Bell's article primarily discusses whether traditional user education needs to be maintained by librarians, despite the possible move toward more simpler search interfaces spurred by the popularity of Google.
I appreciated Bell's argument that librarians need to work to raise users to a level where they are able to find the best results instead of simply relying on an imitation of a Google-type search interface, but was struck by the very academic, almost one-size-fits-all approach. From a public librarian point of view, there are often very different aims for research done in these institutions. Community members often want to learn to cook a new dish, knit a new pattern, fix a lawn mower, and other things in this vein -- goals that sometimes involve information from other average citizens who have been in their shoes. This is not to say that we should not strive to get the highest quality information for all users, but not everyone is interested in learning to do so. When I work MCPL's reference desk, I always try to show a patron how they would repeat the same action in the future. Sometimes people are very thankful that I've broken it down for them, while others get downright annoyed that I would "waste time" doing anything but finding what they asked for.
Give Them What They Want by S. D. Kennedy
Kennedy wrote a response to Bell's article, advocating more for tailoring research methods to the user rather than the librarian's goals, whether that's using academic databases or Google.
In responding, Kennedy had a very different view about the patrons she serves. I agree wholeheartedly with her idea that academic librarians need to accept that they serve a different population, with different needs. However, something about her tone really bothered me. There's nothing wrong with admitting truthfully that she (and other librarians) "specialize in quick, cheap, and dirty guerrilla research training on-the-fly" but "bibliographic instruction? Puh-leeease!" is a little too flippant in my opinion. The end of her thought, that we should show patrons how to effectively use Google instead of chastising it, is spot on. It's an idea that I think also applies well to Wikipedia.
Let Them Steal Books by D. Isaacson
Isaacson categorizes what he views as the different kinds of book thieves before arguing that most disgust him while some leniency is warranted in certain instances for those who have "passion" for what's inside the book.
This brought to mind an article (MacLeod) I read recently about a library that sent a policeman to a home to collect overdue books. Right or wrong is a debate for another time, but what struck me while reading many of the comments was how few recognized that keeping a library book is theft. I cannot agree that letting "bookworms" or "dreamers" walk off with communal property is any more acceptable than those he chastises. He unfairly puts those who forget to check out a book and those who indefinitely keep books in the same category. Those who set off the alarms should be treated as if a mistake has happened. Those who don't return their books have stolen them (the punishment for this is also debatable). I'm also appalled that any library would not leave books out for free instead of throwing them away, barring mold issues. Even those falling apart can be used in art projects!
MacLeod, Ken. "Charlton Library Sends Police To Collect Overdue Books From 5-Year-Old." CBS Boston 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 Jan. 2012.
What Literature? by M. Cart
Cart discusses the struggle to recognize children's literature as true literature and what he sees as its decline in the MTV generation.
It is important to look at historical perspectives to use them to evaluate whether what may have been true then is still true. In Cart's case, I think it is a mixed bag nearly 20 years later. Length has certainly seen a resurgence in recent years, with thick books easily found in the children's and YA departments. However, quality is still a concern, though there is no consensus about what constitutes literary merit for this age. Personally, the books I most devoured as a fourth grader were the Baby-Sitters Club. Not earth-shattering literature, but they fostered a love of reading that eventually led to my majoring in English and devouring classics. Cart's argument for complex literature is certainly a good one, though, and children should be encouraged to read a variety of texts.
Standards of Eligibility to Receive State Funds
As the title states, this document lays out the minimum standards and services a library must meet in Indiana to receive funding.
In Library Management and Collection Development we discussed the importance of having written policies in order to know what you should be doing and justify to others why something is being done. This is a perfect example of that needs, as it keeps local libraries in the know about what they must maintain and gives the state clear rules for granting or denying funding. Even though it was dry, I actually enjoyed seeing the standards because it is so easy to forget that everything that makes the library run had to be implemented by someone. It is easy to take for granted what a local library does, but it cannot become so for the manager.
I agree with your statement about what constitutes quality books. I spent years reading The Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley books. My mom actually had to hide them from me when I started high school because she said I was too old for them (which I was). These books are definitely not great literature, but I loved reading them. I think that any book that gets a child to read is great no matter what the "literary value."
ReplyDelete