Redefining Library and Information Science education and training in Zimbabwe to close the workforce skills gaps

Background to the study

LIS education and training in Zimbabwe became institutionalised in higher education institutions (HEIs) in 1985 at Harare Polytechnic College (Hikwa, 1990) and later progressed to universities. This suggests that LIS education and training operates in two sectors, namely in technical and vocational education and training (TVET) and university. The sectors are independent from each other and guided by different policies, objectives, models and outcomes. TVET is described as a type of education and training that aims to equip students with the knowledge and the practical know-how required in particular occupations or, more broadly, in the labour market (Cedefop, 2008: 202). University education, on the other hand, is described as general academic education with a strong theoretical and research orientation (Pillay, 2011). The implication is that the TVET sector concentrates on developing specific job-related competencies and skills, whereas universities focus on a more general education that provides students with broad knowledge as well as basic skills (Hanushek et al., 2011).

LIS education and training programmes in Zimbabwe offer four levels of qualifications, namely undergraduate (national certificate, national diploma, higher national diploma and bachelor’s degree), a postgraduate diploma, and Master’s and a Doctoral degree (Hikwa, 2010). LIS TVET education is offered by four polytechnic colleges (Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru and Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo). Two public universities, the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) and the Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) run LIS education programmes. The entry point to professional LIS work in Zimbabwe is through an undergraduate degree or a postgraduate diploma (Munyoro, 2014), a practice common in the South African Development Community (SADC) region (Raju, 2003; Minishi-Majanja, 2009).

The Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE) is an overall controlling body for HEIs and is concerned with the quality of both TVET and university education (ZIMCHE, 2016). ZIMCHE came into being in 2006 through an Act of Parliament (Chapter 25: 27). The Council promotes, coordinates, registers and authorises education and training programmes. Its major role is to control and maintain standards (standards of teaching, examination and faculty qualifications) and to enforce government policies and regulations (ZIMCHE, 2016). Universities have a great deal of autonomy regarding their curricula and are able to review these, provided funding and time permit.

The TVET sector curriculum is controlled by the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education’s Curriculum Research and Development Unit (CRADU). CRADU, in association with the Zimbabwe Higher Education Examination Council (HEXCO), regulates and funds (or solicits funds) for curriculum reviews and applies quality assurance procedures governing the TVET educational sector (HEXCO, 2015). All LIS education and training programmes in the TVET sector follow a common curriculum, developed by HEXCO in collaboration with university faculty staff and industry (Munyoro, 2014). HEXCO also prescribes the number of assignments, practicals and tests given to students in the course of their training (HEXCO, 2015).

A study by Munyoro (2014) shows that LIS education and training programmes in Zimbabwe have not significantly responded to changes in the profession, in wider society, and in higher education globally, by reviewing and updating curricula. The TVET curriculum was last reviewed in 2004 while university curricula have not been substantially modified since their inception in 2000 (NUST) and 2009 (ZOU). Virkus (2012) points out that a curriculum is the best barometer for measuring changes in the profession and in society at large. Burnett (2013) concludes that LIS curricula in Zimbabwe are dated and of only limited use in today’s transient work environments.

Literature review

The literature is broadly in agreement that, worldwide, the LIS community of practice finds itself in the midst of a radical transition. This is attributed to socio-economic and technological factors such as changing modes of information production, storage and dissemination, changing patterns of economic competition, as well as new forms of work organisation, technological innovations and an intensifying consumerism that has resulted in increasing needs of users who expect information services to be not only technically competent, but also conveniently delivered. The new forms of business models, work organisations, modes of communication and technological innovations require a workforce with knowledge, generic employability skills and with personal attributes that include, but go beyond, the disciplinary expertise that traditionally forms the core of most LIS curricula (Barber et al., 2014). The shifts have caused a chronic misalignment between the needs of business and the offerings of LIS education and training systems. Around the globe, and specifically in Zimbabwe, LIS education and training programmes have been reproached for not producing ‘industry-ready graduates’.

