 

4.4.1 Students construct coherent programs of study that allow individual needs, goals, 

and aspirations to be met within the context of program requirements established 

by the school. 

The MLIS is structured as a 72-unit, full-time two-year single degree program 

comprising a comprehensive required core curriculum that includes 6 core courses 

(IS200: Information in Society; IS260: Information Structures; IS270: Introduction to 

Information Technology; IS245: Information Access; IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and 

Change; and IS410: Management Theory and Practice for Information Professionals) and 

a required course in research methods selected from several quantitative, qualitative, and 

historiographical courses that are offered inside and outside the department (students can 

choose from a wide range of research methods courses at UCLA); as well as elective 

courses in one or more of the following areas of specialization: Library Studies, Archival 

Studies, and Informatics. These specializations allow students to have substantial control 

over the focus of their program of study. Students can change their specialization if their 

interests evolve, they can take classes that relate to other specializations, and they can 

focus on more than one specialization. Students also have the option to enroll in IS596: 

Individual Study courses, which allow them to design their own course tailored to their 

specific interests and goals, with the advice, guidance, and evaluation of a faculty 

member. 

The extensive core and required research methods courses comprise a comprehensive and 

coherent program of study regarding professional theory, research, and practice for all 

MLIS students. The specializations provide students with choices of electives that enable 

them to obtain specific and advanced knowledge and skills within areas of the profession 

of interest to them. The portfolio and thesis culminating options (students choose one) 

allow students, working closely with their academic advisors and thesis committee 

members, to articulate and develop (through an appropriate combination of courses, 

practical experience, technological training and design and evaluation experience, 

professional leadership activities, and research) an area of leadership or intellectual 

interest that is specific to them. Adjunct faculty drawn from the leadership ranks of 


various information professions are used to teach courses that complement the offerings 

led by members of the regular faculty. 

Students are represented on all departmental committees and task forces, with the 

exception of those relating to applications and admissions. The department chair works 

closely with representatives of the Student Governing Board (SGB). Regular public 

Brown Bag and Town Hall meetings are held by the students with the faculty and/or the 

chair to discuss upcoming courses or to obtain feedback on core courses or the portfolio 

preparation and evaluation processes, as well as to discuss proposed curricular changes or 

departmental strategies and planning. The SGB conducts surveys of the first and second 

year MLIS students regarding the core curriculum, and that feedback is incorporated into 

the review of the MLIS core curriculum. 

The department also offers a robust and vast internship program that allows students to 

take advantage of the wide variety of information institutions in the Southern California 

region. Students receive course credit for professional-level work. Students are 

encouraged to choose internship sites that suit their interests and professional goals and to 

take courses that compliment the work they do in their internships. As a result, students 

receive an experiential learning opportunity tailored to their interests. 

Finally, should policies or procedures change while a student is enrolled, students have 

the option to continue with the policy in place when they entered the program or to 

follow the new policies and procedures. 

4.4.2 Students receive systematic, multifaceted evaluation of their achievements. 

Students have access to continuing opportunities for guidance, counseling, and 

placement assistance. 

Students are regularly evaluated by professors within class on course assignments, 

exams, and attendance, and participation. Most classes offer systematic letter grades as 

part of student evaluation: A–Superior, B–Good, C–Fair, F–Failure. Certain classes, such 

as IS201: Ethics, Diversity, and Change, evaluate student performance on a 

Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis. Students also have the option of visiting professors 

during office hours, where they can receive further face-to-face evaluation. During office 

hours, students can receive guidance on a particular assignment or any other aspect of the 

program. The department also evaluates students on their portfolio presentations by 

giving in-person feedback and awarding students a Pass or Fail with in-person 

explanation. Students are evaluated on their achievements in the internship program 

through surveys of internship site supervisors. The department regularly acknowledges 

student achievements on the main page of our website and in the News & Events section 

of our website (http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/events/index.htm). We also print student 

achievements in Graduate Quarterly, a magazine published by UCLA Graduate Division 

and sent to graduate students. Achievements that might be announced online or in print 

include fellowship or scholarship awards, publications, merit-based awards, and major 

community service projects. 


All students are assigned a faculty advisor upon enrollment. If a student changes career 

objectives or specialization, or finds that the advisor is no longer helpful, the student may 

seek a different advisor without penalty. With a relatively low faculty-student ratio in the 

MLIS program—approximately one to twelve—there is no reason for a student to fall 

between the cracks. Faculty regularly hold office hours, which are publicized on the 

department website, and are frequently available before and after class. Students can also 

contact faculty by email or through their office phone. Faculty members are expected to 

respond to email as soon as practically possible. 

Students receive through and careful faculty feedback on their culminating project, 

whether a portfolio or thesis. This evaluation is described section 2. 

Additionally, the Office of Student Services, located within GSE&IS, offers additional 

academic guidance, including course requirements, policies and procedures, and 

graduation information. The office also offers professional-level financial guidance, 

directing students to potential internal and external fellowships, scholarships, and 

financial aid through UCLA. Other support staff members, including administrative 

assistants, are regularly available to provide support in navigating bureaucracy in the 

greater university community. 

The Internship Coordinator advises students on where to look for jobs that suit their 

interests and helps students secure internships that may lead to future job opportunities. 

Faculty members also regularly make job opportunities known on list-servs and the 

department website (see sections 4.1 and 4.2.2). The department holds several mixers 

and social events throughout the year, at which students have the opportunity to meet 

alumni who can offer further career advice, guidance, and counseling. In addition, 

UCLA provides comprehensive career services at the UCLA Career Center, which 

includes a full complement of career counseling, workshops, databases, and career fairs. 

Information on academic advising, guidance, and counseling is made available on the 

department website and in the Student Handbook (provided in appendix 2.1), as described 

in section 4.2.1. Students are also told of their advising options during the all-day 

incoming-student orientation, where students meet their advisors for the first time, in 

advance of the start of classes. Students can also find guidance at our student-alumni 

events, University-wide career fairs, and our department resume workshops. 

IV.5 

The school provides an environment that fosters student participation in the 

definition and determination of the total learning experience. Students are 

provided with opportunities to form student organizations and to participate 

in the formulation, modification, and implementation of policies affecting 

academic and student affairs. 

4.5.1 The school provides an environment that fosters student participation in the 

definition and determination of the total learning experience. 


Students participate fully in departmental affairs. The Student Governing Board (SGB) is 

the formal mechanism for student participation in departmental governance. SGB is run 

entirely by students, with by-laws, whose members are elected by the MLIS student 

body. Elections for officers are typically held in the spring, with a supplemental election 

for entering students held early in the fall. SGB appoints student representatives to attend 

faculty meetings and to serve on committees, such as the Professional Programs 

Committee (PPC). SGB also convenes annual town hall meetings to provide feedback to 

the faculty on the MLIS program, as described in section 2.5.2. SGB has been in 

existence within the department for years, and consistently provides high levels of 

student leadership and opportunities for students to participate in the governance of the 

department. The chair holds frequent meetings with the officers of SGB. 

In addition, the department chair appoints students to serve on various ad hoc 

committees. There are, for example, students serving on active faculty search 

committees. Students also serve on school-wide committees, such as the GSE&IS 

Faculty Executive Committee, and task forces, such as the graduate speaker committee. 

4.5.2 Students are provided with opportunities to form student organizations. 

MLIS students have the opportunity to participate in a broad range of student 

organizations. There are currently twelve active student organizations in the department. 

Many students are involved in one or more groups related to their interests. The 

department provides modest financial support to student organization events upon 

request. Student organizations can obtain additional funds through UCLA’s Center for 

Student Programming, the UCLA Social Sciences Council Resources, and the UCLA 

Graduate Student Association, although unfortunately all of these have also been subject 

to budget cuts in recent years. Student organizations also additional raise funds for a 

particular activity. In order to receive funding from University-wide organizations, 

student groups must annually register with the Center for Student Programming and 

develop bylaws and a constitution. 

Current departmental student organizations are listed below and can also be found on the 

department website (http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/people/organizations): 

• Student Governing Board (SGB) 

• Activist Librarians and Educators (ALE) 

• American Library Association (ALA) 

• American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T) 

• ARTiFACTS 

• Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) 

• Horn Press 

• Library & Archive OUTreach 

• Nidorf Collective 

• Society of American Archivists (SAA) 

• Special Libraries Association (SLA) 

• Young Adult & Children's Services (YACS) 


These student organizations give students the opportunity to develop their leadership 

skills, network with participating information professionals, and to enrich the 

extracurricular life of the department. The associations sponsor panels, symposia, and 

excursions to institutions in the Southern California region. For example, the student 

members of the Nidorf Collective collect books for and provide reading programs at the 

Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Detention Center in Sylmar, California. The group also tours 

prison libraries throughout Southern California. Library & Archive OUTreach, a group 

devoted to addressing issues relating to LGBT and queer community members, 

administers the Rae Lee Siporin Library, UCLA’s LGBT Library, and convenes an 

annual symposium with guest lectures on LGBT issues in the fields of libraries and 

archives. The group ARTiFACTS, which promotes art librarianship, visual resources, 

and museum informatics, regularly coordinates excursions to Los Angeles art libraries 

and museums. The Horn Press gives students the opportunity to engage in fine printing 

and to visit major rare book and artist book collections in Southern California. 

Most organizations host a welcome event in the fall. The department provides groups 

their own list-serv upon request. Each group receives a faculty advisor from within the 

department, who advises the group, helps to promote their events, and suggests sources of 

funding. Many groups also raise funds to send members to annual conferences, such as 

the American Library Association, ASIS&T, Special Library Association, and the 

Society of American Archivists. A quick survey of faculty advisors and a reading of 

student portfolios leads us to believe that nearly 100% of the student body participates in 

one or more of the student organizations. 

4. 5.3 Students participate in the formulation, modification, and implementation 

of policies affecting academic and student affairs. 

As noted in section 4.5.1, students participate fully in departmental and school affairs. 

The department provides students with both formal and informal opportunities to 

participate in the formulation, modification, and implementation of policies affecting 

academic and student affairs. The Student Governing Board (SGB) is the formal 

mechanism for student participation in departmental governance, but any student is 

welcome to attend faculty meetings and meetings of the Professional Program Committee 

(PPC). Students can also contact their advisor, the chair, the Student Affairs Officer, or 

any other faculty member by email, phone, or during their office hours. As mentioned 

previously, the department regularly holds brown-bag lunches and town hall meetings, 

where students feel free to discuss any aspect of the program. 

Students also participate in the GSE&IS Faculty Executive Committee, the major 

advisory group to the dean. 


IV.6 

The school applies the results of evaluation of student achievement to 

program development. Procedures are established for systematic evaluation 

of the degree to which a program's academic and administrative policies and 

activities regarding students are accomplishing its objectives. Within 

applicable institutional policies, faculty, students, staff, and others are 

involved in the evaluation process. 

4.6.1 The school applies the results of evaluation of student achievement to program 

development. 

Student feedback and the results of our evaluation of student achievement data have been 

integral in the ongoing evaluation activities of the school. We use these evaluations to 

assess whether we are accomplishing our program goals and mission. Since 2003, the 

department has regularly contacted alumni to assess their graduate education. We solicit 

student feedback before making changes in the curriculum or in program requirements. 

The results of evaluating student achievement have contributed directly to decisions 

about the Department’s programs and services for students, including: 

• Reworking the core courses to add a course concerning ethics and diversity; 

• Offering more elective courses specific to student interests; 

• Determining what term courses should be offered; 

• Giving students tentative schedules of classes several terms in advance; 

• Offering skills and workshops, such as the Friday Forum, which provide students 

and alumni with continuing education in a specific area; and 

• Changing the date/time of particular classes to avoid conflict. 

4.6.2 Procedures are established for systematic evaluation of the degree to which a 

program's academic and administrative policies and activities regarding students 

are accomplishing its objectives. 

We have an extensive program for gathering student evaluative feedback on whether our 

academic and administrative policies are accomplishing our goals. The Graduate 

Division annually surveys graduating students to determine the quality of our advising, 

teaching, availability of faculty and staff, the value of our courses, the sense of 

community within the department, the inclusion of graduate students in departmental 

government, and advisor-student relations. The IS Department views this survey as a 

partial indicator of whether our policies and activities are accomplishing our goals. As 

described in section 2, the Student Governing Board (SGB) conducts annual town hall 

reviews of departmental policies and procedures. The department also administers course 

evaluations, which are mandatory for each course that we teach. These include both 

multiple choice and open-ended questions that sometimes address academic and 

administrative policies affecting students. We annually survey students about our 

academic and administrative policies, which help us to understand whether we are 

accomplishing our objectives. As previously noted, the department also regularly holds 

brown bag lunches, workshops, and town hall meetings where students have the 


opportunity to address departmental academic and administrative policies. We also 

strongly encourage input from the SGB members on all departmental committees. 

4.6.3 Within applicable institutional policies, faculty, students, staff, and others are 

involved in the evaluation process. 

In addition to the surveys and meetings mentioned in section 4.6.2, faculty, staff, and 

students are involved in the evaluation process as part of the Professional Programs 

Committee (PPC) (comprised of three faculty members, student representatives from the 

Student Governing Board, and staff from the Office of Student Services), which is active 

in gathering and analyzing relevant data, reviewing and modifying academic and 

administrative policies, and fostering continued development of our course offerings. 

Major academic and policy decisions are reviewed, discussed, and voted upon by the full 

faculty. Students are welcome to attend full faculty meetings. 

The Office of Student Affairs regularly meets to review and analyze student input from 

surveys and to discuss student needs and preferences for policies, programs, and services. 

Each month, the Office of Student Affairs staff gather to discuss student issues and needs 

at both the department level and at the level of the Graduate School of Education and 

Information Studies. 


Section 5: Administration and Financial Support 


V.1 The school is an integral yet distinctive academic unit within the institution. 

Its autonomy is sufficient to assure that the intellectual content of its 

program, the selection and promotion of its faculty, and the selection of its 

students are determined by the school within the general guidelines of the 

institution. The parent institution provides the resources and administrative 

support needed for the attainment of program objectives. 

5.1.1 The school is an integral yet distinctive academic unit within the institution. 

The previous campus-based review of the IS Department conducted ten years ago 

concluded that the department has weaved a connected, yet distinct identity within the 

larger Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS) following its 1994 

merger. The faculty enjoy all of the privileges bestowed upon professors: all are 

members of the UC and UCLA academic senates, participate in school (GSE&IS) 

governance, and also work together on departmental matters in monthly faculty meetings 

and have additional duties as members of various departmental subcommittees. 

The department is one of two within the Graduate School of Education & Information 

Studies. Although the Department of Education is much larger, the governance structure 

and representation within the school between the departments is quite equal. Each are 

represented by a departmental chair, and they meet individually with the dean on a 

weekly basis and joint meetings are held monthly. All faculty members are eligible to 

serve on the school’s Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) that meets monthly with the 

dean. There is strong participation by IS faculty in these efforts. 

The department chair is selected from the IS faculty by the dean with consultation with 

the faculty. Generally chairs are considered to serve for three-year terms, though there is 

flexibility in implementing this policy. The current department chair, Gregory Leazer, is 

entering his third year of service as chair, and is likely to serve in AY 2012–13 as well 

for the first year of a new dean’s service. Since the last re-accreditation, the chairs have 

been: 

• Virginia Walter, 2002–2005 

• Anne Gilliland, 2005–2009 

• Gregory Leazer, 2009– 


Sudikoff Family 

Institute 

Kathleen Wyer 

Direct Reporting Line 

Indirect Reporting Line 

October 2010_Rev 

March 2011 

Special Projects 

Andrew Cázares 

Merle Price 

Karen Hunter Quartz 

Dean 

Aimée Dorr 

Asst to the 

Dean 

Cindy Cordova 

UCLA 

Lab School 

Norma Silva 

Department of 

Education 

Megan Franke 

Assistant to 

Ed Chair 

Leah 

Wilmore 

Moving Image 

Archive Studies 

Leah Lievrouw 

Department of 

Information 

Studies 

Gregory Leazer 

Assistant to 

IS Chair 

Andrew 

Vanschooneveld 

Asst. Dean, 

Administration/CAO 

Rosemary Chavoya 

Development 

& Alumni Affairs 

Laura Lindberg 

Communications 

Shaena Engle 

Higher Education & 

Organizational 

Change 

Linda Sax 

Education Studies 

Minor 

Robert Cooper 

Doctoral 

Program 

Committee 

Johanna Drucker 

Academic 

Personnel 

Marilyn Salinger 

Academic Personnel 

Suellen Coleman (25%) 

Academic Personnel 

Michael Hall (25%) 

Psychological 

Studies in 

Education 

Sandra Graham 

Educational 

Leadership 

Program 

Patricia McDonough 

Linda Rose 

Multimedia & 

Information 

Technology 

Keri Botello 

Chief Financial 

Officer 

Budget Analyst 

Bill Dandridge 

Social Research 

Methodology 

José-Felipe Martinez 

Masters in Student 

Affairs 

Jane Pizzolato 

Robert Naples 

Christine Wilson 

Professional 

Programs 

Committee 


Awards, 

Admissions, & 

Recruitment Comm. 

OPEN 

Educational 

Technology Unit 

Peter Kovaric 

Staff Personnel 

Michael Hall (75%) 

Social Sciences & 

Comparative 

Education 

Principal 

Leadership Institute 

John Richardson 

Management 

Services 

Support 

Services 

Carlos A. Torres 

Robert Cooper 

Nancy Parachini 

John Rogers 

Suellen Coleman 

(75%) 

Karen Teruya 

Urban Schooling 

Teacher Education 

Program 

Office of Student 

Services 

Ernest Morrell 

Marjorie Faulstich 

Orellana 

Annamarie Francois 

Amy Gershon

The chair reports to the dean, supervises departmental staff, convenes the departmental 

faculty, consults with campus officials, and serves as ex officio member of various school 

and university committees. The full responsibilities of the department chair are described 

in the University of California Academic Personnel Manual section 245, attached in 

appendix 5.1. 

The Graduate School of Education & Information Studies is one of 11 professional 

schools at UCLA. The school is led by a dean who reports directly to the Chancellor and 

Provost of the University. 

A broad view of the University and school organizational charts and departmental staff 

lists show a decentralized structure where the chair of the department consults with and 

reports to the dean and proposes major program changes or personnel matters to the IS 

faculty who then also vote on the decisions. Major programmatic decisions are also 

subject to GSE&IS Faculty Executive Committee and UCLA Graduate Council review 

and approval. The Graduate Council requires an eight-year review with regular reporting 

by the department in-between. Final authority on smaller scale administrative decisions 

resides almost exclusively with the chair, who can further delegate responsibilities to vice 

chairs, faculty and senior staff. GSE&IS has a good support structure with an academic 

personnel office, development office, a business office, marketing, educational 

technology support staff, librarians, administrative staff, and student workers. 

GSE&IS is a highly valued school within UCLA. It consistently places as the highest 

ranked school within UCLA, and is the center for many campus- and university-based 

initiatives. 

5.1.2 Its autonomy is sufficient to assure that the intellectual content of its program, the 

selection and promotion of its faculty, and the selection of its students are 

determined by the school within the general guidelines of the institution. 

UCLA adheres to a strong tradition of joint governance of the university between faculty 

and administration. Academic matters are left almost entirely to the faculty, and the 

mantra at UCLA is that the faculty decides “what gets taught to whom, by whom.” 

Faculty governs the curriculum, selects the faculty, and determines who is admitted and 

finally who graduates. Faculty promotion is a joint administrative and faculty decision. 

The IS Department has a strong identity of its own within UCLA and GSE&IS, and it has 

a strong academic voice worldwide. This voice has been cultivated by the careful 

governance of the department, through selection, training, and development of its faculty, 

students and staff. The faculty acts as a committee for major policy decisions, and 

utilizes a series of subcommittees to review curricular matters (the Professional Programs 

Committee, for the MLIS program) and admission (Admissions, Awards, and 

Recruitment Committee). Faculty selection is administered as a committee of the whole, 

though ad hoc search committees are used to coordinate recruitment and the early stages 

of selection. All committees have student representation and many include alumni and 

adjunct participation as well. 


UCLA faculty govern, select and promote its own faculty, according to the policies and 

procedures of the UC Academic Personnel Manual and The UCLA CALL. Hiring 

decisions at the assistant professor level, as well as all regular faculty within-rank merit 

increases, are voted upon by the IS faculty, then forwarded to the dean, who has final 

approval authority. Hiring decisions at the associate and full professor (tenured) levels, 

as well as promotion and tenure decisions, are voted upon by the faculty, then forwarded 

to the dean and the campus Council on Academic Personnel (made up of UCLA faculty), 

who in turn make final recommendations. The final decision is made by the Vice 

Chancellor for Academic Personnel. 

For further information about faculty hiring and promotion, see the UC Academic 

Personnel Manual: http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/apm/welcome.html and The 

UCLA CALL: http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/index.htm. 

The department selects Masters and Ph.D. students through admission committees that 

include a minimum of 3 ladder faculty members and follow department guidelines that 

abide by the broader University policies. University policy is determined by the UCLA 

Graduate Council (a faculty committee), which confers some responsibility for 

administering policy to the dean and Vice Chancellor of Graduate Division. For graduate 

school admissions, university policies in general set a baseline about who can be 

admitted: students must hold a baccalaureate degree and have a 3.0 undergraduate grade 

point average. Within that framework, the Admissions, Awards, and Recruitment 

Committee (AARC) selects students for the MLIS program. AARC has three faculty 

members, and is currently chaired by Prof. John Richardson. 

5.1.3 The parent institution provides the resources and administrative support needed 

for the attainment of program objectives. 

The IS Department continues to face significant financial challenges due to California’s 

current fiscal crisis. Most recently, the state has cut $650 million in funding to the UC 

system on top of the almost billion dollars in cuts made over the last four years. During 

the period under review, the university has implemented furloughs, laid off staff, cut 

programs, increased class sizes, delayed building projects, and increased tuition, 

including a 9.6 percent tuition increase for 2011–12. This is in addition to the eight 

percent tuition increase over our 2010–11 fee that the Regents had already passed in 

November 2010. The increase, which went into effect beginning with fall 2011 classes, 

will raise mandatory system-wide charges, including tuition and the student services fee, 

for the academic year by an additional $1,068, to a total of $12,192 per year. 

UCLA, as a public university, has set for itself two major goals: excellence and access. 

The University’s goal to provide access to all qualified students without ability to pay 

will be challenged with the recent increase in fees and it remains to be seen how this will 

impact future student enrollment. For now, the university and students seem undeterred 

and UCLA is projecting the largest freshman class ever this fall. MLIS admissions have 

decreased slightly in the last couple of years but remain sufficient for us to maintain a 

competitive class of adequate size. 


There is both bad news and good news in the current financial situation. The bad news is 

the UC and UCLA are hurting, and in a period of retrenchment. The good news is the 

UCLA administration has planned well for this downturn, and the most recent substantial 

budget cut implemented by the State of California was generally offset by savings and 

increased gifts to the university. Further good news, if it can be characterized this way, is 

that everyone in UCLA is hurting equally: both IS and GSE&IS have taken their share of 

cuts, but no more. There has been no talk about the elimination of any programs on 

campus and the MLIS program is well established. 

The department’s budget and expenditures have changed over the last seven years: 

Dollars (000s) 

$2,500 

$2,000 

$1,500 

$1,000 

$500 

$0 

Dept. of Information Studies 

Budget 

$1,461 

$1,586 $1,646 

$1,765 

$1,907 $1,942 

$2,124 

Dollars (000s) 

$2,500 

$2,000 

$1,500 

$1,000 

$500 

Dept. of Information Studies 

Expenses 

$1,446 

$1,586 $1,646 

$1,753 $1,779 

$1,658 

$2,091 

$0 

2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010-2011 


Decreases in state general funds have not led unavoidably to decreased departmental 

budgets, as shortfalls have been made up with increased student fees and targeted 

funding. However, the large majority of the department’s instructional program is 

supported by state general funds. Targeted funding is directed primarily toward facultyled 

research projects, though students do benefit indirectly from this work as individual 

students receive funding as graduate student researchers. Departmental revenues are 

supplemented by the school’s development office. Other streams of revenue come from 

summer school enrollment and enrollment in workshops administered by the department. 

The faculty and students have admirably continued to deal with losses to services when 

they occurred and students have even responded by volunteering to keep our principal 

instructional lab open. 

The university also transferred budget items to departments that have been traditionally 

carried by the university. Thus, for example, rather than cut departmental funds by 3%- 

5% in order to cover increased energy costs, the university increased its charge for 

electricity and heating without supplying new funds to cover those costs. The university 

has also made unfunded mandates that departments cover increased salaries and postemployment 

benefits. These increased departmental obligations have in effect decreased 

discretionary funding within the department and have the effect of substantial budget 

cuts, even as the department revenues modestly increase. 

Careful financial planning and saving in the past by the dean and previous chairs has 

made the current financial situation a little more tolerable. However, to meet general 

funding cuts, the department has undertaken the following actions: 

• participated in a campus-wide mandatory faculty furlough in AY 2009-10, 

• decreased departmental staffing, 

• participated in temporary hiring freezes, 

• deferred the hiring of new staff and faculty, 

• decreased faculty course releases, 

• shortened administrative hours of availability, 

• moderately increased teaching loads, 

• increased class sizes, and 

• offered fewer elective courses. 

As we discussed in section 2, the MLIS program combined some of its course offerings 

with those of our Ph.D. program, providing students with advanced methodology 

coursework, if students desire it. As we will discuss in section 6, the department has 

decreased the level of services in its Multimedia and Information Technology (MIT) Lab. 

This has meant student staff support lay-offs in the lab, decreased operating hours, and 

some delayed technology renewal. The effects of this have been mitigated by relying 

more on school-supported technology services, and by transferring some technology and 

information services to the Young Research Laboratory located next door. 

Since the last review, the department and the entire University have been in a period of 

financial retrenchment. However, this crisis has been managed well to date. The MLIS 


program has had reduced course offerings and larger class sizes, but our programs of 

study remain coherent. Students and faculty have borne the pain of these budget cuts, yet 

morale remains high, and everyone has been very understanding of the decisions made. 

V.2 The school's faculty, staff, and students have the same opportunity for 

representation on the institution's advisory or policy-making bodies as do 

those of comparable units throughout the institution. The school's 

administrative relationships with other academic units enhance the 

intellectual environment and support interdisciplinary interaction; further, 

these administrative relationships encourage participation in the life of the 

parent institution. 

5.2.1 The school's faculty, staff, and students have the same opportunity for 

representation on the institution's advisory or policy-making bodies as do those of 

comparable units throughout the institution. 

Joint governance at UCLA entails autonomy on academic matters (as described in section 

5.1.2); it also requires faculty to participate in the governance of the school and 

university. In fact there are four major criteria for advancement for faculty advancement, 

as described in the Academic Personnel Manual APM 220-10 

(http://www.ucop.edu/acadpersonnel/apm/apm-220.pdf): 

a. Teaching 

b. Research and creative work 

c. Professional competence and activity 

d. University and public service 

As a result, all faculty members are expected to participate in governance and policy 

making. Generally, assistant professors limit their activity to departmental and school 

committees. Associate and full professors typically provide service at the campus or 

university level as well. 

At the school level, IS faculty participate on the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC), 

each with a three-year term. The FEC conducts the academic governance of GSE&IS. In 

particular, the FEC: 

• Provides general oversight of the welfare of the students, faculty, and staff of the 

School, and brings before the faculty any recommendations that the Executive 

Committee may deem advisable; 

• Advises the dean on academic policies of the School; 

• Advises the dean on long-range planning and future direction of the School; 

• Advises the dean on budget considerations; 

• Advises the dean on the allocation of faculty positions to departments and 

programs; 

• Reviews proposed University policies and advises the faculty chair and/or dean 

on GSE&IS’ response; 


• Advises the dean on policy and external relations with public and private 

organizations in the fields of education and information studies, and; 

• Establishes ad hoc committees as may be deemed necessary to the functioning of 

the Executive Committee or as requested by vote of the faculty at an All 

Academic Personnel meeting. Such ad hoc committees shall be appointed and 

charged by the chair in consultation with the Executive Committee. Such 

committees shall make reports to the Executive Committee, as requested. 

Membership on FEC consists of the faculty chair and faculty chair-elect, three Education 

faculty, two IS faculty, two faculty members at-large from either department; two 

professional faculty members (one from each department); the dean; associate dean(s), if 

any; Education and IS department chairs, and two student representatives (one from each 

department). IS faculty have served repeatedly as chairs, and currently fill both at-large 

positions. 

By-laws for the FEC are provided in appendix 5.2. 

Regular faculty members are also members of the UCLA Academic Senate. The 

Academic Senate operates as a legislative body and also a system of 21 appointed 

committees run by and for the faculty. It functions chiefly through these committees as 

well as through elected officers and a Legislative Assembly. Faculty members serve on 

various campus- and UC system-wide governance bodies including the Information 

Technology Planning Board, Committee for Planning and Budget, the Legislative 

Assembly, the Committee on Library & Scholarly Communication, Graduate Council, 

and Undergraduate Council. Currently two faculty members serve on the GSE&IS Dean 

Search Committee. Professor Richardson also served in an administrative appointment as 

Vice Dean for Graduate Division. 

As we have previously mentioned, GSE&IS is in the midst of searching for a new dean. 

The IS Department has strong representation on the search committee; two of five 

GSE&IS members come from the IS Department: 


GSE&IS Dean Search Committee 

David O. Sears (chair) 

Abeer Alwan 

Sibyll Carnochan Catalan 

Mitchell J. Chang 

Anne J. Gilliland 

Tyrone Howard 


Alicia Miñana de Lovelace 

Kevin S. Reed 

Daniel G. Solórzano 

Traci A. Considine 

Scott L. Waugh 

(Appointing Officer) 

Distinguished professor of psychology and political science 

Professor of electrical engineering and member of the UCLA 

Lab School Board of Advisors 

Member of the UCLA Lab School board of advisors 

Professor of education, higher education and organizational 

change division 

Professor of information studies and moving image archive 

studies 

Professor of education, urban schooling division 

Associate professor and chair, information studies department 

Member of the GSE&IS Board of Visitors 

Vice chancellor for legal affairs 

Professor of education, social science and comparative 

education division 

Manager of executive searches, Office of the Chancellor 

Executive vice chancellor and provost 

Lecturers and other professional faculty are also given opportunity to participate at the 

departmental and school level. The Professional Programs Committee (PPC) includes 

several adjunct faculty members, and our curricular retreats always include our primary 

external constituencies. At the school level, adjuncts and librarians also have non-voting 

representation on the FEC. 

Students are also welcomed in the governance of the Department of Information Studies 

and GSE&IS. The Office of Student Services sends out regular announcements about 

how students can get involved in advisory or policy making bodies, including, for MLIS 

students, FEC, IS departmental meetings, PPC, and faculty search committees. The 

Student Governing Board (SGB) selects representatives these committees to represent 

student interests and to help facilitate communication of information. 

5.2.2 The school's administrative relationships with other academic units enhance the 

intellectual environment and support interdisciplinary interaction; further, these 

administrative relationships encourage participation in the life of the parent 

institution. 

The IS Department has extensive administrative relationships with other academic units 

at UCLA. At the top of the organization, the dean frequently meets with her professional 

school and College counterparts, as well as the Provost and Vice Chancellors. The chair 

participates in several campus meetings of departmental chairs. 

The department offers cooperative degrees with the Department of Latin American 

Studies (MLIS/ MA), the Anderson School of Management (MLIS/ MBA), and Film, 

Television, and Digital Media (MIAS). Faculty members have courtesy appointments (or 

0% joint appointments) with Design & Media Arts, the Department of Film, Television, 

and Digital Media, Law, the Cotsen Institute of Archeology, and the Center for Society 

and Genetics. 


Departmental staff participate in a number of campus-based training and development 

initiatives. Staff members in the Educational Technology Unit meet with their 

counterparts from elsewhere on campus regularly; the same holds true for student affairs 

officers. Departmental librarians coordinate with UCLA Library counterparts. Keri 

Botello ('88), IS Lab Director and Internship Program Coordinator, has been elected 

President of the Librarians Association of the University of California, which has 

divisions at all of the University of California campuses, and is authorized to serve in an 

advisory capacity to the University on professional and governance matters of concern to 

all librarians. Keri has previously served two terms as chair of the Librarians Association 

of UCLA and she began her term of office on September 1, 2011. 

Students also regularly take classes in a wide variety of departments throughout UCLA, 

and students from other departments regularly take classes in the department. The 

Education Department and Information Studies Department share buildings and 

classrooms as well as common spaces such as graduate student lounges, convocation and 

commencement venues, and support offices. They share e-mail list services and IS 

students will often join with Education students for classes, workshops, colloquiums, and 

other lectures where they can share ideas. The Young Research Library is next door to 

the GSEIS building and many IS students gather there to research, meet with other 

librarians, intern, and work. The Broad Art Center houses the Horn Press where IS 

students can learn and practice old printing press techniques with other art students. The 

Film and Television Archives house one of the largest collections of moving image 

materials in the nation and Moving Image Archival Studies students share classrooms and 

classes with IS students that meet in the archives. Because MIAS is a joint departmental 

degree, the administrative relationship is particularly strong and IS staff and MIAS staff 

work side by side when scheduling classes, lectures, symposiums, and forums where 

interdisciplinary interaction, again, flourishes. These relationships encourage students to 

attend workshops, colloquia, and lectures throughout UCLA. 

