![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptA little experiment in professional shadow-boxing, to improve us and make librarians better - Ten reasons why "Professional Librarian" is an oxymoron. It's a good set of questions to see if we can answer them and point out our relevance to the changing world.
So here they are:
Yep, and then there are the 2,347,890,333 results to sift through on Google to find the small handful that might have reasonably close information, and then the smaller amount that have accurate information. Would that 12 year-old or grandma have the time to sort through all of that? Or figure out how to refine that search to increase accuracy? Or even know where to look when Google doesn't actually have the answer?
I dunno - "unemployable" is a pretty serious problem when you've spent a lot of time and money to get to the degree part. And we don't necessarily need an overarching ethics commission for the ALA or any other thing - we handle our problems within the library we work at.
Librarians have their expertise, but it's very, very meta. Our experience is in finding, organizing, and interpreting. We generate systems of organization, then generate tools to figure out how to find those things later one using our systems, and finally, we're experts at figuring out how to get someone to tell us what they really want and then translate that into the system so that "the big blue book" becomes "The Complete Works of Dr. Seuss". We work with computer people a lot these days because computers are really, really, good at maintaining organizational systems and not developing amnesia or idiosyncracies (that aren't introduced into them by humans). And besides, when you're someone who has to answer questions about all sorts of topics, you become at least a journeyman polymath just to do your job well.
What, and all those digital files are chopped liver? Oh, and did I mention that a lot of librarians are coming out with Masters of Science in Information, not Library Science? It has very little to do with the physical location any more. It's all about the material. If you like, we could be called "Bringers of Order Out Of Chaos".
So we're not bitchy about things, nor are we stuck in a "Publish or Perish" cycle, nor are we trying to compete for a limited amount of grant, research, and other dollars and the prestige of being the first person to have discovered something. We unabashedly steal from each other and provide ideas as possible solutions to problems. It's much less stressful in our world than somewhere else. And hey, we don't get embroiled in trying to get rid of each other's credibility.
And if that was all we did, then perhaps you would have a point. Ask any librarian who's dealth with challenges, requests for reconsideration, and outright attempts at book banning and ask them whether they just held the values or they acted on them. Tooth and nail, knock-down, drag-out brawls can erupt over whether books should stay on the shelves or not - even though you might not see a lot of them happening because it's going on between school administrators, cocnerned parents, and school librarians.
See above, #1, #3. There is a difference betweeen being able to do a Google search and find your way through trial and error, and being able to flawlessly find scholarly and useful information juggling three different database interfaces at once, after having teased out the actual query from someone who may understand their own question incompletely and translated it into machine-understandable queries. The expertise deployed, while it looks invisible and easily learnable, is far more intricate and involved than just dumping a few keywords into Google.
There are only some things that school can teach you. The secrets of tea bag design, yes, but not necessarily how to recognize the creepy guy at the third table that's leering at you and every other woman who walks by. You can't learn the right angle to throw a pacifier at so it lands in the mouth of the screaming infant across the children's area. Once we get out into the real world, we suddenly find that not only are we information professionals, we are babysitters, security guards, storytellers, performers, computer technicians, interpreters, assignment-receivers, selectors of books, weeders of books, gadgeteers, listening ears, interpreters of policy, and a whole lot more. School can only give us the skills and the philosophies that can be reasonably controlled. Experience has to fill the gaps (and we'll perpetually complain that we had to use experience instead of at least being given warning in school that this stuff would happen).
See #3 above. We like computer people because they help us organize large collections in logical manners and let us search through them at rapid speeds. That said, computers are stupid. They will give you results based exactly on what you put into them. Garbage In, Garbage Out. No automagical synonym seraching, no forgiveness for typographical errors, and no mercy if you don't know exactly the right thing to go looking for. Having human intermediates helps to interpret queries and results and package them in ways that are comprehensible.
