April 27, 2007

Good at Reviewing Books But Not Each Other

Academic librarians are the nice guys of higher education. We dwell in neutral territory; the library belongs to no one and everyone. So do we. Our reputation is mostly one of being excruciatingly helpful. We give service with a smile. Our academic roost is a peaceful haven, and we welcome all. As an academic librarian who regularly navigates the library blogosphere, I find that the librarian’s penchant for pleasantry extends to our own virtual nest. In the world of library blogging the sky is always sunny, and nary is a dissenting or argumentative thought expressed.

Looking for a job?

See all 190 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,608
Administrative: 2,143
Executive: 155
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Why is it that “flatlined” may be the best term to describe the state of discourse in librarianship? In the traditional library literature one rarely sees an article that takes issue with the research or perspectives of a particular author. There may be a dissenting letter to the editor every so often, but one would be hard pressed to identify a juicy back-and-forth between two camps engaged in academic discourse about a controversial issue. Maybe we’re just too nice to take an intellectual sledgehammer to a colleague’s work, even if it was well deserved. Some librarians might point to any number of the profession’s electronic discussion lists as the virtual ground where real debates between librarians are happening, but I would argue that what debate takes place on these lists often occurs between the same small crew of librarians who simply have an axe to grind with each other’s positions. The vast majority of list members never get involved, and what transpires might be more accurately described as bickering than intellectual discourse.

As one explores and delves into the world of library blogs it soon becomes apparent that the rules of disengagement dominate the landscape. There one is likely to see a repetitious flood of posts exclaiming “What a great post by so-and-so” or “She’s got a must read post today”. Rarely does one see a post that starts with “I have to disagree” or “Boy, does he have it wrong.” Most commenting is no better. It’s mostly gratuitous back patting. But why bother anyway? Comments are secondary to actual posts and they reach a much smaller audience. One exception might be ACRLog, a blog for which I write. Geared specifically to academic librarians it still allows fairly unrestrictive commenting, and on occasion comments may offer brilliant opposing views. But these are few and far between; the overall dearth of comments, even for posts that make controversial statements, is shockingly surprising for this profession.

Other areas of academia have fostered some excellent exchanges between dissenting parties — in blogs, journal back and forths, and at scholarly meetings — in fact many professors worry that some fields are too contentious. That’s hardly a concern the library profession must address. If anything our professional meetings are exceptionally notable for the atmosphere of courtesy and collegiality. On those unusual occasions when parties do disagree it’s typically handled in a jovial manner so that neither side perceives any offense. On those occasions when the gauntlet of disagreement is thrown down, rarely is it taken up by the opposition. At the recent ACRL conference in Baltimore, in response to a participant comment, a speaker said “that was passionate but you are completely wrong”. It ended there. I wonder how that exchange would play out at a faculty conference. The outcome, I think, would be quite different.

It’s not that librarianship lacks controversies worth getting worked up. Remember the virtual firestorm created by Michael Gorman? Gorman’s critical essay about bloggers in a 2005 Library Journal column set off an explosion of anger in the library blogosphere. How, bloggers asked, could an American Library Association president be so out of touch with a communication medium so important to his own profession? How dare he attack bloggers and even the blog as a form of expression! Even non-librarians got in on the action. But the action was all one way. There was hardly a defense of Gorman. It appeared no one wanted to step forward and take on the hoards of critics. And what he said and why he said wasn’t completely indefensible. Bloggers had attacked Gorman over comments he published in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times ("Google and God’s Mind,” December 17, 2004) that were critical of Google’s plan to digitize books. So Gorman responded in kind. After the assault Gorman claimed his words to be hardly serious, but from the reaction you would have thought he said that the blogosphere was an evil plague that needed to be eradicated. Did any library bloggers come to Gorman’s defense? None that I could detect. And I know why. Fear of underserved and irrational reprisal.

Although many library pundits and A-list library bloggers would be quick to deny it, it seems increasingly the case that a speech chill has descended on the library blogosphere. On the few occasions when a dissenting comment is attached to a post in the spirit of discourse, the commenter is likely to find him or herself the target of an unpleasant post in which the blogger uses his or her bully pulpit to lash out against someone who’s dared to take an opposing view. Even if the commenter responds with a follow-up comment (and more bloggers refuse to allow them these days), few readers take the time to look at them. Posts on the other hand can be quite memorable. The blogger has the upper hand. Ultimately, those who make an attempt at discourse are discouraged and the next time simply ask, “Why bother?”