V.3 The executive officer of a program has title, salary, status, and authority 

comparable to heads of similar units in the parent institution. In addition to 

academic qualifications comparable to those required of the faculty, the 

executive officer has leadership skills, administrative ability, experience, and 

understanding of developments in the field and in the academic environment 

needed to fulfill the responsibilities of the position. The school's executive 

officer nurtures an intellectual environment that enhances the pursuit of the 

school's mission and program goals and the accomplishment of its program 

objectives; that environment also encourages faculty and student interaction 

with other academic units and promotes the socialization of students into the 

field. 

Previous chairs, along with the current department chair, Gregory Leazer, had 

comparable title, salary, status, and authority as every other academic department chair 

on campus. The chair’s authority is also defined in appendix 5.1 and the Academic 

Personnel Manual under “Duties of the Chair”. 


http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/ committees/ucaad/apm245.pdf. The 

chair’s title, salary, status, and authority are commensurate with his rank, and comparable 

to heads of similar units at UCLA. The dean, with faculty consultation, selects the chair. 

All of our chairs have enjoyed the solid support of the faculty and staff, and the current 

chair plans to continue his service into the next dean’s term. 

The current chair, Gregory Leazer, is an Associate Professor. He is qualified 

academically, with an MS in Library and Information Science from Columbia University 

in addition to his doctoral degree. He is most recognized for his work on bibliographic 

organization but has a broad understanding of the field and can teach many of the core 

courses because of his expertise in so many areas of information studies. His mentoring 

of students is superb and he effectively leads student assemblies, town hall meetings, and 

other student events with considerable enthusiasm. Since his selection, the department 

has followed a strongly laid-out plan by the chair and has since made considerable gains 

in establishing a stronger identity and making itself known on campus and to peer 

institutions. For example, the IS Colloquium series, California Rare Book School, iTunes 

U pilot program, InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, the 

IS Diversity Paper contest, and summer school offerings have all been enhanced due to 

the chair’s leadership and direction. 

All of the chairs, past and present, have been extremely devoted to the department’s 

mission and are always looking for ways to encourage faculty and student interaction 

with other academic units and promote the socialization of students into the information 

fields. 

V.4 The school's administrative and other staff are adequate to support the 

executive officer and faculty in the performance of their responsibilities. The 

staff contributes to the fulfillment of the school's mission and program goals 

and objectives. Within its institutional framework the school uses effective 

decision-making processes that are determined mutually by the executive 

officer and the faculty, who regularly evaluate these processes and use the 

results. 

The school has maintained the highest standards of excellence when it comes to hiring, 

training, and promoting its administrative staff. The GSE&IS Organization chart is given 

above, in 5.1.1. The directors of the major school administrative units are: 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Chief Financial Officer 

Academic Personnel Coordinator 

Director, External Affairs Office 

Director, Student Services Office 

Director, Education Technology Unit 

Principal, UCLA Lab School 

GSE&IS Administrative Leaders 

Rosemary Chavoya 

William Dandridge 

Marilyn Salinger 

Laura Lindberg 

Amy Gershon 

Peter Kovaric 

Norma Silva 


The dean holds biweekly exchange meetings with the heads of administrative units. 

The department also maintains staff to assist the chair and administer departmental 

degree programs: 

Department of Information Studies Staff 

Director, Multimedia and Information Technology Lab, 

and Internship Coordinator 

Digital Resources Librarian 

Student Affairs Officer 

Assistant to the Chair 

Assistant to the Faculty 

Programmer Analyst 

MIAS Program Coordinator 

Keri Botello 

David Cappoli 

Susan Abler 

Andrew VanSchooneveld 

Jennifer Clark 

Justin Scott 

Lance Watsky 

Since the last program review in 2003 report, the IS Department has had to cut the 

equivalent of four full time staff positions. Most notably, the Multimedia and 

Information Technology Lab has lost three student staff members to match the 

curtailment of the MIT Lab services described in section 6.4. Furthermore, the 

department’s Administrative Assistant III position, which serves as the assistant to the 

faculty, has been decreased from full-time to a 60% time, three day-a-week position. 

This latter reduction is felt most acutely by the faculty, though they have generally 

understood the budget cuts. These staffing changes were made necessary, partially by the 

financial downturn, but also because of a careful analysis in 2009 that streamlined 

communication and administrative procedures. Job descriptions were restructured, work 

was spread out among other staff, and thus, the department has probably increased its 

administrative output in many areas (see IS faculty Meeting Minutes from January 2009– 

June 2009 for a more detailed account of how this process took place). Moreover, other 

staff adjusted their schedules to support administrative areas of need and the chair and 

faculty have been able to remain effective in their work, showing the “all in it together” 

attitude again that persists throughout the department. There has otherwise been little 

turnover and the staff is seasoned and grounded in the field with strong connections 

throughout the campus and LIS fields. 

V.5 The parent institution provides continuing financial support sufficient to 

develop and maintain library and information studies education in 

accordance with the general principles set forth in these Standards. The 

level of support provides a reasonable expectation of financial viability and is 

related to the number of faculty, administrative and support staff, 

instructional resources, and facilities needed to carry out the school's 

program of teaching, research, and service. 

5.5.1 The parent institution provides continuing financial support sufficient to develop 

and maintain library and information studies education in accordance with the 

general principles set forth in these Standards. 


Our parent institution provides the funding that pays faculty and most staff salaries and 

basic operating expenses. Total departmental expenditures for 2010 were $2,102,392, as 

shown in the 2010 ALISE Statistical report, in appendix 5.3. This funding is sufficient 

for current expenditures and will cover projected faculty growth. Funding for programs 

has been sufficient despite budget cuts, though we have had to undertake the activities 

described in section 5.1.3. 

5.5.2 The level of support provides a reasonable expectation of financial viability and is 

related to the number of faculty, administrative and support staff, instructional 

resources, and facilities needed to carry out the school's program of teaching, 

research, and service. 

Despite budget woes, the IS Department remains financially viable. The department has 

had enough in reserve to cover the increased costs but will need to continue to raise funds 

externally and internally, and in line with campus urgings, the department is looking at 

alternative funding arrangements like fee differentials for its professional degree 

programs including the MLIS. We expect to explore alternative funding possibilities, 

with campus support, in the next couple of years. It is unclear how the recent increase in 

student fees will impact funding to the department in the 2011–2012 academic year but 

we expect funding to be similarly proportionate to cover most of our expenses and to 

carry out the school’s program of teaching, research, and service. 

In May 2010, the department participated in a campus-wide review of our future needs 

for faculty growth. The three-year plan demonstrated that we can sustain hiring new 

faculty members, as required. Last year the department initiated a search for a faculty 

member to teach in the area of archival studies, with campus support, and a careful 

review of the department’s budget. While the search did not result in a successful hire 

last year, the search was recently reinitiated with campus approval, as a demonstration of 

trust in the department and its finances. 

V.6 Compensation for a program's executive officer, faculty, and other staff is 

equitably established according to their education, experience, 

responsibilities, and accomplishments and is sufficient to attract, support, 

and retain personnel needed to attain program goals and objectives. 

As stated in the 2002 report, the dean reviewed the salaries of all faculty in the two 

departments and concluded that most of the senior faculty were compensated fairly while 

junior faculty salaries needed to be increased. Each year the dean reviews all faculty 

salaries with the department chair and seeks advice for adjusting salaries for those faculty 

being reviewed for merit advancement. This policy serves to address issues of equity 

within the school and between the departments, and generally addressed competitiveness 

with external organizations. Open staff positions have seen a high number of applicants 

and salaries are highly competitive with peer institutions. The university froze staff merit 

increases in 2009 and 2010, though has reinstated them in 2011 because University 


administration has prioritized faculty and staff compensation. Faculty merit increases, 

promotions and tenure case reviews continue in the department and turnover remains 

quite low. In the past four years we have lost only one faculty member to another 

institution; the other departures were due to faculty retirement. 

V.7 Institutional funds for research projects, professional development, travel, 

and leaves with pay are available on the same basis as in comparable units of 

the institution. Student financial aid from the parent institution is available 

on the same basis as in comparable units of the institution. 

5.7.1. Institutional funds for research projects, professional development, travel, and 

leaves with pay are available on the same basis as in comparable units of the 

institution. 

As stated in the last report, Information Studies faculty have the same access to the 

limited funds administered by the Academic Senate for travel and research as all UCLA 

faculty, and many professors rely on these to facilitate attendance at conferences and to 

seed research projects. The dean has provided seed money to faculty for centers, and the 

initiation of new research projects. In addition, the dean provides Faculty Resource 

Accounts to all regular faculty with a tiered allowance based on rank. Higher allowances 

are given to lower ranking faculty. Although less frequently requested, leaves with pay 

are available and policy about them are discussed in the UCLA Call under appendix 25 at 

http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/append25.htm. Policies for faculty sabbatical are handled 

the same way across the Univeristy of California system, and thus are handled equitably 

for the IS Department. 

5.7.2 Student financial aid from the parent institution is available on the same basis as 

in comparable units of the institution. 

When assessing what we are able to give entering graduate students, it’s easy to feel our 

funding is meager when comparing ourselves for instance to the Medical School where 

large research grants are paying for many graduate student research positions. Financial 

aid is available, and students are encouraged to apply for it through the University Office 

of Financial Aid. MLIS students usually do quite well in applying for competitive 

campus-based fellowships. Graduate student housing is available as well as aid for 

students with disabilities or those in need of healthcare. Graduate Division’s “Fellowship 

and Grants for Entering Graduate Students” section at 

http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/asis/entsup/fellgrnt.htm details institutional aid opportunities. 

Additionally, there are some travel scholarships for conferences that the department 

offers. MLIS students can also apply for paid positions as special readers for 

undergraduate classes. Fee waivers are often given for these types of positions by the 

department. Research centers with IS faculty leaders, including the Center for Embedded 

Network Sensing and the Center for Information as Evidence provide funded research 

positions. The department has also hires students to provide administrative support for 

various programs, such as the colloquium and the California Rare Book School. The 


department maintains a list of funding opportunities for MLIS students at 

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/labuse/Funding. 

UCLA Graduate Division uses a formula to allocate unrestricted funds in the same way to 

each department. Statistics from UCLA’s Graduate Division show in appendix 2.10 

show that funding for students in Information Studies is lower than that for Education. 

However, graduate fellowships are generally targeted more toward Ph.D. students rather 

than professional masters students, and Education carries a larger proportion of doctoral 

students compared to IS so the direct comparison is not accurate. If IS and Education 

were to carry the same proportion of undergraduate, masters and Ph.D. students, the 

Graduate Division formula would guarantee the same disbursement of funds on a student 

per capita basis. 

V.8 The school's systematic planning and evaluation process includes review of 

both its administrative policies and its fiscal policies and financial support. 

Within applicable institutional policies, faculty, staff, students, and others 

are involved in the evaluation process. Evaluation is used for ongoing 

appraisal to make improvements and to plan for the future. 

Similar to re-accreditation, the university conducts reviews of all of its major units and 

degree programs on an eight year cycle. Our last review was conducted in 2003 and we 

are scheduled for review this year. Academic, administrative, and budget information are 

all reviewed. The review panel for this report is made up of both UCLA and external 

faculty, and the panel reports to the UCLA’s Graduate Council and Undergraduate 

Council. The reviewers should note the IS faculty also participate in these reviews of 

other campus units. 

UCLA is itself accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges which 

examines, in part, the planning and evaluation processes under consideration in this COA 

standard. UCLA was recently re-accredited and received a ten year cycle for its next 

review—the longest period possible and one not frequently awarded. 

On an annual cycle, the university requires that schools conduct planning as part of the 

budget cycle. GSE&IS conducts an annual school-wide faculty retreat and monthly 

Faculty Executive Committee meetings are where much of the strategic planning and 

school-wide policies are created, discussed and evaluated. School-wide All Academic 

Personnel meetings are scheduled quarterly and provide a venue for wider discussion of 

policies and planning issues. The department also reviews progress towards attaining 

objectives set in the plan that are specific to Information Studies on an annual basis. 

Faculty committees all discuss policy matters and report annually to the IS faculty and 

make recommendations when necessary. The chair, dean and financial officers meet 

each quarter to review the budget. 



Section 6: Physical Resources and Facilities 


VI.1. A program has access to physical resources and facilities that are sufficient to 

the accomplishment of its objectives. 

The department has access to numerous physical resources that are sufficient to 

accomplish its objectives. The department is housed primarily on the first and second 

floor of the GSEIS Building. Between the two floors, the department administers five 

classrooms, which hold between 12 and 50 students, a Multimedia & Information 

Technology (MIT) lab, a computer lab, a salon, a student lounge, Educational 

Technology Unit (ETU) offices, conference rooms, restrooms, study areas, and offices 

for centers, programs, faculty, staff, and Ph.D. students. Additionally, the department has 

access to general-use classrooms throughout the university. The department jointly 

shares many of its administrative offices, housed in Moore Hall, with the Department of 

Education. For example, while ETU has an office in the GSEIS building to serve the 

needs of our department in particular, Moore Hall houses ETU’s main office. Students 

rely on ETU for all of their technological needs, including wireless Internet access, 

access to the department-wide storage network, and technology in the classroom. ETU 

administers the computer lab in our department, but students can access computer labs 

throughout the University. Students also have access to a world-renowned library 

system. The main research library at UCLA (The Charles Young Research Library) is 

located directly adjacent to the GSE&IS Building. The MIT lab provides students with 

the following: 

• Access to computers 

• Course software 

• Library and Information Science periodicals 

• Copy and scanning machines 

• A small library (in addition to the UCLA Library System) 

• Course reserves/instructional materials 

VI.2 Physical facilities provide a functional learning environment for students and 

faculty; enhance the opportunities for research, teaching, service, consultation, 

and communication; and promote efficient and effective administration of the 

school's program, regardless of the forms or locations of delivery. 

Most of the activity in the department occurs between the first two floors of the GSEIS 

Building. Students, faculty, and staff have easy and ready access to each other and to the 

department’s numerous physical resources. Our largest classroom holds a weekly lecture 

series (the IS Department Colloquia), which is located in close proximity of offices, 

lounges, and computer labs. Such close proximity creates a dynamic learning 


environment and enhances the department’s opportunities for teaching, service, 

consultation, and communication. 

The department also has adequate research space. The Center for Embedded Network 

Sensing (CENS) has an office for the use of three graduate student researchers. Another 

office was allocated to Susan Allen, the new director of the California Rare Book School, 

who will organize a Rare Book School conference every year in August in the GSEIS 

building. Security cameras were installed at both entrances of the building for increased 

safety, and an automatic door was installed for people with disabilities at the front 

entrance. On a smaller scale, a drop box was installed at the front entrance for students to 

be able to turn in assignments on time if they were not able to deliver them during 

building business hours. From a comfort perspective, larger air conditioning units were 

installed in the IS Lab, room 102, and on the third floor for better airflow. And finally, a 

new Xerox copy machine was installed for higher quality copying, scanning, faxing, and 

faster service. 

Common spaces are also in high demand but IS now completely occupies the entire 2nd 

floor of the GSEIS building and has the Salon as a central gathering space for faculty, 

staff, students, and special events. UCLA recently redesigned the landscape in front of 

the GSEIS Building and provided additional seating areas—creating additional space for 

collective engagements and collaboration between students, faculty, and staff. 

VI.3 Instructional and research facilities and services for meeting the needs of 

students and faculty include access to library and multimedia resources and 

services, computer and other information technologies, accommodations for 

independent study, and media production facilities. 

Three classrooms in the GSEIS building (rooms 111, 121, and 245) have a Mac Mini 

computer (with data projector and mounted screens) maintained by ETU for classroom 

instructional use. Each computer can be used with either OS X or Windows XP. These 

computers have a basic selection of software. Faculty and students log in with their 

GSE&IS accounts; adjuncts and others can request accounts from ETU or use a guest 

account for their presentations. Additionally, new sound systems and wiring for up-todate 

media usage have also been added and the classrooms have new DVD players, 

amplifiers, and speakers to support full surround sound playback. These “smart” 

classrooms are in high demand, not only by IS but by other programs as well. The 

equipment is perfect for live recordings and many of the colloquium lectures and job 

talks were posted to itunes U (to see these recordings, go to www.itunes.com and type in 

“UCLA Information Studies” into the top, right hand search bar). 

The GSEIS room 118 computer lab has 25 Apple Macintosh computers plus one 

computer for instructors if the lab is used as a classroom. The computers can be used in 

either OS X mode or Windows XP mode. These are maintained by the School’s 

Educational Technology Unit (ETU) and in the past have tended to have software more 

specific for education classes, however we have worked more closely with ETU in recent 


years to ensure IS student needs are also met. For example, ETU has installed the Adobe 

Creation suite so Photoshop and Dreamweaver are available on the Windows side. 

Students are given door codes and allowed to access this lab at any time that they are in 

the building. Support is provided via telephone to ETU’s offices in Moore Hall. 

Despite cutbacks, the MIT Lab is still a functioning learning laboratory and is available 

exclusively for students enrolled in the department’s courses, including instructional 

materials. There is a 0.5 FTE professional librarian dedicated to administering the lab. 

The GSEIS building has wireless Internet access throughout. A classroom with 

teleconferencing equipment is available to IS in Moore Hall. 

The department provides access to online instructional materials and has full web 

services. Staffing includes a full-time Digital Resources Librarian and 0.5 FTE 

Programmer Analyst to maintain web services. 

Along with GSE&IS resources, IS students have access to a number of campus-wide 

facilities, such as BruinOnline and other campus computer labs such as the College 

Library Instructional Computing Commons (CLICC). BruinOnline enables access to the 

campus wireless network and hosts student email and websites. CLICC offers a variety 

of instructional software and also provides laptops for short-term loan. 

In addition, students have access to UCLA Library system, one of the finest library 

systems in the world. The main research library, located directly adjacent to the GSEIS 

Building, has recently been refurbished and contains additional computer facilities and a 

new Research Commons. The Research Commons offers flexible, technology-enabled 

spaces in which students and faculty can utilize library resources, conduct research, and 

collaborate with one another. Some two hundred users can be accommodated at 

configurable seating in wireless computing environments for small and large groups. 

Features include sound mitigation, adjustable enclaves with work surfaces configured 

around display screens, a small number of traditional computer workstations, laptop and 

data projector lending service, and printers. The research commons will also contain a 

technology-equipped instructional space with seating for approximately twenty and a 

digital humanities collaboration and demonstration project area. 

The UCLA Library System 

The UCLA Library engages regularly with the Department of Information Studies. The 

information studies liaison at the Young Research Library is responsible for collection 

development, research support, and instruction related to the department and is a frequent 

participant in faculty meetings and departmental retreats, as well as being available as a 

guest for class lectures or presentations. The liaison, Jennifer Osorio, is a graduate of our 

program, and serves as a reviewer on student portfolio presentations and curriculum 

planning efforts. She frequently consults with students on their resumes, job searches, 

and career planning, and is thus very familiar with the department’s information needs. 

The UCLA Library also continues to employ several Information Studies students every 


year to work as Reference Desk Assistants at College Library or the Research Library, in 

addition to providing a number of additional internships and student jobs. This 

competitive, professional-level opportunity entails intensive training in providing 

research and reference training for IS students and has served as a springboard for many 

students into jobs in academia. 

Ranked among the top ten academic research libraries in North America, the UCLA 

Library system is comprised of eight major libraries and 13 library-wide departments and 

the Southern Regional Library Facility, the remote storage facility for the southern UC 

campuses, all of which report to the University Librarian. In addition, there are 12 

affiliated libraries and library units located on the campus. There are approximately 125 

librarians on the campus, and the UCLA Library has a staff of approximately 350 and 

approximately 600–700 student employees. The Library system has an organizational 

structure that includes the use of teams in conjunction with departments and units. Its 

collection consists of more than 9 million volumes and more than 78,000 current serial 

titles and an aggressively expanding electronic resources collection. The Library’s 

annual budget is in excess of $40.2 million; more than $10 million supports the 

acquisition of print and digital material, and the Library is part of the California Digital 

Library. The UCLA Library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries 

(ARL), Coalition of Networked Information (CNI), Center for Research Libraries (CRL), 

Council of Library and Information Resources (CLIR), International Federation of 

Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and Scholarly Publishing and Academic 

Resources Coalition (SPARC). 

In addition to well-respected area studies, literature and other general collections, the 

UCLA Libraries are home to many world-renowned special collections. Among the 

UCLA Library’s 333,000 rare books are the Ahmanson-Murphy Aldine Collection, the 

Michael Sadleir Collection of Nineteenth-Century British Fiction, the Children's Book 

Collection, the Elmer Belt Library of Vinciana. Archival highlights include the papers of 

Susan Sontag, Raymond Chandler, Aldous Huxley, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ralph 

Bunche. Also part of UCLA Library are collections includes collections related to 

Southern California architecture, including the papers of A. Quincy Jones, Richard 

Neutra, and Lloyd Wright; dance (the papers of the Denishawn dancers); and the largest 

private collection ever assembled of rare materials by and about modern dance pioneer 

Isadora Duncan (1877/78–1927). Built by Los Angeles attorney Howard Holtzman over 

a thirty-year period, the collection of some fifteen hundred items includes manuscripts, 

correspondence, photographs, artwork, contracts and box office statements, and 

ephemera. There are also rich collections supporting 19th and 20th century British and 

American literature. 

The library’s photographic collections are extensive and include the works of many of the 

most celebrated practitioners of the art, such as Ansel Adams, Julia Margaret Cameron, 

Eadweard Muybridge, William Henry Fox Talbot, Carleton Watkins, and Edward 

Weston. The library also houses the photographic archives of the Los Angeles Times 

(1920–1990) and the Los Angeles Daily News (1923–1954). 


Furthermore, the UCLA Library system includes the William Andrews Clark Memorial 

Library, perhaps the most significant collection of seventeenth century and eighteenth 

century rare books and manuscripts west of Mississippi. The department regularly joins 

with the Clark library to offer courses on rare books, history of the book, fine printing, 

and archives. The Clark library also provides significant instructional opportunities for 

the California Rare Book School, housed and administered by the department. Several 

members of the department faculty serve on the Clark’s faculty advisory board. 

The Library’s innovative Center for Primary Research and Training employs graduate 

students in the social sciences and humanities to arrange, organize, and describe 

uncatalogued collections of archives, manuscripts, and books. The center integrates 

special collections materials more fully into the teaching and research mission of the 

university by providing a substantive educational experience for graduate students while 

improving access to collections. Participants learn archival methods and descriptive 

standards while simultaneously producing finding aids, or guides, to collections in their 

areas of interest. They also gain experience with primary sources, have the opportunity 

to discover possible thesis or dissertation topics, and receive compensation at a rate 

competitive with similar on-campus employment options. The center, launched with a 

generous lead gift from the Ahmanson Foundation, has become a model for other 

university repositories. 

The UCLA Library is also home to an innovative initiative to gather, preserve, interpret, 

and make accessible its collections documenting the remarkable multiplicity of cultures 

and at-risk hidden histories of the Los Angeles region. "Collecting Los Angeles," the 

first project that was made possible by a $5 million gift from the Arcadia Fund intended 

to support transformational changes in the UCLA Library's collections and the services 

that support them, builds on the Library's existing strengths in this area, which encompass 

special collections, photo archives, oral histories, maps, and circulating materials on local 

history, government, politics, and literary, performing, and visual arts. 

The UCLA Library has also been a leader in scholarly communications, working closely 

with faculty on managing intellectual property and open access, in accordance with the 

UC libraries' collective strategic priority to advance economically-balanced and 

sustainable scholarly publishing systems. This work has led to such initiatives as a pilot 

project with Springer in 2009 that allowed all articles by UC-affiliated authors to be 

issued under Springer's "Open Choice" model without additional author fees. 

The Charles E. Young Research Library 

In 2008, UCLA undertook an $18 million renovation of its largest library, the Charles E. 

Young Research Library, located directly adjacent to the GSEIS Building. Designed by 

renowned Los Angeles architect A. Quincy Jones, the building won awards for its 

architecture. The renovation is scheduled to be completed this fall, and will bring the 

library into the 21st century with cutting-edge technology and increased collaborative 

spaces that will allow the library to become a contemporary information and active 

teaching and learning center. The library is located one building directly east of the 


GSEIS building and is easily accessible to all IS students, faculty and staff. As 

previously mentioned, the library will include a Research Commons. 

The UCLA Library system is part of the UC Library Consortium. More than 100 

libraries on the UC campuses support the University's teaching and research. 

Collectively, the UC libraries make up the largest research/academic library in the world, 

with over 35 million volumes in their holdings and significant digital collections. At UC, 

faculty, students, and staff have access to nearly all of the resources that combine to 

comprise the libraries' collective holdings; that is, to the largest university research 

library in the world. 

The department’s Multimedia & Information Technology Lab (MIT Lab) is described in 

the next section. 

VI.4 The staff and the services provided for a program by libraries, media centers, 

and information technology facilities, as well as all other support facilities, are 

sufficient for the level of use required and specialized to the degree needed. 

These facilities are appropriately staffed, convenient, accessible to the 

disabled, and available when needed, regardless of forms or locations of 

delivery of the school's program. 

The Multimedia & Information Technology Lab (MIT Lab) 

Multimedia & Information Technology Lab (MIT Lab) and its collections are a special 

library to support the instructional programs of the Department of Information Studies. It 

is fully funded by the department as part of the Graduate School of Education and 

Information Studies. The Lab collection is designed as a laboratory of instructional 

resources for support of the teaching function of the department. Resources range from 

traditional printed materials to electronic and digital resources and services. The 

acquisition of all resources is subject to review. The MIT Lab is an “affiliated unit” of 

the University Library, and as such the professional staff are considered and evaluated for 

advancement as UCLA librarians. While the MIT Lab’s collections are separate from 

those in the Library, we do work with the UCLA reference librarian responsible for 

collection development in Library and Information Science to ensure comprehensive 

coverage of the field. 

The instructional activities of the MIT Lab include, but are not limited to computer 

support, development and presentation of computer and online systems training, and 

workshops. The MIT lab acquires resources to support the curriculum in the broadest 

sense—for exploration and demonstration as well as for completion of class assignments. 

The MIT Lab contains 16 computer workstations for student use. The computers are 

running Windows 7 along with a variety of software aimed at both core classes and 

electives. Each student has an account that provides access to the computers and a small 

amount of network storage space, with the idea that each student will use flash drives, or 


cloud storage for the majority of his or her needs. Each computer has standard 

application software, and there is also a collection of other tools (various web browsers, 

media players, etc.) available for student use. Additionally, faculty can request software 

be installed for student use on either a trial or on-going basis, depending on licensing 

terms and compatibility with the lab. There are some resources within the department 

that are locked to these computers (by IP address) that are publicized via the Lab’s 

collections portal on the IS website. There are two laser printers in the lab for the 

students use, on a pre-paid basis. There are also two scanners with OCR software. 

There are five empty work areas set up for student laptop use. These areas are 

specifically marked and have power strips for students to plug in their laptops. Wireless 

Ethernet connections are available to students and almost all of the department’s 

electronic resources are available to them. 

As we stated in the introduction to this report, the budget environment has had a large 

impact on our lab services since the last review. After several consecutive years of 

budget cuts resulting in trimming of various activities, the budget cut of 2008–2009 

required a cut into core departmental activities including support for instructional 

programs, students and faculty. Within the MIT Lab, this resulted in a cut of the lab 

support positions that were staffed by students. These student lab assistants provided 

user support all hours the Lab was open, administrated technology for classes held in 

GSEIS classrooms, and maintained lab collections and electronic resources. These 

positions, approximately four FTE, were eliminated at the beginning of the 2009–2010 

school year. Lab hours were drastically reduced, resulting in the elimination of evening 

and weekend hours. 

We have taken several steps to mitigate these cuts. Firstly, the School instituted fees for 

printing similar to the other libraries and labs located on campus, which cover only the 

cost of the printers, paper and toner, as mandated by the University. The department is 

also investigating the option of a program resources fee to be assessed per student for 

technology usage. Secondly, and importantly, the Student Governing Board volunteered 

to staff the Lab during the transition period between the afternoon and evening classes. 

We believe this demonstrates an important degree of understanding and support from the 

student body on the necessity of these cuts. 

Most importantly, budget cuts forced the department and Lab to coordinate more closely 

with other school and university units. Classroom AV services were transferred to the 

GSE&IS Educational Technology Unit. ETU also increased technology services in the 

GSEIS building. ETU also ensures wireless access for all of the department’s students, 

and many students now provide their own access to technology as laptops as much more 

prevalent. We also made initial steps to build a common framework to provide schoolwide 

services. 

The proximity of the Department of Information Studies to the UCLA Library system 

offers advantages to students in the degree programs. The main UCLA research library 

has also increased it services with the new Research Commons. The new Research 


Commons will provide IS students with study space and technology services, and IS uses 

a technology enable meeting room in the research commons as a classroom. We have 

also coordinated more closely on collections services because of more frequent 

consultation between the MIT Lab and the UCLA Library and Information Studies 

Librarian on serial cancellations, and additions to the Library’s collection to support and 

augment the Lab collection. The Information Studies Librarian has attended department 

curriculum retreats which assist with collection development, particularly in gauging the 

needs of the department as well as where overlaps exist with the MIT Lab’s collection. 

The Librarian has a more regular presence in the department by attending faculty 

meetings, during IS sponsored programs and events, and orientation sessions for 

incoming students this fall. In the past year we discussed plans of having "office hours" 

or a set time for students to have consultations with her in the Lab. 

Research needs of the faculty generally are met by the UCLA Library system. As the 

MIT Lab duplicates very few research materials, procedures have been established to 

ensure that the Library acquires books, serials, and other resources required by the faculty 

in pursuit of their research interests. 

Evaluation. In response to the changes in services resulting in reduction in staff and 

budget for technology renewal, focus groups with students were held in early 2011 and a 

survey was conducted in May, 2011 to help gauge the effectiveness of how the lab has 

adapted to its challenges and offer guidance for future planning. The survey asked about 

the students’ use of print resources, computing applications, and how best to utilize lab 

space in the future. 

While members of the focus groups provided positive feedback about their usage of the 

lab, they specifically commented on the need for increased lab hours, the age of the lab’s 

computers, and the desire for a collaborative workspace. The student survey gathered 

additional data on the use of print resources, computer usage, and enhancements to lab 

resources and support, including group workspace. In particular, respondents noted that 

they used the various components of the print collection at least quarterly and lab 

computers were used with regular frequency. 

Following up on comments from the focus groups regarding the lab hours, the staff was 

able to extend the lab’s hours on days when evening classes were held in the GSEIS 

building. The lab was kept open until the start of the evening classes, and based on 

statistics gathered on these days, the later hours proved to be popular among the 

students. New computers with the newest versions of lab-supported software have also 

been deployed to replace aging workstations and out-of-date applications. 

The data collected from the survey are helping the lab consider the best ways to 

implement a collaborative student space, while also assisting the lab in focusing on the 

priorities for developing its print resources. 


VI.5 The school's systematic planning and evaluation process includes review of the 

adequacy of access to physical resources and facilities for the delivery of a 

program. Within applicable institutional policies, faculty, staff, students, and 

others are involved in the evaluation process. 

On a large, campus-wide scale, UCLA has plans for a large financial campaign in a 

couple of years, and some preliminary plans for a new building that would consolidate 

the two departments of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies into a 

single building. This could be years off and is contingent on factors out of our control. 

For now, we are continuing to make the best use of the space we have available. 

At the school level, the Director of Support Services, Suellen Coleman periodically meets 

with the dean to manage office space in the school and she continues to do a fantastic job 

of finding ways to save money and maximize space for both departments while keeping 

the facilities in top shape, considering their age. 

At the department level, review, planning and evaluation of the Information Studies Lab 

resources begins with the dean of GSE&IS and the chair of the IS Department. They are 

advised by the Instructional Services Committee, one of three faculty committees in the 

department; the professional librarian staff of the Multimedia & Information Technology 

Lab, and to a lesser degree by the Professional Programs Committee; and in consultation 

with the Educational Technology Unit, the unit responsible for classroom technology for 

the school. Our annual reviews with students also include questions about access to 

resources and the quality of the classrooms and meeting spaces. 

Evaluation plans for the MIT Lab are described in the previous section, 6.4. 


Appendix 2: List of Faculty 

Jean-François Blanchette: Authenticity of electronic information, social and political 

dimensions of information security, digital preservation, sociology of mathematics, 

privacy and data retention. 

Christine L. Borgman: Digital libraries, scientific data use and policy, scholarly 

communication, information retrieval, electronic publishing, information-seeking 

behavior, bibliometrics, and information technology policy. 