Nancy Effing Pearl. Who is slowly managing to be noticed outside the library world, slowly but surely. And most people can name a great librarian - it's their local one. Most of us are rock stars in our own little world, btu it's unlikely we'll get to a bigger audience, unless we're like Nancy Pearl and get radio play and are stationed somewhere like Seattle Public.
And after all that was done, the author went forward and posted his and others answers to the questions, with the profession rising to the challenge and providing more than a few reasons why Professional Librarian is not an oxymoron. His answers are different than mine, but they're all good answers - there are lots of reasons why librarians are still relevant these days and will continue to be so. Enjoy.
So here they are:
1. Librarians Have No Monopoly on the Activities They Claim
You need to pass the bar exam to practice law. You cannot perform surgery unless you are a surgeon. You cannot build a bridge without an engineering degree. Information is free. Your 12-year-old kid can help their grandma do a Google search.
Yep, and then there are the 2,347,890,333 results to sift through on Google to find the small handful that might have reasonably close information, and then the smaller amount that have accurate information. Would that 12 year-old or grandma have the time to sort through all of that? Or figure out how to refine that search to increase accuracy? Or even know where to look when Google doesn't actually have the answer?
2. There are No Consequences For Failing to Adhere to Ethical Practices
Besides the risk of being considered unemployable, a librarian has no real professional obligation to adhere to any of the values claimed by the ALA or any other so-called professional body. There is no agreed-upon process for dealing with ethical breaches, nor an entity to report those ethical breaches.
I dunno - "unemployable" is a pretty serious problem when you've spent a lot of time and money to get to the degree part. And we don't necessarily need an overarching ethics commission for the ALA or any other thing - we handle our problems within the library we work at.
3. Librarianship is Too Generalized to Claim Any Expertise
The number of books in the field written "for librarians" is analogous to books written "for dummies."The issue is that librarians, rather than having a specific area of expertise, actually need surface knowledge of variety of things - management, technology, community development and so on. While one could say being a generalist is the expertise, there are larger and more in-depth areas of study like Management, Engineering and Education that could claim the same thing.
Librarians have their expertise, but it's very, very meta. Our experience is in finding, organizing, and interpreting. We generate systems of organization, then generate tools to figure out how to find those things later one using our systems, and finally, we're experts at figuring out how to get someone to tell us what they really want and then translate that into the system so that "the big blue book" becomes "The Complete Works of Dr. Seuss". We work with computer people a lot these days because computers are really, really, good at maintaining organizational systems and not developing amnesia or idiosyncracies (that aren't introduced into them by humans). And besides, when you're someone who has to answer questions about all sorts of topics, you become at least a journeyman polymath just to do your job well.
4. "Librarian" Assumes a Place of Work, Rather than the Work Itself
Despite claims otherwise, "librarian" comes from "library" which is a place where there are books. It's not an activity, but a product or service. Thus, librarians rightfully should be treated as if they were providing any product or service.
What, and all those digital files are chopped liver? Oh, and did I mention that a lot of librarians are coming out with Masters of Science in Information, not Library Science? It has very little to do with the physical location any more. It's all about the material. If you like, we could be called "Bringers of Order Out Of Chaos".
5. Peer Review in Librarianship Does Not Work Because There is No Competitive Process to Go With It
The reason why library literature is often horrible is that librarians are collaborative beings by nature. Articles get accepted because they satisfy a minimum standard, not because they represent the best and brightest research in the field. True professionals are much more harsh with their peer review because they have an individual interest in refusing competitors the privilege of being published.
So we're not bitchy about things, nor are we stuck in a "Publish or Perish" cycle, nor are we trying to compete for a limited amount of grant, research, and other dollars and the prestige of being the first person to have discovered something. We unabashedly steal from each other and provide ideas as possible solutions to problems. It's much less stressful in our world than somewhere else. And hey, we don't get embroiled in trying to get rid of each other's credibility.
