What's in a Certification?

As I look at various credentials used by other professional fields, I can't help be a little cynical about ALA's recent announcement of their Library Support Staff Certification Program (LSSCP). Described as a means of creating standardization in a field where more than half of library workers are not librarians holding a MLIS, this certificate is voluntary for library support workers.

I had the apparent nerve to ask organizers at IFLA in August 2008 whether this might lead to standardized education in the field and I got the strangest reaction. They were afraid to comment. I was floored as I saw it as a simple question - yes or no. As it turns out, Canada is in a very unique position, having a significantly smaller number of library training programs, to offer a more standardized educational practice. Currently, we try to abide by a profoundly outdated CLA set of guidelines but we should be looking at the question of accreditation. Like librarians, would it not be valuable to techncians and libraries who employ them, to offer accredited diplomas that must adhere to specific guidelines? Indeed, accreditation would very likely mean that techs could demonstrate their professional committment through recognized professional development after graduation. Their positions would have more value and recognition, as well.

Getting a certificate that acknowledges competencies that one has acquired over time, like the LCCSP program, might help some employers understand and recognize the abilities of their staff but it does little to force educational institutions to deliver standardized education. Yet, the most successful professional programs: nursing, education, accounting, etc. require accreditation - a process that forces educational programs to adhere to set guidelines, undergo regular reviews, and site visits by accreditation teams. There is rigor to the process.

We have the opportunity to provide that rigor in Canada.

Canadian Copyright and the threat to our intellectual freedom

Once again, the Canadian government is attempting to tackle its elusive copyright laws. Until Sept. 13, there is a "public" (and I use the term very loosely) consultation process.

You should be shaking in your boots.

"As an instrument of public policy, the Copyright Act has two primary objectives: to encourage the creation and dissemination of original works, and to promote access to knowledge for the benefit of Canadian society as a whole."
-- Canadian Library Association, 2008.

As Micheal Geist, Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law, clearly states we need, "...copyright laws that look ahead, rather than behind." Yet, the current consultative process shows that the deck is stacked tightly in favour of corporate interests.

On August 28th, Now Magazine, an independent weekly from the streets of Toronto, publishes a story, "The town hall that didn't invite the town," that questions a recent town hall meeting that included chair and industry minister, Tony Clement. Discussion was clearly focused on the interests of the music industry and seemed suspiciously rigged to favour conservative views (view the meeting here).

On August 27, Geist suggested that the electronic copyright consultation process (that we are ALL invited to participate in) (CCER Submission Form Service) may be tampered with. For more information see Geist's August 27th blog entry.

So where is our national library leadership in all of this? Today, as a write, I comb the Canadian Library Association website and see nothing dealing with the issue of copyright reform. This matter should be FRONT and CENTRE this month, considering that our ability to consult ends on the 13th. Meetings have been slow to manifest and the library community has been somewhat quiet on this front.

As a "library" person, I have some concerns...

1. There would be a three strikes and you ar OUT rule. Guilty until proven innocent. If an external agency accuses you of "stealing" copyrighted material electronically, you can be shut down by your ISP without an option to prove your innocence. Right now, you can be warned but the onus is on the accuser to prove your guilt before the "plug" can be yanked.

Just think of how easy it would be for an organization to get rid of "pesky" people.

2. Fair Dealing - there seems to be a more constricted interpretation in the new Bill. This means that rather than expand the nature of research and creative exploration, fair dealing is more limited.

3. The Bill says: "The patron receiving the electronically transmitted material could not make permanent copies, digital or otherwise, other than a single print copy, and could not distribute it further. Electronic access to the material would terminate after five business days. The library must ensure that only the intended recipients receive the protected material and that they abide by other conditions set out in the provisions."

This means libraries would have to:
a) ensure that the correct recipient gets materials
b) ensure that the protected material be eliminated after 5 business days
c) ensure the patron can not make duplicates

In addition, the act states that it will have a regulation that will tell libraries how these points will be dealt with.
Worried yet? OK, how about this one:

4. There will be a blanket clause preventing anyone from circumventing ANY digital locks.
How does this enhance innovation????

Last year, the CLA outlined many more issues that are well articulated in their statement. So have a look, if you are interested. Unlocking the Public Interest.

It is a quagmire of legal-speak when trying to sift through the legislation and much of the debate around it. Be careful at the resources you look at and cast your net far and wide to get a feel for the potential ramifications of copyright change.

