Librarianship As An Academic Discipline?

Librarianship has been treated as a practice-based profession.  Programs are designed around the practical applications of "doing" library work.  Yet, in a world where there is increasing emphasis on information as a key to economic, social and political success, there may be a need to pull apart the issues that shape librarianship and examine them from an academic angle. 

There are numerous issues related to the profession of librarianship that are worthy of examination beyond a two year Master's or Diploma program.  Indeed, within those two year programs students can be titillated by the interesting problems and prospects that new technology and information use present.  However, there is little time for exploration.  Certainly, once one becomes a practitioner, there is little time to reflect on the broader aspects of the field.   It is a common complaint among busy librarians and there is great frustration in trying to make informed decisions when there is little time to discuss and reflect on long term consquences.  Greater discourse is needed and although this can occur at conferences, discussion boards, blogs, and lists, there is room for more research and debate in post secondary institutions. In turn, those forums can supply the industry with inspired, engaged and active participants that may be better positioned to move back and forth between academic study and practice.

The current situation is troubling because there is a tremendous amount of change in how people use and manage information and library workers are often the ones who observe these changes.  As a result, they have some valuable opinions, experience and advice that may enhance how the broader community adopts technology and change.  Those who work in information centres have first-hand knowledge of how publishing, emerging technologies, and user search behaviours intersect.  There is a tremendous opportunity to share this knowledge with other disciplines and communities.  As the ground shifts beneath us, it becomes clear that there is a profound interconnectedness between information and change.  There is room for information studies to more actively partake in the discussions held by the academy of higher education.

In other disciplines, there is an avenue where academic discourse can occur and develop through formally recognized academic programs.   Most professions enjoy a continuum of study that can begin at a certificate or diploma level and move through undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate programs.  Librarianship does not enjoy this direct path of observation, exploration, discussion and reflection.  There are programs that look at information management at the undergraduate level but many of these are centred around other, more specific disciplines including business and computer information systems.  While there is nothing wrong with such programs, there is another outlet of study that has not been fully addressed.  Many disciplines will look at ethics, research methods, and even internet searching but there is a large hole where examination of issues around librarianship are not well explored.  And, although many of these issues and themes affect information work, they also have an affect on many other members of society - non "library" types.  For example, course work at the undergraduate level that looks at the nuances of intellectual property is not only compelling because the laws around this are in flux but also because everyone who uses information can be affected by both the laws and conventions around it.  The information studies context looks at such topics through the lens of practice and can offer a perspective that is valuable to students of every ilk.

Charles Sturt University in Australia has one of the few examples of a Bachelor in Information Studies.  Schools like Ontario's Mohawk College go so far as to present this as a viable option for library tech graduates since the program is a part time distance program.  Although this is a respectable option for those looking for a bridge to a Master's program, there is a great deal of room for further academic review.  The Charles Sturt example continues to show a preference for the applied aspects of information work.  While this has value, there is an opportunity for expanding the field into more academic circles.  This, in turn, would spawn new interest in the qualitative and quantitative research behind the use of information, its creation, management, and uses.

The applied nature of librarianship will always be central to those working in information centres but there is also room for more academic discourse at all levels of the post secondary system.  This expansion would provide greater opportunities for discussion and research among other fields of studies to enhance our understanding of our changing world.

Think local to change the global

Life is really an amazing series of serendipitous moments! Recently, on the way home from work, I listened to Facing the Future, a broadcast of a lecture by Prince Charles on the struggles of managing the mess that we have created with our planet. I was so enamoured with his eloquence that I will jump at the first chance to see one of his speaking engagements.

But that, alone, is not what got me thinking...
It was his profound message.

I was captivated by his statement:

...how could we better empower all sorts of communities to create a much more participative economic model that safeguards their identity, cohesion and diversity – one that makes a clear distinction between the maintenance of Nature’s capital reserves and the income it produces? That is the challenge we face, it seems to me – to see Nature’s capital and her processes as the very basis of a new form of economics and to engage communities at the grass roots to put those processes first. If we can do that, then we have an approach that acts locally by thinking globally, just as Nature does – all parts operating locally to establish the coherence of the whole. (HRH, para 39)

Having just posted an article, here, discussing the problems with association memberships, and suggesting that we must think "locally", I was intrigued to hear him say that we must act locally to, "establish coherence of the whole". We hear this message of "thinking" locally with more frequency. We hear it when we discuss changing our attitudes towards how we acquire our food. We hear it when we discuss the evolution of our health, education, and transportation systems. We feel it when we watch all of those horrifying Discovery Channel documentaries about the fate of the human race. This message, like a system of small waterways, is converging into one major river system that represents our need to realign of our thinking. We need to reconnect with nature. We need to reconnect with our communities.

As I mulled all of this over, I began to reflect upon the role that libraries can have on this process. The Prince of Wales astutely points out that in celebration of post-war Modernism, "there was an eagerness to embark upon a new age of radical experimentation in every area of human experience which caused many traditional ideas to be discarded in a fit of uncontrollable enthusiasm." (para 7) It appears, to me, that the repositories of knowledge that we have struggled to build and maintain, also house the solutions to our current plight as a civilization in crisis. The studies are in and the debate is over. We are in trouble.

Yet, the answers to many of our problems reside in the philosophies of our predecessors and those who continue to champion the value of natural order and balance in nature. I was deeply moved by the Prince's reasoning that we must think differently about our relationship with our planet by becoming more connected to it. It is no longer sufficient for us to be the "keepers" of information - we must be the conduit if we are to inspire social, economic, and philosophical change.