A study by Anderson (2007) in Australia stipulates that LIS education programmes are blamed for producing graduates who lack the requisite skills to function in their first jobs. In the United States of America, Moran and Marchionini (2012) confirm this criticism, asserting that LIS graduates fail to meet the immediate needs and requirements of current LIS work environments. In Zimbabwe, the Nziramasanga (1999) report states that graduates produced in HEIs are inadequately prepared for the contemporary labour market. The general criticism has heightened pressure on LIS education and training programmes globally and, particularly in Zimbabwe, to empower graduates with generic employability skills enabling them to contribute to their future places of employment and ‘perform successfully as citizens in the knowledge economy’ (Nel and Neale-Shutte, 2013: 437), thus remaining relevant to their jobs and retaining promotion prospects (Hollis-Turner, 2015).

The most important skills according to employers are team working skills, followed by sector-specific skills, communication skills, computer skills, being able to adapt to new situations, ability in reading and writing, and analytical and problem-solving skills (Humburg et al., 2013: 4). The Economist Intelligence Unit (2014) report for the British Council lists critical thinking, the ability to communicate effectively, to solve problems creatively, to work collaboratively and to adapt to changing priorities as the skills most needed by employers. Alison (2014) notes that LIS employers demand leadership, administrative know-how, and information and communication technology (ICT) competencies. Lowden et al., (2011) suggest that multidisciplinary competencies such as project management, communication and presentation, pedagogy and skills related to technology, business, planning, designing and general management are integral to efficient work flows and service provision in the transitory LIS labour environment.

Pettigrew (2013) and Gibbs et al. (2011) shift the focus from multidisciplinary abilities to the need for knowledge of information ethics. According to these authors, LIS professionals need to have an in-depth understanding of information-related laws and ethical issues pertaining to intellectual property rights (IPR) such as copyright laws, information access, rights to information, privacy protection and open access. Peltier-Davis (2009: 20) found that personal attributes such as ‘the capacity to learn constantly and quickly … a propensity to take risks and work under pressure, … skilful at enabling and fostering change, … a sense of humour, … and advocacy’ are critical in contemporary LIS labour environments. Halder (2009) adds innovativeness, adaptability, continuous learning, initiative, business savvy, being focused, enthusiastic, visionary, inspirational, flexible, honest, persistent, resilient and good at teamwork and time management to the list of attributes deemed necessary in LIS graduates.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2014) report for the British Council stirred the focus of the discourse to technical skills associated with specific jobs. In this context ‘Big Picture’ 2.0 Skills (2007) (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014) remarks that LIS professionals ‘must be able to tell the library’s story through various media-writing, photography, audio and video’. Partridge et al. (2010) share this view, arguing that LIS work environments require a workforce with well-developed functional skills for the use and application of information technology in library operations, to compare, evaluate and select technologies and software, translate print-based services to electronic services, design and manage websites, engage with and use technology to accomplish professional tasks. Similarly, King (2007) suggests that for information service provision LIS professionals must:

be able to post to a blog, embed a widget into blogs and social networking accounts (like Myspace), … to use social media, … do basic HTML, create, upload and edit photos, short videos, podcasts and screen casts, edit an avatar’s appearance and know how to pick a new device and figure out how to use it.

The nature of employability skills in today’s labour environments is indicative of the radical changes taking place in the world and related to the techno-economic paradigm serving contemporary society. This techno-economic paradigm demands a workforce with multidisciplinary expertise, highly developed functional skills and a myriad of personal attributes (Munyoro, 2014). To facilitate the development of such competencies and qualities in library science graduates, LIS education and training programmes globally have reformed and reoriented their curricula. Multi- and trans-disciplinary and ICT-related modules and subjects have been integrated into study offerings and curricula are continuously being revamped to align them with the demands of the labour market (Munyoro, 2014). Prebor (2010) and Kovatcheva (2011) observe that today’s LIS education programmes have absorbed courses ranging from computer science, education, communication and media studies to business management, technology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science, information systems, natural sciences and law. Minishi-Majanja (2007), reviewing efforts to integrate ICT into LIS curricula, found that LIS schools in sub-Saharan Africa have indeed incorporated diverse ICT modules in their curricula as a strategy to prevent curriculum drift, to improve the quality of programmes and to realign them with labour environments needs and demands.

