“I like books.” This is one answer to the introductory question I ask when meeting a class for the first time: “What brings you to librarianship?” The answers vary just as LIS students do, whether they’re recent college graduates or those returning to school for a second career in libraries. The “books” answer begs the question, “Do you mean the content or the container?” Students starting graduate school who want to work in libraries with stacks filled with books may be aiming for the wrong profession.
Archives and rare books collections will always need librarians to curate and preserve, but the shift within public and academic libraries of late may mean a very different set of duties not revolving entirely around the containers so many of us love.
At a recent dinner with three academic library directors, all detailed plans to move more and more of their book and print journal collections to storage facilities to make additional space for students to study and collaborate.
The book–library connection isn’t limited to wannabe librarians; it’s the public’s view, as well. OCLC’s recent study Perceptions of Libraries, 2010 reports that the number of people who associate the word library with books has risen to 75 percent—up from 69 percent in 2005. As Borders stores close around the country and ereader popularity soars, we need to focus on what comes next in the evolution of our services.
Finding things Another answer I get to my question is, “I like to find things,” implying this future librarian sees herself at a reference desk pointing people toward the very best information for their needs. While some of us focus on authority or the “best information,” OCLC has reported in 2005 and 2010 that people turn to search engines first, not the anxious reference librarian standing by in the library. The most recent report states that zero percent of people surveyed began their information search at a library website.
Yet, in many libraries, those web redesign committee meetings just keep chugging along, producing the same types of websites operating from the same false assumptions. (For more on this, read Aaron Schmidt’s “Resist That Redesign,” [The User Experience, LJ 3/1/11; bit.ly/fhHHa5]).
The researchers also found that “ask an expert” sites have grown substantially. In 2005, only 15 percent of respondents said they used such sites; in 2010, 43 percent. Meanwhile, “ask a librarian” services have remained flat. This is another one of those difficult truths: people do not think of the library first when they need information no matter how much we may enjoy the thrill of the hunt for the best, most complete answer. However, the new report notes that 83 percent of people who have used a librarian for search assistance perceive added value. The number jumps to 88 percent among those identifying as economically impacted.
Doing things Instead of finding things, how about doing things? How about creating localized collections of our most unique stuff and, more importantly, helping our library users to do the same? Watching the HarperCollins/Overdrive ebook license limitation kerfuffle leads me to imagine a future where libraries gather, produce, and curate content in ways only beginning to be explored that bypass the traditional author to publisher to library to reader model we’ve worked with for decades.
Reflecting on OCLC’s numbers for people who turn to library websites first when seeking information means we need to get reference librarians out of libraries and into the places where they might best help people—both in physical space and virtually. Who’s to say we can’t embed ourselves in the expert sites too? Check out the “Slam the Boards” initiatives by Arlington Heights Memorial Library’s Bill Pardue (a 2011 LJ Mover & Shaker) and other librarians to see this in play at answer sites.
It’s not out of the question to imagine these service models based on community enrichment and building connections. We need a course in library school devoted to teaching people to build spaces both physical and virtual for constituents to come together. We need to prioritize marketing and branding these spaces and services consistently. Doing so will help us in creating, maintaining, and evaluating the Information Commons. The Commons, a vital part of what our spaces can be, is strengthened by each person who makes use of it. The Digital Media Lab at Skokie Public Library, IL, is a perfect example of space devoted to content creation for users. Take a look at “My Family’s History” to see what’s possible (bit.ly/h0PyLw).
There’s a cadre of LIS students coming up who would jump at the chance for jobs in digital media labs or the Information Commons. Before that can happen, however, library leadership must move beyond the lending/reference model to a broader view of what’s possible in a community-based space focused on helping people.
What’s one of the best answers I’ve ever gotten to my question? “I want to change people’s lives.”
Author Information
Michael Stephens (mstephens7@mac.com) is Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Dominican University, River Forest, IL
Reader Comments (11)
"There’s a cadre of LIS students coming up who would jump at the chance for jobs in digital media labs or the Information Commons. Before that can happen, however, library leadership must move beyond the lending/reference model to a broader view of what’s possible in a community-based space focused on helping people."