Johanna Drucker: History of written forms, typography, design, visual poetics, 

aesthetics, and digital humanities. 

Jonathan Furner: Concepts of documentation, the logic of classification, information 

sources and services in the arts and humanities, subject access to cultural objects, the 

ethics of library and information services, historical research methods for information 

studies, and computational text analysis. 

Anne Gilliland: Information technology, recordkeeping and cultural heritage, 

recordkeeping metadata, social justice and human rights issues as they relate to archives 

and records, and archival education. 

Christopher Kelty: Science and technology studies specifically Internet culture and 

history, intellectual property, the public sphere, free and open source software, public 

domains, commons, authorship and ownership, and the history and philosophy of science 

and technology, in the U.S., Europe, and India. Prof. Kelty has a joint appointment (0% 

with IS) with the UCLA Center for Society and Genetics. 

Gregory H. Leazer: Bibliographic control, organization of information, bibliographic 

works and relationships, cataloging and classification, evaluation of bibliographic retrieval 

systems. 

Leah A. Lievrouw: Information society, social and cultural aspects of 

communication/information technologies, scholarly communication, communication and 

knowledge. 

Beverly P. Lynch: Structures of complex organizations, organizational environments, 

measurement and evaluation of library performance, libraries as organizations. 

Ellen J. Pearlstein: American Indian tribal museums and how museum staff defines 

cultural preservation, the effects of environmental agents on ethnographic and natural 

history materials and how display and storage standards are devised, introducing context 

into cultural materials’ conservation education, and curriculum development. Prof. 

Pearlstein has a joint appointment (50% with IS) with the UCLA Cotsen Institute of 

Archaeology. 

Gregory Leazer 10/6/11 3:18 AM 

Deleted: 


Formatted: Strong, No underline 






Deleted: 














Deleted: 




Formatted: Strong, No underline

Steve Ricci: Moving-image archives, film history. Prof. Ricci has a joint appointment 

(50% with IS) with the Department of Film, Television and Digital Media. 

John V. Richardson: History of education for library and information science, 

decision-making and information policy (United States, federal level), process of general 

question answering—numerical modeling and implementation as expert/knowledgebased 

systems. 

Ramesh Srinivisan: Development of information systems within the context of 

culturally-differentiated communities, how an information system can function as a 

cultural artifact, as a repository of knowledge that is commensurable with the ontologies 

of a community, how an information system can engage and re-question the notion of 

diaspora and how ethnicity and culture function across distance. 






Deleted: -- 


Deleted: 


Formatted: Strong, No underline

Appendix 3: List of Adjunct Instructors 

Susan Allen has previously directed the Getty Research Institute and UCLA’s Special 

Collections. She is currently Director of the California Rare Book School. Professor 

Allen teaches classes in rare book and special collections librarianship. 

Murtha Baca is Head of Digital Art History Access at the Getty Research Institute in 

Los Angeles. Her publications include Introduction to Metadata (revised edition, 2008) 

and Introduction to Art Image Access (2002), and she is one of the editors of Cataloging Cultural 

Objects: a Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images (American Library Association 

Editions, 2006). She is currently working on a collaborative digital facsimile edition of a 

late 17th-century Italian inventory of works of art, written in the form of a poem. 

Professor Baca regularly teaches classes on indexing, abstracting, and metadata. 

Snowden Becker is co-founder of the Center for Home Movies and the 

international Home Movie Day event. Along with her colleague Katie Trainor, she leads 

the "Becoming a Film-Friendly Archivist" workshop for the Society of American 

Archivists. She is a doctoral student at the University of Texas-Austin. Professor Becker 

teaches classes on moving image cataloging. 

Lynn Boyden works on information architecture projects at the University of Southern 

California. She previously held positions in industry, where she pioneered the use of 

search analytics to improve findability of key content. Professor Boyden teaches classes 

on information architecture. 

Michael Friend is an archivist and Curatorial Consultant for Sony Pictures, in charge 

of Sony Pictures’ restoration of moving images. He is the former director of the Academy 

of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Professor Friend teaches classes in moving image 

studies. 

Loretta Gaffney is a Ph.D. candidate in Library and Information Science at the 

University of Illinois. She teaches classes on Young Adult Literature, Young Adult 

Services, and Intellectual Freedom and Library Services to Youth. Before returning to 

academia in 2005, Prof. Gaffney worked as a middle school librarian at the University of 

Chicago Lab Schools. 

Mahnaz Ghaznavi has held appointments as a records manager for the J. Paul Getty 

Trust, as Information Technology Officer for the National Historical Publications and 

Records Commission and as an archivist for CSU, Dominguez Hills. She teaches courses 

on records and information resources management. 

Joan Kaplowitz was heavily involved in information literacy instruction at the local, 

state, and national levels for her entire career and continues to be active in this area 

despite her retirement from the UCLA library system. Professor Kaplowitz teaches 

classes on information literacy and bibliographic instruction.

Cindy Mediavilla is currently a library programs consultant for the California State 

Library, following an 18-year career as a public librarian. Professor Mediavilla teaches 

courses on public libraries, professionalization, and library programming. 

Luiz H. Mendes is the Electronic Resource Librarian for California State University, 

Northridge. Professor Mendes teaches classes on descriptive and subject cataloging. 

Mary Menzel is the director of the California Center for the Book, a reading promotion 

agency affiliated with the California State Library and the Center for the Book in the 

Library of Congress. She teaches classes on reader’s advisory. 

Eva Mitnick is the Manager of Youth Services at the Los Angeles Public Library. 

Professor Mitnick teaches classes on children’s librarianship. 

Rachel Pergament is director of the Roseville Public Library in Roseville, California, 

which serves a population of 105,000 residents. Professor Pergament teaches classes on 

collection development. 

Maureen Whalen is the Associate General Counsel for the J. Paul Getty Trust where 

she is a transactional lawyer responsible for Intellectual Property. She teaches classes on 

intellectual property.

Appendix 4: Information Studies Course Listings 

Lower Division Courses 

10. Fundamentals of Information Searching and Evaluation. (5) 

Lecture, one hour; discussion, one hour; laboratory, two hours. Designed for firstyear 

undergraduate students. Introduction to bibliographic and information 

resources that encompass both general and specialized materials. Specifically 

designed to facilitate knowledgeable use of UCLA libraries and efficient retrieval 

of information. Letter grading. 

20. Introduction to Information Studies. (5) 

Lecture, five hours. Designed for undergraduate students. Exploration of social, 

economic, cultural, ethical, and structural aspects of information, and issues that 

are critical, emergent, and dominant in society as information proliferates globally 

via networks and computer-mediated communication. Letter grading. 

30. Internet and Society. (5) 

Lecture, five hours. Designed for undergraduate students. Examination of 

information technology in society, including Internet, World Wide Web, search 

engines (e.g., Google, Yahoo, Lycos), retrieval systems, electronic publishing, and 

distribution of media, including newspapers, books, and music. Exploration of 

many of these technologies, social, cultural, and political context in which they 

exist, and how social relationships are changing. Letter grading.’ 

Upper Division Courses 

139. Letterpress Laboratory. (1) 

Laboratory, one hour. Hands-on printing experience in letterpress shop designed 

to give students in information studies, design, or other disciplines understanding 

of printing process. Basic instruction provided, and students work on group 

project for duration of term. P/NP grading. 

180. Special Topics in Information Studies. (4) 

Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour. Designed for juniors/seniors. Selected 

topics or issues related to social, cultural, economic, or political aspects of 

information and information systems. Consult Schedule of Classes for topics and

instructors. May be repeated once for credit with topic change. P/NP or letter 

grading. 

199. Directed Research in Information Studies. (2 to 4) 

Tutorial, one hour. Limited to juniors/seniors. Supervised individual research or 

investigation under guidance of faculty mentor. Culminating paper or project 

required. May be repeated for credit. Individual contract required. Letter grading.


ASSISTANT OR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ARCHIVAL STUDIES 

The Department of Information Studies of the Graduate School of Education & 

Information Studies at UCLA invites applications for a tenure-track assistant or tenured 

associate professor specializing in Archival Studies. The successful applicant will have 

research and teaching interests that relate to any aspect of Archival Studies as broadly 

conceived. These interests might include, but are not limited to, theory and practice 

relating to the nature and role of the archive, archival appraisal, description, use, and 

outreach in traditional and digital settings; archival informatics; media archives; archival 

policy development and analysis; democratic access to archival, manuscript and 

cultural materials and special collections; community, ethnic and Indigenous archives 

and memory-keeping traditions; social aspects of recordkeeping; and comparative 

archival traditions. We particularly encourage applications from those whose research 

and teaching address the practices, perspectives and needs of diverse populations. 

The Department of Information Studies has a Ph.D. program in Information Studies and 

an MLIS program with specializations in library studies, archival studies, and 

informatics. The department also offers a concurrent degree with the School of 

Management's MBA program and an articulated degree program with the Latin- 

American Studies MA. All full-time faculty members teach in the MLIS and Ph.D. 

programs, and may also teach in our MA in Moving Image Archive Studies joint 

master’s degree program with the Department of Film, Television & Digital Media and 

UCLA Film and Television Archive. The Department’s faculty has been recognized as 

among the most productive and highly-cited in the field of information studies, and its 

Archival Studies specialization is among the most highly regarded nationally and 

internationally and a leader in initiatives to pluralize archival practice and research. The 

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies is one of the top-ranked schools in 

the U.S. and supports large graduate programs and internationally recognized research 

centers including the Center for Information as Evidence. Within the School, the 

Department of Information Studies has emerged as an innovative, interdisciplinary 

locus for theory and research in information studies, including archival and museum 

informatics, new media, book studies, preservation, data curatorship, and information 

policy. 

The School and the Department have strong commitments to the rich and varied multicultural 

communities of the Southern California region, and a reputation for merging 

research and practice in statewide, national, and international outreach and service. We 

seek scholars who will make the most of Los Angeles' unique advantages as a setting 

for research linking information studies to public engagement and for creating 

international connections, especially with the Pacific Rim and Latin America. 

QUALIFICATIONS: Earned doctorate, a research agenda, evidence of (or potential for 

if assistant professor level) publication and ability to secure grant funding, and 

established teaching competence. 

SALARY: Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. UCLA also 

has an attractive benefits package.

STARTING DATE: Preferred July 1, 2012 (teaching duties begin late September, 

2012). 

TO APPLY: Please send a letter of interest, curriculum vitae, and sample publications, 

and have at least three letters of reference sent directly to: 

Suellen Coleman 

Attn: Archives faculty position 

UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies 

2320 Moore Hall, Box 951521 


APPLICATION DEADLINE: Applications received by November 11, 2011 will receive 

fullest consideration. However, applications will be accepted until the final pool of 

candidates is selected. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Or to make nominations, contact Anne Gilliland, Chair of 

the Search Committee, E-mail: gilliland@gseis.ucla.edu, Fax: (310) 206-4460. 

The University of California is an Equal-Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. 

We encourage applications from members of underrepresented groups.

RECENT UCLA MLIS GRADUATES: 

EMPLOYER ASSESSMENTS 

Submitted to Greg Leazer, Information Studies Department Chair 

By Virginia Walter 

May 2011 

The charge 

I was asked to conduct focus groups with employers and internship supervisors who had 

worked with recent MLIS graduates in order to get a better understanding of how well 

prepared our students are to perform at a professional level when they complete their 

graduate studies. 

Methodology 

With some initial guidance from the Professional Program Committee and input from 

Keri Botello, David Cappoli, and Greg Leazer, Andrew VanSchooneveld compiled a list 

of people who had hired our graduates and/or served as internship supervisors recently. I 

reviewed the list and made a few suggestions for additions that would create a more 

inclusive pool. Andrew then contacted people and organized four focus groups. An 

effort was made to divide the groups by kind of institution; i.e., academic library, public 

library, archive, and information technology. An additional focus group was composed 

of internship supervisors from a variety of settings. One additional internship supervisor 

who was unable to attend the focus group was interviewed by telephone. Unfortunately, 

it wasn’t possible to put together a focus group of employers who have hired our 

informatics graduates. However, some of the participants in the other focus groups had 

experience with the informatics students. 

A list of the focus group participants is attached in Appendix A. 

Focus group questions were drawn up and submitted to Greg Leazer for review. The 

questions are attached in Appendix B. 

Each focus group was held on campus and lasted about one hour. Either Andrew 

VanSchooneveld or Jennifer Clark took extensive notes. I reviewed the notes, looking 

for themes and patterns across all four focus groups and for statements that were 

particular to individual employment settings. 

There are some obvious limitations to the study. It was difficult to organize focus groups 

that are statistically representative of the employer pool for our graduates. UCLA sites 

and UCLA graduates are somewhat over-represented. However, UCLA librarians and 

graduates of our own program tend to be the most committed stakeholders. The findings, 

while qualitative and not truly generalizable to a larger population, are nevertheless 

indicative of perceptions of UCLA MLIS graduates that may be more widely held. The 

1

fact that the first set of findings reported below surfaced in all four focus groups is a good 

indicator of reliability. 

My own role as the facilitator and analyst of the findings was informed in part by my 

former position as Professor and as Department Chair during the time of our last ALA 

accreditation review. This gives me some historical perspective, which is reflected 

throughout the report. I have, however, been retired for two years and no longer have 

insider knowledge of the curriculum or of faculty and student perspectives. In analyzing 

and discussing the findings from these focus groups, I have tried conscientiously to 

bracket any personal opinions I might have had and put them aside. I made a particular 

effort to be objective in reporting concerns of public librarians about the current lack of a 

permanent faculty person specializing in youth services since it was my retirement that 

created this vacancy. 

Findings 

Several findings came across in all four focus groups. These are summarized here. 

1. UCLA MLIS graduates are highly motivated. 

2. UCLA MLIS graduates are generally well prepared for beginning professional 

work. 

3. UCLA MLIS graduates have strong leadership skills. 

4. UCLA MLIS graduates compare very favorably with graduates of other LIS 

programs. 

5. The internship program is a significant factor in preparing UCLA MLIS graduates 

for professional work. 

Other findings were less universally expressed but are still significant enough to consider. 

• Focus on diversity is appreciated by some employers. 

• Public Library employers are concerned about the loss of faculty with a 

specialization in children’s and teen services. 

• Recent UCLA MLIS graduates seem to be less well prepared to step into 

reference positions than earlier students were. 

Each of the findings is discussed here. A sampling of direct quotes (presented in italics) 

is included to give a flavor of the discourse and to support the findings. 

UCLA MLIS graduates are highly motivated. 

Participants in all four focus groups agreed that UCLA interns and graduates are highly 

motivated. Many talked about how eager these new professionals were to “get their 

hands dirty” and put their classroom learning into practice. This eagerness was often 

manifested by strong displays of initiative. 

2

“Generally our experience with grads is great because they’re excited.” 

(Archives) 

“Generally very capable, self-starting, intelligent.” (Archives) 

“ . . . we can always tell when they are UCLA grads without looking at where they 

studied. They carry themselves in a much more professional manner. They are much 

more flexible and willing to work with what you have to offer.” (Public libraries) 

“We see how eager and enthusiastic they are, and they are very professional.” 

(Public libraries) 

“The interns are all highly motivated and eager.” (Internship group) 

“They are entrepreneurial, real go-getters.” (Internship group) 

UCLA MLIS graduates are generally well prepared for beginning professional work. 

Internship supervisors appear to recognize that they are responsible for providing much 

of the hands-on experience that helps to produce well-prepared MLIS grads. However, in 

most cases they found that the one year of course work that interns had under their belts 

gave them the basic skills they needed to do the professional work expected of interns. 

An internship supervisor who also teaches in the program said all of the students she 

worked with were excellent, “But I’d taught them,” she pointed out. 

Employers seem eager to hire new UCLA grads. Some, such as UCLA Reference 

librarians, insist that the new permanent hires have taken one year of internship. All 

recognize that some training will be required for any new librarian. However, in general, 

UCLA MLIS graduates get high marks for their academic preparation, coupled with the 

extensive opportunities for relevant internships. 

There was little agreement on areas of weakness in students’ preparation. Some felt that 

students were lacking in cutting edge technology skills; others felt that technology was a 

strength of the program. Unlike the feedback the Department received before the last 

ALA accreditation, employers felt that the students today have adequate training in 

cataloging. One participant in the Academic Libraries group commented that students 

seem to have learned how much employers value cataloging; they all take the elective 

courses. Some public library employers were looking for more of a focus on customer 

service, and one administrator hoped to see more understanding of what it means to be an 

exemplary public employee in today’s anti-government climate. Reference skills were 

discussed at some length by all but the Archives focus group and will be discussed in a 

separate section later in this report. 

“I see my role as a mentor and trainer, especially since there is no longer a fulltime 

youth services faculty member.” (Internship group) 

“I see internship as a class. I’m not necessarily looking for a lot of productivity, 

but more as a teaching experience in how to operate in rare books.” (Internship group) 

“We have hired six UCLA grads since I became the head librarian six years 

ago…. They’ve all been able to hit the ground running with almost no learning curve. No 

additional training has been needed, and they’ve been just great.” (Academic libraries) 

3

“All of the UCLA grads have been contributing immediately [teaching courses], 

have good analytical skills, and an understanding of how to connect with the community. 

They are well respected, highly regarded, high level professionals who have helped to 

build the image of the library on campus.” (Academic libraries) 

“The use of EAD and archives toolkit was a breeze for the recent graduate 

working for us.” (Archives) 

“Our most recent permanent hire since 2008 has been impressive right out of 

the gate.” (Public libraries) 

The UCLA students are better prepared in terms of information theory, electronic 

records, and systems.” (Archives) 

UCLA MLIS graduates have strong leadership skills. 

The Department’s emphasis on leadership has been noticed, and this quality appears to be 

appreciated by employers. This also reflects a slight shift in employer awareness and 

needs since the last accreditation review. At that time some employers, especially those 

in public libraries, felt that UCLA grads were perhaps a little too ambitious, wanting to 

move ahead too quickly before they had fully “paid their dues.” Now employers seem to 

recognize that may new librarians will be pushed into supervisory and management 

positions very quickly. They also welcome the initiative, knowledge, and skill that the 

UCLA graduates bring to solving problems. 

One internship supervisor who has also hired UCLA grads and mentored them into other 

employment positions had a slightly different take on this. While she acknowledged the 

leadership skills of the students, she would like to have seen them better prepared with 

particular management skills such as project management and budgeting. 

“One edge is the students’ ability to pull something together on their own, rather 

than being handed a set of instructions, especially when it is a broad, ambiguous job with 

minimal tools to work with.” (Public libraries) 

“The last few [students] had a sense that they knew they were going to be 

emerging leaders and were ready to step into that leadership role.” (Public libraries) 

“The leadership emphasis in the program is noticeable in the students and 

graduates. One of our recent hires is on the Board of Directors of the Medical Librarian 

Association already, which is almost unheard of.” (Academic libraries) 

UCLA MLIS graduates compare favorably with graduates of other LIS programs. 

There was a resounding chorus of testimonials to the quality of UCLA students over 

those of other programs. The San Jose State University program is the most common 

feeder to California employers, but the increase of online programs has meant that 

students from LIS programs in Texas, Washington, and Illinois have also sought 

internship placements and employment locally. 

This was the one finding that might have been particularly vulnerable to bias from 

employers who were themselves graduates of the UCLA program. In practice, however, 

4

the UCLA alumni historically tend to scrutinize changes in the curriculum with a critical 

eye. They have often been the most skeptical of changes in the program that appear to 

water down or de-emphasize the traditional skills that they had mastered when they were 

students. For the most part, the focus group participants, whether they were UCLA grads 

or not, seemed to be impressed with the quality of current students, one even claiming 

that they seemed to be smarter and more professional today than they had been in the 

past. 

While many employers and internship supervisors pointed out that life circumstances 

sometimes made it necessary for an otherwise superior student to enroll in an online 

program such as SJSU’s, most felt that the higher admission standards at UCLA tended 

to attract better students. Most also felt that the face-to-face classroom experience and 

quality of teaching at UCLA provided better academic background than online courses 

could. On the other hand, a few felt that the SJSU students had learned some useful time 

management skills, and at least one felt that the SJSU students had an edge in technology 

skills. 

“I compared students from the 1980s, 90s, and the present. Overall, the student 

class as a whole is stronger today. They are just a smart bunch and are better than in 

years past.” (Academic libraries) 

“I hired one librarian from the San Jose program. He was the only person I’ve 

had to let go. He had a PhD from Harvard in history, but he was completely helpless. 

He had no comfort with technology…. SJ students aren’t as independent and need more 

basic training and help to function. They had had no real way to apply what they’ve 

learned in class to hands-on work.” (Academic libraries) 

“We hire UCLA students more than others.” (Archives) 

“I asked other supervisors, and they said that uniformly the UCLA interns were 

brighter, more academically curious, added to the organization, and ended up becoming 

part of the organization.” (Internship group) 

“They [UCLA students] are more sure of themselves than graduates of other 

schools. They’re taught to speak about their future and ambitions right away, and they 

project those ambitions into their work and goals.” (Public libraries) 

“Their writing skills are much better.” (Public libraries) 

The internship program is a significant factor in preparing UCLA MLIS students for 

professional work. 

There was remarkable consensus among the participants in all of the focus groups – not 

just the one composed of internship supervisors – that the internship is an important, 

perhaps even essential, component in the MLIS experience. Some archivists, in 

particular, seemed to be advocating something like an apprenticeship model of training 

for professional careers in their fields. While there was recognition that the heavy 

theoretical underpinnings of the UCLA MLIS program help to hone the analytical skills 

and professional values of its students, there is still a considerable need for the practical, 

hands-on experiences provided by internships. Several people thought that internships 

5

should begin earlier than the second year of the program. Others suggested that students 

volunteer to work in libraries or other information settings as early as possible. 

“There are some things, like working with the wide range of people you see in the 

public library, that you really can’t teach in the classroom.” (Public libraries) 

“They [students] come with a lot of textbook information. I try to orient them in 

the real world.” (Internship group) 

“The students have a strong theory-based knowledge but no practical experience 

… They need more balance of theory and the practical.” (Archives) 

“With reference, the internship is key to helping them succeed because the 

reference courses that are taught don’t prepare the students completely. This is because 

in the class most people don’t understand the person-to-person interaction dynamic.” 

(Academic libraries) 

“If they haven’t had an internship or taken certain classes, we won’t look at them 

as applicants. They won’t have enough to build on and will require too much training.” 


“An internship is the only way to get the necessary experience for them to deal 

with the diversity issues in the public sector.” (Public libraries) 

Additional findings 

The previous five findings were expressed with a degree of consensus in all five focus 

groups. Often a single statement, such as the ones quoted above, was affirmed by other 

participants; or the opinion was expressed in a slightly different form by another speaker. 

There were also some opinions that received weaker affirmation or were more specific to 

one particular employer group. These are nevertheless relevant and worthy of 

consideration. 

• The focus on diversity is appreciated by some employers. 

Not all employers are aware of UCLA’s Information Studies Department’s focus 

on diversity and social justice. At least two focus group participants, themselves 

people of color, have noticed, and they commented favorably. 

“They [students] have been very good with issues relating to diversity.” 


“I like that we’re seeing more diverse students coming into the field.” 

(Public libraries) 

• Public library employers are concerned about the loss of faculty specializing in 

children’s and teen services and public libraries in general. 

Public library employers and internship supervisors were very aware of recent 

retirements in the area of youth services and public libraries. While they were 

reassured to learn that all of the relevant courses were still being taught, they were 

concerned about the lack of good advising for students aiming for public library 

6

careers and about the long-term implications of this void. One participant was 

even aware of Cindy Mediavilla’s less prominent role in the Department since she 

took a half-time position with the California State Library. 

“Over the last decade, something that came out was tremendous 

admiration for Cindy Mediavilla and how she has helped these grads prepare for 

work in public libraries. Her influence is evident with the grads.” (Public 

libraries) 

“Take care with the future children’s librarians. The children’s librarian 

is the most critical, first hired, last cut position, and they tend to be our future 

managers because they have one of the hardest jobs.” (Public libraries) 

“I wonder if the mentoring that interns want from us is because there is a 

lack of it here in the faculty – mentoring for youth services and public libraries. I 

think we all want to make sure our specializations are still being addressed in the 

curriculum and with staff specializations.” (Internship group) 

• Recent UCLA MLIS graduates seem less well-prepared to step into reference 

librarian positions than earlier students were. 

There was general agreement that the one required course in Information Access 

was insufficient to give students a useful grounding in reference skills. Few 

students had been able to take the more advanced reference elective, and some 

supervisors bemoaned the lack of the kind of specialized subject expertise taught 

in courses such as legal, medical, or business bibliography. One participant 

expressed the hope that what appeared to be a beginning emphasis on art and 

museum librarianship would be expanded. 

Several participants noted that students were too quick to turn automatically to an 

electronic resource rather than going to reliable, standard print sources. On the 

other hand, one internship supervisor said that library schools should teach more 

about electronic resources. 

“The reference courses that are taught don’t prepare the students 

completely.” (Academic libraries) 

“They just want to Google.” (Public libraries) 

“We tell them that Wikipedia is not your friend.” (Internship group) 

Discussion 

The information professionals who participated in the focus groups are generally pleased, 

even enthusiastic, about the quality of students emerging from the UCLA MLIS program. 

Where weaknesses were noted, they were often attributed to particular needs of a 

particular institution. Few of the findings presented here will be surprising to people who 

have been closely involved with the MLIS program for the past few years. 

7

The curriculum as presently constituted seems to meet the needs of most employers, with 

the possible exception of the reference course work. One information architect said that 

she would like to see two or three more courses in her area but acknowledged that with 

the additional experience gained through targeted internships, students were wellprepared 

for professional work. She also noted the value of the traditional librarianship 

knowledge taught in our program for informing the work of information scientists. 

Public librarians are watching the program carefully to see if one or more tenured faculty 

will be added to meet the needs of students preparing for careers in youth services. They 

understand that the courses are still being taught by adjunct faculty but want to see more 

sensitive and informed mentoring and counseling. 

Almost all of the organizations represented by focus group participants have faced their 

own budget shortfalls in recent years. There was, therefore, a lot of sympathy and 

understanding about the decrease in some course offerings that might have been the result 

of the department’s own fiscal restraints. In some areas – notably public libraries and 

youth services -- they were looking for signs that the department had some kind of midrange 

strategy for fixing gaps in faculty expertise when the financial outlook improved. 

UCLA students compare favorably with those of other graduate LIS programs. Many of 

the participants thought this was related to the higher standards for admission to the 

UCLA program as well as the rigorous face-to-face instruction that students receive. 

There was a lot of skepticism that a totally online graduate program could deliver the 

same level of education. 

Many of the focus group participants hope to be hiring again within the next year or two, 

and they will be looking to UCLA grads as their preferred entry-level librarians, 

archivists, and information scientists. LAPL will be hiring “as needed” librarians first in 

order to reinstate longer hours as soon as possible after July 1, when the Proposition L 

funding begins to kick in. Regular employees will be taken on as the funding increases 

according to the formula provided in that ballot measure. 

8

Appendix A 

Focus Group Participants 

Mostly academic libraries 

Alexis Curry, Head Librarian, Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

Kevin Gerson, Library Director and Lecturer, UCLA Law Library 

Julie Kwan, Library Network Coordinator, UCLA Biomedical Library 

Lise Snyder, Collection Management Coordinator and Reference/Instruction Librarian, 

UCLA College Library 

Carol Summers, Head of Reader Services, UCLA Clark Library 

Choonhee Rhim, Library Chairperson, East Los Angeles College 

Public Libraries 

Jene Brown, Acting Regional Manager, Los Angeles Public Library 

Debra Peterson, Adult Services Assistant Manager, Palos Verdes Public Library 

Wright Rix, Principle Librarian for Reference Services, Santa Monica Public Library 

Hillary Theyer, Acting City Librarian, Torrance Public Library 

Helen Wang, Assistant Director, Burbank Public Library 

Beth Wilson, Assistant Library Administrators for Public Services, Los Angeles County 

Public Library 

Archives 

Cara Adams, Archivist, Clayton Library 

Kelly Bachli, Coordinator for the Center for Primary Research and Training, UCLA 

Young Research Library 

Leah Kerr, Director of Collections, Clayton Library 

Christine Rank, Assistant Registrar, Wende Museum 

Greg Williams, Director of Archives, California State University Dominguez Hills 

Paul Wormser, Deputy Director, Nixon Library 

Internship supervisors 

Lynn Boyden, USC Campus Web Services 

Nancy Enneking, Getty Institutional Archives 

Roger Kelly, Youth Services Coordinator, Santa Monica Public Library 

Tommy Keswick, Member Services Coordinator, Southern California Electronic Library 

Consortium 

Brian Raphael, Assistant Director, USC Law Library 

Deidre Thieman, Senior Archivist, NBC Universal Studios 

Norma Vega, Archivist/Librarian, AMPAS 

Steve Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books, Huntington Library 

9

Appendix B 

Employer groups 

Focus Group Questions 

Intro: You’re all here today because you have hired our graduates over the years. As 

part of our ALA Accreditation, we are asked to do an outcome-based assessment of our 

MLIS program. We believe that our primary desired outcome is a graduate who is ready 

to do professional level work in a library, archive, or other information-based setting. 

We figure that those of you who hire and supervise our beginning graduates are probably 

the best able to evaluate these people. So we’ve asked you here today to talk about your 

experiences with our alumni. 

1. Let’s start by having you talk generally about those experiences. How many 

UCLA graduates have you hired within the past five years. Speaking generally, 

how satisfied have you been with these new graduates? 

2. Now let’s be a little more specific. In what areas were these UCLA grads wellprepared 

for professional work? 

3. Were there areas in which you would have expected them to be better prepared 

than they were? 

4. How would you assess their specific professional skills? 

5. How do UCLA graduates compare with new graduates of other library schools 

that you have hired or worked with? 

6. How many MLIS degree holders do you expect to hire in the next two years? 

7. Is there anything else you would like to tell me that would help the faculty better 

educate future librarians, archivists, or information scientists. 

Internship supervisors 

Intro: You’re all here today because you have supervised our MLIS students as interns 

over the years. As part of our ALA Accreditation, we are asked to do an outcome-based 

assessment of our MLIS program. We believe that our primary desired outcome is a 

graduate who is ready to do professional level work in a library, archive, or other 

information-based setting. We’d like your assessment of how well-prepared our 

graduates are for this. 

1. Let’s start by having you talk generally about your experiences with UCLA 

interns? How many have you worked with over the past five years? What is your 

role as an internship supervisor? 

2. Were the students sufficiently prepared to do the work you expected of them? 

3. What strengths did you observe in our students? Weaknesses? 

4. How do UCLA graduates compare with new graduates of other library schools 

that you have hired or worked with? 

5. What contributions have the interns been able to make? 

6. What sort of changes would you recommend for our internship program? 

7. Do you have any other comments? 

10

WILIS 2 PROGRAM REPORT 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 


About WILIS 2 

WILIS 2 is a research project designed to create and implement a shared approach to alumni tracking that all 

library and information science (LIS) programs can potentially use to evaluate the effectiveness of their master’s 

degree programs. This summary report allows you to compare the results of your WILIS 2 alumni survey with the 

results of all 39 participating LIS programs. Each program was invited to provide a random sample of 250 alumni 

who graduated within the last five years. Note that your results may be affected by the sample you chose (e.g. 

years of graduation). All sites have already received a copy of their complete dataset, frequency tables, text 

responses, and a list of alumni who provided updated contact information. 

Acknowledgments 

The WILIS 1 and 2 studies were supported by grants from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The 

primary research team from the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill and the UNC Institute on Aging consisted of Joanne Gard Marshall, Lead Principal Investigator; Jennifer 

Craft Morgan, Co‐Principal Investigator; Deborah Barreau, Co‐Investigator; Victor W. Marshall, Co‐Investigator; 

Barbara Moran, Co‐Investigator; Paul Solomon, Co‐Investigator; Susan Rathbun‐Grubb, Research Scientist; and 

Cheryl A. Thompson, Project Manager. Marshica Stanley, Social Research Assistant, provided support in the 

preparation of the WILIS 2 Program Reports. 