Some LIS departments have recreated curricula by no longer focusing exclusively on the traditional library functions and rather letting their institutions play a more broadly-based role in the provision of information access (Chu, 2010). Other departments have changed the titles of their programmes, for example from Library Science to Library and Information Science, or Studies/Management, or Information Science/Studies/Management/Knowledge Management, as a strategy to ‘embrace diversification and clustering into larger organisational groupings’ (Raju, 2013: 254). Raju (2013) observes that LIS departments in South Africa and a few other parts of the world are, jointly with related disciplines, offering advanced programmes such as media studies, computer science, informatics, information systems and business information management. Lowden et al. (2011: 25) point out that LIS departments have introduced work-integrated learning projects, job shadowing and internships as institutional responses to the demands of labour environments.

Similarly, LIS professional bodies such as the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), the American Library Association (ALA) and the Special Libraries Association (SLA) have responded to concerns expressed by the LIS job market by developing competency frameworks. These frameworks explicitly accentuate the knowledge and the various competencies and employability skills that those wishing to enter the profession should acquire (Rehman, 2012). The competency frameworks include the advice for graduates to become life-long learners, to function as ‘global citizens’, as agents for social good and to aim for personal development in the light of an unknown future (Barrie, 2004).

In response to the call for applied and generic employability skills, the Master of Science programme at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore has integrated generic employability skills into all its modules (Chaudhry et al., 2008). In addition, they have introduced professional seminars and critical inquiry as new modules and made them into core courses. These courses are aimed at developing such general employability skills requirements as leadership, communication skills, and the ability to think critically and creatively, to work in a team and to be enterprising (Chaudhry et al., 2008). The courses attempt to empower students by combining teaching with practice through group projects, peer learning, presentations, online discussions and peer evaluation of project work (Chaudhry et al., 2008). Similarly, senior management at the University of Bedfordshire in the United Kingdom has developed a strategic plan to make the acquirement of employability skills a part of all undergraduate programmes (University of Bedfordshire, 2012). Four key employability skills – information retrieval and handling, communication and presentation, planning and problem solving and social development and interaction – have been introduced into each level of the undergraduate curriculum (Fallows and Steven, 2000). To ensure that the employability skills are solidly embedded and taught across all disciplines, the undergraduate curriculum is progressively re-evaluated. Fallows and Steven (2000: 82) assert that ‘course teams are already recognizing positive effect on students’ performance generally’.

The reviewed literature suggests that is a supply-demand mismatch in the LIS field with the rising demands made on the LIS labour force on the one hand, and on the other, the products delivered by professional education programmes. The mismatch has resulted in a good deal of dissatisfaction among LIS employers and policy makers and has led to the criticism that products of the professional education systems are inadequately prepared for the work environment. LIS professional associations have responded to the criticism by developing competency frameworks that offer guidance to educators in curricula reviews and teaching. LIS departments have since embedded new competencies as employability skills in their curricula.

Problem statement

Findings from a series of empirical studies show that LIS graduates are perceived as being inadequately prepared for their jobs. A study by Anderson (2007) indicates that Australian LIS graduates are not ‘work ready’. Moran and Marchionini’s study (2012) confirms that in the USA as well, LIS education and training programmes are blamed for failing to meet the immediate needs of the current LIS work environment. In Kenya, Kavulya (2007) reaffirms that many employers of LIS graduates judge them to be not suited, or well prepared for the job. The criticisms suggest a widening gap between the needs of work environments and LIS education and training systems. There is, therefore, an urgent need for an in-depth empirical study into the quality of LIS education to define gaps in LIS curricula and to suggest ways of empowering students to fulfil the demands made on graduates about to enter the job market. If the problem under study is not addressed, LIS education and training programmes will stray from their principal mission of producing skilled human capital for the society and the profession. The relevance and ultimately the survival of the LIS academic discipline are, in other words, under threat. The present study seeks to address the following research questions:

To gather valuable lived experience and data that are free from respondents’ reactivity effects (bias in a respondent’s reactions caused by additional cognitive demands that surface when probing questions have to be answered and the answers explained), the study employs a qualitative methodology discussed in detail in the next section.

