Citation for the article:
Kloda, Lorie. "Asking the Right Question." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 3.4 (2008): 79-81. (Available online).
This is a short piece that teaches the reader how to ask the right question for evidence based librarianship research. It is based on using the SPICE structure (setting, perspective, intervention, comparison, and evaluation). It is a pretty good tool to help those librarians out there who need or want to do some research and writing about that research. Certainly something I could use to help me shape some research ideas better.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Article Note: On reference collections and law libraries,with some thoughts
Citation for the article:
Hellyer, Paul. "Reference 2.0" AALL Spectrum March 2009: 24-27. (Available online as a PDF)
This is a short little article on reference collections and how electronic resources are overtaking print materials. For most academic librarians, this is not news. I got the impression this was still news to law librarians, or at least to the readers of AALL Spectrum. Having said that, there are some basic tips to consider when weeding your reference collection mentioned in the article. I just hope the collection, especially the print, does not get weeded out of existence. Contrary to popular belief, there are still many things you can find faster in a print reference book.
The suggestion given in the article on creating space was certainly a sore point for me. Where I work now, we already have a severe space constraint as it is. Oh, and by the way, I just found yesterday we are losing yet another classroom space so some administrative honcho (not library related) can get an office. Let's try not to go there. The point I was getting to is that some people on the campus would love nothing better than to completely eliminate the print holdings (and I don't mean just reference in this case) and use the space for computers and/or lounge spaces. This is in spite of some (old timer) professors who still make use of the collections as well as students.
More importantly, and this is part of my philosophy as a librarian, you lose something of what a library ought to be when you fail to update its collections. This includes reference. While there are some fine reference e-books and some very good online reference tools out there, they do not cover everything nor do they completely replace the print. I am just saying this as one of the guys in the reference trenches who works with our university patrons regularly. There is also the issue of older reference source standards that do not have an online counterpart. In a worst case scenario, for the sake of making more space or making a collection attractive, those items get weeded or discarded. This is a great loss in my humble estimation. While overall a reference collection has to be managed, it does not have to be managed out of existence or simply turned into an exclusive online domain, which by the way can raise all sorts of additional access issues. The failure lies in not updating while heavily weeding and discarding with the effect of providing less access to information sources. Such a reduction seems to me a disservice. But then again, my this part of my librarianship philosophy could very well be a minority view.
Hellyer, Paul. "Reference 2.0" AALL Spectrum March 2009: 24-27. (Available online as a PDF)
This is a short little article on reference collections and how electronic resources are overtaking print materials. For most academic librarians, this is not news. I got the impression this was still news to law librarians, or at least to the readers of AALL Spectrum. Having said that, there are some basic tips to consider when weeding your reference collection mentioned in the article. I just hope the collection, especially the print, does not get weeded out of existence. Contrary to popular belief, there are still many things you can find faster in a print reference book.
The suggestion given in the article on creating space was certainly a sore point for me. Where I work now, we already have a severe space constraint as it is. Oh, and by the way, I just found yesterday we are losing yet another classroom space so some administrative honcho (not library related) can get an office. Let's try not to go there. The point I was getting to is that some people on the campus would love nothing better than to completely eliminate the print holdings (and I don't mean just reference in this case) and use the space for computers and/or lounge spaces. This is in spite of some (old timer) professors who still make use of the collections as well as students.
More importantly, and this is part of my philosophy as a librarian, you lose something of what a library ought to be when you fail to update its collections. This includes reference. While there are some fine reference e-books and some very good online reference tools out there, they do not cover everything nor do they completely replace the print. I am just saying this as one of the guys in the reference trenches who works with our university patrons regularly. There is also the issue of older reference source standards that do not have an online counterpart. In a worst case scenario, for the sake of making more space or making a collection attractive, those items get weeded or discarded. This is a great loss in my humble estimation. While overall a reference collection has to be managed, it does not have to be managed out of existence or simply turned into an exclusive online domain, which by the way can raise all sorts of additional access issues. The failure lies in not updating while heavily weeding and discarding with the effect of providing less access to information sources. Such a reduction seems to me a disservice. But then again, my this part of my librarianship philosophy could very well be a minority view.
