To Mr. Neiburger I would say this - Yes, research at the library is down. However, you need to look at the whole picture. The below is also noted in the Perceptions of Libraries, 2010 report: "While information resource use grows, overall impressions decline" & "In 2005 the majority of Americans assigned strong favorability ratings to many information resources. Search engines topped the list with an 86% favorability rating. That rating has dropped 12 points to 74% in 2010." & "Our findings suggest that as online resources become commonplace, the shine has likely dulled." Yes, people BEGIN their information searches on a search engine. The learning curve indicates they will find out in order to be able to END their search they need to go to a source which can provide relevant and authoritative information. That should be the new role of the reference librarian - not a reject in the dustbin. Reference needs to move beyond referral,through navigation, and into counsel. Before people get their panties in a wad - I am not suggesting we give legal and medical advice. However, the information flood is in full swing and we need to be positioning ourselves as a benevolent source who can control the fire hose. (How's that for mixing my metaphors!) Not a gatekeeper, but a guiding aegis. Of course we can make more room and hire personnel to store and maintain mountains of data. But, with all due respect - it's the people NOT the data - that give libraries true value.

Posted by Pamela Benjamin on April 26, 2011 12:47:56PM

Pamela, I respectfully disagree 100%. It's the data not the people that give libraries their true value. It always has been. There was a time when librarians were needed to "serve" the data to patrons. Now, people are far more capable of being "self served". If a reference librarian can add "something" to the data via their own personal knowledge of a subject or add efficiency to the collection of the data with their knowledge, there is certainly added value. But the data is the value. The data is what people want, not you or me. A failure to grasp this is why reference is dead. It's not about how one feels, it's about what you provide. Furthermore, as an ALA degree holding librarian, my personal opinion is that most reference questions in the average public library could easily be handled by a competent bachelor degree holder, or perhaps less if they're just plain smart. If library schools don't adjust to reality, librarians will be extinct. The fact is a smart teenager probably has the average 45+ year old librarian completely smoked in tech skills. Sometimes a field has just gotta get real and face reality.

Posted by Anonymous Guybrarian on April 26, 2011 04:03:14PM

Guybrarian, while I agree that some library patrons do have the necessary skills to find their own data/information, there are plenty of patrons I serve who do not know the first thing about how to use technology to find information. Many of these same people never mastered finding physical information in the format of books on shelves, either. What about these people who need in-depth instruction to be able to find their informational needs?

Posted by librarEwoman on April 26, 2011 04:50:05PM

This may be true of some libraries, but in academic libraries where users come to the library with specific expectations based on their subject area, reference librarians (or subject specialists or subject liaisons... call them what you will) are essential for helping students understand the research and publishing practices of their specific fields. Locating data sets for the social sciences is a very different process than locating witnesses of medieval manuscripts. And to my knowledge, no single database can differentiate between the two tasks.

Posted by John Jackson on April 26, 2011 02:53:47PM

Anyone who has worked in public libraries in the past decade can't argue that reference has changed dramatically. Is traditional reference, in the sense of someone sitting behind a desk all day long waiting for that rare juicy question, dead? Perhaps. Can reference librarians find a new purpose and way of making a difference in people's lives? I sure hope so! In the short time I've worked in public libraries, I've seen reference librarians create a community-wide reading program, assist countless job seekers, teach local business owners how to use tools like Facebook pages and Google Places, create community websites, and empower people to get creative with digital media. As much as I agree with Eli's statement that libraries need to invest more in geeks, I hope he agrees that librarians, many of whom have passionately served their local communities for years, can find new life.

Posted by Richard Kong on April 26, 2011 05:40:41PM

You may be forgetting the thousands of patrons who do not have access to Internet information except at the library and those who do not know how to use a computer, word processing programs, research skills, or the Internet. Various surveys indicate that between 18% and 40% of U.S. households do not have Internet connectivity. Twenty-five percent do not own a computer. The very young and the senior citizen population have less technology than the rest of the population. [http://www.paulhelmick.com/2010/10/chart-75-percent-of-american-households-own-a-computer-broken-down-by-age-education/] There will always be a need for reference librarians though the role now expands to using more knowledge of technical resources.

