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 -- "What's in a Name? What Happened to the Good Old Librarian?"
Please thank CRISTAL-ED's technical moderator Steve Wooldridge for serving as guest editor for the topic, "The Dreaded 'L' Word." Although this topic was wide-ranging, we were able to focus on some specifics and make headway. Thanks, Steve, for leading the discussion.
Let's now turn to the topic "What's in a Name? What Happened to the Good Old Librarian?" Anne Abate will be leading our discussion. She is no stranger to our LISTSERV membership -- this is the fourth discussion Anne has led on CRISTAL-ED. She is librarian at Dinsmore & Shohl, the largest law firm in Cincinnati, Ohio. Prior to working at Dinsmore & Shohl, she held professional positions in a variety of libraries. Anne is also a part-time faculty member in the MBA program at Xavier University in Cincinnati. This summer she will be teaching a course in the library science program at the University of Kentucky. Anne has degrees from the University of Kentucky (MLS), from Xavier University (HAB), and is currently awaiting the final approvals on her dissertation in computer technology in education from Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Anne is extremely active in professional associations and is currently serving on the Board of Directors of the Special Libraries Association.
Please welcome Anne and join the discussion.
Anne K. Abate
Doctoral Candidate
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
abate@scis.nova.edu
I would like to preface my essay by saying that the thoughts below are totally my own. These items are presented to promote thought, discussion, disagreement, and new ideas. Let's get going.
What's in a Name? What Happened to the Good Old Librarian?
We have been venturing in and out of this territory for the last two weeks during the very lively discussion lead by Steve. At times I was worried that we were jumping closely in to my area of discussion for the next two weeks. But I think that it only served as an excellent entrance into our next discussion.
The use of the term "librarian" to describe individuals in my profession has been much discussed in the literature, at conferences, on LISTSERVs -- really, anywhere that professional in this field get together. I am a firm believer in the term "librarian" to describe myself and others in my profession. On my side of the discussion, I will ask others: "If we aren't librarians, then what name would you give to our profession upon which everyone can agree?" As you know, those on the other side of the argument will present a variety of options: information professional, cybrarian, knowledge expert, and on and on. This other side has a very strong argument. They work in "Information Centers" or "Knowledge Centers," and their clientele are no longer using the term "library" to describe the center of information resources in these environments.
When my library (note the term) began to expand several years ago, I was privileged to hire another professional to work with me. My management spent much time determining a new title for this position. We decided to use "research librarian" for the new professional. There was then the discussion of what to do about my title, which had always been "librarian". I asked and made a case to keep the title the same. I suppose that I was doing this to make a point. I feel very strongly that the traditional term is the most descriptive, both among fellow professionals and to others outside the profession.
It is my joy to be able to work among many recent graduates who are just entering our profession. In my opinion, they are confused by all of these name changes. Many tell me that they went to school to become "librarians" -- and that's just what they want to be(!). Are we abandoning our newest members of the profession? Will they know how and where to look for jobs in this new environment?
I do not deny that there are many stereotypes that go along with the public image of the librarian. (I also cannot deny that some of these stereotypes play out as fact in many situations.) Recently, I had a personal disappointment concerning this stereotype. I have started to teach in the MBA program at Xavier University. I teach a course in "Managing Information Systems." The course is one of the few or at least the first principal exposure to the management of computing environments for many of the students. Although my MLS was an excellent preparation for some of the management concepts, it was my doctoral studies that provide me with the "authority" to teach this course. I do not hide my "day job" from the students. I was shocked when some of the students commented on the evaluations: "What is a LIBRARIAN doing teaching this course?" Do I have some rare library disease that cannot be cured, even by more than four years of doctoral studies? This is the closest that I have come to wanting to shed my profession and thus my identity. I don't want the stereotype any more than the information professionals, cybrarians, or knowledge managers of this world.
Enough for an introduction, let me throw out a few specific questions to get us going. I really am looking forward to the comments from this lively group.
Back to you...
Cynthia Barrancotto
Reference Librarian and Information Counselor,
Proctor Library
Flagler College
St. Augustine, Florida
cynthiab@FLAGLER.EDU
Hello, Anne, and to all of you other subscribers...
You have much to say concerning "our image" and it is a subject that has been both beaten to death, but not let go of, for a great deal of time. My initial comments to all of you include the following:
When introduced for the first time to individuals, or groups, I often hear something like, "You don't 'look' like a librarian." I answer (most of the time), well, then, my new friend, "What IS a librarian supposed to look like?" and you see, the conversation begins. I feel it is somewhat necessary to educate and enlighten those curious enough to listen, and by the end of most of these encounters, they have a new model of what a librarian is.
