Yesterday I received my copy of the latest issue of a journal I subscribe to. On the front cover is an abstract image with the caption "under surveillance." As one might imagine, this is a nod to the ongoing government surveillance scandal (I think at this point, the term "scandal" is appropriate). So far, I've kept my discussions on this issue to verbal conversations with my fellow citizen, but the image on the cover of a scholarly journal about librarianship led me to wonder: "what role do libraries play to maintain patron privacy and what role should they play?"
To be sure, this is a topic that has been discussed at great length, and not just in the recent past. And for those that know and understand librarianship, this comes at no surprise; after all, as this ALA explanation of privacy shows, patrons have an right to privacy implied in the Library Bill of Rights (a document that defines policies all libraries should follow). However, in light of the recent revelations of the NSA's surveillance activities, one's actual level of privacy engaging in any activity is now suspect. This thought process is what spurred me to ask my question.
An interesting result of the NSA "revelations" has been seen in the consumer market. Products are now being evaluated and/or promoted based on their ability to protect consumers from NSA surveillance. The latest iPhone, for example, has a fingerprint reading security feature that stores the fingerprint information on the phone, not on Apple servers. This means that Apple will never have that data, so it would never be able to turn that data over to the government. John McAfee, a name known in the computer industry as the developer of a popular computer anti-virus software, has also announced a new product in the works that will supposedly protect people against NSA surveillance. Since libraries are big advocates for their patrons' privacy, what effort are they putting into keeping their patrons' information as private as possible?
For answers, I turned to the policies of three libraries I am familiar with. Two of the three are public libraries (Alameda County Library and MCFL), and one is an academic library (SJSU). I use all three fairly regularly. I was surprised to find no mention of patron confidentiality or privacy policies on the policy section of the Alameda County Library website (which is worrisome since this is the one I use the most). The MCFL policy was quite explicit in what information the library collected, how it was used, and in some cases how long it was kept. The SJSU library also has a confidentiality policy that outlines what information is collected, including what specific confidential information is collection, but no mention is made of how long the information is kept (which can imply it's kept indefinitely). What's interesting is that the MCFL and SJSU policies are years old; one was first instituted in 2003, the other in 2006. Existing library privacy/confidentiality policies are well-established.
So where does this information leave us? Well, we can assume that many libraries (but not all) are aware of and take pains to inform their patrons what information the library collects and how it can be used. Both available policies do explain that they will release information required by subpoena or court order, which put them in the same boat as many other law-abiding companies and organizations. In other words, there may not be a lot of "extra" protection that libraries give their patrons.
Except when they do. The MCFL policy notes the length of time that the library will keep certain kinds of information. On the list of information collected are materials that the patron has checked out, the information on who last checked out an item, transaction details for fines owed and late items, and transaction details on fines paid or waived. Each of these pieces of information is only kept for a limited amount of time, not indefinitely. If a patron returns an item on time and that item is checked out twice more (or up to six months pass before the item is checked out again), there is no record to link that patron to the item he or she borrowed; for a popular title, that information will disappear quite quickly. Because the library doesn't keep the information, the library would be unable to pass it on to, say, any government agency asking for it.
If we're going to talk about best practices, I would suggest that MCFL's policy become the ideal for libraries. I understand that libraries have to keep statistics on things like circulation, web usage, and other measures of use, but there are ways for the library to collect and maintain that information anonymously. Logically, MCFL has to be doing so to some extent since transaction details are deleted after a set amount of time, and if MCFL is managing other libraries probably are as well.
Libraries can be and should be the model for transparency and privacy. At the very least, all libraries should be openly providing access to their policies on what information is being collected from patrons. If such a policy does not exist, why not and how soon can that be recified? More libraries need to adopt of level of confidentiality and refrain from keeping patron information indefinitely. This will allow patrons to assume some anonymity and safeguard their privacy.
And now I will (temporarily) step down from my soap box.
Showing posts with label library services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label library services. Show all posts
Friday, November 15, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
LibGuides: Into the Nitty-Gritty
I've posted about LibGuides before (see this post from several months ago). It's a content management system that allows librarians--or others--to present information to users in hopefully meaningful and useful ways. Often, LibGuides is used to create subject-based guides that are essentially digital pathfinders (tools to guide patrons or other users to where they can find information on a topic).
Different types of libraries find them useful for different things. Libraries for K-12 schools may use them to create a guide with information on a single topic like mythology or Algebra. Academic libraries that provide services for college-level students may take this concept one step further and create a guide to assist a single class; in this way the guide supports the specific assignments and curriculum for the class and becomes an additional resource the instructor can point students to. Public libraries seem to be the most varied in the use of LibGuides, and I've seen everything from subject guides on topics (similar to what academic and K-12 libraries do) to guides that outline library policy. Many libraries of all types will include their available databases on their guides.
Having been building and using LibGuides myself for some time (over 2 years now), I see some definite benefits to such a resource--if it's made to be meaningful to the intended audience. If you take some time to browse through the guides, you'll note that some are put together and just left, kind of a "fix it and forget it" mentality. I can see this as an option if it's for a class and the class never changes in terms of content or assignments, but for a lot of LibGuides I imagine that not actively maintaining them equates to a slow death as the resources become less and less viable for the intended audience. As with anything online, using LibGuides to create guides for your patrons is a commitment--one akin to keeping your library website up-to-date. As the needs of the audience changes, so too should the LibGuides. Once again, the needs of the user becomes a paramount consideration.
So why bring this up? It all ties in to my next two assignments for my Advanced Reference class. We've moved from providing reference services for a hypothetical reference question to analyzing databases to analyzing LibGuides and creating our own. We are in the process of currently learning about best practices for online subject guides in order to examine two published LibGuides made for the same topic and writing an analysis on how they each present the topic's information. I found two LibGuides created to provide information and resources on mythology, and while the amount of content is similar I'm already noticing some big differences on organization and the type of information/resources that are included. I'll probably be discussing more about LibGuides as I start the creation of my own guide (topic to be determined). As another kind of content management system, it does share some characteristics with other CMSs like Drupal (although Drupal has far fewer limitations and several other bonuses).
If you're interested in seeing how different libraries have used LibGuides, you can check out the community site for LibGuides published by subscribers.
Different types of libraries find them useful for different things. Libraries for K-12 schools may use them to create a guide with information on a single topic like mythology or Algebra. Academic libraries that provide services for college-level students may take this concept one step further and create a guide to assist a single class; in this way the guide supports the specific assignments and curriculum for the class and becomes an additional resource the instructor can point students to. Public libraries seem to be the most varied in the use of LibGuides, and I've seen everything from subject guides on topics (similar to what academic and K-12 libraries do) to guides that outline library policy. Many libraries of all types will include their available databases on their guides.
Having been building and using LibGuides myself for some time (over 2 years now), I see some definite benefits to such a resource--if it's made to be meaningful to the intended audience. If you take some time to browse through the guides, you'll note that some are put together and just left, kind of a "fix it and forget it" mentality. I can see this as an option if it's for a class and the class never changes in terms of content or assignments, but for a lot of LibGuides I imagine that not actively maintaining them equates to a slow death as the resources become less and less viable for the intended audience. As with anything online, using LibGuides to create guides for your patrons is a commitment--one akin to keeping your library website up-to-date. As the needs of the audience changes, so too should the LibGuides. Once again, the needs of the user becomes a paramount consideration.
So why bring this up? It all ties in to my next two assignments for my Advanced Reference class. We've moved from providing reference services for a hypothetical reference question to analyzing databases to analyzing LibGuides and creating our own. We are in the process of currently learning about best practices for online subject guides in order to examine two published LibGuides made for the same topic and writing an analysis on how they each present the topic's information. I found two LibGuides created to provide information and resources on mythology, and while the amount of content is similar I'm already noticing some big differences on organization and the type of information/resources that are included. I'll probably be discussing more about LibGuides as I start the creation of my own guide (topic to be determined). As another kind of content management system, it does share some characteristics with other CMSs like Drupal (although Drupal has far fewer limitations and several other bonuses).
If you're interested in seeing how different libraries have used LibGuides, you can check out the community site for LibGuides published by subscribers.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Controversy of RA
In my last post, I talked about RA and mentioned discussing more the controversy in RA. But first, I want to briefly explore an idea that has percolated to the surface of my mind since yesterday.
RA (Reader's Advisory for those unfamiliar with the acronym) is a type of service that connects readers with books they would enjoy. Active RA (see my previous post) falls in with more general reference services and librarians use similar tactics in an RA interview as they would in other reference interviews. In addition, there are tools for RA--just as there are for other types of reference work--to assist librarians with connecting their patrons with another book (or DVD, magazine, etc.) that they will like. The idea of RA made me think of Ranganathan's 5 Laws (a very good discussion of them can be found here), and the second law in particular, "Every reader his or her book." During my class in which RA was the topic last week, I came to understand more about RA and the importance it plays in the service libraries provide to their patrons. However, this morning I realized that it is necessary to provide RA in the context of Ranganathan's second law. The second law justifies reference services in general and RA services in particular because it defines the purpose of connecting patrons to the items or information they desire. This is what a library does; how it happens may manifest differently in different libraries, but at the heart of every library's operation is the help library staff give patrons to find what they're looking for. General reference works to connect patrons with information or items they know they want. What is RA but helping patrons find a book they don't yet know they want? General reference and RA are two sides of the same coin (aka the second law).
