Community
Links to my comments:
Looking Back
I thought I knew what to expect coming into this blogging situation, being a ENG 311 veteran and experienced blogger. I thought I would have to fight with myself and with Google Reader to get anything done, and I thought it would be more of a jumping through hoops situation than a learning experience. You do it once, that’s enough, right?
I was partially right, and I like being right, so I will emphasize that part. I DID have to fight with Google Reader, and I changed searches and added new blogs frequently. I DID have to fight with myself, since Myself tends to dislike homework and I’m not particularly interested in what other people have to say when I have plenty I can say all by myself.
This was my thought, anyway, and I was delighted to find other bloggers who had things to say that were a lot like the things I have to say, especially if they are more credible than little ol’ me. On the other hand, I also liked reading things I disagreed with. I read (with considerable interest) much more for this blog assignment than I did for 311, and I think the conclusion that must be drawn is that I had a better topic. By “Better” I mean both “more interesting” and “more fruitful.” I am unsure about how relevant my topic was, but I liked it, so no regrets.
I am still as interested in libraries as ever, and I am interested to continue to see the changes that are proposed in our library system. I hope that I keep reading some of the blogs I found, and with luck (?!!?) I’ll even keep writing.
Rebel!
In The Annoyed Librarian, I found sentiments that I have often expressed, if only to myself. This blog lately had a post about the trend of libraries trying too hard to be cool or cutting edge. In “Libraries Need to Deliver the MOM Factor,” the WOW factor discussed by another blogger through the Library and Information Science News is ridiculed for the pathetic thing it is.
Here’s the excerpt from LIS News: “As in so many other areas of our profession that need change, another critically important one is to change our own ways of thinking about how to do business. We absolutely must pay more attention to how we can impress our user communities, and what must be done to leverage that to increase our visibility, community buzz and word of mouth about the library.”
This is the attitude of so many- “impressing” the community is important. The community is commonly viewed as a jaded, technology-savvy consumer who has no time for antiquated institutions. In another blog post I read by ‘the effing librarian,’ who I have quoted previously in this blog, the blogger reiterates this “community buzz and word of mouth” idea by advocating “hip” hirings on campuses.
We all know college kids are followers; they do what every other kid is doing… So libraries, particularly academic libraries, should use that same formula to get kids inside. Topless babes! (Kidding.)
No, libraries should seek out hip kids and give them library jobs. Every kid needs money for books and most kids get campus jobs if they can. Well, why do libraries continue to hire smart kids when they can hire cool kids? …Libraries need to stop seeking out the geeks, nerds and dorks, and especially the geeknerdorks… Break the top-down geeknerdork hierarchy and get those kids in your library.
Now this blogger is of course being snarky, but the message is still there that libraries are old fashioned. Well for your information, I do not have a problem with that. I don’t think the Annoyed Librarian does, either:
Whenever I hear words like “business” or “leverage” in a discussion of libraries I usually lose interest. Next thing you know we’re talking about “customers,” “selling,” “synergy,” “marketing,” “availability floats,” “margin accounts” and all the other things that sensitive, cerebral, non-commercial types like myself got into librarianship to escape. I know some librarians get all excited when they think about the latest insipid management fad or marketing technique, but I do wish they would just go work for the Man out in the business world and save the rest of us from this drivel. Apparently they haven’t realized that this stuff doesn’t work in libraries, because libraries lack things found out in the business world such as profit margins and financial incentives.
I agree. I don’t think the problem with libraries is marketing or any other businessy things. I really like the proposed reply to the WOW factor, too: the MOM factor.
