Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
New topic -- "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?"
Many thanks to our two guest editors, Peter G. Underwood and Mary Nassimbeni, for leading our discussion on "Convergence and the Library Business." Despite a sparse discussion, several members thought hard and deeply about this topic and we are grateful for their contributions. Thanks again to Peter and Mary for doing a terrific job on guest editing.
Ray Metz is no stranger to the CRISTAL-ED membership. He has led two discussions in the past and now will focus our attention on the topic "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?" Ray is associate vice president for information services and resources at Bucknell University. Prior to working at Bucknell (which hasn't been all that long since his first day at Bucknell was August 1, 1997), Ray worked at Case Western Reserve University.
Please join us in a discussion of "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?"
Ray E. Metz
Associate Vice President for Information Services and Resources
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Voice: (717) 524-1557
Fax: (717) 524-1237
metz@bucknell.edu
It's safe to say that almost everyone who reads CRISTAL-ED believes that the use of new technologies is a key to success in libraries. It is NOT safe to say that we would agree on HOW MUCH technology we should be using or even WHICH technologies the libraries should be introducing...
Each librarian that learns a new technology, uses that technology, and integrates it into a library and its services changes the definition of a library and a librarian just a bit more. This sounds good, but can we ensure that we don't go too far? How do we identify the correct amount of $$ to spend on technology? How do we ensure that we don't spend too much of our time and energy as individuals and organizations on working with it?
Conversations that I have had in this area often end up talking about technology vs. print collections or technology vs. staffing. There is only one pot of money, so what's the correct way to determine how to spend it? And then how do we explain that to those we serve? We know it's an investment, but what specifics do we have to point to to show that it's a wise investment?
As technology increases in importance, so do the numbers of technology specialists working in our libraries -- some who are librarians and some who aren't. What's the correct balance for today? Where are we headed? Should we hire librarians for these techie roles? Are we doing the profession a favor or a disservice by hiring non-librarians for these types of positions?
Would you please consider taking five minutes right now to give me your thoughts on this? Everyone would benefit from your thoughts, but at a personal level... I'm going to use this as advice starting a new position which is responsible for both a library staff and a computer/communications services staff.
John Small
Assistant Professor of Library Services and Electronic Resources Librarian
Central Missouri State University
small@libserv.cmsu.edu
Creating positions to deal with the technical aspects of Library operations is a difficult questions. It is my opinion, and I hold one of those positions, that if a qualified librarian can be found to fill the position it benefits the organization in a number of ways.
One of the most important areas for this is the fact that the Librarian comes into the organization knowing the basic tenets of what we do and how we do it. While this can clearly be learned, it has often been my experience that the non-librarian "techie" is made uncomfortable by some of the basic elements of librarianship (e.g., access to systems, confidentiality concerns, copyright issues). An allied area here is the basic understanding of the terminology used in the library.
The qualifications of the applicants are often the key element in filling positions, and restricting the search to those who hold the MLS (MALIS) can significantly cut down on the number of possible applicants. However, most of the searches I have been associated with, where a librarian with specific technical credentials are sought, have been successful.
Do we do our profession a disservice by not hiring librarians to serve as our technical resources? I think the answer to that has to be no. If we can get the qualifications we need in a librarian, I think that makes all the difference. But if we are talking about a position where there is no "professional" aspect, a systems operator for example, then maybe we are "wasting" a librarian. If there are substantive "professional" duties involved, or if the position could be arranged so that there could be substantive duties, then we should by all means seek a Librarian.
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
As a working cataloger for the last 26 years, I have seen a tremendous change in the way that I do my work. I started cataloging in 1971 with an old Royal manual typewriter, a stack of blank catalog cards, and copies of the old LC Catalog and NUC volumes. We ordered cards from LC when we could; if not, we did original cataloging and typed up master unit cards to be reproduced for the cardset. Authority work was limited to searching the LC/NUC catalogs to standardize the name and the LC Subject Headings books to verify the subject headings.