Now so far, RA sounds like a pretty awesome and important service, right? So how can there be any controversy about helping people find a book? Well to start, not everyone--even within the profession--see RA as a necessary service to provide. Controversy can build when a few librarians are fighting to keep their RA resource subscriptions going at a time when libraries are having to slash budgets and work with less funding. A lot of librarians don't understand or are apprehensive about RA. Feelings can include "I don't read a lot of genre X, so how can I do RA?", "I don't like genre X, so how can I do RA?", "There's no real answer to RA questions, so how can I provide an accurate response?", or even "I don't know how to talk books" (Trott, p. 63). It's hard to get support for a service (even an important one) if the voices of dissension are loud.
In addition to controversy and conflict on the part of librarians, there is also controversy and conflict on the part of patrons and others outside the library. Why? Because of the types of materials patrons are looking for and are connected with. One of my classmates proposed a very thought-provoking hypothetical example. In it, a teenaged boy was looking for a hypothetical movie with lots of nudity and violence for a "guy's night." The library didn't have the exact item he wanted, so the librarian fielding the boy's question recommended another movie about a classic character in horror stories (Dracula) that was rated R for nudity and violence. This kind of situation of course would raise concerns with parents who would be worried about the fact that the librarian recommended an item with mature content to a teenager. However, our professional ethics dictate that we connect patrons with the materials (or types of materials) and information they want, as long as the materials or information can exist within current US law; if you want to see one of our most core tenets, check out the ALA Bill of Rights (particularly articles III and V). Also, as much as parents and guardians would like surrogate parents in librarians for their children, the responsibility of assuring children and teens don't borrow materials their parents would object to ultimately falls on the parents. Many libraries have policies that state they do not censor materials or refuse to check out items based on a patron's age. To see how this might look, here is the Access to Materials Policy of my local library:
"All staff members will respect every patron's right to choose his/her own library materials.
As part of the Reference interview, in recommending material to any patron, reference staff will consider the patron's reading capabilities, reading comprehension, and the specific question or interest at hand.
When material is not available at a branch library, reference staff will explain and encourage the use of Interlibrary Loan by both adults and children when it is appropriate.
It is not the responsibility of the circulation desk staff to question patrons about the materials being checked out of the library.
This policy applies to all formats of materials in the Library's collection and to patrons of all ages."
Before last week, I didn't realize how closely connected RA and larger issues like censorship and freedom to information are. I see RA in a much different light now. It is a vital service to patrons, but one that sees its fair share of objection from patrons and a lack of support from librarians. I feel like I have a better grasp of what it is and how it fits in both within a library and within our profession.
Trott, B. (2012). Reference, readers' advisory, and relevance. The Reference Librarian, 53(1), 60-66. doi: 10.1080/02763877.2011.596367
RA (Reader's Advisory for those unfamiliar with the acronym) is a type of service that connects readers with books they would enjoy. Active RA (see my previous post) falls in with more general reference services and librarians use similar tactics in an RA interview as they would in other reference interviews. In addition, there are tools for RA--just as there are for other types of reference work--to assist librarians with connecting their patrons with another book (or DVD, magazine, etc.) that they will like. The idea of RA made me think of Ranganathan's 5 Laws (a very good discussion of them can be found here), and the second law in particular, "Every reader his or her book." During my class in which RA was the topic last week, I came to understand more about RA and the importance it plays in the service libraries provide to their patrons. However, this morning I realized that it is necessary to provide RA in the context of Ranganathan's second law. The second law justifies reference services in general and RA services in particular because it defines the purpose of connecting patrons to the items or information they desire. This is what a library does; how it happens may manifest differently in different libraries, but at the heart of every library's operation is the help library staff give patrons to find what they're looking for. General reference works to connect patrons with information or items they know they want. What is RA but helping patrons find a book they don't yet know they want? General reference and RA are two sides of the same coin (aka the second law).
Now so far, RA sounds like a pretty awesome and important service, right? So how can there be any controversy about helping people find a book? Well to start, not everyone--even within the profession--see RA as a necessary service to provide. Controversy can build when a few librarians are fighting to keep their RA resource subscriptions going at a time when libraries are having to slash budgets and work with less funding. A lot of librarians don't understand or are apprehensive about RA. Feelings can include "I don't read a lot of genre X, so how can I do RA?", "I don't like genre X, so how can I do RA?", "There's no real answer to RA questions, so how can I provide an accurate response?", or even "I don't know how to talk books" (Trott, p. 63). It's hard to get support for a service (even an important one) if the voices of dissension are loud.
In addition to controversy and conflict on the part of librarians, there is also controversy and conflict on the part of patrons and others outside the library. Why? Because of the types of materials patrons are looking for and are connected with. One of my classmates proposed a very thought-provoking hypothetical example. In it, a teenaged boy was looking for a hypothetical movie with lots of nudity and violence for a "guy's night." The library didn't have the exact item he wanted, so the librarian fielding the boy's question recommended another movie about a classic character in horror stories (Dracula) that was rated R for nudity and violence. This kind of situation of course would raise concerns with parents who would be worried about the fact that the librarian recommended an item with mature content to a teenager. However, our professional ethics dictate that we connect patrons with the materials (or types of materials) and information they want, as long as the materials or information can exist within current US law; if you want to see one of our most core tenets, check out the ALA Bill of Rights (particularly articles III and V). Also, as much as parents and guardians would like surrogate parents in librarians for their children, the responsibility of assuring children and teens don't borrow materials their parents would object to ultimately falls on the parents. Many libraries have policies that state they do not censor materials or refuse to check out items based on a patron's age. To see how this might look, here is the Access to Materials Policy of my local library:
"All staff members will respect every patron's right to choose his/her own library materials.
As part of the Reference interview, in recommending material to any patron, reference staff will consider the patron's reading capabilities, reading comprehension, and the specific question or interest at hand.
When material is not available at a branch library, reference staff will explain and encourage the use of Interlibrary Loan by both adults and children when it is appropriate.
It is not the responsibility of the circulation desk staff to question patrons about the materials being checked out of the library.
This policy applies to all formats of materials in the Library's collection and to patrons of all ages."
Before last week, I didn't realize how closely connected RA and larger issues like censorship and freedom to information are. I see RA in a much different light now. It is a vital service to patrons, but one that sees its fair share of objection from patrons and a lack of support from librarians. I feel like I have a better grasp of what it is and how it fits in both within a library and within our profession.
Trott, B. (2012). Reference, readers' advisory, and relevance. The Reference Librarian, 53(1), 60-66. doi: 10.1080/02763877.2011.596367
Monday, September 17, 2012
CD and Censorship
As I progress through this latest of my classes, my program continues to be a source of new knowledge and enlightenment. The topic of collection management and development is almost overwhelming in its complexity, and there is so much exposure to things that I had never before considered--one of which is how collection development (CD) can consort with censorship, even unintentionally.
Time and time again, I see the same message filtered through my classes and class material: "Libraries should provide the information that its community desires. Librarians should not withhold material from anyone just because the information is controversial or otherwise seen as 'inappropriate.*' " This concept is so important, it makes up the first part of the Library Bill of Rights. That's why, when it comes to CD librarians need to be careful in their selections, both to make sure that the information needs of the community are being met and to ensure that their own biases are not affecting their decisions.
As a previous post alluded, CD is how a library creates its collection of resources. Decisions on what to get, how to get it, how much to pay for it, and even when or how to get rid of other items all falls under some part of CD. Librarians that make some or all of these decisions have a lot of power in that they directly affect what will reach the hands--and computers in the case of electronic resources--of the patrons served by the library. Can you see where I'm going with this? A librarian with a strong bias can be a dangerous thing when mixed with CD, and some self-reflection may be necessary to ensure that the librarian can remain neutral when it comes to deciding on items (physical and digital) to add to a library's collection. Otherwise this bias can act as a form of censorship. Choosing not to include a resource--if the reason is NOT related to the suitability of the item to the library's community--is an insidious form of censorship simply because the library patrons don't even know that it's happening. Their access is being restricted and they aren't even aware of the fact to advocate for themselves. So being self-aware, neutral, and keeping the library's community as the focus (not the item itself) is incredibly important for librarians.
There's a number of other topics that CD touches--including Open Access, digital ownership, and the Digital Divide (not just a buzzword, but a real problem in many urban areas). I hope to explore more of these topics further in future posts.