Michael--it is one thing to post an opinion piece. It is another to back it up with some hard data.
Posted by Shawne Miksa on April 22, 2011 12:22:13AM
It's easy to trash old practices.
Posted by Jeffrey Beall on April 22, 2011 12:34:07PM
To be honest, "I like books" and "I like to find things" are far better answers than "I want to change people's lives." At least the first two focus on specific, concrete things that you can identify clear goals to help you work towards. Changing lives is abstract, and would perhaps be better suited to a career in politics or rock music. In libraries, at least from what I've seen so far, you're far more likely to never be recognized for what you've done for people. Instead, you'll be ignored, devalued, questioned as to why you're even necessary, and in the extreme cases, laid off for being unnecessary in the eyes of those who pay your salary. The problem isn't in LIS students' expectations of their future careers, it is in being able to SHOW our value to others. It's in needing to increase that 83% of people who perceived added value in a librarian's search, and making sure that they tell others that it was easier and more helpful than the uncurated web. It's in needing to prove that all that information out there is great, but it's a lot easier to use if it's organized.
But you are right about one thing. Rare books libraries and archives will always need librarians to curate and preserve. That is what brought ME to librarianship, and until I get a job in one of those rare books libraries, I'll work at anything else that's relevant (like cataloging, or preservation) and will steer me towards my rather concrete goal.
Posted by Carrie on April 22, 2011 04:06:46PM
I don't understand the leap from "libraries aren't the first place people go
for information" to "we must change or we're doomed." We weren't EVER
the first place people turned to. So why are books and websites useless
all of a sudden?
Posted by Barbara Fister on April 23, 2011 08:57:56PM
Some of my former co-workers (who were also hiring managers) nixed applicants that responded "Because I love books" to the question "Why do you want to work in a library?"
While such a black and white approach to hiring makes me a bit squeamish, I do strongly encourage job applicants to be a bit more creative in their response. Apparently "Because I like books" is such a common response (among the entry-level crowd, at least), that giving a different (thoughtful and honest) answer is a quick way to nail the question in an interview.
Posted by B on April 25, 2011 12:39:40PM
The response "I want to change people’s lives" shows me that student actually may have done some research or visited a library once, because that was an ALA campaign about 20 years ago. It also indicates to me the Professor has spent too much time in the classroom and not much in a public library. Our materials circulation has continually increased. Database and e-material use is growing slowly. I personally think library services will stay viable for some time but struggle with their image because of attitudes of politicians and authors like the one above. We will continue serving the "have nots" and based on our economy that group is going to grow!
Posted by A Public Librarian on April 26, 2011 06:21:19PM
I think you are correct that libraries need to focus on being information providers beyond the book. Many do this very well already and schools need to prepare new grads for the reality that their service goes well beyond lending physical objects.
I do take issue, however, with your statement "Archives ... will always need librarians to curate and preserve..." Archives and libraries are different, if allied, professions. Archivists have specialized knowledge and skills that are unique to the profession. Our concern with provenance and context of records, for example, separates
archivists from librarians. It is archivists are needed to "curate and preserve" archives.
Posted by Rodney Carter on April 28, 2011 09:04:28AM
Congratulations: your rather shallow view of archives and special collections has just unleashed the ire of archivists and special collections librarians on Twitter. The offending bits? Here:
"Archives and rare books collections will always need librarians to curate and preserve, but the shift within public and academic libraries of late may mean a very different set of duties not revolving entirely around the containers so many of us love."
First of all, to lump these two together ("Archives and rare books collections") may seem convenient to raise your hit count but it does a vast injustice and great disservice to those of us who work in those two discretely different yet related areas. Archives do not NEED librarians at all and have functioned quite well without them. Are librarians of use to archives? Of course they are, but they are not an integral part of the workings of such institutions. And the training and skills needed to work with rare books and special collections are not gained in the usual training path that most librarians take.