Methodology

Ascertaining the need for transformation of LIS education – under scrutiny in this study – requires the capturing of direct and lived experience of respondents. This is the opinion of Stewart and Floyd (2004) who declare that, for a better understanding of direct experience, the application of post-positivist reflections is a useful tool. A post-positivist framework allows the researcher to use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The present study is qualitative in nature and utilises a case study research design (Creswell, 2009). A holistic case study with embedded units is used. The holistic case study is concerned with Zimbabwe and the embedded units are the five institutions offering LIS education and training. These are represented by the deans/heads of departments while institutions that employ LIS education and training products (in other words, LIS employers) are represented by library directors or librarians. A list of institutions employing LIS graduates was obtained from the Zimbabwe Library Association. The list was not comprehensive; it was dated and the exact number of institutions employing LIS graduates could not be determined easily. From this list 17 LIS employers were purposively selected. Babbie (2005) and Burns and Grove (2005) recommend for large-scale surveys where the exact determination of elements is problematic, the use of the purposive sampling technique. LIS employers and deans/heads of departments are targeted in this study because of their expertise, authority, direct experience, responsibilities and interest in the problem under study (Pickard, 2007). The population of the study is summarised in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Population of the study (N=22).

Major LIS employers	Number	Deans/heads of departments	Number
University librarians	12	NUST	1
Special libraries directors (United States Information Services (USIS) and the British Council Library)	2	ZOU	1
National Library director (National Archives of Zimbabwe)	1	Harare Polytechnic	1
Public libraries librarians (Harare city libraries and Bulawayo city libraries)	2	Bulawayo Technic	1
		Gweru Polytechnic	1
Total	17		5
Total population	22

Through in-depth face-to-face interviews 17 LIS employers and five deans/heads of departments were surveyed. This allowed the researcher to obtain lived experiences and additional information, including information provided by body language and facial expressions. Open-ended questions were utilised to enable respondents to answer in their own words. In this way, richer and more complex data could be collected (Whittemore and Grey, 2006).

Document review was also used as a data collection technique. Permission was obtained from the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education in Zimbabwe, Harare Polytechnic College, NUST and ZOU, to use the curricular documents for the purpose of research (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2009). Three curricular documents from TVET and two from universities were reviewed. A document review checklist or examination form was developed, based on Bloom’s (1984) taxonomy of learning domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor and guided by the study question: What competencies are encapsulated in LIS curricula? The outcomes for each course outline were delineated. The checklist was used to systematically interrogate LIS curricular documents and course outlines and to ensure that valid information was identified (World Bank Institute (WBI) Evaluation Group, 2007). As each of the 27 course outlines was analysed, the researcher completed the checklist or examination form, thus ensuring the recognition and collection of valid data (WBI Evaluation Group, 2007). After all the course outlines and curricular documents had been analysed, the researcher coded and documented the data. This data collection technique enabled the researcher to collect data free from respondents’ reactivity effects as well as behind-the-scenes data that could not be obtained through in-depth interviews (CDC, 2009). The research data from in-depth interviews and the document review were cleaned, coded and loaded in NVivo 10 for analysis. Table 2 summarises the major research questions guiding the study, relating them to the data sources, data collection methods and data analysis strategies used.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Data sources and strategies for collecting data and analysis.

Research questions	Data sources	Data collection methods	Data analysis strategy
What competencies are encapsulated in LIS curricula?	LIS curricular documents	Document review	NVivo
What LIS skills are needed by the information industry?	LIS employers	In-depth interviews	NVivo

Findings and discussion

This section presents and discusses results of the study focusing on:

Curricula documents from TVET, NUST and ZOU were reviewed in order to determine which competencies are encapsulated in the LIS curricula. Data from the TVET curriculum were found to emphasise the development of both applied and cognitive capabilities in LIS students. This became clear from the instructional methods applied (practical exercises and lectures) and from the assessment methods (practical exercises and written essays) described in the course outlines for applied modules and topics such as cataloguing, classification, filing, subject analysis, indexing and library operations and procedures. The conclusion was substantiated by a head of department noting, ‘we use a competence based curriculum … and our students in some courses such as cataloguing and classification are tested for applied competencies and skills’. The data suggest that the TVET curriculum inculcates cognitive as well as psychomotor abilities in graduates. This became readily apparent from the course outlines which listed hands-on slots in modules such as cataloguing and classification, as well as topics on subject analysis and filing. In addition, the data indicate that the TVET curriculum considers standards such as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as compulsory tools for teaching and assessment. This finding accords with Jacobs’ (2014) view that higher education should strengthen liberal as well as vocational educational elements. Augustyn and Cillié (2012) assert that, as librarianship is an applied discipline that has evolved out of practice, it cannot be entirely decoupled from practice.

The reviewed university curricula documents hint at a trend towards the development of conceptual rather than functional and employability skills. This is apparent in the instructional and assessment methods adopted in the course outlines. The instructional method (lectures) and the assessment method (written essays) accentuate cognitive above applied abilities as desirable in LIS university graduates. The course outlines lacked, for example, hands-on slots, or seminars, and cataloguing and classification standards (such as AACR2 and DDC) were not presented as obligatory resources in the relevant modules. The implication of the finding is that the instructional and assessment methods currently used in university LIS education and training programmes in Zimbabwe do not stimulate the development of functional skills. This perception was validated by a dean who, in response to the question ‘What competencies are encapsulated in LIS curricula?’ stated: ‘Our curriculum is theoretical in nature … therefore meant to inculcate intellectual capabilities’. Another noted: ‘Our curriculum is focused on producing line managers and not library technicians’. This view was further corroborated by a practitioner in a university library: ‘LIS graduates from universities lack applied skills in cataloguing and classification’. An employee in a special library agreed: ‘LIS graduates from universities cannot catalogue or classify and this has been a major challenge’. The finding underlines that university LIS curricula are oriented towards the development of intellectual abilities rather than applied skills. It further confirms Pillay’s (2011) assertion that university education has a strong theoretical and research orientation. Also Burnett (2013) found that LIS curricula in Zimbabwe are too theoretical with limited interest in application in contemporary work environments.

This result brings the dilemma of theory versus practice in LIS curricula to the fore. Virkus (2012) and Bawden and Robinson (2012) concur that students gain much more from having a profound understanding of their profession, its theories, principles and concepts, than from building functional competencies. They maintain that practical competencies can be learned on the job and through lifelong learning and continuing professional development (CPD). Shera (1973: 335) is of the opinion that:

education is not a substitute for experience, but a preparation for it. Librarianship . . . must abandon the practice of putting its students through ‘little fake experiences in the classroom’. We must teach pupils theory, not techniques: principles, not practice.

Vickery (2004: 29) reinforces this point and cautions:

Teaching practice is only possible in a very static profession. In this dynamic and transient environment it is more beneficial for LIS graduates to acquire general grounding in a wide variety of professional activities and concerns so that they have a general educational base applicable to any LIS related work-environment.

Augustyn and Cillié (2012) argue that librarianship is an applied discipline that has evolved from practice, and therefore cannot be disconnected from practice. Also Jacobs (2014), Nugent (2015) and Freeland (2016) argue that university education needs to be linked to practice. They consider the connection critical, not simply for the sake of being successful in the contemporary workplace but also to increase graduates’ capacity for active civic and democratic participation. Lynch (2008) and Chu (2010) advocate for an optimal balance between theory and practice in LIS education whereby curricula offerings are appraised and, if necessary, redefined in such a manner that they contribute to both liberal and vocational qualities.

On closer scrutiny of the collected data it becomes apparent that the course outlines of both TVET and university are silent on the development of affective or functional skills in graduates. The finding concurs with the assertion that, for many students, the learning of affective traits:

has been an implicit rather than an explicit consequence of their university experience as the development of graduate attributes has traditionally been considered so fundamentally inherent to all teaching and learning (Carroll, 2004) as to warrant no further special attention. (Hughes and Barrie, 2010: 325)

The data collected in the present study shows, however, that LIS education programmes in Zimbabwe have, to some degree, responded to the call for employability skills in LIS graduates. This is obvious from the presence in the curricula of various multi-disciplinary modules such as project management, marketing, information technology, legal and ethical issues, information systems, human resources, indigenous knowledge systems, management and a number of ICT-related modules. This suggests that LIS educators are aware of the need to modify educational programmes in response to the demands and needs of the work environment. At the same time however, simply including multi-disciplinary modules in the curricula without adopting and using relevant instructional and assessment methods, ‘does not ensure that graduates develop the cognitive, social, practical … prerequisites’ for employment (Yorke, 2004: 7). The need remains to embrace innovative approaches to teaching and learning that can lead to competency-based, student-centred, and results-focused education delivery models in LIS education in Zimbabwe.