*Please note that there is a difference between "inappropriate" and "illegal."
Time and time again, I see the same message filtered through my classes and class material: "Libraries should provide the information that its community desires. Librarians should not withhold material from anyone just because the information is controversial or otherwise seen as 'inappropriate.*' " This concept is so important, it makes up the first part of the Library Bill of Rights. That's why, when it comes to CD librarians need to be careful in their selections, both to make sure that the information needs of the community are being met and to ensure that their own biases are not affecting their decisions.
As a previous post alluded, CD is how a library creates its collection of resources. Decisions on what to get, how to get it, how much to pay for it, and even when or how to get rid of other items all falls under some part of CD. Librarians that make some or all of these decisions have a lot of power in that they directly affect what will reach the hands--and computers in the case of electronic resources--of the patrons served by the library. Can you see where I'm going with this? A librarian with a strong bias can be a dangerous thing when mixed with CD, and some self-reflection may be necessary to ensure that the librarian can remain neutral when it comes to deciding on items (physical and digital) to add to a library's collection. Otherwise this bias can act as a form of censorship. Choosing not to include a resource--if the reason is NOT related to the suitability of the item to the library's community--is an insidious form of censorship simply because the library patrons don't even know that it's happening. Their access is being restricted and they aren't even aware of the fact to advocate for themselves. So being self-aware, neutral, and keeping the library's community as the focus (not the item itself) is incredibly important for librarians.
There's a number of other topics that CD touches--including Open Access, digital ownership, and the Digital Divide (not just a buzzword, but a real problem in many urban areas). I hope to explore more of these topics further in future posts.
*Please note that there is a difference between "inappropriate" and "illegal."
Monday, August 27, 2012
Weeding the Books: My Personal Challenge
Already in my collection management class, we're exploring topics and issues that are really making me think. One of the latest topics brought up in our class discussion is the necessity of weeding as part of collection management. For those who are not librarians and are not very familiar with the terminology, weeding is the act of removing those items that are no longer "useful" from the collection. The reasons for weeding can be 1) the item is out of date and the information is no longer correct, 2) the item has not been checked out or used for some time, which argues against its continued usefulness, or even 3) the item has been replaced by other items more suited to the service population (the people that come and use the library). Or it could be for another reason not mentioned here.
Weeding is an important part of collection management policy because it keeps a collection relevant to those who use the library, and it helps to make space for newer materials that patrons want. However, I think that this particular aspect of collection management will be the toughest for me because I cringe internally every time I think about getting rid of a book. Even with my own collection (which, funny enough, has more items in it than the collection of the library I work in), it is SO DIFFICULT to get rid of anything--including old textbooks that I haven't picked up in years. As I mentioned in a reply to a classmate's comment, "It's not just that they're books--they have a value that I think librarians and avid readers inherently understand, but others seem to overlook. There is knowledge there, [not] just factual, but cultural, emotional, and psychological." The most that I'm ever able to do is pack old books into a box and put them in storage for that day I finally have enough space to give my books their own room (one day...one day...).
So with my tenacious hold on my own volumes, I don't know how I'm going to address the conflict within myself to effectively weed in a library's collection. Is there a training program for that? I suppose this is where the collection policy comes in. A well-written policy will contain guidance for what materials to weed when and why. My personal collection will continue to remain unweeded (though it continues to grow), but the collection at the library I work at definitely needs to be weeded--no matter how much I would like to avoid it. My hope is that I will be able to formulate a policy and procedure for weeding and determine items that can be discarded--especially since I will desperately need the space to put in new materials we will need to purchase for several new programs we will be introducing to our campus. For this, I will, I must put my personal desires aside for the sake of my library's collection. Even though it will be hard.
One of my classmates posted a link to this blog entry with a realistic and humorous approach to weeding: http://perfectwhole.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/i-cant-believe-youre-throwing-out-books/ I can understand and appreciate many of the points the author makes, and maybe I can use the author's attitude as a model for my own approach to my library's collection.
Weeding is an important part of collection management policy because it keeps a collection relevant to those who use the library, and it helps to make space for newer materials that patrons want. However, I think that this particular aspect of collection management will be the toughest for me because I cringe internally every time I think about getting rid of a book. Even with my own collection (which, funny enough, has more items in it than the collection of the library I work in), it is SO DIFFICULT to get rid of anything--including old textbooks that I haven't picked up in years. As I mentioned in a reply to a classmate's comment, "It's not just that they're books--they have a value that I think librarians and avid readers inherently understand, but others seem to overlook. There is knowledge there, [not] just factual, but cultural, emotional, and psychological." The most that I'm ever able to do is pack old books into a box and put them in storage for that day I finally have enough space to give my books their own room (one day...one day...).
So with my tenacious hold on my own volumes, I don't know how I'm going to address the conflict within myself to effectively weed in a library's collection. Is there a training program for that? I suppose this is where the collection policy comes in. A well-written policy will contain guidance for what materials to weed when and why. My personal collection will continue to remain unweeded (though it continues to grow), but the collection at the library I work at definitely needs to be weeded--no matter how much I would like to avoid it. My hope is that I will be able to formulate a policy and procedure for weeding and determine items that can be discarded--especially since I will desperately need the space to put in new materials we will need to purchase for several new programs we will be introducing to our campus. For this, I will, I must put my personal desires aside for the sake of my library's collection. Even though it will be hard.
One of my classmates posted a link to this blog entry with a realistic and humorous approach to weeding: http://perfectwhole.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/i-cant-believe-youre-throwing-out-books/ I can understand and appreciate many of the points the author makes, and maybe I can use the author's attitude as a model for my own approach to my library's collection.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Importance of Multicultural Libraries
A recent
post in a mailing list within the profession that I subscribe to noted a book, Beyond Article 19: Libraries and Social and
Cultural Rights, that was published in 2010 [1]. The book is organized into
chapters that address various social and cultural issues as they manifest
within libraries and the profession, which often refer to the Declaration of
Human Rights. I was lucky enough to find that my university provides electronic
access to this book so that I could delve deeper.
Have you
ever actually read through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? It’s
a set of thirty articles outlining all rights that are considered “universal”
and are theoretically guaranteed to every individual (though this doesn’t
always happen in practice, as we see in many international news stories—like what’s
happening in Syria). For those of you that have not read the actual articles in
this document, anyone who has read our country’s Bill of Rights and the
Constitution would see a lot of similarities in the Declaration of Human Rights.
Most people would recognize Article 19 from its language alone, if not by its
name: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”
[2]. There are also some things that are spelled out very clearly there that we
might not think of, simply because we are lucky enough to live where a lot of
the social and cultural oppression does not happen. Some of these other
mentioned rights include having “freedom of movement” within your country of
residency [3], the right to marry with free and full consent [4], the right to “form
and to join trade unions” (yes that is specifically mentioned and puts an
interesting twist of some of the anti-union activity happening in various parts
of the US) [5], the right of “rest and leisure” [6], and the right to “freely…participate
in the cultural life of the community” [7].
One chapter
in particular, “Cultural Rights and Language Rights in Libraries” caught my eye
[8]. It connects the right to freely practice a culture with language
rights. If you think about it, language is vital to the social, religious,
creative, and other types of activity within a culture. It is how people within
the same culture not only communicates with each other but also shares and celebrates parts of the culture with each other, and how those outside the culture
can come to know and understand the various aspects of the culture. Say you
wanted to learn--really learn--about Italian culture. A logical place to start would be
by learning the language because that would allow you to better understand things
like the songs, stories, traditions, food, and society of that culture. So one
can argue that by guaranteeing the right to practice a culture, you also
guarantee the right to know and speak the language of that culture. You can
even go a step further by saying such guarantees also secure the right to equal
information access in that language.
And this is where libraries come in.
Libraries
have reincarnated themselves into different forms during different periods of
our recorded history. However, one underlying theme has always been libraries
as the source of information resources (which themselves have also taken many
forms). Nowadays, libraries and librarians seem to provide a much more varied
selection of services than during any other time of the libraries’ existence;
but the libraries’ role of information source is stronger than ever. So if they
are to successfully cater to those that rely on the services they provide, they
must become multicultural and multilingual especially in those areas of the
country and the world that are particularly diverse. And, as the author of the
above chapter notes, we must realize that with the extreme changes in
technology which continue to redefine and reconfirm our global and pluralistic society
that libraries are no longer only serving those within physical proximity. They
can just as easily field questions from individuals located hundreds or thousands
of miles away.
So what must
libraries and librarians do to ensure that cultural, language, and information
access rights are ensured? The author of this chapter suggests that it means including
resources of other cultures and organizing them in ways that are culturally
appropriate (thereby increasing accessibility). It means making libraries truly
multicultural not just in resources, but in programming and staff as well [9].