Posted by Lucy Archer on April 26, 2011 03:44:44PM

Context. Wherein can you find context in an online database designed to return keywords ranked on relevance? Receive only what what you put in! Let's be optimistic and suggest that nearly 15% of all printed materials in the world are at least available for online searching by title if not a wee bit of an abstract. 85% is therefore not available even to be found online. Optimistically. Keyword searching fails context, and context is the difference between being smart and being wise. The searcher may not even realize that other keywords and subjects are relevant without a really great subject index or being able to literally browse the shelves by subject. A world-wide, an inch deep is what online searching will get you. Any Librarian with *any* training can liberate the world from being specialized to the depth of a finger. Let me contextualize it another way. Science is all about better description, and the Scientific Method precludes "proof". Math "proofs" are proof (2+2=4), therefore math never will be the answer to a scientific inquiry (black holes and dark matter, anyone?). More IT is just more math, and it certainly can never be scientific nor wise. Librarians need to educate their patrons in aggressive ways, with posters and flyers and classes and any way they can about how context is the first thing they need to be searching for - followed by keywords, not initiated by them. A great book I suggest is The Oxford Guide to Library Research by Thomas Mann 2005. Yes, please do bring in mighty IT, but failure is inevitable when it replaces people in favor of bits.

Posted by Kenneth Pfaff on April 26, 2011 04:04:30PM

LibrarEwoman, In my experience working at a public library very few questions are what I would call "in depth". Most questions are more like "can you sign me on to the computer" or "what's the latest Stephen King book" - as opposed to "how many light years away is the farthest star and how fast would I need to travel to get there in 5 years and what would my ship need to be made out of". A wiki or FAQ page could quite readily teach a patron how to find the answer to the first two questions I listed using the library catalog or Amazon. Furthermore, I have my doubts as to whether a librarian would be able to answer the third question (myself included - but we would be able to get them to the correct reference material), but if somebody was capable of figuring out that question by using reference material they probably would not need the help of a librarian to find the appropriate reference material to begin with. Academic libraries are more suited to having reference librarians on staff with specialties as John Jackson indicates. Although some of you will certainly disagree, I think a high school graduate would be quite capable of answering the first two questions I posed above with access to a catalog (I know I could have). I'm sorry to say, I feel the job of the reference librarian is over-glorified regarding the complexity of the questions received by patrons (in a public library). Furthermore, libraries are moving much further into the realm of offering digital media (books, music, movies, etc) - if somebody can use an ereader, ipad, mp3 player, do you really think they'll have difficulty with a simple library catalog? In the next 5-10 years or so when ereaders/ipads/ipods/laptops/tablets are the main tools for using media/books do you really think people will be coming in without knowing how to use what are ultimately pretty simple user-friendly devices? Why push back against what is already inevitable? We should embrace this change instead of resisting what is already a lost battle. So, my question to you is, what exactly are these reference questions (in a public library - not academic) that we are so necessary for that could not be answered by the average college grad with a four year degree or an FAQ/wiki page? Can you give some examples?

Posted by Anonymous Guybrarian on April 26, 2011 06:56:41PM

I couldn’t have been the only one offended by Mr. Neiburger exclaiming that “Reference is dead.” Yes, stats are down for reference so we will have to actively investigate new models for more effectively serving patrons but to declare it “dead” was both dismissive and flippant. I appreciate innovation as described in the article but let’s put some things in perspective. I work in an academic library where we don’t have Pokémon tournaments and the best research doesn’t usually result from a Google search.

Posted by IQ on April 26, 2011 06:57:05PM

He's probably right, but I hope he cuts cataloging first. And deep. I want to need cataloging but, in my experience at a couple of academic libraries, cataloging is backwards, unwilling to change and learn, and generally avoids anything that isn't monograph cataloging. Kids, if you're reading this, DON'T BECOME A CATALOGER! It's about as future-facing as wagon wheel repair.

Posted by grrr on April 26, 2011 08:04:37PM

Much as I may dislike the notion, when it comes to public libraries, reference may well be dead. It doesn't matter how much "value" a librarian can add when your customers (who are also the taxpayers providing your funding) don't find value there (Eli's point; though whether they'll find value in server farms and various library services that they might support is far from certain as well.) Can reference be ressurected? Perhaps, but it will be a tough job, and require skills in marketing and PR that some librarians don't have much practice with. We would need to "sell" to our customers the importance of the added value that Librarians can provide. And unless/until we can put a value on that, I don't see the public deciding that reference is still worth supporting.