Practical modules in the form of practical, fieldwork and work-integrated learning have always been an integral component of LIS curricula worldwide. In Zimbabwe however, practical work has thus far not been a mandatory component of university education. Until now, not all academic disciplines in Zimbabwe have regarded internship as a necessary part of their curricula. The inclusion of mandatory practicum modules in Zimbabwean LIS university education signifies a shift in the normative views on academic learning that traditionally have determined the design of higher education programmes. This is consistent with the view of Olsen (2007: 28) who writes that the presence of practicum modules in university curricula follows the fall and rise of institutional structures and associated systems of normative and causal belief and resources. Olsen’s (2007: 28) claim that higher education finds itself in a transitional phase in which ‘the legitimacy of its mission, organization, functioning, moral foundation, ways of thought and resources are thrown into doubt and challenged’ is confirmed by the findings of the present study.

It emerges from the collected data that LIS education in Zimbabwe has adopted an incremental approach in dealing with changes in the LIS profession and academic discipline. This is evident when one considers that multi-disciplinary, practical and ICT-related core modules have been introduced into the curricula while teaching and assessment methods have remained unchanged or left to individual faculty discretion. Barber et al. (2014: 78) counsel that incremental change is not an option in this volatile environment but a ‘classic error of strategy to calculate the risk of action but failing to calculate the (often greater) risks of doing nothing’. The findings of the present study leave no doubt about the need to create deep-rooted transformation in orientation, curricula contents, instructional methods, assessment strategies and teaching and learning resources in Zimbabwean LIS education.

The second research question of this study was approached by applying the research instruments to two sub-questions: Can you comment on the statement that LIS graduates are not well suited or prepared for the job market? And what skills are required of LIS professional entry level graduates? Data collected from responses to the first sub-question indicate that LIS employers consider LIS education programmes as providers of skilled human capital for the profession, industry and society, but that they wish the existing curricula to be changed and become more relevant to the needs of the workplace. They identify the following gaps:

The different perspectives of LIS employers can be considered in the following responses. A senior university librarian declared: ‘We cannot say they are not well suited or prepared but we can say they have knowledge and skills gaps which need to be addressed by LIS education and training programmes’. Another university librarian felt that ‘LIS graduates are not conversant with ICT application tools (…) it is a matter of LIS schools’ lack of capacity to teach the relevant library management systems like KOHA, ABC, New GenLib, and Evergreen for example’.

Data emerging from responses to the second sub-question indicate that being in command of diverse knowledge, functional competencies and personal qualities are perceived as critical for new entrants in the LIS job market. The views of LIS employers reflect a variety of perspectives, needs and sectorial preferences. The majority (11 of 17) of LIS employers emphasised ICT knowledge and applications. This was aptly expressed by a senior university librarian:

We need graduates with knowledge of ICTs and their applications. Competencies in virtual research environments, open access, programming, software development, social media, ability to use and apply information technology in library operations, ability to compare, evaluate, select technologies and software, ability to translate print based services to electronic services, web designing and administration, networking and consortia management as well as trouble shooting, being able to solve problems, think critically and make ethical decisions.

Similarly, five of 17 respondents cited project management and a diverse array of affective attributes as important. This view was highlighted by a librarian in a national library setting who stated:

We are running most of our functions and activities such as library automation, web design and administration, and digitization as projects. We need LIS professionals who are able to manage the projects, design business plans, source funding, manage the funds and human resources, negotiate, advocate and evaluate the projects. These professionals should also be self-motivated team players, flexible, adaptable, time conscious and committed to the profession and continuous learning, able to interpret and apply information related laws, and resilient.