Monday, March 16, 2009
How many books I read at once
George at Bookninja points to a post asking "how many books do you read at once?"(from the Los Angeles Times). I don't read it them all at once, but I do read more than one book at the same time, so to speak. Now this debate is an old one. Some people say you should just concentrate on one thing at a time. Others say you should read as your mood moves you. I fall more into the latter camp. The author of the LA Times article reads a lot because that is her job; she is a reviewer. I am not. I read for professional reasons, and I read for personal reasons. Let's look at the personal stuff. For this, I have a bit of an informal "rule," or maybe labeling it as a "routine" is more like it since it is not strict. Anyhow, at any given time I am reading the following for pleasure: a piece of nonfiction, a piece of fiction, and a graphic novel or manga. The graphic novel or manga can be fiction or it can be nonfiction, such a memoir (for example, Alison Bechdel's Fun Home). I added the graphic novel or manga option recently as I have been reading more in that area.
Now, the variant for the routine is when I am borrowing books, usually from the library (mostly via ILL (Interlibrary Loan for my non-librarian readers, and I will let readers ponder that one). When I am borrowing, I can go up to four to six books at a time if I am borrowing one from each of my categories. The reason is that anything I borrow usually has a deadline to be returned. A lot of ILL books often do not allow a renewal. It means I have to pick these books and start on them right away to get them back by the deadline. So, I can't let them sit. As a result, anything from my own shelves I was reading at the time is put aside briefly while I get through borrowed items. After all, if I bought it, it is not going anywhere, so it can wait. What often happens is that I find a book that sounds interesting which I want to read. However, it is not the type of book I want to keep, which means it is a book I want to read once and move on. So, I put in the ILL request. Since the delivery time can vary, I often put in more than one request. Sometimes they get staggered, and sometimes they all arrive at the same time. When that happens, I get more books added to the reading pile. My record may be up to 8 at a time when I got four requested graphic novels come in at about the same time. On the positive side, I often read graphic novels and manga faster, so I was able to get everything back in on time.
Oh, by the way, if I get to pick up an LIS book, that often is one over the nonfiction quota. So, I could be reading two nonfiction items, although LIS books count as professional reading for me like LIS articles do. We barely collect LIS books at my workplace, so these are often ILL requests for me, thus they add to the reading pile.
Anyhow, that is the somewhat complex answer to how many books I am reading at any one time. Usually, it is three, but it can go up depending on my mood or if I borrowed something. At the end of the day, it's what works for me in terms of reading. I am willing to bet that a lot of librarians like me probably read more than one item at a time. For me, it is a matter of mood. Sometimes I feel like reading something in nonfiction, like history, and sometimes I need some escapism via fiction. The other factor can be length. If one book is very lengthy, the others may be short things. So there you have it in a big nutshell: how many books am I reading at the same time.
And for the curious, here is what I am reading as of this writing:
Now, the variant for the routine is when I am borrowing books, usually from the library (mostly via ILL (Interlibrary Loan for my non-librarian readers, and I will let readers ponder that one). When I am borrowing, I can go up to four to six books at a time if I am borrowing one from each of my categories. The reason is that anything I borrow usually has a deadline to be returned. A lot of ILL books often do not allow a renewal. It means I have to pick these books and start on them right away to get them back by the deadline. So, I can't let them sit. As a result, anything from my own shelves I was reading at the time is put aside briefly while I get through borrowed items. After all, if I bought it, it is not going anywhere, so it can wait. What often happens is that I find a book that sounds interesting which I want to read. However, it is not the type of book I want to keep, which means it is a book I want to read once and move on. So, I put in the ILL request. Since the delivery time can vary, I often put in more than one request. Sometimes they get staggered, and sometimes they all arrive at the same time. When that happens, I get more books added to the reading pile. My record may be up to 8 at a time when I got four requested graphic novels come in at about the same time. On the positive side, I often read graphic novels and manga faster, so I was able to get everything back in on time.
