Search

This paper aims to identify the current state of knowledge management (KM) diffusion in LIS schools. In terms of content, we have identified two principal approaches to the perception of KM in the LIS community: an active approach, seeing KM as an opportunity for the LIS community to change; and a passive approach, seeing KM merely as a topic of information management with a new label. Our research analyzed study programs at 145 LIS schools and in 188 LIS study programs in the United States, Canada, Europe (in particular, Russia), Australia, India, South Africa, China, Japan, Singapore, and Brazil and observed the inclusion or non-inclusion of KM courses in those programs. We employ a narrower approach to defining a KM course as being one having the term "knowledge management" in its name. The findings indicate that KM courses are integrated in one-third of the LIS study programs analyzed, and in schools with an information science focus this figure can rise to around 45%. Given the importance of this area and various views regarding KM diffusion in LIS schools, we recommend that those who have already implemented a KM course in their LIS programs create an informal community of practice (CoP) on KM implementation in LIS schools and build an open database of lessons learned from such integration, thereby capturing and sharing this crucial knowledge in a single place.

The article examines current trends in the development of the national models of higher education in Russia and European countries. The paper reveals the key problems of their functioning in the context of the processes of globalization, standardization, and integration into the pan-European and global educational space. These processes are described through the prism of the national interests of the states. Emerging from the comparative description, content presentation and qualitative analysis, the article assesses the level of development of the national models of higher education, i.e., Russian, European and American. This allowed identifying key similarities, as well as the most important differences, which mainly stem from the difference in the state regulation of national educational systems. It is the role of the state that is leading in the formation of national educational systems and the creation of high-quality models of higher education. The state is also responsible for the transformation and adaptation of these models. The models target providing the national and world labor market with highly professional human resources. Based on the comparative aspects outlined in the article, as well as on the qualitative analysis data, the authors have come to the following main conclusions regarding the trends and prospects for the development of the Russian higher education sector: a) Firstly, the Russian model of higher education was built during an accelerated transition from a one-level to a multilevel education. The result of this shift is the labor market disbalance, which nowadays does not allow the formation of the adequate perception of specialists holding a "bachelor's degree" which is unfamiliar and obscure to many employers; b) Secondly, the Russian educational system, and the higher education model, replicate the Western European and American approaches without considering the realities of the national educational market and the labor market. Therefore, the high proportion of the population with higher education cannot provide the necessary socio-economic development potential of the country; c) Thirdly, the reform of the Russian model of higher education should continue but not in terms of accelerating the processes of its integration into the world educational system. There is much evidence that the correct direction lies within the domain of creating incentives and conditions that will ensure the training of highly skilled professionals correlating with the market demand.