Over the years, I have progressed to electric typewriters, and eventually to using OCLC. And I thought it couldn't get much better than that. Wow! Just push that little button there and a week later the cards arrive, all the headings typed on, sorted alphabetically, and everything. All we had to do was to file them. (Well, most of the time.)
OCLC has become more and more complicated (as have the cataloging rules) and I now use several other pieces of software to work with our now-online catalog. We are preparing to automate and, yes, (gulp) outsource our authority work. However, including computer personnel in some of our processes does not in any way negate the need for qualified librarians to be in charge of these processes. With all of the best intentions, the computer/systems people (sans M.L.) simply do not have as great an understanding of what library-specific work is about as do the librarians who have been specifically educated/trained to think about and deal with these issues. Not to imply that systems people can't learn a library perspective, of course, but often it seems that we are in danger of ending up being subservient to machinery. It often seems that software "upgrades" (for example) are harder to use and don't really do any better a job than their predecessors. How much change is truly progress, and how much is change for the sake of change?
Libraries which try to use "outsourcing" to save money without considering all of the consequences first are in danger of finding themselves in a *big* mess; therefore, where possible, librarians should be integrated into the systems work. The librarian's perspective is essential on questions which concern libraries and library-specific issues, and if too many non-librarians are in decision-making positions, can we be sure that the library's perspective will not be overlooked?
I do feel that the library degree, with its specialized educational background, is still a perfectly valid requirement for professional library work. Technology itself is neither bad nor good: it is the way in which technology is used that matters, and the forethought which goes into the preparation and planning is crucial. Librarians must be involved at every stage of the process.
Katharina J. Blackstead
blackstead.1@nd.edu
A perplexing topic with many nuances; for me, there is a bottom line in regard to a couple of sub-points mentioned thus far:
Our profession, a combination of practice and academic discipline, comes with a mandate to plan and administer those institutions or entities that fall within the realm of library and information science. As such, while I think it acceptable for libraries to hire a wide variety of "specialists" to perform broad ranges of technical and support functions, they must do it within the context of the LIS rubric, and not the other way around. Just as lawyers run the legal profession and doctors the medical, librarians have the right and duty to manage their profession -- they have committed to it via a discipline-driven path, not via a life-situation, or paycheck-expediency route. So, yes, I do think we are doing the profession a serious disservice by appointing "techies" w/o the LIS commitment into management positions in libraries.
As for the technology vs. print, and technology vs. staffing issues: I think that time will be instrumental is sorting much of this out -- time, and proper management, that is. As these aspects cease to be points of division and controversy and each finds its appropriate place and proportion, it should again be librarians and information scientists -- where expertise is informed by an understanding of the academic and intellectual enterprise in its totality, not just in terms of technological "how-to" -- who should take the leadership roles in defining the balances between tradition and technology, and forging onward from there.
Cynthia Barrancotto
Reference Librarian
Proctor Library
Flagler College
St. Augustine, Florida
cynthiab@flagler.edu
I feel that one must consider the needs of the user at the forefront, and then base what you spend and how you spend it on that. This sounds like a rather simple idea, but if not given priority, the most expensive system can go unused, and your users will remain un-challenged, discouraged, and frustrated. Remain sensitive to these "information needs"; how and what do they require in order to satisfy the "average" questions that may come up in the course of a day, a week, a semester? You must find the balance between supplying your users with technology that has all the latest upgrades (and some room for growth, of course), and the right persons to support this technology (this includes librarians who are information counselors and the more technical types, system specialists).
Information needs differ based upon the users you are responsible for: their age, the environment (a corporation, a school or university, a hospital, law firm, etc.), and their demands (business data, legal information, a paper on Shakespeare, medical or health statistics). I feel the crucial issue with providing technology is finding what satisfies your users, and provides them with a proper mix of information. You need the "mix" (print, online, electronic, traditional) because of the obvious: networks can go down, some users prefer computers, some prefer print, and so.