Posted by Scott on April 26, 2011 11:21:34PM

General reference is dying a quick death. More specialized reference in research institutions lives on. That type of reference requires subject experts--and not just professionals who know information sources, classification, etc. Now is the time for libraries to build a network of subject experts and to use communication systems to make those subject expert librarians available to the public no matter where that public might be. In the 1960s, a few localities attempted to build a system of specialized nonfiction and reference collections with subject experts to provide this type of reference outside of the academy for the benefit of the general public. This failed because the communication/information system was not there to provide the service fast enough. Reference is not dead, but it has changed. Libraries provide so many benefits to their users because of our various networked SYSTEMS. It is time to network our reference and build up the experts to work in that system.

Posted by Libguy on April 27, 2011 08:43:12AM

Although the traditional "just-in-case" model of having reference librarians sitting behind a desk waiting for patrons to come to them with their questions may no longer be useful for many libraries, that shouldn't be confused with an ongoing need for the skills and expertise of reference librarians out in the community (or out on the floor of the library). There are still many important opportunities for libraries and librarians to deepen their direct community engagement and to experiment with new models of outreach and service delivery (in both public and academic environments). The reference desk may be dead, but long live community librarians!

Posted by Kevin Stranack on April 27, 2011 09:01:50AM

A growing problem I see with the undergraduate patrons is that they think they are information literate and think that what they find is good. There is a great need for reference librarians, but as long as there is a perception that what they find (wherever they find it) is all there is and good enough, then in the end it doesn't matter what is available or if help is available if there is no perceived need. Indeed reference is dead. How can a profession survive now that makes people aware of what they don't know? That's embarrassing, and embarrassment inspires pushback and anger. Though, something to take into account is that I see more and more of our students who do want a librarian or having a need from their coursework are turning to chat reference. The anonymity makes it easier to ask questions since they don't have to see someone face to face and admit they don't know. However, they still often start with, "I'm sorry for asking, but..." or "I'm sorry for bothering you, but..." In this view, the only thing left is to fix the systems themselves, as Eli says. Though that is a sad commentary on society as a whole. How can we improve if we are not willing to be momentarily ignorant and admit that someone else might know better?

Posted by ct on April 27, 2011 09:49:47AM

I think that saying "reference is dead" is a bit of an over-statement. Reference as it once existed is definitely dead, but reference now has changed. Rather than saying that we need to cut reference positions and hire geeks, I think a more accurate statement is that reference librarians need to *become* geeks. I know plenty of geeks who may be brilliant with technology but have no customer service or reference interview skills, and those two parts of a librarian's job remain key. What we need to do is combine those skills with the technological know-how. That's what is needed in this new environment.

Posted by Nick Tepe on April 27, 2011 09:34:21AM

Guybrarian, Spoken like a true twenty-something (maybe 30). When stating, "The data is what people want, not you or me. A failure to grasp this is why reference is dead. It's not about how one feels, it's about what you provide" it is a clear indication of never having worked on a reference desk (as well as a lack of understanding of basic human psychology). Of course the value of a library is a combination of data and people. However, if data is so important, why have numerous studies on patron satisfaction indicated that it is the interaction NOT the accuracy of the data which patrons appreciate? Yes, it is becoming - it is - a self serve society. But libraries have always understand - as the private sector is increasingly recognizing - that it is the personal touch that keeps people coming back. Ask any director. I'm talking about the long-term plan here. Re: your comment that "most reference questions in the average public library could easily be handled by a competent bachelor degree holder, or perhaps less if they're just plain smart." I have often felt that way myself and even argued so while in library school. But finding a satisfactory answer involves more than being smart or having a lot of data. I've have bridled at the thought of the public library becoming an extension of the social service world. However, I see now that it is - in part - the path public libraries must follow. We will be community centers, social service facilitators, e-government providers or whatever else is needed. Because there will always be poor people, elderly people, downtrodden people, and those people on the fringe who need someone to help them find their way.

Posted by Pamela Benjamin on April 27, 2011 10:25:05AM

Responding to the issue raised by librarEwoman: it's tough for libraries to make strategic decisions these days because there is such a spread of user needs. It's hard to say we can do less of a long-standing service when there are still people who really, really need those services. However the subset of users who need a lot of technological hand-holding or who don't have access at home is shrinking. Libraries can't continue to justify their funding and relevance if they entrench themselves in serving just the have-nots. Certainly it's unethical and antithetical to write them off completely, and I'm not advocating for that, but we have to remember to serve the whole spectrum of our user base. We have to keep finding ways to provide value to the great and growing span of people for whom libraries are becoming wholly optional. Otherwise we risk becoming information food shelves that only serve those most in need.