For Additional Information 

More information on the WILIS studies may be found on the project website at www.wilis.unc.edu and in Library 

Trends Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 issues. Questions about this report may be sent to wilis@unc.edu 

Date of report: 12/07/2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 WILIS 2 Overview .............................................................................................................................5 

1.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................5 

1.2 WILIS 2 Methodology and Response Rates ..................................................................................5 

1.3 Participating Programs .................................................................................................................6 

1.4 Demographics...............................................................................................................................8 

2.0 UCLA Summary and Comparison..................................................................................................11 

2.1 Employment Overview ...............................................................................................................11 

2.2 LIS Master’s Program Experience and Evaluation ......................................................................20 

2.3 Knowledge and Skills ..................................................................................................................27 

Page 2 of 34

LIST OF FIGURES 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

FIGURE 1: AGE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ..........................................................................................8 

FIGURE 2: GENDER ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ....................................................................................8 

Figure 3: RACE/ETHNICITY, PART 1 ‐ 36 PROGRAMS..............................................................................................9 

FIGURE 4: RACE/ETHNICITY, PART 2 ‐ 36 PROGRAMS .............................................................................................9 

FIGURE 5: MINORITY STATUS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO 36 PROGRAMS .......................................................................10 

FIGURE 6: GRADUATION YEAR ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ....................................................................10 

EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW 

FIGURE 7: USE OF LIS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS IN CURRENT JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ......................11 

FIGURE 8: CURRENT JOB SETTING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ...............................................................12 

FIGURE 9: QUALITY OF PREPARATION FOR FIRST JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.....................................13 

FIGURE 10: PRIMARY LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS..............................................14 

FIGURE 11: SUPERVISORY ROLE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS..................................................................14 

FIGURE 12: SATISFACTION WITH LIS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS...........................................................15 

FIGURE 13: INTENTION TO STAY IN LIS FIELD ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ...............................................15 

FIGURE 14: PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ........................................................16 

FIGURE 15: EMPLOYMENT STATUS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS .............................................................18 

FIGURE 16: LENGTH OF JOB SEARCH FROM FIRST APPLICATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ......................18 

FIGURE 17: LENGTH OF JOB SEARCH FROM GRADUATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS................................19 

FIGURE 18: TYPES OF POSITIONS SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS CURRENTLY SEEKING WORK ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL 

PROGRAMS....................................................................................................................................................19 

LIS MASTER'S PROGRAM EXPERIENCE AND EVALUATION 

FIGURE 19: OVERALL EXPERIENCE RATING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS....................................................20 

FIGURE 20: CONNECTION TO PROGRAM ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ......................................................21 

FIGURE 21: AREAS OF CONCENTRATION IN PROGRAM ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ....................................22 

FIGURE 22: CAPSTONE EXPERIENCE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.............................................................23 

FIGURE 23: COURSE DELIVERY MODES ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.........................................................24 

FIGURE 24: COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE AND FACE‐TO‐FACE COURSE DELIVERY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL 

PROGRAMS....................................................................................................................................................24 

FIGURE 25: COMPARISON OF CONVENIENCE OF ONLINE AND FACE‐TO‐FACE COURSE DELIVERY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL 

PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................................25 

FIGURE 26: CONTINUING EDUCATION – DELIVERY MODE PREFERENCES ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.............26 

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 

Page 3 of 34

FIGURE 27: BASIC KNOWLEDGE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS..................................................................27 

FIGURE 28: INFORMATION SEEKING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ............................................................28 

FIGURE 29: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS .....................................................28 

FIGURE 30: ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS..............................................29 

FIGURE 31: PUBLIC SERVICE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.......................................................................29 

FIGURE 32: INSTRUCTION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS..........................................................................30 

FIGURE 33: COLLABORATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.....................................................................30 

FIGURE 34: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS .....................................................31 

FIGURE 35: MANAGEMENT ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS .......................................................................31 

FIGURE 36: LEADERSHIP ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ...........................................................................32 

FIGURE 37: BUDGET/FINANCE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ...................................................................32 

FIGURE 38: PROBLEM SOLVING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS ..................................................................33 

FIGURE 39: ADVOCACY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.............................................................................33 

FIGURE 40: REALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF WORK IN INFORMATION FIELD ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS.........34 

FIGURE 41: SKILLS TO APPLY ON THE JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS......................................................34 

Page 4 of 34

1.0 WILIS 2 OVERVIEW 

1.1 ABSTRACT 

WILIS 2 is a research project designed to create and implement a shared approach to alumni tracking 

that all information and library science master’s programs can potentially use to evaluate the 

effectiveness of their degree programs. The project builds on WILIS 1, an in‐depth, comprehensive study 

of career patterns of graduates of library and information science (LIS) graduates from five North 

Carolina programs from 1964 to 2007. WILIS 2 used a community‐based participatory research (CBPR) 

approach in which representatives of eight pilot programs worked together with the research team to 

refine the recent graduates’ portion of the WILIS 1 online survey so that it would be suitable for all LIS 

programs. The group also identified the key survey results to be included in the Program Report. This 

summary report allows participating programs to compare their results with those of other programs. 

All sites also received a copy of their complete dataset, frequency tables, text responses, and a list of 

alumni who provided updated contact information. 

1.2 WILIS 2 METHODOLOGY AND RESPONSE RATES 

The WILIS 2 survey gathered data on: 

• Demographics 

• Employment 

• LIS Master’s Program Experience and Evaluation 

• Knowledge and Skills Provided by the LIS Program 

Programs were asked to select a random sample of 250 of their master’s degree graduates from the 

previous five years; however, several programs included a few graduates from earlier years. Fewer than 

four percent of these respondents graduated prior to 2003. Programs with multiple degrees were able 

to select the degree programs included in their sample. The graduates received an email invitation and 

three email reminders. A few programs mailed paper invitations to encourage better response rates. 

A survey was counted as complete if the respondent had answered at least through Section SP 

(Student/Program Characteristics). The achieved response rate for all three phases of the survey was 

40.5 percent (n=3507). Response rates for individual programs ranged from 15.5 percent to 80.4 

percent. For purposes of this report, we use the full dataset of the 39 LIS programs graduating 

between 2000 and 2009 (n=3507). The response rate for UCLA was 57.1 percent (n=186). 

Page 5 of 34

1.3 PARTICIPATING PROGRAMS 

Pilot programs are marked with an asterisk (*). 

Appalachian State University 

Dalhousie University 

Dominican University 

Drexel University 

East Carolina University 

Long Island University 

Louisiana State University 

McDaniel College 

North Carolina Central University 

Old Dominion University 

San Jose State University 

Simmons College* 

Trevecca Nazarene University 

University at Albany, SUNY 

University at Buffalo, SUNY 

University of Alabama* 

University of Alberta 

University of Arizona* 

University of British Columbia 

University of Central Missouri* 

University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign* 

University of Kentucky 

University of North Carolina‐Chapel Hill 

University of North Carolina‐Greensboro 

University of North Texas 

University of Pittsburgh 

University of Puerto Rico 

University of Rhode Island* 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Florida 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas‐Austin 

University of Toronto* 

University of Washington* 

University of Western Ontario 

University of Wisconsin‐Madison 

Wayne State University 

William Paterson University 

University of California‐Los Angeles 

Page 6 of 34

Table 1. Summary of Program Characteristics 

All Identified LIS Master’s 

Programs 1 

WILIS 2 Programs (n=39) 

(n=106) 

Accreditation 

ALA 2 74% 50% 

Other 23% NCATE 3% Other 39% NCATE 10% Other 

Geographical Region 

Canada 13% 6.6% 

Midwest 10% 19.8% 

Northeast 21% 22.6% 

South 46% 39.6% 

West 10% 11.3% 

Faculty Size 3 

Small 28% 31.1% 

Medium 44% 29.2% 

Large 28% 31.1% 

Public Institution 

Yes 82% 84.0% 

No 18% 16.0% 

US News Top Ranked 2 

Yes 41% 23.6% 

No 59% 76.4% 

1 LIS programs in North America were obtained from the following five sources: 

American Library Association’s Alphabetical List of Institutions with ALA‐Accredited Programs 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s (NCATE) List of Recognized Programs per Accredited Institutions for 

School Library Media Specialist (ALA/AASL) 

Peterson’s Guide Note: A comprehensive search was done for library and information science programs, at the graduate and 

undergraduate level. 

I‐schools Caucus 

Council on Library/Media Technician’s list of U.S. Library Technician Programs 

2 The list of LIS programs with ALA accreditation was retrieved on March 3, 2009; the US News list of top 25 schools in Library 

and Information Studies was obtained on February 23, 2009. 

3 Faculty size was obtained from the WILIS 1 survey of deans, directors, and chairs data and program websites. The faculty 

included part time and full time members. The faculty size ranged from 5 to 113 for the population of LIS programs. Small was 

considered to be 5 ‐ 20 faculty members, medium 21 – 47 faculty members, and large 52 ‐ 113 faculty members. 

Page 7 of 34

1.4 DEMOGRAPHICS 

FIGURE 1: AGE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Age (D1) 

35% 

30% 

25% 

30% 

29% 

25% 

21% 

Percent 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

12% 

4% 

25 years 

or 

younger 

26‐30 

years 

31‐35 

years 

16% 

13% 

36‐40 

years 

10% 

9% 

5% 6% 5% 

41‐45 

years 

46‐50 

years 

13% 

51 years 

or older 

0% 1% 

Prefer 

not to 

answer 

UCLA N=185 

All Programs 

N=3497 

FIGURE 2: GENDER ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 8 of 34

90% 

80% 

70% 

Gender D4 

71% 

78% 

60% 

Percent 

50% 

40% 


30% 

20% 

26% 

19% 

All Programs 

N=3497 

10% 

0% 

Male Female Prefer not to answer 

3% 

2% 

FIGURE 3: RACE/ETHNICITY*, PART 1 ‐ 36 PROGRAMS 

Race/Ethnicity? (D3) 

White 

83% 

Prefer not to answer 

Asian/Asian America 

Black/African American 

Other race 

American Indian or Alaskan Nanve 

Nanve Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 

7% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

0% 

All Programs 

N=3152 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

Percent 

*Check all that apply; multiple responses may add to more than 100%; three programs elected not to participate in this 

question. 

FIGURE 4: RACE/ETHNICITY*, PART 2 ‐ 36 PROGRAMS 

Page 9 of 34

Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Lacno? (D2) 

No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Lanno 

91% 

Prefer not to answer 

Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, 

Chicano 

Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Lanno 

Yes, Puerto Rican 

Yes, Cuban 

4% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

All Programs 

N=3285 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Percent 


question. The US Census reports Spanish/Hispanic/Latino as an ethnicity. 

FIGURE 5: MINORITY STATUS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO 36 PROGRAMS 

Minority Status 

90% 

84% 

80% 

70% 

63% 

Percent 

60% 

50% 

40% 

48% 


30% 

20% 

10% 

17% 

11% 

7% 

All Programs 

N=3152 

0% 

Minority Non‐Minority Prefer not to answer 


question; minority status determined by race and Spanish/Hispanic/Latino/ ethnicity. 

FIGURE 6: GRADUATION YEAR ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 10 of 34

Graduacon Year 

Percent 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

11% 

10% 

18% 18% 

15% 

7% 

22% 

21% 

23% 23% 

19% 

10% 


All Programs 

N=3507 

0% 

2000‐2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

2.0 UCLA SUMMARY AND COMPARISON 

2.1 EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW 

FIGURE 7: USE OF LIS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS IN CURRENT JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 11 of 34

Use of LIS knowledge and skills in current job 

In a library or informanon center using 

LIS skills/knowledge 

78% 

78% 

In a non‐library or non‐informanon 

center sepng using LIS skills/ 

knowledge 

10% 

10% 

In a non‐library or non‐informanon 

center sepng NOT using LIS skills/ 

knowledge 

4% 

5% 

Other, please specify 

In a library or informanon center NOT 

using LIS skills/knowledge 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 


All Programs 

N=3109 

Self‐employed not using LIS skills/ 

knowledge 

0% 

0% 

Self‐employed using LIS skills/ 

knowledge 

0% 

0% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percent 

FIGURE 8: CURRENT JOB SETTING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 12 of 34

Current job sehng (E19) 

Academic library 

Public library 

School library media center 

Other, please specify 

Insntunon of higher learning 

Non‐profit organizanon 

Government agency 

Law library 

Health library 

Archives 

Primary or secondary educanon 

Government library 

Other company 

Other special library 

Technology company 

Corporate library 

Museum 

Library vendor 

Self‐employed 

Library cooperanve 

Informanon industry 

Computer industry 

1% 

9% 

7% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

17% 

26% 

25% 

23% 

34% 


All Programs 

N=3109 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 

Percent 

FIGURE 9: QUALITY OF PREPARATION FOR FIRST JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 13 of 34

Percent 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

How well did your program prepare you for your 

first job? (E17) 

22% 

26% 

37% 37% 

32% 

29% 

Very well Well Adequately Poorly Not at all 

5% 

4% 

3% 

3% 


All Programs 

N=2594 

FIGURE 10: PRIMARY LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

What is your primary level of employment? 

(E21) 

73% 

60% 

16% 

18% 

9% 

14% 

Non‐management Supervisor Middle 

management 

2% 

9% 

Senior 

administrator 


All Programs 

N=3097 

FIGURE 11: SUPERVISORY ROLE* ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 14 of 34

60% 

50% 

I supervise or manage other people (E22) 

48% 

40% 

39% 

39% 

34% 

37% 

Percent 

30% 

23% 


20% 

13% 

14% 

All Programs 

N=3036 

10% 

0% 

Student/temp Paraprofessional Professional Volunteers 

*Check all that apply; multiple responses may add to more than 100%. 

FIGURE 12: SATISFACTION WITH LIS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

60% 

Overall I am sacsfied with LIS as a career. 

(E35_A) 

55% 

54% 

50% 

40% 

38% 

37% 

Percent 

30% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

6% 6% 

1% 3% 

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree 

All Programs 

N=2969 

FIGURE 13: INTENTION TO STAY IN LIS* FIELD ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 15 of 34

Do you think you will scll be working in LIS 3 

years from now? (E36) 

Percent 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

92% 

Yes 

91% 

8% 

No 

9% 


All Programs 

N=3004 

*LIS refers to the broad career field of library and information science. 

FIGURE 14: PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES* ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Page 16 of 34

Professional Accvices Since Graduacon (LA1) 

Held membership in a professional 

associanon 

Arended a professional conference 

79% 

84% 

71% 

81% 

Parncipated regularly in an online 

professional discussion list 

47% 

48% 

Helped to organize or volunteered at a 

professional meenng/conference 

Presented a paper or poster session at 

a professional conference 

33% 

36% 

30% 

29% 


Held office in a professional associanon 

Other 

Had one or more papers accepted for 

publicanon as co‐author 

Had one or more papers accepted for 

publicanon as sole author 

16% 

18% 

18% 

14% 

14% 

11% 

12% 

10% 

All Programs 

N=2867 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percent 


Page 17 of 34

FIGURE 15: EMPLOYMENT STATUS ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Employment status (All pilot) (E9) 

100% 

90% 

84% 

93% 

80% 

70% 

Percent 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

11% 

4% 5% 

2% 


All Programs 

N=3388 

0% 

Employed 

Not working for pay but 

seeking work 

Not working for pay and 

NOT seeking work 

FIGURE 16: LENGTH OF JOB SEARCH FROM FIRST APPLICATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Length of job search from first applicacon 

(E11A) 

80% 

70% 

60% 

62% 

68% 

Percent 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

21% 

20% 

17% 

0‐3 months 4‐6 months 7‐12 months More than 12 

months 

8% 

1% 

3% 


All Programs 

N=2599 

Page 18 of 34

FIGURE 17: LENGTH OF JOB SEARCH FROM GRADUATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Length of job search from graduacon (E11B) 

Percent 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

1% 1% 

Asked but 

not 

answered 

43% 

33% 

Had LIS job 

at date of 

graduanon 

29% 

41% 

Up to 3 

months 

19% 

14% 

7% 7% 

4% 

1% 

4‐6 months 7‐12 months More than 

12 months 


All Programs 

N=2597 

FIGURE 18: TYPES OF POSITIONS SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS CURRENTLY SEEKING WORK* ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL 

PROGRAMS 

Percent 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Not currently working but seeking work: 

posicons sought (NCW6) 

100% 

93% 

Professional posinon in a 

library or informanon 

center 

75% 

72% 

Professional posinon 

outside a library or 

informanon center sepng 

85% 

67% 

Other types of jobs 


All Programs 

N=155 

Page 19 of 34


2.2 LIS MASTER’S PROGRAM EXPERIENCE AND EVALUATION 

FIGURE 19: OVERALL EXPERIENCE RATING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

How would you rate the overall experience that 

you had with your program? (SP11) 

4% 

2% 

18% 

14% 

42% 

42% 43% 

35% 

Poor Fair Good Excellent 


All Programs 

N=3507 

Page 20 of 34

FIGURE 20: CONNECTION TO PROGRAM* ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

In what ways are you scll connected to your 

program? (SP12) 

Keep in touch with other students 

Email listserv 

Meet at professional associanon 

conferences 

Visit program's website 

Keep in touch with faculty 

Newslerer (email) 

Newslerer (print) 

Your LIS program's alumni associanon 

Your university's alumni associanon 

Visit campus 

I am not connected to my program 

Other 

Making donanons 

Reunions or alumni events 

48% 

41% 

34% 

27% 

29% 

35% 

29% 

13% 

25% 

13% 

13% 

15% 

12% 

14% 

12% 

14% 

11% 

5% 

11% 

11% 

9% 

5% 

8% 

9% 

7% 

62% 

67% 

79% 


All Programs 

N=3507 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percent 


Page 21 of 34

FIGURE 21: AREAS OF CONCENTRATION* IN PROGRAM ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Concentracons (SP1B) 

Academic libraries 

Children’s services 

Public libraries 

Young adult/teen services 

Digital libraries 

Special libraries 

Web management and design 

Health sciences 

Special collecnons 

Collecnon development 

Law 

Preservanon management 

Adult services 

Art history/Fine arts 

Bibliography 

Community informancs 

0% 

17% 19% 

14% 

14% 18% 

12% 14% 

12% 23% 

12% 15% 

10% 15% 

9% 14% 

7% 8% 

6% 19% 

4% 5% 

2% 5% 

1% 5% 

5% 6% 

2% 5% 

3% 4% 

4% 17% 

4% 7% 

3% 7% 

2% 3% 

2% 3% 

3% 4% 

3% 4% 

2% 3% 

2% 5% 

1% 5% 

1% 5% 

1% 6% 

1% 3% 

0% 3% 

0% 5% 

33% 

46% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 


All Programs 

N=1104 

Percent 

*The following concentrations were selected by fewer than 3 percent of respondents in either group (UCLA or All 

Programs): Aging, International studies, Bioinformatics, Data curation, Music, Business/corporate libraries, 

Science/technical libraries, Network information systems, and Knowledge management. 

Page 22 of 34

FIGURE 22: CAPSTONE EXPERIENCE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Capstone experiences (SP8) 

Pracncum, field experience, internship, 

work experience in a library or 

informanon sepng 

94% 

88% 

Independent study or research project 

45% 

67% 

Portolio, e‐portolio, capstone portolio 

or e‐portolio 

31% 

78% 

Comprehensive exam 

Master’s paper or thesis 

2% 

31% 

25% 

15% 


All Programs 

N=3471 

Another capstone experience 

6% 

8% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percent 

Page 23 of 34

FIGURE 23: COURSE DELIVERY MODES ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

How many of your courses were predominantly 

delivered online? (SP2) 

98% 

32% 

None 

43% 

6% 

9% 9% 

2% 0% 0% 0% 

Some (but less 

than half) 

About half 

Most (more 

than half but 

not all) 

All 


All Programs 

N=3505 

FIGURE 24: COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE AND FACE‐TO‐FACE COURSE DELIVERY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO 

ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Comparison of effeccveness of online and faceto‐face 

course delivery (SP3, SP5) 

43% 

33% 33% 

36% 

38% 

33% 33% 

6% 

1% 0% 

Not at all effecnve 

6% 

8% 

Somewhat 

effecnve 

Effecnve 

0% 

21% 

60% 

48% 

Very effecnve 

UCLA ‐ Online N=3 

All Programs ‐ 

Online N=2259 

UCLA ‐ Face to Face 

N=186 

All Programs ‐ Face 

to Face N=3200 

Page 24 of 34

FIGURE 25: COMPARISON OF CONVENIENCE OF ONLINE AND FACE‐TO‐FACE COURSE DELIVERY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL 

PROGRAMS 

Percent 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Comparison of convenience of online and faceto‐face 

course delivery (SP4, SP6) 

6% 

0% 2% 1% 

Not at all 

convenient 

67% 

17% 

24% 

33% 

Somewhat 

convenient 

0% 

28% 

53% 

44% 

Convenient 

33% 

53% 

22% 

17% 

Very convenient 

UCLA ‐ Online N=3 

All Programs ‐ 

Online N=2259 

UCLA ‐ Face to 

Face N=186 

All Programs ‐ Face 

to Face N=3198 

Page 25 of 34

FIGURE 26: CONTINUING EDUCATION – DELIVERY MODE PREFERENCES* ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

What types of concnuing educacon delivery 

modes appeal to you? (CE4) 

Other 

4% 

4% 

Face‐to‐face workshops delivered 

locally 

81% 

74% 

Face‐to‐face workshops delivered in 

conjuncnon with conferences 

69% 

67% 

Face‐to‐face workshops located at your 

LIS program 

32% 

48% 

Webinars on special interest topics 

51% 

60% 


Training sessions at your workplace 

71% 

71% 

All Programs 

N=2236 

Courses located at your LIS program 

36% 

28% 

Online courses (self‐directed and selfpaced) 

42% 

59% 

Online courses (regularly scheduled 

and part of a group) 

38% 

55% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


Page 26 of 34

2.3 KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 

These knowledge and skill questions include ALA Competencies. 

FIGURE 27: BASIC KNOWLEDGE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with basic knowledge 

of the field. (SP9_A) 

70% 

60% 

61% 62% 

50% 

Percent 

40% 

30% 

37% 

34% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

1% 0% 1% 2% 

Strongly 

disagree 

1% 

1% 

Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not an issue 

for me 

All Programs 

N=3505 

Page 27 of 34

FIGURE 28: INFORMATION SEEKING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with informacon 

seeking skills or knowledge. (SP9_B) 

60% 

50% 

40% 

51% 

40% 

38% 

54% 

Percent 

30% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

Strongly 

disagree 

10% 

4% 

1% 

1% 


for me 

All Programs 

N=3504 

FIGURE 29: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

The program provided me with research and 

evaluacon skills or knowledge. (SP9_C) 

1% 

1% 

Strongly 

disagree 

12% 

8% 

47% 48% 

40% 41% 

1% 

2% 


for me 


All Programs 

N=3503 

Page 28 of 34

FIGURE 30: ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

The program provided me with organizacon of 

informacon skills or knowledge. (SP9_D) 

1% 

1% 

Strongly 

disagree 

10% 

8% 

47% 49% 

43% 

38% 

1% 

2% 

Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not an issue for 

me 


All Programs 

N=3504 

FIGURE 31: PUBLIC SERVICE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

60% 

50% 

The program provided me with public service 

skills or knowledge. (SP9_E) 

52% 50% 

40% 

Percent 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

Strongly 

disagree 

19% 

14% 

29% 

24% 

4% 

5% 


me 


All Programs 

N=3504 

Page 29 of 34

FIGURE 32: INSTRUCTION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with instrucconal 

skills or knowledge. (SP9_F) 

Percent 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

8% 

5% 

Strongly 

disagree 

28% 

25% 

39% 40% 

17% 

23% 

8% 

8% 


for me 


All Programs 

N=3503 

FIGURE 33: COLLABORATION ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with collaboracon 

skills or knowledge. (SP9_G) 

Percent 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

51% 

44% 

30% 

38% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

Strongly 

disagree 

13% 12% 

3% 

3% 


me 

All Programs 

N=3504 

Page 30 of 34

FIGURE 34: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

60% 

50% 

The program provided me with informacon 

technology skills or knowledge. (SP9_H) 

55% 

49% 

Percent 

40% 

30% 

25% 

34% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

5% 

3% 

Strongly 

disagree 

13% 13% 

2% 

2% 


for me 

All Programs 

N=3507 

FIGURE 35: MANAGEMENT ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

70% 

60% 

50% 

The program provided me with management 

skills or knowledge. (SP9_I) 

58% 

53% 

Percent 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

4% 

3% 

Strongly 

disagree 

19% 19% 

22% 

18% 

0% 

2% 


for me 


All Programs 

N=3507 

Page 31 of 34

FIGURE 36: LEADERSHIP ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

60% 

50% 

40% 

The program provided me with leadership skills 

or knowledge. (SP9_J) 

51% 

48% 

Percent 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

Strongly 

disagree 

24% 

25% 

22% 20% 

1% 

3% 


me 


All Programs 

N=3506 

FIGURE 37: BUDGET/FINANCE ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with budget and 

finance skills or knowledge. (SP9_K) 

60% 

50% 

40% 

52% 

42% 

35% 

Percent 

30% 

24% 


20% 

10% 

15% 

10% 

8% 

4% 5% 

4% 

All Programs 

N=3505 

0% 

Strongly 

disagree 


me 

Page 32 of 34

FIGURE 38: PROBLEM SOLVING ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

60% 

50% 

40% 

The program provided me with problem solving 

skills or knowledge. (SP9_L) 

53% 

51% 

Percent 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

Strongly 

disagree 

25% 

18% 

24% 

20% 

1% 

3% 


for me 


All Programs 

N=3505 

FIGURE 39: ADVOCACY ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

The program provided me with advocacy skills 

or knowledge. (SP9_M) 

4% 

4% 

Strongly 

disagree 

19% 

25% 

43% 

45% 

31% 

22% 

3% 

5% 


me 


All Programs 

N=3505 

Page 33 of 34

FIGURE 40: REALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF WORK IN INFORMATION FIELD ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

The program provided me with a realiscc 

understanding of what it is like to work in the 

informacon field. (SP9_N) 

60% 

50% 

54% 

47% 

Percent 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

4% 

6% 

Strongly 

disagree 

22% 

19% 

25% 

19% 

2% 

2% 


for me 


All Programs 

N=3506 

FIGURE 41: SKILLS TO APPLY ON THE JOB ‐ UCLA COMPARED TO ALL PROGRAMS 

Percent 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

The program provided me with skills I can apply 

on the job. (SP9_O) 

59% 

50% 

25% 

39% 


20% 

10% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

Strongly 

disagree 

13% 

9% 

1% 

1% 


me 

All Programs 

N=3505 

Page 34 of 34


Appendix 

Reports, Survey Instruments, and Program Requirements 

This appendix contains the detailed reports that provided the basis for the overview contained 

in the executive summary for the Information Studies program. 

The information in the following set of reports has been assembled using data from the UCLA 

Graduate Division Enterprise Information System, the UCLA Registrar’s Student Records Database, 

and two graduate student surveys. This appendix contains samples of the two survey instruments. 

Relevant notes, including data definitions and explanations of statistical analyses when 

appropriate, preface each report. To assist the reader, the explanations and reports have been 

divided into sections. The last document in the appendix is a copy of the published Program 

Requirements for Information Studies. 

Date Printed: 3/31/2011

Program Profile 

This report contains longitudinal data for 10 years (2000-2001 through 2009-2010) including 

admissions, degrees, doctoral candidates, enrollments, student financial support, and doctoral degree 

progress. 


Profile Report for: Information Studies 

Fall Admissions Summary 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10-Year 

Avg. 

Applications 180 161 208 216 198 195 185 187 189 200 191.90 

Median JR/SR GPA 3.31 3.5 3.46 3.37 3.44 3.45 3.4 3.49 3.46 3.55 3.44 

Admissions 119 98 112 130 119 132 136 126 133 112 121.70 


New Registrants 76 50 69 95 73 94 98 75 94 79 80.30 


Selectivity 66.11% 60.87% 53.85% 60.19% 60.10% 67.69% 73.51% 67.38% 70.37% 56.00% 63.61% 

Enrollment Success 63.87% 51.02% 61.61% 73.08% 61.34% 71.21% 72.06% 59.52% 70.68% 70.54% 65.49% 

Degrees Awarded 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10-Year 

Avg. 

MA/MS Degrees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Prof Master's Degrees 49 83 49 55 77 78 88 68 78 80 70.50 

PhD Degrees 2 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 6 4 3.70 

Prof Doctorate Degrees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Median Time to Doctorate 9.5 9.33 5.33 7 6.66 5.67 6.67 6.5 5.67 5.17 6.75 

Mean Time to Doctorate 9.5 8.55 5.66 7.66 8 6.78 7 8.25 6.06 5.5 7.30 

Doctoral Candidates 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10-Year 

Avg. 

Doctorates Advanced in Academic Year 4 1 3 6 3 3 7 5 7 6 4.50


Enrollment Summaries 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10-Year 

Avg. 

Leave of Absence 10 5 4 5 10 10 5 8 8 17 8.20 

3 Qtr Avg Enrollment 165 159 151 182 184 196 208 195 198 197 183.50 

Total Registered Fall Term 169 171 154 192 197 200 219 200 209 202 191.30 

New 76 50 69 95 73 94 98 75 94 79 80.30 

Returning 9 6 5 4 9 6 8 5 6 6 6.40 

Continuing 84 115 80 93 115 100 113 120 109 117 104.60 

Master's 147 145 130 166 172 174 189 168 174 170 163.50 

Pct Total Enrollment 86.98% 84.80% 84.42% 86.46% 87.31% 87.00% 86.30% 84.00% 83.25% 84.16% 85.47% 

Doctoral Pre-Candidacy 19 19 18 19 17 21 19 24 27 26 20.90 


Doctoral Candidates 3 7 6 7 8 5 11 8 8 6 6.90 


Foreign 8 14 13 14 12 6 7 7 6 4 9.10 


Underrepresented Minorities 30 24 24 33 40 43 42 36 37 39 34.80 


Female 129 143 122 152 157 158 170 135 142 147 145.50 


Non-Cal Residents (Domestic) 9 5 6 10 11 17 14 11 11 21 11.50 


American Indian 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1.20 


African-Am/Black 4 1 3 6 9 8 7 9 9 9 6.50 


Chicano/Mexican-Am 12 11 11 11 10 15 20 16 14 15 13.50 


Latino/Other Hispanic 8 8 7 9 11 13 8 5 9 9 8.70 


Filipino 4 3 2 6 9 6 5 4 5 5 4.90 


Asian 16 15 17 14 18 31 33 26 33 38 24.10 


Caucasian 106 108 86 113 110 102 118 112 111 105 107.10 


Other 6 5 9 12 11 13 11 12 14 7 10.00 


Unknown 3 5 5 6 6 5 8 7 8 9 6.20 


Note: Ethnicities are reported for domestic students only. Percentages for the individual ethnicities + Foreign = 100%.


Financial Support 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10-Year 

Avg. 

MERIT-BASED SUPPORT 

Per Capita Merit Based Support - Supported $10,378 $10,514 $13,052 $12,492 $13,983 $18,035 $17,534 $17,549 $18,033 $19,793 $15,136 

Master's $8,511 $7,751 $9,764 $10,037 $9,714 $11,160 $11,284 $11,942 $10,463 $11,544 $10,217 

Pre-ATC Doctoral $15,513 $14,305 $19,647 $18,449 $29,379 $27,395 $25,720 $25,073 $29,843 $27,172 $23,250 

Doctoral Candidates $13,159 $24,534 $18,444 $13,496 $17,900 $24,091 $29,635 $24,168 $22,977 $33,686 $22,209 

Per Capita Merit Support - Enrollment $3,811 $4,048 $3,979 $3,378 $5,261 $5,067 $5,347 $6,219 $4,697 $5,372 $4,718 

% of Enrolled Students Supported - Merit 36.72% 38.51% 30.49% 27.04% 37.62% 28.10% 30.49% 35.44% 26.05% 27.14% 31.76% 

TOTAL SUPPORT 

Per Capita Total Support - Supported $17,232 $18,144 $18,767 $18,320 $20,338 $22,276 $22,016 $24,076 $25,318 $27,456 $21,394 

Master's $16,629 $17,589 $17,727 $17,423 $18,907 $20,224 $20,365 $21,945 $23,258 $25,306 $19,937 

Pre-ATC Doctoral $21,566 $21,086 $25,464 $25,890 $30,554 $32,865 $30,861 $35,490 $37,825 $37,264 $29,886 

Doctoral Candidates $13,159 $19,982 $21,857 $19,410 $26,865 $35,822 $33,177 $28,247 $27,745 $37,328 $26,359 

Per Capita Total Support - Enrollment $13,240 $14,077 $14,990 $14,487 $16,210 $18,563 $18,956 $19,752 $20,372 $21,834 $17,248 

% of Enrolled Students Supported - Total 76.84% 77.59% 79.88% 79.08% 79.70% 83.33% 86.10% 82.04% 80.47% 79.52% 80.46%

Undergraduate Institutions of Prospective & Entering Graduate Students, 

2006-2010 

This table shows the undergraduate (or comparable) institutions of prospective and entering graduate 

students, including the location of institution. 


