It’s my view that the word “librarian” is almost meaningless. The broad popular view … which includes anyone sitting behind the circulation desk … is uncomfortably close to the mark. A “librarian” is, entirely too logically, someone who works in a library.
A “professional librarian” should be someone who is specially trained in that work. Back in the day, before Dewey, there were only two or three closely related library professions: the collection developer, the archivist, and the cataloger. They worked to create and maintain the library. They were frequently the same person, often a retired scholar. Perhaps, indeed, a Casanova.
Whether or not anyone else was welcome to use the library was another issue entirely, but as these librarians were generally scholars there was a commonality of interest between the “library creators” and the (most academic) “library users.” Others weren’t as welcome.
I own a copy of an Emerson essay (I think the title is “On Books”) where he suggests that the panjandrums who ran the Harvard library might hire a few librarians to work with the students and acquaint them with its content.
Dewey’s library school concentrated on just one species of librarian: the cataloger. The reason was that this technical craft was in extremely high demand during what might be called the “first information explosion.” This was the mid-19th century nexus of 1) universal literacy, 2) high speed printing, and 3) the burgeoning discoveries of science and exploration. The librarians of the time could not keep up with the flow of new titles. The “professional cataloger” was the result … but, unfortunately, the training that led to cataloging largely became the training that led to all of the other library professions.
These professions – reference, youth services, reader’s services, audiovisual, and (now) electronic media – were stunted as a result. Each of these should have its own master’s level degree and, indeed, its own doctorates. Those of you reading here can no doubt think of others.
(If people can get a doctorate in film studies – and they can – then a doctorate in any of the above is surely possible.)
Imagine, if you will, what today’s librarianship would be like if database management had developed as a “library profession” rather than as a “computer sciences” profession.
I doubt that any of the graduate schools would have closed.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Maintaining Expertise
We had a half-day “in service” last Friday … time, among many other things, for my annual “state of the library speech.”
We’re doing well, in major part (on the resources side of things) because ours is a public library district. We’re not dependent on the largess of a cash-strapped municipality.
Looking forward, though, things aren’t nearly as clear.
For one thing, the fate of the printed books is very much undetermined. I tend to think that libraries may actually thrive, though that makes the rather large assumption that the library community – through the use of its own professional discussion boards – will review and evaluate the books and such that will no longer be found with main-stream publishers.
(That’s an effect of both technology and of the continued reliance, by main stream publishing, on blockbusters to create revenue.)
I’m not so optimistic of video/movie collections in an era where downloading a film for home use is likely to cost less than a short drive to the public library.
That said, I think people will continue to come to their public libraries in order to talk to knowledgeable people.
On the “reference side” of things, this means people who know what is going on in the world and in their community. This also means that the people who work at the reference desk should be reading at least one weekly news magazine, plus at least one daily paper and whatever local papers are available … and doing this at work if the time can be spared (and it should be).
Some years ago, I was working at a public library when a patron from a neighboring library walked in, asking us who his local state representative was. He had asked at his own library and was given an answer that he did not think was right.
Which was true. The person he had been told was his representative was serving time for misusing campaign funds.
It had been in all of the papers.
We’re doing well, in major part (on the resources side of things) because ours is a public library district. We’re not dependent on the largess of a cash-strapped municipality.
Looking forward, though, things aren’t nearly as clear.
For one thing, the fate of the printed books is very much undetermined. I tend to think that libraries may actually thrive, though that makes the rather large assumption that the library community – through the use of its own professional discussion boards – will review and evaluate the books and such that will no longer be found with main-stream publishers.
(That’s an effect of both technology and of the continued reliance, by main stream publishing, on blockbusters to create revenue.)
I’m not so optimistic of video/movie collections in an era where downloading a film for home use is likely to cost less than a short drive to the public library.
That said, I think people will continue to come to their public libraries in order to talk to knowledgeable people.
On the “reference side” of things, this means people who know what is going on in the world and in their community. This also means that the people who work at the reference desk should be reading at least one weekly news magazine, plus at least one daily paper and whatever local papers are available … and doing this at work if the time can be spared (and it should be).
Some years ago, I was working at a public library when a patron from a neighboring library walked in, asking us who his local state representative was. He had asked at his own library and was given an answer that he did not think was right.
