Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

Just in case you missed Cory’s tweet on April 21, 2016:

Saying “Librarians are obsolete now that we have the Internet” is like saying “Doctors are obsolete now that we have the plague”

If that doesn’t make sense to you:

1. Time yourself finding relevant information about any topic.
2. Ask you local librarian for relevant information on the same topic.
3. Compare the results of 1 and 2.

Do you get it now?

55 Articles Every Librarian Should Read (Updated) by Christina Magnifico.

The articles cover a wide range of subjects but you remember the line:

“People become librarians because they know too much.”

A good starting place if you are looking for sparks for new ideas.

Enjoy!

Are librarians choosing to disappear from the information & knowledge delivery process? by Carl Grant.

Carl Grant writes:

As librarians, we frequently strive to connect users to information as seamlessly as possible. A group of librarians said to me recently: “As librarian intermediation becomes less visible to our users/members, it seems less likely it is that our work will be recognized. How do we keep from becoming victims of our own success?”

This is certainly not an uncommon question or concern. As our library collections have become virtual and as we increasingly stop housing the collections we offer, there is a tendency to see us as intermediaries serving as little more than pipelines to our members. We have to think about where we’re adding value to that information so that when delivered to the user/member that value is recognized. Then we need to make that value part of our brand. Otherwise, as stated by this concern, librarians become invisible and that seems to be an almost assured way to make sure our funding does the same. As evidenced by this recently updated chart on the Association of Research Libraries website, this seems to be the track we are on currently:

I ask Carl’s question more directly to make it clear that invisibility is a matter of personal choice for librarians.

Vast institutional and profession wide initiatives are needed but those do not relieve librarians of the personal responsibility for demonstrating the value add of library services in their day to day activities.

It is the users of libraries, those whose projects, research and lives are impacted by librarians who can (and will) come to the support of libraries and librarians, but only if asked and only if librarians stand out as the value-adds in libraries.

Without librarians, libraries may as well be random crates of books. (That might be a good demonstration of the value-add of libraries by the way.) All of the organization, retrieval, and other value adds are present due to librarians. Makes that and other value adds visible. Market librarians as value adds at every opportunity.

At the risk of quoting too much, Grant gives a starting list of value adds for librarians:

… Going forward, we should be focusing on more fine-grained service goals and objectives and then selecting technology that supports those goals/objectives.  For instance, in today’s (2012) environment, I think we should be focusing on providing products that support these types of services:

1. Access to the library collections and services from any device, at anytime from anywhere. (Mobile products)
2. Massive aggregates of information that have been selected for inclusion because of their quality by either: a) librarians, or b) filtered by communities of users through ranking systems and ultimately reviewed and signed-off by librarians for final inclusion in those aggregates. (Cloud computing products are the foundation technology here)
3. Discovery workbenches or platforms that allow the library membership to discover existing knowledge and build new knowledge in highly personalized manners. (Discovery products serve as the foundation, but they don’t yet have the necessary extensions)
4. Easy access and integration of the full range of library services into other products they use frequently, such as course or learning management systems, social networking, discussion forums, etc.  (Products that offer rich API’s, extensive support of Apps and standards to support all types of other extensions)
5. Contextual support, i.e. the ability for librarianship to help members understand the environment in which a particular piece of work was generated (for instance, Mark Twain’s writings, or scientific research—is this a peer reviewed publication? Who funded it and what are their biases?) is an essential value-add we provide.  Some of this is conveyed by the fact that the item is in collections we provide access to, but other aspects of this will require new products we’ve yet to see.
6. Unbiased information. I’ve written about this in another post and I strongly believe we aren’t conveying the distinction we offer our members by providing access to knowledge that is not biased by constructs based on data unknown and inaccessible to them.   This is a huge differentiator and we must promote and ensure is understood.  If we do decide to use filtering technologies, and there are strong arguments this is necessary to meet the need of providing “appropriate” knowledge, then we should provide members with the ability to see and/or modify the data driving that filtering.  I’ve yet to see the necessary technology or products that provides good answers here.  
7. Pro-active services (Analytics).  David Lankes makes the point in many of his presentations (here is one) that library services need to be far more pro-active.  He and I couldn’t agree more.   We need go get out there in front of our member needs.  Someone is up for tenure?  Let’s go to their office.  Find out what they need and get it to them.  (Analytic tools, coupled with massive aggregates of data are going to enable us to do this and a lot more.)

Which of these are you going to reduce down to an actionable item for discussion with your supervisor this week? It is really that simple. The recognition of the value add of librarians is up to you.

The Lady Librarian of Toronto

Cynthia Murrell writes:

Ah, the good old days. Canada’s The Globe and Mail profiles a powerhouse of a librarian who recently passed away at the age of 100 in “When Lady Librarians Always Wore Skirts and You didn’t Dare Make Noise.” When Alice Moulton began her career, libraries were very different than they are today. Writer Judy Stoffman describes:

When Alice Moulton went to work at the University of Toronto library in 1942, libraries were forbidding, restricted spaces organized around the near-sacred instrument known as the card catalogue. They were ruled by a chief librarian, always male, whose word was law. Staff usually consisted of prim maiden ladies, dressed in skirts and wearing serious glasses, like the character played by Donna Reed in It’s a Wonderful Life, in the alternate life she would have had without Jimmy Stewart.

The article about Alice Moulton is very much worth reading.

True enough that libraries are different today than they were say forty or more years ago, but not all of that has been for the good.

Libraries in my memory were places where librarians, who are experts at uncovering information, would assist patrons find more information than they thought possible. Often teaching the techniques necessary to use arcane publications to do so.

Make no mistake, librarians still fulfill that role in many places but it is a popular mistake among funders to think that searching the WWW should be good enough for anyone. Why spend extra money for reference services?

True, if you are interested in superficial information, then by all means, use the WWW. Ask your doctor to consult it on your next visit. Or your lawyer. Good enough for anyone else, should be good enough for you.

I read posts about “big data” everyday and post reports of some of them here. It will take technological innovations to master “big data,” but that is only part of the answer.

To find useful information in the universe of “big data,” we are going to need something else.

The something else is going to be librarians like Alice Moulton, who can find resources we never imagined existed.

the time for libraries is NOW

Ned Potter outlines a call to arms for librarians!

Librarians need to aggressively make the case for libraries…., but I would tweak Ned’s message a bit.

Once upon a time, being the best, most complete, skilled, collection point or guide to knowledge was enough for libraries. People knew libraries and education were their tickets to economic/social mobility, out of the slums, to a better life.

Today people are mired in the vast sea of the “middle-class” and information is pushed upon willing and/or unwilling information consumers. Infotainment, advertising, spam of all types, vying for our attention, with little basis for distinguishing the useful from the useless, the important from the idiotic and graceful from the graceless.

Libraries and librarians cannot be heard in the vortex of noise that surrounds the average information consumer, while passively waiting for a question or reference interview.

Let’s drop pose of passivity. Librarians are passionate about libraries and the principles they represent.

Become information pushers. Bare-fisted information brawlers who fight for the attention of information consumers.

Push information on news channels, politicians, even patrons. When a local story breaks, feed the news sources with background material and expect credit for it. Same for political issues. Position papers that explore both sides of issues. Not bland finding aids but web-based multi-media resources with a mixture of web and more traditional resources.

Information consumers can be dependent on the National Enquirer, Jon Stewart, Rupert Murdock, or libraries/librarians. Your choice.