Skip to sources
Time Machine

Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary

Scrub through 149years of this role's history, from when it first emerged, through every wave of technology that reshaped it, to the cited projections for where it's heading next.

2026drag to travel through time
19001925195019752000now
2026
Known today as Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary / iSchool Faculty (BLS SOC 25-1082)
Latest actual · 2024
5K
O*NET-sourced BLS OEWS May 2024 figure for SOC 25-1082 (Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary). The 5,100 count is substantially larger than the ALISE program-based estimates for earlier decades, reflecting (a) BLS classification methodology that counts all postsecondary instructors whose primary teaching field is library science, including at programs that have expanded well beyond traditional ALA-accredited MLIS formats; (b) the growth of iSchool programs adding faculty in data science, human-computer interaction, and information policy who may be classified under 25-1082; and (c) the continued expansion of online MLIS programs increasing adjunct and clinical faculty headcounts. Median annual wage is $78,630 per O*NET (May 2024). The ALISE-program-based headcount of approximately 800 FTE across accredited programs is the more precise occupational match, but 5,100 is the official BLS figure and is used here as the baseline for projections.
Latest actual · 2024
$78,630
BLS OEWS May 2024, as reported by O*NET. The 2024 median of $78,630 represents real growth from the 2000 estimate of approximately $52,000 in nominal terms: roughly 51% nominal increase over 24 years, while CPI inflation over the same period was approximately 80%, meaning real wages for LIS faculty declined modestly in purchasing power over the period. The curated file for 25-1082 (research pass 2026-05-24) cited $75,430 from BLS OES 2023/May 2024; O*NET's 2024 figure of $78,630 is used here as the most current available.
Each dot is a cited figure over time; the dotted line only links them (values between aren't measured). Hollow dots are estimates.
Tools of the era

The tools that defined the work

Select an era to see how it reshaped the work.

  • Card catalog and printed classification schedules (Dewey Decimal and LC)

    The first library school instructors taught with the tools Melvil Dewey had systematized: the card catalog, the Dewey Decimal Classification (published 1876), and the Library of Congress classification schedules. Instruction was largely hands-on: students practiced physically filing catalog cards, assigning Dewey numbers from printed schedules, and writing descriptive entries by hand. The definitive reference tool was the printed dictionary catalog and the ALA Catalog rules. Teaching cataloging in this era meant transmitting a set of expert procedures that required practice and memory. There was no technology between the faculty member's knowledge and the student's hands; the craft was demonstrated and drilled.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • Research library and scholarly bibliography (Library Quarterly era, 1931)

    The University of Chicago Graduate Library School, funded by Carnegie in 1926 and offering only the PhD, transformed the faculty role from practitioner-instructor to research scholar. The launch of The Library Quarterly in 1931 established the disciplinary infrastructure for an academic field: peer review, citation norms, a shared literature. Faculty at the emerging doctoral programs were now expected to produce original research on library administration, information behavior, and bibliographic organization alongside their teaching. The distinction between a library school professor and a practicing librarian began to solidify in this era. The core teaching technology remained the card catalog and printed bibliographic tools, but the intellectual framework shifted from pure craft transmission to empirical inquiry.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • MARC format, online catalogs, and information retrieval systems (DIALOG 1972)

    The Library of Congress introduced the MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) format in 1966, and OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) launched its shared cataloging database in 1971. These were the two most important technology events in library science between Dewey's card catalog and the public internet. Faculty now had to teach not only the intellectual content of cataloging but also how to create and interpret machine-readable records. The DIALOG retrieval system (launched commercially in 1972) introduced online database searching as a new professional skill, requiring faculty to add information retrieval to their curriculum. The terminal and the MARC workstation entered the classroom. For the first time, library science faculty were teaching students to use computer systems, not just physical tools.