Even more remote is the possibility of discourse between opposing bloggers, particularly in an attempt to bring to the table an observation of groupthink. In those circumstances the woeful dissenter is subject to swift condemnation that quite quickly quashes any chance of thoughtful dialogue. The essential trend of 2006 was Library 2.0. But exactly what it meant became the subject of some promising back and forth exchange among bloggers. As a far less heated issue than Gorman’s blogger incident, a few librarians felt encouraged to wade in against the tide to voice opinions that Library 2.0 was little more than old wine in a new bottle, a new fad for those who seek out new technology solutions before they’ve identified a legitimate problem. Library 2.0 advocates were quick to band together in a “they just don’t get it” response. Ultimately groupthink won out over efforts to help all those interested in the topic to better understand it through thoughtful examination. Is it any surprise that few oppose the majority? And in the end the nice thing to do is just go along with the crowd.

What makes this situation all the worse is that the library profession has long nursed a debilitating inferiority complex when we compare ourselves to other disciplines. It’s supposed to be library science, not library “let’s all just be nice and agree to think the same way.” What seems to define many other disciplines is the discourse that occurs. When academics challenge each other’s thoughts their understanding of the issues evolves, and as a result the entire profession’s body of knowledge moves to a higher plane of discovery. Instead library science is the Rodney Dangerfield of the social sciences; it gets no respect. Lack of discourse is not the sole reason, but it points to the profession’s lack of interest in engaging each other in discourse. It’s just easier to agree – or better yet share no thoughts at all.

Perhaps what the library profession needs to do, if it wants to be taken seriously as a science, is to realize that we need to be accepting of rigorous discourse. We need to learn that there’s something special about it, and that we do a disservice to ourselves and our profession when we fail to do all we can to encourage it. Despite the chill factor that has descended on the library profession there may be some hope. We need to look at how other disciplines stimulate and support discourse. At our conferences and through online communities we need to engage in discussions about how to encourage discourse and appropriate ways in which to engage. We need to hear from scholars in other disciplines with experience in discourse so that we can better understand how to inspire ourselves and our colleagues to be both constructively critical and accepting of criticism. We need to focus on the content, and resist the temptation to make it about personalities.

Library educators should begin to integrate into the curriculum more opportunities for verbal and written discourse, as well as present students with case studies that serve as good examples of discourse and how it advances professional knowledge. What contemporary issues are deserving of discourse that might provide good examples? The role of reference services and the future of the reference desk are topics that emerge every few years, but that issue is now re-energized as new technologies make the need for traditional desks less important. Arguing the values of face-to-face interaction versus the immediacy of delivering services virtually is certainly fertile ground for debate. As future professionals, students would undoubtedly find challenges in discussing the qualifications required of academic librarians. As new professionals without library degrees, such as Web programmers and Ph.D. bibliographers, increasingly join the ranks of MLS degreed librarians, there is opportunity to debate the relative merits of an evolving new class of non-MLS professionals in the academic library. What academic librarianship shares with other disciplines is a seemingly never ending parade of controversial issues and challenges that invite the sharing of multiple, strong perspectives. If our future professionals can learn to appreciate and be inspired by the collegial expression of disagreement, it would serve well the future value of scholarly discourse in librarianship.

Another encouraging factor is a recent library blog thread about there being too much politeness in the library blogosphere. This originated in a post by a public librarian, Rachel Hartman, at the Tinfoil + Raccoon blog. The gist of the blog correctly noted that when everyone is too polite to say what is really on their mind we construct a rather boring echo chamber in which all we do is exchange pleasantries. Others responded with observations concerning the need for librarians to engage each other with more constructive criticism. Finally this small segment of the profession began to awake to the possibilities of improving the quality of our discourse, and how that would provide a serious blow to the groupthink that was bringing a slow death to any serious conversations. Of course, the challenge is to simultaneously eliminate the atmosphere of personal repercussions, real and perceived, when expressing opinions while stressing to colleagues that their polite act of suppressing opinions is actually a disservice to our professional advancement. Only time will tell if the profession moves beyond this initial attempt at creating more rigorous discourse.

Whatever we may think about the Web 2.0 phenomenon, whether you love or hate the concept, it is clear that at its core is the creation of conversations between those who build the web and those who use it. The latter seeks to participate by adding their voice, in whatever medium that may occur, and by virtue of doing so helps to build new layers of content. It is ironic that a profession dedicated to community building and embracing Web 2.0 has so miserably failed to create a conversation among it own members. But one thing I greatly admire about my librarian colleagues is how vastly open minded a group they are. They are widely accepting of new ideas, and welcome into the discussion anyone who is willing to share their thoughts. But perhaps we have become too welcoming, too complacent to remember that we share a responsibility to take our profession forward through intellectual discourse. Maybe a good place to start is with a well thought out response to this article. It offers great opportunity for argument. Who wants to take the first shot?

Steven J. Bell is associate university librarian for research and instructional services at Temple University.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Provocative Articles are Ignored — EXAMPLE

When provocative articles are written, no one wants to “rock the boat” with discussion. Here is a case in point —

Mis-Information at the Heart of the University: Why Administrators Should Take Libraries More Seriously Stuart Basefsky, Cornell Universityhttp://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/87/

Stuart Basefsky, at 1:10 pm EDT on October 4, 2007

I would argue that I have seen some recent controversy in the librarian blogosphere, particularly over conference speaker funding in the profession. Though it began and was resolved as a “misunderstanding” I was glad that the librarians leading the debate didn’t let the issue drop and say “all is well". They encouraged the debate to continue, and I hope it does. Controversy is a catalyst for constructive criticism.