Posted by McGhiever on April 27, 2011 12:55:36PM

Pamela Benjamin, Guybrarian is 35 with an ALA accredited library degree and 9 years of library experience in both reference and management. I was fortunate enough to be old enough to know what life without the internet was like and what life with the internet is like. Fortunate enough to remember what doing a book report or college paper was like using only printed material and fortunate enough to also know what it is like to be able to use electronic sources for a college level report. I also argued with dinosaurs in library school who resisted technology. I don't appreciate the way your comments came off. But, since we're speculating I'd bet you're 45+ and didn't grow up with video games like I did and probably don't quite "get" technology and are one of those folks that resist technology for emotional reasons. Computers are here, reference books are already dinosaurs - yes right this minute. Wikipedia may not be fully vetted, but believe me, it will be and it will be soon. What you're holding onto is a lost cause. You are over glorifying a job that does not really require that much know-how specifically because of how easy computers have made it to get information. Discerning what information is valuable (to them) is the job of the information user anyways, not you. Saying that patrons are satisified because of the interaction and not the accuracy of the data is a ridiculous statement. That line of logic indicates that when you buy a car you don't care if it works you care how the salesman treated you, and the same with any other purchase. Exactly the opposite is true. You, my friend, are the one missing out on basic human psychology. Humans want a good deal that fulfills their need(s), a smiling face to deliver it is just a bonus. Stating that patrons come to the library to "visit" the librarians as opposed to getting accurate information is downright delusional. As far as 20-somethings, who exactly do you think has it all over you tech-wise right now, probably without even any formal education outside of HS. Yup, teens and 20-somethings!! Technology is the future - deal with it - or as some say lead, follow, or get out of the way!

Posted by Anonymous Guybrarian on April 27, 2011 01:40:20PM

Let's not confuse ability to use technology with any ability to discover information. Teen and 20-something users often exhibit little skill or ability in their efforts to find the information they need. Watch them search and see how little their technology skills serve them in finding the information they want. "Discerning what information is valuable (to them) is the job of the information user anyways, not you. Saying that patrons are satisified because of the interaction and not the accuracy of the data is a ridiculous statement." If a patron is satisfied with the interaction, even if the answer isn't 100% accurate, by your own statement, it's a successful interaction. You're calling such a claim as ridiculous when it's not only not ridiculous but entirely plausible that a patron will be satisfied with getting most of their needs met, even if you don't meet all of them. Sorry, Guybrarian, but you don't sound like you've spent much time with actual patrons. I don't work a public service desk and even I've seen and been a part of enough interactions with patrons to know that your ideas on how patrons view the interactions with librarians is less connected to reality than the people you are slamming. I'm a techie and I don't buy into your overhyped view of technology or how people use it. Are there dinosaurs out there? No doubt. But your view of the world doesn't match any of my experiences or those I've heard from others in the library field. Eli is a great guy with a lot of great ideas. But the vast majority of libraries in this country are not AADL nor are the patrons the same group of people who go to AADL.

Posted by TechGuy on April 27, 2011 07:27:53PM

I love what AADL is doing and as a former PLA there, I definitely still use so many of the skills I acquired there and I have a certain public library philosophy that was molded in part by my time there. What AADL is doing works for Ann Arbor and I think that libraries can and should learn from AADL but figure out what will work for their own particular community. Ann Arbor is not representative of the entire country, particularly with urban and rural areas where many may not have access to a computer or high-speed internet at home and many may not even have access to consistent reliable cell phone service and certainly not a smart phone. While it can be said that reference is dying and it's true that many reference questions aren't really reference questions, I would say that the library not only needs to move towards better provision of IT with behind-the-scenes "geek" work AND with programs providing face-to-face training across all tech skills levels for library patrons. But that is definitely not all of it...libraries should be community centers and in my opinion, librarians should be moving more towards creating and providing even more programs to the communities they serve. We should think in-depth about the actual people we are serving and what their needs and wants are and find our niche in our own particular community.