For instance, extending copyright protection might seem like a simple and helpful change for creators but is it? The ability to extend copyright ownership protects corporate ownership and diminishes our chances of things ever becoming public domain. Look at the "Happy Birthday" example. This melody was written by two sisters in 1893 and words later appeared in 1912 with no designated writer. In 1935 the Summy Company registered it and in 1990 Warner Chappell bought the rights when it bought Summy. Copyright expires in 2030. (see Robert Brauneiss' paper, "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song").

Without permission (and a cheque) and you publicly perform the song, you are in violation of the law. So, in such cases, who's creative interest is protected?

Click here to request a license to use the song. You might need it someday. In fact, you will probably need it sometime in the next year!

So, where does it all end? It doesn't. However, our freedoms might so speak out, read up on it and talk about it!

As one astute CBC member says, "after i get paid to build you a staircase i cannot charge you every time you let a friend use them."

Side note: Don't believe everything you hear from the Conference Board of Canada. They had to retract their support of tighter copyright laws when Micheal Geist publicly accused them of plagiarizing their support statement from the International Intellectual Property Alliance.

Ahhh...the irony.

An Ode to Our Founder

Pat Sifton was highly influential in the development of UFV's Library and Information Technology Program. She single-handedly developed and taught the program for most of her tenure. For many years, the responsibility of teaching fell entirely on her shoulders and it is astounding how one woman, with very limited resources, was able to shape a program that continues to produce extremely relevant graduates 29 years after its creation. After a brief illness, Pat passed away this July.

On the October 2nd weekend of 2010, we are planning a large 30 year reunion for all of our LIBIT alumni. It was our hope to pay tribute to Pat Sifton at this event. It is with great sadness that we shall not be able to do this in her presence. After consultation with her family, it was decided that the fledgling LIBIT Leadership Award will be renamed in honour of Pat Sifton. The award, which currently sits at about 9,000 dollars is in need of at least 3,500 more in order for it to be self-sustaining as an annual award. As monthly contributors to building the endowment, the LIBIT faculty hope that, with additional support, we will be able to proudly grant this award in 2010 to a LIBIT student.

It is the very least we can do for our founder, mentor, colleague, and friend.


Anyone interested in assisting can visit UFV Giving - Pat Sifton Endowment Leadership Award

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.

A New Degree?

As the 21st century chugs along and we contend with issues about our economy, our health, and our planet, we also tend to grumble about how busy we are and how we all seem so overloaded with obligations and responsibilities. Part of this overload seems to stem from our "connectedness" through technology. With cell phones, email, products like twitter, rss feeds, television and even the old-fashioned land line phone system, our lives are filled with keeping up to what is going on around us. Most of us would agree that despite its usefulness, being informed is exhausting.

This is because the process of becoming "informed" is complex and constant. This is due to the fact that our world, whether we like it or not, is continually changing. Change is not new but our need, our compulsion to keep up with it, is. Of course, this is intrinsically tied to the availability of information. Since the creation of the printing press, the human desire to learn more about the world has increased. Now we have created a world where libraries are not repositories of information that can not be found elsewhere. Rather, they have become the "vetters" of the multitudes of information that is out there.

Recent studies are showing changes in the way children and young adults process information and look for information. Indeed, the general attitudes towards information, how it is collected and used, is changing. Although libraries have never been the stale, static relics that the media often portrays, they have had to change substantially in the last 15 to 20 years as technology has evolved. Not only has the technology changed library client expectations but it has also presented incredible opportunities for streamlining functions, sharing resources and developing new ways of managing knowledge.

Library technician diplomas were developed in an era where technological change was in its infancy. In North America, the old Bachelor of Library Science was eliminated to make way for an American Library Association accredited masters degree. This served the industry well, for a time. However, the need to share our perspectives on knowledge management, the changing uses and implications of technology on our behaviours, and the diversity of information formats and resources necessitates a deeper examination of the field. Here lies an opportunity to introduce a bachelors degree that focuses on information studies. Students can investigate the issues around information use and management to an extent that reaches beyond the diploma (which has little room for more in-depth enquiry).

Such a degree, or even a minor, could be a wonderful complement to other fields of study, particularly those with an applied focus. For example, a business major may see value in looking at the issues around business intelligence, human search behaviours and managing information. How people search, examine and process information may relate nicely to marketing, for instance.

And so, the LIBIT program is beginning its investigation of the viability of a degree.