6. Values Are Not Enough
Common values occur in a wide variety of communities, many of which are leisure activities. There is nothing associated with the values of librarians that differs from any other advocacy group. Librarians do not deserve to be rewarded simply because they think information wants to be free.
And if that was all we did, then perhaps you would have a point. Ask any librarian who's dealth with challenges, requests for reconsideration, and outright attempts at book banning and ask them whether they just held the values or they acted on them. Tooth and nail, knock-down, drag-out brawls can erupt over whether books should stay on the shelves or not - even though you might not see a lot of them happening because it's going on between school administrators, cocnerned parents, and school librarians.
7. The Primary Motivation for Professionalization is the Monopoly of Labor
The main motivation for librarians to assert their professional status is so that they can lay claim to higher-paid "ALA Accredited Degree or Equivalent" positions in library institutions. We cannot accept any librarian's claim of professionalism without objective evidence because there is an inherent self-interest laying in that claim.
See above, #1, #3. There is a difference betweeen being able to do a Google search and find your way through trial and error, and being able to flawlessly find scholarly and useful information juggling three different database interfaces at once, after having teased out the actual query from someone who may understand their own question incompletely and translated it into machine-understandable queries. The expertise deployed, while it looks invisible and easily learnable, is far more intricate and involved than just dumping a few keywords into Google.
8. Accredited Library Schools Do Not Adequately Prepare Students for Library Work
The process for creating "professional" librarians has long been criticized for its lack of relevance to real life library work. It's like saying we are great espresso-making experts because we understand the secrets of tea bag design.
There are only some things that school can teach you. The secrets of tea bag design, yes, but not necessarily how to recognize the creepy guy at the third table that's leering at you and every other woman who walks by. You can't learn the right angle to throw a pacifier at so it lands in the mouth of the screaming infant across the children's area. Once we get out into the real world, we suddenly find that not only are we information professionals, we are babysitters, security guards, storytellers, performers, computer technicians, interpreters, assignment-receivers, selectors of books, weeders of books, gadgeteers, listening ears, interpreters of policy, and a whole lot more. School can only give us the skills and the philosophies that can be reasonably controlled. Experience has to fill the gaps (and we'll perpetually complain that we had to use experience instead of at least being given warning in school that this stuff would happen).
9. Competing Professions Are Offering Different Paradigms to Achieve the Same Goals
Computer Scientists and Engineers are discovering ways to make information accessible to the public using search algorithms, interface design, and social media platforms. Current library practices are following their lead, not the other way around.
See #3 above. We like computer people because they help us organize large collections in logical manners and let us search through them at rapid speeds. That said, computers are stupid. They will give you results based exactly on what you put into them. Garbage In, Garbage Out. No automagical synonym seraching, no forgiveness for typographical errors, and no mercy if you don't know exactly the right thing to go looking for. Having human intermediates helps to interpret queries and results and package them in ways that are comprehensible.
10. Nobody Can Name a "Great" Librarian
Go to a typical university and ask the professors to name a great Doctor ("Albert Schweitzer"), Architect ("I. M. Pei"), or Lawyer ("Johnny Cochran"). No librarian stands out the same way that these great professionals do. No one outside the library field is going to come close to naming Ranganathan either.
Nancy Effing Pearl. Who is slowly managing to be noticed outside the library world, slowly but surely. And most people can name a great librarian - it's their local one. Most of us are rock stars in our own little world, btu it's unlikely we'll get to a bigger audience, unless we're like Nancy Pearl and get radio play and are stationed somewhere like Seattle Public.
And after all that was done, the author went forward and posted his and others answers to the questions, with the profession rising to the challenge and providing more than a few reasons why Professional Librarian is not an oxymoron. His answers are different than mine, but they're all good answers - there are lots of reasons why librarians are still relevant these days and will continue to be so. Enjoy.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-03 02:31 pm (UTC)IT certs sound more like the standardized tests of required schooling when described that way. Are they?