But...there is no room

I know this doesn’t really follow the topics of the book since we discussed space in libraries a little while ago, however; while working on my interview with a librarian, I got to thinking about the role space really takes in a library. In class we saw pictures of libraries cluttered to the brink and were told that if libraries were not libraries they would be considered hoarders. It’s funny because I never thought of it that way. The libraries I grew up with had massive amounts of books, so it didn’t accrue to me that libraries should not be a room with huge piles and piles of books. I think back to the libraries I have been in where the book shelves were so tall that you needed a step stool just to see what was on the top shelf. Now this may seem fine for a few shelves, but all the shelves were really tall and there weren’t nearly enough step stools. Why must a library have so many books that they have to stack them on ridiculously tall shelves where no one can see the books anyway?

                When I did my interview with a librarian we discussed various trends in libraries and how she would change the library.  The librarian simply stated that what she wanted most was to invest in a media room or buy game console for teens to use. The problem wasn’t that her fellow librarians were interested in doing that; it was that there was no room! The library had been built to house books, and therefore didn’t have a room where there were lots of electrical outlets or even storage space for game consoles. The librarians had great ideas of what they wanted to do with the library, but all of those ideas involved altering things around the library to fit the new media. In other words, they would have to (dun dun dun) get rid of some of the books! (Insert shock and horror here). But seriously, I and many librarians know that the collection isn’t driving libraries forward anymore. It is what the library is doing for the community and if the library and the community are interested in a media room or a space to store video games and they have to remove some of the collection to do it, why not? The librarian’s response threw me for a loop; it was the patrons who did not like the idea of getting rid of books. Regardless of the fact that they wanted the new technology, if it came at the expense of getting rid of books then the answer was no. Ironically, most of the books were books that were not used and that patrons would probably never have picked off the shelf. Still, the concept of removing books was a “no no.”

                So instead we have libraries that either don’t have the newest things, because there is no room, or there are libraries that just try to fit everything. In that case it’s more of a maze to figure out where everything is. So what happens when space in a library is a problem? How do we fix it? What do we do if there simply is no room? Can libraries move their programs somewhere else? Will patrons still come if the program isn’t in the library? Just food for thought.

Being Neutral

There are a lot of stereotypes surrounding librarians. People picture us as little old ladies in quiet rooms, with huge signs that say QUIET, and a finger always to our lips prepared to shush anyone who speaks at any volume above a whisper. Having met librarians, talked to librarians and wanting to become a librarian myself, I can say that this is a pretty untrue notion of librarians. Another untrue stereotype surrounding librarians is that we are completely neutral.             

                I suppose it’s only natural. You go to someone to ask them a question and you except them to give you an answer or several sources that will provide you with an answer and these are supposed to be completely unbiased, no sides taken, neutral. The problem with this theory is that no matter how hard a librarian may want to be neutral, may try to be neutral, or may insist that they are in fact neutral, they probably aren’t. You see the thing I learned when I talked to librarians is that they are in fact human. Granted I suppose there could be a couple space aliens out their biding their time before they take over the planet, but the majority of librarians are human, and to be human means to be biased.

                The Atlas of New Librarianship puts it perfectly, stating that humans are predisposed to “certain ways of thinking and seeking new information” (Lankes, 2011, p. 123). Basically we all have biases, they come from the way we grew up, the people we met, even what knowledge we learned. However, having a bias doesn’t mean you have to be ruled by it. If that were true then there would be a lot more bigoted people in the world. Being a librarian doesn’t mean that you have to be completely neutral about everything, you may have an opinion on things, you may not agree with your members, but that doesn’t give you the right to stop helping them. For example, a librarian who believes in evolution cannot simply ignore all questions directed to them about creationism. The librarian may not believe in creationism, but he or she may still help that patron find resources on the topic without being judgmental or disputing the member’s question. One of the things The Atlas of New Librarianship discussed that I found really meaningful was the idea that librarians should capture all viewpoints, even the minority views. Librarians don’t have to be some mystical completely neutral person; instead they can acknowledge their biases and try to be open to new ideas or ways of thinking.

