Wired Online had a small article arguing that blogs are a thing of the past. The argument is that you can express yourself faster with tools like Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter. I will admit there may be a point to that. I have been blogging less. Part of it for me is the lack of time, but it also the feeling that I actually need to have something of substance to post. Writing does take some time and effort; this post was written a few days ago, and I let it simmer before posting here. The obstacle for me when it comes to blogging is time, or the lack of it.
In addition, I have discovered that I can use Facebook, post a link, and make a brief comment about the item I linked. It is much less effort than opening Blogger. Even now that I am using Google Reader almost exclusively, since I got tired of all the grief Bloglines was causing, firing up Blogger to just point out a small article of interest just does not seem worth the effort. At least for me it does not. Plus sites like The New York Times have that little "Share This" button, which often includes Facebook in their sharing tool selections. If they would make Blogger a bit more ubiquitious, I might use it more. So, yes, I will admit, a lot of it is ease of use. What often happens is that I find an interesting news item or article, press the button, add a short reply or comment, and it gets posted without fuss. It's microblogging in essence (for those of you who worry about lingo), but it has been working for me.
Not that I am giving up blogging. When I started this blog, I did not start with any great aspirations. Over time, it has become a tool for reflection along with a way to make notes on things of interest or that I thought are useful. That has worked for me. The article notes have been a pretty good way for me to keep track of what I read in terms of professional development. The thought of giving up has not crossed my mind. The frequency of posting has gotten lower, but such is life. Then again, I am going to say that there has not been much of anything substantial in the librarian blogging area. Certainly not much I would want to discuss. One of my firm resolutions in blogging is pretty much not to beat dead horses. Work here has not been too spectacular either. It does not mean I do not have a lot of work, but a lot of it is "busy work," the kind of things that are not glamourous, and there is no need to blog about them.
I guess the bottom line for now is that my blogging habits are changing somewhat, or at least evolving. I still do post to our library's blog (another thing that takes some time). And The Itinerant Librarian, the unruly cousin, keeps on being as unruly as ever. I like that idea, the idea of one's writing evolving. We'll see how it goes.
A hat tip to Bookninja.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Article Note: On librarian skills and the modern world
Citation for the article:
Gerolimos, Michalis and Rania Konsta. "Librarians' Skills and Qualifications in a Modern Informational Environment." Library Management 29.8/9 (2008): 691-699.
Read via Emerald.
This short piece reports on a study looking at job ads to see what kind of skills and qualifications librarians should have. The literature review presents various models for the "ideal" librarian should be and the necessary skills. From looking at that, it seems that a very unrealistic picture can emerge. And if you look at some job ads, you see the unrealistic expectations in them as well. I mean, a cataloguer who can also do systems work, speaks four languages, and do liaison to the nursing program? You know when you see such an ad that: a) they already have an internal candidate in mind, but have to advertise, or b) they need a hire, but have to combine two or three jobs into one (likely to pay less as well). We've all seen ads like that at one point or another. Now the literature review does not mention ads like the hypothetical one I just suggested, but it did make me think about that.
Here is what the authors seem to get out of their literature review, which I think makes a pretty good statement of what a good librarian should be:
The authors refer to Biddiscombe and write:
In other words, while a librarian should have a solid skill set, he/she should not/cannot know everything. Hiring managers then are responsible for hiring and managing diverse, hybrid teams rather than advertising and looking for some "silver bullet" librarian who can do everything.
So, what are some of the findings:
Gerolimos, Michalis and Rania Konsta. "Librarians' Skills and Qualifications in a Modern Informational Environment." Library Management 29.8/9 (2008): 691-699.
Read via Emerald.
This short piece reports on a study looking at job ads to see what kind of skills and qualifications librarians should have. The literature review presents various models for the "ideal" librarian should be and the necessary skills. From looking at that, it seems that a very unrealistic picture can emerge. And if you look at some job ads, you see the unrealistic expectations in them as well. I mean, a cataloguer who can also do systems work, speaks four languages, and do liaison to the nursing program? You know when you see such an ad that: a) they already have an internal candidate in mind, but have to advertise, or b) they need a hire, but have to combine two or three jobs into one (likely to pay less as well). We've all seen ads like that at one point or another. Now the literature review does not mention ads like the hypothetical one I just suggested, but it did make me think about that.