These are ideas that, while not new, are seemly gaining more attention and
momentum--as evidenced by the ALA weekly newsletter that is emailed to me, as
well as trends in topics I see on blogs, discussion boards including those on
LinkedIn groups, and conference offerings.
The final
lines of the above chapter are quite poignant: “A human rights approach [to
libraries] acknowledges that all cultures are valuable and all cultures
produce, often in their own languages, knowledge that contributes to our
understanding of humanity. Our collections need to restore people’s beliefs in
their names, in their language, in their environment, in their heritage of
struggle, in their unity, in their capacity, and ultimately in themselves”
[10]. I don’t know if libraries as a whole can yet be considered truly
multicultural based on this excerpt, but they are certainly moving in the right
direction. And to ensure cultural, language, and information rights, it is vitally important that they do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Edwards,
J. B. & Edwards, S. P. (Eds.). (2010). Beyond
Article 19: Libraries and social and cultural rights. Duluth, MN: Library
Juice Press.
[2]
United Nations. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Article 19. Retrieved July 3, 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[3] United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13.
[4]
United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16.
[5]
United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23.
[6]
United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, Article 24.
[7]
United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27.
[8] Albarillo,
F. (2010). Cultural rights and language rights in libraries. In J. B. Edwards
& S. P. Edwards (Eds.), Beyond
Article 19: Libraries and social and cultural rights (pp. 85-111). Duluth,
MN: Library Juice Press.
[9] Albarillo,
F. Cultural rights and language rights in libraries, p. 104.
[10] Albarillo,
F. Cultural rights and language rights in libraries, p. 111.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Privatizing Libraries--The Debate Goes On
I've posted in the past about library privatization, specifically through the company named LSSI. A recent article brought to my attention through this week's email edition of American Libraries Direct illustrates that the debate is still far from over. The article, titled "Are Privatized Libraries So Bad?", once again explores this hot-button topic that often evokes a passionate response from librarians and library supporters. I will let you read the article and develop your own opinion about whether or not library privatization is desirable or not, but I would like to outline my reasoning as to why I will not support such a move for any library system--especially if the company in question is LSSI.
First of all outsourcing really blurs the lines of responsibility. Public libraries are directly answerable to those in their communities because these individuals pay the taxes that pay for library activities and operations. When a third party enters the mix, this relationship between the library and the community is not as clear-cut. Things get even more complicated based on the terms of the contract a library or city may sign with the third party. When service is poor or issues need to be addressed, who is responsible and how is that party held accountable? When materials are needed, who pays for them? Who gets to decide what materials to purchase in the first place? Before privatization, the library would have to address these issues; after privatization the library or the third party (for example, LSSI) would have to address them according to how the contract delegates responsibility. Time is wasted determining who is supposed to do what (possibly wasted further as solutions are debated).
In a number of its contracts, LSSI has provided managerial support--often in the form of LSSI employees being put into upper management roles. It has also reorganized library staff to include fewer MLIS-to-non-MLIS staff ratios and increased library volunteers. In all fairness, many of these changes seem to have some short-term benefits with addressing management and operational issues. However, librarians as professionals follow a code of ethics that those outside of the professions 1) would likely not recognize and 2) would probably not follow as strictly. This code includes standards on things like providing free information to all without bias, protecting the privacy of patrons, and advocating and protecting intellectual freedom. I was surprised to find no mention in the article of how LSSI addresses any of these issues--and a bit alarmed at the thought that such library ethics may not carry over when LSSI has operational and managerial control. ALA Code of Ethics item VI states: "We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions." I find it hard to believe that a for-profit company would be able to refrain from advancing their private interests--wouldn't they need to do so to some extent to be able to make a profit?
A third party company like LSSI is a for-profit company. I know public librarians across the nation shudder at the thought of turning a public library into a money-making organization. It goes against our ethics, especially our dedication to free information for all. So how is such a company able to reconcile a for-profit mentality with the public library's mission? Good question, one that is still unanswered. LSSI refuses to disclose where and how it makes its money, and I would be very wary of a company that would not release information on how it makes a profit. Take a look at this article about LSSI. It provides a lot more detail on how LSSI operates, and some of the questionable things it has done. I found the commentary on some of their marketing claims and their lack of transparency rather interesting. It also shows that issues with LSSI's methods are not new (the article is from 2004) and that library privatization itself is not a recent development.
LSSI's methods work to turn public libraries into businesses--which they aren't. They are publicly-funded centers of information. They really don't fit into any class except their own. Public libraries (and libraries in general) have a mission and purpose unique from any for-profit "business." Libraries know their communities like no outside third party would or could. I wouldstrongly caution warn (with red flashing lights and big letters) libraries against contracting with a third party, especially LSSI. If necessity drives libraries to even remotely consider this option, please, PLEASE look over ALA's Checklist for Communities Considering Privatization of Public Libraries. Times are hard, but some sacrifices may be too dear, so consider carefully and exhaust all other resources first.
First of all outsourcing really blurs the lines of responsibility. Public libraries are directly answerable to those in their communities because these individuals pay the taxes that pay for library activities and operations. When a third party enters the mix, this relationship between the library and the community is not as clear-cut. Things get even more complicated based on the terms of the contract a library or city may sign with the third party. When service is poor or issues need to be addressed, who is responsible and how is that party held accountable? When materials are needed, who pays for them? Who gets to decide what materials to purchase in the first place? Before privatization, the library would have to address these issues; after privatization the library or the third party (for example, LSSI) would have to address them according to how the contract delegates responsibility. Time is wasted determining who is supposed to do what (possibly wasted further as solutions are debated).
In a number of its contracts, LSSI has provided managerial support--often in the form of LSSI employees being put into upper management roles. It has also reorganized library staff to include fewer MLIS-to-non-MLIS staff ratios and increased library volunteers. In all fairness, many of these changes seem to have some short-term benefits with addressing management and operational issues. However, librarians as professionals follow a code of ethics that those outside of the professions 1) would likely not recognize and 2) would probably not follow as strictly. This code includes standards on things like providing free information to all without bias, protecting the privacy of patrons, and advocating and protecting intellectual freedom. I was surprised to find no mention in the article of how LSSI addresses any of these issues--and a bit alarmed at the thought that such library ethics may not carry over when LSSI has operational and managerial control. ALA Code of Ethics item VI states: "We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions." I find it hard to believe that a for-profit company would be able to refrain from advancing their private interests--wouldn't they need to do so to some extent to be able to make a profit?
A third party company like LSSI is a for-profit company. I know public librarians across the nation shudder at the thought of turning a public library into a money-making organization. It goes against our ethics, especially our dedication to free information for all. So how is such a company able to reconcile a for-profit mentality with the public library's mission? Good question, one that is still unanswered. LSSI refuses to disclose where and how it makes its money, and I would be very wary of a company that would not release information on how it makes a profit. Take a look at this article about LSSI. It provides a lot more detail on how LSSI operates, and some of the questionable things it has done. I found the commentary on some of their marketing claims and their lack of transparency rather interesting. It also shows that issues with LSSI's methods are not new (the article is from 2004) and that library privatization itself is not a recent development.
LSSI's methods work to turn public libraries into businesses--which they aren't. They are publicly-funded centers of information. They really don't fit into any class except their own. Public libraries (and libraries in general) have a mission and purpose unique from any for-profit "business." Libraries know their communities like no outside third party would or could. I would
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Libraries are growing out of the box
We are living in interesting times. Global stability is not a reality but a dream (and perhaps for some a goal). The worldwide economy is currently in upheaval, from our own recession (funny how they won't use the D-word and yet we're seeing some of the worst unemployment rates and economic outlooks since the 1930s) to the financial crisis in Greece. People in other nations are forming their own revolutions against their leaders; Egypt and Libya did it, who's next? Protest seems to be the buzzword of the day, and even here in the US we have no end in sight for dedicated groups of people participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Take a moment and think about this: we're all right now in the middle of history. Each one of these events will be making it into history books and will almost certainly be discussed and theorized about; students will be writing papers about these events. And we're living it.
Libraries, in their own way, are also going through revolutionary changes. Even before some of the more recent economic and political struggles, libraries were evolving. Technology can take some (a lot) of the credit for that. Our libraries have had to change and adapt to match their communities' needs, and so many of the "traditional" ideas about libraries have been turned upside-down. For decades, libraries were seen as a place that houses books, and librarians were the gatekeepers (perhaps "guards" better describes the public attitude). Now, more and more libraries have drawn away from the idea that they are a house of books and now try to promote the idea that they are a haven of information. And that information takes any and all forms: books, DVDs, CDs, websites, classes and workshops, story times, game nights, job seeking support, and on and on. Libraries are growing out of the box they had been in for some time, and the rate of change seems to be increasing, not slowing down. Librarians now wear more hats then ever: researcher, guide, tech savant, entertainer, social worker (often not by choice), decoder, event coordinator, career advisor, detective, and any other position needed to provide their patrons with needed information or services.