John Meier, Science Librarian at Penn State University, at 11:20 am EDT on April 27, 2007

Interesting piece by an always interesting librarian. As a non-blogging cataloger, I would make three points: 1) There is strong debate taking place on the RDA, FRBR, and AUTOCAT e-lists about the future directions of cataloging and the catalog. The sometimes heated discussions are worth reading.

Then there was the ferocious reaction (and some defense) to Roy Tennant’s various pieces on MARC and library information systems.

2) Not all of us practice library science as a social science. It is quite possible to be rigorous in humanistic scholarship. Look at recent scholarship on the notion of a “work,” something that literary scholars might pay attention to just as librarians need to examine recent work in textual criticism.

3) I would welcome more rigorous research and discussion. I remember trying to write a paper on reference theory in library school in the 1980’s. What was called theory wasn’t. I’m not confident that situation has changed.

Laurence Creider, New Mexico State University, at 11:35 am EDT on April 27, 2007

It’s one of those chicken or egg things

Interesting article!

I think the problem is more complicated

than you admit to in the article.

Will passionate dissent help or hurt a profession that often feels attacked from all sides. It does not help matters when you do at times hear sniping on our lists that any trained monkey could do what we do. Add to that a large number of students who do not know where the library is and/or proudly and loudly proclaim they never darked in the door of the library.

Then there is the question of our status. Are we faculty or staff? Tenure-eligible or not? Do the teaching faculty respect us as partners in the teaching process? Do they encourage students to use the library? While I do know plenty of faculty who respect librarians and what we do. I know plenty who do not.

On top of that, throw in a few “futurists” who say libraries will disappear, and it is not wonder our profession suffers collectively from low self esteem.

It is harder to encourage real and substantive dissent in a profession with such low self-esteem. We need to stop the silly bickering about whether you need a graduate degree to enter the profession or if a trained monkey would do the trick. We need to collectively decide and declare that we are in fact still relevant.

Once we decide that our profession matters, then we can start to have the substantive debates we need to revitalize the profession.

Musical Bookworm, Librarian at Small mid-western university, at 12:35 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Steven makes many good points about the discourse. I have seen it on some occasions. Part of the problem is the level of discourse in society in general. People quickly move to thinking that disagreements with what they state are to be taken as personal insults. It is not just in LibraryLand.

Bill Drew, at 1:00 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

You & I Are Reading Different Blogs

There’s rigorous discourse to be found, and pleanty of it, but you have to seek it out.

Bill got it right, people don’t like rigorous discourse, they like their beliefs reinforced, librarians are no different. I’ve been begging and pleading for more discourse since 1999, people don’t have time for it.

And to answer your question, “Did any library bloggers come to Gorman’s defense?” Yes.

Blake, at 1:45 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

I think you have commonality of opinion largely because those who would dissent with the sorts of things the bloggers are discussing right now are, in fact, non-bloggers. Therefore, they dissent among the cubicles and at non-tech conference meetings and so on. Just because blogging librarians are not fighting does not mean librarians themselves are not fighting.

Though I can’t speak for other bloggers, I know my attitude right now has less to do with controversy and more to do with how to make things happen. This may be a mistake, so I am glad you have written this article.

But I turn you to John Blyberg’s scathing critique of Twitter and Casey Bisson’s attack on wikis. Librarians may not be on the verge of a hockey fight, but we certainly don’t agree on everything.

Ryan Deschamps, at 2:00 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Worst. Post. Ever.

Okay a joke.

Actually I kind of agree with this and and kind of don’t.

The last thing I think we need is less civility. Anyone arguing for that is out of their frickin’ mind.

Also I do think there is a divergence of opinion. You just have to look and listen a bit harder. People aren’t yelling at each other, so you need different methods of detection besides stridency.

On the other hand, there is a certain ‘group think’ that takes prominence. I think the easiest way to remedy that is to step outside of the Library Bubble for a moment and take a fresh breath of air — observing how other people and organizations do things — and then come back with a different perspective.

In any case, that’s what I try to do.

Leo Klein, at 2:00 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Steven makes great points about the value of professional discourse to raising our understanding of issues. I am not a blogger, but I have seen some good level of discussion on the ILI-L list, most recently regarding the concept of “student as customer” from the ACRL Top Ten Assumptions for the Future.

When Stanley Wilder publicly denegrated — or is that too strong a term? ;-) — the information literacy movement in the Chronicle of Higher Education, that caused a real firestorm on ILI-L, but it resulted in a well-written letter to the editor of the Chronicle (I am embarrassed to say I’ve forgotten by whom) explaining the ways he was wrong. Significantly, some on ILI-L also acknowledged that Mr. Wilder had a few good points. So discourse is not totally dead, but it could use more blood transfusions.