Finally, if you are the person responsible for the budget, then do your homework! Ask for demos and real persons (work your vendors to death), read reviews and others' reactions and scenarios, network with other professionals (use those association LISTSERVs), and know how to persuade management that what you feel is the best is worth the investment. In other words, do your homework before someone else does it for you.
Rosmarie H. Fouad
Coordinator of Library Instruction
Oboler Library
Idaho State University
Box 808
Pocatello, Idaho 83209
Voice: (208) 236-3049
Fax: (208) 236-4295
fouarosm@isu.edu
As someone already pointed out, the question is not really how much is too much technology, but how librarians deal with technology and whether those involved in the "information industry" sort out their territory or seek a balance of cooperation. The important issue for libraries today is to stay on target with developing technology, while carefully assessing its value and potential to the functions libraries play in their respective environments. I would hesitate to insist that a someone with an M.L. is necessarily better prepared to do this. Some other technology expert can bring a new perspective to the field. The important thing is, as Katharina Blackstead pointed out, to keep a balance among various perspectives, while keeping the role of libraries at the center of the decision making process.
Case in point. One major role of an academic library is to instruct its patrons in the use of information technology. As the Coordinator of instruction at one such institution, I am at the center of the decision making process in regard to that role. In collaboration with three other institutions, I applied for a technology incentive grant to install instructional laboratories at the four institutions. The proposal was rejected. From the comments I gather that the decision was largely based on the fact that the proposal was not a "distance learning" proposal, but asking for money to install labs on site. As one reviewer wrote, why establish these rooms for traditional on site instruction, in a time when "people are struggling with how to access library services at their fingertips from home, work or school?" The cliche answer made me think about the topic being discussed here: how much is too much technology? Many library patrons are overwhelmed with today's plethora of various information technologies. This is not to say that we have too much technology, we simply need to develop plans on how to deal with it in terms of implementation, usage, education etc. In may case, I opt to fight for an on-site instructional lab, while simultaneously developing distance learning packages for those students who have no other alternative or maybe learn better with such an approach. I hope I did not go too far of the subject.
Mary K. Bird-Guilliams
Reference Librarian
Wichita Public Library
marykbg@wichita.lib.ks.us
At the risk of bringing a mundane note to this discussion, I will propose that too much technology is when we lose sight of the fact that reference service is an art, no matter what the tools used.
Craig A. Summerhill
Systems Coordinator and Program Officer
Coalition for Networked Information
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Voice: (202) 296-5098
craig@cni.org
Ray Metz wrote:
"Conversations that I have had in this area often end up talking about technology vs. print collections or technology vs. staffing."
Yet, this discussion has wasted no time venturing into the "us vs. them" mentality of librarians and "those other folks who run the machines." Unfortunately, I believe the issue at hand runs much deeper than whether our organizations should be hiring people with one certain credential or another. It is those aspects of this issue I would prefer to discuss.
Shirley Richardson wrote:
"However, including computer personnel in some of our processes does not in any way negate the need for qualified librarians to be in charge of these processes. With all of the best intentions, the computer/systems people (sans M.L.) simply do not have as great an understanding of what library-specific work is about as do the librarians who have been specifically educated/trained to think about and deal with these issues. Not to imply that systems people can't learn a library perspective, of course, but often it seems that we are in danger of ending up being subservient to machinery. It often seems that software 'upgrades' (for example) are harder to use and don't really do any better a job than their predecessors. How much change is truly progress, and how much is change for the sake of change?"
John Small and Katharina J. Blackstead wrote in a similar vein, but I have chosen not to include those passages for brevity's sake...
I have to say I strongly disagree with most of this. (Yes, I do have the M.I.L.S., as I often feel forced to offer in these situations.) While I understand the notion of "understanding the business" these folks are advocating, writing things such as "not to imply that systems people can't learn a library perspective" strikes me as particularly elitist. Why put yourself in a position to have to state that in the first place?