The Occupy Wall Street libraries that have cropped up seem to be "breaking the rules" even more drastically. Instead of having a building that patrons must go to in order to access the physical materials, the libraries have gone to the people. At Zuccotti Park, books are stored in bins at the OWS camp's People's Library. They are cataloged--a nod to a traditional part of the life of a book in the library--but its circulation system is one that would likely make many library administrators shudder. There is no formal system policing the taking and returning of books. Anyone can come by and take a book if they want it, and they can keep it as long as they like, returning it only when they're done (or not at all). The catalog, then, is not the accurate listing of materials in the library that its counterpart in brick-and-mortar libraries is. Rather, it's a record of what has passed through the OWS library. To those long used to the "normal" way libraries are run, this kind of library (and it is a library in truth) is drastically different, maybe even alarmingly so. For more information about the People's Library, you can check their blog.
On another note, Scooter and I have continued to try recipes from the slow cooker cookbook I mentioned in my last post. This last Sunday, we made the slow cooker risotto recipe. Now, I love risotto, and I was a little unsure about how good this recipe would taste. I was pleasantly surprised. It was easier than my favorite recipe, and it still delivered a good flavor and texture. Scooter and I, as always, changed some of it, so here's our recipe:
What you'll need:
1/4 c. olive oil
4 shallots, minced
1/2 c. white wine (we used a Riesling)
1 1/4 c. Arborio rice
3 14.5-oz. cans chicken broth
1/2 c. grated Romano cheese
salt to taste
What you'll need to do:
1. In a skillet (cast iron preferred), heat the oil over medium heat. Add the shallots and saute until softened. You don't want to brown them, so if they are cooking too fast, turn down the heat a little.
2. Add the wine and cook 1-2 minutes, allowing the liquid to cook down a bit. Add the rice and cook for 2-3 minutes, stirring often. Don't brown the rice.
3. Remove from heat and scrape the rice mixture into the slow-cooker. Add the broth and salt, then set to HIGH. Cook for 2 hours until the broth and wine have been absorbed by the rice. The rice should be moist, not dry.
4. Turn off the heat or put on KEEP WARM and add the grated Romano cheese. Stir it in completely and serve.
We fried up some chicken in the skillet and had the risotto with it (yum!). The shallots have a mild flavor, so if you like the flavor of onions, I would recommend substituting the shallots with either yellow or red onion. Also, you want the Arborio rice or another thick-grain rice for this recipe; something like a basmati rice is too thin and won't hold up. The original recipe calls for Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, but I like a stronger flavor, so we opted for the Romano. One great thing about risotto is that you can add other ingredients along with the basics. I like mine with mushrooms too. However, since this recipe uses a slow cooker, you may have to experiment a little since not everything can keep its texture and flavor in a slow cooker.
Enjoy!
Libraries, in their own way, are also going through revolutionary changes. Even before some of the more recent economic and political struggles, libraries were evolving. Technology can take some (a lot) of the credit for that. Our libraries have had to change and adapt to match their communities' needs, and so many of the "traditional" ideas about libraries have been turned upside-down. For decades, libraries were seen as a place that houses books, and librarians were the gatekeepers (perhaps "guards" better describes the public attitude). Now, more and more libraries have drawn away from the idea that they are a house of books and now try to promote the idea that they are a haven of information. And that information takes any and all forms: books, DVDs, CDs, websites, classes and workshops, story times, game nights, job seeking support, and on and on. Libraries are growing out of the box they had been in for some time, and the rate of change seems to be increasing, not slowing down. Librarians now wear more hats then ever: researcher, guide, tech savant, entertainer, social worker (often not by choice), decoder, event coordinator, career advisor, detective, and any other position needed to provide their patrons with needed information or services.
The Occupy Wall Street libraries that have cropped up seem to be "breaking the rules" even more drastically. Instead of having a building that patrons must go to in order to access the physical materials, the libraries have gone to the people. At Zuccotti Park, books are stored in bins at the OWS camp's People's Library. They are cataloged--a nod to a traditional part of the life of a book in the library--but its circulation system is one that would likely make many library administrators shudder. There is no formal system policing the taking and returning of books. Anyone can come by and take a book if they want it, and they can keep it as long as they like, returning it only when they're done (or not at all). The catalog, then, is not the accurate listing of materials in the library that its counterpart in brick-and-mortar libraries is. Rather, it's a record of what has passed through the OWS library. To those long used to the "normal" way libraries are run, this kind of library (and it is a library in truth) is drastically different, maybe even alarmingly so. For more information about the People's Library, you can check their blog.
On another note, Scooter and I have continued to try recipes from the slow cooker cookbook I mentioned in my last post. This last Sunday, we made the slow cooker risotto recipe. Now, I love risotto, and I was a little unsure about how good this recipe would taste. I was pleasantly surprised. It was easier than my favorite recipe, and it still delivered a good flavor and texture. Scooter and I, as always, changed some of it, so here's our recipe:
What you'll need:
1/4 c. olive oil
4 shallots, minced
1/2 c. white wine (we used a Riesling)
1 1/4 c. Arborio rice
3 14.5-oz. cans chicken broth
1/2 c. grated Romano cheese
salt to taste
What you'll need to do:
1. In a skillet (cast iron preferred), heat the oil over medium heat. Add the shallots and saute until softened. You don't want to brown them, so if they are cooking too fast, turn down the heat a little.
2. Add the wine and cook 1-2 minutes, allowing the liquid to cook down a bit. Add the rice and cook for 2-3 minutes, stirring often. Don't brown the rice.
3. Remove from heat and scrape the rice mixture into the slow-cooker. Add the broth and salt, then set to HIGH. Cook for 2 hours until the broth and wine have been absorbed by the rice. The rice should be moist, not dry.
4. Turn off the heat or put on KEEP WARM and add the grated Romano cheese. Stir it in completely and serve.
We fried up some chicken in the skillet and had the risotto with it (yum!). The shallots have a mild flavor, so if you like the flavor of onions, I would recommend substituting the shallots with either yellow or red onion. Also, you want the Arborio rice or another thick-grain rice for this recipe; something like a basmati rice is too thin and won't hold up. The original recipe calls for Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, but I like a stronger flavor, so we opted for the Romano. One great thing about risotto is that you can add other ingredients along with the basics. I like mine with mushrooms too. However, since this recipe uses a slow cooker, you may have to experiment a little since not everything can keep its texture and flavor in a slow cooker.
Enjoy!
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Library ethics and online sources
In my reference class this semester, we recently tackled the topic of ethics in the profession. As one of the authors we read for this unit noted, the library profession is unique because its Code of Professional Ethics is unenforceable, exactly the opposite of other professions like law and medicine: "the ethical conduct of attorneys and physicians has been heavily regulated by individual states and informed by national associations, most notably the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association...ALA, however, lacks any such mechanism" (Sturgeon, 2007, p. 57). Since the profession has several controversial challenges, including user privacy rights and intellectual freedom rights, this makes things rather murky. There can be a lot of grey area. I took some time to reflect on this and responded to the issue with the following post to my class's discussion board (citation information has been added to for readers' benefit here):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ethics to me is such a complex issue, and we can easily get tangled up in it, especially in the position we have as library professionals. Our professional and personal ethics don't necessarily have to be separate (and for many of us, we may find that there is a lot of cross-over); however, it doesn't automatically follow that they will always be parallel either. There are many situations, some of which have been highlighted by our readings this week, where these two sets of ethics may potentially come into conflict and we are presented with a choice that requires courage to follow either way: which code (personal or professional) do we choose? It's a Catch-22 situation--damned if you do, and damned if you don't. My personal feelings about this issue is that it will require a lot more thought and reflection on my part before I am satisfied and confident of my ability to choose for myself when that time comes (and I know inevitably it will).
Katz's (1992) quote “Find all requested material. The librarian is not in the position of being a judge” is in part highlighted by Dowd's (1989) study. [Dowd did a study where he told 13 librarians at different libraries "I want to learn how to freebase cocaine."] To some extent, I can see the logic in this, and I think Dowd (1989) provides a compelling argument as to why we can't restrict information--we have no way to intuit exactly the reason why a person asks a question, and as Dowd (1989) explains in response to his own question he posed librarians, a medical student and a writer could both have equally harmless reasons for requesting to know how to freebase cocaine. One thing that it's important to note--and something that Dowd (1989) did not explicitly state in his article--the information itself is not illegal. Having the information breaks no laws (as far as I am aware). It's what is done with the information that may be criminal or harmless, and librarians have no reasonable and reliable means by which to make that judgment. So, as Katz (1992) implies, we shouldn't judge in the first place.