Oh, by the way, if I get to pick up an LIS book, that often is one over the nonfiction quota. So, I could be reading two nonfiction items, although LIS books count as professional reading for me like LIS articles do. We barely collect LIS books at my workplace, so these are often ILL requests for me, thus they add to the reading pile.
Anyhow, that is the somewhat complex answer to how many books I am reading at any one time. Usually, it is three, but it can go up depending on my mood or if I borrowed something. At the end of the day, it's what works for me in terms of reading. I am willing to bet that a lot of librarians like me probably read more than one item at a time. For me, it is a matter of mood. Sometimes I feel like reading something in nonfiction, like history, and sometimes I need some escapism via fiction. The other factor can be length. If one book is very lengthy, the others may be short things. So there you have it in a big nutshell: how many books am I reading at the same time.
And for the curious, here is what I am reading as of this writing:
- Don Miguel Ruiz, The Mastery of Love.
- Marc Gascoigne and Christian Dunn, eds., Let the Galaxy Burn (short fiction collection, Warhammer 40,000 series). Since this is short fiction, I can easily pick it up or put it aside if something else more pressing comes along. I am not a fast reader, and this book is 0ver 700 pages long. So it is taking me a while, but it is a good entertaining ride so far.
- Bill Willingham, Robin: Days of Fire and Madness. This is my current graphic novel selection. I will probably get it done in a day or two once I get to it.
- Roméo Dallaire, Shake Hands with the Devil. This is my current library book, which I borrowed via ILL. I have been wanting to read this one for a while, and I finally got around to requesting it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
You should listen to the non-techies too
Michael Stephens presented a small but interesting post today by Mick Jacobsen on "Love thy luddite" that makes some simple and good points. It resonated with me because one of the problems I have with the whole L2 phenomena is that they often do not listen and that they tend to push way too hard to get people to use whatever the toy du jour happens to be. This point was particularly interesting to me:
Very often it is a simple as it is just not the right time for some people to try X or Y. If you push too hard, not only will they be turned off, they may as well be turned off from other things because of that one experience. The schedule thing was interesting. I tend to be fairly productive in the morning and then a bit more right after lunch (since I tend to take short lunches anyways). For personal things like my own blogging, evening at home tends to work too. It just depends on what it is I am doing or need to get done.
But it also depends on the tool or social software site. For instance, Twitter is something I personally do not get. Well, I see the appeal for some people. But in my case, if I want to mini-blog, I can do that, to an extent on Facebook. In fact, I have been doing just that when I post links I find of interest that I am sharing with others since I usually add a small comment to the link. The comments I make are short, probably about the length that Twitter allows. So, if it is just for something like that, I don't see the use of opening yet another account on yet another online service. I can barely keep up with the ones I have as it is on some days. What makes you think I want to add another one, with another password to remember, so on, just to try it out? I like experimenting as much as the next guy, but sometimes having to sign up for yet another thing of dubious usefulness (to me) may not be worth. Give me some time later on, I may reconsider it. Push me, and I will tell you to (insert four letter word here) off.
Sometimes it may be something else. Library Thing is another example. In my case, my issue is simple: if I want to record more than what the basic free account allows, I have to pay. For me, that is a big deal since I do not like using a credit card online. You know, that whole phishing/identity theft thing going around for one. But two, for just keeping track of my personal reading and doing a little of social sharing of that reading, Good Reads works for me, and it is free. I already have over 300 books tracked there. And while Library Thing is not pricey per se, the fact I have to pay for something online that I can get free, for what I do, just does not seem worth the effort. And notice that as I talk about what I do, I do emphasize the concept of "what I do" or for what I need it. What I am saying is that some things work for me and others do not. If they work for you, more power to you, but please don't get all pushy about it and try to convert me. That just puts you in the same bracket as religious fundamentalists who want to convert everyone and hold the view of "I am right; I have the truth, and you do not," and I hate those people with a passion. If you are a promoter of 2.0 technologies, do you really want to be in the same category as fundamentalist bullies? My guess is probably not.