I am really proud to be a librarian, and I hope it shows. If our behavior, style of communication, and level of engagement reveal a passion for the work that we do, it should not matter what our "title" is. People will remember us for who we are, and then as a librarian.
In other words, be creative.. we are each responsible for the image we project.
Prof. Dr. Eric Ketelaar
Professor of Archival Science
Universities of Leiden and Amsterdam
Rusthoekstraat 9
NL 2584 CP Scheveningen
The Netherlands
Voice: + 31 70 3585450
f.c.j.ketelaar@thuisnet.leidenuniv.nl
Our department in the University of Amsterdam used to be called BBI, "Boek-, Bibliotheek- en Informatiewetenschap," which translates to "Book-, Library- and Information Science." Since we now consider LS a part of IS, we renamed the department into Book- and Information Science, or rather, Bibliology and IS. Students may choose one of three streams: Bibliology, Documentary IS, Archival Science.
Mary L. McCarty
Director of Research and Internet Services
Edelman Public Relations
Washington, D.C. 20005
Voice: (202) 326-1733
mail03593@pop.net
"4. Why are some professionals totally abandoning the majestic and historical term and image of the librarian? Is there anything we can do to bring back the term? Medicine has changed in the last 100 years, yet we still have doctors. What is so different about our profession that the term is no longer desired?"
I have steered away from the term librarian on my resume because I don't feel that the "majestic and historical" image of the librarian has served me well in the corporate arena. I don't think this is because people have a negative image per se, but there is a definite, unstated perception that our values are antithetical to those of the workplace. Here are the most notable misperceptions:
Certainly, some of these stereotypes are true. However, they don't apply to the new breed of innovative, responsive and creative people with the MLS degree. Those people are eager to take a leadership role in their organization and in the field of information and knowledge management. As I meet more of this new breed, it's interesting to see that many of them have developed an "us vs. them" mentality concerning old-school librarians. The reasons they give are that the old schoolers keep salaries down and perpetuate the stereotypes. They are also alarmed by what they see as the passivity and inflexibility of this group.
I think you'll find that the new breed of information professional doesn't want to be known by the title of librarian if it is going to keep them from advancing in their career or being taken seriously. Instead, I think that the term "librarians" is going to describe a different type of professional than "information professionals" or "knowledge specialists." It would be tempting to say that this is a question of academic and public libraries vs. corporate centers, but I think it's more an issue of attitude, rather than one of location or skill set.
Kathleen Koontz
kckoon@juno.com
I have been out of library school almost two years and during that time, I have never had a negative reaction to being a "librarian." Stockbrokers, computer programmers, art teachers, chemists, and retired women at the Y, have all told me how much they respect librarians and what a wonderful career I have chosen. In fact, they have the most difficult time understanding that I work for a book vendor and not in a library.
Am I just plan lucky? Maybe. However, I think other people's reaction to one's profession depends on how you react as you tell them. If you act embarrassed when you say "librarian" or try to explain it in more grandiose terms, the general public comes to view the word and hence the profession as demeaning and unimportant. If your voice is cheerful and you look enthused about being a "librarian", most people will promptly tell you about their favorite library experience.
If I really want to start a conversation, I tell the absolute truth and say "cataloger". Since hardly anyone outside the world of library science knows what a "cataloger" does, it is a sure way to at least get asked "What does a cataloger do?"
Diane M. Lewis
Serial Records Librarian & Exchange Librarian
U.S. Geological Survey Library
DILEWIS@IGSRGLIB01.ER.USGS.GOV
People's reactions when I identify myself as a librarian have definitely changed over the past few years. There is a respectfulness that was not there before, as well as more of an understanding of what we do and its value in the scheme of things. I credit this to people in the profession who have represented us superbly in public forums, who have faced down the forces which would have used library records against citizens, and to the polls which often show public libraries as the most respected publicly funded entities.
I really don't want to be called an "information specialist, etc." Such titles strike me as nebulous, lacking a frame of reference, a history, a tradition of placing the common good first. Can we even state definitively the accepted credentials for an "information specialist, etc.?"