Posted by Tara on April 28, 2011 06:44:38AM

Dear Techguy, That's because the "library" field perpetually reinforces how necessary it is to provide these magical services and the special information you speak of to justify their masters degree programs and the fact that they attended them. Look, the reality is reference questions are generally simple. Anybody with half a brain could answer them - teen, tween, young adult, old adult. Please tell me what skill is involved with finding out what the latest James Patterson book is, how to find the latest Arcade Fire CD, or pointing out where the bathroom is? You failed to answer my initial question, which is give me some examples of these magically difficult reference questions posed at public library service desks that require a masters dgeree??? Look, the reality is, the book descriptions (item descriptions) and reviews on Amazon are more helpful than the average librarian because there are too many books and subjects out there for any one person to be an expert on all of them. This is from real experience, librarians do not know the answers to things like "what is the best table saw on the market". Consumer Reports is inferior to Amazon/internet reviews. Now, having the skill to determine how real/accurate reviews of this nature are is a different skill, still not possessed by (taught to) librarians. Keep hanging on to your horse and carriage while the rest of the world drives cars if you want. You are defending a losing battle. From my real world experience people do not ask questions at the public service desk that require cited sources these days. I'm actually confused as to what your point is, since you have only provided anecdotal evidence to prove your point, where I have posed real questions. Of course, librarians are going to say they are needed and their service is special and makes everybody feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Discerning which information is valuable is the job of the user. "If a patron is satisfied with the interaction, even if the answer isn't 100% accurate, by your own statement, it's a successful interaction." I said no such thing. I said the data (i.e. item sold) was what was important and that a smile (the interaction) was just a bonus. The fact of the matter is that the librarian field over-glorifies itself to keep the profession alive, particularly with things like reference. Most reference staff spends more time on Facebook or Youtube than answering questions about finding the Lost Ark. I think it is you who does not have experience at a reference desk or with reference desk staff. They basically sit there and play on the computer all day until somebody asks where they can find "The Social Network" or the latest Patterson novel. I know some of you out there know exactly what I'm talking about. I have worked this desk and managed this staff. Is there a place for librarians? Yes, but they need to get real and carve out a real niche for themselves instead of hiding behind this idea that what they do at the reference desk is in any way difficult. They need to truly possess skills that go above and beyond what they average person can do. Currently, that is not the case except perhaps in specialized libraries and academic libraries. Don't forget to provide me with these Einstein level reference questions you speak of that a teen or 20 something needs a librarian to answer for them so that you actually have a point. Also, give me a nice breakdown of tasks that a non-librarian could not do that a librarian can. Then we can talk.

Posted by Anonymous Guybrarian on April 28, 2011 09:27:43AM

I don't understand your obsession with the requirement that librarians have a Masters degree. It's not as if most librarians are getting rich because they have a degree. I know there are people like yourself who think you can staff the reference desk with people getting paid less than a kid flipping burgers at McDonald's. But the quality of the service provided is going to be what you would expect for that pay. As for the information skills of teens or 20- somethings, you're right, I only have the experiences of myself and others I know in the profession to reference. So please go ahead and get together a group of your average patrons in that group, give them a set of 10 typical questions and set them on their way. Then report back to us their success in finding that information, the sources they used and how quickly they found it (and whether they were even able to figure out which sources were accurate and which were not). It might be a real eye-opener between the reality of patron skills and your imaginary world of what you think patrons can find.

Posted by TechGuy on April 28, 2011 10:19:29AM

Eli is right, we have to shift more resources to IT than we have in the past, to create virtual branches and provided digital content that *works* for our users. This doesn't mean we have to devalue the human interactions that our brick and mortal libraries provide, nor the value of a professional reference librarian. Libraries are inclusive, and library staff should bring a diversity of backgrounds and experience just as our users bring a variety of needs to our desks or our websites. Yes, resources are scarce. That doesn't mean it's all or nothing. Geeks and librarians. It's a powerful combo.

Posted by Carly, Librarian AND IT Project Manager on April 28, 2011 10:33:51AM

Mr. Neiburger is definitely a Mover and a Shaker. He has been a tremendous innovator and very successful with implementing his ideas - the video game club and more recently the Magnatune project. However I feel Eli is missing the most important role of today's reference librarian. With so much information out there, people have so many options available to them at their fingertips that they now more the ever need someone (a well-trained reference librarian) to navigate through all the information that is available and led them to relevant and reliable information. Previous posts have hit on this point and the post by Anonymous sums up my everyday. Its very shocking to see how many people both young and old do not have the skills to locate information whether its in the old fashioned paper format or digital. I do agree that all librarians do need to morph their skills and begin to adapt to technology (as many are doing). So let's not get rid of reference librarians, but continue to evolve our skills and occupation so we can provide the best service to our patrons. On a side note - I honestly think Magnatune is worthless unless you have a big call for A Rival's 8 bit-pimp. Pause for everyone to think who this is...didn't think so. Although Magnatune has a very appealing deal and DRM, this music lending software does not have much to offer. It will be interesting to see how many downloads this has after 6 months. We will see how popular the Long Tail really is.