* 


Fall 2006 through Fall 2010 

Undergraduate Institution Location Applicants Admits Registrants 

UC Los Angeles (Ucla) California 98 78 69 

UC San Diego California 32 26 24 

UC Irvine California 32 26 22 

UC Berkeley California 24 18 16 

Cal Poly Pomona California 16 9 8 

CSU Northridge California 11 8 8 

UC Santa Barbara California 11 8 6 

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo California 7 7 6 

CSU Los Angeles California 8 5 5 

Univ Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan 5 5 5 

CSU Fullerton California 5 4 4 

Univ Southern California California 6 4 3 

Other institution in India India 5 3 3 

Purdue Univ West Lafayette Indiana 5 3 3 

UC Davis California 5 3 3 

UC Riverside California 4 3 3 

Univ Texas Arlington Texas 4 3 3 

Univ Washington Washington 3 3 3 

CSU Long Beach California 8 3 2 

Embry-Riddle Aeron Univ Florid Florida 3 3 2 

Georgia Inst Tech Georgia 3 3 2 

Loyola Marymount Univ California 3 3 2 

Univ Texas Austin Texas 6 2 2 

San Diego St Univ California 5 2 2 

Calif Inst Tech California 3 2 2 

Texas A&M Univ Coll Sta Texas 3 2 2 

Univ Illinois Urbana Illinois 3 2 2 

Univ Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota 3 2 2 

Pennsylvania St Univ Pennsylvania 2 2 2 

San Jose St Univ California 2 2 2 

Univ Colorado Boulder Colorado 2 2 2 

Univ Hawaii At Manoa Hawaii 2 2 2 

Univ Texas El Paso Texas 2 2 2 

Ohio St Univ Columbus Ohio 3 3 1 

Univ Kansas Kansas 3 2 1 

Embry-Riddle Aeron Univ Arizo Arizona 2 2 1 

CSU Dominguez Hills California 3 1 1 

Unspecified Institution 3 1 1 

Arizona St Univ Arizona 2 1 1 

Bangalore Univ India 2 1 1 

Brigham Young Univ Utah 2 1 1 

Cornell Univ New York 2 1 1 

Harvey Mudd Coll California 2 1 1 

Mass Inst Tech Massachusetts 2 1 1 

Univ Utah Utah 2 1 1 

Univ Waterloo Canada 2 1 1 

Virginia Polytech & St Univ Virginia 2 1 1

* 




Bangladesh Univ Eng/Tec Bangladesh 1 1 1 

Birla Inst Sci & Tch India 1 1 1 

Calif Lutheran Univ California 1 1 1 

Centrl Connecticut St Univ Connecticut 1 1 1 

Centrl South Univ China, People's Republic 1 1 1 

Centrl Univ For Nationalities China, People's Republic 1 1 1 

Chapman Univ California 1 1 1 

Christian Brothers Univ Tennessee 1 1 1 

CSU Fresno California 1 1 1 

Devry Univ Illinois 1 1 1 

Golden Gate Univ California 1 1 1 

Grantham Univ Missouri 1 1 1 

Iowa St Univ Iowa 1 1 1 

Johnson & Wales Univ Rhode Island 1 1 1 

Millersville Univ Pa Pennsylvania 1 1 1 

Missouri Univ Sc & Tech Missouri 1 1 1 

N E D Univ Eng/Tech Pakistan 1 1 1 

Natl Taiwan Univ Taiwan 1 1 1 

Natl Univ Singapore Singapore 1 1 1 

North Car St Univ Raleigh North Carolina 1 1 1 

North Dakota St Univ Fargo North Dakota 1 1 1 

Northeastern Univ Massachusetts 1 1 1 

Oklahoma St Univ Stillwater Oklahoma 1 1 1 

Oregon Inst Tech Oregon 1 1 1 

Other Foreign Institution Stateless 1 1 1 

Other institution in France France 1 1 1 

Polytechnic Univ Vietnam 1 1 1 

Portland St Univ Oregon 1 1 1 

Rensselaer Poly Inst New York 1 1 1 

Seattle Univ Washington 1 1 1 

Shanghai Univ China, People's Republic 1 1 1 

Simon Fraser Univ Canada 1 1 1 

Southeast Univ China, People's Republic 1 1 1 

Southrn Illinois Univ Carbndle Illinois 1 1 1 

Stanford Univ California 1 1 1 

Tunghai Univ Taiwan 1 1 1 

Univ Arizona Arizona 1 1 1 

Univ Centrl Florida Florida 1 1 1 

Univ Cincinnati Ohio 1 1 1 

Univ Dayton Ohio 1 1 1 

Univ Karachi Pakistan 1 1 1 

Univ Madras India 1 1 1 

Univ Manila Philippines 1 1 1 

Univ Michigan Dearborn Michigan 1 1 1 

Univ Minnesota Duluth Minnesota 1 1 1 

Univ Nevada Las Vegas Nevada 1 1 1 

Univ New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico 1 1 1

* 




Univ Oklahoma Oklahoma 1 1 1 

Univ San Diego California 1 1 1 

Univ Texas Pan American Texas 1 1 1 

Univ Virginia Virginia 1 1 1 

Virginia Commonwealth Univ Virginia 1 1 1 

Virginia St Univ Virginia 1 1 1 

Wentworth Inst Tech Massachusetts 1 1 1 

Westrn Michigan Univ Michigan 1 1 1 

Worcester Poly Inst Massachusetts 1 1 1 

Yale Univ Connecticut 1 1 1 

Univ Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 2 1 0 

Colorado Sch Mines Colorado 1 1 0 

Danish Engr Acad Denmark 1 1 0 

Indian Inst Tech - Roorkee India 1 1 0 

Jawaharlal Nehru Tch India 1 1 0 

Michigan St Univ Michigan 1 1 0 

Osmania Univ India 1 1 0 

Other U.S. Institution United States 1 1 0 

Polytech Inst Romania 1 1 0 

Santa Clara Univ California 1 1 0 

Sharif Univ Tech Iran 1 1 0 

UC Merced California 1 1 0 

UC Santa Cruz California 1 1 0 

Univ Arkansas Fayetteville Arkansas 1 1 0 

Univ Maryland Baltimore Co Maryland 1 1 0 

Univ Mass Dartmouth Massachusetts 1 1 0 

Univ Sci & Tech Beijing China, People's Republic 1 1 0 

Natl Univ California 2 0 0 

Univ Maryland Col Pk Maryland 2 0 0 

Univ Phoenix Arizona 2 0 0 

Ain Shams Univ Egypt 1 0 0 

Auburn Univ Auburn Univ Alabama 1 0 0 

Bethel Coll In Indiana 1 0 0 

Bilkent Univ Turkey 1 0 0 

Cairo Univ Egypt 1 0 0 

Florida St Univ Florida 1 0 0 

Grambling St Univ Louisiana 1 0 0 

Indiana Business Coll Ft Wayne Indiana 1 0 0 

Michigan Tech Univ Michigan 1 0 0 

Natl Auto Univ Mexico Mexico 1 0 0 

Natl Chiao Tung Univ Taiwan 1 0 0 

Old Dominion Univ Virginia 1 0 0 

Other institution in China Peopl China, People's Republic 1 0 0 

Other institution in Iran Iran 1 0 0 

Other institution in Nigeria Nigeria 1 0 0 

Provo Coll Utah 1 0 0 

Ryerson Univ Canada 1 0 0

* 




Shanghai Jiaotong Univ China, People's Republic 1 0 0 

Sichuan Univ China, People's Republic 1 0 0 

T A Edison St Col New Jersey 1 0 0 

Tong-Ji Univ China, People's Republic 1 0 0 

United States Naval Acad Maryland 1 0 0 

Univ Colorado Colorado Spgs Colorado 1 0 0 

Univ Lima Peru 1 0 0 

Univ Mass Amherst Massachusetts 1 0 0 

Univ Mass Lowell Massachusetts 1 0 0 

Univ New Brunswick - Fredrictin Canada 1 0 0 

Univ Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 1 0 0 

Univ Poona India 1 0 0 

Univ Rochester New York 1 0 0 

Univ San Francisco California 1 0 0 

Univ Saskatchewan Canada 1 0 0 

Univ Scranton Pennsylvania 1 0 0 

Univ Wisc Madison Wisconsin 1 0 0 

Univ Witwatersran South Africa 1 0 0 

Univ Yaounde Cameroon 1 0 0 

Valparaiso Universty Indiana 1 0 0 

Five-year Total 481 342 295 

* Sorted in descending order by number of Registrants, Admits, and Applicants.

Merit-Based Support to Graduate Students 

This table presents data on the types of merit-based support received by graduate students during 

the past 10 years (2000-2001 through 2009-2010). The report shows total dollars and the percent of 

merit-based support represented by each type of support. 


MERIT-BASED SUPPORT TO GRADUATE STUDENTS IN INFORMATION STUDIES 

TYPE OF SUPPORT 2000-01 THROUGH 2009-10 

FELLOWSHIPS 

EMPLOYMENT 

Graduate 

Division Grants 

and 

Fellowships 

Federal 

Fellowships/ 

Scholarships 

Departmental 

Gifts and 

Endowments & 

Other Support 

Private 

Fellowships 

and 

Endowments 

GSR Salary 

GSR 

Supplemental** 

TA Salary 

TA 


TOTAL 

MERIT 

SUPPORT 

%Change 

from prior 

year 

2000-2001 $244,774 $2,500 $8,500 $66,175 $235,868 $68,172 $38,510 $10,061 $674,560 

2001-2002 $253,267 $12,356 $54,541 $248,762 $68,447 $54,743 $12,298 $704,414 4.4% 

2002-2003 $250,554 $119,279 $24,000 $41,602 $129,594 $42,780 $33,035 $11,760 $652,604 -7.4% 

2003-2004 $207,953 $26,400 $57,000 $207,967 $96,936 $47,173 $18,623 $662,052 1.4% 

2004-2005 $235,876 $52,207 $44,192 $137,016 $231,569 $148,374 $59,682 $28,895 $937,811 41.7% 

2005-2006 $419,836 $75,270 $31,104 $153,770 $181,856 $128,385 $42,594 $31,222 $1,064,037 13.5% 

2006-2007 $450,725 $70,591 $52,649 $118,349 $207,022 $127,405 $105,442 $58,583 $1,190,766 11.9% 

2007-2008 $554,855 $24,671 $61,446 $181,675 $214,979 $116,596 $77,065 $49,808 $1,281,095 7.6% 

2008-2009 $376,572 $0 $68,665 $141,880 $256,593 $112,200 $32,069 $21,860 $1,009,839 -21.2% 

2009-2010 $469,262 $42,133 $48,729 $164,173 $214,975 $93,631 $64,105 $31,174 $1,128,182 11.7% 

NOTES: 

The funding displayed here is merit based funding received by students in this major. In most cases, this is funding from the student's department, but it may 

also reflect funding received by these students from other departments. 

Graduate Division Grants and Fellowships includes funding from the Univ of CA, special allocations from the UCLA Chancellor, and centrally 

administered endowment funds. 

Federal Fellowships/Scholarships includes and fellowship money from federal sources 

Departmental Gifts and Endowments & Other Support includes funds controlled by departments/schools, funds from the academic dean's office 

allocated to deparmtments, and endowments specific to an individual department. 

Private Funding Sources includes private agency fellowship funding such as foundations and individuals. Prior to 1999-2000 these funds were included 

in the Departmental Gifts and Endowments category 

GSR funding comes from a variety of sources and is paid to students through the GSR payroll titles. 

**GSR and TA "Supplemental" includes fee remissions and payments for health insurance. 

Page 1 of 2

MERIT-BASED SUPPORT TO GRADUATE STUDENTS IN INFORMATION STUDIES 

PERCENT OF MERIT BASED SUPPORT BY TYPE OF SUPPORT 

FELLOWSHIPS 

EMPLOYMENT 

Graduate 

Division Grants 

and 

Fellowships 

Federal 

Fellowships/ 

Scholarships 

Departmental 

Gifts and 

Endowments & 

Other Support 

Private 

Fellowships 

and 

Endowments 

GSR Salary 

GSR 


TA Salary 

TA 


TOTAL 

MERIT 

SUPPORT 

2000-2001 36.3% 0.4% 1.3% 9.8% 35.0% 10.1% 5.7% 1.5% 100.0% 

2001-2002 36.0% 0.0% 1.8% 7.7% 35.3% 9.7% 7.8% 1.7% 100.0% 

2002-2003 38.4% 18.3% 3.7% 6.4% 19.9% 6.6% 5.1% 1.8% 100.0% 

2003-2004 31.4% 0.0% 4.0% 8.6% 31.4% 14.6% 7.1% 2.8% 100.0% 

2004-2005 25.2% 5.6% 4.7% 14.6% 24.7% 15.8% 6.4% 3.1% 100.0% 

2005-2006 39.5% 7.1% 2.9% 14.5% 17.1% 12.1% 4.0% 2.9% 100.0% 

2006-2007 37.9% 5.9% 4.4% 9.9% 17.4% 10.7% 8.9% 4.9% 100.0% 

2007-2008 43.3% 1.9% 4.8% 14.2% 16.8% 9.1% 6.0% 3.9% 100.0% 

2008-2009 37.3% 0.0% 6.8% 14.0% 25.4% 11.1% 3.2% 2.2% 100.0% 

2009-2010 41.6% 3.7% 4.3% 14.6% 19.1% 8.3% 5.7% 2.8% 100.0% 

2009-2010 TOTAL MERIT FUNDING FOR INFORMATION STUDIES COMPARED TO TOTAL EDUCATION & INFORMATION STUDIES 


Percent of registered students supported in 2009-2010: 27.14% 

Per capita support for those receiving support: $19,793 

Per capita support for all enrolled students (based on enrollment): $5,372 

Education & Information Studies Total 

Percent of registered students supported in 2009-2010: 46.36% 

Per capita support for those receiving support: $21,462 

Per capita support for all enrolled students (based on enrollment): $9,949 

Page 2 of 2

Graduate Council Survey of Enrolled Students (survey included) 

*Quantitative Data 

The first report presents results of a Graduate Council survey of current students enrolled in Winter 

Quarter 2011. The report summarizes the results and compares all programs in an academic year 

that have been surveyed for Graduate Council reviews. A copy of the survey instrument is attached. 

*Open-Ended Comments 

The second report provides a transcription of the responses to the open-ended questions on the 

survey. This report provides rich qualitative evaluations of the department from matriculating 

graduate students. 

Names have been redacted, and only minor spelling and grammar corrections have been applied that 

do not in any way change the semantics of the students’ comments. Other than this syntactical 

editing, the students’ comments have been transcribed as is and have not been edited for clarity. 


UCLA Graduate Council Survey Item by Item Report - Information Studies* 

*Compared to other Education & Information Studies programs reviewed since 2008-09 

Year Reviewed 

Please see end of report for number of respondents and response rates. 11-12 09-10 09-10 11-12 

Question Number 

Percent who indicated "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied" on the following items: % % % % 

5 Advising/guidance from faculty 67.6 79.1 78.8 20.0 

6 Advising/guidance from departmental staff 76.5 77.6 84.6 7.1 

7 Formal evaluations (other than grades) on progress toward your degree 44.6 57.1 75.0 20.0 

8 The availability of faculty members in your department for consultations 74.3 76.0 80.8 40.0 

9 The quality of instruction in lecture classes in your major 70.6 71.2 74.5 40.0 

10 The quality of instruction in seminar classes in your major 74.5 81.4 75.0 33.3 

11 The quality of instruction in laboratory or field classes 30.0 59.5 42.0 7.1 

12 The value of required courses for educating you in your field 60.8 74.2 88.5 6.7 

13 The value of departmental requirements in facilitating your educational and professional goals 61.8 70.5 88.5 13.3 

Departmental resources (library, laboratories, equipment, etc.) provided for student research and 

scholarship 81.4 65.5 69.2 73.3 

14 

15 The space available in your department for student use 72.5 51.4 54.9 20.0 

16 The sense of community among graduate students in your department 71.6 66.6 90.4 73.3 

17 The extent to which faculty in your department are sensitive to diversity issues 67.6 80.7 86.5 26.7 

18 The morale of graduate students in your program 58.8 65.2 75.0 13.3 

19 The level of financial assistance you have received 40.6 50.3 27.5 46.7 

20 The extent to which your department helps you obtain financial support 29.7 33.6 16.0 20.0 

21 The overall quality of faculty mentoring in your program 59.8 70.6 71.2 13.3 

The extent to which faculty in your department educate and assist graduate students in obtaining 

appropriate employment after they complete degrees 34.7 40.1 31.4 20.0 

22 

23 The inclusion of graduate students in departmental governance 52.5 34.8 69.2 26.7 

24 The equity of the distribution of financial support within your program 13.9 26.4 5.9 6.7 


Education Department 

Education Leadership 

Program 

Moving Image Archive 

Studies 

M:\Apps\Institutional Research\Program Review\2011-2012\GCS\Item by Item Page 1 of 3






Percent who selected "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" on the following statements about their 

primary faculty advisor: 

25 Is willing to spend the time necessary to advise me on academic matters 89.0 88.5 84.0 85.7 

26 Insists that we discuss my research on a regular basis 45.5 61.7 57.1 53.3 

27 Is very easy to approach 83.2 84.1 88.0 80.0 

28 Is knowledgeable about formal degree requirements 86.1 83.2 90.0 60.0 

29 Is interested in my goals and projects 83.2 86.7 86.0 80.0 

30 Can be relied upon to give me constructive criticism of my work 85.7 85.4 81.6 78.6 

31 Returns my work promptly 80.2 79.4 82.0 75.0 

32 Makes an effort to secure financial support for me 36.6 60.6 37.2 7.7 

33 Explains the strategies of survival in graduate school 56.3 68.9 77.1 42.9 

34 Encourages and supports my research ideas 82.5 86.7 86.0 71.4 

35 Teaches me what it means to be a professional in my field of study 66.7 79.8 79.2 53.3 




Program 


Studies 

Research Experiences - Percent who: 

36 

...thought their department had organized research seminars at which graduate students can present their 

research 69.6 50.0 46.2 40.0 

37 ... presented research at a department seminar 18.3 39.2 4.0 16.7 

38 ...received departmental funding to attend national meetings 14.7 32.7 0.0 .0 

39 …were encouraged by the faculty to publish 58.4 50.0 44.2 66.7 

40 …published one or more articles alone 18.6 14.1 5.8 13.3 

41 …co-authored one or more articles with a faculty member 25.5 30.3 3.8 .0 

42 …attended one or more scholarly conferences 50.0 65.0 34.6 73.3 

43 …delivered one or more academic papers at scholarly conferences 24.5 42.8 11.5 20.0 







Financial Support 

Percent who answered "yes" to receiving the following types of support: 

44 ...TA-ship 7.8 23.2 0.0 6.7 

45 …GSR-ship 13.7 47.6 0.0 6.7 

46 …Fellowship 33.3 61.0 4.0 53.3 




Program 


Studies 

Percent of students who selected the following as the (one) most important type of funding 

47 for degree progress: 

1 TA-ship 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 

2 GSR-ship 5.9 22.2 0.0 0.0 

3 Money from other employment 6.9 4.9 12.5 6.7 

4 Fellowship 19.8 33.3 0.0 13.3 

5 Loan/Need-based grant 39.6 24.3 47.9 66.7 

6 Personal/family funds 26.7 12.8 39.6 13.3 

If starting over a graduate career again, percent who would select: 

48 The same university 55.9 64.5 74.5 20.0 

49 The same field of study 75.5 73.9 82.7 53.3 

50 The same faculty advisor 48.0 62.9 57.7 26.7 

Survey Response Rates: 

Number of surveys returned from students in program: 102 297 52 15 

Number of surveys mailed to students in program: 182 669 91 18 

Response Rate: 56% 44% 57% 83% 


Lib and Info Sci 

Student Degree Objective: 

Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

ID: 5749 

Professors who 

encourage 

independent 

thought and 

scholarship 

particular to the 

profession have 

helped in my 

degree progress. 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 

The nature of work as a 

TA and/or GSR at UCLA, 

its value as part of your 

education, and the quality 

of the training you received 

Open-Ended Comments, Graduate Council Survey, Winter 2011 

The reasons why some 

students have left our 

graduate program before 

completing their degrees 

The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The caliber of 

intellectual 

engagement is 

substantially 

better outside the 

first year core 

curriculum. 

(Please see next 

question for more 

information.) 

The 

appropriateness of 

course and other 

degree 

requirements in 

regard to your 

career aspirations 

The first year 

requirements have been 

of little value to me. I 

understand the need, as 

a research university, to 

introduce intellectual 

rigor and the concepts of 

the field to entering 

students. However, I 

found that the majority of 

these courses consisted 

of exercises in repeating 

certain ideas back to 

professors rather than 

fonts of critical thought 

and discussion. 

(Professor***** and 

Professor *****courses 

were an exception to 

this; they encouraged 

thoughtful and 

independent analysis 

amongst students.) A 

librarian at UCLA told me 

before I started the 

program that the core 

curriculum was 

something to be "borne" 

rather than enjoyed. I 

was inclined to disagree, 

but after the first year, I 

understand his 

frustration. Being asked 

to rephrase the ideas the 

professor believes 

doesn't make for critical 

thought; it just results in 

an enhanced ability to 

tell the professor what he 

Any questions you believe 

the review team should 

raise and/or areas they 

should examine 

(Please see above). 

Wednesday, April 06, 2011 Lib and Info Sci , Open-Ended Comments, Graduate Council Survey, Winter 2011 

Page 1 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








or she wants to hear. 

Just yesterday, a 

classmate commented 

on what she learned in a 

first year class, saying: 

"What did I learn in that 

class? I learned what the 

professor wanted to 

hear." That statement is 

troubling to me in an 

environment that 

purports to value critical 

and independent 

thought. Moreover, in 

many of the first year 

required courses, it 

seemed that critical 

discussion was tacitly 

discouraged. In these 

courses, issues or 

thoughts that didn't 

match with the 

professor's view of the 

world was excluded or 

disdained by statements 

to the effect that we 

didn't yet understand 

"being professionals" or 

"the profession". The 

irony, of course, is that 

many of these 

professors have never 

worked as professionals 

in information fields, but 

rather have worked 

exclusively in academia. 

In other cases, classes 

were given instructions 

about "being 

professionals" that were 

based around the norms 

of academia rather than 

the information 

professions. In the 


Page 2 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








workforce around 

professionals in my field, 

I have found that the 

types of analysis that 

were not encouraged in 

the core classes is 

actively encouraged and 

rewarded. Naturally, 

every individual 

(professors included) 

has some degree of 

bias, preference towards 

certain ideas, and 

intellectual 

predilections. However, 

it's wholly inappropriate 

to create an environment 

where critical thought 

about issues related to 

the profession is 

discouraged. I would 

recommend that the first 

year curriculum is 

examined with some 

care, with an eye 

towards encouraging 

revision. Ideally, 

professors would consult 

with individuals working 

in the information 

professions to see what 

concepts and challenges 

they are facing, in order 

to better prepare 

students for these 

outcomes. 

ID: 8240 

This survey should have had a 

NA box. I hope that my 

department seriously reads the 

class evaluations students 

answer at the end of the quarter. 

Some of my classes have been 


Page 3 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








wonderful, but some have not. I 

would have expressed my views 

in the class evaluations. 

ID: 8635 

******* Need more support 

for those writing 

theses 

excellent - found 

IS to be more 

stimulating than I 

ever expected, 

and traveled far 

beyond my initial 

interests. 

I wish I could have 

gotten more advice on 

my track. It is a new 

area, and I'm unsure 

about whether I'm 

prepared. Advice given 

re: how best to proceed 

was limited 

ID: 6664 

Supportive dept. 

staff, adjunct 

faculty, and dept. 

chair. 

6 core courses 

(required), which is 

overkill when trying 

to teach the 

"essentials" of an 

MLIS. Should be 

condensed to one 

less course. 

There are zero TA or GSR 

positions for MLIS students, 

which is highly unfair. IS PhD 

students and Education students 

are favored in this area. 

This program is frustrating 

because it does not teach 

fundamental practical skills, 

except in adjunct taught courses. 

And students find little support 

during personally difficult times. 

Highly intellectual, 

which is good 

because it 

creates a 

dynamic program 

where various 

fields intersect. 

But that also 

makes it bad 

because students 

seeking to be 

practitioners find 

it difficult to 

connect with 

research focused 

faculty who study 

completely 

different fields. 

We need more courses 

teaching current library 

issues. Preparation for 

my career has derived 

from self-selected 

internships and the 

limited adjunct courses 

(which are somewhat 

frowned upon by ladder 

faculty). 

Why is the UCLA MLIS program 

not held in high regard within the 

professional library community? 

Shouldn't this program aim to be 

top of the field since it offers an 

accredited degree? Is the focus 

of this program moving more 

towards an iSchool? 

ID: 1641 

genuine pushes of 

encouragement 

from Prof**** and 

Prof **** They are 

beautiful and 

strong. True role 

models. 

Oppression and 

perpetuation of white 

privilege a la ******** 

n/a 

Bc Prof****** is moody, 

oppressive, and self interested. 

Great only in Prof 

*****s classes. I 

hear Prof 

******courses are 

wonderful too. 

Fine. 

Increase diversity. 


Page 4 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








ID: 5197 

I am very glad that I went 

to UCLA for my 


degree. However, I wish 

I had known before 

enrolling that the 

program has such a 

theoretical bent. I feel 

that the core coursework 

has prepared me for to 

become a PhD student 

than to work in the field. 

Since it is a professional 

school, I didn't think that 

theory would play such a 

big role in my degree. I 

was hoping to learn 

more hands-on, 

professional skills. I 

learned quickly that, if I 

wanted to learn 

professional skills, I 

would have to do that on 

my own time. I am 

thankful for the 

internship program, 

though, as it added a 

real-world component to 

the program. 

ID: 0035 

Clear set of course 

requirements, 

flexible and 

accessible faculty 

and departmental 

staff. 

Difficulty obtaining 

financial support and 

jobs relevant to the 

profession as a 

student. 

Alas, my department has no 

TAships for masters students. 

Had any been available, I would 

have jumped at the chance to be 

a TA. I had hoped for a 

GSRship, but my department 

has had very few. 

The only reason I've heard is 

financial difficulties. 

Fair to good: it 

seems to me that 

the PhD courses 

are significantly 

more intellectually 

rigorous and 

exciting than the 

masters courses. 

As a masters 

student, I don't 

have time to take 

Very appropriate, but I 

wish there were a great 

deal more technical 

training involved in my 

program (that is, a 

number of us wish we 

were being taught some 

programming, xml, a bit 

of web development, 

rapid prototyping tools, 

etc). 

1. It might be nice if there were a 

bit more support for students 

writing masters theses (although 

certainly the freedom we have is 

wonderful). 2. I really do hope 

the department will consider 

making more technical training 

available, and perhaps make the 

design side of the curriculum 

more robust. 3. The department 

needs more expertise in 


Page 5 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








PhD courses, but 

I wish the ambient 

intellectual 

excitement of the 

PhD program 

encompassed the 

masters program 

more often. 

children's and teens' services. 

ID: 8814 

The availability of 

the faculty and 

helpfulness of them 

has been amazing. 

I think that has 

really encouraged 

and helped me so 

far. 

The intellectual 

quality is 

astounding and is 

very admirable. I 

hope to one day 

be able to be held 

in such high 

regard as some of 

the faculty here. 

So far, the core course 


very helpful and I am 

truly grateful to have to 

take them. I'm only just 

finishing my second 

quarter, so my mind may 

change as I get further in 

the program. 

ID: 1433 

I think this 

department tries 

its best to walk 

the line between 

theoretical and 

practical. Some of 

the more practical 

courses have 

seemed like 

things I could 

learn on the job, 

but I support them 

being offered in 

the department. 

There are some great 

seminars in this 

department, especially 

history of the book. I 

found that to be hugely 

helpful and related to my 

course of study. I 

appreciate the fact that 

the department offers 

children's library 

courses, especially as so 

many of us are 

interested in that field. 

ID: 2684 

There is little or no diversity in the 

Information Studies Department. 

This issue is a problem among 

the students and the faculty. As 

a result, the few ethnic students 

in the department have grouped 


Page 6 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








together in order not to feel 

ostracized by the other graduate 

students in the department. 

ID: 8819 

Regularly 

scheduling of 

required classes. 

Infrequency of 

electives. 

Very high. 

Relevant topics, 

current interest. 

Internship opportunities 

that provide exposure to 

real work siuations and 

networking are invaluable 

There is very little information on 

website and student handbook 

reagarding thesis option. 

ID: 0704 

An advisor who 

encourages/helps 

develop ideas for 

research papers 

The overall 

intellectual quality 

is high; at the 

beginning of the 

program, students 

are expected to 

contribute to 

important 

professional 

conversations. 

ID: 9410 

The overall 


of the program is 

high, but there 

seems to be 

somewhat of a 

disconnect 

between the 

research focus of 

the faculty and 

the goals of a 

professional 

degree program. 

The program 

ends up feeling a 

little 

schizophrenic as 

a result. A lot of 

the best teaching 

is carried out by 

One the program's 

strengths is its internship 

program. The wide 

variety of wellestablished 

internships 

offer excellent 

opportunities for gaining 

professional experience 

as well as developing 

professional 

relationships to assist 

with in the process of 

finding of a job. 

The department does not offer an 

information literacy/instruction 

course during the regular school 

year, only over the summer. The 

lack of interest in and 

commitment to information 

literacy is surprising, given the 

importance of the issue in the 

field in general, and the fact that 

most academic library positions 

include instruction in their 

descriptions. 


Page 7 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








the adjunct 

faculty, who can 

bring their 

ongoing 

experiences in 

the professional 

world directly into 

the classroom. 

This isn't too say 

that the full-time 

faculty are not 

quality teachers, 

but their focus 

tends to be more 

theoretical and 

less practical. 

ID: 9586 

I responded above that if I had to 

do this over I would enroll at a 

different university. My biggest 

complaint is the department's lack 

of interest in its Library Studies 

students. While there are some 

faculty whose research interests 

lie in this area, they are all 

nearing retirement and seem to 

have lost interest. Two faculty 

members in this area have retired 

in this area and no steps are 

being taken to replace them. I 

wish I had understood this before 

I decided to enroll in this 

program. I also have concerns 

with the current recruitment for an 

Archival Studies professor. The 

candidates that have been 

brought in all have Latino last 

names. Is this a coincidence? It 

looks suspiciously like someone 

decided that there was a hole in 

the diversity profile of the 

department faculty. 


Page 8 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








ID: 7680 

Truly impressed 

not only with the 

content of the 


of the program, 

but with the 

altruism, 

humanism, and 

spirit of inquiry as 

well. The vast and 

frankly 

amorphous 

material is 

covered 

exhaustively and 

presented in a 

highly organized 

and principled 

format that is 

befitting of a 

science (versus a 

messy, 

disorganized 

holistic 

approach). The 

variety of faculty 

experience is also 

overwhelming 

and a great boon 

to the program. 

As I have not 

participated 

professionally in the 

field, this question is 

impossible to answer in 

the manner in which it is 

posed. However, I would 

like to comment that 

there is a genuine 

attempt to cover the 

theoretical as well as 

practical aspects of the 

profession and that is 

greatly appreciated. 

ID: 7832 

Other students - 

having felt like 

faculty has been too 

busy or not 

supportive, other 

students' 

experiences have 

helped me answer 

the questions that 

will help me obtain 

As a potential 

academic or public 

librarian, I am very 

dissatisfied that there 

are no (or extremely 

limited) faculty 

advisors who have 

had the experience 

of academic or public 

librarianship. I feel 

Readers in classes have been 

greatly beneficial in terms of 

readily replied to emails and time 

spent clarifying topics. 

There's nothing 

comparable in 

bringing together 

different people 

from all over and 

putting them in a 

program that 

ellicits passion 

and devotion. Not 

only do 

I wish course descriptors 

were more in-depth 

rather than the generic 

listings of UCLA's course 

catalog. Emails sent by 

professors describing 

what their course 

syllabus has been 

extremely beneficial in 

choosing the right class 

Are faculty advisors focused on 

student achievement and 

reaching their goals? I feel like 

some faculty are focused on their 

own achievements and their own 

fields that they cannot dedicate 

the time to actually sit down and 

hear their advisees' problems, 

concerns, and questions. 


Page 9 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








my degree in my 

chosen field. 

that I entered this 

program to establish 

myself in either field, 

but am being highly 

referred to enter the 

field of metadata or 

archives instead. I 

realize that academic 

and public 

librarianship, 

especially in terms of 

public services, is 

limited in the scope 

of positions at this 

point, but feeling like 

I have no support in 

reaching my goals 

feels detrimental to 

what I am trying to 

accomplish. 

Furthermore, having 

seen the course 

offerings of the 

department, I wonder 

at how classes are 

so heavily weighted 

on certain foci, but 

not others. How are 

classes chosen to be 

taught every quarter? 

Having read through 

the Handbook, I see 

so many academic 

library classes that 

could be taken, but 

has not been offered. 

professors 

challenge minds 

to think in class, 

but students have 

set bars that I 

have a desire to 

meet and surpass. 

for the field I'm looking to 

enter. Core classes 

have been a roller 

coaster of 

appropriateness, in 

which, in some classes, I 

feel I have learned 

something beneficial and 

practical while others 

feel as if I am being 

supplied with history and 

content that would never 

transfer over into 

becoming a librarian 

looking to go into public 

services. I am looking 

foward to the hands-on 

experiences that field 

work/internships will 

require. Rather than the 

theoretical, I'll be able to 

learn and apply skills 

that will be beneficial in 

the future. 

ID: 1017 

great website with 

degree and portfolio 

requirements, 

access to past 

syllabi upon 

request, flexible 

emphasis on ladder 

faculty for student 

group and personal 

advising; since there 

are no children's 

librarians on the 

strong 

the research methods 

course I took was not 

beneficial to me; due to 

lack of interesting 

options and topics 

related to being a 

should portfolio assessment be 

so regimented and high stakes? 