A public library director identified another set of competencies such as training, copy cataloguing, knowledge management, strategic management, public relation, resource description and access (RDA), licensing and quality control. This respondent noted:

We require LIS graduates with competencies in training/teaching, information literacy skills (ILS), knowledge management (to manage institutional repositories), knowledge of resource description and access (RDA), information auditing skills, copy cataloguing skills, quality control competencies, e-resources licensing and strategic management, public relation skills, negotiating skills with database vendors and publishers and disability awareness in collection management and information provision.

What clearly emerges from the collected data is that job-specific technical LIS skills are no longer sufficient for work environments. LIS workplaces demand a workforce that commands a whole repertoire of multi-disciplinary competencies, applied skills, achievements and attributes that are not adequately provided by existing curricula. This conclusion corroborates observations by Barber et al. (2014: 77), that contemporary work environments require their staff to be ready to:

seize the opportunity to learn and relearn throughout their lives and [to be] ready and able to take their knowledge of the best that has been thought, said and done, and apply it to the problems of the present and future.

This implies that the certainties offered by traditional LIS education are no longer certainties in the contemporary society which serves a techno-economic paradigm. In this context the need for a radical and urgent transformation of LIS education in Zimbabwe is obvious.

The emphasis placed by LIS employers on functional and generic employability skills suggests a perceptible perceived need to achieve parity of esteem between practical training and theoretical training in LIS education. However, there is still a lively debate on the issue of vocationalisation of LIS education curricula. Virkus (2012) considers the infusion of vocational aspects in LIS curricula as a threat to the notion of a liberal education. Lowden et al. (2011) see it as an attack on academic freedom in terms of curricula content. These views suggest that LIS education programmes in university settings should be seen as much more than a production line of work-ready graduates.

The lists of ICT-functional competencies that LIS employers expect from LIS graduates leave no doubt that a whole range of technological innovations need to become a core part of LIS education such as the World Wide Web, Internet, interactive social media, electronic documents, audio-visuals, databases, CD ROM and cloud computing. LIS practitioners will have to be provided with the knowledge and functional skills to use and manipulate these and future technological innovations for up-to-date service delivery and for true professionalism. It appears that traditional professional competencies, skills, techniques and technologies of LIS practitioners have been superseded by modern technological requirements. LIS education and training programmes are challenged by the need to respond to new demands. The suggestion is that the LIS educational system has become passé and must be re-engineered so as regain its relevance in a job market defined by advanced technological developments and resulting labour demands.

Evidence from the study’s data points to a lack of shared understanding of generic employability skills in the LIS field. There is an obvious discrepancy between what is expected from the labour market and what is offered by LIS education programmes. The findings of the study demonstrate the need for a standard classification system on generic employability skills in the LIS field. Such a system would provide the field with a common language and a shared understanding of what needs to be done (Aring, 2012). ‘Once employers and educators start to speak the same language, it will be easier for them to collaboratively develop careers programmes that address the critical disjuncture between them’ (Universities UK, 2015).

Different perceptions of priorities and expectations are among the signs of an enlarging and widening LIS labour environment. This becomes apparent from data that list the diverse requirements of different LIS labour niches. The findings demonstrate that LIS work environments have diversified in terms of the range of sectors and the variety of organisations they encompass. Each separate segment of the labour market needs a workforce that is finely attuned to its specific needs in terms of competences, skills and personal qualities. This is consistent with Stephens and Hamblin’s (2006) observation that different LIS work environments ask different employability skills from their staff. The diversity of LIS work environments leaves LIS educationists with a bewildering choice of labour markets for which to prepare their students. It is clear that LIS education programmes in Zimbabwe need to envision and devise an innovative curriculum with in-built flexibility and the ability to serve a wide variety of labour niches, including the possibility to continuously adapt to changing environmental demands.