While I greatly value the years I spent in Ann Arbor, you'll never convince me that librarianship comes with some kind of hallowed mantle bestowed upon its ranks making these ordained individuals any more suited to face the particular challenges libraries face with technology than the half dozen other degree programs offered in our higher education institutions today. I find this attitude frequently in libraries and librarianship, and find it somewhat disturbing, to be honest. I also find it ironic that this acceptance of a class division in the ranks of the library itself comes from the same profession which champions itself as protecting the "information rights" of some vaguely defined underclass of individuals apparently unable to fend for themselves when it comes to filling ones information needs. I guess we're just better than everybody else, right? Come on... this is kinda self serving.
However, on one thing Shirley and I agree. The "subservience" to machinery is a very real issue. But what makes you believe that you should be freed from this tyranny and the "techies", "gearheads", "geeks" -- whichever particularly loving affirmation you choose to apply to "those people" -- should be the subservient ones? Has it ever occurred to you that they might be as subservient, or possibly more so, than you find yourself? Just because some pimply-faced kid screwed up your day by installing the newest version of the Microbang Bit Processor doesn't make his life any less subservient to the machine. Tell him that your life is hell next time it is 3:00 and that operating system upgrade he is doing on the server has gone all to hell, tech support isn't available until 06:00, and its too late to order a pizza for dinner. I don't know a single systems support person who likes to make changes to a computer simply for the sake of change, because anyone running real world systems knows those changes come at some real cost and headache elsewhere.
A vignette, for your consideration...
Back in the dark ages, when I worked in a library systems office, I got a call one day from one of the reference librarians. It turns out one of the OPAC terminals was broken. Given that I was the only one in the office this particular day, I decided to go down and check it out myself on the way to lunch. At this institution, we were using IBM3270 terminals (the real ones). It turns out the foreground contrast on the terminal had been turned down. All that was required to make the terminal operational again was to turn the contrast knob up. And yet a piece of paper was taped to the machine informing the public it was out of order.
Why the hell did this problem require a call to the systems office?
You're probably laughing, but everybody I know who works in systems has literally hundreds of these kinds of stories. The typical punch line is usually, "did you check to see if it was plugged in?" When we get together, we tell these stories -- not to make the rest of the library staff (the others who do not wear the hallowed and mythical mantle of computer knowledge) feel bad, or stupid, or angry. We tell them to each other to keep from going insane over the tedious level of mediocrity our beloved organizations have instilled into our lives and work.
Herein lies two critical aspects of this "how much" question, as I see it:
Needless to say, this first point of view puts me at odds with a fair number of people within the profession. At this point, let me say that the kind of generalizations I am making here are not limited to libraries, so stop being offended. Most government workers I know are in similar situations, and I have spent enough time with people working in medicine, law, and other professions to know that this problem is not our's alone. Product cycles in hardware and software companies are down to fractions of a calendar year, the gap between what we know and don't about the tools we are using grows daily, and usually the people who know less than we ourselves know are the very ones we report to.
Let's face it, we are all living in a Dilbert comic strip.
Finally, Cynthia Barrancotto wrote:
"I feel that one must consider the needs of the user at the forefront, and then base what you spend and how you spend it on that"
Agreed, with one caveat. Don't put those people in charge of the decision making process for technology acquisition, because most of them don't know enough about the real issues to make intelligent buying decisions. I've seen this kind of thing happen in libraries time and again through advisory committees and public library boards, and it can get really ugly. As much as I berate my library friends and colleagues for asking me things they should already know about computers, I know the general public is much further behind the typical librarian. This axiom is probably true of libraries serving the needs of more specialized information communities as well...
In summary, computers are fairly literal organisms. The reality of our world is that the butterfly sneezing in India can actually cause the redwood tree to fall in California (or however that causality chain goes). A minor change in one part of a hopelessly flawed and outdated operating system can cause serious headaches for several million people Bill Gates has never met, but blaming those problems on Mr. Gates (who incidently doesn't know as much about computers as most people want to believe) is self-defeating.