Allen Brewer
Student
College of Library and Information Services
University of Maryland
abrewer@wam.umd.edu
The term information professional can include a host of different positions. Investment analysts, accountants, management consultants, teachers, and even astrologers might all be classed as information professionals to the extent that they acquire, store, retrieve, manage, interpret, communicate, etc., information as their primary professional responsibility. Clearly the programs of study at ALA accredited schools are not designed to field these specialties or at least are not designed to do so without some additional training.
To Anne's question...
"1. How do others see us? If you are at a cocktail party (or ball game, or PTA meeting, etc.) and someone asks what you do, what is your response?"
For background, when I arrived at CLIS in 1993 I held an MBA (information technology) and had been involved in information systems for over 15 years. During those years I had written software, designed and integrated systems, and performed technical and managerial work in each phase of a system's lifecycle on systems ranging from small businesses to the Department of Defense. In 1995 I earned an MLS and I am currently a full-time student pursuing a Ph.D. in library and information services.
Most recently at a party I answered the question "What do you do?" with the response, "I am a professional derelict." The resulting conversation was most fascinating, as this individual held an MLS from Rutgers, had recently completed an MBA (finance) at the University of Maryland and was to start a position as the director of national accounts at a major (Fortune 1000) firm.
Addressing Ms. Abate's feelings per: "Recently, I had a personal disappointment concerning this stereotype. I have started to teach in the MBA program at Xavier University. I teach a course in 'Managing Information Systems.' The course is one of the few or at least the first principal exposure to the management of computing environments for many of the students. Although my MLS was an excellent preparation for some of the management concepts, it was my doctoral studies that provide me with the 'authority' to teach this course. I do not hide my 'day job' from the students. I was shocked when some of the students commented on the evaluations: 'What is a LIBRARIAN doing teaching this course?'"
The perspectives of an AACSB (American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business) accredited program are different from those of an ALA accredited program even though both produce information professionals and information system/center managers. This is a possible explanation for why a business school student in an MBA program might expect a teacher to have an MBA instead of an MLS. For some students, a teacher with an MLS might be considered suspect, irrespective of their individual and specific knowledge and abilities, simply because they lack the same credential being sought by that student.
Right or wrong people are conditioned to look for titles and credentials that they recognize as being typically associated with some type of activity, where most frequently the individual is not aware in any detail what persons in such positions do. By way of an example, during the 1970's an individual who had held the position of vice president of planning and business development, in which their principal responsibility was marketing consulting work to the federal government, was not considered appropriate for a position in marketing at a competing consulting firm. Had their title been "VP marketing," their applicability might have been recognized, but in the midst of information overloads people frequently use shortcuts that don't delve very deeply into content and meanings.
For a long time a person who developed an expert system was a programmer/analyst. Somewhere along the line this sort of work became known as knowledge engineering. To me the title "knowledge expert" is ambiguous. What exactly is a knowledge expert and what specific values do they add in specific situations?
I suspect there are quite a few people who do not know what a cybrarian is. My initial reaction, when I first encountered it, was that it was a cyborg (robot) in a library and so I visualized a material-handling robot I had previously experienced at the FAA warehouse in Oklahoma City scooting around delivering information. Obviously that impression was not what the person who coined the term "cybrarian" had intended.
Titles and certifications make a difference in getting hired and promoted. With the exception of hiring and promotion decisions, what you call yourself probably doesn't make any difference.
At the risk of commenting on the prior discussion thread, it is important that people with library and information science/service credentials disseminate (market) widely how we can contribute to all sorts of organizations and problem solving situations. We need to clarify situations in which other information professionals lack the breadth or depth which librarians can contribute and help expand the population of folks that recognize and appreciate the attributes that allow us to add different and important values to various processes.
It is also important for our credibility that we do so without exaggerating the appropriateness of these academic preparations to imply their applicability to situations that are, at best, tenuous. There are many nuances associated with the practice of information management in different situations. For example, a person with an MLS may have the fundamental understanding required to interpret and even possibly extend a chart of accounts for a business, as it is simply a classification system. Knowing about classification systems and being able to navigate a chart of accounts is not the same as being an accountant. There are many issues including traceability, auditability, internal controls, and preservation of evidence which are essential to operating a financial information system that are not handled in the same way in a more general library/information environment.
Caryn S. Wesner-Early
Senior Reference Librarian
Main STIC
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
stic130@uspto.gov
I have just, within the past hour, joined this list, so I hope I'm doing nothing improper in jumping right in. I have strong feelings about the title "librarian," and wanted to respond right away. I totally agree with Ms. Abate -- I am a librarian, and intend to keep using the title. If I take a job which requires that I use "Information Center Director" or some such officially, I'll continue to introduce myself to people I meet as a librarian. At the end of her introductory essay, Ms. Abate posed the following questions:
"1. How do others see us? If you are at a cocktail party (or ball game, or PTA meeting, etc.) and someone asks what you do, what is your response? I don't know about you, but if I don't use 'librarian' right at the start, the word library goes in there somewhere. Can you say you are an information professional and have complete strangers understand you?"