Portfolios are meant to reflect a 

learner's growth and change. 

Learners should be able to 

include pieces that represent their 


Page 10 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








policy on changing 

letter or s/u gradiing 

ID: 2143 

strong and frequent 

communication 

between advisor 

and student 

announcements 

made on listservs 

ID: 8261 

faculty I have been 

unable to have an 

advisor that shares 

my specialization 

too many required 

core courses; and 

required core 

courses are not 

offered frequently 

enough 

very high 

professional librarian 

rather than a researcher 

or academic; I just went 

with one that worked 

with my schedule (social 

science). I learned very 

little, and what I did walk 

away with, I doubt I'll 

have use for in my 

professional life. 

Between the six cores, 

the research methods, 

and the internships, 

there are too few elective 

spots available- my 

elective courses almost 

entirely comprise the 

professional knowledge 

that I need. Make things 

like collection 

development or 

intellectual property 

required instead of ethics 

or research methods! 

Most of the core courses 

are valuable. A few are 

pretty useless. 

best work, without adhering to 

strict checklist. And can such an 

enlightened method of 

assessment really be part of a 

pass/fail type consequence? 

Perhaps the portfolios could 

receive rubric grades. At the very 

least, portfolios that 'fail' with the 

stipulation of minor changes 

before resubmitting or 

representing should have a 

designation other than fail, such 

as 'pending.' 

I feel the program is strong 

overall. The one thing I would 

change is to have more ladder 

faculty members in the 

department. The faculty in the 

department are extremely busy, 

and, being part of a large masters 

program, many of the students do 

not get the attention they need. 

It's hard when your advisor 

doesn't return an email for a week 

or two, or sometimes ever. It can 

be a chasing game and I have 

often felt like I am intruding. The 

faculty members are wonderful 

people; they are all just too busy. 


Page 11 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








ID: 9608 

ID: 1433 

Many class 

offerings in my area 

of interest 

ID: 3846 

Having a supportive 

faculty, advisor, and 

friends who are 

further along in the 

program. 

ID: 7273 

I understand that the 

MLIS program at 

UCLA was designed 

for full-time students. 

However, times are 

changing and there 

are more and more 

students who work 

full-time and 

moonlight as a 

student. I hope that 

the IS Dept. 

becomes more 

sensitive to the time 

commitments and the 

financial sacrifices 

that are involved to 

be in this program. 

Extra demands on 

my time, such as the 

service requirement 

for IS 201 

Confusing 

requirements, 

terrifying faculty 

members, so many 

people failing the 

portfolio presentation 

last year, not having 

public library faculty 

member next year! 

Very high quality. 

n/a Don't know Pretty rigorous, 

but this is needed 

to give you a 

thorough 

introduction to the 

field. 

The GEs are pretty 

practical in training you 

for a career, but it might 

be good to add collection 

development to the core 

classes. 

Pretty good. Pretty good. Do the faculty members reflect 

and meet the needs and interests 

of students (public libraries, youth 

services people aren't going to 

have a faculty member to serve 

as their advisor or to be able to 

write a major paper in the 

electives they take!)? Also, there 

needs to be more public 

library/youth services courses. 


Page 12 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








The internships 

(and the opportunity 

to get course credit 

for them) has been 

the best part about 

this program. If I 

didn't have those 

experiences, my 

degree alone would 

get me nowhere in 

the job market. 

I think the faculty in 

my department is 

obsessed with the 

phd students and 

could care less about 

the masters students. 

I think it really effects 

the morale of the 

other students too. 

Just because we 

won't be here as long 

as the phd students 

doesn't mean we 

don't deserve their 

attention. 

I know that going 

to a UC means an 

emphasis on 

theory, but it 

doesn't really 

serve the 

students very well 

once they 

graduate. I'm here 

to be prepared to 

succeed in the 

practice. I don't 

want to teach. I 

don't want a phd. 

I just want the 

skills necessary 

to do the job. 

I feel like most of the 

lectures I sit through are 

poorly planned, if at all. 

Some faculty members 

have trouble with time 

management, which is 

surprising considering 

each class session is 

over three hours longs. I 

don't know why this is a 

two year program. 

ID: 3460 

Not very high for 

the amount of 

work that is 

required. First off, 

there is just way 

too many people 

in the core 

classes. It doesnt 

make it feel 

competitive, it 

does not make it 

feel like grad 

school. I feel like I 

am in an 

undergraduate 

lecture with no 

accountability. 

The one seminar I 

had was great, 8 

people, great 

level of 

interaction, 

perfect. The one 

core class I had 

that was split into 

I think the required 

statistics and computer 

courses don't really 

make sense. Almost 

everything we went over 

in ITW was covered in 

270 and I have yet to 

see how statistics will 

ever come into effect. 


Page 13 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








two sections was 

also much better 

because there 

was about 25 

people or less. 

Basically I rather 

just read a 

powerpoint at 

home then sit 

through an 

overcrowded 

lecture where all 

the professor 

does is read off 

their powerpoint. 

ID: 5771 

So much of the coursework 

remains in theory and does not 

lend itself directly to professional 

practice. 


quality in most 

classes is great. 

There on some 

classes that 

demand practical 

applications. 

Those classes 

can not be taught 

as theory courses 

or else we will 

graduate from this 

program with 

gaps of important 

knowledge. The 

Access course 

MUST teach 

practical 

knowledge in 

clear, concise 

way. Without the 

basics that should 

be taught in this 

course, we should 

not be able to 

graduate with an 

MLIS. As the 

If this is a professional 

school, there should be a 

clear focus on the 

practical. 


Page 14 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








course was 

taught this winter 

quarter, every 

opportunity for 

practical 

application was 

left dangling and 

unfulfilled. I hope 

this does not 

happen in any of 

the other courses 

in the program. 

ID: 3074 

adjunct faculty with 

a conscious 

straddling of 

professional needs 

and academic 

study, guest 

lecturers who are 

willing to share their 

experiences outside 

the classroom, 

roundtables to meet 

outside faculty, 

colloquia series 

Too many young 

students without 

work experience, too 

many students who 

don't care about the 

intellectual 

experience of 

graduate school, 

difficult to meet with 

professors, lack of 

financial support 

Being a TA provides both a 

learning experience because 

teaching is one of the best ways 

to learn but primarily this is a job 

to pay for school. It is not 

mentoring or training. That is a 

very paternalistic way of seeing 

work. Being a TA is a job and 

that is why we are represented 

by a union. 

Cost of education, cost/benefit 

analysis 

The instructors 

are very 

intellectual and 

provide readings 

germane to the 

study of 

information 

studies. 

Unfortunately, 

most of my 

classmates are 

not that 

intellectual and 

are trying to just 

get by. 

ID: 2345 

-- There are at least 

processes in place 

for students to bring 

issues to faculty. 

The processes are 

often overly 

bureaucratic, not 

particularly fast 

moving and are not 

structured to solicit 

student involvement 

as a means of 

-- There should be 

increased flexibility in 

terms of each 

student's ability to 

shape the course of 

their own learning. 

The information field 

has been 

interdisciplinary by 

nature and the 

struggle to coalesce 

the meaning of 

Overall the 


of the program 

seems adequate. 

However, the 

structure of the 

program itself 

could be 

improved to 

provide 

opportunities for 

enhancing that 

-- Generally, there seems to be a 

schism between the faculty's 

strengths and the diverse and 

changing nature of the field, and 

at times, it has felt like the 

department is scrambling (and 

not always in the right direction) 

to determine requirements and 

class offerings that live up to 

those changes. I feel that to 

enhance the professional degree, 

there should be better 


Page 15 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








continual 

development of 

both the program 

and the processes 

themselves. -- For 

the most part, the 

faculty seem to care 

about the students 

and their 

progress. -- The 


department is quite 

socially diverse and 

serves students of 

many different 

backgrounds. That 

diversity is useful 

for challenging 

one's assumptions 

about the field in 

and out of class. 

information science 

as a discipline -- 

while necessary from 

an academic and 

departmental 

perspective -- seems 

to have resulted in 

the creation of 

barriers that limit the 

ability of students to 

study across 

departments and 

subject areas. I 

suppose that I feel 

that there is a 

diversity of students 

and that the field 

itself is multifaceted 

and changing with 

developments in 

information 

technology so 

perhaps there should 

be a greater number 

of ways to obtain the 

degree and that 

those avenues 

should be easy to 

access. -- At times, 

there seem to have 

been a lack of 

available faculty to 

teach classes for 

budgetary or other 

reasons. 

quality. There are 

too many lowlevel, 

introductory 

courses which do 

not carry a full 

quarter's worth of 

content. Several 

courses -- 

including those 

dealing with 

management of 

library institutions, 

reference 

strategies and 

perhaps ethics -- 

could be 

consolidated into 

one or two 

courses in order 

to allow students 

to explore their 

respective 

interests in more 

depth. 

communication between faculty 

and the institutions that will 

employ the students. While the 

department seems to maintain 

decent relationships with public 

and academic libraries and 

certain major cultural institutions 

like the Getty and LACMA, I feel 

that other organizations -- 

particularly those in the private 

sector -- have been largely 

ignored as a source of ideas of 

what counts as an appropriately 

educated information studies 

graduate. Employment, while not 

really in the hands of the faculty, 

always seems like a burdensome 

afterthought rather than the point 

of the degree -- which is an 

attitude which serves the 

program's designers more than 

the people who enroll in it. I 

suppose what I think would most 

enhance the program would be to 

have a robust career services 

process that is not run out of 

someone's left pocket, but is an 

integral part of the shaping of the 

program in every aspect from 

course offerings to degree 

requirements to the steps by 

which the degree is obtained to 

the events that take place each 

quarter. The models for this are 

to be found in the way that the 

law and business schools 

cultivate their relationships with 

the institutions that employ their 

graduates. -- Last, but not least, 

the department needs to be more 

proactive in creating a social life 

and an active culture for the 

school. There are times when 

the department feels simply like 


Page 16 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








collection of randomly selected 

people that happen to be in the 

same building. The department 

needs to assist the efforts of the 

students and student groups in 

building that culture, rather than 

relying on them to do so. This 

would help foster community and 

enhance networking and the 

exchange of ideas. 

ID: 8044 

Faculty who care 

about students and 

show concern for 

their progress. 

Faculty more 

concerned with their 

personal 

research/interests. 

n/a 

Dissatisfied with the 

program/unable to handle the 

workload. 

Some courses 

are more 

intellectual than 

others--some 

seem more 

conducive to a 

one day seminar 

rather than a 10 

week course. 

For the most part core 


extremely useful and 

helpful. 

Examine what courses overlap 

with one another in terms of 

content and how that could be 

avoided. 

ID: 7684 

There are two 

things about the 

department which 

have strongly 

impacted the 

progress and quality 

of my time in this 

program. The first 

is the commitment 

of the faculty, staff, 

and students to 

diversity in our 

profession and 

professional field, in 

all respects of the 

word. Meeting with 

other students in 

other MLIS 

programs, I have 

been incredibly 

The lack of faculty in 

my specialization; 

see below. 

n/a N/A I personally do 

not feel that this 

program is 

academically 

rigorous. 

However, this 

seems to be a 

crisis in all 

MLIS/MLS 

programs, and 

perhaps is 

something that 

can't be 

addressed at the 

departmental 

level, but in terms 

of the profession 

nationally. I do 

believe, however, 

that the structure 

This program is severely 

lacking in the resources 

to support public 

librarians. I understand 

that the archival and 

informatics tracks are 

strong, from my fellow 

students, but as 

someone who is 

interested in public 

librarianship, I 

experienced extreme 

difficulty in some of my 

efforts to prepare myself 

for my career. The 

program currently has 

only two ladder faculty 

who have any research 

interest in public 

libraries, and both are 

- The diversity of 

research/academic interests of 

the faculty. - The representation 

of the program through the 

website and other promotional 

materials; retired faculty and 

faculty who have left the program 

are still represented as teaching 

in the program. - The core course 

and technology requirements of 

this program in relation to other 

top twenty IS programs in the 

United States. 


Page 17 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








proud of the efforts 

and successes of 

my department in 

this respect. The 

second is the 

engagement of the 

students and the 

department with the 

larger Los Angeles 

community, and 

with information 

institutions locally 

and nationally. The 

opportunities to 

intern, perform 

research, commit to 

focused studies, 

and meet with other 

informational 

professionals has 

been far beyond my 

expectations. 

of this program 

allows for you to 

make your degree 

academically 

rigorous if you 

choose, and I 

appreciate the 

flexibility of the 

faculty in this 

regard. 

retired. The ultimate 

graduation requirement 

requires a major paper, 

preferably in your 

specialization, from a 

ladder-track faculty 

member; the number of 

classes taught by ladder 

faculty in this 

specialization are 

extremely limited, 

making this final 

requirement difficult. For 

public and youth 

services librarians, lack 

of access to faculty 

concerned with their 

same academic and 

professional interests 

hinders publication, 

research, and the thesis 

option. 

ID: 9781 

a knowledgeable 

and caring advisor a 

handful of faculty 

and staff who 

actually care about 

students 

Too many useless 

core courses!! 

Majority of the core 

courses were taught 

by heartless faculty 

who obviously did not 

want to teach these 

courses. Students 

did not learn anything 

intellectual or 

practical in these 

boring core courses. 

No faculty wanted to 

teach, nor students 

wanted to take these 

mandatory courses. 

These courses were 

waste of money, 

resources and time. 

Students should 

Disappointment with the 

departmental faculty, the 

program, and the school... Many 

faculty in the department do not 

care about their students. These 

disappointing faculty do not 

provide guidance or mentorship. 

In fact, they can hardly 

remember the names of their 

advisees. Without support from 

their faculty advisors, student 

morale is overall very low. 

The review team should evaluate 

individual faculty in terms of how 

well or poorly the faculty provides 

mentorship to students. In a 

graduate program, quality 

advising is fundamental. 


Page 18 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








have more choices 

with elective courses! 

ID: 4498 

Having access to 

both the ladder 

faculty and adjunct 

faculty is a nice 

blend that helps 

keep the theory and 

practiced balanced. 

Overall, the 

curriculum seems 

appropriate. One 

criticism would be 

the heavy emphasis 

on archives and 

libraries. However, 

the faculty seem to 

be working really 

hard to change that 

and be sensitive to 

students' needs in 

advising sessions 

and overall course 

planning. 

My main complaint 

about my experience 

at UCLA is the total 

lack of community. It 

has been a little 

heart-breaking 

actually. There really 

isn't any sense that 

other students care 

about what they are 

learning (with some 

exceptions, of 

course). There is 

also little to no 

interaction between 

the masters students 

and the phD students 

and it just seems like 

a missed 

opportunity. I don't 

think this can be 

blamed on the 

faculty, really though. 

The GSEIS building 

is incredibly 

uncomfortable and 

unpleasant to be in 

with no real study 

spaces, so who 

would want to hang 

out when they didn't 

have to be there? 

The result is that 

students take classes 

together, but don't 

know each other. It's 

a commuter campus, 

and there are few 

departmental 

activities outside the 

Overall, I think the 

program is 

thought-provoking 

without being 

strenuous. It's 

definitely hard to 

get the balance 

between practical 

skills and 

intellectual 

grounding, but I 

think it works for 

the most part in 

the department. 

My only concern 

with the 

intellectual rigor 

of the program 

are the core 

courses. Though I 

think the selection 

of core courses is 

well-rounded, 

insuring that 

professors keep 

them fresh is 

important for 

making the 

course seem 

relevant both to 

students 

interested in the 

required course 

and those who 

might not be 

initially. In 1 or 2 

of the core 

courses it seems 

the professor was 

teaching from a 

How do the requirements for 

entry into the program match with 

the curriculum goals? Are skills 

learned from pre-requisites 

reinforced during the program? 

How does the faculty bring 

together scholars from such 

different backgrounds as 

computer science and art history 

to make cohesive departmental 

judgments about curriculum, 

speakers, and degree 

requirements? 


Page 19 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








colloquium lectures. 

Students have tried 

organizing happy 

hour events and 

such, but it never 

seems to catch on, 

so I'm not really sure 

how to solve the 

problem. 

syllabus they had 

not *really* 

revised in over a 

decade. 

ID: 7904 

I appreciate the 

level of support that 

my primary faculty 

advisor and other 

faculty members in 

my department 

have provided me. 

The community is 

supportive and I 

always feel like 

there is someone I 

can talk to about a 

given issue. 

There are too many 

required courses for 

a two year terminal 

master's program. 

This is problematic 

especially because 

many of the elective 

and seminar courses 

are only offered 

every other year, 

hindering students 

from taking the 

classes they are 

most interested in. I 

have taken three 

seminar courses, and 

all three were 

enrolled to maximum 

capacity (30+), which 

created an 

atmosphere in the 

classroom that was 

not conducive to 

discussions or 

presentations. 

ID: 7969 

I like the internship 

component. A 

friend of mine who 

recently received 

her MLIS told me 

Because the 

department is so 

small, many of the 

courses are designed 

for both doctoral and 

n/a 

I know of two people who have 

left: one who tried to complete 

the degree in a year and grew 

frustrated, and one who left after 

only a few weeks into the first 

The core curriculum is, 

by a wide margin, the 

program's weakest 

aspect. Some courses, 

like Information in 

Compare UCLA's curriculum to 

other MLIS programs and see 

what they're doing differently! 


Page 20 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








that hiring 

committees don't 

care about the 

classes you've 

taken - what they're 

really interested in 

is your work 

experience. From 

what I've seen, that 

seems to be true 

(although the 

material in many 

classes is still very 

useful). 

masters students - 

two groups with 

extremely different 

intellectual goals - or 

*all* masters 

students, despite our 

very different career 

tracks. I feel that I've 

been forced to study 

a lot of material that 

isn't relevant, and 

won't have a chance 

to study more 

specialized topics 

that would really 

benefit me. 

quarter. In the first case, I 

imagine that the student believed 

this program would be flexible, 

time-wise, as other MLIS 

programs are ((name of 

university deleted), for instance, 

allows students to graduate in a 

year and a half). In the second 

case, I've heard that library 

school is radically different from 

librarianship, and I wonder if that 

student grew disillusioned. 

Society and Intro to IT, 

are interesting but only 

marginally related to 

librarianship. Others, 

like Information 

Structures, Information 

Access, and Ethics, 

Diversity, and Change, 

have so little content that 

they feel like one-day 

seminars that have been 

stretched and padded 

into 35 hour courses. 

Many of my peers and I 

quickly learned that there 

are no consequences to 

skipping readings and 

class sessions. Frankly, 

these courses are an 

expensive waste of 

time. Furthermore, the 

core courses, along with 

required or semirequired 

classes like 

research methods and 

the portfolio course, 

crowd out useful 

electives, forcing 

students to take 4, 8, or 

even 12 extra units over 

the summer. So in 

reality, the program 

basically requires 7 

quarters to complete, not 

6. 

ID: 7642 

The seminar faculty 

are genuinely 

engaged with 

students and their 

pursuits within the 

given topic; I have 

found through 

I know of a student who left the 

program to pursue a career 

opportunity, and two others who 

left for reasons of stress and 

feelings of inadequacy regarding 

their work. 

Excellent. 

Professors treat 

students as 

peers, and as 

such expect a 

high level of 

intellectual 

Excellent. 


Page 21 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








personal experience 

and anecdotal 

evidence that the 

faculty actively 

encourage students 

to continue their 

research beyond 

the classroom. 

Establishing 

relationships with 

the doctoral 

students who serve 

as course readers 

has also been 

invaluable for 

academic 

encouragements 

and degree 

progress advice. 

quality. I feel 

perpetually 

challenged and 

supported in my 

academic work. 

ID: 0495 

Class size is too big - 

participation 

requirements are 

usually impossible to 

meet! Students feel 

lost in the crowd. 

Certain electives only 

offered every other 

year, conflicting with 

core classes. 

Faculty too busy to 

spend time getting to 

know students and 

appropriately advise 

them. 

Discovered this was not the right 

professional path Got a great job 

in another field 

Syllabi should be made more 

readily available to students to 

help them select courses. 

Coordination of readings between 

the core classes (esp. first 

quarter - there is a lot of overlap). 

Faculty should share information 

about the content of their 

courses, so that they can refine 

and complement the coursework. 

ID: 5995 

Not all of the 

requirements seem 

relevant. For example, I 

have heard countless 

first and second year 

The faculty who teach the core 

classes need to communicate 

better with each other; there are 

redundancies and inconsistencies 

that could be easily remedied. 


Page 22 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








students say that the 

computer programming 

requirement is unhelpful, 

unnecessary and 

inconvenient. I did think 

that statistics was a 

useful prerequisite. IS 

200 and IS 260 are 

appropriate required 

introductions to the MLIS 

program and, for the 

most part, useful. If the 

faculty could clarify the 

purpose and purview of 

both courses, that would 

be of great help. But the 

readings were excellent 

and the assignments 

illuminating. IS 270 is 

both an appropriate 

requirement and an 

excellent class. Prof 

***** could not be more 

clear in his intentions 

and objectives. The 

material is useful and 

interesting; the subject 

matter is thoroughly and 

clearly explained; the 

assignments tie together 

perfectly, both to each 

other and to the field. It's 

one of the best courses 

I've ever taken. IS 245 

is, unfortunately, one of 

the worst. Most of the 

relevant parts of the 

course were already 

covered in 260 and 270. 

The rest was a 

mishmash of outdated 

ideas and tangential 

material. (At least this 

was my experience with 


Page 23 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








the winter 2011 offering 

of 245; the experiences 

of students who took it in 

the summer of 2010 

sounded more positive.) 

Some of the guest 

speakers (particularly 

****) were good, in that 

they addressed 

important issues facing 

our field and raised 

challenging -- even 

controversial -- questions. 

ID: 5477 

Excellent professors 

in my areas of 

interest 

(children's/public). 

Mostly adjuncts, but 

they are fantastic. 

Lack of ladder faculty 

in public libraries 

and/or children's and 

YA -- I can't have an 

adviser in my area of 

interest, and it is 

difficult to write a 

major paper which is 

relevant to my 

interests. 

I feel like some of the 

core courses are only 

useful for some students. 

For example, 245 is 

great for people who will 

be in a library, but not as 

useful for people in 

archives or informatics. 

If it were to make 

students well-rounded 

outside their area of 

interest I would 

understand, but there 

are no core classes in 

archives (if you aren't in 

the archives track). 

As a student interested in 

children's/YA and public libraries, 

I have found that I end up either 

guiding myself or looking to 

second year students for advise, 

rather than faculty. I know it's a 

specialized/small area of interest, 

but I feel a bit lost about what 

classes I should be taking, where 

I should intern, how I should be 

doing my portfolio, skills I'll need, 

etc. The fact that most children's 

classes are taught by adjuncts 

makes it quite difficult to write a 

major paper that's relevant to the 

rest of my studies. It often feels 

like I'm in the dark about 

important aspects of the 

program -- portfolio and 

internships. All I know about 

them is what I've gathered from 

2nd years, and faculty/staff say 

there will be more information 

coming in the Spring, etc. While I 

may not be dealing directly with 

these things now, I would like to 

have at least a brief overview of 

them from the beginning -- even if 

it's just a brief meeting about 


Page 24 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

MLI 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 









Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

ID: 6528 

Openness of many 

members of the 

faculty to giving 

advice, feedback 

Ability to work with 

advisers and 

mentors outside of 

the department 

ID: 2989 

Funding issues are 

a major factor in 

helping my degree 

progress (although, 

it is also 

simultaneously a 

hindrance; see the 

following response). 

The amount of 

funding that I have 

received yearly is 

definitely not 

enough to live on, 

and I have 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Department politics 

and interpersonal 

conflicts The need to 

secure funding on my 

own after the first year 

As mentioned in the 

previous response, 

funding is a major 

difficulty. Since our 

department is 

comprised of a 

professional Masters 

program as well as 

an academic PhD 

program, we PhD 

students are not 

given the opportunity 

to gain teaching 

experience within the 

PHD 






I have worked as both a Special 

Reader for a number of courses 

in the department, which I find to 

be invaluable as part of my 

education as a PhD student. 

However, the technicality of 

graduate students being unable 

to teach other graduate students 

(i.e., the reason why our 

department has Special Reader 

positions rather than TAships) is 

unfortunate. This outmoded 

policy is ultimately detrimental to 

doctoral students, particularly 





The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

Strong - this is a 

real strength of 

the department 

Having been privy 

to many of the 

politics of 

Information 

Studies as a field, 

I can categorically 

say that our 

department ranks 

among the best. 

Whereas most 

information 

science/studies 

programs do not 

generally cultivate 

The 



degree 




Very appropriate 

each at orientation. It feels 

difficult to plan my course 

selection, and I would like to 

know how the work I'm doing now 

is going into portfolio so I can 

direct that accordingly. 






Page 25 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








consequently 

needed to take out 

more loans than I 

wish I had to. The 

scarcity of funds, 

however, helps to 

spur proactivity in 

ensuring that I 

complete my 

degree as quickly 

as possible. The 

small size of the 

department is also a 

major factor in my 

degree process, 

particularly for the 

close proximity that 

we as PhD students 

have with a number 

of faculty and 

members of our 

cohort. That is, the 

small size of the 

department helps to 

encourage 

collegiality among 

those of us in the 

department. 

department. We have 

Special Readership 

positions, but those 

do not allow us to 

design or teach 

courses, which is 

extremely 

problematic for those 

of us looking to enter 

in academic careers. 

This issue, though, is 

to my understanding 

a glaring flaw in 

university policy, 

rather than the 

Department of 

Information Studies. 

My own response to 

this barrier to 

teaching 

opportunities has 

been to seek 

teaching experience 

elsewhere, which 

ultimately detracts 

from being able to 

participate fully in the 

institutional context 

of UCLA (as my time 

is split between being 

a student/PhD 

candidate in 

Information Studies, 

and working as an 

adjunct instructor at 

other institutions. 

Also, while the 

scarcity of funding 

ensures that I 

progress through my 

degree program in a 

timely manner (as 

previously 

mentioned), there are 

those of us seeking to obtain 

tenure-track positions after 

graduation. I have also worked 

as GSR on a number of projects, 

all of which are major aspects of 

my experience and training to 

become an academic. Some of 

these experiences included more 

comprehensive training than 

others (depending on the project, 

the involvement of PIs, 

expectations of the GSR 

position, etc.). Particularly, I have 

found that whether the position 

entailed a more mentorship sort 

of relationship with faculty or if I 

was left to work on my own, both 

are invaluable opportunities to 

understand how I would 

approach my own research 

projects in the future. 

critical analytical 

skills in their 

students or have 

at its core a 

mission oriented 

toward social 

justice, UCLA's 

Department of 

Information 

Studies stands 

out as among the 

most rigorous and 

diverse (which is 

to say that many 

of the difficulties 

that the 

department faces 

in terms of 

advocating for 

itself to Graduate 

Division and the 

larger 

bureaucratic 

structures of the 

University are 

quite unfortunate 

because it's clear 

that these higher 

level units do not 

understand the 

importance of the 

department, 

which clearly 

cannot be 

measured in 

terms of the 

"bottom line" that 

the corporatized 

university tends 

toward). If the turn 

toward the 

"Information Age" 

of the 1960s and 

the widespread 


Page 26 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








times where I feel 

that that might also 

be a detriment. I 

wonder if my 

understanding of the 

field would be 

different if I had 

longer-term support, 

to have time to sit 

with ideas in the field 

rather than having to 

rush through 

because of financial 

difficulties. 

interest in 

contemporary 

technological 

change has 

taught us 

anything, it's that 

studies in 

information 

related 

phenomena are 

only becoming 

more complex. 

The program 

does an excellent 

job in 

encouraging 

critical thought in 

exploring these 

issues, to a 

degree that other 

programs might 

aspire toward. 

ID: 3898 

Generally speaking, 

students are given 

the freedom to 

explore and develop 

their own 

intellectual 

trajectories. 

Independence and 

a nurturing 

environment 

(without coddling), I 

think, are the strong 

factors that help all 

the students 

towards their 

degree. Early on, 

some students 

struggle with the 

lack of heavyhanded 

guidance, 

Finances. Our 

department is 

woefully lacking in 

funds. Many students 

run around trying to 

make ends meet and 

generally speaking, I 

think that faculty 

could do a better job 

of advocating for us 

to find and obtain 

more funds. On the 

one hand, you can 

say that this is 

somehow character 

building, which it is. 

However. I think it 

severely impedes the 

quality of 

scholarship. Rather 

Since our department does not 

have an undergraduate 

curriculum, we do not have many 

in-department opportunities for 

TAs. Many students have 

expressed strong desires for 

TAships, in order to get more 

experience teaching, but we 

have to shop around in other 

departments to do so, which can 

be tricky when departments 

these days barely have enough 

of these to hand out to their own 

students. GSRs are much more 

plentiful and very important to 

our training. I have had several 

and they have been vital in 

giving me the experience to start 

my own research; i.e. around 

grant-writing, all stages of 

I think some students leave 

simply because they don't like 

being PhD students. I think this 

is normal. Some students leave 

because their advisors aren't a 

good fit. Honestly though, I don't 

know personally of many people 

who have left before obtaining 

their degrees. 

Overall, I think the 


of the program is 

strong. I think this 

is due to the right 

balance of 

required 

coursework and 

independence. 

Information 

Studies is an 

inherently 

interdisciplinary 

field. The balance 

of electives and 

required 

coursework help 

to promote that. 

I'm concerned 

that with the 

Appropriate. 

There have been prior 

discussions about developing an 

undergraduate program for 

Information Studies that for some 

reason have been tabled, 

however I think this should be 

seriously reconsidered. UCLA's 

Information Studies program is a 

really strong and unique program. 

Given the Federal interest in the 

information fields and the 

prominence of information 

industries in California, I think that 

that there is an intellectual gap 

that is not being served. 

Undergrads today are completely 

information literate as part of the 

daily lives: Facebook, texting, 

Twitter, etc. I think they are really 

surprised and excited when they 


Page 27 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








however I think 

most of the students 

in the IS department 

become or are 

already very selfmotivated. 

than having the 

breathing room to 

explore ideas, 

students are more 

concerned about 

finishing quickly in 

order to minimize the 

costs and loans they 

have to take out. 

Please help! Starving 

graduate students 

need more money! 

research, etc. 

recent changes in 

coursework made 

as a result of the 

recent budget 

cuts may have 

undermined this 

somehow. I was 

one of the last 

cohort of students 

under the prior 

system and the 

recent changes 

make it more 

difficult to take 

electives early on. 

are introduced to information 

concepts, because it's so 

immediately relevant. Having an 

undergrad program would be a 

unique opportunity and seems 

such a shame, given where we 

are right now. 

ID: 1970 

I have found the 

faculty to be 

extremely helpful 

and available to 

answer questions 

and provide 

resources. This has 

even been the case 

with faculty 

members from 

whom I haven't 

taken courses. 

Financial aid is 

always a problem-- 

the majority of my 

income comes from 

my non-departmental 

employment. Though 

department funds my 

tuition, I can not 

support myself on the 

salary of a TA or 

GSR. This decreases 

my involvement in 

the academic 

community 

During some quarters, it 

has been difficult to find 

courses in the 

department that aren't 

directly related to 

librarianship and 

archiving. For the few 

students who don't do 

work in those areas, the 

interdisciplinary 

requirements are a 

necessity. The chance to 

take courses in other 

parts of the university 

could even be expanded 

for students with other 

specialties. 

I would encourage the review 

team to re-instate the 1-credit 

required course for 1st year PhD 

students (I can't remember the 

course number) that aimed to 

acclimate students with the 

coursework, the field as a whole, 

life as a doctoral student. It was a 

very good opportunity to bond 

with classmate, ask questions, 

and discuss the realities of 

graduate work that aren't covered 

in coursework. 

ID: 4298 

Being given time 

(which means 

money) to research 

and write my 

dissertation. 

I wish we had actual TAships, in 

addition to readerships. Being 

responsible for a class is an 

essential part of our professional 

training. 

It rarely happens, but usually 

because they got a cozy, highpaying 

job or they decided 

against academia. 

Excellent. 

Somewhat appropriate, 

and where the 

department lacks, other 

departments at UCLA 

offer courses directly 

related to my career and 

research aspirations. 

Whether graduate students 

should be allowed to use 

department letterhead. We're not 

allowed to use it in our 

department. 


Page 28 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








ID: 8097 

Not wanting to go into academia. 

The Information 

Studies 

department has a 

broad intellectual 

scope, but is 

focused enough 

to remain 

coherent as a 

faculty. 

ID: 2499 

Advising that doesn't 

recognize 

practicalities and 

holds fast to ideal 

standards rather than 

adjusting to realworld 

concerns. 

Purely 

academic/theoretical 

concerns must be 

balanced by logistics 

of the degree 

process and 

navigating 

interpersonal (interfaculty) 

relationships. 

Although courses and 

subject matter seem 

appropriate, instruction 

tends to feel 

conversation-based, 

almost too freewheeling. 