Posted by modernlibrarian on April 28, 2011 11:10:31AM

I work in a library branch in a large city. I work the reference desk probably 2 or 3 hours each day. While we do not get a lot of in depth questions as far as reference goes, there is a large drop-off at times between the job you get from a degreed librarian as opposed to the library assistants that also handle reference at times. The library assistants that are capable will not be satisfied with $10/hr for any length of time, so they will move on to higher paying jobs. The ones that are satisfied to be making that kind of cash provide substantially lower levels of service to the public. There is weeding, book ordering, program planning, schedule making, budget planning, classes to teach and so on and so forth. The time at the reference desk is typically such a small portion of my day. I do agree that the days of sitting behind a desk for 8 hours waiting on questions about books is over. There is just a completely different set of skills that are needed to answer the questions that a reference librarian now gets. How do you download books to a Nook? How do you create a wedding invitation on Microsoft Publisher? How do you create a calendar in Excel? What programs can I use to crop and alter photos? How do you set up a Wi-Fi connection at home? Librarians are needed the same as always, just a different series of questions they need to be ready to answer.

Posted by libraryguy on April 28, 2011 02:47:19PM

Guybrarian - the value added by reference librarians is not subject content; it never was. The value added is service. I cannot even tell you how many times a patron has thanked me for the help because it would have taken him/her five times as long to find the information they needed. I have seen this in 18 year old college freshmen with smart phones and 65 year old faculty who are still using slide projectors. Just because a savvy computer user can type words into a search engine doesn't mean they know how to do it EFFECTIVELY. It is not about the ability to search; it is about searching well and in the right places. Yes, many people can search on their own and find information. No one is disputing that. Furthermore, this broad generalization of people being capable to self-serve ignores realities such as... dare I say it... the digital divide? What about rural libraries in which the only computer source is the library? What about low-income areas in which people can't afford computers? What about the elderly with reduced physical dexterity that need assistance not only in formulating searches, but in physically performing them? Some people need reference help; some don't. To take it away from those who do is a grave disservice. Not everyone has an iPhone and a Mac. Furthermore, starting a search at a search engine doesn't mean someone doesn't need reference help. Google is an information source just like any library database - there are tips and tricks to make it work for you. Reference Librarians have the skills to help make the most of whatever search engine or database used. Just because 84% use search engines doesn't mean reference is dead! Why can't reference and IT coexist? Why are they at odds? It would be beneficial to reference librarians to expand their IT knowledge, but it would be equally beneficial for IT personnel to expand their reference and service knowledge. The library is there for the patrons. If we are not serving them to the best of our ability, what the hell are we there for?

Posted by Rachel Doepker on April 28, 2011 07:47:11PM

I am in charge of Reference for a pubic library system. Several years ago we did an internal study of our system-wide information questions and an external scan of information consumer/customer service trends. Obvious conclusions: declining questions & easy questions that took 1-3 mins. to answer. In response, we are continually re-inventing "Reference". One of the first things we did was introduce roving (stats continually show that 50% of customers do not ask for assistance). Information is sought & provided in more ways than simply answering questions at the information desk. Our "reference" librarians are the social media, technology, small business, local history/genealogy and readers advisory experts. Their jobs involve service development, program development, staff training/supervision, liaison with community partners, managing grants, etc. This is a better use of professional librarians and the work is more satisfying. Librarians need to spend some time working at information desks in order to understand the business & our customers' needs, however, that should not be the major focus of their jobs. For the most part, this service can be provided by well-trained, people-oriented library assistants.