I think Foskett's (1962) statement “No politics, no religion, no morals” is another way to look at the same thing Katz (1992) was arguing for. If we let go our own political, religious, and moral bias, it becomes easier to withhold judgment of those who approach us to find controversial information. McMenemy's (2007) article quotes Foskett as stating that librarians "must be the reader's alter ego, immersed in his politics, his religion, his morals" (p. 178). By putting aside our own bias and "accepting" those of the patron, we attempt to find those resources in the best interests of the patron and not ourselves. I put quotations around accepting because I mean it more in terms of understanding and accepting where the patron is coming from more than truly making their biases our own.
Ethics truly is a tangled web, an issue with many sides that provoke many (often heated) debates. However, in order to fulfill our duty as librarians, it is one that I truly believe we all must examine and reflect on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see from the dates of the sources, this is not a new topic, but it's one that the profession continues to struggle with. And I understand that from this exposure that it will be something I may struggle with myself in the future from time to time when controversial questions and inquiries for "questionable" information present themselves.
On a slightly different tangent, a classmate posted some interesting current events about libraries that I thought I would share. The first is a video on Youtube done by Librarian in Black, a fairly well-known blogger who comments about current issues in the profession. Her video is a call to action and commentary about some of the not-so-good aspects of the recent Amazon agreement to provide libraries with digital materials through the Overdrive service. The next is an article about the People's Library that has been created in the Occupy movement in New York. According to the article, other similar libraries seem to be forming at other Occupy locations across the nation, including in San Francisco, Portland, and Boston.
With two big papers done and turned in, I'm hoping to return to a more "business-as-usual" schedule with future posts.
References:
Dowd, R.C. (1989). I want to find out how to freebase cocaine or yet another unobtrusive test of reference performance. Reference Librarian, 25/26, 483-493.
Foskett, D.J. (1962). The creed of a librarian: No politics, no religion, no morals. Library Association Occasional Papers No. 3. London: Library Association.
Katz, B. (1992). Introduction to reference work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMenemy, D. (2007). Librarians and ethical neutrality: Revisiting the creed of a librarian. Library Review 56(3). 177-181.
Sturgeon, R. (2007). Laying down the law: ALA's ethics codes are enforceable rules needed for information professionals? American Libraries 38 (10). 56-57.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ethics to me is such a complex issue, and we can easily get tangled up in it, especially in the position we have as library professionals. Our professional and personal ethics don't necessarily have to be separate (and for many of us, we may find that there is a lot of cross-over); however, it doesn't automatically follow that they will always be parallel either. There are many situations, some of which have been highlighted by our readings this week, where these two sets of ethics may potentially come into conflict and we are presented with a choice that requires courage to follow either way: which code (personal or professional) do we choose? It's a Catch-22 situation--damned if you do, and damned if you don't. My personal feelings about this issue is that it will require a lot more thought and reflection on my part before I am satisfied and confident of my ability to choose for myself when that time comes (and I know inevitably it will).
Katz's (1992) quote “Find all requested material. The librarian is not in the position of being a judge” is in part highlighted by Dowd's (1989) study. [Dowd did a study where he told 13 librarians at different libraries "I want to learn how to freebase cocaine."] To some extent, I can see the logic in this, and I think Dowd (1989) provides a compelling argument as to why we can't restrict information--we have no way to intuit exactly the reason why a person asks a question, and as Dowd (1989) explains in response to his own question he posed librarians, a medical student and a writer could both have equally harmless reasons for requesting to know how to freebase cocaine. One thing that it's important to note--and something that Dowd (1989) did not explicitly state in his article--the information itself is not illegal. Having the information breaks no laws (as far as I am aware). It's what is done with the information that may be criminal or harmless, and librarians have no reasonable and reliable means by which to make that judgment. So, as Katz (1992) implies, we shouldn't judge in the first place.
I think Foskett's (1962) statement “No politics, no religion, no morals” is another way to look at the same thing Katz (1992) was arguing for. If we let go our own political, religious, and moral bias, it becomes easier to withhold judgment of those who approach us to find controversial information. McMenemy's (2007) article quotes Foskett as stating that librarians "must be the reader's alter ego, immersed in his politics, his religion, his morals" (p. 178). By putting aside our own bias and "accepting" those of the patron, we attempt to find those resources in the best interests of the patron and not ourselves. I put quotations around accepting because I mean it more in terms of understanding and accepting where the patron is coming from more than truly making their biases our own.
Ethics truly is a tangled web, an issue with many sides that provoke many (often heated) debates. However, in order to fulfill our duty as librarians, it is one that I truly believe we all must examine and reflect on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see from the dates of the sources, this is not a new topic, but it's one that the profession continues to struggle with. And I understand that from this exposure that it will be something I may struggle with myself in the future from time to time when controversial questions and inquiries for "questionable" information present themselves.
On a slightly different tangent, a classmate posted some interesting current events about libraries that I thought I would share. The first is a video on Youtube done by Librarian in Black, a fairly well-known blogger who comments about current issues in the profession. Her video is a call to action and commentary about some of the not-so-good aspects of the recent Amazon agreement to provide libraries with digital materials through the Overdrive service. The next is an article about the People's Library that has been created in the Occupy movement in New York. According to the article, other similar libraries seem to be forming at other Occupy locations across the nation, including in San Francisco, Portland, and Boston.
With two big papers done and turned in, I'm hoping to return to a more "business-as-usual" schedule with future posts.
References:
Dowd, R.C. (1989). I want to find out how to freebase cocaine or yet another unobtrusive test of reference performance. Reference Librarian, 25/26, 483-493.
Foskett, D.J. (1962). The creed of a librarian: No politics, no religion, no morals. Library Association Occasional Papers No. 3. London: Library Association.
Katz, B. (1992). Introduction to reference work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMenemy, D. (2007). Librarians and ethical neutrality: Revisiting the creed of a librarian. Library Review 56(3). 177-181.
Sturgeon, R. (2007). Laying down the law: ALA's ethics codes are enforceable rules needed for information professionals? American Libraries 38 (10). 56-57.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Print vs. Online Reference
I realize that it has been awhile since my last post--and for that, I apologize to my readers. A lack of inspiration and a wealth of school projects and assignments have conspired to make life busy and force me to prioritize. For anyone working full-time and going to school on top of that, prioritizing is a reality (so those of you thinking about enrolling in an academic program while continuing to work--take note!).
One of my recent assignments--one that I'm still working on--has been a great introduction into what reference materials have to offer. The project has been extremely time-consuming, but I think in part that is due to my stubbornness when it comes to using print sources instead of online sources. I hate to rely on online resources because 1) not everyone library patrons is familiar enough with a computer to use them easily (so I would hate to only be able to recommend these sources to library patrons) and 2) online resources are not 100% infallible. Computers/servers/websites can freeze or break down; being unfamiliar with print resources if this were to happen would be a huge detriment to connecting patrons with the information they need. So, given the choice to use print or online versions, I will choose print and exhaust that source before trying the online version.
The online version usually has one major benefit (aside from the obvious one of accessibility) over the print version: better searchability. I saw this in practice when utilizing one source to search for information needed for my current assignment. A print source, Encyclopedia of Associations, had four separate volumes (although 3 were parts 1, 2, and 3 of Volume 1). A concerted search of what I was looking for was unsuccessful because I was trying to reconcile my terminology with the terminology the resource used in its various indexes. Also, since this wasn't the most recent edition of the resource, this fact could also have been a factor in my search being unsuccessful--the information just wasn't available when the edition I was using was published. And so, I turned to the electronic version, Associations Unlimited (this source is available to me through my university's library. Not only was I able to make much more complicated searches than the print version indexes allowed, I could also use some of my terminology since the online version was more forgiving in its recognized searching terminology.
Despite, the advantages of currency and searchability of the online resources, I still do like and appreciate print sources. I like being able to glance at an encyclopedia page and see sub-headings that may lead me to exactly the information I need. Depending on the encyclopedia's website (if it has one), a user may or may not be able to do the same thing without scrolling through a long entry or having to click to another page. The print sources that I got acquainted with as part of this assignment were (for the most part) easy to navigate. I was also surprised with some of the sources I found just by browsing around the shelf of a source I needed; The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft was one unusual find. I like this serendipitous finding of other interesting resources that comes with browsing through print sources. This doesn't always happen with online sources.
I can't imagine that I am alone in my preference for print sources, although I keep reading opinion pieces where people claim that books are going the way of the dinosaur. I would be interested to hear other opinions on this. Are print or online resources preferable? And why?
One of my recent assignments--one that I'm still working on--has been a great introduction into what reference materials have to offer. The project has been extremely time-consuming, but I think in part that is due to my stubbornness when it comes to using print sources instead of online sources. I hate to rely on online resources because 1) not everyone library patrons is familiar enough with a computer to use them easily (so I would hate to only be able to recommend these sources to library patrons) and 2) online resources are not 100% infallible. Computers/servers/websites can freeze or break down; being unfamiliar with print resources if this were to happen would be a huge detriment to connecting patrons with the information they need. So, given the choice to use print or online versions, I will choose print and exhaust that source before trying the online version.