Thanks for getting us thinking, Steven.

Nancy Dewald, Reference Librarian at Penn State Berks, at 3:05 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Not to sound too conciliatory, but I think this article is great. Although I have a “Why bother?” attitude toward blogs and delete most emails from listservs, I do read articles in my area and find that is a singular lack of rigor in the literature. Many articles lack generalizability and just examples of “how I done it good” in one particular set of circumstances. The authors who present new thoughts and ideas have interesting theories but write in a pedantic style that is so convoluted that it is difficult to challenge. Additionally, the library community is so please to read something that is not pap that decent authors are held above critique.

I do disagree with Bell when he states that a “chill factor that has descended on the library profession.” I must have missed all of this big excitement in the library world. I have failed to see anything lively in library literature of the past. Bell also suggests that we learn from other discipline how to conduct discourse that is not focused on personality. This concept is flawed; many disciplines do not “discourse” at all but attack trivial weaknesses at conferences rendering authors fearful of taking risks in their research and writing. I have heard horror stories about MLA conference among others.

I love that Bell stuck a stick in the hornet’s nest by bringing up the respect issue. That should get a few comments!

AEM, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

I agree with the writer on everything here, and I’m glad he’s raising the issue. Since I entered library school for a change of career in 1996, I’ve been struck by the lack of rigorous discourse in our scholarly literature compared to the psychology literature that I read for my first Master’s. There also seemed to be a general lack of discourse, i.e., conversation, about important work-related issues between colleagues, at most of the libraries I worked at. With little real communication going on, our work settings can be pretty boring and our literature pretty weak. I’m as sensitive as anyone, but I think we desperately need to upgrade our discourse, without being nasty, in the traditional literature, in blogs, in conversation at work, etc., so as not to bore ourselves and others to death.

Madeleine, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

I am one of the editors of an open access journal, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. We are trying to increase discourse about research in LIS via the Evidence Summaries section of our journal. With evidence summaries, authors critially appraise an original research article in our field that was previously published elsewhere. The critique objectively points out the good, bad and ugly with respect to the research article in question. One of the goals is to continue the discourse of that original publication and to aid librarians and other information professionals in thinking critically about what they read. Our journal also allows for readers to comment on the evidence summary, so if they disagree with the critique, they can add their voice to the discussion. Sadly, in keeping with your argument, this feature is not well used.

Denise Koufogiannakis, Collections & Acquisitions Coordinator at University of Alberta Libraries, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Librarianship is hardly devoid of constructive debates, on e-mail lists or at conferences. Additional to the current debates mentioned above are: the adoption of SERU for e-content acquisition, the future of the bibliographic record, role of commercial search engines, maintaining print subscriptions, the end of series authority, implementation of social tagging,…and the list goes on. Topics like these have hardly created a “groupthink” in librarianship; they generate some healthy debates with many articulate and irreconcilable differences.

There must be some agreement to have a discipline or profession in the first place. That one finds polite discourse (generally) even in the case of impasse (excluding a few tiresome topics) is a testament to our professional conduct. That said, there is, overall, less public disagreement in the profession than one might expect. I do not wish to entirely excuse the profession, which might have much to gain by expanding its public discourse, but there are conditions and considerations in librarianship that simply do not apply to other disciplines.

Unlike Physics or History, for example, the Library tends to serve a unique role in education. First, the Library tends to be conceived as Place, for better or worse, in a way that the Physics Department will never be. Second, it is focused on providing content to a defined, restricted (that is, local) user base rather than creating content for dissemination and “general” consumption.

These two conditions create a necessarily introspective disposition based on highly localized realization of its practices. Local contingencies in patron base and technical particulars of workflow still constitute major considerations in the day-to-day-practice and articulation of our profession: exceptions to the principles of shelving or even cataloging can be accommodated locally in the way that exceptions to principles of quantum mechanics cannot. At the point a librarian applies an idea to a situation in their library, that idea may not be debatable outside of the specific context of its application.

It just may be that lacking the need for One Truth in every aspect of librarianship undermines the need for prolonged acrimonious exchanges (though even librarianship has a few of those). A relative lack of polarized debate on how to apply generally accepted principals – which, again, are debated even in librarianship — does not seem to have lessened the number of ideas that are shared by our colleagues. However, the specific locality where each one of us practices librarianship allows us to take or leave many ideas vis-� -vis our own work without having to invalidate the one we leave.

Librarian, Discourse in/on librarianship at Research Library, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

While not a blog, I’d suggest that those who think that the profession is bland should subscribe to the ALA Council list with read-only privileges. Perhaps those who get elected to Council are less shy about expressing their opinions.