While amongst archivists there is a divide between those trained in public history-oriented/based programs and library-based ones, they are both training for the same goal: to run or work in and with, archives. Show me a library program that, in the process of specifically training "librarians", prepares said graduates to run an archive and I'll go back and get a second degree from them.
To go further: you suggest that librarians are at the forefront of the preservation of collections. Again, are the programs really emphasizing that? I think not...my own library school has a course in the "Preservation of Information" TAUGHT BY AN ARCHIVIST, not a librarian (DISCLAIMER: I know her personally). The positive side is that, being trained as an archivist and increasingly involved in non-book and digital information, she is imminently able to prepare her students to deal with all manner of information conveyances.
Still more:
"At a recent dinner with three academic library directors, all detailed plans to move more and more of their book and print journal collections to storage facilities to make additional space for students to study and collaborate."
Really? Three directors...that's quite a sample. While I'm not denying that this is happening (it is...it definitely is), to use this to paint the picture that being drawn to books as a reason for going to library school is to somehow enter the wrong profession is, at best, missing the point of all three professions of archivists, special collections/rare book librarians, and general librarians.
Our mutual professions are about the acquisition, organization, provisioning of access, and the long-term custodial stewardship of information, no matter what the media, conveyance or container of that information. And the wonderful thing about these professions is that it allows a profound level of specialization. We do not all do the same jobs. To suggest that an interest in books is wrongheaded when it comes to deciding to go to library school is to show an incredible blindness to the adaptability of a profession that has doing nothing but evolve over the past 5,000 years and will continue to do so.
I'd best stop now...
Posted by Dennis Moser on April 28, 2011 09:24:02AM
Dennis and All - My apologies for not being as clear as I should have been. For
the sake of the 750 word piece, I sacrificed clarity in the intro. I certainly should
have included a bit more about various specialties, curating professionals and
job types than I did. I was trying NOT to slight the archivists, etc and get to the
focus of the piece - what can public and academic librarians do in a digital
future that might not include as many print materials as we are used to.
Posted by Michael Stephens on April 28, 2011 01:07:39PM
Perhaps a follow up article explaining the utter importance of the diversity of specialization is called for?
Apology accepted; we all just have rather high standards!
Best,
Dennis
Posted by Dennis Moser on April 28, 2011 12:14:26PM
Hello Michael,
From my point of view, it was not clarity that was lacking in the statement. I understand the pressure to quickly dispense with the introduction to get to the heart of the short article, which I think contains a sound argument. The issue is that your statement implies that archival work is a specialty within librarianship. Archivists are not a subset of librarians but are professionals in their own right. Your statement undermines the work archivists have done over the last twenty or so years to be recognized as the profession that it is – a struggle for recognition that librarians have fought for and continue to fight for. While I have no doubt that you did not intend to slight archivists, you statement in the article and your comment afterward perpetuate stereotypes about archival work. Just as being a librarian entails so much more than shelving books, archivists do more than put dusty old records in boxes. Archivists have their own history and theory, a growing body of professional and academic literature, and numerous sub-specialties within our own field. Our concern with provenance, authenticity, reliability, and context of creation and use in records regardless of their format or medium differentiate archivists from librarians and from “curating professionals” such as museum professionals. What I believe your were intending to suggest in your statement is that while librarians must adjust to the reality that more and more information is being published electronically, there will still be physical collections (of books?) that will remain in libraries and that will need be taken care of and made available to users. My question is, why bring archives into it at all? If you were talking about physical collections of books why not just say so? You seem to be equating old or antiquated material with archives, a notion which my colleagues, particularly those dealing with digital records, will quickly and happily refute. I know that the statement made in your introduction was far from central to your piece. Nevertheless, you should not casually throw out sentences like “Archives and rare books collections will always need librarians to curate and preserve…” without any consideration to the implications of such a statement.
Posted by Rodney Carter on April 29, 2011 09:16:17AM