Part of this reality is that there are typically several ways of accomplishing the same task on any computer. And yet, I find people in our organizations all the time who "fail at the interface" because it doesn't look or feel the same suddenly one day. Knowing how to bypass and solve the inevitable problems that arise in day to day use is part of the responsibility that comes with using computers. Knowing when you can (and can't) fix it yourself is also part of that responsibility.
To me, this whole situation of getting a handle on the real costs of technology is a serious problem for libraries. This is because there are so many hidden costs, and because we don't even have good mechanisms for measuring the open costs associated with the technology. Yet there is little doubt in my mind that the profession *desperately* needs to both employ and command this technology. The fact that most libraries receive most (or all) of their money from a source of public funding makes this problem even more difficult, because you can't throw money at the problem. The private sector has addressed this problem (to some degree) with aggressive programs for staff training, but I know of no reports that such spending has put a significant dent in the problem in those organizations.
Nevertheless, I think one thing needs to happen:
And I think another thing will happen:
Still, there is no magic bullet for this beast.
Much thanks to Ray for hosting this discussion on "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?" For some reason, this topic has come up around me several times recently (both virtually and physically), so I thought I'd offer up some of my reflection... for what its worth.
Penny Garrod
Research Officer (SKIP Project)
Room 317, Babbage Building
University of Plymouth
Plymouth PL4 8AA
Voice: (01752) 232343
Fax: (01752) 232293
pgarrod@plymouth.ac.uk
Hi CRISTAL-EDers,
Having just ploughed through the 5 August digest -- which is really getting down to the nitty gritty, I feel, -- dare I ask how contributors to this discussion might define the level, type etc. of IT expertise required by "library" staff working in the networked environment?
For example, during my nationally financed research into the impact of IT on the skills and roles of higher education library staff here in Britain, I've come across many people who talk about not needing to know 'what goes on under the bonnet' of the PC or not needing to ' wield screwdrivers or take the backs off machines'. In a nutshell, staff tend to get hung up on hardware, and state that their role is with 'information' and providing access to it. In reality they are now faced with rows and rows of terminals supporting a range of electronic information resources and software packages, and staff on duty have to be able to 'troubleshoot' IT problems.
Some staff have mentioned knowledge of their own network would be useful but management seem sceptical. What would you include and exclude in this case? How about operating systems - is a knowledge of DOS/Windows a help? How about a basic fundamentals of computing type course? ( I attended one in 1979 and have never looked back). Do we need 'hyrbids' with IT and information knowhow?
I will not go on much longer as I'm more interested in the responses to what I've said so far.
Please help me to define what library staff do need to know about IT in order to make them more effective supporters of networked users and more technically aware. Staff are crying out over here to be given guidance and I would like to try to make just one tiny step in the right direction on this.
John Small
Assistant Professor of Library Services and Electronic Resources Librarian
Central Missouri State University
small@libserv.cmsu.edu
Penelope Garrod said:
"Staff tend to get hung up on hardware, and state that their role is with 'information' and providing access to it."
I would agree that this is the case, in many respects. There is also some truth to this type of belief, but many of the problems lie in this idea. If a reference librarian can search a database, start and stop the software and reboot a PC, is that enough? SHOULD there be a higher level of ability in the line-librarian?
Part of the answer depends on the organization, and its concommitant intellectual investment in IT. Here at CMSU, we have the wonderful opportunity to build a brand new library. It has been designed, and we are 4-5 months into the construction process. As is reasonable, some of us are viewing the library as a network node that also contains books, journals, etc. Not that these things are not extremely useful, for they are. But the new library will have to serve this campus for another 50 years, and networking is not going to end.
So here is my question. Should all the librarians and the staff members who also work at Reference be involved in network design for the new building? Or just those who have specific expertise and experience. I know how we have answered this question, and I suspect that many of you are thinking the same thing. It will be years (if ever) before we reach the point that has ALL librarians ready and capable of designing a network infrastructure for a library building. Just as we have subject specialists, so too do we need IT specialists, be they librarians or no.
But at what level of training?