It is difficult to take notes 

in many classes due to 

loosely structured class 

time that allows for 

multiple tangents by both 

students and professors, 

with few connections to 

stated course objectives. 

Teaching methods more 

innovative than the 

reading/discussion 

model should be sought 

to differentiate material 

and accommodate 

different learning styles 

(written versus verbal, 

etc.). 

ID: 8478 

Meeting with 

mentor***meeting 

Need more support 

from department on 

qualifying exam 

preparation. 

n/a 

Didn't think the program was a 

right fit. The information being 

taught wasn't relevant to them. 

Very technical, 

and within a 

particular 

paradigm that 

isn't sensitive to 

race, culture and 

Courses are practical, 

which support my career 

aspirations. 

There should be more openness 

to interdisciplinary work regarding 

race, gender and sexuality, in 

order to diversify the program's 

intellectual trajectory. 


Page 29 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








differences in 

epistemology. 

There is more 

adherence to 

preparing people 

for jobs, rather 

than exploring 

new challenges, 

such as 

indigenous 

frameworks, 

critical race 

frameworks, etc. 

ID: 0847 

Some factors 

include a 

supportive cohort 

and the desire to be 

employed. The 

ability to explore 

interests early on in 

a degree program. 

The largest factor 

would be a culture of 

fear about tenure and 

academic 

appointments. 

Financial factors also 

impact progress. 

I wish there were more 

opportunities in this area. 

I only know of one instance 

which has been for employment. 


quality varies in 

my program. 

Overall I would 

say the quality is 

rigorous. 

This question is difficult 

to answer as my career 

aspirations have been 

constantly in flux. 

None at this time. 

ID: 4371 

Excellent faculty 

and staff - caring, 

knowledgeable, and 

challenging. 

Doctoral seminars 

are a reasonable 

size. 

Financial support is 

limited and I have 

had to work part-time 

throughout my 

program. The 

financial situation has 

limited my ability to 

participate in some 

events with my 

cohort, has given me 

less time to write, 

and has made it hard 

to attend important 

international 

conferences. 

However, I really 

don't think the 

department can do 

GSR and readership is very 

significant and I am lucky to have 

worked with faculty who gave me 

the opportunity to have input on 

course and assignment design. 

IS should petition grad division to 

allow doctoral students to teach 

master's courses during the 

summer (departments can apply 

for an exemption to the rule 

prohibiting doctoral students 

from teaching grad classes), or 

should at least let the doctoral 

students teach the few 

undergraduate courses we do 

have. Not having actual TA 

experience is a detriment to our 

program as other information 

I only know of two. I think the first 

one discovered s/he did not 

actually want to do a doctoral 

program and the second one 

switched fields completely. 

Excellent. Some 

students don't 

seem to take full 

advantage of the 

opportunities 

available to them, 

but the 

opportunity for 

growth and 

challenge is 

definitely there. 

Excellent. 

The field is broad and diverse. 

Consequently, the student body 

is extremely diverse in their 

academic interests with some 

students wanting to teach in MLIS 

programs (the related 

professional degree) and some 

students not wanting to teach at 

all (i.e. industry, research, etc.) Is 

there a way the faculty can teach 

students with professorial 

ambitions how to teach graduate 

programs without making it 

mandatory for students who have 

no or little interest in it? Currently 

the limited Special Readership 

positions go to both types of 

students and are not competitive 


Page 30 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








anything about this 

given the budget 

situation, except 

perhaps use qualified 

doctoral students to 

teach some of the 

courses currently 

taught by adjuncts. 

This would need to 

be carefully done so 

as not to alienate 

adjuncts. 

studies schools allow and/or 

require their doctoral students to 

TA and thus we are less 

competitive on the market. 

with other schools that require 

their doctoral students to TA 

(develop courses, lecture, etc.) 

ID: 3407 

My advisor has 

been fabulous. 

Even though she is 

retired and not 

regularly on campus 

she has always 

made herself 

available for 

consultation through 

email and phone. I 

also have a 

fabulous co-hort 

group, and have 

become especially 

close to three of 

them. This support 

has been 

instrumental as has 

the support I have 

received from my 

family at home and 

my colleagues at 

work. 

Balancing a busy fulltime 

job and family 

life (2 kids & 

husband) while 

studying for a PhD is 

not easy and 

demands intense 

focus through 

compartmentalization. 

Even when sitting 

down to work at the 

computer it is so 

easy to get distracted 

onto Facebook, 

online games, or 

checking headlines 

and news. Working 

through 

procrastination and 

distractions has been 

a challenge. 

I did not work as either. I wish I'd 

had the opportunity. 

One left because of lack of 

support from her spouse and 

other family issues. Another 

burned out of studies - she had 

gone straight from high school to 

college to graduate school 

without taking any time off in 

between. I think she wanted to 

experience some real adult life. 

Both also expressed 

dissatisfaction with the 

department, their advisors, and 

the program so perhaps it was 

not the best fit for them. 

I found it very 

stimulating and 

intellectually 

satisfying. For 

me, the biggest 

challenge was 

the shift from 

being a 'student' 

to becoming a 

scholarly. The 

courses and 

coursework were 

challenging but I 

already knew how 

to do well in 

school. After the 

written exam I 

had to develop 

my own expertise 

and create my 

own timetable 

and deadlines. 

This requires a 

different type of 

intellectual 

investment which 

can be quite 

different from 

taking classes. 

In our dept. I 

I believe the 

requirements were 

appropriate. 

Not at this time. 


Page 31 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








thought the 

written exam was 

not very suitable 

for our 

cirucmstances. 

Rather than a 

double blind 

exam where we 

had no idea who 

was creating or 

reading the 

exam - which 

makes 

preparation 

extremely difficult 

as questions 

could cover any 

particular aspect 

in our field, 

perhaps a system 

that allows us to 

explore our own 

interests or the 

topics IN THE 

CLASSES WE 

TOOK would be 

fairer and more 

intellectually 

useful. In each 

exam session that 

I know of at least 

20-80% of the 

students failed 

the written exam. 

Rather than 

rewriting a weak 

exam, we had to 

wait for the next 

session and just 

take a new one all 

over again. I 

passed the 

second time, but 

there were some 


Page 32 of 33


Factors which 

help your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

Factors which 

hinder your 

progress 

toward your 

degree 

PHD 










The overall 

intellectual 

quality of 

your program 

The 



degree 








who had to get 

special 

departmental 

permission to 

take it a third 

time. I believe 

this problem with 

the written exam 

is now being 

addressed. 


Page 33 of 33

Doctoral Recipient Exit Survey (survey included) 

UCLA doctoral recipients are asked to complete an exit survey when they file their dissertations. The 

data reported here have been collected from Summer 2000 through Spring 2010. 

*Quantitative Data 

The tabular report summarizes the results and compares the subject program to similar doctoral 

programs either by field of study or by professional school. Response rates appear on the survey 

results. A copy of the survey instrument is attached. 


UCLA Doctoral Exit Survey, Program Review, Information Studies 

Results from students who received doctorates between Summer 2000 and Spring 2010. 



Education 

Special Education 

Graduate School of 

Education & 


Percent who indicated "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied" on the following items: 

1 Departmental advising/guidance 75.0 85.8 80.0 84.6 88.4 

2 Overall quality of instruction in graduate courses 83.3 89.5 90.0 88.9 92.3 

3 Professional relationship with doctoral committee chair(s) 85.7 92.0 88.9 91.4 93.6 

4 Level of financial assistance 63.9 70.2 50.0 69.1 76.7 

5 Faculty efforts assisting you in finding professional employment 63.9 57.0 50.0 57.5 67.3 

6 Overall quality of faculty mentoring 69.4 84.6 70.0 82.8 88.6 

7 Resources provided for student research and scholarship 68.6 74.2 80.0 73.9 84.8 

Percent who had contact with their dissertation chair(s) several times a term or more at each stage: 

8 Selection of a dissertation topic 75.0 63.9 85.7 65.2 71.0 

9 Dissertation proposal writing 77.1 72.1 87.5 72.9 73.0 

10 Preparation for the oral qualifying exam 73.5 64.2 87.5 65.5 68.3 

11 Dissertation research 64.7 59.4 62.5 59.9 72.9 

12 Dissertation writing 67.6 67.5 75.0 67.7 70.1 

13 Percent who rated the time they had with their dissertation chair(s) as "about right" or "more than enough" 72.3 66.0 60.0 66.5 72.9 

If starting over a graduate career again, percent who would select: 

14 The same university 61.1 71.6 70.0 70.6 65.4 

15 The same field of study 66.7 68.0 80.0 68.2 72.4 

16 The same dissertation advisor 72.2 72.2 70.0 72.1 68.6 

Employment questions: 

17 Percent who worked off campus during doctoral program (excluding summers) 55.6 55.5 100.0 56.6 37.1 

18 Of those, percent who worked off campus more than 2 years: 70.0 51.6 80.0 54.5 54.8 

19 Of those, percent who worked off campus exclusively full time: 20.0 23.0 20.0 22.6 31.5 

20 Of those, percent whose off campus work was related to their doctoral programs: 40.0 58.7 80.0 58.0 53.5 

Graduate Division Total 

21 For those who took a Leave of Absence after the oral qualifying exam, percent who gave the following reasons why: 

Economic 36.4 30.1 66.7 31.8 30.6 

Personal/family 27.3 35.5 0.0 33.6 16.5 

To do research while not registered 27.3 30.1 33.3 29.9 41.2 

Other 9.1 4.3 0.0 4.7 11.6 

Page 1 of 3





Education 



Education & 


Percent who had the following financial support for more than three quarters: 

22 TAship 21.2 19.8 11.1 19.7 47.7 

23 GSRship 76.5 72.2 44.4 71.9 56.1 

24 Fellowship, traineeship, or grant 74.3 71.5 44.4 71.1 55.8 

25 Need based financial aid or loans 40.6 26.5 25.0 27.7 18.8 

26 Personal/family or other funding ONLY 44.8 32.8 66.7 34.6 21.8 

27 Percent who thought that the financial support in their program was distributed fairly 62.5 64.8 37.5 64.0 80.9 


Percent who selected "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" for the following statements about their dissertation chair(s): 

28 Was/were willing to spend the time necessary to advise me on academic matters 91.7 90.9 77.8 90.6 93.4 

29 Insisted that we discuss my research on a regular basis 61.1 63.0 55.6 62.7 73.7 

30 Was/were very easy to approach 83.3 89.7 77.8 88.8 92.0 

31 Was/were knowledgeable about formal degree requirements 83.3 88.2 88.9 87.8 88.9 

32 Was/were interested in my goals and projects 88.9 93.1 77.8 92.4 93.1 

33 Could be relied upon to give me constructive criticism of my work 85.7 90.8 88.9 90.3 90.9 

34 Returned my work promptly 83.3 84.8 66.7 84.2 86.5 

35 Made an effort to secure financial support for me 77.8 73.7 44.4 73.4 83.8 

36 Explained the strategies of survival in graduate school 65.7 64.1 66.7 64.3 68.8 

37 Explained the strategies of survival of the dissertation process 77.8 71.6 66.7 72.1 73.2 

38 Encouraged and supported my research idea 91.7 95.7 77.8 94.9 94.3 

Research Experiences - Percent who: 

39 ...thought their department had organized research seminars at which graduate students can present their research 86.1 62.9 90.0 65.7 77.9 

40 *Of those, percent who presented research at a department seminar 74.2 62.6 55.6 63.7 78.8 

41 ...received departmental funding to attend national meetings 71.4 70.7 40.0 69.9 60.1 

42 ...attended more than one scholarly meeting 97.2 91.6 100.0 92.4 88.8 

43 …delivered academic papers at national scholarly meetings 82.9 84.5 70.0 84.0 72.7 

44 …were encouraged by the faculty to publish 88.9 84.2 60.0 84.0 87.0 

45 …published one or more articles alone 69.4 37.1 30.0 39.9 36.0 

46 …co-authored one or more articles with a faculty member 33.3 55.8 40.0 53.4 59.3 

Page 2 of 3





Education 



Education & 


47 Percent who rated the time it took to complete the degree as: 

Less than expected 5.7 7.2 0.0 6.9 4.2 

About what expected 45.7 59.9 70.0 58.9 63.1 

Much longer than expected 48.6 33.0 30.0 34.3 32.7 

48 Percent who selected the following items to describe their immediate postdoctoral degree status: 

postdoctoral fellowship/traineeship 11.4 20.3 0.0 19.0 30.0 

tenure track faculty position in a college or university 28.6 20.6 30.0 21.6 13.9 

non-tenure track faculty position in a college or univeristy 5.7 9.0 10.0 8.7 11.2 

research position in a college or university 8.6 7.6 0.0 7.5 3.9 

administrative position in a college or university 14.3 6.7 0.0 7.2 1.8 

research position in a research institute 2.9 6.7 10.0 6.4 4.6 

research position in private industry 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.5 12.9 

professional services offered to individuals 2.9 3.8 20.0 4.1 3.1 

faculty position in education but not in a college or university 0.0 1.2 10.0 1.3 0.9 

administrative position in education but not in a college or university 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.1 1.5 

administrative position in private industry 0.0 0.6 10.0 0.8 1.5 

other 25.7 17.2 10.0 17.7 14.9 

49 

Percent who indicated that their immediate post doctoral degree position (above) was directly related to their doctoral 

degree 87.5 85.7 77.8 85.7 86.6 

50 Percent who gave the following description about their postdoctoral degree position (above): 

Fellowship/traineeship to be held for several years 9.1 12.1 0.0 11.5 20.6 

Temporary job until something better can be found 33.3 21.4 22.2 22.5 21.3 

job with possible career potential 12.1 23.6 0.0 22.0 21.4 

job with definite career potential 45.5 42.9 77.8 44.0 36.7 

Survey Response Rates: 

Number of surveys collected from students during analysis period: 36 356 10 402 6,475 

Number of doctorates awarded in program during analysis period: 37 381 11 429 6,799 

Response Rate: 97% 93% 91% 94% 95% 


Page 3 of 3

Doctoral Degrees Awarded and Dissertation Titles: 2000-2001 Through 2009-2010 

This report provides information on students who received their doctorate between 2000-2001 and 

2009-2010, and is organized alphabetically by the faculty member who served as chair of the 

dissertation. The report shows the student’s name, demographic status, gender, term admitted, term 

advanced to candidacy, term degree was awarded, time-to-candidacy, time-to-degree, and the 

dissertation title. 

Some data elements warrant further description and are noted below. 

Data Definitions: 

Demographic Status: 

International (Intl): students with temporary visas. 

Domestic-Underrepresented (Dom-UR): Domestic students (those who are US citizens, permanent residents, 

immigrants, or refugees) who are considered by the University of California to be underrepresented minorities: 

American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African American, Mexican American/Chicana/o, Latina/o/Other 

Hispanics, and Filipina/o. 

Domestic-Other (Dom-Other): All other domestic students. 

Admit Term: 

Quarter (F=Fall, W=Winter, S=Spring) and Year in which student was admitted to UCLA for graduate study. 

ATC Term: 

Quarter (F=Fall, W=Winter, S=Spring, X=Summer) and Year in which student advanced to doctoral candidacy. 

Degree Term: 

Quarter (F=Fall, W=Winter, S=Spring, X=Summer) and Year in which student received doctoral degree. 

Time ATC (in Yrs): 

Amount of time (in years) from when student began doctoral study in their current program until student advanced 

to doctoral candidacy. 

Time to Degree (in Yrs): 

Amount of time (in years) from when student began doctoral study in their current program until receipt of doctoral 

degree. 


Information Studies: Doctoral Degrees Awarded and 

Dissertation Titles, 2000-2001 through 2009-2010 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: AGRE, P. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

LEE, CHARLOTTE P Domestic-Other F F1997 X2003 W2004 6.33 6.67 

Dissertation Title: 

THE ROLE OF BOUNDARY NEGOTIATING ARTIFACTS IN THE COLLABORATIVE DESIGN OF A MUSEUM EXHIBITION 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: BATES, M. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

MARINI, FRANCESCA International F F1998 X2002 W2005 4.33 6.67 


SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY OF THEATER RESEACH IN THE VIEW OF SCHOLARS AND INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: BORGMAN, C. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

CAIDI,NADIA International F W1997 X1998 X2001 2.00 5.00 


THE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AS A DISCURSIVE SPACE: A CASE STUDY OF THE LIBRARY COMMUNITY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 

Information Studies: Doctoral Degrees Awarded and Dissertation Titles, 2000-2001 through 2009-2010 

Date Printed: 

Monday, June 27, 2011 

Path:\\Saturn\Iris\Apps\Program Review\2011-2012

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

PEPE, ALBERTO International M F2006 X2008 S2010 2.33 4.00 


STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTION OF SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION NETWORKS IN A MODERN RESEARCH COLLABORATORY 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: CHU, C. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

HALEY, DANIEL JOSEPH Domestic-Other M F2006 F2008 W2010 2.33 3.67 


THE USE OF PRINT MATERIALS IN THE INTERNET AGE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY CIRCULATION PATTERNS 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

LEE, SHARI ANN Domestic-Underrep Minority F F2004 X2007 S2009 3.33 5.00 


TEEN SPACE: DESIGNED FOR WHOM? 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

PYATI, AJIT KUMAR Domestic-Other M F2002 W2006 S2007 3.67 5.00 


RE-ENVISIONING LIBRARIES IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY: A CRITICAL THEORY OF LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY 


Date Printed: 



STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

SALINAS, ROMELIA Domestic-Underrep Minority F F1992 S2006 W2008 14.00 15.67 


THE DIGITAL DIVIDE GOES TO COLLEGE: LATINO UNDERGRADUATES AND BARRIERS TO DIGITAL INFORMATION 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: CLOONAN, M. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

GRACY,KAREN FRANCES Domestic-Other F F1992 S1999 F2001 7.00 9.33 


THE IMPERATIVE TO PRESERVE: COMPETING DEFINITIONS OF VALUE IN THE WORLD OF FILM PRESERVATION 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: FURNER, J. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

GAZAN, RICH Domestic-Other M F1999 W2003 W2004 3.67 4.67 


CREATING HYBRID KNOWLEDGE: A ROLE FOR THE PROFESSIONAL INTEGRATIONIST 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

MILOJEVIC, STASA Domestic-Other F F2003 W2008 S2009 4.67 6.00 


BIG SCIENCE, NANO SCIENCE?: MAPPING THE EVOLUTION AND SOCIO-COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF NANOSCIENCE/NANOTECHNOLOGY USING MIXED 

METHODS 


Date Printed: 



DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: GILLILAND-SWETL, A. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

PARK,EUN GYUNG Domestic-Other F F1997 W2001 F2002 3.67 5.33 


DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR AUTHENTICITY REQUIREMENTS IN UNIVERSITY STUDENT RECORDS SYSTEMS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

SHANKAR,KALPANA Domestic-Other F F1997 W2001 F2002 3.67 5.33 


SCIENTISTS, RECORDS, AND THE PRACTICAL POLITICS OF INFRASTRUCTURE 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: GILLILAND-SWETLAND, A. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

DUNBAR, ANTHONY W. Domestic-Underrep Minority M F2002 W2007 F2008 4.67 6.33 


CRITICAL RACE INFORMATION THEORY: APPLYING A CRITICAL RACE LENS TO INFORMATION STUDIES 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

TAITANO, MELISSA MARIE GUERRER Domestic-Other F W2001 X2005 S2007 5.00 6.67 


ARCHIVES AND COLLECTIVE MEMORY: A CASE STUDY OF GUAM AND THE INTERNMENT OF CHAMORROS IN MANEGGON DURING WORLD WAR II 


Date Printed: 



STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

TRACE, CIARAN International F F1997 W2002 S2004 4.67 7.00 


DOCUMENTING SCHOOL LIFE: FORMAL AND INFORMAL IMPRINTS OF A FIFTH GRADE CLASSROOM 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

WEISSMANN, DEBORAH Domestic-Other F F2002 W2009 S2010 6.67 8.00 


DRINKING FROM A FIRE HOSE: A STUDY OF INFORMATION INTERACTIONS IN THE PERSONAL OFFICES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

WHITE, KELVIN LEWIS Domestic-Underrep Minority M F2004 S2007 X2008 3.00 4.33 


THE DYNAMICS OF RACE AND REMEMBERING IN A "COLORBLIND" SOCIETY: A CASE STUDY OF RACICAL PARADIGMS AND ARCHIVAL EDUCATION IN 

MEXICO 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: LEAZER, G. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

ARNOLD, COREY WELLS Domestic-Other M F2003 W2008 X2009 4.67 6.33 


JOINT PROBABILITY MODELS OF RADIOLOGY IMAGES AND CLINICAL ANNOTATIONS 


Date Printed: 



STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

BASHYAM, VIJAYARAGHAVAN International M W2006 X2007 F2008 2.00 3.00 


TOWARDS A CANONICAL REPRESENTATION FOR MACHINE UNDERSTANDING OF NATURAL LANGUAGE IN RADIOLOGY REPORTS 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

D'AVOLIO, LEONARD WILLIAM Domestic-Other M F2003 W2007 F2007 3.67 4.33 


LEARNING FROM SURGICAL OPERATIVE REPORTS: INCORPORATING CONTEXT IN THE SECONDARY USE OF MEDICAL RECORDS 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

HARTEL, JENNIFER KATE Domestic-Other F F2001 X2005 F2007 4.33 6.33 


INFORMATION ACTIVITIES, RESOURCES, AND SPACES IN THE HOBBY OF GOURMET COOKING 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: LEAZER, G. / FURNER, J. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

MA, HONGYAN International F F2001 F2004 W2008 3.33 6.67 


USER-SYSTEM COORDINATION IN UNIFIED PROBABILISTIC RETRIEVAL: EXPLOITING SEARCH LOGS TO CONSTRUCT COMMON GROUND 


Date Printed: 



DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: LIEVROUW, L. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

FARB, SHARON E. Domestic-Other F F1988 W2004 W2006 15.67 17.67 


NEGOTIATING USE, PERSISTENCE, AND ARCHIVING: A STUDY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY AND PUBLISHER PERSPECTIVES ON LICENSING DIGITAL 

RESOURCES 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

KAAYA, JANET OBEDI International F F2000 W2004 W2006 3.67 5.67 


EXAMINING THE ADOPTION, IMPLENTATION, INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF E-GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES: THE CASE OF TANZANIA 

USING AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: LYNCH, B. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

DELGADILLO, RACHEL Domestic-Other F F1993 W2004 F2004 10.67 11.33 


A CASE STUDY OF POLICYMAKING REGARDING INFORMATION COMPETENCY IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

SWEENEY, JENNIFER KARB Domestic-Other F F2001 W2005 W2006 3.67 4.67 


INTERPRETING SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN ACADEMIC LIBRARY REFERENCE WORK: AN APPLICATION OF THE DREYFUS MODEL 


Date Printed: 



DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: MAACK, M. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

CHANCELLOR, RENATE L. Domestic-Underrep Minority F F1999 W2007 F2008 7.67 9.33 


E.J. JOSEY: A HISTORICAL LOOK AT A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND TRANSFORMATIVE LEADER IN THE MODERN LIBRARY PROFESSION 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

MEDIAVILLA,CYNTHIA LOU Domestic-Underrep Minority F F1995 S1999 X2000 4.00 5.33 


CARMA RUSSELL (ZIMMERMAN) LEIGH -- AN HISTORICAL LOOK AT A WOMAN OF VISION AND INFLUENCE 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

STAUFFER, SUZANNE M Domestic-Other F F1996 X2002 W2004 6.33 7.67 


ESTABLISHING A RECOGNIZED SOCIAL ORDER: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF UTAH PUBLIC LIBRARIES, 1890-1920 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

TARSALA,CHERYL BOETTCHER Domestic-Other F F1990 S1995 X2001 5.00 11.33 


WHAT IS AN AUTHOR IN THE SIKUQUANSHU? EVENTIAL RESEARCH AND AUTHORSHIP IN LATE QIANLONG ERA CHINA (1771-1795) 


Date Printed: 



DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: RICHARDSON, J. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

PETROU,ANASTASIS D Domestic-Other M F1996 F2000 W2003 4.33 6.67 


INVISIBLE COLLEGES IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIP: THE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP OF SCHOLARLY MEMBERSHIPS, SUBJECT 

CLASSIFICATIONS AND THE HABITUS IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CLASSIFICATION PRACTICES 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

TROSOW,SAMUEL E Domestic-Other M F1997 S2000 X2002 3.00 5.33 


INFORMATION FOR SOCIETY: TOWARDS A CRITICAL THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY 

DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: SVENONIUS, E. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

GARDINIER, HOLLY Domestic-Other F W1992 X1995 W2004 4.00 12.33 


ACCESS POINTS PERCEIVED AS USEFUL IN SEARCHING FOR MUSIC SCORES AND RECORDINGS 


Date Printed: 



DISSERTATION CHAIR/CO-CHAIR: WALTER, V. 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

HENSTELL,BRUCE Domestic-Other M F1987 X1996 W2001 9.33 13.67 


THE REPRESENTATION OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY IN THE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY: TELLING THE MULTIMEDIA STORY 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

LU, YA-LING International F F1999 F2003 S2005 4.33 6.00 


HOW CHILDREN'S LIBRARIANS HELP CHILDREN COPE WITH DAILY LIFE: AN ENHANCED READERS' ADVISORY SERVICE 

STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

RAUEN, MARJORIE B. Domestic-Other F F1997 W2004 X2006 6.67 9.33 


READING CONTROVERSY: THE NARRATIVES OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY'S NEW MAIN BUILDING 


Date Printed: 



STUDENT 

NAME 

DEMOGRAPHIC 

STATUS 

SEX 

ADMIT 

TERM 

ATC 

TERM 

DEGREE 

AWARDED 

ATC 

TTD 

RAUEN, MARJORIE B. Domestic-Other F F1997 W2004 X2006 6.67 9.33 


READING CONTROVERSY: THE NARRATIVES OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY'S NEW MAIN BUILDING 


Date Printed: 

Thursday, April 21, 2011 

Path:\\Saturn\Iris\Apps\Program Review\2011-2012 

Page 10 of 10

Doctoral Job Placement: 2000-2001 Through 2009-2010 

This report provides placement data for doctoral recipients between Summer 2001 and Spring 2010. 

These data are for the student’s first employment in the year after the doctoral degree was awarded, 

and the data are based on departmental records. The report includes information on the employer, 

the student’s name, the term the degree was awarded, the employment rank or title, and the location 

of employment. This report is organized first by placement status (e.g., employed, unemployed, 

postdoc, etc.), and within that by employer type (academic institution, non-academic institution, etc.), 

and within that by the employer name. 


Information Studies: 

Initial Doctoral Job Placements 2000-2001 through 2009-2010 

STATUS: 

EMPLOYER TYPE: 

EMPLOYER NAME: 

EMPLOYED 

Academic Institution - 4 Year College/University 

CLAREMONT UNIV 

STUDENT NAME DEGREE AWARDED ACADEMIC RANK LOCATION 

GARDINIER, HOLLY W04 OTHER FACULTY TENURED CALIFORNIA 


COLORADO STATE UNIV 


PETROU,ANASTASIS D W03 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK COLORADO 


CSU FULLERTON 


HENSTELL,BRUCE W01 OTHER FACULTY NON TENURED CALIFORNIA 


CSU LOS ANGELES 


SALINAS, ROMELIA W08 ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA 


CSU SAN DIEGO 


TARSALA,CHERYL BOETTCHER X01 OTHER FACULTY NON TENURED CALIFORNIA 


FLORIDA STATE UNIV 


MA, HONGYAN W08 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK FLORIDA 


MCGILL UNIV 


PARK,EUN GYUNG F02 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK CANADA 


RUTGERS UNIV 


LU, YA-LING S05 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK NEW JERSEY 

Path: 

M:\Apps\Institutional Research\Program Review2011-2012 

Date Printed: 


Information Studies Job Placements 00-01 through 09-10 

Page 1 of 5




ST. JOHN'S UNIV 


LEE, SHARI ANN S09 ADMINISTRATION NEW YORK 


THE CATHOLIC UNIV OF AMERICA 


CHANCELLOR, RENATE L. F08 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


THE UNIV OF OKLAHOMA 


WHITE, KELVIN LEWIS X08 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK OKLAHOMA 


UC DAVIS 


SWEENEY, JENNIFER KARB W06 RESEARCH - NOT FACULTY CALIFORNIA 


UC LOS ANGELES 


FARB, SHARON E. W06 ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA 

MEDIAVILLA,CYNTHIA LOU X00 OTHER FACULTY NON TENURED CALIFORNIA 


UNIV OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 


MARINI, FRANCESCA W05 ASSOC PROF OR HIGHER (TENURED) CANADA 


UNIV OF INDIANA 


MILOJEVIC, STASA S09 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK INDIANA 


UNIV OF TORONTO 


CAIDI,NADIA X01 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK CANADA 

HARTEL, JENNIFER KATE F07 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK CANADA 

Path: 


Date Printed: 



Page 2 of 5




UNIV OF WESTERN ONTARIO 


PYATI, AJIT KUMAR S07 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK CANADA 

TROSOW,SAMUEL E X02 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK CANADA 


UNIV OF WISCONSIN 


TRACE, CIARAN S04 ASSOC PROF OR HIGHER (TENURED) WISCONSIN 


UNIV PITTSBRGH GNSTD 


GRACY,KAREN FRANCES F01 ASST PROF TENURE TRACK PENNSYLVANIA 


UNKNOWN 


TAITANO, MELISSA MARIE GUERRERO S07 UNKNOWN GUAM 



Academic Institution - Not a 4 Year College/University 


HALEY, DANIEL JOSEPH 

W10 



Non-Academic Institution - Public 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH 


SHANKAR,KALPANA F02 MARYLAND 


ROSEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY 


DELGADILLO, RACHEL F04 CALIFORNIA 



Non-Academic Institution - Private 

MONSTER.COM 


BASHYAM, VIJAYARAGHAVAN F08 CALIFORNIA 

Path: 


Date Printed: 



Page 3 of 5

STATUS: 

POSTDOC FELLOW OR TRAINEE 



NORTHEASTERN UNIV 


D'AVOLIO, LEONARD WILLIAM F07 MASSACHUSETTS 


UC IRVINE 


LEE, CHARLOTTE P W04 CALIFORNIA 





KAAYA, JANET OBEDI W06 CALIFORNIA 


HARVARD UNIV 


PEPE, ALBERTO S10 MASSACHUSETTS 




ARNOLD, COREY WELLS X09 CALIFORNIA 

STATUS: 

UNEMPLOYED 




WEISSMANN, DEBORAH 

S10 

Path: 


Date Printed: 



Page 4 of 5

STATUS: 

UNKNOWN 




DUNBAR, ANTHONY W. 

GAZAN, RICH 

RAUEN, MARJORIE B. 

STAUFFER, SUZANNE M 

F08 

W04 

X06 

W04 

Path: 


Date Printed: 



Page 5 of 5

Applicable only to students admitted during the 2010-2011 academic year. 


School of Education and Information Studies 

Graduate Degrees 

The Department of Information Studies offers the Master of Library and Information 

Science (M.L.I.S.) degree and the Doctoral of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Information 

Studies. 

Library and Information Science 

Master's Degree 

Admission 

Program Name 

Library and Information Science 

Address 

207 Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Building 

Box 951520 


Phone 

(310) 825-5269 

Email 

abler@gseis.ucla.edu 

Leading to the degree of 

M.L.I.S., post M.L.I.S. certificate of specialization 

Admission Limited to 

Fall, Winter, Spring

Deadline to apply 

December 15th 

GRE (General and/or Subject), TWE 

GRE: General (taken within the last five years) and TWE 

MLIS applicants who already hold a Ph.D. are not required to submit GRE scores. 

Letters of Recommendation 

3 

Other Requirements 

In addition to the University's minimum requirements and those listed above, all 

applicants are expected to submit a statement of purpose and a resume. 

M.L.I.S.: While work experience is not a requirement for admission, consideration is 

given to such experience in reviewing the total application. 

The admissions committee may request a report of an interview by the chair of the 

department or by a person designated by the chair as qualified to conduct an interview. 

Interviews are rarely conducted, and only for the purpose of clarifying a candidate's 

academic background and career objectives. 

Applicants are expected to submit evidence of satisfaction of the following entrance 

requirements: (a) a college-level course in statistics (three semester units or four quarter 

units), covering descriptive and inferential statistics, within the last five years with a 

minimum grade of C, and (b) a college-level course in computer programming (three 

semester units or four quarter units) within the last five years with a minimum grade of C. 

Most standard languages such as BASIC, Visual Basic, C++, COBOL, FORTRAN, Java, 

or Perl are acceptable, as is a college-level course in the use of data management systems 

such as Oracle, FileMaker, or Microsoft Access. At least one third of the course grade 

should be based on programming assignments. In exceptional circumstances it is possible 

to meet these requirements by passing competency examinations administered by the 

department. 

Entrance requirements should be completed before beginning the M.L.I.S. program. 