Here is what the authors seem to get out of their literature review, which I think makes a pretty good statement of what a good librarian should be:
"According to these works, thus, the modern librarian should be a professional that possesses standards and values that function effectively and smoothly in a technological environment. He fully understands and knows sufficiently the conventional library practices. He constantly wishes to change, to develop and to learn. He adapts easily in a permanently altered environment of information, he has experience in education and possess [sic] a considerable amount of communication skills (Salter 2003)" (qtd. in 691-692).
The authors refer to Biddiscombe and write:
"Although it is difficult for one person to acquire a large number of skills, he states that every modern librarian must be able to recognize informational needs, manage users and encourage people with different skills to work in the same team. Such 'hybrid' teams will play an important role as far a management of future information systems is concerned" (692).
In other words, while a librarian should have a solid skill set, he/she should not/cannot know everything. Hiring managers then are responsible for hiring and managing diverse, hybrid teams rather than advertising and looking for some "silver bullet" librarian who can do everything.
So, what are some of the findings:
- "Communication skill appears in over 60 percent of the ads and should be considered a desirable skill for every modern librarian" (695).
- "Interpersonal skills, in general, have a high percentage of appearance in the job ads" (695).
- While ICT skills come out low on the survey, "general use of software and the knowledge of creating and maintaining web pages are two of the most desirable skills in this category" (695). In fact, a lot of the ads I see do feature some form of web page maintenance duty.
- "Probably the most important aspect of professional development and advancement for the modern librarian is adaptation of current skills in new practices and motivation in acquiring new skills when needed" (695). You have to continue learning and be open to change and adapting. Having said that, it does not follow people appreciate being changed. Notice the distinction. People usually are fine with change. It's when you try to change them where the problem comes in. Food for thought to the managers.
- "Social skills are important not only for professionals working in public services, but should be considered a distinct category of skills, along with professional skills, important for every modern LIS professional" (695). This should be a given.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Reading and Book Buying Habits of Americans
A while back I came across this survey of "The Reading and Book Buying Habits of Americans (note link is to a PDF of the complete report). The report is 13 pages, but it is mostly short questions with answers in terms of numbers, so rather easy to read. Some of the questions seemed amusing to me. So, allow me to look at the survey, put some snark into it, and while at it, take a chance to look at myself as a reader and book buyer. OK, those were fancy words for "I am commenting on the survey in a somewhat random fashion."
First, there was the whole question about "American Dream Materialists" versus the "American Dream Spiritualists." I actually had to keep reading to find the definitions, but basically these are people who believe that material goods lead to the American Dream versus those who see it in more spiritual terms. They both believe it is possible to attain the dream. Given the current state of the nation, I initially reacted with a "what are those people smoking?" remark. Maybe I am a pessimist, or more likely a cynic, but unless some serious radical changes happen soon, that dream is nothing but a pipedream. However, I am digressing. The survey points out that American Dream Materialists are more likely to buy their books in hardcover. Me? I buy hardcover when it is on sale or remaindered. Otherwise, it's paperback because I need to save some money for one, plus my apartment is small, and it is easier to stack paperbacks than big hardcovers. Having said that, there are rare authors I like enough to pay the full 28 bucks or more for their books, but those are very rare. Plus I borrow as much as I can for books I want to read but not keep. But the survey has more on that, so let's move on.
80% of the respondents said they do not plan on buying any special e-book reader. Only reason that factoid caught my eye is because my boss has a Kindle, and she pretty much swears by it. I am sure this number is not encouraging for people like her. Me? I am one of the 80%. Not planning on spending the money on a device any time soon. I like my books in print just fine. But that is what works for me. I have tried reading e-books, and I just find the way they work does not go with how I read.
And then the survey also covers politics. For example, did you know that Democrats (50%) are more likely than Republicans or Independents to visit and linger in one of those bookstores with a "community center" feel to it (their terms). In other words, think of a nice Barnes & Noble or Borders. I did notice Republicans do not seem to "fare as well" in questions like these. For example, Republicans (26%) are also less likely to shop at independent bookstores. And Republicans are more likely (32%) to agree that hearing about a book on talk radio makes them want to buy it. So, if we want to take this very literal: if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell them to read a book, the Republicans are very likely to go out and buy it on their say so. Actually, the question is about buying a book. Whether they read the book once they buy it is a separate question the survey does not address; the survey does ask about books that you buy but do not get around to reading. However, it does not break down that question by political party. I wonder why. I could go on with the joking, but I will stop while I am ahead. I did find amusing the survey took the time to find this out.