I think that if I said I was an "Information Professional," people would tend to think I was a programmer, Web page designer, or some such. I recently started a new job, and in the year or so of job-hunting that preceded that, I kept up with the Internet job search pages. If I typed in "Librarian" as the job title or description, I found a number of library jobs that also involved the use of computers. If I typed in anything involving the word "Information," I found only computer-based jobs - programming, software design, systems administration, and that sort of thing. Based on that, it would seem to me that personnel/human resources professionals, at least, think of us as librarians.
"2. Will we attract more or less students to the professional schools with or without the 'librarian' term? Do the students (and graduates) want to be librarians, or is there something else that they are seeking?"
I happen to know two people (a friend, and my brother) who are considering going to library school. My friend has a background in scientific abstracting, and wants to do cataloging, abstracting, indexing, and that sort of thing. She doesn't seem to be bothered by the label "Librarian," and realized that library school is where she can go to get training for this sort of career. My brother is hoping for a fairly traditional position, perhaps in a public or academic library (but enhanced by the use of computers). He called a program in Texas (where he lives) to ask for admissions information, and was cautioned by the person he talked to that if he was interested in working with books, he was looking in the wrong place! The woman told him that a lot of people who become librarians because they love to read are finding themselves disappointed by their careers, because it's all computers now. My brother loves computers, but knows that there are still some books involved, and wants to be a librarian. I guess the upshot of this is that these people (both in their mid-30s) know that the library profession has changed, but have decided that, whatever their careers will actually involve, they are going to be librarians.
Paul S. Piper
Reference Librarian
Western Washington University
piper@cc.wwu.edu
I remember in the early '70s the garbage men of my fair Midwestern community had their name changed to "sanitary workers." It was argued that they would get more respect and have higher self-esteem. I don't know if there were any follow-up studies, but I do know that the name change had nothing to do with the inherent necessity of the work they did. And anyone who doesn't believe that has never experienced a major garbage strike.
As someone who had been an "information professional" for five years, in both corporate and non-profit sectors, I have come to have some fairly strong opinions about this new nomenclature. We are judged in this society by what we do. What we do becomes in a sense who we are, and that carries an implicit status. If I tell people I'm a poet (which I also am) it conjures up stereotypes of a poet, if I say I'm a lawyer, same thing. Lawyers have more status than poets. Knowledge management specialists certainly sound like they have alot more status than librarians, even though they may do the same thing.
I am no longer an "information specialist" but have evolved into a reference librarian. I now work in an academic environment, and do a lot of the same things I did when I was an "IS." I now wear the name librarian with a great deal of pride. Just as the word poet means something very different in Russia than in America, and carries far more worth, so the name Librarian in many countries carries far more weight. We have the unfortunate privilege of living in a country with certain facile and dubious values. Americans are addicted to images, to surfaces, to appearances. Image is everything, in spite of the Sprite ad, which is in itself a clever manipulation of images, and the popular image of a librarian is certainly not something that sells, nor commands top dollar in the marketplace. But then neither do teachers, day care workers, poets, etc., so it has nothing to do with inherent worth. I fully agree with the woman who said (to paraphrase) we should keep our name and work to change the image.
In my last year as an "information specialist" and also as webmaster, I changed the title on my business card back to librarian. When I introduced myself as such at parties, conferences, etc., people were often amazed to hear what I "really" did. "You mean librarians do that!?" And when I left, the management advertised for a librarian, and then listed the qualifications they needed. They got an excellent replacement.
While defenders of the names information specialist, knowledge workers, cybrarians, etc. might be apt to argue that these titles encompass different scopes of work than a mere librarian does, I would say this is simply not true. Many librarians do exactly the same things as the "new names." Someone else made the comment that the role of a doctor has evolved over time yet the name has never changed. The role of a librarian has likewise evolved, and I feel we are bowing to the popular image makers by changing our name. I'd rather surprise people by telling them what librarians really do.