    Effect on the work

    The MARC era did not reduce faculty positions, but it fundamentally restructured what those faculty needed to know. Programs that could not hire faculty fluent in the new technical standards began falling behind professionally, accelerating the closures of the 1980s.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • CD-ROM databases, Integrated Library Systems, and early internet (1993)

    CD-ROM bibliographic databases (InfoTrac, Wilsondisc, MEDLINE on CD) arrived in academic libraries in the mid-1980s and became standard teaching tools in LIS programs through the early 1990s. OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) systems from vendors like NOTIS, Innovative Interfaces, and DRA replaced card catalogs at most academic libraries during this decade. The World Wide Web arrived in 1991-1993 and transformed the information landscape: LIS faculty had to add web searching, URL stability, and digital source evaluation to curricula almost immediately. This decade is also when the "LIS rebranding" accelerated: faculty who had come up through traditional librarianship increasingly needed to credential themselves in computer science, information systems, or human-computer interaction to teach in the evolving programs. The Graduate Library School at Chicago closed in 1989; Columbia's School of Library Service closed in 1992.

    Effect on the work

    The combination of program closures (Chicago 1989, Columbia 1992, and others through the decade) and the field's restructuring around digital information systems reduced the total LIS faculty pool in the late 1980s and early 1990s, even as the intellectual scope of what those faculty needed to teach expanded dramatically.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • iSchool era: digital libraries, metadata standards, and online MLIS programs

    The iSchool movement formalized in 2003 when the "Gang of Ten" (Michigan, Washington, Illinois, UNC, Florida State, Indiana, Texas, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Drexel) organized as the iSchools Caucus. The rebranding from "library school" to "iSchool" or "School of Information" was partly a response to declining enrollment in programs with "library" in their name and partly a genuine intellectual expansion into human-computer interaction, data curation, knowledge management, and social informatics. For faculty, this meant a hiring and tenure shift: new faculty lines increasingly went to information systems researchers, HCI specialists, and data scientists rather than traditional cataloging or reference faculty. Elsevier's ScienceDirect, EBSCO's Discovery Service, ProQuest, and Ex Libris Primo became the teaching and research platforms. Online MLIS programs expanded substantially, increasing adjunct and clinical faculty demand.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • AI discovery and AI-assisted cataloging (Ex Libris Alma AI, OCLC AI cataloging)

    Library technology vendors began embedding machine-learning features into ILS platforms during this period. OCLC's AI-assisted cataloging tool auto-suggests MARC fields, subject headings, and authority links, reducing per-record cataloging time for standard materials. Ex Libris integrated AI-powered discovery ranking and personalized recommendations into Primo VE. Springshare added AI-assisted chat triage to LibAnswers. For LIS faculty, these changes created a new instructional layer: students now needed to learn not only how to catalog but how to supervise AI-generated catalog records, recognize systematic bias in AI-suggested subject headings, and make the authority-file judgment calls the AI could not reliably make.

    Work toolChanging equipment
  • Generative AI and the AI literacy moment (ChatGPT, Elicit, Perplexity, 2022-present)

    The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 placed LIS faculty in an unprecedented position: the core competency their discipline has always claimed (evaluating information sources, understanding how retrieval systems work, teaching critical assessment of AI-generated content) became the most urgently demanded competency in higher education. The ACRL published an AI Literacy Competency Framework for Academic Libraries in 2025, explicitly positioning LIS faculty and the academic librarians they train as the campus authority on responsible AI information use. ALISE established an AI in LIS Education Working Group (2025) with recommendations for integrating AI literacy, AI ethics, and AI-era information retrieval into MLIS and PhD curricula. The Federal Reserve's FEDS Notes analysis of educational exposure to generative AI (Timmerman, February 2025) found an above-average z-score of 0.68 for the Education field, consistent with LIS faculty's text-heavy instruction and research work. Elicit (semantic search across 200M+ papers), Scite (smart citation analysis), and Perplexity became both research tools for LIS faculty and the subject matter of their courses.

