Nathan,
Well said. We are all elites. We all have the capacity to help each
other, and the "elitism" just means the particular extra insight we have
as individuals. Our contribution.
In some ways, I think the library profession may have gotten in trouble
with the coming of the MLS. Librarianships is a tremendous line of work,
and I'm really proud to be a librarian. But I think the MLS may have
sowed the seeds of trouble in a way. "Library science" is a rather
artificial field, and the problem is that once graduate programs
existed, there had to be more scholarly journals. I'm guessing this
caused a tremendous proliferation of library literature. It's probably
about twice as extensive as it really needs to be. Library literature is
generally something you read because you have to, not because it's
interesting. At least that's true for me. Thomas Mann was the first
person I ever read in the field who really made me care about it.
Before, library literature was something I had to "endure" to make a
living, not something I had any passion about. Something I had to read
because I didn't make it in my chosen field.
The point is that I think librarians always had a certain underlying
awareness of the artificiality of "library science," and with the coming
of computerization in the 70's and especially 80's, this gave them a lot
more to write about. That's why I think a lot of library literature
today is somewhat "self-hating." "Accepting change" has become a sort of
end in itself, and people are always writing about how libraries must
change. I'm proud that librarians are generally willing to face change,
but we do have a certain "wimpishness" vis-à-vis computer people. We are
way too in awe of computers.
To give you an example that shows the artificiality of the MLS degree, I
knew a lady who got into librarianship at a particularly unlucky time,
in the 60's. She got a bachelor's degree in library science. Then
suddenly she was told she had to get an MLS. And it turned out she had
to take all the same courses again! She couldn't challenge any of them
because this was a different, higher degree.
Libraries might have done better if we'd just had bachelor's degrees
(plus any other subject degrees we had, always helpful) and then hired
computer science people when computers came along. Of course librarians
would've taken courses on computers as part of their curriculum, too,
once that happened.
Maybe that's an unrealistic scenario, because if you desire people with
degrees in other fields, it's unrealistic to expect them to get a
bachelor's in library science, too. But the point is that the coming of
graduate programs also created the risks I described above.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:09 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism in libraries.
Simon,
I assume this is directed to me and that you have a point to make. I
can somewhat imagine what it might be, but I'd enjoy hearing from you
personally.
"Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite- a selected group of
persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other
attributes place them at the top of any field (see below)- are the
people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who
are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a
special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from
the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or
attributes. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Note especially, the idea that elites are "a selected group of persons
whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place
them at the top of any field (see below)- are the people whose views on
a matter are to be taken most seriously".
In this sense, in a *wide sense* we are all elites, or experts, about
this or that topic, regardless of degrees. You, I imagine, are an
expert programmer. Further, it does us well to point out that elites
often disagree with another, although they agree on core principles.
In any case, I argue that librarians are elites much like doctors are
elites. Both professions, however much people may disagree within them,
have core principles on which they agree (or have traditionally at
least), as well as specialized tools that have been developed to treat
"rare conditions" (things like detailed subject headings in alphabetical
browse lists). If a profession gives up their specialized and useful
tools to help meet the needs of their most demanding users (be it a rare
medical condition, or a "rare information need condition"), they
necessarily decrease the standing of their profession - unless viable
alternatives which can do the job as well or better are provided.
No we are not surgeons ( http://tinyurl.com/29zmvk ), and chances are
excellent that the results of our work will never be quite as tangible
as that of doctors! Nor is there the money or incentive to *measure*
this or that... But what we do - and what catalogers in particular have
done - has important consequences nonetheless as regards people's
abilities to do research of the absolute highest quality (and I don't
deny that lib catalogs, even if they are used by scholars, are just one
part of their avenues for gaining knowledge).
So, I'm not going to relax too much. :) Whatever hyperbole may be in
Yee's paper, I think she's right on for the most part - and I hope
others will see the opportunities presented in her ideas for a new
catalog. I think some folks on this list, at least, are open to them -
and I believe they will be appreciated / rewarded much if they persist
with them.
As I said before, I think Thompson Gale gets it - they are unashamedly
developing tools that take advantage of and promote their "information
organizer expert" *niche* (see the previous email where I linked to a
promo for their PowerSearch database).
On the other hand, many in the library profession do not seem to be so
confident of our identity and ability to weather the storms of the
Amazoogle zeitgeist (which I submit we can learn from, and can and must
imitate to some degree, all the while realizing, treasuring, and
*holding onto our niche as well* - which incidently, is necessarily
responsible for a large part of why we can be somewhat effective when
imitating search engines with their keyword-focus - again, I point to
NC's Endeca catalog). There is admittedly concern, worry, fear all
around.
Again, everything I say here "does not preclude digitization, user tags,
working closely together with other metadata communities, adopting new
rules and formats, etc."
I am not about "either/or-ing" here. Nor do I think Mann or Yee are
(not so sure about Gorman!).
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:02 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Elitism in libraries.
lCC PWN5 d3w3y l4mer5.
Received on Wed Aug 01 2007 - 17:18:40 EDT