And what is the MOM Factor? It’s all the stuff good moms should be. Let’s explore this for a moment. First, good moms are boring. By that I don’t mean they have no interests and have nothing to say. I mean they don’t disrupt things too much…
Good moms are there for you, always ready with a cup of tea and a cheering word. They help you when you need help, and that knowledge is like a warm throw on a winter evening. However, they know to let you have your privacy. They aren’t always invading your life to tell you how great they are and how much they could do for you if you’d just recognize that greatness. They also don’t spend all their time fretting about whether the rise of Google means that moms aren’t necessary anymore. Moms don’t market or sell themselves. Why should they? They’re your mom…
Doesn’t this sound more cozy and comfortable and useful than that silly old “WOW Factor”?
A bit cheesy and contrived, perhaps, but I like it. I think that libraries (and other things, too, like education) should be what they are and be liked for what they are, not for how cool they can pretend to be. This is coming from a geeknerdork, so maybe it is to be expected, but I enjoyed this little interlude from the constant go-go-go, new-new-new, technology-technology-technology that is so common in discussions of libraries, education, information, literacy, writing…
I like technology, but I will not be always pushing for the new thing. I like to keep my options open. And some things are fine the way they are. This is why I am bit of a rebel.
Celebrate Literacy… flashback to October 26
I chose to go to the Celebrate Literacy Conference at our very own Grand Valley State University on October 26, 2007. Literacy is awesome. What’s not to celebrate?
I also love children’s books, I want to work in a library, and I used to be an art kid. Bonus bonus bonus.
The Friday afternoon conference began with opening remarks from Liz Storey and Pam Page from the College of Ed, as well as a welcome from Marcia Haas. We then all attended the general session with Nick and Robbin van Frankenhuyzen. I went to the breakout session with illustrator Wendy Anderson Halperin, and then there was another general session with a panel of all the authors and illustrators who were there with their books.
I had mixed feelings about this conference. I have always had an interest in literature, especially children’s literature, including entertaining the idea of trying to write myself. For these reasons it was interesting to hear about writing and illustrating process from the various authors. The writing process is incredible varied for different people, but the “write-what-you-know” idea kept coming across. I think this fits in well with the writing we have been doing in class this semester, since our discussions have always given me ideas about how to create assignments that can be tailored to the interests and talents of individual students. It’s the reader response approach to a writing prompt, and the conference reinforced that idea. When you write in your own voice about things you want to say, it shows in the finished product.
Nick and Robbyn van Frankenhuysen specifically went through the ideas behind their books, since the inspiration comes from their farm, and they brought pictures and stories from their life on the farm. It was an interesting presentation, but literacy itself wasn’t really stressed.
Literacy was once again not stressed in the breakout session I attended. Wendy Anderson Halperin illustrates children’s books, and when I walked into the room and saw a big suitcase of crayons on the floor, I was very interested in what she had to say. Unfortunately, her discussion did little to inform the conference goers about literature, art, or education, all of which were to be addressed in the session. We colored with crayons for awhile, we were given helpful little art hints, and we drew a bowl. She talked very condescendingly, and her remarks about how she instructs children were not helpful, and in some cases, were not realistic. My roommate was at the session with me, and she found the session unhelpful for her own future elementary classroom.
The Celebrate Literacy conference was fairly successful for me. I enjoyed the discussions about writing and literature, but not all aspects of the conference were terribly focused. If I had attended the other breakout sessions that were offered during the one I attended, I may have felt differently about the experience.
Yours, Mine, and Ours
I came across this blog post only because of the words “librarian” and “library” waaaaaay at the end, but I think that it’s very relevant to a discussion of the future of information, and especially relevant to discussions about writing. Therefore, writers, discuss.
“Tame the Web: Librarians and Technology” is a blog by Michael Stephens, an Instructor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Dominican University. He has little to add, but is responding to “A Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web.” This ‘Bill of Rights,’ written by Joseph Smarr, Marc Canter, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington, proposes that web users have “certain fundamental rights” regerding their work, their profile, and the community’s response. I won’t reproduce the whole document, but this “preamble” gives a good idea of what these people are talking about.