LTC Jerry Klopfer
Assistant Director
LRC New Mexico Military Institute
101 W. College
Roswell, New Mexico 88201
Voice: (505) 624-8382
klopfer@yogi.nmmi.cc.nm.us
As someone earlier pointed out, medicine has changed greatly, but a doctor is still called a doctor. In our profession, I think we have wrongly tried to change names in an attempt to be more descriptively accurate of what we do or what is included in our library. Blame it on descriptive cataloging. In the 1960s we added the terms media specialist and media center at the school level. As community colleges sprung up, they had learning resources centers, rather than libraries. I feel that we confuse the public and degrade ourselves when we keep trying to re-invent our profession through name changes. We, our professional organizations, and the library schools should be building up our profession instead of this attitude of the dirty "L" word. College of Education and School of Information are bad terms.
Before you read my signature line and think me to be a hypocrite, my contract reads Librarian III and ...; I am known on campus as a librarian.
Conrad Yamamoto
Reference Librarian
SMCo Library - Foster City Branch
1000 East Hillsdale Blvd.
Foster City, CA. 94404
Voice: (650) 574-4842 x225
Fax: (650) 572-1875
yamamoto@pls.lib.ca.us
I don't have anything scholarly to add to this discussion, just a past experience during a job interview. Upon graduation from library school way back in the early '80s, I recall describing myself as an "information scientist." After I left that interview I made a mental "Post-It" note never to use that phrase again. I didn't get the job, though I doubt that description had anything to do with it.
However, in regard to this issue, it seems many of the respondents take pride in identifying themselves as "librarians," as do I. I believe with every succeeding generation of library school graduates, comes new ideas of re-engineering our profession. Whether the title "librarian" remains in the vernacular will sure to be debated further. In the past three years, I've come to rely on the Internet and other "electronic" means to answer reference questions. I've had to broaden my information resource base beyond the library, and it's on-going.
Regardless of how the profession evolves, I remain a "librarian," and identify myself as such. The only changes for me are that I have a few more tools and equipment to utilize from the reference "tool shed." Interestingly, my auto mechanic and dentist utilize computers with their jobs, but they remain a mechanic and a dentist. I realize this last remark may have little bearing on this discussion.
Anne K. Abate
Doctoral Candidate
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
abate@scis.nova.edu
Wow! What a surprise!
I expected to be blasted for suggesting that we return to the "L" word. I now find that many others continue to use it and are proud of it. Could this be a turn in the other direction (that I have been awaiting for so long)?
So far the vote is clear -- most of you still prefer the term "librarian" over everything else. I also counted a couple of "fencers" and one or two who wanted something new.
This completely changes my mid-term questions. Are there more of you out there that have some other term you prefer over "librarian" to describe your profession? Are we at the start of a turn in the other direction? Are things finally beginning to level out?
I return to sit back and watch the conversation continue.
James Shedlock
Director
Galter Health Sciences Library
Northwestern University
303 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Voice: (312) 503-8133
Fax: (312) 503-1204
j-shedlock@nwu.edu
What's in a name? Plenty! It's a mark of identity. The point I would add to the discussion is that the librarian's identity is changing and maybe the name should keep up with the change! I am not confirmed wholeheartedly in this opinion (and do not have a GREAT alternative name other than "information professional") but do raise it to generate more discussion, if possible, and to "react" somewhat to Anne's recent post about many liking to identify with the "librarian" name.
I too am a librarian and tell people who ask. I don't have a problem with that fact. I think it's been great that this discussion has not centered on the image problem. I think there is an image problem, but it is no different than other professions, including doctors and lawyers, teachers and the clergy (the "original" professions). I also think that the image problem dissipates as more members of the profession concentrate on showing their good work by doing it. That's why we've heard in this discussion the good reaction many of us receive from the general public when we introduce ourselves as librarians.
But back to the "name." Librarian comes from library, right? Anyone who works in a library is a librarian, right? And what is a library? A place to store books and other print materials -- the first definition in your standard dictionary (but keep in mind the second and other definitions -- an organized collection for reference). And that's my point. Libraries have changed and are changing; we know it and the positive changes have been reflected in the posts to this discussion. Libraries are not just books. Libraries are information centers, and librarians are not in the book business but in the information business. And we have to keep this in mind (which we all seem to do in this discussion), lest we forget the "old" adage about the railroad business (The railroad people forgot they were in the transportation business and why rail travel hardly exists anymore). Because libraries are changing -- becoming information centers -- then we should at least be open to thinking about how our profession is changing -- its education, its standards, its ethics -- and therefore be open to consider a change in name.