HRH The Prince of Wales. (7 July 2009). Facing the future: 2009 Richard Dimbleby lecture. St James’s Palace State Apartments, London. [Transcript]. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/the_richard_dimbleby_lecture_titled_facing_the_future_as_del_573388579.html

Defining What We Do - Or Don't Do

Recently I had an interesting discussion with a colleague, friend and mentor when I was both technician and a neophyte librarian. It was one of those conversations that really gets the wheels turning. And after an earlier, three hour meeting, getting the wheels turning is really something.

We discussed a wide range of ideas that orbit the theme of "what is the meaning of what we do, as 'library' people"? I was surprised to suddenly realize that nowhere in my library training (and I have had a fair amount) was there ever a course or formal exploration into the foundations of librarianship. Another colleague, involved in library instruction for nearly 30 years, wryly informed me that although he had more than 15 courses examining the foundations of philosophy in his undergrad career, never did he have a similar course in library school.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

Without adequate discussion and reflection about what it is we do as librarians, library technicians, library assistants, records managers, information technicians, etc., we run the risk of losing our purpose in a world that is grappling with incredible change. So, where can we start talking about the philosophy of information work?

Everywhere.

As a group, information professionals are often wary of "blowing their own horns" and celebrating the accomplishments of the profession. We know we add value to society and, more importantly, improve people's lives. Yet, we hold back and fail to adequately assert ourselves as bastions of culture and democracy. We make life better. This is a very good thing.

So what DO we do? I don't mean things like loan out materials, complete interlibrary loan requests or answer reference questions. The question is much bigger than all of those pieces.

I put the question out there for you to ponder.

It is my hope to investigate this much more fully in an upper level course where, in the safety of the "classroom" (virtual or not), we can explore the meaning of information work.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o&feature=channel

RDA - Dead or Alive?

Resource Description and Access - RDA has been in development since 2004 with the intent to replace AACRII as the new cornerstone of cataloguing practice.

This undertaking has been met with a great deal of caution from practicing librarians and technicians. Despite the Joint Steering Committee for RDA claims that RDA builds on AACR to better incorporate all forms of content and media, it has evolved into a very large and, arguably, unwieldy resource. It has yet to be trialed and many cataloguers have left initial training sessions, shaking their heads in confusion. Considering that RDA is meant to be more inclusive, enabling other fields to use it as a means of organizing data, it is profoundly disappointing that it is shaping into a tool few understand and even fewer want to adopt.


There was no intention to create a printed version of RDA, even though sections of it can, in theory, be printed. Used primarily as an electronic resource, it is very difficult to understand how it can be used in the classroom to teach new cataloguers.

Although information on RDA has been trickling out for over 5 years, it is difficult to formulate a true sense of how this new tool is going to be incorporated into practice. Thus, I shall go out on a limb and state my reservations without seeing the "whole" package. It seems that its greatest liability is in trying to be a standard that extends beyond traditional "libary" work. Unfortunately, by trying to become more inclusive, the rules become more flexible. Yet, the purpose of defining rules is to provide structure, convention and uniformity. In its attempt at inclusiveness, RDA runs the risk of becoming unmanagable as cataloguers struggle to identify elements to be used in description. If the process of cataloguing is too complex, no one will want to use it!

Having used AACR extensively over my years as a teacher, I would like to have seen time and money invested in expanding AACR guidelines for non-print media. In addition, an overhaul of its examples would be warmly welcomed. Instead, we see a monumental effort made to craft a new tool (based, presumabley, on the prinicples of AACR). I could be mistaken but, from my armchair observations, RDA has morphed into an entity that does not serve the needs of cataloguers and their clientele. It has taken a very cerebral turn that has left many cataloguers baffled and concerned. Does it have real-life application and value? Perhaps the answer resides in trial testing that is supposed to be taking place in 2009.

At IFLA, even the Library of Congress expressed its dissatisfaction and concern over RDA. So WHO is it going to serve? WHO is going to teach us how to use it? And, finally, HOW are we actually going to apply it?

It truly amazes me to read through discussion blogs that centre around cataloguing and RDA and see the extreme intellectualization of the process. Granted, there SHOULD be core principles associated with organizing ideas and information but these must be principles that can easily be transferred to practice. AACR has done this. Will RDA enhance what we already have? The jury is out.


http://www.rdaonline.org/

Internet Archiving - Illegal?

In pre-Internet years, most people understood archiving to be a process of preserving original data for future research and analysis. Since much of today's society is migrating to a "life" on the Web, many worry that the preservation of web sites is essential to capturing the thoughts and ideas of the developed world. Sounds reasonable, right? Yet, we run into a huge problem. A printed document, whether it is a personal letter or a published book is considered something which can be "owned" and "preserved". A web site, however, is something that carries its own unique problems for preservationists.

Because anything on the Web must be hosted by a server and hosts fade in and out of existence, there is no assurance that once an item is published, it will be preserved. Although much can befall printed works, their requirements for longevity are far more promising. More than one may be produced and owned. "Hosting" a book or document can be a simple as a providing shelf space or filing cabinet space. Photocopiers allow archivists to preserve deteriorating materials and so on. Rights to information published on the Web, is very different. One can easily link to a document but it is entirely different to house that document - even in the interests of preservation. There is a fine line between archiving information and "copying" information. At least, that is what evolving copyright legislation would have us believe....

To cache or not to cache, that is the question. Linking versus caching. What is legally acceptable? Should we be concerned? At what point does ownership begin to interfere with the enhancement of knowledge or does it? How do we preserve what we are creating on the Web and is it feasible? These are difficult questions that need to be mulled over and discussed. As information professionals, we need to consider what ramifications law has on our need to gather and disseminate information.