Bob Holley, at 3:50 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

A good set of questions to be asking, but I don’t think the library blogosphere is any more of an echo chamber than every other group in the blogosphere. I am more interested in the question of discourse. Specifically, discourse about what?

To chime in on Laurence’s point, as of my MLIS in 2003 reference theory largely consisted of one article by Carol Kuhlthau, but I think that was written in 1983.

Cataloging is our profession’s great intellectual contribution, but the theory and the reality often diverge—and our traditional methods may not be appropriate to an era where two-thirds of my library’s collection budget is for electronic journal articles. There was considerable and vehement objection in some quarters at Midwinter to the direction RDA seems to be taking, but no dialogue about it.

Our profession is practical rather than theoretical. The great debates in other disciplines are usually based on differences in theoretical approach. I’m a humanist, so I don’t know if engineers argue or what about, but here’s my humble suggestion for a theoretical question with great practical implications: What is the catalog for?

Chris, Reference Librarian at Wofford College, at 5:05 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

Defending Michael Gorman

Michael Gorman, Fischerspooner, Amnesty International and Hamlet. [May 13, 2006].

http://librarian.lishost.org/?p=382

Kathleen de la Pena McCook, at 5:25 pm EDT on April 27, 2007

What About Not Listing People on Election Lists

Let alone the author’s point, what about when names are purposely left off of election lists so those names will get less votes? See the series of blogs called “ALA Election Fraud” starting here: http://www.shush.ws/wordpress/?p=245

SafeLibraries.org, at 6:45 am EDT on April 28, 2007

Definitely More Criticism Wanted

Excellent piece. I’ll post a glowing review on my own blog! But seriously, I couldn’t agree more. I noticed the same problem and deliberately created a library blog to provide criticism I rarely found elsewhere in the library literature—criticism of library politics, fads, jobs, the ALA, etc. I’ve been met by hostility only by the politicos, and have in general noticed that some librarians hunger for an opposing voice on the library job situation, library school education, the ALA, various fads, etc. Librarianship seems to be just one big mutual admiration society, though I can’t figure out why.

Annoyed Librarian, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 28, 2007

Having transitioned into librarianship from an extremely contentious discipline (yes, there are some slugfests at the Modern Language Association convention), I was at first impressed with the civility of librarianship.

But much of Bell says is true. No, I don’t see the rigor that I am used to seeing in my home discipline. Getting the MS-LIS degree was a walk in the park compared to earning the MA in English. (To keep the comparison fair, I won’t even go near the difference between the MS-LIS degree and the doctorate in English.) I don’t see the same level of engagement with theory at all.

Now that many academic librarians are moving more and more into teaching mode, I’d like to see them contributing to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning on the level of theory. I’d like them to take on critical issues of pedagogy, issues that move beyond the “Students seem to like this...” or “Here’s an engaging classroom activity” level. I want to see librarians contributing to pedagogy in a way that moves beyond a solely pragmatic, this seems to “work” orientation. Sure, I appreciate good teaching tips as much as anyone else, but that is mostly what the conversation seems to be limited to. (Though, yes indeed, a very provocative discussion on the ILI listserv has been ongoing.)

I also want librarians to move beyond a focus limited to their own subject—information literacy. All of us who teach in the college setting teach the whole student. How does information literacy support the liberal arts endeavor, or better still, how might this literacy be itself a new liberal art? How does this literacy create a thoughtful, enlightened citizenry? It is consideration of these global goals that move the discourse to a higher plane.

As a person who is on the librarian market, I am struck over and over by the fact that I am not asked to provide a philosophy of teaching statement, a fairly routine requirement for teaching faculty. Here would be an opportunity for me to explain how my experience in the teaching of English helps to shape my approach to the teaching of information literacy and to explain my global goals for students. Yet, I am not asked to provide this level of discourse. Instead, I am asked over and over about instructional technology. To me, such technology is merely a means to an end. If you haven’t figured out what it is you wish to accomplish in the classroom, what does it matter whether you know Cold Fusion or not? My perspective is that of a humanist. Humanists always ask these inconvenient sorts of questions. Yet my sense is that such sentiments are heresy in libraryland. My other reaction thus far is that librarians do not welcome the perspective of a scholar from another discipline—only the current party line will do. That is not a healthy state of affairs at all.

My experience in my home discipline is that the best scholar-teachers are gracious, yet critical at the same time. Along with the slugfests, there are also some exciting things that happen at the MLA. Keep your civility, librarians. The world definitely needs it. But you do need to raise the calibre of your professional discourse. There are no poster sessions at the MLA because a poster session is not discourse.

Beth, at 1:40 pm EDT on April 28, 2007

There is a lot of discussion on some blogs but it is usually between anonymous librarians too timid to sign their names.

In other disciplines people seem more willing to identify themselves.