Another point to relate is the makeup of staff working in the library. They are not all librarians as we well know. But staff joining us with professional credentials similar to our own are not easily covered by the "librarian" name. (We even have to make a distinction for personnel reasons, and this can get uncomfortable when the director is trying to unify the staff and staff and personnel want to break library staff into camps based on degrees). A new name that reflects the diversity of professional degrees required to work in a "cutting edge" library/information center is something to be open to consideration. I think maybe this is why Anne has proposed this topic and why we respond to it. Our profession is changing and we are trying to cope and understand and appreciate all this change.
This is my two cents, and I hope you all can use it.
Thanks!
Angelynn King
U-Redlands
liaking@jasper.uor.edu
Before I went back to (library) school, I spent seven years as a computer analyst. I never, ever introduced myself to anyone by saying, "I am a computer analyst." I always said, "I work in computers." It was very clear to me that who I was and what I did were two different things.
Within my first semester of library school, however, I was thinking of myself as a librarian. Now I tell EVERYONE. To me the label describes not just a job but an entire way of life, and one I am happy to embrace. Of course my father was a librarian, so I didn't have a lot of the preconceptions that others may have.
Whenever someone says to me (and they often do), "Gee, you don't LOOK like a librarian," I tell them that yes, I do. This is what a librarian looks like.
Boris Raymond
Retired LIBRARIAN
braymond@is.dal.ca
The key assertion that Mr. Shedlock made in his discussion of "What's in a name," in my opinion, can be found in the following sentence:
"Because libraries are changing -- becoming information centers..."
IMHO this statement is highly tendentious. A careful empirical study of the question will demonstrate that the essential functions of most libraries in North America -- school, public and undergraduate academic libraries -- have not changed qualitatively. Our own rather extensive research on this question, (published last year by Scarecrow Press under the title Librarianship and the Information Paradigm), indicated that the main functions of most of these libraries (and therefore librarians), were still to select, acquire, classify, circulate and conserve texts, in whatever format they may occur, but primarily in print and hard copy.
To maintain otherwise is to conflate a text of Byron's poetry with an array of computer-stored financial data and to refer to both as "information." Really!
On the other hand, it is also true that the function of existing information centers and some "high-tech" special libraries is primarily that of providing informative material (in oral, written, or electronic format), to a selected clientele with specialized needs.
I would suggest that rather than attempt to fit these two quite disparate activities into one artificial unity, (the so-called "convergence theory)," it would be far more accurate to consider them as two related but increasingly diverse professions, that have different functions, use different tools to fulfill these functions, and serve distinct types of clients with very different needs.
This is not a particularly novel conclusion, of course. As long ago as 1909 (or was it 1908) the Special Library Association recognized this process of bifurcation when is separated itself organizationally from the ALA.
Jennifer McDaniel Bauer
Information Science student
Co-Publisher of The Quiver
jmbauer@indiana.edu
I do not consider myself a librarian, but I'm extremely glad to have been exposed to the ideas and ethics of librarianship. I will probably wind up doing web development or programming when I complete my MIS degree, but I will be better at those jobs than I would have been had I studied computer science or information science in isolation.
Why? Because the librarians have taught me about information organization and understanding patrons/users/clients whatever label you want to use for the people you work for. And I know that librarians have worked for decades on some of the problems that some webophiles think are brand-new.
I agree with Boris Raymond that what we're seeing is the diversification of information work. I think librarianship is giving birth to information science, rather like philosophy gave birth to psychology. Yet that is no reason for librarians to feel threatened; philosophy is by no means dead, and psychology is a much better field because of its roots. The analogy is a bit simplistic, but I think it will hold.
Anne K. Abate
Doctoral Candidate
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
abate@scis.nova.edu
I really like the suggestion and follow-up that we could be witnessing a "split" in the library profession.
Is what I do as an information professional in a special library the same thing that is done by, let's say, a cataloging librarian in an academic library? Are there common threads that run through the profession to make us all the same, or are we really accomplishing different things with different underlying philosophies?
Or, to continue the previous thread, how much connection do the psychologists have to the philosophers? Do they all still admit to their roots? Can we go off in different directions and still admit to OUR roots?
And more importantly, what would such a split do to professional education in this field?
Thanks for the great thoughts. I have just added a few of my own this morning. Let's keep it going.
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
I received my first library card around 1950, when I was about seven years old. I thought I had found the "promised land" when I realized that these people would actually allow me to take as many books as I could carry out of there home to read, and I did carry out stacks of books that I could barely see over. To my amazement, I later discovered that these seemingly inexhaustible suppliers of reading matter also provided "information" which I could use in completing my schoolwork. Wow. Two for the "price" of one.