Sue Jones
Rohm and Haas Information Services
Voice: (215) 641-7671
sejones@rohmhaas.com
Penny Garrod wrote:
"Please help me to define what library staff do need to know about IT in order to make them more effective supporters of networked users and more technically aware. Staff are crying out over here to be given guidance and I would like to try to make just one tiny step in the right direction on this."
This isn't a response so much to the "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?" question, but to Penny's request. We're a corporate library, in three locations, with 20+ employees, all with varying degrees of experience. I am the resident geek of the department. It became clear about two years ago that some of our members were woefully ignorant of even the most basic computer skills. This meant it was entirely possible that they would not be employable by our department or any other within the company within a period of time. Our management has a commitment to making sure that people have the skills they need to remain employable. Because future jobs will require computer knowledge and skills, the department committed time and money to increasing the entire department's skills.
We set up a team, gave them a budget (both money and time) and a year to improve all of our skills. They did an amazing job.
The B.Y.T.E. (Boost Your Technical Expertise) Team was empowered to be creative and unconventional. Thus, mechanisms were devised by the B.Y.T.E. Team to improve computer awareness, skills and knowledge such as an initial department event, a cyberspace award for 'trying' (creating a climate that made it OK to admit you made a mistake) and a Computer Camp. The "unique" atmosphere fostered an environment which helped department members view computer learning as FUN. During the year, as the team worked with all members of the department, we noticed additional benefits from their efforts. Department members became more comfortable with each other, promoting a spirit of community and sharing, helping us become a more cohesive group. I can also tell you that the I.T. organization has mentioned a number of times a raised knowledge on our part in our interactions with them.
Everyone in the department was expected (and is STILL expected) to share learnings, help others and challenge themselves to learn new skills. The team introduced a computer core competencies list, which then became a job expectation for all department members (read: performance issue). I helped write the core competency list, and didn't need any of the coursework offered - but I did use my time last year to learn html, further my spreadsheet knowledge and work on pushing my own limits.
I haven't included our core competency list, since most of our list was specific to each software package we use in-house, but here are some examples from our E-mail section:
Remember, these are basic requirements. People who had these skills were expected to go further and explore other functions within the software (and to act as resources for others).
If you have any questions about the team, you can contact the team leader:
Sue Walsh
Voice: (215) 785-8056
rbrsjw@rohmhaas.com
If you have any questions about being a participant, please feel free to give me a call or drop me a line. This team produced a huge leap in the department's skills, and everyone enjoyed it. Our customers benefit as well. We can get our work done faster, with less hassle, giving us more time to work with them.
Ben Speller
SLIS
North Carolina Central University
Durham, NC USA
Speller@nccu.edu
I do not know if these suggestions will help but it is the responsibility of the librarian to describe needed improvements or enhancements in the library's operations or services. I usually find that if I state these needs in the form of questions to network designers, I get excellent results (for example, is it possible to do the via the network, or is there a better way to do this?). I have found that beyond the basics should be left to those individuals who have significant education, up-to-date training and experience in telecommunications/networking.
I have been able to get more than I expected from these technical folk and some have been excited enough about the results to come and discuss what else can we do.
Always make sure that a change is really enhancing what is already being done; and, ultimately will let the staff members turn their attention to things that have been placed on the back-burner because of labor intensive work situations.
Of course my suggestions assume that there might also need to be some workshops on thinking beyond the current situation. My suggestions also assume that librarians have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the contextual theories and principles that undergird library operations and services.
My closing point is, "Information Technology is not necessarily the major issue in this pervasive time of change."
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr. Middleburg, VA Coordinator@foxcroft.org
Kudos to Craig for speaking to some of the more painful realities of information technologies and libraries; or should I say librarians? I would suggest however, that in addition to what most of the participants to date are saying about this theme (?), the stated obvious still appears wanting.
"How much technology is too much technology?"
...why it is that technology which does not achieve it's purpose and/or that which costs more than the derived value from the actual versus expected result of use/employment, etc. "Too much" in this sense as that which is useless, where costs exceed benefit, etc.