The online version usually has one major benefit (aside from the obvious one of accessibility) over the print version: better searchability. I saw this in practice when utilizing one source to search for information needed for my current assignment. A print source, Encyclopedia of Associations, had four separate volumes (although 3 were parts 1, 2, and 3 of Volume 1). A concerted search of what I was looking for was unsuccessful because I was trying to reconcile my terminology with the terminology the resource used in its various indexes. Also, since this wasn't the most recent edition of the resource, this fact could also have been a factor in my search being unsuccessful--the information just wasn't available when the edition I was using was published. And so, I turned to the electronic version, Associations Unlimited (this source is available to me through my university's library. Not only was I able to make much more complicated searches than the print version indexes allowed, I could also use some of my terminology since the online version was more forgiving in its recognized searching terminology.
Despite, the advantages of currency and searchability of the online resources, I still do like and appreciate print sources. I like being able to glance at an encyclopedia page and see sub-headings that may lead me to exactly the information I need. Depending on the encyclopedia's website (if it has one), a user may or may not be able to do the same thing without scrolling through a long entry or having to click to another page. The print sources that I got acquainted with as part of this assignment were (for the most part) easy to navigate. I was also surprised with some of the sources I found just by browsing around the shelf of a source I needed; The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft was one unusual find. I like this serendipitous finding of other interesting resources that comes with browsing through print sources. This doesn't always happen with online sources.
I can't imagine that I am alone in my preference for print sources, although I keep reading opinion pieces where people claim that books are going the way of the dinosaur. I would be interested to hear other opinions on this. Are print or online resources preferable? And why?
Friday, August 12, 2011
"A Blueprint For Great Schools"
I am a member of several professional organizations, including the CLA, or California Library Association. Today, through this network, I saw a message posted regarding a California Department of Education News Release about a report that was released on Tuesday that addresses the many challenges currently in California public schools and the recommended strategies to address them. The report is called A Blueprint For Great Schools. The person that posted the report noted that nothing is mentioned about improvement in the libraries of the public schools. I read through the report to find that this seems to indeed be the case.
While the report provides recommendations to solve many problems and issues that certainly have helped to create the dire situation many of our public schools are in, I feel that it ignores the huge benefit school libraries can provide if time, effort, and money is invested in these bodies as well. I couldn't leave my thoughts unspoken, so I responded to the report by sending a message to the email provided in the news release. My response is below:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Whom It May Concern:
I was very interested to see the outcome of the "Blueprint for Great Schools Report" and related plans for impovement in California schools. Having previously been a teacher in the California public school system, I've had first-hand experience with the extreme challenges faced both by the students and by the teachers and administrators who provide their education. I was pleased to note a lot of my own observations being addressed in the report, including the high percentage of ELs in our classrooms and the instructional challenges this poses; a need for changes in student and school accountability that currently doesn't consider challenges caused by the student's background or the local community's resources; and a need for a partnership between schools, parents, and the community to support each student's education. I truly think that recognizing these and other issues our state schools face is an important step towards re-establishing California as a leader in education in the nation.
However, I was disappointed to see no mention made of improving the schools' libraries and media centers. According to the report, the principles these strategies follow "take into account the changing demands of a 21st century knowledge-based, technology-driven economy and society."[1] If you are serious about creating an environment that truly prepares students for a 21st-century world, you will not discount the resources and support that a school library can provide, and I hope that you will consider amending your strategies to include school libraries. The report notes that "With the adoption of new standards and assessments, there is urgency in ensuring that schools have more rapid and ready access to appropriate instructional materials — including digital materials — to support learning."[2] Librarians have a lot of expertise on resources of all types and on finding out which ones are perfect for any topic. Taking a class to the library is not all about story time. Librarians often are creating their own "lessons" that use library resources to support material that is a part of classroom curriculum. While it may seem like teachers would be able to do the same thing, librarians have an uncanny ability to find and combine resources that teachers don't know about simply because they were not trained in the same way.
Teachers and school librarians are working towards the same goal: to educate California's youth. However, they go about it in different ways. Classroom teachers must focus on the curriculum they teach; there is a lot of subject matter they must expose their students to in order to explain the world around us and show their students the why and how of things. Librarians explain information--how to find good information; how to tell if information is false, misleading, or biased; what resources are available to students wanting to find information (and getting them to think of other, more effective resources than Google!); how to collect pieces of information from various resources to build a whole picture; the list goes on. There are so many sources of information and so many traps and pitfalls in the world of information--including keeping your privacy intact--and classroom teachers lack the training and the knowledge to show this to their students. We live in a digital age where information is infinite and everywhere. In this "technology-driven...society" as it is classified in the report, we have to teach our students how to effectively navigate the vast wealth of information there is without being overwhelmed or becoming victim to those who use the digital world to prey upon others. You will find that librarians are the best teachers of this lesson--it is, after all, what we are trained to do.
I'm in no way trying to degrade what teachers do; I'm only trying to make you aware of what librarians do as well. Librarians and teachers are part of the solution. Bringing our schools back to life and creating strong learning environments will require not only strengthening our teachers, but also strengthening the libraries that provide such valuable classroom support. You can't build a bridge without making sure it has the necessary support to stand, or the bridge will collapse. Education is the bridge between our students and the world they live in; make sure the bridge is sound enough not to fail them.
Thank you for considering my position. I look forward to the revival of our state's education.
[1] "Strategies for a New System of Education." Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bpstrategies.asp
[2] "Curriculum and Assessment." Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bpstrategy2.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I get a response, I will make sure to add it to another post.
While the report provides recommendations to solve many problems and issues that certainly have helped to create the dire situation many of our public schools are in, I feel that it ignores the huge benefit school libraries can provide if time, effort, and money is invested in these bodies as well. I couldn't leave my thoughts unspoken, so I responded to the report by sending a message to the email provided in the news release. My response is below:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Whom It May Concern:
I was very interested to see the outcome of the "Blueprint for Great Schools Report" and related plans for impovement in California schools. Having previously been a teacher in the California public school system, I've had first-hand experience with the extreme challenges faced both by the students and by the teachers and administrators who provide their education. I was pleased to note a lot of my own observations being addressed in the report, including the high percentage of ELs in our classrooms and the instructional challenges this poses; a need for changes in student and school accountability that currently doesn't consider challenges caused by the student's background or the local community's resources; and a need for a partnership between schools, parents, and the community to support each student's education. I truly think that recognizing these and other issues our state schools face is an important step towards re-establishing California as a leader in education in the nation.
However, I was disappointed to see no mention made of improving the schools' libraries and media centers. According to the report, the principles these strategies follow "take into account the changing demands of a 21st century knowledge-based, technology-driven economy and society."[1] If you are serious about creating an environment that truly prepares students for a 21st-century world, you will not discount the resources and support that a school library can provide, and I hope that you will consider amending your strategies to include school libraries. The report notes that "With the adoption of new standards and assessments, there is urgency in ensuring that schools have more rapid and ready access to appropriate instructional materials — including digital materials — to support learning."[2] Librarians have a lot of expertise on resources of all types and on finding out which ones are perfect for any topic. Taking a class to the library is not all about story time. Librarians often are creating their own "lessons" that use library resources to support material that is a part of classroom curriculum. While it may seem like teachers would be able to do the same thing, librarians have an uncanny ability to find and combine resources that teachers don't know about simply because they were not trained in the same way.
Teachers and school librarians are working towards the same goal: to educate California's youth. However, they go about it in different ways. Classroom teachers must focus on the curriculum they teach; there is a lot of subject matter they must expose their students to in order to explain the world around us and show their students the why and how of things. Librarians explain information--how to find good information; how to tell if information is false, misleading, or biased; what resources are available to students wanting to find information (and getting them to think of other, more effective resources than Google!); how to collect pieces of information from various resources to build a whole picture; the list goes on. There are so many sources of information and so many traps and pitfalls in the world of information--including keeping your privacy intact--and classroom teachers lack the training and the knowledge to show this to their students. We live in a digital age where information is infinite and everywhere. In this "technology-driven...society" as it is classified in the report, we have to teach our students how to effectively navigate the vast wealth of information there is without being overwhelmed or becoming victim to those who use the digital world to prey upon others. You will find that librarians are the best teachers of this lesson--it is, after all, what we are trained to do.
I'm in no way trying to degrade what teachers do; I'm only trying to make you aware of what librarians do as well. Librarians and teachers are part of the solution. Bringing our schools back to life and creating strong learning environments will require not only strengthening our teachers, but also strengthening the libraries that provide such valuable classroom support. You can't build a bridge without making sure it has the necessary support to stand, or the bridge will collapse. Education is the bridge between our students and the world they live in; make sure the bridge is sound enough not to fail them.
Thank you for considering my position. I look forward to the revival of our state's education.