So please, I would appreciate it if certain people chill a bit. I am not a luddite by any means; I am blogging, aren't I? And if you look on the right side column of my blogs, you find the links to my other online tools. But I can certainly see the point of some non-techie people that they may just not be ready or that they do not find a particular tool useful. Maybe like me, they just prefer a different tool, or they prefer not to use something at all. That is not a bad thing.
And yes, I also agree you probably should not label those people as "luddites."
"Don’t push too hard (if you can avoid it). Sometimes all it takes is talking to them at the right time. Understand their schedule. Some people are ready to play at the start of the day, some after lunch, some while eating lunch, etc."
Very often it is a simple as it is just not the right time for some people to try X or Y. If you push too hard, not only will they be turned off, they may as well be turned off from other things because of that one experience. The schedule thing was interesting. I tend to be fairly productive in the morning and then a bit more right after lunch (since I tend to take short lunches anyways). For personal things like my own blogging, evening at home tends to work too. It just depends on what it is I am doing or need to get done.
But it also depends on the tool or social software site. For instance, Twitter is something I personally do not get. Well, I see the appeal for some people. But in my case, if I want to mini-blog, I can do that, to an extent on Facebook. In fact, I have been doing just that when I post links I find of interest that I am sharing with others since I usually add a small comment to the link. The comments I make are short, probably about the length that Twitter allows. So, if it is just for something like that, I don't see the use of opening yet another account on yet another online service. I can barely keep up with the ones I have as it is on some days. What makes you think I want to add another one, with another password to remember, so on, just to try it out? I like experimenting as much as the next guy, but sometimes having to sign up for yet another thing of dubious usefulness (to me) may not be worth. Give me some time later on, I may reconsider it. Push me, and I will tell you to (insert four letter word here) off.
Sometimes it may be something else. Library Thing is another example. In my case, my issue is simple: if I want to record more than what the basic free account allows, I have to pay. For me, that is a big deal since I do not like using a credit card online. You know, that whole phishing/identity theft thing going around for one. But two, for just keeping track of my personal reading and doing a little of social sharing of that reading, Good Reads works for me, and it is free. I already have over 300 books tracked there. And while Library Thing is not pricey per se, the fact I have to pay for something online that I can get free, for what I do, just does not seem worth the effort. And notice that as I talk about what I do, I do emphasize the concept of "what I do" or for what I need it. What I am saying is that some things work for me and others do not. If they work for you, more power to you, but please don't get all pushy about it and try to convert me. That just puts you in the same bracket as religious fundamentalists who want to convert everyone and hold the view of "I am right; I have the truth, and you do not," and I hate those people with a passion. If you are a promoter of 2.0 technologies, do you really want to be in the same category as fundamentalist bullies? My guess is probably not.
So please, I would appreciate it if certain people chill a bit. I am not a luddite by any means; I am blogging, aren't I? And if you look on the right side column of my blogs, you find the links to my other online tools. But I can certainly see the point of some non-techie people that they may just not be ready or that they do not find a particular tool useful. Maybe like me, they just prefer a different tool, or they prefer not to use something at all. That is not a bad thing.
And yes, I also agree you probably should not label those people as "luddites."