Posted by Reference Innovator on April 29, 2011 12:19:56PM

Dear Guybrarian, OK - 30 something (still called it). Thank you for the categorization of "dinosaur" but I am in no way a luddite. In fact, I have always embraced technology (e.g. one of the first in the US to facilitate virtual reference, dropped land line 7+ years ago, purchased/promoted databases, use social networking, and most of my friends are IT people). I have worked in reference and management at a medium public library, large urban library, medical university library, newspaper library, and an academic library for 15+ years. I love the endless possibilities that computers, technology, and crowdsourcing bring to us. That being said, if the future of public libraries is in the hands of individuals with the extremely narrow attitude of "deal with it...or get out of the way!" we are - indeed - in deep doodoo. As others have stated, being technically able does not indicate true knowledge. When I had my first professional job as a librarian, I was the technological guru for all things IT on staff. There was an older, senior librarian, who was miserable with technology but had vast knowledge of various indices, encyclopedias, Nat'l Union Catalog, etc. The best results were when we worked together - her knowledge and my technical skills. To go all one way or the other would be a mistake. btw - Your accusation of "glorifying a job that does not really require that much know-how" is highly indicative of the egotistical condescension which IT people and youth seem to so often excel at displaying – it does nothing but alienate people and hold back organizations. The difficulty of the inquiry may depend on the type of library you work in. At the large urban institution and the academic library there were in-depth, challenging questions not readily answered by Google or a non-librarian. I know, however, that many of the questions faced by public librarians are mundane or simplistic. I am not saying reference should stay the same. I have, in fact, stepped away from being a reference librarian in a large library system and now work for a state library organization where are our concerns are for the well-being of all public libraries. As such, it is easy to see that we are a people business 1st and foremost. Facts & data are great. (My god, if anyone knows that, it’s a reference librarian!) But they are NOT the end all be all & will NOT sustain the public library. I believe the delusion you refer to can be primarily found in the realm of the youth or those who think they have all the answers and only their way is the right way.

Posted by Pamela Benjamin on April 29, 2011 10:12:49AM

Totally agree with this article and the comments made by Guybrarian--from a public librarian perspective (I cannot speak from an academic viewpoint). Add up the quality of "reference" questions, such as the location of the bathroom and do we have the latest David Baldacci novel; the quality and relevence of information available in a book; the overall technical savvy-ness of your average librarian (I know some librarians who still struggle with their email accounts); and a patron's ability to access information elsewhere from knowledgable sources (for example, a doctor is just as likely to give a patient information from a reliable medical website as a library is)and you can see how far behind we are in the information business. If we continue to cling to old-fashioned attitudes, it won't be long before every library is replaced by a room full of e-readers operated by a part-time teenage staff. Relevacy is about what the patrons want, not what we want them to want. And you don't necessarily have to get rid of your reference staff, but they need to be well-trained in not only searching data, but in the mechanics of the latest technical trends. There is a place for librarians, but it's not where it used to be.

Posted by The Conservative Librarian on May 4, 2011 09:33:14AM

I find the article kind of funny. I manage all the non-circ related servers for a library system in Wisconsin so I think I have a fair grip on what IT needs libraries have. Traditional reference desk services may be on the brink of extinction for all I know, I don't go roaming the floors much, but their use of technology is not lacking. One digitization project a reference department did created an enormous strain on IT here. At one point they were sucking up storage so fast I had less then 2 months before they were going to fill my biggest server. 900 albums you say? In mp3 format, 12 songs per album, 4 mb per song, lets say 50 mb per album so that comes out to 4.5 gig. Allowing for additions and being generous, 5 gig. One library's reference department uses 3 times that for the web site alone, that's after making them use outside hosting for some of their more grandiose projects, and don't get me started on their use of the main file server. Now they're gearing up to start making videos! By all means let me buy big servers, I agree completely that I need them, but it's because of reference that I do. Trust me, Children's services are not filling servers any where near as fast.

Posted by LibraryGeek on May 4, 2011 02:18:29PM

I generally disagree with all or nothing notions. We have to get rid of Dewey, bookstore models are the only way, we have to get rid of books, ebooks are the only way, we have to get rid of librarians, technology is the only way. Yes, Libraries need to adjust, constantly. We need to be innovative and creative and listen, really listen to our patrons. Guybrarian is right that we need to be tech savvy or bring in staff who are. Pamela is right that librarians add value to data and they add value by knowing how to navigate the systems that contain that data. Maybe it is only one interaction where a librarian introduces a sales rep to Reference USA, but that is value that may result in real dollars for that As for the Ann Arbor model? It looks like a great use of resources for a product patrons likely want - now balance that with great staff who can promote and train patrons on using it, who can talk (in person, via blog, whatever) with patrons about what other music is like the stuff they just downloaded, who will sit for 15 minutes with someone with a new MP3 player and show them how it is done.

