Developing a Framework for Curriculum Reform in the Undergraduate Program of Information Science and Knowledge Studies and Presenting a Proposed Plan

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for transforming the undergraduate curriculum in Information Science and Knowledge Studies and to design a proposed curriculum for this field. To achieve this objective, a critical examination of existing curricula is required. Key questions include: How can past and current programs be reconsidered and revised? How can an effective and coherent new curriculum be designed and developed? To address these questions, it is necessary to assess the current state of educational programs, identify the criticisms directed at them, determine the most significant critiques, categorize and organize these critiques, analyze the dimensions and details of each, and finally, outline the main principles, criteria, and indicators for rethinking and revising the curriculum based on this categorization.
Method: This study employs a library-based research approach grounded in the critique and analysis of texts and perspectives, complemented by creative insights informed by philosophical inquiry and in-depth studies in education and curriculum development.
Findings: First, through a precise and comprehensive formulation of the problem, the major challenges and questions in this domain were systematically categorized and clearly articulated. The next step involved critically examining the current curricula and identifying the major axes of critique and their details. Subsequently, a network of frequently used terms in the everyday discourse of academic stakeholders was outlined, reflecting key concepts about the efficient and future-oriented educational programs needed today. These frequent terms help clarify the prevailing discourse and its implications for educational courses. Then, in relation to the major axes of critique and the lexical network and dominant discourse, the criteria and indicators for curriculum transformation were identified and classified. Accordingly, general, foundational, and specialized courses were reviewed, critiqued, and rethought based on the criteria shaping the path of transformation. Proposed courses for foundational, general, compulsory, specialized, elective, and even technological and entrepreneurial tracks—which are essentially extensions of the compulsory and elective courses—were identified and presented. Finally, through the analysis and refinement of the various specialized courses and their internal processes, strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of each course in alignment with the criteria were offered.
The paper’s final recommendation is to implement an extensive and in-depth research project to complete and realize the proposed curriculum for undergraduate education in Information Science and Knowledge Studies.
Conclusion: Any decision-making concerning the curriculum of Information Science and Knowledge Studies is complex and specialized, necessitating a systematic and methodical approach. Therefore, it is essential to draw fully on the expertise of scholars who have conducted specialized research in the foundations of education and curriculum design. This paper has provided examples of how various dimensions of the undergraduate curriculum in this field can be analyzed and systematically expanded or refined. Extending these efforts and conducting more in-depth work on each component will require further study and research. For example, when considering specific courses and expanding discussions on various sections of current undergraduate programs, many issues cannot be fully addressed within the scope of a single article and require broader platforms. Such a platform could be developed through a large-scale research project. Additionally, due to space constraints, numerous points concerning the criteria, indicators, and their implications are not included here. For instance, adding courses on educational program analysis and futures studies into the foundational and specialized components can be justified based on the discipline’s five-dimensional framework (identity, education, research, entrepreneurship, and future). Similarly, the alignment and overlap among initial course critiques, the criteria and indicators, the main axes of final analysis, and the challenge of enhancing course effectiveness remain areas requiring further reflection and attention from researchers.