Friday, March 06, 2009
Booknote: Questioning Library Neutrality
This is one I have been meaning to read for a while: Questioning Library Neutrality edited by Alison Lewis. It is a collection of essays from Progressive Librarian that raise the question about the idea of library neutrality. Are we really neutral as librarians? Is it in our interest and in the interest of society that we keep the illusion of neutrality as librarians? Should we not, as members of society, be engaged in that society and thus have positions as well? In my personal situation, this is the question I often struggle with: do I simply let someone get bad information because I am neutral, or do I try to educate them towards better information? I am thinking of Kevin Trudeau's various books on miracle cures and so on, which have been pretty much discredited (not to mention having been banned from the airwaves by the FTC). but people who don't know better keep seeking them out in public libraries. The neutral librarian would simply buy the book and offer it without question. The engaged librarian would probably try to educate the patron and offer alternatives, and I lean towards the educational mission. That takes work by the way; for the neutral librarian, they can just sit there, so to speak, which I do not find acceptable. That's the kind of question, and others in this book, that I often ponder in my professional practice.
I did make some notes in my personal journal as I was reading this book. Except for Doherty's essay, which I had read before, all the works here were new to me. Let me jot down some of the things that caught my attention or made me think.
From the introduction:
One would think that is apparent, but I know certain librarians would rather not think about things like that in order to preserve the idea they are neutral and that all viewpoints are equal and deserve equal space. I will admit that I often fell for the giving everyone their space, but let's be honest, some ideas are not worthy of being given space or expression. And this is specially so in a library with limited resources as it is.
And here is something else I tend to struggle with. While the Rosenzweig essay lays out some very good history of politics and librarianship, it still does not quite answer, for me at least, the common issue or objection of too much politics in certain sections of the ALA. Because as important as certain international issues are, and I do find some things reprehensible and needing someone to stop them, we do have a ton of problems closer to home that the so-called professional organization for librarians is simply not addressing on behalf of librarians. I can't worry about Darfur or Rwanda when I have to worry about deprofessionalization, poor funding our our libraries not to mention the poor pay librarians and library workers get, and a host of other issues closer to home. The Rwanda thing comes to mind because I am about to start Dallaire's book. As librarians, we can't be neutral, but I think that at times we need to be a bit more selective on the battles we pick. It is something I personally struggle with, but I should point out that I did drop my ALA membership years ago; the organization was just too far away for me, fairly irrelevant to what I need, and to be honest, a bit too much on the elitist for me.
Now here is something I can relate to:
I wish it was so easy, or seemingly easy, to understand my own ambivalence about a profession I love, one where "the establishment" seems more concerned about perpetuating itself, about certain images, than about really educating and serving.
"If we accept that information is connected to knowledge and knowledge to power, we must examine the connections between power and information in our postmodern society. What are the implications for increased access to information by the dominant segment of society? Librarians are trained in the expert manipulation of information by mastering the technology connected to the production, dissemination, and retrieval of information. However, what are the implications for society in not questioning what kinds of information are accessible and what kinds are not, and who has easy access?" (Iverson, 29).
Maybe part of the answer to my earlier question is here. My training and experience tell me to question and to show others how to do it. I am surrounded by significant restraints and many who prefer to accept the status quo--some for convenience, others out of laziness, and a few out of evil to keep their their elite positions.
Something I found curious, or interesting at least, is how a lot seems to stay the same. Joyce's essay on the social responsibilities debates of the 60s and 70s could have been written today with everything (or almost everything) practically intact: from tales of the ALA's lack of flexibility and out of touch old guard to some younger librarians calling for boycotting the ALA and encouraging others not to renew. In a way, it's like nothing has really changed, and it certainly does not encourage me to renew my membership any time soon.
Ann Sparnese discussing Michael Baldwin's argument from his October 2002 Library Journal essay was something I wanted to note too:
Two things. One, replace the "latest novels" with "video games" or whatever the latest craze may be, and that statement remains as relevant as ever. And two, in my humble estimation, we should be demanding the same out of our academic libraries.
Overall, for a thoughtful and reflective librarian, this is a book that will make you ask a lot of questions and take a look at your own professional practice. The book also provides a pretty good history of the profession in the last 50 years or so. And for some, this may be the book that shakes them out of their complacency. This is definitely one I highly recommend.