And talking about buying books, they do ask how many do people buy in a year that they never get around to reading. 53% of respondents admitted 1 to 5 books purchased that they never got around to read. I was a bit surprised people are actually willing to admit that. Personally, I never keep track, but I know I probably fall in the 6 to 11 mark, give or take. Oh, I get to them eventually, but it may take me a while. That is part of the reason I buy books on the cheap. I am not a fast reader, so buying bestsellers and new books right away does not work for me. I read at my own pace, when I feel like it. I do like having some choices at home, so when I go to buy books I often stock up. This is specially applicable here in Tyler where selections can be very limited. So, when I go out of town to a decent bookstore, I stock up for the lean times in town. In the end, I have a big "to be read" pile, and I am at peace with that fact.
The survey asks how often do you typically read a book. Most respondents (68%) say once. That is probably about right. Most people probably read something once unless it is something very good. For me, there are so many books and so little time, that I don't reread unless the book is very good, a favorite, and I am in the mood for something familiar. There are some titles I do reread now and then, but overall, I am probably like that 68%. And when I am done with them, it depends. If the book was really good, I keep it (and I keep the hope I may reread it). If it was bad (and I bought it), I will likely resell it when I get a chance. I used to do Bookcrossing, but after a while, it did not seem efficient, and I can at least get a few bucks when I resell something (these days you have to count your pennies). This is why I borrow a lot of books from the library when I can: there are too many books that only deserve a single reading. Those I try to borrow. Often, if I borrow one that turns out to be really good, I will try to buy it for myself. However, these days, I am trying to limit my purchases. Not just the economy (I am a librarian after all), but also the space issue at home.
Now, how about what makes you buy a book? Well, for me it depends. It could be a review. It could be I heard of it from a friend or colleague, or John Stewart highlighted it on The Daily Show or Colbert from The Colbert Report. Those were options in the survey (except for Colbert), and most people said they follow suggestions from friends and family. For me, book reviews are good depending on where the review comes from. I am more likely to consider a review from a librarian blogger or other blogger that I know has a decent reputation, or is an avid reader with good sense. Yes, those things may be exclusive: a blogger may have a good reputation (say a librarian that blogs about librarianship and is prominent), but be a lousy book recommender. On the other hand, some avid readers are nowhere near the librarian blogger A-list, but they read cool stuff.
In terms of finding ideas for reading, I have found Stewart and Colbert often feature some interesting writers. True, a lot of their choices are political authors, but once in a while they pick some unique books. For example, Jack Cafferty's book that I recently read, It's Getting Ugly Out There, was a Daily Show pick. I will be blunt now: I don't care for Oprah's picks. If it works for you, good, but self-help and improvement themes are not my thing. Morning shows? Well, I am usually at work by the time those come around, and they seem pretty similar to what Oprah might pick. As for TV news, when was the last time you saw a book discussed on TV news? Overall, I look at a lot of sources to get reading ideas, and a lot of those are online sources. We are talking here about my personal reading. I don't really do collection development anymore, but I still look at the professional journals in my liaison areas just to see what is out there; I am just not doing it as much since there is no real need.
Oh, and how many of you go to the bookstore knowing exactly what you want? The survey asked that, and found that only 38% fit that criterion. Oh, and 77% of respondents admitted making additional book purchases besides the one they planned. Does that sound familiar? To me it does. I have been known to go in and come out with an extra book or two. It's part of the experience. Go in to get your new Paulo Coehlo book, and you come out with the Coehlo along with a couple of mangas, a nice steampunk anthology, and a graphic novel. Just saying.
Moving along, this was a question that really made me think: "when thinking about most of the books you read, do you borrow books from the library, or do you own them?" 78% of respondents said they owned them. Right away, the question made me wonder what does that say about our libraries. Well, in my case, it would probably say that the selection in the town library are pretty much poor. I do borrow a lot of my books, but lately, I do so via my library's interlibrary loan service. They are often items I know our public library would not be caught dead having (say that Hellraiser comic anthology I just finished for example. WorldCat record. By the way, I got that via ILL.) and my own library would probably not buy (see the previous example). But putting my own example aside, the question I had was this: do people really prefer owning the books, or is it a matter that owning the book is more convenient? Going back to my experience, I often get students at the reference desk looking for a particular book. If we don't have it, I suggest ILL, but to many of them, if they think they can get it via B&N or Amazon in a quicker way (and cheap, at least in their eyes), that is what they will do. Sure, ILL is usually free, but you have to fill the form and wait for the book to arrive. If it's a common book, driving to B&N is simply easier to them. So I wonder about that. Personally, when it comes to things like graphic novels and manga (especially manga), I know I often have to buy them. So, since it is my money on the line, I am very selective on what I buy. I will note on the positive that I can get an awful lot on ILL, if I am willing to wait. The wait may be a bit longer given some books often come from out of state (and I am not commenting on why that might be). Since I never feel a need to rush in reading, I can usually order something on ILL and wait for it. But overall, the survey question is one I think libraries should really consider. If most people are willing to own the book, regardless of reason, why is that? And how can libraries address that? Sounds like a question to ponder later.
