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.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
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?
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Research is not exactly what I thought it was
With school now back in session for the fall, the seemingly unending round of reading and class discussions have restarted as well. One of my classes uses The Craft of Research (see full citation below) as the required text, but I have to say that for required reading this is turning out to be an extremely helpful book. Reading just the first chunk has resulted in some interesting introspection on my research "process" and what I think about the topic. I thought that I would post what I wrote on the class discussion board in response to the first part of the book we were assigned to read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm finding this book very interesting, namely because it challenges some of my dearly-held preconceived notions and assumptions about research. On the very first page of the preface, the authors introduce the idea of the research project as anything but linear: "Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, [and] change direction..." (Booth, Colomb, & Joseph, 2008, p. xi). All throughout my academic career, I had viewed research (the action) as a process with a definite beginning, middle, and end that followed a straight path and process. The authors of this book are describing something that is fluid, almost with a life of its own. The path from concept (research idea) to product (the final draft) cannot be definitively defined as I had thought, and I understand the logic behind the idea of research as a cycle, rather than a linear path.
A line from Chapter 1 also caught my eye: "Research reported by others, in writing, is the source of most of what we believe" (Booth et al., 2008, p. 9). A common-sense line, but still profound because it's something we don't think about (at least I don't). It also helps to emphasize how important it is that research be accurate, factual, and unbiased. We have a duty to each other when we write; we rely on the written word for information about everything one could possibly imagine. Such information must not be misleading if we are to learn by it and use it to further expand our knowledge. As Booth et al (2008) notes, we must "think for others" when we write (p. 14), meaning we must think of those who would read/use our work--the "audience." This is something I know that I will have to work on.
I guess what this first chunk of the book has taught me is that research is so much bigger than one person. One person may be gathering the information and reporting it, but the benefit is for everyone. Past research affects the present, and current research will affect the future. Research is not the dry, dead thing I saw it as, but a living idea that is fluid and changing.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To anyone who is trying to teach the concept of research--why it's done, what one needs, how to do it--I would definitely recommend including this book as part of the curriculum. The language and writing style would probably appeal to a younger crowd and to those who are not necessarily required to conduct research as a part of their career. I think it would also provide a useful perspective to those in various academic communities who perform and report research on a regular basis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm finding this book very interesting, namely because it challenges some of my dearly-held preconceived notions and assumptions about research. On the very first page of the preface, the authors introduce the idea of the research project as anything but linear: "Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, [and] change direction..." (Booth, Colomb, & Joseph, 2008, p. xi). All throughout my academic career, I had viewed research (the action) as a process with a definite beginning, middle, and end that followed a straight path and process. The authors of this book are describing something that is fluid, almost with a life of its own. The path from concept (research idea) to product (the final draft) cannot be definitively defined as I had thought, and I understand the logic behind the idea of research as a cycle, rather than a linear path.
A line from Chapter 1 also caught my eye: "Research reported by others, in writing, is the source of most of what we believe" (Booth et al., 2008, p. 9). A common-sense line, but still profound because it's something we don't think about (at least I don't). It also helps to emphasize how important it is that research be accurate, factual, and unbiased. We have a duty to each other when we write; we rely on the written word for information about everything one could possibly imagine. Such information must not be misleading if we are to learn by it and use it to further expand our knowledge. As Booth et al (2008) notes, we must "think for others" when we write (p. 14), meaning we must think of those who would read/use our work--the "audience." This is something I know that I will have to work on.
I guess what this first chunk of the book has taught me is that research is so much bigger than one person. One person may be gathering the information and reporting it, but the benefit is for everyone. Past research affects the present, and current research will affect the future. Research is not the dry, dead thing I saw it as, but a living idea that is fluid and changing.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To anyone who is trying to teach the concept of research--why it's done, what one needs, how to do it--I would definitely recommend including this book as part of the curriculum. The language and writing style would probably appeal to a younger crowd and to those who are not necessarily required to conduct research as a part of their career. I think it would also provide a useful perspective to those in various academic communities who perform and report research on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)