Anonymous Librarian, at 4:40 pm EDT on April 28, 2007

I started library school (er, information school) this fall with a background in the humanities. I couldn’t believe how little argument, debate, or even discussion there was in my classes. I at first thought this had something to do with the school I am attending (which is nevertheless a well-respected, highly ranked LIS program), but I am beginning to see that it is endemic to the field.

Several people in this discussion thread have mentioned such-and-such a list, or such-and-such a blog, that does in fact have some argument taking place on it. It’s good to know that this is taking place, but I think Bell’s point is that if it’s only taking place on the sidelines it doesn’t much matter. Serious discourse should be the foundation of any discipline.

Bo Kinney, Student, at 4:45 am EDT on April 29, 2007

Moving the conversation forward

The uncertainty regarding faculty vs. non-faculty status and the “low self-esteem” which has been pervasive within the library profession/discipline has much to do with the current state of affairs as described by Bell. How do we move to the next level?

I think that it is up to those of us who are recent entrants into the profession (within the last 5-10 years) to lead the charge and upgrade our status. We need to become more involved and assertive in our campus communities.

The only way to upgrade/improve our status is for us to do so ourselves. A wise mentor once told me, “Manage your career or it will manage you.”

Lori Gluckman, Head, Technical Services & Collection Development at SUNY Maritime College, at 3:00 pm EDT on April 29, 2007

I think the fear is deserved. I fear two things: one is that I fear for the reputation librarians have. I first thought I would fear reprisal or having a post come back to haunt me at a job interview to keep me from that directorship (hah!). But really, I don’t attack others if it might make the profession look bad (really? I’ll have to reread that later to see if I really believe it—I thought it, so it must be at least partially true). And the second reason, which seems contradictory, is the fear of reprisal. I’m afraid of posting something in the heat of the moment that will hang around for years to come: the fear that on the Internet, stupid is forever.

the.effing.librarian, at 1:00 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

Two things...

First of all, I like how dissension and argument is subtly turned into rigorous discussion. There is a difference between dismissing someone’s point as “simply wrong” and productive analysis and truth-finding. I personally LOVE to battle with words but I have to recognize that sometimes I’m doing it just to see if I can, or to show someone that they could possibly be wrong. But when you’re in a profession, wouldn’t it be better to calmly and rationally solve disagreements instead of yelling at each other?

Of course, you are right, Mr. Bell, about one thing. There isn’t enough academic, theoretical problem-solving in librarianship, even academic librarianship where you’d think it would be at the very least. But there’re better ways to come to an agreement or to remove an improper idea than verbal assault or what you call “a juicy back-and-forth between two camps". You yourself allow that “many professors worry that some fields are too contentious". I would be tempted to say that almost all areas of academia that carry on this way are too contentious. You don’t argue with the author, you argue with the idea. It’s the idea that’s wrong, not the author. Too often does friendly academic bickering end up in personal attacks and no improvement. If a student came to the desk and asked where the Preference section was, you wouldn’t say to their face, “Boy, are you wrong.” You’d be nice, show them the way to the Reference section, and maybe correct them subtly without embarrassment. Why? Not because in this case it’s just a simple mistake as opposed to a flaw in their argument. It’s because if you simply argue with them, you’re ignoring the more important point. To help them.

In academic pursuits, it’s the same thing. When someone has a point of view that is incompatible or even slightly different from yours, telling them that they’re dumb helps noone, even if you do go on to tell them where their dumbness comes from. How about reflecting on your own point? Perhaps you’re wrong. How about trying to understand better how they came to that different point? Why not take advantage of this different idea to help yourself. If you still think you’re right and they’re wrong, how about discussing it with them? Make sure your ideas are available to those still making up their minds. Don’t take their differing stance as a personal attack. Conversation is about communication and persuasion and too often, people can be very persuasive without being right.

Librarianship DOES need to converse more, be more passionate, analyze more, more effectively solve our problems, and definitely be more rigorous. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be nice and calm about it...

Matthew Thomas, Bracken Health Sciences Library, at 12:35 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

Written discourse

I’m an MLIS student in a fairly respectable online distance program. Students in this environment are forced to write out all their arguments and place them for peer review on a daily basis. Because of this, I do see a lot of disagreement and challeging of ideas within my program. Perhaps students coming from these programs, where online debate is a native habit, will soon stimulate more healthy discussions.

RD, Student, at 1:45 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

Begin at the begiinning

As a librarian in an academic library who also teaches a graduate course on academic librarianship I think that there is a bigger issue. One of the main reasons I believe that we don’t have a true discourse in librarianship is library education. Many of my students are not prepared for a rigorous examination of the issues surrounding academic librarianship. I have had students protest the longish reading list provided in the syllabus with one asking, “Do I have to read them all?” While realizing that many of my students are attending part time and have other time demands, it fascinates me that there is a perception that library school shouldn’t be “hard".

My own program had its share of classes that were deemed easier than others but each was intellectually demanding. If librarians, who by their attendance are presumably interested in becoming academic librarians perceive the work to be too difficult, what does this predict of their future job performance? More importantly, what does this say about their willingness to engage in the discourse?