Which was true. The person he had been told was his representative was serving time for misusing campaign funds.
It had been in all of the papers.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The 55% Rule
Some years ago … I think in the mid-80s … the Maryland State Library sponsored an unobtrusive evaluation of reference services within that state. Teams of students approached the reference staffs at various public libraries with a number of selected questions.
Only 55% were answered correctly. That’s a bit more than one out of two.
The response in the library press was to suggest that reference staff members always follow up with the question, “Does this answer your question?” I think that’s pretty reasonable in nearly all cases, excepting of course that one must realize that the questioner, often enough, has no idea whether or not the answer provided is actually correct.
If he/she knew they most likely wouldn’t have needed to ask the question.
One might also think that, gee, some questions can be pretty difficult. 55% might not be all that bad.
However, if you read the original paper’s “test design” you find that all of the questions were what are called “ready reference” questions, ones that could have been answered from the short list of books almost every reference desk has close to hand. These are such things as encyclopedias, almanacs, thesauri, dictionaries, etc.
In other words, there was no research to do … just decoding the questions and reaching for the proper books. In my view, 95-plus% should have been answered correctly.
The answers were there. It was the reference staffs that were wanting.
Only 55% were answered correctly. That’s a bit more than one out of two.
The response in the library press was to suggest that reference staff members always follow up with the question, “Does this answer your question?” I think that’s pretty reasonable in nearly all cases, excepting of course that one must realize that the questioner, often enough, has no idea whether or not the answer provided is actually correct.
If he/she knew they most likely wouldn’t have needed to ask the question.
One might also think that, gee, some questions can be pretty difficult. 55% might not be all that bad.
However, if you read the original paper’s “test design” you find that all of the questions were what are called “ready reference” questions, ones that could have been answered from the short list of books almost every reference desk has close to hand. These are such things as encyclopedias, almanacs, thesauri, dictionaries, etc.
In other words, there was no research to do … just decoding the questions and reaching for the proper books. In my view, 95-plus% should have been answered correctly.
The answers were there. It was the reference staffs that were wanting.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Reaching Outside the Library
The fact that reference is a function performed in a single library does not mean that it is of the library … anymore than, say, the scholarship and research devoted to a critically acclaimed history book researched on three continents. The reference librarian also needs to go where the information is.
Due to the problems of real-time access to information, this was indeed at one time (usually) the library, though those of us who’ve worked in research or corporate libraries also know how to work a phone if necessary. Those of us who cared about quality reference services in public libraries also knew how to use a phone and generally had a torn and tattered Rolodex as well.
This all changed with the advent of online information. First came the “for a fee” databases such as those provided by Lockheed’s DIALOG system in the 70s and 80s. Next (of course) came the Internet.
If the reference librarian can be said to have a “home” today, it’s the Internet. We use books, we use subscription databases, we use telephones … but when it comes to having an idea as to what is happening in the great wide world there is nothing that can compare to the breadth and power of the Internet.
Books give us depth; the Internet gives us breadth.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Cultural Literacy
Some years ago, E. D. Hirsh burst onto the popular scene with his book Cultural Literacy (http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Literacy-Every-American-Needs/dp/0394758439/ref=sr_1_1/176-3464292-8649704?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265833270&sr=1-1) His point was that there were things which every American should know.
I’m not sure I’d agree with all of his choices, but inasmuch as I agree with the vast majority of them I consider myself to be more or less in agreement.
Anyway, I entered into a brief correspondence and explained the role of the reference librarian as a facilitator for those who don’t know what they are looking for … and he agreed that reference librarians working in public libraries should have an expanded range of “cultural literacy.”
How to get it, though, is something of a problem. The existing MLIS programs are, in my view, quite useless and the few “Masters in General Studies” programs out there do not seem to meet any particular need (except maybe revenue for the universities offering them).
We need a new degree.
I’m not sure I’d agree with all of his choices, but inasmuch as I agree with the vast majority of them I consider myself to be more or less in agreement.
Anyway, I entered into a brief correspondence and explained the role of the reference librarian as a facilitator for those who don’t know what they are looking for … and he agreed that reference librarians working in public libraries should have an expanded range of “cultural literacy.”
How to get it, though, is something of a problem. The existing MLIS programs are, in my view, quite useless and the few “Masters in General Studies” programs out there do not seem to meet any particular need (except maybe revenue for the universities offering them).