Preamble:
There are already many who support the ideas laid out in this Bill of Rights, but we are actively seeking to grow the roster of those publicly backing the principles and approaches it outlines. That said, this Bill of Rights is not a document “carved in stone” (or written on paper). It is a blog post, and it is intended to spur conversation and debate, which will naturally lead to tweaks of the language. So, let’s get the dialogue going and get as many of the major stakeholders on board as we can!
Michael Stephens’s response, and the reason I found this interesting text in the first place, is merely this:
Librarians and programers designing social spaces and places for online library users - how does this Bill of Rights fit into your plans? What needs to change in our systems? What can we do better?
If we look to thriving library blogs such as AADL or to Hennepin’s phenomenal Bookspace, I think we see these principles at work. What’s next?
I checked out the websites he listed, but didn’t sign up for their services. So I didn’t get the chance to really explore the social spaces he’s talking about, but I think it’s great that people are talking about ownership, and great that Stephens added libraries to the conversation.
Even as I was writing this post, I felt a little weird ctrl+c/ctrl+v-ing the words of other bloggers into my space. I did indeed cite the places I found the blogs, I provided links, and I even had names of authors, so everything was easy. I could, however, have just grabbed words from the keyboards of various writers all over the web, and either claimed them as my own or else just presented them as random ideas generated by the faceless internet. One result of my reading the Bill of Rights of Users of the Social web is that I started thinking about the people behind blogs. These writers could, in theory, find what I’m writing in response to what they’ve written, and I want to respect that. I want to give them credit of the information, but also to remember that each internet user is adding to the amount of information available to others.
Libraries really are ideal organizations to get behind this movement, since it is libraries that have traditionally been responsible for the organization and maintenance of information. While blogging and other social communities of the web are at first a tough genre to recognize, it’s easy to see that, in part because of the internet, there is exponentially more written word available now than ever before (and the majority of electronic documents are in English, but that is merely a sidenote). Looking at this mountain of words is daunting, but I see no better reason than that to start thinking about how to organize it.
“You wouldn’t want a cyber-Poptart, would you?”
When I decided on Library Science as my eventual career goal, I also decided to nobly take on the task of Library Hero, championing for the poor endangered species. Therefore, articles like “Why all schools should have a library- by law” by Abbie Wightwick in a Welsh newspaper, should (and do) please me greatly. Other people who like libraries are always good news, even if they are in other countries. The article says that “literacy skills would be improved if all schools had a library by law,” and asserts that many school aged children are not literally inclined, since they take out few, if any, books per year. One school library even has fewer books than students in the school, and blames the poor resources on an out of date facility and poor funding.
I never thought about whether or not school libraries were required, since every school I’ve ever heard of has had one, though admittedly they vary greatly in quality. “No offense,” people often say to me, “but librarians have to have a degree? Weird.” I do NOT take offense, since the education of librarians was never something I’d spent time considering, but I think it’s pretty telling that (most) people assume that libraries, supposedly a source of information (or even Knowledge), do not have to have intelligent, educated, trained people running them.
This article made me think even more about the information aspect of libraries, especially the ones in schools. Kathy LeMaire, School Library Association chief executive, had this to say about the issue:
“A school library is essential.
“Unless a child is truly literate and can handle language, then they are not going to be as effective in life.
“We want legislation for quality libraries in all schools. It’s essential and would raise literacy levels.”
I agree, and I love the empahsis on handling language. I really love that the focus here is on reading and exposing students to pieces of literature and encouraging familiarity with language through reading, but there was one aspect of school libraries that I found conspicuously absent: writing. By writing, of course, I especially mean the dreaded Research Paper.
I dreaded Research Papers, in any case, I don’t know about you, and I think this is mostly because I did not not not want to be digging through books and sources for facts that I had to try to make applicable. Maybe the author of this article and the people campaigning for mandatory school libraries in Wales realize that book sources are almost completely out of fashion, due to their necessary lack of up-to-the-minute currency. A solitary quote by school librarian Helena Jones alludes to this:
Pupils are taking less books out for information because they tend to use the internet. That’s not the end of the world because they are reading for pleasure.