I did make some notes in my personal journal as I was reading this book. Except for Doherty's essay, which I had read before, all the works here were new to me. Let me jot down some of the things that caught my attention or made me think.
From the introduction:
"But creationism and Holocaust denial have been discredited by the vast majority of the scientists and historians, respectively. They don't hold equal weight in the marketplace of ideas, and they are not deserving of an equal share of limited library resources" (2).
One would think that is apparent, but I know certain librarians would rather not think about things like that in order to preserve the idea they are neutral and that all viewpoints are equal and deserve equal space. I will admit that I often fell for the giving everyone their space, but let's be honest, some ideas are not worthy of being given space or expression. And this is specially so in a library with limited resources as it is.
And here is something else I tend to struggle with. While the Rosenzweig essay lays out some very good history of politics and librarianship, it still does not quite answer, for me at least, the common issue or objection of too much politics in certain sections of the ALA. Because as important as certain international issues are, and I do find some things reprehensible and needing someone to stop them, we do have a ton of problems closer to home that the so-called professional organization for librarians is simply not addressing on behalf of librarians. I can't worry about Darfur or Rwanda when I have to worry about deprofessionalization, poor funding our our libraries not to mention the poor pay librarians and library workers get, and a host of other issues closer to home. The Rwanda thing comes to mind because I am about to start Dallaire's book. As librarians, we can't be neutral, but I think that at times we need to be a bit more selective on the battles we pick. It is something I personally struggle with, but I should point out that I did drop my ALA membership years ago; the organization was just too far away for me, fairly irrelevant to what I need, and to be honest, a bit too much on the elitist for me.
Now here is something I can relate to:
"Both in my training and in my work I have often felt ambivalent about librarianship and been at odds with the 'library establishment'" (Iverson essay, 25).
I wish it was so easy, or seemingly easy, to understand my own ambivalence about a profession I love, one where "the establishment" seems more concerned about perpetuating itself, about certain images, than about really educating and serving.
"If we accept that information is connected to knowledge and knowledge to power, we must examine the connections between power and information in our postmodern society. What are the implications for increased access to information by the dominant segment of society? Librarians are trained in the expert manipulation of information by mastering the technology connected to the production, dissemination, and retrieval of information. However, what are the implications for society in not questioning what kinds of information are accessible and what kinds are not, and who has easy access?" (Iverson, 29).
Maybe part of the answer to my earlier question is here. My training and experience tell me to question and to show others how to do it. I am surrounded by significant restraints and many who prefer to accept the status quo--some for convenience, others out of laziness, and a few out of evil to keep their their elite positions.
Something I found curious, or interesting at least, is how a lot seems to stay the same. Joyce's essay on the social responsibilities debates of the 60s and 70s could have been written today with everything (or almost everything) practically intact: from tales of the ALA's lack of flexibility and out of touch old guard to some younger librarians calling for boycotting the ALA and encouraging others not to renew. In a way, it's like nothing has really changed, and it certainly does not encourage me to renew my membership any time soon.
Ann Sparnese discussing Michael Baldwin's argument from his October 2002 Library Journal essay was something I wanted to note too:
"He argues that in order to be institutions of democracy, libraries must promote democracy and an informed citizenry as its main, most important mission. And I would hope that the public would value this inherent purpose and demand it of their public libraries-- not just providing folks the latest novels" (80).
Two things. One, replace the "latest novels" with "video games" or whatever the latest craze may be, and that statement remains as relevant as ever. And two, in my humble estimation, we should be demanding the same out of our academic libraries.
Overall, for a thoughtful and reflective librarian, this is a book that will make you ask a lot of questions and take a look at your own professional practice. The book also provides a pretty good history of the profession in the last 50 years or so. And for some, this may be the book that shakes them out of their complacency. This is definitely one I highly recommend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)