The final question I am going to write snark about is the one about what first draws you to a book when browsing a bookstore? My answer was the bargain bin, which for some reason was not a choice in the survey apparently. Actually, joking aside, I usually read the jacket, then a few pages of the book to see if it draws me in or not. I may look at the cover, but I also look at authors, editors and publishers. For example, if it is a good anthology of science fiction edited by someone I know is a good editor, you can be assured I will likely buy it on that basis. What draws me to a book varies, and it really depends on the subject or book type. I don't think they caught that very well in the survey. Plus, for me, serendipity often works too in finding new things I may want to read. In other words, I often use different criteria in selecting. Imagine that.
So, there you have it folks. Go take a look, see if you learn a thing or two about your own reading habits while you are it.
A hat tip to Stephen's Lighthouse.
First, there was the whole question about "American Dream Materialists" versus the "American Dream Spiritualists." I actually had to keep reading to find the definitions, but basically these are people who believe that material goods lead to the American Dream versus those who see it in more spiritual terms. They both believe it is possible to attain the dream. Given the current state of the nation, I initially reacted with a "what are those people smoking?" remark. Maybe I am a pessimist, or more likely a cynic, but unless some serious radical changes happen soon, that dream is nothing but a pipedream. However, I am digressing. The survey points out that American Dream Materialists are more likely to buy their books in hardcover. Me? I buy hardcover when it is on sale or remaindered. Otherwise, it's paperback because I need to save some money for one, plus my apartment is small, and it is easier to stack paperbacks than big hardcovers. Having said that, there are rare authors I like enough to pay the full 28 bucks or more for their books, but those are very rare. Plus I borrow as much as I can for books I want to read but not keep. But the survey has more on that, so let's move on.
80% of the respondents said they do not plan on buying any special e-book reader. Only reason that factoid caught my eye is because my boss has a Kindle, and she pretty much swears by it. I am sure this number is not encouraging for people like her. Me? I am one of the 80%. Not planning on spending the money on a device any time soon. I like my books in print just fine. But that is what works for me. I have tried reading e-books, and I just find the way they work does not go with how I read.
And then the survey also covers politics. For example, did you know that Democrats (50%) are more likely than Republicans or Independents to visit and linger in one of those bookstores with a "community center" feel to it (their terms). In other words, think of a nice Barnes & Noble or Borders. I did notice Republicans do not seem to "fare as well" in questions like these. For example, Republicans (26%) are also less likely to shop at independent bookstores. And Republicans are more likely (32%) to agree that hearing about a book on talk radio makes them want to buy it. So, if we want to take this very literal: if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell them to read a book, the Republicans are very likely to go out and buy it on their say so. Actually, the question is about buying a book. Whether they read the book once they buy it is a separate question the survey does not address; the survey does ask about books that you buy but do not get around to reading. However, it does not break down that question by political party. I wonder why. I could go on with the joking, but I will stop while I am ahead. I did find amusing the survey took the time to find this out.
And talking about buying books, they do ask how many do people buy in a year that they never get around to reading. 53% of respondents admitted 1 to 5 books purchased that they never got around to read. I was a bit surprised people are actually willing to admit that. Personally, I never keep track, but I know I probably fall in the 6 to 11 mark, give or take. Oh, I get to them eventually, but it may take me a while. That is part of the reason I buy books on the cheap. I am not a fast reader, so buying bestsellers and new books right away does not work for me. I read at my own pace, when I feel like it. I do like having some choices at home, so when I go to buy books I often stock up. This is specially applicable here in Tyler where selections can be very limited. So, when I go out of town to a decent bookstore, I stock up for the lean times in town. In the end, I have a big "to be read" pile, and I am at peace with that fact.