However, one requirement may be satisfied in the Fall Quarter of the student's first year. 

Management, M.B.A./Library Information Science, M.L.I.S. 

The M.L.I.S./M.B.A. is a concurrent degree program jointly sponsored by the 

Department of Information Studies and the John E. Anderson Graduate School of

Management and is designed to provide an integrated set of courses for students who 

seek careers which draw on general and specialized skills in the two professional fields. 

Latin American Studies, M.A./Library Information Science, M.L.I.S. 

The M.L.I.S./M.A. Latin American Studies is an articulated degree program of the 

Department of Information Studies and the Latin American Studies Program. 

Ph.D.: Applicants may enter with the M.L.S. or M.L.I.S. degree, other advanced degree, 

or directly out of a bachelor's degree program. If the prior graduate degree does not 

include coursework equivalent to the core identified for the M.L.I.S. program, the 

applicant must complete the core after admission. 

Applicants are expected to have fulfilled a statistics requirement, satisfied by completing 

a college-level course with a minimum grade of C. 

It is recommended that applicants have general knowledge of and basic experience in the 

use of computers (e.g., for word processing, statistics, online searches, spreadsheets, 

graphics, or web browsing). 

The statement of purpose should identify the applicant's proposed area of specialization, 

accompanied by appropriate evidence of qualifications for pursuing a doctoral program, 

and of research and writing, such as published work, master's thesis, or two research 

papers written in English, submitted with the applicant's dossier. 

Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores must be from a test taken within the last five 

years. There is no minimum score for the GRE, but high scores are regarded favorably. 

Admitted students typically score above the 75th percentile in all areas. 

In cases where the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or International 

English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination and the Test of Written English 

(TWE) are required, the department expects a minimum score of 600 (paper and pencil 

test) or 250 (computer-based test) on the TOEFL, overall band score of 7.0 on the IELTS, 

and 4.5 on the TWE. Only in exceptional cases are applicants recommended for 

provisional admission who do not meet the minimum scores; in such cases, strong 

evidence of competency is English (such as a high verbal GRE score) must be provided. 

Favorable consideration may be given to applicants who have made distinguished 

contributions to the profession while working as a practicing professional, for instance in 

publications and/or work with professional societies. 

A personal interview is required. The committee seeks evidence of an appreciation of 

research and knowledge of potential research topics. The committee is particularly 

interested in the applicant's commitment to a career in library and information science 

education and research, signs of originality and inquisitiveness, and good communication 

skills.

Post-M.L.I.S. Certificate of Specialization: 

The Post-M.L.I.S. Certificate of Specialization is designed for holders of the M.L.S. or 

M.L.I.S. degree who want either (1) to redirect their careers and need the structure of a 

nine-course program and specialization paper to accomplish that, (2) to update 

knowledge and skills across the discipline and require the structure of a nine-course 

program and specialization paper to accomplish those goals, or who (3) recently 

graduated from a less comprehensive M.L.I.S. or M.L.S. degree program than that 

offered by UCLA and did not have the opportunity to specialize. 

Applicants should hold a master's degree from a program accredited by the American 

Library Association. The committee may offer admission to (1) applicants holding the 

master's degree in library and information science from foreign countries when the degree 

has been evaluated by the Graduate Division as a bona fide master's degree and (2) 

applicants who attended unaccredited programs if documentation supports admission but 

for the lack of a degree from an accredited program. 

Meeting the requirements for a field of specialization does not automatically assure 

admission to the program. Part-time enrollment is encouraged to provide flexibility for 

the working information professional. Opportunities for relevant coursework outside the 

department and internships, both on and off campus, are available. 

Advising 

Upon being accepted into the school, the student is assigned a faculty member for initial 

counseling and direction. Normally, this faculty member is retained as an interim 

counselor for a year or less, until such time as the student selects a regular faculty 

adviser, based on the student's interest and specialization. Once chosen, the faculty 

adviser provides specific academic advice in matters pertaining to the specialization, 

program of study, and related matters. 

Areas of Study 

Consult the department. 

Foreign Language Requirement 

None. 

Course Requirements 

Full-time students are normally required to enroll in three courses per quarter in order to 

complete the program in six quarters. Part-time enrollment may be permitted. 

Eighteen courses (72 units) are required for graduation from the M.L.I.S. program. 

Students take 24 units of required courses, four units of research methods courses, and 44

units of elective courses. Coursework must provide evidence both of basic professional 

competencies and of knowledge in a field of specialized competence. 

Basic Professional Competence. This requirement is met by completing five core courses 

(Information Studies 200, 220, 245, 260, 410), and one graduate-level research 

methodology courses (such as Information Studies 281, 282, or 280). 

Specialized Competence. Completion of a course of study is required as evidence of 

knowledge of a field of specialization in informatics, library studies, or archival studies. 

The field of specialization and the specialized course program must be approved by a 

faculty adviser. The specialized competence requirement is ordinarily met by the 

completion of nine additional courses, which may include internships. Relevant 

coursework in other departments or schools is encouraged. Students may petition to have 

prior coursework applied to their specializations. 

During the second year, the student may apply for an internship of one to three quarters 

either on campus or off campus at one or more approved library or information centers. 

The internship is a regularly scheduled course and may be applied toward the 18 required 

courses. 

No more than eight units of Information Studies 596 may be applied toward the total 

course requirement for students under the comprehensive examination plan; only four 

units may be applied toward the minimum graduate course requirements. In order to 

enroll in any S/U graded course, including 500-series courses, the student must be in 

good academic standing. 

Students who choose the thesis option are allowed to apply 12 units of 500-series 

coursework toward the requirements for the degree. 

Teaching Experience 

Not required. 

Field Experience 

Not Required. 

Comprehensive Examination Plan 

Students who choose this option complete a comprehensive examination that consists of 

two components: a basic component and a specialization component. 

Basic Component. A portfolio presentation, the culminating experience and comparable 

to a comprehensive examination, is required. The portfolio is a presentation of its author's 

professional self as developed in the M.L.I.S. program. The portfolio serves as a 

comprehensive examination by requiring students to assess and integrate their learning 

throughout the core courses of the program, to relate the advanced work done in specialty

courses to their career goals, to identify learning objectives and describe the degree to 

which those objectives have been met, to select key papers written during the program, 

and to describe a plan for continuing education and professional involvement. After 

preparing these elements of the portfolio, students make a public presentation of the work 

to a panel consisting of the adviser, another ladder faculty member of the department, and 

a qualified professional. Failure in any part of the portfolio may lead to only one 

opportunity to present the recorded and/or in-person presentation again. 

Students present the portfolio in either the second to last or in the last quarter of 

enrollment, and after completion of: (1) all outstanding entrance requirements; (2) the 

nine required courses, not counting the entrance requirements, by the end of the quarter in 

which the portfolio is presented; (3) courses to the level required for good academic 

standing (grade-point average of 3.0 or higher); and (4) all outstanding Incomplete 

grades. 

Specialization Component. A major paper produced in an elective course, normally in the 

student's area of specialization, is required. A grade of B or better must be earned in this 

course. The same course may not be used to satisfy both the paper and the research 

methods requirement. 

Thesis Plan 

Every master's degree thesis plan requires the completion of an approved thesis that 

demonstrates the student's ability to perform original, independent research. 

Students who choose this option must submit a thesis reporting on results of their original 

investigation of a problem. While the problem may be one of only limited scope, the 

thesis must show a significant style, organization, and depth of understanding of the 

subject. 

Students indicate their interest in this plan by the end of Spring Quarter of the first year. 

If the thesis option (Plan I) is approved, a thesis committee of at least three faculty 

members is established. Most students complete 12 units of related coursework under the 

direction of the committee. The committee approves the subject and plan of the thesis, 

provides guidance in research, and approves the completed manuscript. Approval must be 

unanimous among committee members. After acceptance of the thesis, subject, and plan, 

there is an oral examination on the thesis. 

There is no written examination or portfolio requirement under the thesis plan. 

Time-to-Degree 

The M.L.I.S. is a two-year program, consisting normally of three four-unit courses each 

quarter during six consecutive academic quarters, for a total of eighteen courses. Those 

students who enroll in less than 12 units per quarter will necessarily take a longer time to 

obtain the degree, but not more than ten quarters.

Post-M.L.I.S. Certificate of Specialization 

Advising 


Areas of Study 

The program meets the need for specialized training in various areas of archival studies, 

informatics, or library studies, as well as research competence. Further specialization 

within these fields is possible. 


None. 


The course program may begin in any quarter of the academic year. If a student is 

admitted for a preliminary quarter to complete prerequisite courses, that quarter is not 

counted in the minimum residence requirements. 

A minimum of nine courses (100, 200, 400, and 500 series) must be completed in the 

Information Studies and other departments of the University. A research paper, 

bibliographical study, or literature survey appropriate for publication in a professional or 

scholarly journal or as a separate paper must be completed by the final quarter of study, 

usually in connection with enrollment in Information Studies 596. The specialization 

paper or project is required even if the student has an advanced academic degree in which 

a thesis or dissertation was required, and the paper or project must be approved by the 

faculty adviser. 


Not required. 

Field Experience 

Not required. 

Comprehensive Examination Plan 


Thesis Plan 

None.


Consult the Department. 

Doctoral Degree 

Admission 

Program Name 


Address 

207 Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Building 

Box 951520 


Phone 

(310) 825-5269 

Email 

abler@gseis.ucla.edu 

Leading to the degree of 

Ph.D. 

Admission Limited to 

Fall 

Deadline to apply 

December 15th 

GRE (General and/or Subject), TWE 

GRE: General (taken within the last five years) 

Letters of Recommendation 

3

Other Requirements 

In addition to the University's minimum requirements and those listed above, all 

applicants are expected to submit a statement of purpose and a resume. 

Applicants may enter with the M.L.S. or M.L.I.S. degree, other advanced degree, or 

directly out of a bachelor's degree program. If the prior graduate degree does not include 

coursework equivalent to the core identified for the M.L.I.S. program, the applicant must 

complete the core after admission. 

Applicants are expected to have fulfilled a statistics requirement, satisfied by completing 

a college-level course with a minimum grade of C. 

It is recommended that applicants have general knowledge of and basic experience in the 

use of computers (e.g., for word processing, statistics, online searches, spreadsheets, 

graphics, or web browsing). 

The statement of purpose should identify the applicant's proposed area of specialization, 

accompanied by appropriate evidence of qualifications for pursuing a doctoral program, 

and of research and writing, such as published work, master's thesis, or two research 

papers written in English, submitted with the applicant's dossier. 

Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores must be from a test taken within the last five 

years. There is no minimum score for the GRE, but high scores are regarded favorably. 

Admitted students typically score above the 75th percentile in all areas. 

In cases where the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or International 

English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination, the department expects a 

minimum score of 600 (paper and pencil test) or 250 (computer-based test) on the 

TOEFL, or an overall band score of 7.0 on the IELTS. Only in exceptional cases are 

applicants recommended for provisional admission who do not meet the minimum 

scores; in such cases, strong evidence of competency is English (such as a high verbal 

GRE score) must be provided. 

Favorable consideration may be given to applicants who have made distinguished 

contributions to the profession while working as a practicing professional, for instance in 

publications and/or work with professional societies. 

A personal interview is required. The committee seeks evidence of an appreciation of 

research and knowledge of potential research topics. The committee is particularly 

interested in the applicant's commitment to a career in library and information science 

education and research, signs of originality and inquisitiveness, and good communication 

skills. 

Advising

Upon admission to the school, a faculty adviser is assigned based on the evidence in the 

student's statement of interest at the time of application and on the general commitments 

of the faculty. Students may change advisers with agreement of faculty. The adviser has 

the responsibility to assist the student in planning a program of study that meets the 

requirements of the Ph.D. program and to guide the student in the dissertation research. 

Until advancement to candidacy, there are yearly formal evaluations of progress that 

involve the student, the chair, the faculty adviser, and other faculty. After advancement to 

candidacy, the evaluation of progress is the responsibility of the formal doctoral 

committee. 

Major Fields or Subdisciplines 

The courses offered in the doctoral program cover a range of areas of inquiry in the 

theory and methodology of information studies, focusing on information-related artifacts 

(e.g., documents, texts, images, records, collections), agents (e.g., producers, managers, 

seekers), contexts (e.g., cultural, economic, legal, social, technological), institutions (e.g., 

organizations, professions, disciplines), practices (e.g., production, design, recording, 

representation, organization, replication, preservation, retrieval, communication, 

management, interpretation, use, destruction, policymaking), properties (e.g., 

authenticity, authorship, identity, reliability, trustworthiness, truth), values (e.g., 

aesthetic, ethical, functional), and related phenomena (e.g., data, evidence, heritage, 

knowledge, memory, and misinformation). 


None. 


A minimum of 72 units of coursework is required. 

Students are required to take six core courses in the theory and methodology of 

information studies: four Information Studies 289 courses and 291A- 291B. Students 

also are required to take three elective courses chosen from graduate courses offered in 

this department, and three elective courses chosen from graduate courses offered outside 

of this department. 

In addition to the course requirements listed above, doctoral students are required to 

participate in the Doctoral Research Colloquium, to participate in research apprenticeship 

activities by enrolling Information Studies 596 for three quarters, and to be reviewed 

annually by the Doctoral Program committee until advancement to candidacy. 


Not required. 

Written and Oral Qualifying Examinations

Academic Senate regulations require all doctoral students to complete and pass 

University written and oral qualifying examinations prior to doctoral advancement to 

candidacy. Also, under Senate regulations the University oral qualifying examination is 

open only to the student and appointed members of the doctoral committee. In addition to 

University requirements, some graduate programs have other pre-candidacy examination 

requirements. What follows in this section is how students are required to fulfill all of 

these requirements for this doctoral program. 

Students are required to pass a written qualifying examination on the theory and 

methodology of information studies. 

After passing the written qualifying examination, the student is required to pass the 

University Oral Qualifying Examination, which is based on the oral defense of the 

dissertation proposal. The dissertation proposal and oral defense should be completed 

within one year after passing the written examination. The oral examination covers the 

significance of the chosen topic of research, the methodology and feasibility of the 

research, and the depth of the student's knowledge in the specific field of the dissertation 

research. 

Advancement to Candidacy 

Students are advanced to candidacy upon successful completion of the written and oral 

qualifying examinations. 

Doctoral Dissertation 

Every doctoral degree program requires the completion of an approved dissertation that 

demonstrates the student's ability to perform original, independent research and 

constitutes a distinct contribution to knowledge in the principal field of study. 

Final Oral Examination (Defense of Dissertation) 

Required for all students in the program. 


(1) From graduate admission to the written qualifying examination: Expected - one to six 

quarters. 

(2) From graduate admission to the oral qualifying examination: Expected - one to nine 

quarters. 

(3) From graduate admission to the final oral examination: Expected - one to fifteen 

quarters. 

Termination of Graduate Study and Appeal of Termination

University Policy 

A student who fails to meet the above requirements may be recommended for termination 

of graduate study. A graduate student may be disqualified from continuing in the 

graduate program for a variety of reasons. The most common is failure to maintain the 

minimum cumulative grade point average (3.00) required by the Academic Senate to 

remain in good standing (some programs require a higher grade point average). Other 

examples include failure of examinations, lack of timely progress toward the degree and 

poor performance in core courses. Probationary students (those with cumulative grade 

point averages below 3.00) are subject to immediate dismissal upon the recommendation 

of their department. University guidelines governing termination of graduate students, 

including the appeal procedure, are outlined in Standards and Procedures for Graduate 

Study at UCLA. 

Special Departmental or Program Policy 

In addition to the standard reasons outlined above, a student may be recommended for 

termination for failure of the comprehensive examination on two successive tests. A 

recommendation for termination is made by the Executive Committee of the faculty 

based on the advice of the faculty adviser and the chair. The chair notifies the student in 

writing of the decision. The student may appeal the decision through formal petition to 

the faculty.

Graduate Division Survey Results 

2011 

Introduction 

In Winter 2011, UCLA’s Graduate Division conducted a survey of all students currently 

enrolled in graduate programs at UCLA. Of the 182 surveys mailed to students in the IS 

Department (MLIS, MIAS, and Ph.D. students), 102 were returned, for a response rate of 

56%. A full report of the responses given by students in the IS Department, including a 

transcription of responses to open-ended questions, is attached in appendix 2.10. Each 

year, the UCLA Graduate Division surveys graduating students on their experience in a 

particular graduate program at the university. This includes a periodic survey of 

graduating MLIS students. Graduate Division then makes available a report to each 

department that assembles the results of the survey along with data from the Graduate 

Division Enterprise Information System and the UCLA Registrar’s Student Record 

Database. UCLA Graduate Division keeps student responses confidential. No faculty in 

the department is able to identify a particular student’s answers. 

We conducted an analysis of the comments provided in the survey responses in order to 

make greater sense of the findings. 

MLIS Program 

Results from the most recent survey show that the vast majority of MLIS students have 


program. Specific to faculty, more than 70% of students reported that they were 

“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the quality of instruction in both seminars and lectures, 

availability of faculty members for consultations, and guidance and support they receive 

from departmental staff and faculty. Data show that students are especially satisfied with 

their primary academic advisor. More than 80% (sometimes as high as 89%) of students 

“agreed’ or “strongly agreed” with statements concerning the willingness of their advisor 

to spend time advising them on academic matters, whether the advisor was 

knowledgeable about degree requirements, whether advisors could be relied on to give 

constructive criticism of a students’ academic work, whether students found their advisor 

approachable, whether the advisor was interested in the students’ goals and projects, and 

whether the advisor encouraged the students’ research ideas and interests. While the 

Department is not satisfied with student satisfaction in the 70th and 80th percentiles, 

these statistics show that the vast majority of students feel that the department meets their 

needs and values across a broad array of criteria. 

An analysis of that transcription reveals the following opinions of students about 

curricular matters to be held by multiple students. (In all cases, quotations are 

representative, and not exhaustive, of students’ comments. The following results are 

limited to comments by MLIS students.)

• The overall intellectual quality of the program is high. Students are continuously 

challenged to think deeply about the topics covered in class, and to produce their 

best work. 

“Professors treat students as peers, and as such expect a high level of 

intellectual quality. I feel perpetually challenged and supported in my 

academic work.” 

“There’s nothing comparable in bringing together different people from all 

over and putting them in a program that elicits passion and devotion. Not 

only do professors challenge minds to think in class, but students have set 

bars that I have a desire to meet and surpass.” 

“Truly impressed, not only with the content of the intellectual quality of the 

program, but with the altruism, humanism, and spirit of inquiry as well. The 

vast and frankly amorphous material is covered exhaustively and presented in 

a highly organized and principled format that is befitting of a science ...” 

• Too much of the curriculum is taken up by core courses of overlapping coverage and 

questionable practical value, leaving little opportunity for students to enroll in 

desirable electives, some of which are offered only once in any given two-year 

period. 

“There are too many required courses for a two-year terminal master’s 

program. This is problematic especially because many of the elective and 

seminar courses are only offered every other year, hindering students from 

taking the classes they are most interested in.” 

“[T]he core courses, along with required or semi-required classes like 

research methods and the portfolio course, crowd out useful electives, forcing 

students to take 4, 8, or even 12 extra units over the summer. So in reality, 

the program basically requires 7 quarters to complete, not 6.” 

“There are too many low-level, introductory courses which do not carry a full 

quarter’s worth of content. Several courses—including those dealing with 

management of library institutions, reference strategies and perhaps ethics— 

could be consolidated into one or two courses in order to allow students to 

explore their respective interests in more depth.” 

“The core curriculum is, by a wide margin, the program’s weakest aspect. 

Some courses, like Information in Society and Intro to IT, are interesting but 

only marginally related to librarianship. Others, like Information Structures, 

Information Access, and Ethics, Diversity, and Change, have so little content 

that they feel like one-day seminars that have been stretched and padded into 

35 hour courses. ...” 

“The faculty who teach the core classes need to communicate better with 

each other; there are redundancies and inconsistencies that could be easily 

remedied.”

• Classes are too large to encourage useful discussion. 

“... [T]here is just way too many people in the core classes. It doesn’t make 

me feel competitive, it does not make it feel like grad school. I feel like I am in 

an undergraduate lecture with no accountability. The one seminar I had was 

great, 8 people, great level of interaction, perfect. The one core class I had 

that was split into two sections was also much better because there was about 

25 people or less. Basically I rather just read a powerpoint at home than sit 

through an overcrowded lecture where all the professor does is read off their 

powerpoint.” 

“I have taken three seminar courses, and all three were enrolled to 

maximum capacity (30+), which created an atmosphere in the classroom that 

was not conducive to discussions or presentations.” 

“The first year requirements have been of little value ... the majority of these 

courses consisted of exercises in repeating certain ideas back to professors 

rather than ... critical thought and discussion. ... Being asked to rephrase the 

ideas the professor believes doesn’t make for critical thought; it just results in 

an enhanced ability to tell the professor what he or she wants to hear. ... in 

many of the first year required courses, it seemed that critical discussion was 

tacitly discouraged.” 

• Too much of the curriculum is oriented towards discussion of theory, instead of 

providing instruction in the practical and technical skills that are perceived to be 

more important for job-seekers. The internship program is a vital 

counterbalance. 

“The overall intellectual quality of the program is high, but there seems to be 

somewhat of a disconnect between the research focus of the faculty and the 

goals of a professional degree program. The program ends up feeling a little 

schizophrenic as a result. A lot of the best teaching is carried out by the 

adjunct faculty, who can bring their ongoing experiences in the professional 

world directly into the classroom. This isn’t to say that the full-time faculty 

are not quality teachers, but their focus tends to be more theoretical and less 

practical.” 

“I know that going to a UC means an emphasis on theory, but it doesn’t 

really serve the students very well once they graduate. I’m here to be 

prepared to succeed in the practice. I don’t want to teach. I don’t want a 

Ph.D. I just want the skills necessary to do the job.” 

“I am very glad that I went to UCLA for my Information Studies degree. 

However, I wish I had known before enrolling that the program has such a 

theoretical bent. I feel that the core coursework has prepared me for to 

become a Ph.D. student than to work in the field. Since it is a professional 

school, I didn’t think that theory would play such a big role in my degree. I 

was hoping to learn more hands-on, professional skills. I learned quickly 

that, if I wanted to learn professional skills, I would have to do that on my

own time. I am thankful for the internship program, though, as it added a 

real-world component to the program.” 

“If this is a professional school, there should be a clear focus on the 

practical.” 

“I wish there were a great deal more technical training involved in my 

program (that is, a number of us wish we were being taught some 

programming, xml, a bit of web development, rapid prototyping tools, etc).” 

“One of the program’s strengths is its internship program. The wide variety 

of well-established internships offer excellent opportunities for gaining 

professional experience as well as developing professional relationships to 

assist with in the process of finding of a job.” 

• Recent faculty movements and retirements have created particular problems for 

students preparing for careers in public and academic librarianship, and in children’s and 

youth services. Some excellent classes are being taught in these areas by adjuncts, 

but students are finding it difficult (a) to obtain guidance on choice of classes and 

counseling on career options from faculty advisors with appropriate expertise; (b) 

to obtain appropriate guidance for planning and writing theses in these areas 

(since the thesis option requires the student to form a committee chaired by a 

regular faculty member); and (c) to complete the major-paper requirement for the 

portfolio option (since this is a requirement for the student to submit a major 

paper, in their chosen area of specialization, that was written for a class taught by 

a regular faculty member). 

“This program is severely lacking in the resources to support public 

librarians. I understand that the archival and informatics tracks are strong, 

from my fellow students, but as someone who is interested in public 

librarianship, I experienced extreme difficulty in some of my efforts to 

prepare myself for my career. The program currently has only two ladder 

[i.e. regular] faculty who have any research interest in public libraries, and 

both are retired. The ultimate graduation requirement requires a major 

paper, preferably in your specialization, from a ladder-track faculty member; 

the number of classes taught by ladder faculty in this specialization are 

extremely limited, making this final requirement difficult. For public and 

youth services librarians, lack of access to faculty concerned with their same 

academic and professional interests hinders publication, research, and the 

thesis option.” 

“As a student interested in children’s/YA and public libraries, I have found 

that I end up either guiding myself or looking to second year students for 

advice, rather than faculty. I know it’s a specialized/small area of interest, 

but I feel a bit lost about what classes I should be taking, where I should 

intern, how I should be doing my portfolio, skills I’ll need, etc. The fact that 

most children’s classes are taught by adjuncts makes it quite difficult to write 

a major paper that’s relevant to the rest of my studies.”

Other issues raised by varying numbers of students include the following points related to 

curricular matters (the following comments were made by individual students and thus 

likely do not reflect general MLIS student opinion): 

• The program’s emphasis on libraries, or archives, or informatics, is too strong. 

(Different students have different views on where the emphasis lies.) 

• Links should be forged with private-sector institutions in order to ensure the 

match of core course content to employers’ requirements. 

• The curriculum lacks flexibility, and the department should be more sensitive to 

the scheduling difficulties faced by students who are also in full-time employment. 

• Classes designed for both MLIS and Ph.D. students do not work, as the two 

groups have very different intellectual goals. 

• Some core classes are based on syllabi that have not been revised for years. 

• A class on collection development should be added to the core. 

• A class on information literacy instruction should be taught in the regular 


• Students should not be required to take a research methods class, as the topic is 

not important for everyone. 

• Admitted students should not be required to take statistics and programming 

classes before entering the program. 

• More guidance should be available for those choosing the thesis option. 

• The assessment procedures for the portfolio should be reviewed. 

• Some course descriptions are less than helpful. 

• Promotional and informational materials should be reviewed for clarity, accuracy, 

and currency.

Ph.D. Program 

An analysis of the survey of Ph.D. students reveals the following opinions about the 

quality of the program held by multiple respondents. While responses were largely 

coherent, in all cases, quotations are representative, and not exhaustive, of respondents’ 

comments. 

• The solicitous nature of the faculty, intellectual freedom, and the small size of the 

department are major factors that help students progress toward their degree. 

“Openness of many members of the faculty to giving advice, feedback. Ability to work with 

advisers and mentors outside of the department.” 

“I have found the faculty to be extremely helpful and available to answer questions and provide 

resources.” 

“Excellent faculty and staff - caring, knowledgeable, and challenging. Doctoral seminars are a 

reasonable size.” 

“The small size of the department helps to encourage collegiality among those of us in the 

department.” 

“My advisor has been fabulous. Even though she is retired and not regularly on campus she has 

always made herself available for consultation through email and phone.” 

“Generally speaking, students are given the freedom to explore and develop their own intellectual 

trajectories. Independence and a nurturing environment (without coddling), I think, are the strong 

factors that help all the students towards their degree.” 

• Overwhelmingly, a lack of funding hinders students’ progress toward their degree. 

All respondents mentioned a lack of funding, without exception. 

“Funding is a major difficulty.” 

“The amount of funding that I have received yearly is definitely not enough to live on, and I have 

consequently needed to take out more loans than I wish I had to.” 

“I think [the lack of funding] severely impedes the quality of scholarship. Rather than having the 

breathing room to explore ideas, students are more concerned about finishing quickly in order to 

minimize the costs and loans they have to take out. Please help!” 

“Finances. Our department is woefully lacking in funds. Many students run around trying to 

make ends meet and generally speaking, I think that faculty could do a better job of advocating for 

us to find and obtain more funds.” 

“Financial aid is always a problem-- the majority of my income comes from my non-departmental 

employment […]. This decreases my involvement in the academic community.”

“Financial support is limited and I have had to work part-time throughout my program. The 

financial situation has limited my ability to participate in some events with my cohort, has given 

me less time to write, and has made it hard to attend important international conferences.” 

“The need to secure funding on my own after the first year.” 

• Respondents overwhelmingly desire opportunities for Teaching Assistantships, in 

addition to the Special Readerships already available to them. Nearly all 

respondents remarked on the need for TAships. Some respondents cite universitywide 

policies for the lack of opportunity in this area. 

“I wish we had actual TAships, in addition to readerships. Being responsible for a class is an 

essential part of our professional training.” 

“Since our department does not have an undergraduate curriculum, we do not have many indepartment 

opportunities for TAs. Many students have expressed strong desires for TAships, in 

order to get more experience teaching, but we have to shop around in other departments to do so, 

which can be tricky when departments these days barely have enough of these to hand out to their 

own students.” 

“IS should petition grad division to allow doctoral students to teach master's courses during the 

summer (departments can apply for an exemption to the rule prohibiting doctoral students from 

teaching grad classes), or should at least let the doctoral students teach the few undergraduate 

courses we do have. Not having actual TA experience is a detriment to our program as other 

information studies programs allow and/or require their doctoral students to TA and thus we are 

less competitive on the market.” 

“I have worked as both a Special Reader for a number of courses in the department, which I find 

to be invaluable as part of my education as a PhD student. However, the technicality of graduate 

students being unable to teach other graduate students (i.e., the reason why our department has 

Special Reader positions rather than TAships) is unfortunate. This outmoded policy is ultimately 

detrimental to doctoral students, particularly those of us seeking to obtain tenure-track positions 

after graduation.” 

• Students rarely leave the program before completing their degree. Reasons vary 

for why a student might leave the program. 

“It rarely happens, but usually because they got a cozy, high-paying job or they decided against 

academia.” 

“I only know of one instance which has been for employment.” 

“Not wanting to go into academia.” 

“I only know of two. I think the first one discovered s/he did not actually want to do a doctoral 

program, and the second one switched fields completely.”

“I think some students leave simply because they don't like being PhD students. I think this is 

normal. Some students leave because their advisors aren't a good fit. Honestly though, I don't 

know personally of many people who have left before obtaining their degrees.” 

“Didn't think the program was a right fit.” 

“One left because of lack of support from her spouse and other family issues. Another burned out 

of studies - she had gone straight from high school to college to graduate school without taking any 

time off in between. I think she wanted to experience some real adult life. Both also expressed 

dissatisfaction with the department, their advisors, and the program, so perhaps it was not the best 

fit for them.” 

• The overall intellectual quality of the program is strong. 

“Strong - this is a real strength of the department” 

“Overall, I think the intellectual quality of the program is strong. I think this is due to the right 

balance of required coursework and independence. Information Studies is an inherently 

interdisciplinary field. The balance of electives and required coursework help to promote that.” 

“Having been privy to many of the politics of Information Studies as a field, I can categorically 

say that our department ranks among the best. Whereas most information science/studies 

programs do not generally cultivate critical analytical skills in their students or have at its core a 

mission oriented toward social justice, UCLA's Department of Information Studies stands out as 

among the most rigorous and diverse (which is to say that many of the difficulties that the 

department faces in terms of advocating for itself to Graduate Division and the larger bureaucratic 

structures of the University are quite unfortunate 

because it's clear that these higher level units do not understand the importance of the department, 

which clearly cannot be measured in terms of the "bottom line" that the corporatized university 

tends toward). If the turn toward the "Information Age" of the 1960s and the widespread The 

program does an excellent job in encouraging critical thought in exploring these issues, to a degree 

that other programs might aspire toward.” 

“The intellectual quality varies in my program. Overall I would say the quality is rigorous.” 

“Excellent. Some students don't seem to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them, 

but the opportunity for growth and challenge is definitely there.” 

“I found it very stimulating and intellectually satisfying.” 

• Overall, course and other degree requirements are appropriate in regard to 

respondents’ career aspirations. 

“Very appropriate.” 

“Appropriate.”

“Somewhat appropriate, and where the department lacks, other departments at UCLA offer 

courses directly related to my career and research aspirations.” 

“Excellent.” 

“I believe the requirements were appropriate.” 

“Although courses and subject matter seem appropriate, instruction tends to feel conversationbased, 

almost too freewheeling. It is difficult to take notes in many classes due to loosely structured 

class time that allows for multiple tangents by both students and professors, with few connections 

to stated course objectives.” 

“Courses are practical, which support my career aspirations.” 

“This question is difficult to answer as my career aspirations have been constantly in flux.” 

• A few respondents identified questions the review team should raise or areas they 

should examine. 

“There have been prior discussions about developing an undergraduate program for Information 

Studies that for some reason have been tabled, however I think this should be seriously 

reconsidered.” 

“I would encourage the review team to re-instate the 1-credit required course for 1st year PhD 

students (I can't remember the course number) that aimed to acclimate students with the 

coursework, the field as a whole, life as a doctoral student. It was a very good opportunity to bond 

with classmate, ask questions, and discuss the realities of graduate work that aren't covered in 

coursework.” 

“There should be more openness to interdisciplinary work regarding race, gender and sexuality, in 

order to diversify the program's intellectual trajectory.” 

“The field is broad and diverse. Consequently, the student body is extremely diverse in their 

academic interests with some students wanting to teach in MLIS programs (the related 

professional degree) and some students not wanting to teach at all (i.e. industry, research, etc.) Is 

there a way the faculty can teach students with professorial ambitions how to teach graduate 

programs without making it mandatory for students who have no or little interest in it? Currently 

the limited Special Readership positions go to both types of students and are not competitive with 

other schools that require their doctoral students to TA (develop courses, lecture, etc.)”

Academic Senate Self-Review - UCLA Academic Senate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?