Evidence from the data confirms that LIS educational systems and practitioners are challenged by rapid technological developments. These have led to incessantly changing work environments requiring a wide range of diverse competencies that have to be provided by flexible curricula, attuned to the requirements of the labour market. It is obvious that both educators and practitioners are operating in transitory and uncertain environments where, thus far, they are failing to keep up with the changes. This perspective is shared by Moran and Marchionini (2012: v) who state that ‘it has become more difficult to foresee the preparation needed for future information specialists and to predict the information environment where our graduates will be working even a decade from now’. In other words, the supply-demand mismatch in the LIS field could be seen as resulting not from inadequate training but rather from the capriciousness of the environment. Also Bessen (2014) observes that the skills gap is less a problem of ‘schooling’ than of fast-moving technologies that frequently require new skills which cannot be provided by traditional education and training programmes.

The current study confirms that LIS professional competencies and skills must evolve continuously in order to remain relevant in the contemporary job field. The data suggest that today’s LIS educators have not mastered the required competencies and are not able to transfer these successfully to their students. The study leaves no doubt as to the necessity for LIS educators and practitioners to adopt a position of continuously learning and relearning to keep up to date. Equally evident is that CPD frameworks need to be put in place in order to update and add to the skills of both faculty staff and LIS practitioners. Munyoro (2014) recommends that LIS education programmes and professional associations should turn to specialised professional organisations and private players in the field in order to develop, and continuously adapt, structured, vibrant and relevant CPD programmes.

The data gathered during this research strongly suggest that LIS employers consider themselves as fully dependent on LIS educational systems for the specific products they require. This becomes apparent from the demands they make on LIS education programmes as the major suppliers of skilled manpower for the profession both in industrial and societal contexts. The findings of this study substantiate Aring’s observation (2012: 2) that ‘employers tend to view themselves as passive consumers of the educational systems, which constitute a critical part of an employer’s value chain’.

Evidence from the curricula documents reviewed reveals that LIS faculty staff have relegated the responsibility for developing practical skills that enhance the employability of students to employers offering internships. Barber et al. (2013) asserted that ‘because of compliancy, caution or anxiety, or a combination of all three’, higher education leaves employability skills to be developed by employers where graduates serve internships. This raises critical questions of who is responsible for providing LIS students with applied and employability skills. Nagarajan and Edwards (2015) advise that the teaching of ‘work-ready’ skills to LIS graduates should be a distributed responsibility and that a range of stakeholders have different contributions to make.

Recommendations and conclusion

The present study confirms that LIS curricula, and therefore LIS graduates, suffer from gaps in knowledge and applied skills that negatively affect their employability. This is attributed to normative beliefs in traditional teaching that continue to dominate and divide LIS university and TVET education programmes in Zimbabwe. These normative beliefs are vehemently upheld and defended, thereby limiting the possibility of changing LIS education. LIS educators in Zimbabwe needs to rise beyond these traditional views and reorient the present curricula offerings in such a way that they are strengthened by liberal as well as vocational elements and attain greater relevance to contemporary LIS practice. Such a change is considered by Freeland (2016) as an imminent revolution, necessary in higher education. Similar revolutionary changes have taken place at the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) and Luton University (United Kingdom) where programmes have been adapted to fulfil the needs posed by the socio-economic and technological imperatives of the knowledge economy (Chaudhry et al., 2008; University of Bedfordshire, 2012). To realise such a transformation, the concerted efforts and mutual partnership of policy makers, government, higher education institutions, faculty staff, students, LIS professional associations and industry are required. Similar collaborative strategies have been applied at the Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU) in Thailand which has managed to produce the required skills in LIS students, thus bridging the employability skills gap (Sacchanand, 2012). Aligned with this, teaching and learning philosophies, course contents, instruction, assessment methods, teaching and learning technologies and resources need to be thoroughly reviewed. Grootenboer (2010) advises that, to develop employability skills, teaching and assessment approaches and strategies have to be considered that are specifically designed to promote the development and transfer of these skills.

In addition, structured CPD programmes have to be put in place to keep LIS faculty and practitioners abreast of developments in the LIS field. In South Africa, on behalf of the Government, Sewdass and Theron (2004) devised a CPD framework that has been adopted and successfully implemented by higher education institutions. This initiative has fostered the development of relevant, robust CPD programmes across South Africa. A similar CPD framework could be considered and adapted for Zimbabwe.