The survey asks how often do you typically read a book. Most respondents (68%) say once. That is probably about right. Most people probably read something once unless it is something very good. For me, there are so many books and so little time, that I don't reread unless the book is very good, a favorite, and I am in the mood for something familiar. There are some titles I do reread now and then, but overall, I am probably like that 68%. And when I am done with them, it depends. If the book was really good, I keep it (and I keep the hope I may reread it). If it was bad (and I bought it), I will likely resell it when I get a chance. I used to do Bookcrossing, but after a while, it did not seem efficient, and I can at least get a few bucks when I resell something (these days you have to count your pennies). This is why I borrow a lot of books from the library when I can: there are too many books that only deserve a single reading. Those I try to borrow. Often, if I borrow one that turns out to be really good, I will try to buy it for myself. However, these days, I am trying to limit my purchases. Not just the economy (I am a librarian after all), but also the space issue at home.
Now, how about what makes you buy a book? Well, for me it depends. It could be a review. It could be I heard of it from a friend or colleague, or John Stewart highlighted it on The Daily Show or Colbert from The Colbert Report. Those were options in the survey (except for Colbert), and most people said they follow suggestions from friends and family. For me, book reviews are good depending on where the review comes from. I am more likely to consider a review from a librarian blogger or other blogger that I know has a decent reputation, or is an avid reader with good sense. Yes, those things may be exclusive: a blogger may have a good reputation (say a librarian that blogs about librarianship and is prominent), but be a lousy book recommender. On the other hand, some avid readers are nowhere near the librarian blogger A-list, but they read cool stuff.
In terms of finding ideas for reading, I have found Stewart and Colbert often feature some interesting writers. True, a lot of their choices are political authors, but once in a while they pick some unique books. For example, Jack Cafferty's book that I recently read, It's Getting Ugly Out There, was a Daily Show pick. I will be blunt now: I don't care for Oprah's picks. If it works for you, good, but self-help and improvement themes are not my thing. Morning shows? Well, I am usually at work by the time those come around, and they seem pretty similar to what Oprah might pick. As for TV news, when was the last time you saw a book discussed on TV news? Overall, I look at a lot of sources to get reading ideas, and a lot of those are online sources. We are talking here about my personal reading. I don't really do collection development anymore, but I still look at the professional journals in my liaison areas just to see what is out there; I am just not doing it as much since there is no real need.
Oh, and how many of you go to the bookstore knowing exactly what you want? The survey asked that, and found that only 38% fit that criterion. Oh, and 77% of respondents admitted making additional book purchases besides the one they planned. Does that sound familiar? To me it does. I have been known to go in and come out with an extra book or two. It's part of the experience. Go in to get your new Paulo Coehlo book, and you come out with the Coehlo along with a couple of mangas, a nice steampunk anthology, and a graphic novel. Just saying.
Moving along, this was a question that really made me think: "when thinking about most of the books you read, do you borrow books from the library, or do you own them?" 78% of respondents said they owned them. Right away, the question made me wonder what does that say about our libraries. Well, in my case, it would probably say that the selection in the town library are pretty much poor. I do borrow a lot of my books, but lately, I do so via my library's interlibrary loan service. They are often items I know our public library would not be caught dead having (say that Hellraiser comic anthology I just finished for example. WorldCat record. By the way, I got that via ILL.) and my own library would probably not buy (see the previous example). But putting my own example aside, the question I had was this: do people really prefer owning the books, or is it a matter that owning the book is more convenient? Going back to my experience, I often get students at the reference desk looking for a particular book. If we don't have it, I suggest ILL, but to many of them, if they think they can get it via B&N or Amazon in a quicker way (and cheap, at least in their eyes), that is what they will do. Sure, ILL is usually free, but you have to fill the form and wait for the book to arrive. If it's a common book, driving to B&N is simply easier to them. So I wonder about that. Personally, when it comes to things like graphic novels and manga (especially manga), I know I often have to buy them. So, since it is my money on the line, I am very selective on what I buy. I will note on the positive that I can get an awful lot on ILL, if I am willing to wait. The wait may be a bit longer given some books often come from out of state (and I am not commenting on why that might be). Since I never feel a need to rush in reading, I can usually order something on ILL and wait for it. But overall, the survey question is one I think libraries should really consider. If most people are willing to own the book, regardless of reason, why is that? And how can libraries address that? Sounds like a question to ponder later.