    Effect on the work

    ALISE's 2025 statistical report and the College and Research Libraries survey (2025) found 78% of LIS faculty revising curriculum in response to AI developments, with 61% identifying AI literacy instruction as the top new competency for MLIS graduates. Rather than contracting the faculty role, the AI moment appears to be expanding its scope: LIS programs are adding AI literacy components to existing courses and, in some cases, creating new faculty positions in AI and information science.

    AI audit toolsPattern detection
Projection cone · present → 2034

What credible sources project

Scrub the slider past now to anchor each scenario on the scrubber. The spread is the range of futures credible sources project for this role.

Employment outlook
Projected change in the number of people doing this work.
BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook — Postsecondary Teachers 2024-2034
2034
+7%
The BLS OOH projects +7% employment growth for postsecondary teachers overall (SOC 25-1000) from 2024 to 2034, much faster than average. This sector-level projection provides an optimistic ceiling for LIS faculty: if overall postsecondary enrollment grows as BLS models, LIS programs that successfully position themselves as AI literacy training hubs could benefit from demand that matches or exceeds the all-postsecondary-teacher rate. Reported here as the upside scenario against the occupation-specific +3% BLS matrix projection for 25-1082 specifically. The difference (3% vs 7%) reflects the slower pace of enrollment growth in specialized LIS programs relative to the broader postsecondary sector.
BLS National Employment Matrix 2024-34
2034
+3%
BLS Employment Projections 2024-34 matrix for SOC 25-1082. The projection shows +3.0% employment change (0.2 thousand jobs, from 5.1 thousand to 5.3 thousand), classified as average growth against an all-occupations rate of +4%. The BLS methodology models continued growth in postsecondary enrollment as the primary driver; overall postsecondary teachers are projected to grow +7% in the same period, so LIS faculty are projected to grow more slowly than the all-postsecondary-teacher average. This likely reflects continued structural pressure on traditional library school programs (small enrollment, ALA accreditation overhead, competition from adjacent information science programs) offset by expanding demand in AI literacy instruction and iSchool-format information programs.
AI task exposure
Share of the role’s tasks that researchers estimate AI can do. This is a measure of task exposure, not a forecast of jobs lost.
Eloundou et al. — "GPTs are GPTs" (2023/2024)
2030
81%
of tasks
Eloundou et al. measured gamma (task-level LLM exposure) for SOC 25-1082 at 0.81, placing library science faculty among the higher-exposure academic occupations by LLM task coverage. The curated 25-1082 file (research pass 2026-05-24) confirms alpha=0.21, phi=0.51, gamma=0.81. High gamma is consistent with the text-heavy nature of the role: course material preparation, literature review, reference compilation, and written evaluation are all tasks where LLMs can substantially reduce completion time. The modest alpha=0.21 (direct automation probability) reflects that the expert pedagogical and advisory functions, especially AI literacy instruction and MLIS dissertation mentorship, are not easily automated. This 81% exposure figure is a task-coverage measure, not a headcount-displacement forecast.
Today, in this role

What's shifting in the work right now

The historical view above shows how this role has moved. This is the present-day detail: which AI tools are picking up which tasks, where the edge still is, and the natural directions this work can grow.

What's changing in your day

Three parts of your work where AI is already doing real lifting, and what stays yours.

AI is sitting alongside you herePrepare course materials for MLIS courses — syllabi, annotated reading lists, cataloging exercise datasets, reference scenario handouts, LibGuide assignment briefs, information literacy instruction plan templates, and collection development policy writing guides — using ChatGPT or Claude to accelerate first-draft production, then applying LIS domain expertise to validate accuracy of catalog records, currency of standards references (RDA vs