Lankes, D. (2011). Atlas of new librarianship (pp. 122-125). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 

Credible or not Credible that is the question

When I decided I wanted to be a librarian I asked several people what are some of the roles a librarian has. The word credibility was thrown out there a lot. A librarian’s role is to make sure that the members have credible information, from credible resources so they can make credible arguments, etc.  Ironically, when I told people that I wanted to be a librarian most of them told me that this wasn’t the wisest choice as people didn’t need librarians anymore. The way my friends saw it was that people today are self-sufficient when it came to the internet. Many people when faced with a research question hop on to their computers type the topic into Google and away they go. My friends saw the role of librarian as obsolete. People could obtain their own information; they didn’t need the middle man. Problem with this theory is that yes people can obtain their own information, but how good is that information? That’s where the concept of credibility as a librarian’s main role came into play.

                The Atlas of New Librarianship had a really interesting point. The Atlas discussed how there is a paradox that goes on today. This paradox is that people have access to more information than they could ever dream of, but because of this people have to rely more on those who provided the information. The Atlas gave the example of buying airplane tickets. Yes, you can go online to Jet Blue’s website and buy your ticket yourself, but who is the person that tells you the price of the tickets….Jet Blue. I thought this was a really interesting point. Many people today just look for information without wondering who is the person supplying the information. Could there be bias to the information?  Could the information be out of date? That’s where the word credibility comes in. A librarian’s role is to find information that is credible.  But what is credible? I think I have used the word credible thousands of times, but never really was able to define it. The Atlas suggests that credibility is not just about the believability of the information, but that the information changes your behavior.  Think about it, people who believe that certain news programs are credible will change how they view certain topics. Say a news program discusses the health care system. If someone believes that to be credible then chances are this will affect how they vote in regards to health care, or what politician or programs they support. So believing, truly believing, in information can change the way you see things. If this is true, no wonder credibility was the first word out of everyone’s mouth when I asked about the role of the librarian.

                Yet, we as librarians are not providing credible information by just providing one resource. The thing that makes librarians important is that they often provide multiple resources and multiple perspectives. As an education major in undergrad, my professors constantly berated into me how important it was to teach a topic from multiple perspectives. For example, if I was teaching the Revolutionary War I wouldn’t just want to teach students with only the viewpoint of the American Loyalists. If I did that the students would miss out on the views of the Patriots or the views of the Native Americans who fought in the war. How could they truly learn about the Revolutionary War if they only learned from one resource or one perspective? The same thing goes to all other types of information.  If as a librarian I hand over just one article to a member, then that member does not necessarily learn quite as much and that member must take the word of the article as being correct. With multiple resources from multiple perspectives members gain a larger overview of the topic they are looking for and can compare and contrast information to see what is truly correct.

                The last thing about credibility that I found really interesting was the concept that librarians should be authorities not authoritarians. I did not realize until I read the Atlas how easy it would be to slip into authoritarian mode.  If librarians only give members are predetermined list of what are good resources and do not give them a variety from multiple perspectives then the librarians are not allowing members to learn and grow. Instead librarians should show members how to make good choices when it comes to information in sources, and then provide them with multiple perspectives. The final choice of whether the source is good or not depends on the context and the goal of the member not necessarily the predetermined views of the librarian.

The Importance of Environment (and I’m not just talking Global Warming)

OK so it has been established that, to quote Neon Trees and their incredibly catchy song that I can’t stop singing, “everybody talks.” (I seem to be developing a theme where I quote songs). We know that knowledge is created through conversation. That the act of learning involves going over ideas with others and even yourself, but the real question is how as librarians are we supposed to start this conversation? The second thread in the Atlas of New Librarianship explains this.

                Librarians go about facilitating conversation in four main ways. First the librarians must provide access to that information (show people reference books, helping them create a blog to express their ideas or directing them to a review of new concepts in a scholarly journal). Then librarians must make sure the member has some knowledge about what is being discussed. Next, the librarian must ensure that the member feels comfortable and safe to be a part of the conversation and finally the librarian has to be able to encourage that patron to join into the conversation.  Though all four of these items (access, knowledge, environment and motivation) are very important, I want to focus on environment and how policies and a level of comfort in the environment severely effects whether people will be motivated to join the conversation or not.