We need a new degree.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Inputs and Outputs
If you ever have a chance to review the catalog for a library graduate school, you’ll notice that there are lots of courses devoted to the “inputs” needed to create a library (assembling and providing self-serve access to knowledges) but blessed little on the “outputs” that the library is supposed to provide.
The assumption is that people come for books, media, and databases. I’ve always found this odd and disquieting. It is true in some areas such as fiction guidance, but not true for most people most of the time.
Consider reference services. The dilemma is contained in its very name. The original idea is that people would come to the library and that librarians would “refer” them to the correct material that would answer their needs. I rather imagine that the first reference librarians discovered within the first ten minutes that people wanted to obtain knowledge ASAP (and in simple words) rather than read a text which they might not have the educational background to understand.
Hence reference service evolved into providing answers … but our library schools did not evolve into providing the types of broad education (in a wide array of knowledges) needed for the reference librarian to understand the texts (and questions!) themselves.
This is, I think, understandable from the POV that early reference librarians most likely *did* understand most of the reference questions they encountered. The “information world” was vastly smaller then.
And yet …
Long before Dewey opened the first graduate school for librarians there was a call for advanced library education in what was called “encyclopedia.” This made perfectly good sense in an age where each library cataloged its own material since each person involved with cataloging had to have at least some basic understanding of the text in front of him (and they were mostly “him” rather than “her” prior to the development of the Dewey Decimal System).
Somewhat ironically, Dewey himself tried to establish a multidisciplinary graduate degree prior to his successful establishment of the “technical” graduate degree, the Master’s in Library Science).
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Social Aspect of Knowledges
The first edition of The Social Life of Information, by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, was published 10 years ago. It somehow seems less … and I do wonder what influence it has had outside that seemingly small circle of people employed in “knowledge management.”
Here’s a bit about the book: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~duguid/SLOFI/
Brown and Duguid discovered – or re-discovered – that while “knowledge” is something an individual possesses, “information” itself is largely social. That’s to say that it is generally something which is derived through the combination of various experiences as described through shared language.
I wrote “re-discovered” because the idea of “information” (a subset, as it were, of “knowledges”) being social is an old one. There is also an important library/librarian connection: the development of the concept of “Social Epistemology” by Jesse Shera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Shera
Of course, when we talk about “Web 2.0” or “Web 3.0” we’re availing ourselves of the social aspects of information … that’s what tagging is all about. That, in my view, has both advantages and disadvantages.
The great advantage is that ideas, events, etc., can be described in the contemporary terms that individuals actually use. The great disadvantage is the likelihood that these will change over time.
Consider: I was the corporate/research librarian for Masonite Corporation in the early 1980s. One of my tasks was the re-indexing of all the old research reports. These went back to the 1920s.
By the time the late 50s came along the company (by far the largest in that particular branch of wood processing) was beginning to experiment with what it came to call “low density hardboard.” This was the “index term” used within the company. Much later, a new index term was being used … by younger researchers unfamiliar with the previous work. The new term (one you may recognize since it’s now a generic product name) was “medium density fiberboard.”
The previous work was ignored because no one knew to look for it. And this was within the largest company that specialized in manipulating wood fiber. The “corporate memory” had failed and millions of dollars were wasted recreating previous work.
Here’s a bit about the book: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~duguid/SLOFI/
Brown and Duguid discovered – or re-discovered – that while “knowledge” is something an individual possesses, “information” itself is largely social. That’s to say that it is generally something which is derived through the combination of various experiences as described through shared language.
I wrote “re-discovered” because the idea of “information” (a subset, as it were, of “knowledges”) being social is an old one. There is also an important library/librarian connection: the development of the concept of “Social Epistemology” by Jesse Shera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Shera
Of course, when we talk about “Web 2.0” or “Web 3.0” we’re availing ourselves of the social aspects of information … that’s what tagging is all about. That, in my view, has both advantages and disadvantages.
The great advantage is that ideas, events, etc., can be described in the contemporary terms that individuals actually use. The great disadvantage is the likelihood that these will change over time.
Consider: I was the corporate/research librarian for Masonite Corporation in the early 1980s. One of my tasks was the re-indexing of all the old research reports. These went back to the 1920s.