Libraries have long been considered the university of the poor, and in a high-tech information age it seems even more relevant today for libraries to provide both entertainment and information for those who cannot afford to purchase books, tapes, computers, etc. It seems to me that "information science" in its purest form would be essentially corporate/special libraries in nature, whereas public libraries, and probably a majority of academic libraries, will still need to balance entertainment and information needs.
I have no qualms about calling myself a librarian, or about specifying that I am a cataloger. Most people have no idea what a cataloger does, and I am happy to enlighten them. Although we in technical services perform different functions from our public service colleagues, our contributions are equally essential. Perhaps this is analogous to the librarian vs. information professional question, since the areas of concern will overlap in most libraries. Ideally, we all have the same goal of providing our patrons/clients/customers with the service they need as efficiently as possible.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Research Library and Information Services
811 Vermont Ave. NW, Room 966
Washington D.C. 20571
Voice: (202) 565-3982
Fax: (202) 565-3985
robert.bauchspies@exim.gov
You might want to temper your jubilation with the acknowledgement of the somewhat partisan nature of this list, as with many "community-based" discussion lists. Such discourse may sound quite different in a forum devoted to MIS studies, knowledge management, etc.
On the other hand, as I have said on several occasions, librarianship has qualities which not only can readily embrace current technologies toward needed applications (and as we see, so it readily does) but also orients information related services toward the greater good ... the so-called social context factor. Whether this is a public library, an academic environment or even in a business enterprise where "bottom lines" retain primacy, librarianship is socially valued and in my opinion, will stand the test of time, technology, and experimentation with different titles.
It is unfortunate, that such ubiquitous and meaningful seasonal productions, like It's a Wonderful Life reinforce in the contemporary mind, the seemingly tragic fate of one who becomes a librarian but then again, I do not know how much reflection is given to this other than perhaps by librarians themselves (i.e., the no-George Donna Reed scenario).
Tony Debons
School of Information Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
debons@lis.pitt.edu
I don't know of any science or field, for that matter, that is not tied to philosphy. If there is one, I would like to be informed.
"Is what I do as an information professional in a special library the same that is done by let's say a catalog librarian in an academic library?"
Question of definitions. I am not a librarian but I have never thought of a special librarian as a catologer although most certainly aware (and possible expert -- as a side interest) in that vocation. On the other hand I have never though of the cataloger as a diagnostician-deciphering human needs for information and knowledge (although interested and could also be proficient in such things).
"From an administrative perspective I could accept that any of these vocations can be done by others -- varying in interest and skill."
Irene Schubert
Chief
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Voice: (202) 707-5918
Fax: (202) 707-6449
isch@loc.gov
Over 20 years ago, when my son, Max, was in first grade, he was very excited about an introductory tour to the school's library. I was quite interested in his account of this formal introduction to what he insisted on calling a media center. Wanting to get a sense of what he learned about what librarians do, I asked him what was the librarian's job in the media center. Max corrected me, "Mr. Smith was a 'media specialist,' NOT a librarian." So, I asked, what does the "media specialist" do? Max replied that the "media specialist" "guards the books."
Until a better term comes along, I'll settle for "librarian."
Mary K. Chelton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library & Information Management
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial
Emporia, Kansas 66801
Voice: (316) 341-5071
Fax: (316) 342-6391
mchelton@cadvantage.com
This discussion reminds me a story Ann Carlson at Dominican once told me about her confusion when "alternate" words were first being used for "librarian." Genuinely puzzled, Ann asked somebody what the new term entailed. After listening to the description, she said, "It sounds like being a bank teller."
I also remember my beloved friend, Mike Printz who, although possibly being the best librarian I ever met who happened to work in a high school library, saying that he would finally leave AASL's membership if they persisted in calling school librarians "media programming engineers," evidently one alternate choice under consideration at the time.
Paul B. Wiener
SUNY-Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Sorry to disagree, but philosophy IS dead, according to many sources. It was killed by the pseudo-science of psychology. I see no evidence that librarianship gave rise to "information science." It is only recently that libraries have been identified as information providers, and librarians are frantically, desperately grabbing onto the I-word because they want to believe they have a future. Whatever "science" attaches to information will not be apprehended by librarians, however, any more than pointing someone to a Merck manual makes them a doctor.