[1] "Strategies for a New System of Education." Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bpstrategies.asp
[2] "Curriculum and Assessment." Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bpstrategy2.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I get a response, I will make sure to add it to another post.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Keeping the "free" in public libraries
I came across an editorial today titled "Rethinking Government: Why We Need Library Rental Fees." The article discusses how incorporating operational fees into more public library services could help to bridge the budget gap that threatens so many public libraries. My first reaction was a gut-wrenching "NO WAY!" followed swiftly by a mental call-to-arms to denounce and take down this town selectman who thinks he knows everything. But then I took a step back and tried to see his points in a more objective way.
When the modern library was still in the process of evolution, there were several "types" that emerged before the public library as we know it dominated the industry (if such a thing can be called that). One of these, as the writer of the article points out, was the subscription library that required a membership fee to be able to utilize its resources. It seems that Mr. Greenfield wants to reinstate this idea to a certain degree and charge patrons $.50 per book they wish to borrow. He notes that the cost of a new book has greatly increased since the beginnings of the free public library, which of course means that the cost for the library to acquire said books has also greatly increased--a valid point. A vast majority of the money to pay for these and other costs comes from local taxes, and most if not all of us are aware how much local governments across the nation are struggling to afford many necessary services that include not only libraries but fire and police forces, social services, and educational programs. Knowing all this, I can understand Mr. Greenfield's suggestion that the community pitches in a little more to boost the library's available monies and provide some relief to the local budget.
Yet I still feel that his solution would not really solve the problem. A $.50 fee per book would be prohibitive. Statistics produced by many sources (including the ALA's 2011 State of America's Libraries Report) show library use increasing, a fact Mr. Greenfield mentions in his article. What he doesn't note is that a large percentage of those who do visit and use the library are those with little money, the unemployed, and the undereducated--all evidenced by the trends that libraries continue to see increase: more demand for job-seeking and job preparation resources, patrons placing higher value in programs promoting education and life-long learning, and increased circulation as patrons try to cut back their own personal costs by utilizing the free services and resources offered by public libraries. How would these patrons be able to afford more charges and more fees for things they rely on being able to use or borrow for free? Realistically, there will be patrons who can afford the additional costs, but there will always be a number of patrons who will not. This distinctly conflicts with the mission of the library to provide equal (and free) access to materials to all patrons. Tagging on borrowing fees will not provide equal access to patrons--the additional costs will prohibit some patrons from utilizing those resources.
I wonder if Mr. Greenfield also thought about the many families that use the library. A poorer family would be able to afford borrowing items even less than poorer individuals. Children often rely on library materials for school projects and to supplement their own education. Many schools have had to close or severely restrict their own library operations, meaning that children in those schools would be relying on their local public library even more. Children of the poorer families who need information for projects would not be able to borrow the resources they require--thereby diminishing their educational success. Every child in this country has the right to a public education. One could argue that this would include access to the public library.
Just to put a more practical face on this, let's assume there is a public library that decided to take Mr. Greenfield's advice and each item is $.50 to borrow. A mother takes her three children there after school one afternoon to get some books the school recommended for her sixth grader's India project and her first grader's bean seed project, and a couple of picture books for her toddler. She also wants to get a book for herself to read in the evening after her children have gone to bed. After her children have made their selections, they check out all the items and the mother has to pay $4.00 for the eight items they have borrowed. This is a weekly visit, so the mother will end up spending $16.00 a month (perhaps more) for their library privaledges. This may not seem like a lot, but to someone who is trying to make ends meet, every dollar is precious.
As a side note, my local public library system allows patrons to take out 65 books at a time--a limit that would cost a patron $32.50 who was being charged per item. That doesn't take into account the CD or DVD limit, which combined would add on another $15.00. Granted very few people actually do reach that limit, but it shows potentially how expensive using the library could be.
My point is that $.50 an item can easily add up and become cost-prohibitive to many patrons, discouraging continued visits and usage of library items. Circulation is one of the quantitative measurements that can be taken of library patronage (qualitative measurements are much harder to acquire). Libraries often rely on their circulation to help support their efforts to have their budgets approved: "See how many items have been borrowed over the last three months compared to the same time last year? Patrons are increasing their use of our resources, so we need the funding to continue to provide them." (Yes I know this is a rather simplified version of any library's budget discussion and the actual debate would include a lot more talking points.) If additional fees cause circulation to decrease, that could have lasting ramifications affecting many aspects of a library's operation since such a trend could directly affect future budget proposals.
And here's another thought: who would want to spend money for a service their taxes already pay for?
I would highly recommend reading through the comments of Mr. Greenfield's article. There were a lot of interesting points made on both sides of the table. Which side do you agree with?
A response to Mr. Greenfield's editorial written by ALA's executive director can be found here. He discusses a few of the points I made above, as well as a number of other points.
When the modern library was still in the process of evolution, there were several "types" that emerged before the public library as we know it dominated the industry (if such a thing can be called that). One of these, as the writer of the article points out, was the subscription library that required a membership fee to be able to utilize its resources. It seems that Mr. Greenfield wants to reinstate this idea to a certain degree and charge patrons $.50 per book they wish to borrow. He notes that the cost of a new book has greatly increased since the beginnings of the free public library, which of course means that the cost for the library to acquire said books has also greatly increased--a valid point. A vast majority of the money to pay for these and other costs comes from local taxes, and most if not all of us are aware how much local governments across the nation are struggling to afford many necessary services that include not only libraries but fire and police forces, social services, and educational programs. Knowing all this, I can understand Mr. Greenfield's suggestion that the community pitches in a little more to boost the library's available monies and provide some relief to the local budget.
Yet I still feel that his solution would not really solve the problem. A $.50 fee per book would be prohibitive. Statistics produced by many sources (including the ALA's 2011 State of America's Libraries Report) show library use increasing, a fact Mr. Greenfield mentions in his article. What he doesn't note is that a large percentage of those who do visit and use the library are those with little money, the unemployed, and the undereducated--all evidenced by the trends that libraries continue to see increase: more demand for job-seeking and job preparation resources, patrons placing higher value in programs promoting education and life-long learning, and increased circulation as patrons try to cut back their own personal costs by utilizing the free services and resources offered by public libraries. How would these patrons be able to afford more charges and more fees for things they rely on being able to use or borrow for free? Realistically, there will be patrons who can afford the additional costs, but there will always be a number of patrons who will not. This distinctly conflicts with the mission of the library to provide equal (and free) access to materials to all patrons. Tagging on borrowing fees will not provide equal access to patrons--the additional costs will prohibit some patrons from utilizing those resources.
I wonder if Mr. Greenfield also thought about the many families that use the library. A poorer family would be able to afford borrowing items even less than poorer individuals. Children often rely on library materials for school projects and to supplement their own education. Many schools have had to close or severely restrict their own library operations, meaning that children in those schools would be relying on their local public library even more. Children of the poorer families who need information for projects would not be able to borrow the resources they require--thereby diminishing their educational success. Every child in this country has the right to a public education. One could argue that this would include access to the public library.
Just to put a more practical face on this, let's assume there is a public library that decided to take Mr. Greenfield's advice and each item is $.50 to borrow. A mother takes her three children there after school one afternoon to get some books the school recommended for her sixth grader's India project and her first grader's bean seed project, and a couple of picture books for her toddler. She also wants to get a book for herself to read in the evening after her children have gone to bed. After her children have made their selections, they check out all the items and the mother has to pay $4.00 for the eight items they have borrowed. This is a weekly visit, so the mother will end up spending $16.00 a month (perhaps more) for their library privaledges. This may not seem like a lot, but to someone who is trying to make ends meet, every dollar is precious.
As a side note, my local public library system allows patrons to take out 65 books at a time--a limit that would cost a patron $32.50 who was being charged per item. That doesn't take into account the CD or DVD limit, which combined would add on another $15.00. Granted very few people actually do reach that limit, but it shows potentially how expensive using the library could be.
My point is that $.50 an item can easily add up and become cost-prohibitive to many patrons, discouraging continued visits and usage of library items. Circulation is one of the quantitative measurements that can be taken of library patronage (qualitative measurements are much harder to acquire). Libraries often rely on their circulation to help support their efforts to have their budgets approved: "See how many items have been borrowed over the last three months compared to the same time last year? Patrons are increasing their use of our resources, so we need the funding to continue to provide them." (Yes I know this is a rather simplified version of any library's budget discussion and the actual debate would include a lot more talking points.) If additional fees cause circulation to decrease, that could have lasting ramifications affecting many aspects of a library's operation since such a trend could directly affect future budget proposals.
And here's another thought: who would want to spend money for a service their taxes already pay for?
I would highly recommend reading through the comments of Mr. Greenfield's article. There were a lot of interesting points made on both sides of the table. Which side do you agree with?
A response to Mr. Greenfield's editorial written by ALA's executive director can be found here. He discusses a few of the points I made above, as well as a number of other points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)