درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The purpose of the study is to explore the history and growth of the Indian LIS education system, its sustainability, and describe a critical review of recent UGC proposed Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF) syllabi. The formal LIS education which was started before independence with few universities currently witnessed a phenomenal growth of LIS departments/schools in the county. The structured questionnaire and survey methods were used to collect relevant data about availability of various courses and supplemented by searching websites and personal contacts. The findings of the study indicates that that 237 universities/colleges/ polytechnic institutes and professional associations found offering LIS education from six months certificate course to a doctoral research program. The survey revealed that at present B.A. (Hons.), B.Sc. (H), Dip. in LIS (3 years), CLIS, BLIS, MLIS, MLIS (two years integrated), PGDLAN, M. Phil., Ph.D., and D.Litt. courses are available in 31 states and UT of Indian universities/colleges in Library and Information Science. The study also finds that during the span of 20 years (2001-2020) 105 LIS departments came into existence primarily in private universities and colleges. The latest UGC proposed LOCF syllabi for BLIS also examined its acceptability and sustainability as a uniform model curriculum framework for the LIS departments in India, In addition, the study describes key issues, challenges and recommendations to enhance LIS education scenario.

Purpose: Relatively much research has been done into theorizing and its importance. However, the number of studies related to the understanding of contexts is very negligible and so far no framework has been provided including indicators and evaluation methods. This research has been done with the aim of achieving the indicators related to theorizing and subsequently presenting a formula to measure the potential and theorizing capacity of scientific institutes. Method: Library and field methods have been used to collect information. Data were first collected through a checklist and then through the AHP questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among experts and the AHP method was used to analyze the data. Expert Choice software was used to analyze the data obtained from the AHP questionnaire. Findings: The results indicate that the individual index is 9 times more important than the non-individual index in the theorizing process. Pairwise comparison of individual sub-indices showed that "awareness of theorizing" and "research ability” have an equal portion in theorizing. The "coherence of personality traits" is sextuple as important as the "awareness of theorizing”. "Coherence of personality traits" up to sextuple "research ability" can be considered important in the theorizing process.  Pairwise comparison of non-individual index sub-indices showed that "communication level" is twice as important as "institutional index level". However, the “effect level" is twice as important as the "communication level". The "communication level" is 7 times more important than the "management index level". The "effect level" can be considered 7 times more important than the "institutional index level". "Institutional index level" is quadruple more important than "management index level". The "effect level" is extremely important compared to the "management index level". Conclusion: Although theorizing is done by a researcher or a group of researchers, ultimately, it is a collective matter, or at least, several components are involved in its formation. Theorizing is a coherent, dynamic, purposeful, and thoughtful practice whose results can lead researchers to recognize the credible generalizable relationship between causes and effects. Finally, the formula Tp= (0.9I + 0.1NI) was presented, which can be used to assess the capacity of theorizing in institutes.