The final question I am going to write snark about is the one about what first draws you to a book when browsing a bookstore? My answer was the bargain bin, which for some reason was not a choice in the survey apparently. Actually, joking aside, I usually read the jacket, then a few pages of the book to see if it draws me in or not. I may look at the cover, but I also look at authors, editors and publishers. For example, if it is a good anthology of science fiction edited by someone I know is a good editor, you can be assured I will likely buy it on that basis. What draws me to a book varies, and it really depends on the subject or book type. I don't think they caught that very well in the survey. Plus, for me, serendipity often works too in finding new things I may want to read. In other words, I often use different criteria in selecting. Imagine that.
So, there you have it folks. Go take a look, see if you learn a thing or two about your own reading habits while you are it.
A hat tip to Stephen's Lighthouse.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Article Note: On "keeping up" and reference/instruction services
Citation for the article:
Mitchell, Eleanor and Sarah Barbara Watstein. "The Dimensions of Reference and Instructional Services and the Challenge of 'Keeping Up.'" Reference Services Review 36.2:117-118.
Read via Emerald.
This is basically the brief editorial that opens issue 36.2 of Reference Services Review. It had some questions that made me think a bit, and that I would likely want to explore later, thus the note now. The article raises the common concern about "keeping up" with the profession. It's something I have thought about here and there. Some of the questions from this small article may help me revisit some of what I have written and thought.
Mitchell, Eleanor and Sarah Barbara Watstein. "The Dimensions of Reference and Instructional Services and the Challenge of 'Keeping Up.'" Reference Services Review 36.2:117-118.
Read via Emerald.
This is basically the brief editorial that opens issue 36.2 of Reference Services Review. It had some questions that made me think a bit, and that I would likely want to explore later, thus the note now. The article raises the common concern about "keeping up" with the profession. It's something I have thought about here and there. Some of the questions from this small article may help me revisit some of what I have written and thought.
- Some of the things that affect reference and instruction, and they are just 2.0 things either: "Economic, social and political developments and trends also affect our learning-focused organizations and specifically teaching, learning, and creative expression" (117). I don't think we ask this often enough, if at all, let alone discuss it. Part of it probably has to do with the notion of library neutrality that we aim to maintain. Yet when politics affect libraries and our work, should we not talk about it, discuss relevant issues and developments? And how such things affect our students? Well, I am thinking in an academic context being that is my experience.
- "How do you 'keep up'? What do you read? What do you watch? Who do you listen to? What methods have you developed for keeping up? Do you scan?" (118). Questions like these could be an opportunity for me to revisit some of my previous posts on keeping up. I am sure things have changed since my old musings. For instance, I scan more online now it seems. This is due to convenience in part, but in my case now, it is also due to a severe lack of print sources. In my previous job, I used to have access to things like Atlantic Monthly in print. Here, we pretty much don't have much in the way of current popular periodicals; the assumption is they are on a database someplace for one, and two, our students and faculty don't read them anyways (or if they do, they are not doing it at our library), plus they take up space.
- "Do you have any evidence that keeping up activity makes your departments, units, or your organization better?" (118). Personally, I think it does, and I could probably think of a few anecdotal examples. In terms of departments, I am not so sure. I have no idea to what degree others keep up here. Then again, that was a problem in the previous job too, and we actually routed professional journals there (not in a very timely fashion, but they got routed). Now I am not saying these things to "rag" on my workplaces past and present, but one has to wonder when no one talks about what they read professionally. Currently, other than the director now and then forwarding something she finds interesting, I could not honestly tell you what my other colleagues read to keep up, assuming they do.
- "Truth or dare--in your institution, to your peers or colleagues, to your users, does it really matter if you 'keep up'?" Now this is a good question. I would have to say that, to them, it probably does not. I get funny looks once in a while when I am at the reference desk with an academic article. And yet, I think it helps me be a better librarian to keep up.
- "Are you equally interested in current, established technologies as you are in, say, emerging technologies?" (118). I have to say I am not as interested in emerging as I am in established. This is because I tend to prefer letting other early adopters (i.e. the eager beavers) mess with them and iron some of the kinks. That, and given some of the atmosphere in the librarian sector of the blogosphere, I am not interested in being associated with over-eager librarians who jump on every shiny toy because it is a shiny new toy. I prefer to look at things, reflect, and then see if they solve a problem or meet a need before I jump in. Does not mean I do not keep up with emerging stuff; simply means I actually stop and think before I act.