I have to come to terms with this. When one of my Grand Valley English professors lamented the removal of many volumes of reference work, she scorned the fact that the missing books would be available online, citing the somewhat nostalgic pleasure of holding a book in your hands and being able to search through it at will. Naturally I agree that this is ideal, but when it comes to doing research for classes, I turn to the internet first, and not only because it has no hours of operation and I want to do my homework at 4 a.m.. I also enjoy the ease of searching through mountains of material with a keyword and a “Find” command, and the convenience of sitting in one lazy spot.
Clearly, the advent of digital information is a done deal, but this article did not include this responsibility in the realm of the library. I hope that school libraries continue to be encouraged, but also that there is discussion in the role of libraries as organizers of information in any form. Choosing to campaign for libraries on the basis of pleasure reading or literature study only is leaving out the very rich world of research and scholarship.
The Nasty Librarian?
I found “The Nasty Librarian: A Lesson in State Compulsion” by Brandon Harnish through the blog entitled “the effing librarian.” This article calls for the privitization of libraries as a way to improve them, because after all, as free services, libraries have no incentive to be helpful or to improve themselves in any way. Harnish offers this “familiar” scene as proof:
The nasty librarian is a reality that has left many Americans feeling hopeless; a mere hiccup answered with a scorching glare, a sneeze countered with a venomous clearing of the throat. Who in this country hasn’t had likewise experiences? What smiling grade-school child, eager to learn, ready to ask questions, hasn’t had their inquisitive spirit squelched by some librarian rogue? Most of us have simply thrown up our hands in defeat, convinced that all librarians are mean, and that trying to change them is largely a waste of time.
I can honestly say that NONE of this has ever been my experience with librarians, who usually, if anything, are helpful to the point of being bothersome, when I’d prefer to wander around myself. I will allow that some people may have suffered through negative situations like these, but by starting out with this somewhat ridiculous premise, Harnish encouraged me to hate him a little.
I’m not alone, and the blogger that led me to the article has plenty of things to say from the point of view of a librarian. He countered Harnish’s hope in competition and capitalism with the reality of why libraries were free in the first place, and a reminder of the benefits that are supported by taxes:
Libraries are free because society needs them to be free. So that everyone gets a chance to come through the front door, equally. Try getting half our patrons through the front door of most businesses. And we do this for about $150 a year in taxes. And Blockbuster and Netflix are $18 a month. I think that’s more. Add in book rental fees, Internet access, print and online newspapers, magazines and reference sources, directory assistance, legal forms, and guess what? Maybe you’re right. Maybe we need the free market to step in so the public can know just how much money they save with free libraries. Thanks for the education, dude.
This response is certainly strong from a critical pedagogy angle. I have plenty to say to Harnish, too, for example, MY library certainly DOES have a “New Release” section, and it does plenty to encourage patrons to return, thankyouverymuch.
Looking a little at the backgrounds of the two writers gives insight to their viewpoints. The “effing librarian,” unsurprisingly, is a librarian in the United States who has plenty of tongue-in-cheek and sometimes salty things to say about libraries, the internet, and dumb Americans, and seems ready to fire off a round of sarcastic remarks at a moment’s notice. Hardly a stereotypical librarian figure, but maybe if the traditional strict spinster with a bun and bifocals could blog, this is what she’d sound like. The other article comes from “lewrockwell.com,” a website for Lew Rockwell, libertarian political commentator, that has “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market” emblazoned on it’s homepage. Unsurprising as well, for the site of an article calling for the entrance of libraries into the free market.
I like libraries as they are, but I enjoyed seeing this poorly argued idea being criticized by a blogger.
Peace!? Nope.