Laura K, Social Sciences Librarian at Texas, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

OK Everyone — I Give Up

There IS something to the notion that librarian psyche needs excessive niceness and has a general discomfort with open disagreement.

My subject line was a part of a response that was sent to a local email list after a recent post received three comments, with only one being a strong counter point.

Not only did the librarian take the comments personally, the reaction included statements about promising not bringing the topic up again if everyone throws down their weapons as well as a comment about learning a lesson about the expressing an alternative viewpoint in an open forum.

How the individual reacted may have had a greater affect on maintaining the ‘need to be nice’ syndrome than the unwilliness to engage in an open discourse itself.

Eric Schnell, at 4:00 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

First, a disclaimer. I am an old fogey who does not even own a cell phone, let along read blogs. Comments may be too out of touch with modern reality to be of any value.

1. I do not read blogs because I perceive them to be little more than someone’s diary. I have no desire to read your insipid maunderings or plow through your gripe lists or roll my eyes at your meaningless rants. Give me a well-thought-out, well-written academic article, please.

2. Our world has made it too easy to read only what we already agree with. Why should I waste my time reading a magazine about a sport in which I have no interest, or a blog written by some idiot who only annoys me? We have long chosen the news we want to read, the people we want to be with, etc. and now we can just as easily choose the Web sites we want to visit, the blogs we want to read, and so forth. No wonder we all agree in those venues. It’s a waste of time to argue in an online forum where you are the lone voice of dissent.

My opinions; your mileage may vary.

Martin, at 6:00 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

Disagreeing with one point

This article covers a lot of territory, and I don’t feel qualified to comment on academic rigor and the scholarly literature. But I do have reasonable knowledge of library blogs, and I can’t entirely agree that dissent is either absent or smacked down.

To take the Library 2.0 example, it’s not that there weren’t bloggers who couldn’t see the point. There were. It’s that there was such a spectrum of Library 2.0 definitions and oppositions that it was difficult to carry on a coherent debate. I think I helped in that area by synthesizing much of what had been said, and I believe that discussions moved from somewhat meaningless debates to more meaningful, if perhaps “smaller” issues of appropriateness, diversity and the like.

I see a fair amount of healthy discussion within library blogs (most of which are signed). I also see occasional attempts to gang up on dissenters—but I see that happening less often and being ignored (or stood up to) more often.

One thing tends to warp perceptions on this and it’s not limited to library blogs: If there’s a debate, most commenters on a given post will tend to be on whatever side the post is on. Maybe that’s a good thing: I, for one, would rather see a reasoned refutation of my bad ideas appear on someone else’s blog (with a link) than buried in the comments on my own blog.

Walt Crawford, at 6:00 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

‘Library 2.0 advocates were quick to band together in a “they just don’t get it” response. Ultimately groupthink won out over efforts to help all those interested in the topic to better understand it through thoughtful examination.’

As a techie who’s neutral on library 2.0 (both he terminology and what it stands for), this wasn’t my experience at all. In fact, the haters were blogging about it almost immediately alongside the adopters.

All in all, pretty balanced, both within blogs (via comments) and between blogs (where I recall interesting back and forth postings).

I don’t disagree with your general thesis — that dissent in libraryland is both rare and rarely accepted — but I think you’ve chosen one of the few areas that has produced a very lively and informative debate.

michael, at 9:45 pm EDT on May 2, 2007

don’t make a fuss if you want a job

I wonder if we don’t all argue and disagree because we all want to get a job again someday. Without tenure, we’re not protected (not that I think tenure is the answer). When I was in library school, I was approached by the Chronicle of Higher Ed, who was looking for an LS student who would write a scathing critique of libraries and the state of the field. I didn’t have strong enough criticisms at the time, but, more importantly, I was counseled by librarian mentors not to create too big of a stir as an LS student because it’s a small field and word gets around. I ended up proposing a mildly critical article that they weren’t interested in (which is probably why I actually have a job now!).

Who wants to work with the person who is always causing problems? I want to work with someone who raises interesting points in interesting ways, but not someone who seems to argue for the phone of it.

In regards to the Stanley Wilder article and response: what was most interesting to me about that was the silence of the many, many librarians who agreed with him and think much of ACRL’s focus on “information literacy” is off-base.