                The issue that really resonated with me was the issue of filters, whether they hurt or hinder.  In the Atlas of New Librarianship it was argued that filters, especially used in schools, can prevent students from being able to participate in conversation. This is because students using filters don’t properly learn what online information is credible. If filters completely block out all non-credible information then how will students learn to distinguish credible information from non-credible. To a degree I see this point. If a school provides filters that stop students from going to  non-credible websites then students will get used to the idea that most websites are credible and they won’t know what they should look for to see if a website really does have credible information. This could lead to a scenario where the student gets to college and suddenly is in a panic as they are now faced with much more information and they are unsure how to navigate it all. However, I don’t necessarily feel that this scenario will happen. In schools filters are necessary as it is impossible for a teacher to constantly hoover over every student to ensure they are not going to inappropriate websites.  Nevertheless, even though students are given class time during the school day to use the computer for their project, report, etc., most likely many students will end up completely or doing most of the assignment at home or outside school. Many students tend to procrastinate and waste class time and must continue the project at home. However, the home computer may not have those particular filters on it. The home computer or the computer at the public library may not stop students from seeing negative and positive examples of credible information. As such, students do get the experience of deciding what source is credible and what source is not. Also many teachers before research assignments will sit down with their students and explain ways to tell the difference between credible and non-credible information.  Some teachers will even break down assignments so students must illustrate they found credible resources before they can continue the assignment. All of this allows teachers to spot if students are confused on credible information and try to correct and teach the proper information.

                The other issue that dealt with environment that resonated with me was feeling safe and comfortable in the library. Though this means physical safety (you don’t feel like you’re going to get stabbed for saying the wrong thing) it also means feeling free to speak up without being treated like your opinions count for nothing.  Anyone who has ever been assigned to a group in school has probably been in the following scenario.  You are in a group and it is your job to discuss a particular topic. One student feels very strongly about the topic and takes over the conversation. They completely dominate the conversation and when you attempt to chime in your views are shoved down. The dominate speaker does not even allow your views to reach the table. This is a major problem when it comes to conversation. Librarians should attempt to motivate the members of the library to join into conversations, however; this may be very difficult if the member’s first experience was one in which his or her opinions were not taken serious. I really liked the idea of librarians moderating in-person meetings to try and keep the conversation going and prevent one person dominating the discussion or the discussion going completely off topic. Of course when I say moderating I don’t mean patrolling the room pointing your finger at someone who goes slightly off topic, I mean being a part of the conversation and at the same time suggesting we hear from a person who hasn’t talked yet, or that we go back to the topic of whatever is being discussed.  I see this as a perfect way to be involved in conversations and still working to make sure the members feel comfortable talking in the first place.

Knowledge is Power

When I was in grade school my teachers made us listen to a song, or was it a poem? Regardless this song/poem had a very catchy mantra of “knowledge is power, grab it while you can.” Growing up I always had a great appreciation of knowledge and learning. One of the reasons I wanted to become a school librarian was to spread that love of learning, books and general knowledge. So when I sat down to read the thread on knowledge creation I couldn’t help but hum this tune in my head. I have to think that the song had it right. Knowledge is power. I’m not sure you can grab it though, as it is not something physical like a book, but knowledge is what improves society, what brings people together and changes the world. 

 When reading the Atlas of New Librarianship the concept that resonated with me the most is that knowledge is created through conversation.  I believe this couldn’t be more correct. As an education undergrad I learned that many professionals in the education field have stressed that learning through a one-sided lecture often doesn’t reach many students. Instead they suggest discussions or conversations that allow students to hear the facts and then deliver their own opinions. This holds true to anyone. People tend to learn more and gain knowledge through talking or somehow going over what they have read or learned. Conversations, to most people, mean talking to one person and then another person responds. However, the Atlas of New Librarianship offer that conversations can happen between yourself and yourself, or between a institution (like a library) and members of the community. I had never thought of it like that before, but even when you’re reading a textbook you are not just absorbing the knowledge off the page. This knowledge seeps into your head when you question the reading, think “I didn’t think about that before” or even relate what you read to your own previous experience. This is why the artifact central worldview doesn’t work. Because though librarians may use books, knowledge itself doesn’t come from simply staring at a book, it comes from conversations. So if knowledge is conversations, then a library must make sure they listen.

                Obviously conversation is very important. Not only does it facilitate the creation of knowledge, but it helps a library reach out to its community and deliver the services, materials or improvements the community desires. People will use a library more if the library seeks the community’s feedback on what the community wants. What most people, including myself, didn’t realize was that this feedback is a conversation and thus must involve the community talking to the library and the library talking with the community. In 511, Professor Lankes discussed how this conversation is a two way street. The library members may state that they desire a particular feature for their library and the library may respond that this will not work for the library because this feature may be obsolete in a few years. The question I have is what happens when the community doesn’t want to listen to what the libraries have to say?