Posted by CCD on May 4, 2011 04:28:00PM

I share Guybrarian's experience: there is still a huge contingent of people in the United States who do not know how to use the internet. This may seem surprising, but public librarians around the country are trying to mitigate patrons' lack of computer literacy every day. Those who do know how to Google something often have no idea how to distinguish a trustworthy website from an untrustworthy one. This recent article gives an example of a school librarian working to nip this information literacy problem in the bud: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/books/16libr.html. We have a lot of work to do as a country if we really want to take advantage of our information technology assets and successfully build our information-based economy. I think librarians have a role.

Posted by TrgLlyLibrarian on May 6, 2011 02:24:02PM

Apologies; I was actually responding to librarEwoman's first post on April 26, 2011. I was confused by this comment interface and didn't see all the 32 comments already posted here. Chances are I've re-iterated a point that has already been made, but hopefully my link was helpful.

Posted by TrgLlyLibrarian on May 6, 2011 02:29:38PM

@Guybrarian I would argue you're applying an outmoded concept of the library to our current digital envrionment. The library has been the temple of information, yes, but none of us would have training in reference interviewing techniques or various service models if the only point of the library was to hold and distribute data. Clerks can distribute data, librarians help people figure out what information (the difference in term is intentional and important) it is they are really looking for (as opposed to what they ask for). Perhaps most importantly in our age of increasingly democratic content creation, librarians help patrons evaluate the sources they use. I was a TA in college. My students were incredibly tech savvy, but almost none of them could tell me the difference between a popular and a peer-reviewed publication or how to read between the lines of websites/digital publications/etc. for inbeded marketing or bias. Many believed blog posts and wikipedia could be cited just like journal articles and formal publications! Tech savvy, yes. Information savvy, no. Further, if the library is only about providing data to people, we should all quit now. We cannot do that job as effeciently or cost-effectively as the for-profit market place. We simply cannot compete as data-providers. What we can do is provide context, help establish meaning, serve as guide-posts and interpreters to the wealth of data available, both digital and physical, to help in its translation from simple data to valuable information. This work can take many forms. Maybe it's meaningful reference service one-on-one, perhaps it's well built wikis and online guides, but such value-building work that is the foundation of strong patron-relationships requires LIS professionals with the kind of ethical standards, educational values, and service commitment that we all learn about in library school and is called for in the ALA's professional ethics statement. An IT professional, for all his/her skill and ability, does not have the same gounding in the theory and principles of library service and so cannot replace a librarian. Perhaps instead of flaming controversy by suggesting librarians should be replaced by IT professionals, we can shift the conversation to how we can increase the tech savvy of our practicing library professionals or look for oppertunities for cooperation between LIS and IT professionals in our organizations.

Posted by Benjamin J. Howard on May 6, 2011 04:11:20PM

Sheesh, could guybrarian's rants be anymore stereotypical of the blinded technocrat always advocating the eliminating of social programs and services for the glorified advancement of technology? Short answer, no. Quit beating around the bush and just tell us that you think all public servants are a complete waste of time and should be eliminated already, okay? I mean, why stop at librarians? If teachers aren't spending 100% of their time "providing data" to their student-bots, then they should be replaced by iProfessor or GoogleMarm, right? How about the donut-eating cop? The card-playing firefighter? Sense where I'm going with this? People in a society pay taxes for the AVAILABILITY of certain common services, services that cater to the entire cross-section of the community , which are provided by professionals and which not all of the community may use. I know this doesn't fit in with the Randian dreams of techno-revolutionaries and their hopes of a completely digitized existence but life is not nor ever will be the Matrix. Yes, I know that makes me sad, too, (sniff) but all of these continual paeans to the glories of technology are always too clever by half when one actual thinks about the ramifications to a community.

Posted by hugh on May 7, 2011 03:44:55PM

Academic libraries are very different animals from public libraries. Yes in academic libraries one would expect a level of technological sophistication but it's a skewed audience. In the public library that expectation needs to be far lower. For one thing the users have a much greater age range than the general academic population. Seniors and younger people who don't have the need or desire to be technological are by far the majority. I think the database use in public libraries would reflect that. We have a hard sell to get people to use the electronic resources. Even when they do desire to use these materials it then becomes a teaching moment (or half hour or hour). People who maintain and develop technology AND can teach this diverse type of audience are usually not one and the same. Geeks as teachers of the technology timid. I think not.

Posted by Mare Parker-OToole on May 7, 2011 04:44:23PM