Prepare course materials for MLIS courses — syllabi, annotated reading lists, cataloging exercise datasets, reference scenario handouts, LibGuide assignment briefs, information literacy instruction plan templates, and collection development policy writing guides — using ChatGPT or Claude to accelerate first-draft production, then applying LIS domain expertise to validate accuracy of catalog records, currency of standards references (RDA vs. BIBFRAME updates, LCSH policy changes), and alignment with ALA core competencies and program learning outcomes.[5],[11]

Where your edge is

ChatGPT and Claude can generate a solid first-draft syllabus for an MLIS reference and information services course — with learning objectives, a reading schedule, and assignment prompts — in minutes. The LIS-specific investment is in validating that the catalog records in the cataloging exercise are actually correct per RDA and current LCSH policy, that the "information behavior" readings cited are accurate bibliographic references (AI frequently hallucinates publication years and journal volumes for LIS literature), and that the assignment design reflects current practitioner workflows rather than pre-AI-era practices. Use NotebookLM to build course-material study guides from assigned readings that MLIS students can query asynchronously for factual review, preserving class time for the discussion, hands-on exercises, and scenario-based instruction that online MLIS programs are replacing with passive video viewing.

AI is sitting alongside you hereEvaluate and grade MLIS student assignments — annotated bibliographies, reference interview analyses, cataloging exercises, information literacy instruction plans, collection development policies, and capstone research papers — using Gradescope's AI-assisted answer grouping to cluster similar student responses for rubric-efficient grading of structured exercises, then applying domain expertise to assess the quality of students' professional reasoning about information organization, patron interaction, and source evaluation.

Evaluate and grade MLIS student assignments — annotated bibliographies, reference interview analyses, cataloging exercises, information literacy instruction plans, collection development policies, and capstone research papers — using Gradescope's AI-assisted answer grouping to cluster similar student responses for rubric-efficient grading of structured exercises, then applying domain expertise to assess the quality of students' professional reasoning about information organization, patron interaction, and source evaluation.[12],[13]

Tools picking this up
Where your edge is

Gradescope's answer grouping is particularly well-suited for structured MLIS exercises where there are correct and incorrect answers: cataloging assignments with MARC fields, annotated bibliography entries with verifiable citation accuracy, and reference interview dialogue analyses with scorable elements. Deploy it for all written exercises where your rubric has objectively-assessable criteria, and apply your expert professional judgment to the qualitative dimensions that matter most: does this annotated bibliography entry actually evaluate the source's authority and bias rather than just summarize it? Does this cataloging record reflect genuine understanding of why the subject heading choice matters for patron access? AI detection (Turnitin) is a signal for closer review on writing-intensive assignments, not a substitute for reading with expert LIS eyes.

AI is sitting alongside you hereConduct original research in library and information science — information behavior, digital preservation, knowledge organization, health informatics, AI in libraries, information ethics, or library management — using Elicit and Scite for AI-assisted systematic literature review, NotebookLM for research synthesis, and publishing findings in journals such as College & Research Libraries, Library Quarterly, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, or presenting at ALISE, ASIST, and ALA Annual Conference.

Conduct original research in library and information science — information behavior, digital preservation, knowledge organization, health informatics, AI in libraries, information ethics, or library management — using Elicit and Scite for AI-assisted systematic literature review, NotebookLM for research synthesis, and publishing findings in journals such as College & Research Libraries, Library Quarterly, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, or presenting at ALISE, ASIST, and ALA Annual Conference.[14],[15]

Where your edge is

Elicit's semantic search across 200M+ papers and Scite's citation-context analysis (supporting vs. contrasting vs. mentioning citations) compress the literature-mapping phase of LIS research from 20+ hours to hours, with the added benefit that Scite flags retractions and citation distortions that manually-compiled literature reviews frequently miss. Keep the research question formulation, the methodological design (whether a user study requires qualitative methods or log analysis, which IRB protocols apply, how to operationalize "information behavior" for your population), and the interpretive contribution as the irreducibly human intellectual core — these are what ALISE reviewers, tenure committees, and journal editors evaluate. Researchers whose systematic reviews now take a fraction of former time can publish more — but only if the human contribution is substantive enough to clear peer review.