I was so excited to find this example of a critical internet community that I almost never thought about the argument myself, but this blog post entitled “But Banning Books IS Educational” on Sadly, No! brings up many interesting points regarding censorship. We talked a lot about censorship in ENG 311, but it is a great topic for writing classes, too, since Linda Christenson’s critical pedagogy techniques welcome controversial topics and conversations about social justice. I am not as extreme as either “Jillian” from SN!, or the people from Focus on the Family, who are quoted in the origianal article, “Parents Unite Against Offensive Books.” I don’t like the idea of censorship, obviously, but though I am not a parent I can also understand the worry about “inappropriate” texts. I think the real discussion here is the definition of “inappropriate.”
“Parents Unite Against Offensive Books” begins with the incendiary question “Is Banned Books Week about censorship or parents’ rights?” Depending on who you ask, the answer is clear, and some will jump to defend parents (after all, who would try to oppose a parent who is trying to protect a child?) while others will latch onto the idea of censorship (how can the rights of anyone trump the universal right to access to all information?) The language is clearly meant to encourage bifurcation and garner strong opinions, which it easily did. The first approach was an “it’s not as bad as all that” approach.
Of the millions of books in American public and school libraries, last year just 546 challenges were reported to the American Library Association (ALA). Of those, a mere 29 were removed from the shelves. Yet the ALA still likes to scream censorship every year during its Banned Books Week.
Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the complaints over books are well-founded.
“Most of these books don’t end up actually being removed,” she told Family News in Focus. “The few that do end up being removed are being removed mostly because they have sexual themes or are explicit.”
Here the removal of books is minimal and easily necessary, while those who oppose the decision “scream” censorship at the decision. The response to this article is equally one-sided, heavy with biting commentary while the quips from the mockingly angry commenters screaming from the page.
Let’s help them out here, shall we? Banned Books Week is about censorship. If you don’t want your child to read a book, then you simply forbid them to check it out from the library. If they disobey you and read it anyway, then you have a parenting problem. Perhaps you failed to follow the good Dr. Dobson’s childrearing advice, and you didn’t shower with your son so he can look at your penis. I’m sorry you’re a bad parent, but that’s not really my problem.
This language is harsh and belittling, and it shows an effective (though somewhat shady) method of garnering support: msking fun of something else and bringing that animosity into your current arguement. James Dobson, as the head of Focus on the Family, is a related topic, but the name is dropped in a way that encourages ridicule rather than shares information.
I personally have a bone to pick with both sides here, and I haven’t even GOTTEN to the discussion of the gay penguin family yet. I have not read the book “And Tango Makes Three,” one of the most opposed selections from this year’s banned books, but I have a feeling it is in the same vein as the Gay Prince Fairy Tale debate that the Democratic presidential candidates were asked about. The candidates seemed reluctant to make a judgement call one way or the other, but I prefer their hemming and hawing to the “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitudes found on both sides here.
Maybe it’s just that I’m more mellow than these angry fighters. I think I prefer Peter Elbow’s Process Pedagogy to critical writing because I am wishy-washy and non-confrontational by nature, but that doesn’t mean that it is a method of writing that encourages strong responses, as can be seen by the 80+ responses to the SN! post. I would be interested in using some of Linda Christenson’s projects in the classroom, but as a personal writing philosophy, I prefer to be more universally accepted.
Bad News/ Good News
I guess I’ll start with the bad news. This article from the New York Times, “Librarians May Lose Oldest School,” by Felicia R. Lee, describes the troubles surrounding library schools across the country. One school in particular, the School of Library Service at Columbia University, might be forced to close, despite being the oldest school in the country. How old? well, it was founded in 1887 by Melvil Dewey. Yes, THAT Dewey.
The problems for Columbia University, the only major private university left that offers a library program, are described this way:
The school is facing many of the same problems that have led to the closing of other major library schools recently, an expansion in library education that continued even after enrollments began declining in the 1970’s, fiscal retrenchments and the desire of some universities to emphasize research and basic academics.