Not to get too essentialist here, but I wonder if the demographics of our profession has something to do with it. We’re in a field populated mostly by women, but led mostly by men. Men tend not to like disruptive, assertive women. Are the women who are making waves getting ahead? I’m not seeing it... so perhaps some women (unconsciously) realize that making waves is not the way to make a career.

new librarian, at 10:30 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Practicality

The key question for me here is, as Chris wrote, “discourse about what?” This is always my question in regards to the library literature and blogs. As he says, and I agree, “Our profession is practical rather than theoretical.” Some questions I am concerned with are: how can I design a better library website for this college? how can I increase my visibility as a research consultant? how can I be a better teacher? how can I help students to find things better? how can we keep the reference section relevant? what electronic databases does my college need? I’m a librarian on the front lines, and as such I need advice and ideas; I don’t have all that much time for rigorous scholarly discourse, and if I wanted that, I would have gone on to get my PhD in English Lit and tried to find a job as a professor. I WANT to be the “nice guy,” and “excruciatingly helpful” too: that’s why I became a librarian in the first place.

Library school necessarily has a practical focus, since it’s training us to be librarians. I actually think my knowledge of the research process from a very rigorous undergraduate education has been just as useful to me day-to-day as anything I learned while getting my MLS. Also, my passion for working with students, for helping them to become better researchers and understand why research is so important, comes in handy. I think theory that’s interesting lies outside of the “library literature” in education and pedagogy; to reference Chris, within librarianship, the interesting stuff steems to be cataloging and how that’s changing and should change (though I don’t know very much about that).

Beth said: “There are no poster sessions at the MLA because a poster session is not discourse.” But poster sessions are great for presenting ideas & success stories to think about or, better yet, to TRY.

Librarians are PRACTICAL, for the most part, like programmers and other IT professionals, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. We DO stuff, and as such most of our blogs and scholarly literature give us ideas and tips to TRY, not to argue about. We shouldn’t have an inferiority complex about the practicality of our profession, thinking it less important because it’s not ACADEMIC enough.

Diane, at 10:55 am EDT on May 3, 2007

As librarians we work in positions that fall somewhere between faculty and staff…we have obligations to the hours of operation, we mostly work year-round and actually have to request vacation time, very few of us hold Ph.D.’s or publish in scholarly journals. At the same time we are also instructors who are supposed to be teaching our students how to critically evaluate information, and we are catalogers and technicians who theoretically need to understand the discourse of information seekers and make it as intuitive as possible to find what they need using the technology available. Many of us have taken on the title of liaison to describe our role as an intermediary between departments and library resources.

I have a boss who’s ultimately in control, and I have a job description to adhere to. It’s very different from teaching in a classroom, grading papers, and publishing. The ideal of academic freedom is plays a very different role in the library. Unfortunately, I haven’t figured out what it is yet. If anyone has some good thoughts on this, I’d love to hear them.

The opportunities for communication are severely lacking in the library I work for, and part of the problem is that we work in a world that is very different from the other academic disciplines. We lack a common language with them. I have tried to take issues to the Academic Dean when I didn’t agree with my director, but frankly, I think there is a limit to what she can do because she simply doesn’t understand what the library does or is capable of. Librarians talk about databases, vendors, technical requirements, etc. She is accustomed to talking about faculty teaching loads, grade inflation, and program review.

I think we all realize that the MLIS is a unique degree…it’s really a professional degree rather than an academic degree. My perception is that library students want only the practical information they can use in the field and would rather do without the theory, but I think it’s vitally important that we ask ourselves important questions about why we do what we do, the role we play in local and global communities, and be able to talk about it. It’s not until we get to the Ph.D. level that we get into theory, and truthfully, there just aren’t a lot of people going this route.

That said, I don’t think the problem is that we’re too nice. I happen to like being nice…I think good discourse results from collegiality, listening, and knowledge. I think we mainly lack the tools, the self-awareness, and the language to engage with our library colleagues and especially our colleagues in other disciplines.

Melissa, Librarian, at 11:55 am EDT on May 3, 2007

Thanks for all the great comments

I want to thank everyone for reading the article and taking the time to provide thoughtful comments. There are some great viewpoints presented within the comments, and will provide me with some additional thoughts on this topic. Just as some of you take issue with my arguments, I too question some of yours as well (the practicality of our profession, gender differences in making opinions known, whether there is genuine discourse or not, etc.) — but I appreciate the many different perspectives the comments brought to the discussion. I’ll continue to look for ways to encourage discourse on issues that define contemporary academic librarianship — and to work with others to build an environment in which we can all feel comfortable expressing and sharing our diverse views.

steven bell, aul for research and instruction at temple university, at 9:45 am EDT on May 4, 2007

I have met Michael Gorman and believe me, he does not need people to come to his defense. In fact, I would say that his language is often deliberately provocative. Given his style and his position as ALA president, it is not surprising that many objected to his comments on bloggers.

I am not involved in the library blogosphere or any blogosphere for that matter, so I can’t comment on groupthink or the lack of serious disagreement on issues there. What concerns me more is the intolerance of different points of view within specific library organizations. Far too often upper level administrators, whose mission is to introduce a new “model” or organizational scheme label those who express dissenting points of view as obstructionists or cranks. In my opinion, serious discussion is needed more in the workplace than the blogosphere.

The Contrarian, at 4:35 am EDT on May 10, 2007