Robert M. Ballard
rballard@bambi.acc.nccu.edu
If Mr. Wiener chooses to believe what he said, I will not attempt to change his opinion. "...whatever 'science' attaches to information will not be apprehended by librarians..." But with a systems engineer, two computer scientists, and several others in the "intelligence business" in the family, I would only say he is quite incorrect. By the way, none of these people call themselves "information scientists." We passed the knowledge acquisition level eons ago. The question is and was one of identity and I too feel quite comfortable with librarian. But I certainly do not feel a threat from another title or occupational category in the "information services," the "knowledge industry," or "library and information science."
Tony Debons
debons@lis.pitt.edu
Perhaps philosphy is dead to a recruiter but not in the spirit and fiber of any scholar. Jesse Shera where are you? We need your help.
Elizabeth Lane Lawley
Assistant Professor
Department of Information Technology
Rochester Institute of Technology
ell@it.rit.edu
"Is what I do as an Information Professional in a special library the same thing that is done by, let's say, a cataloging librarian in an academic library? Are there common threads that run through the profession to make us all the same, or are we really accomplishing different things with different underlying philosophies."
As the only LIS-trained faculty member in an information technology department, I've spent a lot of time thinking about those common threads. In fact, I recently gave a faculty colloquium for my colleagues on the common threads between LIS and IT.
Those threads, as I see them, are fourfold:
Rather than defining a split in the profession, I think we need to be recognizing that the skills traditionally associated with librarianship are increasingly applicable in a world of new technologies. Granted, it's harder to change perceptions of a label and a profession than it is to simply start a new one. But I believe it's worth the work to preserve the values of service that are an intrinsic part of the library profession.
Anne K. Abate
Doctoral Candidate
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
abate@scis.nova.edu
After a huge start, we seem to have slowed down at the end of the week. Does anyone have any parting shots before I prepare the summary of the discussion this weekend?
Thanks for the great participation.
Frank Exner, Little Bear
NORTEL (Northern Telecom)
fexner@nccu.edu
I have been lurking with great interest on this topic as it is a common discussion in my home. My wife is a children's librarian in the Durham County (North Carolina) Library; our daughter is a medical librarian at the East Carolina University School of Medicine; and I am an information flow analyst for a large telecommunications company in the Research Triangle Park. All of us have master's degrees from North Carolina Central University School of Library and Information Sciences.
My entire family is very concerned with the loss of "librarian" as a professional designation. I am very concerned with the implications of "the L word" phrase; given current American politics, that is almost swearing. And, given the repute we are held in, I don't think we can afford it. Far too many of us in information science seem to think that we have advanced beyond our librarian relatives, but the outside world doesn't agree. To the extent that information scientists act like computer scientists, the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of wannabes. On the other hand, they know (and, on the whole, respect) what librarians are and do. If we eliminate the identifier the rest of the world knows us by, then we become invisible and largely nonexistent.
Does this mean that information scientists are not real? No. It means that we need to re-examine our professional models. We seem to see the information professions as a small, though amorphous, intellectual territory to be fought over like a scrap of food. No wonder we loose; we destroy ourselves. Try this mental model: The information professions are like engineering, a broad class of pursuits with a central core (equivalent to solving problems in the made environment) and many application environments.
Now we can view schools of library and information sciences (whatever we call them) as analogous to schools of engineering. What we call tracks can be programs that support each other instead of deriding each other. With care and diplomacy we can determine what is unique about each of the information professions and support all of them. In the words of the old saying: we can hang together or hang separately.
As an initial attempt at this teasing apart of fields, let me offer our histories. Librarianship has always been concerned primarily with information in (relatively) fixed collections. Information scientists are the current incarnation of documentalists; as such they have a concern with uncollected information or information in shifting collections. Each group needs some common knowledge and some unique knowledge. Neither will supplant the other; in fact new information professions will develop as we study the current two. (Yes, I know that librarians and documentalists feuded in 19th century Europe, but we need not carry on that tradition.)
The final question, then, is where will the focus of this study be? If we work together, we will be the home of the most exciting intellectual adventure of the 21st century. If we don't work together, we will be watching from the sidelines.
When he returned from a recent trip to Irvine, California, Dr. Robert M. Ballard noted that the computer scientists present knew what the profession of librarianship was about. They said that professional librarians were the people who knew how to evaluate information and its sources. And they think we're important. To our serious detriment, all of us, whether librarians or information scientists, seem to have forgotten this. Which, my fellow librarians and fellow information scientists, could easily be the death of us.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|