Ironically, we see this through our own bondage to the wheel of obsolescence, incurring costs from updating/upgrading, 'retooling' and so on. Emerging technologies are just that and they are driven by motives that go well beyond the capital gain (although it remains a great incentive for many).
We should not dismiss what might relate to what is deterministic about technologies that become ubiquitous in society. Nor should we sell out to the "gee whiz" shop talk of 'look what this can do also' gadgetry. Remember that we call this the 'tail wagging the dog'. The point is librarians, either take it upon themselves to pony up to real IT (information technology) competence in all it's flavors or accept those whole heartedly who have the skills yet lack whatever unique ethos/mythos there might otherwise be because they did not attend library school. The "us vs. them" so mentioned is more akin to nervous laughter, masking discomfort as it does.
As a librarian (and one with an MLS if that is the same thing (not)), as well as one who is one of those dreaded "outsource" creatures who technical service folk loath (i.e. cataloger/info. mgmt offsite, working independently from my home office), I can say with certainty unless librarians "do it" (that of developing genuine competence) with IT, someone else will have to perform the tasks so needed. Who determines the need however, remains a good question. A Norwegian Professor, Johan Olaisen, has talked about "what you don't know that you don't know" related to information; easily applied to this example.
I am currently in progress for a suite of IT skill enhancements including certification with Microsoft and Novell. Some of my colleagues ask if I have sold out to the "beltway bandit" market of former defense contractors turned IT moguls where CNEs (Certified Netware Engineer) or MCSEs (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) get the big bucks. I tells them that I am marrying up my MLS information management competencies with current technology. Skill building in such a way where, as far as IT is concerned, corporate and association sponsored certification is the sure path to confident determination of skills I have acquired as judged or evaluated by others in the industry. For those committee folk and other librarian employers, they do the same thing with the MLS (minimum standard requirements etc.)
Point of all this is simply, expectations upon librarians vis `a vis IT is increasing. Many librarians I know are right on the beam, selectively and methodically acquiring or enhancing their skills. Those who don't may continue to crow at the 'systems' folk but will be found further in the void as students and other patrons expecting assistance with a given information related application are left unfulfilled in their information need.
Unfortunately, I think that ultimately, too much technology will be that which will kill us, yet we won't know that until after the fact, perhaps in virtual reflection. For now, optimists have the day and they are very busy.
As anecdote, I collect interesting old books.
Ray E. Metz
Associate Vice President for Information Services and Resources
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Voice: (717) 524-1557
Fax: (717) 524-1237
metz@bucknell.edu
Some great thoughts and advice so far from everyone... I encourage you to just take five minutes and share your thoughts on this topic... (even if you've NEVER responded before... I know EVERYONE who reads this list has an opinion on this topic...)
Re-Create Your Life: Transforming Yourself and Your World With the Decision Maker Process, by Morty Lefkoe (1997, Andrews & McMeel, ISBN 0836221672).
But AMEN to most of the other things he said!
Ray E. Metz
Associate Vice President for Information Services and Resources
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Voice: (717) 524-1557
Fax: (717) 524-1237
metz@bucknell.edu
The book I mentioned in the last message is "Mirror Worlds or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox... How it Will Happen and What it Will Mean" by David Gelernter (Oxford University Press 1992). ISBN 019507906X (pap.); ISBN 0195068122 (hard).
It is the epilogue that had the impact on me. It's only a little more than 10 pages and is a fictional discussion between two faculty members. It starts out as a discussion about the topic of the book... then starts to sound like a discussion of should we care about computing as a technology... then makes the most persuasive argument I've ever read or heard for librarians to get under that hood -- and now!
Ben Speller
NCCU
SLIS
Durham, NC USA
speller@nccu.edu
Thanks for the summations and on my comments, the issue of information technology cannot be taken in isolation of other communication tools or knowledge storage formats. It would be interesting to see what issues the "Monks" discussed when they had to face the printing technology (printing press) or whatever they called that development during that rapid period of technological development or change.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|