- "We believe that fundamental to our success, and to our users' satisfaction is our knowledge of not only the information seeking behavior of our students, but also our knowledge of an ever increasing array of information sources, in an ever increasing variety of formats" (118). Need I say more?
- The article mentions listservs as one of the many resources for keeping up. Personally, I hate listservs. Not because I don't find them useful, but for a simple peeve: morons who can't trim posts. There, I said it. If you post on a listserv, and you are not smart enough to trim the post when you hit the reply button so all the previous content does not get reposted with your reply, you probably should not be using a listserv. Personally, there are few things I find annoying, but having to sort out through repetitive repostings to find the thread and replies of a discussion because some people can't be bothered to trim and keep things neat happens to be one of them. It's a big reason I keep listserv subscriptions to an absolute minimum, and I unsubscribe swiftly if I see a listserv is not serving its purpose (NewLib I am looking at you as an example).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Article Note: Another one on reaching students with Facebook
Citation for the article:
Mack, Daniel, et. al. "Reaching Students with Facebook: Data and Best Practices." Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 8.2 (Summer 2007).
Available online here.
This small piece did not tell me a whole lot that I did not know already. Although it is a year old (2007), some of the information on it is already out of date. For example, Facebook now allows organizations to create "pages," which serve to address what you had to do before in making a "profile" for a library. From the looks of it, a good number of libraries have created pages in Facebook; in fact, I am in the middle of investigating and tinkering with making one for our library. In addition, some of the information on the article can be a bit misleading. Facebook does not make it as easy as the authors claim to promote the profile. I have a link on my blog (see the right column) to my FB profile, but unless you are actually registered in FB, you will not see much more than my name. I did explore efforts to see if the public listing (what FB provides for you to create the link) could be enhanced, and so far nothing has come out of it as I can't add much other information. The options are not there. So, you can let people know you are listed, but that is about it. The badge options are fairly limited as well. To make sure, I went back and checked my FB as I was reading the article, and I can attest to my observations.
Other than that, the article is pretty light on the "data." Other than providing a chart of reference transactions for one of the librarians (one of the authors one could assume, since the librarian is never named), there is no other data on FB usage. Most of the article actually consists of a long literature review that mostly cites celebratory and praise types of items to get librarians to use FB. The bottom line is that this article by now is mostly superseded. For example, their optimistic assumptions may be questioned by things like the University of Michigan survey by now, and it is not as substantial as the title leads us to believe. Also, just because students may not value privacy as much, as this article claims, does not follow that is a good thing. Plus, there are articles that may show students do place some value on their online privacy, like this one. So, the article may be ok to look at in order to review any literature available, but for librarians investigating use of Facebook professionally, they need to be reading other things as well.
Mack, Daniel, et. al. "Reaching Students with Facebook: Data and Best Practices." Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 8.2 (Summer 2007).
Available online here.
This small piece did not tell me a whole lot that I did not know already. Although it is a year old (2007), some of the information on it is already out of date. For example, Facebook now allows organizations to create "pages," which serve to address what you had to do before in making a "profile" for a library. From the looks of it, a good number of libraries have created pages in Facebook; in fact, I am in the middle of investigating and tinkering with making one for our library. In addition, some of the information on the article can be a bit misleading. Facebook does not make it as easy as the authors claim to promote the profile. I have a link on my blog (see the right column) to my FB profile, but unless you are actually registered in FB, you will not see much more than my name. I did explore efforts to see if the public listing (what FB provides for you to create the link) could be enhanced, and so far nothing has come out of it as I can't add much other information. The options are not there. So, you can let people know you are listed, but that is about it. The badge options are fairly limited as well. To make sure, I went back and checked my FB as I was reading the article, and I can attest to my observations.
Other than that, the article is pretty light on the "data." Other than providing a chart of reference transactions for one of the librarians (one of the authors one could assume, since the librarian is never named), there is no other data on FB usage. Most of the article actually consists of a long literature review that mostly cites celebratory and praise types of items to get librarians to use FB. The bottom line is that this article by now is mostly superseded. For example, their optimistic assumptions may be questioned by things like the University of Michigan survey by now, and it is not as substantial as the title leads us to believe. Also, just because students may not value privacy as much, as this article claims, does not follow that is a good thing. Plus, there are articles that may show students do place some value on their online privacy, like this one. So, the article may be ok to look at in order to review any literature available, but for librarians investigating use of Facebook professionally, they need to be reading other things as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)