It was admittedly difficult to find only one topic to reflect upon for the Librarians thread but I chose to write about LIS education. Originally, I had planned to attend the University of Albany for grad school; however, after I had to defer my admission, I decided to take a tour of SU and it changed my life. I talked to a current student and met Dave Lankes. His views of librarianship changed my views on everything I had ever thought about libraries. That's when I decided SU was the place for me.
I never realized the differences between the two programs until I read the section about LIS education in the Atlas. I would have graduated from Albany with a Masters in Information Studies with a concentration in Librarianship and a concentration in School Media. That's a mouthful to say all in itself. Simply, Albany seems to focus on information studies first. As I read earlier in the Atlas, there isn't reason to have a great debate about Library vs. Information Science because a librarian trained in information science can simply participate in conversations with librarians and other information science professionals.
I agree that LIS education needs to be reorganized. I feel there should be a preparatory program for future librarians. I know that most 18 year olds don't graduate high school and say I want to be a librarian, but some might! (I'll admit I didn't at first.) I agree with the proposition of the Bachelor of Information and Instructional Design. It acts a preparatory program for librarians and so much more. There are not many programs that provide students with an extensive pre-existing knowledge for future librarians other than first hand experience working as a clerk or other paraprofessional position in a library. I also agree that we need a doctorate program. All doctorate students may not have a desire to become professors.
As a trained teacher, I understand the importance of continuing education and professional development. I believe this concept also plays an important role in the development of library science professionals. Our field is constantly changing and if we want to apply this (amazing) concept of new librarianship- we need to educate not only the new librarians but the veterans as well.
In summary, the LIS education system needs to be revitalized. I-Schools and library science programs need to teach with a worldview of librarianship and disregard the old practices of thinking of librarianship as an artifact-centric profession. There needs to be educational options for students before and after the Masters program. Professional development for current librarians is also vital.
I was equally impressed with Dave Lankes and really like his views on librarianship, which is why I'm attending SU too.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major things I have been speaking about since I left campus was the passion of both the students and professors and yes Dave Lankes gets particular recognition on this front. I knew that I needed to shift course in my life last year (alright so I have known it for a while before that), but I really did not feel confident that librarianship was the route I wanted/needed to take until the Admitted Student Reception this March. The view presented there has definitely only been strengthened by my summer residency.
ReplyDeleteOn the idea of bringing further education to both undergrads and current librarians I agree, but at the same time see difficulties in implementation. We have a large demographic of librarians who are closing in on retirement age, and may be resistant to retraining, particularly if this training comes in a highly structured fashion. Just as it is wrong to assume that librarians in general are all artifact-centered in their focus, so too it is unfair to see older librarians as overly conforming to this ideal. What I will say is there are likely many librarians who view their position as a job rather than a vocation. This is a problem for us and it needs to be addressed, yet how it is addressed is definitely open to debate.
I fear that I have an overly idealistic, unrealistic outlook on how a librarian should act. I envision myself going into an interview for a position saying: "you listed on the notification this is a full time position with thirty-five hours. It is not, it is a sixty plus hour position though sometimes the work is going to happen outside the library space." Today, I do not have children, I do not have a great deal of other time intensive activities that I need to attend to. That does not mean that other librarians do not or should not. I get that world domination through librarianship is a great principle, and a great conversation starter, but it is only the beginning.
Refocusing: you make a great point about our need for a more diverse route for entering and continuing the great tradition of librarianship. How we implement this is going to be one of the great questions we are going to have to consider. I am glad I have such a worthy cohort as we embark upon this great journey, and I truly hope that this and other issues in librarianship continue to enrich our conversations.
Matthew (or Matt, not sure which you would prefer),
ReplyDeleteThank you for the well thought out response. I realize most of my ideas are of an idealistic nature; for example, expecting impending retirees to finally grasp the new concept of librarianship and technology. However, these librarians are usually not open minded about such ideals either, even enough to acknowledge it's happening and a positive change. Being a librarian is much like teaching, especially in the realm of commitment one needs to put into the profession to make it into a vocation and not simply a job. We have professional development as well and I am (hoping) there are requirements for such training in the library field as well. However, I think people who accept philosophies such as Dave Lankes' will bring more to the profession, it is only the beginning but if we follow through with it I believe we all can truly change the world. (Sorry if this seems like a scatter brained response.)
First let me say that I share your idealism and probably trump you for scatter brained responses.
ReplyDeleteTo undermine my point from my last post, let me say that I am hopeful that many older librarians suffer from the stereotype of being artifact centered even within the library community. I do not think that New Librarianship is an ideal held by only new librarians. Having said this, I will say that training requirements particularly of viewpoints rather than technical skills, present problems. Though I am saddened to admit it, there are probably librarians out there who could go to one of Dave Lankes's library sermons, listen to it in its entirety and then go back to acting in exactly the same fashion they had before.
Something that I would be interested in considering and perhaps some day even implementing would be to transplant some of the Old Guard librarians (temporarily) into libraries that have embraced New Librarianship. Let them see what we hope librarianship can be about and then enter into a dialogue with them about where we should want to direct librarianship.
As in just about any initiative you will not have universal support, but we are in the midst of an evolution of a profession, and I think that makes this an incredible time to be entering the field. Fingers crossed that we are the Cromagnons and not the Neanderthals. Extending this poor metaphor, let me say that the Neanderthals did not go extinct exactly, a portion of their genetic code is embedded in much of humanity today, I think the same will be said about the current Old Guard (though I hope they figure out a better analogy).
P.S. Matthew is fine, though I am not adverse to Matt if you are into that whole brevity thing.