By the time the late 50s came along the company (by far the largest in that particular branch of wood processing) was beginning to experiment with what it came to call “low density hardboard.” This was the “index term” used within the company. Much later, a new index term was being used … by younger researchers unfamiliar with the previous work. The new term (one you may recognize since it’s now a generic product name) was “medium density fiberboard.”
The previous work was ignored because no one knew to look for it. And this was within the largest company that specialized in manipulating wood fiber. The “corporate memory” had failed and millions of dollars were wasted recreating previous work.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Knowledge and Knowledges
One of the issues to be faced when discussing the “reference librarian” as a profession lies in defining “knowledge.” It’s become an exceedingly slippery word.
From Dictionary.com:
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
I think we can ignore the last.
Interestingly, when you look for “knowledges” you find no definition … though this was once a word (I picked it up from Francis Bacon) that seems to have gone out of common use in the early 19th century … leastways as far as I could determine. It’s related to #6 above. It’s the things one can know in the various “fields of knowledge” that comprise our world. The content of what we broadly label “biology,” “politics,” “religion,” etc. are the knowledges that appertain to each.
In another way of looking at it, “knowledges” are what are “knowable.” And the latter (and here I’m following the lead of various “knowledge managers”) is a reflection of an internal state. Books, etc., do not contain knowledge.
People, however, do and it can be argued that some automata might.
From Dictionary.com:
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
I think we can ignore the last.
Interestingly, when you look for “knowledges” you find no definition … though this was once a word (I picked it up from Francis Bacon) that seems to have gone out of common use in the early 19th century … leastways as far as I could determine. It’s related to #6 above. It’s the things one can know in the various “fields of knowledge” that comprise our world. The content of what we broadly label “biology,” “politics,” “religion,” etc. are the knowledges that appertain to each.
In another way of looking at it, “knowledges” are what are “knowable.” And the latter (and here I’m following the lead of various “knowledge managers”) is a reflection of an internal state. Books, etc., do not contain knowledge.
People, however, do and it can be argued that some automata might.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Why A Blog?
That’s easy enough. From King Henry V: “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead.”
Those of you who have access to Library Literature and Information Science can easily find what I wrote from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. Aside from an RQ article on building a local business directory database, the items are on “library theory” rather than “library practice.”
No one seemed to care about “theory” … not even enough to take issue with what I had to say. That wasn’t entirely a surprise. The “overly practical” nature of library literature has been an issue for many years. I can vouch for the past 40 years and I know that the library educator Louis Shores had bemoaned the 40 before that. There was a kerfuffle over this just a few days ago on the PubLib list, or so I interpreted it, with one writer bemoaning a perceived lack of depth and others defending it.
Anyway, I abandoned the library literature when I found the web, starting my first (highly practical) “Library of Tomorrow” discussion on ElectricMinds in 1996. I wanted to talk to knowledgeable library users rather than to librarians or administrators, working from the supposition that users and the technologies they choose to use would be pushing the public library agenda more than anything else.
I learned much more than I taught. I’ve learned from web theorists, social theorists, technologists, knowledge management gurus, and many, many more.
I’ve also learned much that dovetails into and refines my earlier theoretical concerns. 15 and more years have passed. It is time to write again.
Those of you who have access to Library Literature and Information Science can easily find what I wrote from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. Aside from an RQ article on building a local business directory database, the items are on “library theory” rather than “library practice.”
No one seemed to care about “theory” … not even enough to take issue with what I had to say. That wasn’t entirely a surprise. The “overly practical” nature of library literature has been an issue for many years. I can vouch for the past 40 years and I know that the library educator Louis Shores had bemoaned the 40 before that. There was a kerfuffle over this just a few days ago on the PubLib list, or so I interpreted it, with one writer bemoaning a perceived lack of depth and others defending it.
Anyway, I abandoned the library literature when I found the web, starting my first (highly practical) “Library of Tomorrow” discussion on ElectricMinds in 1996. I wanted to talk to knowledgeable library users rather than to librarians or administrators, working from the supposition that users and the technologies they choose to use would be pushing the public library agenda more than anything else.
I learned much more than I taught. I’ve learned from web theorists, social theorists, technologists, knowledge management gurus, and many, many more.
I’ve also learned much that dovetails into and refines my earlier theoretical concerns. 15 and more years have passed. It is time to write again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)