The roles of librarians and libraries are changing, as the focus turns from books to information. This is somewhat problematic for old libraries and library schools who are not equipped to be as technologically savvy or as flexible as the profession now requires. Add financial problems and a so-called “isolation” from other schools in the university, and the program must either end or adapt to the changes.
Mr. Wedgeworth said library schools in general had an image problem. He said they were identified with older technology, were not major purchasers of equipment, and had predominantly female students. He said their programs had become more expensive, too, because of courses that require computers, for example.
Now for the good news. Enrollment is actually UP in the schools that remain, and “It’s a very good job market for people going into librarianship or information services,” according to Muriel Regan, president of Special Libraries Association in New York City. I’ll have to call my mom later and let her know. The reason for the increase is the same as the reason some library schools are having problems- the idea of “librarian” is changing. Regan goes on to explain exactly what some of these changes are:
Communities want libraries. In the private sector, there is increasing understanding of the role information plays. We are getting more demand for people in peripheral areas like development, fund raising and marketing, because I think librarians are seen as intelligent people who are good at getting research.
This is the next logical step for libraries, though it may not be all that obvious. It’s my hope that amid these changes there is room for the retention of traditional library services, but without interest, support, and access to library education, the market is pretty unpredictable at this point. As I see it, the first step into the future of librarians and information specialists was in schools, when librarians became library media specialists and computers crept among the bookshelves. Maybe high schools will continue to lead the demand for change in library technologies.
The Future of Information
When I was told to do a research paper in sixth grade, I groaned and went to the library. In the ninth grade, I groaned and went to the computer lab. This is a common change from the past decade or two, and it’s been noticed by many people, including those who I’ve spoken to about my ambition to get a degree in library science. They tell me I am being foolish, I shouldn’t join a dying profession, and that I will be obsolete before I can get a job. I wonder if this is true.
Sarah Long of the Daily Herald asks the same question in her article, “How the Internet will Change Libraries is at the Front of my Mind.” She wonders about libraries as an endangered species, since computers are so often turned to for answers. She does have some surprising statistics to share, however.
”…the most current national data on library use shows that libraries are alive and well. The number of visits to public libraries increased 61 percent between l994 and 2004. According to the 2007 State of America’s Libraries report, 1.8 billion visitors borrowed more than 2 billion items from U.S. libraries in fiscal year 2004.”
This seems promising, does it not? People are, according to this data, practically flocking to libraries. This does not completely alleviate worries about the future of libraries, however. Long’s example is that of railroads, who were quickly surpassed by the success of air travel and interstate highways. Railroad companies did not realize they were becoming less popular, though if they had realized it, they could perhaps have changed their fate. The precarious situation of libraries has been recognized, and Long worries that, “libraries will not change enough or change fast enough to keep the next generation engaged as users, and let’s face it, willing to pay the taxes to keep libraries vibrant and vital.”
What is there to be done? For me, this article raises many more questions than it answers, though perhaps that is Long’s intention. She introduces the topic as the beginning of a series of interviews on the subject, the first being with Mary Ghikas, senior associate executive director of the American Library Association:
Ghikas makes the point that libraries of all types are finding a significant role as gathering places for the communities they serve. She also points out that libraries are vital in part because that’s where the librarians are. Ghikas characterizes librarians as professionals with a commitment to the word, however it is presented. Ghikas sees the future of libraries as being more digital with librarians more involved in archiving and organizing digital information.
I don’t know how I feel about this. Books are important to me, in a sentimental, nostalgic sort of way. I think that digital information is easier to manipulate and corrupt, that the original sources of things may be lost, and all the user generated material on websites will grow to an unmanageable size. This may not all be bad, however. My questions are these:
If library attendance is rising, as the statistics say, what are people going to libraries to do?
Do students need book sources?
What is to become of books?
I could go on with questions that are increasingly dramatic and approach the realm of existential cliches, but I think that is sufficient, for now, to get me thinking about the written word.