Where this role is heading

Natural next steps for someone with your foundation: not exits, evolutions.

A direction you could grow

Education Administrators, Postsecondary

LIS faculty who have served on ALA accreditation self-study teams, led MLIS curriculum revision committees, chaired program assessment working groups, or directed library school distance education programs have directly developed the skill set for associate dean, dean, or program director roles in iSchools and broader colleges of computing and information. The CRI increase reflects that postsecondary education administration (+7% BLS 2024-2034) is growing and moderately AI-augmented — with AI tools for enrollment analytics, accreditation documentation, and program assessment dashboards that administrators deploy — while the strategic leadership, governance authority, and stakeholder management of the role are highly resistant to AI displacement. The faculty-to-administration path in LIS programs is well-structured, with clear stepping-stones through program director and associate dean roles in iSchool units.

What you'd add
  • · ALA Committee on Accreditation self-study authorship: evidence-based documentation of MLIS program quality across all ALA accreditation standards; continuous improvement planning; site visit preparation and response
  • · Higher education budget management: faculty line planning, operating budget requests, online program revenue modeling, grant overhead negotiation for IMLS and state library development grants
  • · Enrollment management for MLIS programs: pipeline partnerships with libraries and information organizations, scholarship design for underrepresented populations in LIS, transfer and articulation agreements with community college library technician programs
  • · IMLS grant writing and management: Institute of Museum and Library Services Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program grant applications; reporting requirements and program evaluation for federal grant-funded LIS programs
  • · Faculty recruitment and tenure review: search committee leadership for LIS faculty positions; promotion and tenure facilitation; faculty development programming for AI integration in LIS instruction and research
What it takesSome new skills to pick up
Share this year
Drops anyone you send it to straight into 2026.
Preview card
Part of Education · see all 51roles →
Different role?

See the same long-arc view for your own profession.

Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code. New roles ship every few weeks. Every profile cites every claim.

Browse all roles

The data behind this timeline

On record since1887
Latest tracked employment5,100 (US, 2024)
Latest median pay$78,630 (2024)
Outlook+3% by 2034 (BLS National Employment Matrix 2024-34)
View all 30 cited data points
YearUS employmentMedian annual paySource
1900120n/aESTIMATE
1930350n/aESTIMATE
1955650n/aESTIMATE
1965n/a$9,800ESTIMATE
19751,400n/aESTIMATE
1980n/a$24,500ESTIMATE
19901,100n/aESTIMATE
20001,100$52,000ESTIMATE
20034,110$50,940BLS-OEWS
20043,740$51,600BLS-OEWS
20053,960$53,810BLS-OEWS
20063,830$54,570BLS-OEWS
20074,080$56,810BLS-OEWS
20083,960$58,570BLS-OEWS
20093,940$60,650BLS-OEWS
20104,370$62,720BLS-OEWS
20114,410$65,110BLS-OEWS
20124,510$65,780BLS-OEWS
20134,670$67,740BLS-OEWS
20144,540$66,580BLS-OEWS
20154,910$67,660BLS-OEWS
20164,870$68,410BLS-OEWS
20175,010$70,940BLS-OEWS
20184,650$71,560BLS-OEWS
20194,390$71,410BLS-OEWS
20204,230$71,580BLS-OEWS
20214,330$77,100BLS-OEWS
20224,330$76,370BLS-OEWS
20234,220$80,310BLS-OEWS
20245,100$78,630BLS-OEWS
Embed this timeline on your site

Free for any site. Paste this where the timeline should appear; it stays interactive, every datapoint stays cited, and it sets no cookies on your page. How embedding works

<iframe src="https://futurehistory.earth/embed/25-1082"
  width="100%" height="430" style="border:0"
  title="Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary, a Future History timeline"
  loading="lazy"></iframe>

See all roles in Education