This research explores trends in knowledge organization (KO) in library and information science (LIS) curricula in 68 selected schools located in Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America. The research quantitatively analyzed KO course descriptions in order to identify the modules covered in these LIS programs' curricula. Information was gathered from the course descriptions available on the schools' websites. All the identified modules were identified, tagged, and listed for further analysis. Modules were selected because they cover courses that are KO dedicated or that have parts of the courses that pertained to KO. The results showed that information organization and cataloging are the most taught KO modules; bibliographic control and organization are second and metadata is third. Indexing, classification, and subject analysis also received a marked emphasis; other modules, such as taxonomies, ontologies, thesauri, and digital libraries, have not yet received as much significance in LIS curricula. These results corroborate the findings of similar studies reported in the literature.
AndersenJ. and SkouvigL., Knowledge organization: A sociohistorical analysis and critique, Libr Q76(3) (2006), 300-322. http://dxdoi.org/10.1086/511139.
2.
HjørlandB., What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowl Organ35(2-3) (2008), 86-101.
3.
DavisJ.M., A survey of cataloging education: Are library schools listening? Cat Classif Q46(2) (2004), 182-200. http://dxdoi.org/10.1080/01639370802177604.
4.
Hsieh-YeeI., Cataloging and metadata education in north american LIS programs, Libr Resour Tech Serv48(1) (2004), 59-68.
5.
LetarteK.M., TurveyM.R., BornemanD. and AdamsD.L., Practitioner perspectives on cataloging education for entry-level academic librarians, Libr Resour Tech Serv46(1) (2011), 11-22. http:// dxdoi.org/10.5860/lrts.46n1.11.
6.
Lasic-LazicJ., SlavicA. and ZoricaM.B., Curriculum development in the field of information science: Knowledge organization courses, in: Proc 26th International Convention MIPRO, Opatija (2003), 19-23.
7.
EdenB., Current issues and developments related to metadata: Thoughts and opinions, Libr Technol Rep41(6) (2009), 45-57.
KimH.L., DeckerS. and BreslinJ.G., Representing and sharing folksonomies with semantics, J Inf Sci36(1) (2010), 57-72. http://dxdoi.org/10.1177/0165551509346785.
10.
SmiragliaR.P., Universes, dimensions, domains, intensions and extensions: Knowledge organization for the 21st century, in: Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization, NeelameghanA. and RaghavanK.S., eds, Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2012.
11.
HodgeG., Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: Beyond traditional authority files, Washington (DC): Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources, 2000.
12.
DodgeM., Information maps: tools for document exploration, 2005. [cited 2016 Feb 25]. Available from: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/174115/1/paper94.pdf.
13.
HuS., Technology impacts on curriculum of library and information science (LIS) - a united states (US) perspective, LIBRES23(2) (2013), 1.
14.
NonthacumjaneP., Key skills and competencies of a new generation of LIS professionals, IFLA J37(4) (2011), 280-288. http://dxdoi.org/10.1177/0340035211430475.
15.
SaumureK. and ShiriA., Knowledge organization trends in library and information studies: A preliminary comparison of the pre-and post-web eras, J Inf Sci34(5) (2008), 651-666. http://dx.doi.org/101177/0165551507084300.
16.
Ibekwe-SanjuanF. and SanjuanE., Knowledge organization research in the last two decades: 1988-2008, 2011. arXiv preprint arXiv:11105419.
17.
Bowen-ChangP. and HoseinY., Cataloguing training at the university of the west indies st augustine, Libr Rev58(2) (2009), 97-108. http://dxdoi.org/10.1108/00242530910936916.
18.
GathegiJ.N. and MwathiP.G., Creating a needs-responsive LIS curriculum in a developing country: A case study from kenya, Int Inf Libr Rev39(2) (2007), 134-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105723172007.10762741.
19.
OchollaL. and OchollaD., Cataloguing and classification education (CCE) and training in library and information science/Studies departments in south africa, S Afr J Libr Inf Sci80(1) (2014), 1-7. http://dxdoi.org/10.7553/80-1-166.
20.
CordeiroM.I., Knowledge organization from libraries to the web: strong demands on the weakest side of international librarianship, Cat Classif Q37(1-2) (2003), 65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v37n01_06.
21.
HillJ.S., Education and training of cataloguers: Obsolete? Disappeared? Transformed? Part II. Technicalities24(1-2) (2004), 10-15.
22.
BhojarajuG. and UrsS.R., Knowledge organisation systems in digital libraries: A comparative study, Inf Stud12(4) (2006), 229-257.
23.
HjørlandB., Is classification necessary after google? J Doc68(3) (2012), 299-317. http://dx.doi.org/101108/00220411211225557.
24.
MaroufL., New directions for information education: perspectives of the stakeholders, Educ Inf25(3-4) (2007), 195-209.
25.
ShongweM. and OchollaD., A tracer study of LIS graduates at the University of Zululand, in: The 6th Biennial ProLISSA Conference, (2011).
26.
RehmanS., Al-AnsariH. and YousefN., Coverage of competencies in the curriculum of information studies: An international perspective, Educ Inf20 (2002), 199-215.
27.
RehmanS., Redesigning LIS curriculum for a changing market: The case of kuwait university, Libri60 (2010), 298-305.
28.
TurveyM.R. and LetarteK.M., Cataloging or knowledge management: Perspectives of library educators on cataloging education for entry-level academic librarians, Cat Classif Q34(1-2) (2002), 163-185. http://dxdoi.org/10.1300/J104v34n01_10.
29.
BawdenD., Teaching knowledge organization: Educator, employer and professional association perspectives (Doctoral dissertation, City University London), 2005.
30.
Hall-EllisS.D., Cataloging electronic resources and metadata: Employers' expectations as reflected in american libraries and autoCAT 2000-2005, J Educ Libr Inf Sci47(1) (2006), 38-51. http://dxdoi.org/10.2307/40324336.
31.
MorganJ. and BawdenD., Teaching knowledge organization: Educator employer and professional association perspectives, J Inf Sci32(2) (2006), 108-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551506062324.
32.
HudonM. and GuitardL.A., KO and classification instruction objectives: Are we keeping up with the transformation of our field? NASKO4(1) (2013), 112-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v4i114651.
33.
PattuelliM.C., Knowledge organization landscape: A content analysis of introductory courses, J Inf Sci36(6) (2010), 812-822. http://dxdoi.org/10.1177/0165551510388118.
34.
StueartR.D., Preparing information professionals for the next century, Educ Inf16(3) (1998), 243-51.
35.
ChuH., Curricula of LIS programs in the USA: A content analysis, in: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006), KhooC., SinghD. and ChaudhryA.S., eds, Singapore, 3-6 April 2006, pp. 328-337. Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University.
36.
GokhaleP.A., Ontology: A tool for organization of knowledge, Inf Stud15(4) (2009), 233-242.
37.
PatkarV., A passage to ontology tool for information organisation in the digital age, DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol31(2) (2011), 90-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.2.861.
38.
BhatM.H. and ShafiS.M., Taxonomies in knowledge organization - need description and benefits [ALIS], Annals of Libr Inf Stud61(2) (2014), 102-111.
39.
DingY., Ontology research and development: Part 1 - A review of ontology generation, J Inf Sci28(2) (2002), 123-136.
40.
UrsS.R. and AngroshM.A., Ontology-based knowledge organization systems in digital libraries: A comparison of experiments in owl and kaon ontologies, 2007, Retrieved March 2016, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.8314&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
