So many wonderful treasures

The first time I read the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy was when I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago. I'd heard and read a lot about the document, but I hadn't bothered to invest the time in reading it. The Framework languished on my to-read list because I felt like it has little relevance to what I do as a cataloger. I'm committed to staying current on trends in academic librarianship, but I was prepared to see the Framework solely as a blueprint from instruction librarians.

When I read the Framework for that blog post, I was surprised to see myself in the last frame of the document: Searching as strategic exploration.

The description of this particular frame talks about the search process from beginning to end and describes the experiences of people on all parts of the learning spectrum:

The act of searching often begins with a question that directs the act of finding needed information. Encompassing inquiry, discovery, and serendipity, searching identifies possible relevant sources and the means to access those sources. Experts realize that information searching is a contextualized, complex experience that affects, and is affected by, the searcher’s cognitive, affective, and social dimensions. Novice learners may search a limited set of resources, and experts may search more broadly and deeply to determine the most appropriate information within the project scope. Likewise, novice learners tend to use few search strategies; experts select from various search strategies, depending on the sources, scope, and context of the information need.

I appreciate the fact that this concept distinguishes between the novice learning and expert learner, and acknowledges that their needs and experiences are different. As with all of the other frames, there are "knowledge practices" and "dispositions" that describe what people who are becoming (and have become) information literate should be able to do.

When I looked at the bullet points in these sections, I saw the way in which the work that I do as a cataloger has a direct impact on whether or not a library user becomes information literate. Three bullet points in particular have me thinking.

1. Match information needs and search strategies to search tools

As laid out in the description of the frame, novice and expert researchers have different information needs. And libraries have responded to the one size doesn't fit all argument by offering both "next-gen" catalogs and legacy catalogs. Novice researchers may prefer to use the library catalog that has been augmented with a discovery layer, while expert researchers may prefer our legacy catalog. The "next-gen" catalog gives novice researchers the opportunity to search using keywords born from natural language and then refine based on a set of facets. The legacy catalog, on the other hand, allows expert researchers to refine at the outset based on advanced search options.

I wonder whether we put equal resources into maintaining both our "next-gen" and legacy catalogs. I have had to train myself to check my cataloging work in both catalogs to ensure that the information displayed in records is usable to both novice and expert researchers. It is so easy, as a cataloger, to prefer the legacy catalog because "next-gen" catalogs are notoriously bad for known item searching. But the point of these discovery systems is to give novice researchers a way into a research process that can be tricky. And given that, according to the 2015 State of America's Libraries report, 51% of college freshpeople have a hard time learning to navigate new tools, we owe it to our novice researchers to help them find a way into the process.

2. Use different searching language types (e.g., controlled vocabulary, keywords, natural language)
It seems obvious to say that searching with controlled vocabulary yields different results than keyword searching. It seems less obvious to suggest that well-formed metadata is an important part of developing library users into information literate people.

There are a lot of reasons why it isn't really an option anymore for catalogers to touch every piece that comes through the door. Shelf-ready books with accompanying records are a way for us to get material on the shelves faster and MARC record services for journals provide title-level access in a way that individual catalogers just can't. The move from cataloging every title to focusing on hidden collections is a smart one.

I would argue, though, that we should push back when we're given records with poor quality metadata. Sure, some access is better than none, but our users need to expect that different searching language types will surface the material they are looking for. If we teach them to use a variety of searching methods and none of those methods return the resources they're looking for because the metadata is of poor quality then we've failed them. I believe that we could get more buy-in from our library's leaders if we positioned metadata as an information literacy issue.

3. Recognize the value of browsing and other serendipitous methods of information gathering.
Serendipitous discovery is such an important part of the search process. Have you ever gone to the shelf to find the book you're looking for and recognized that the books around it are also valuable to your research? It's an amazing feeling to go to the stacks looking for one book and leave with a stack of them.

But when your collection moves off-site or you purchase electronic resources, you lose the capacity to find that material when browsing the shelves. It is important, then, that you ensure that these materials can be found by way of virtual browse. By putting call numbers in records for your electronic material, for example, you make them discoverable in a call number browse. And by ensuring that records are up to a specific standard before their corresponding physical items are moved off-site means that off-site items are found in a subject browse. By placing as much value on virtual browse as physical browse, you make the various piece of your collection easier for your users to find, identify, select, and obtain.

The bottom line for me is that the Framework isn't just a resource for instruction librarians to consider, puzzle over, interact with, and react to. Whether you accept the Framework without reservation or push back against some of its claims, I believe technical services librarians should be in conversation with it and use it as a lens through which to see our work. If you work in technical services in an academic library, I invite you to read ACRL's Framework for Information Literacy and to find yourself there. How does the work you do directly impact the ability for library users to become information literate people? And if what you're doing actually hinders their development, what can you do differently?

Stay positive,
Erin

Friday jams (05/01/2015)

Okay, I'm taking over the blog for a Friday afternoon dance party. I am commandeering Friday Jams, and you can't stop me.

Stay positive,
Erin

Song #1:
I love mash-ups. There's something about putting two songs together that seem like they shouldn't work together and making something amazing that really appeals to me.

This mash-up of Michael McDonald's I Keep Forgetting and Close to Me by The Cure by Laura Jane Grace is so amazing.

Song #2:
I don't know if you saw this yesterday like I did, but "It's gonna be May" was everywhere.

As a result, I have had that one particular N'Sync song stuck in my head. And, since sharing is caring, now you do too. 

On Getting Better

I've been thinking about a lot of things. If you know me well you know that I have a penchant for speaking through parables. So as I'm thinking through the change that's going on in my life personally and professionally, thinking about current events in Baltimore, thinking about change in libraries and in the profession, all that comes to mind is my Tuesday acupuncture session. So I'll just tell my parable and let you take from it what you will.

I love acupuncture, it's my favorite kind of magic: old magic that works REAL GOOD. Most of the time when I get acupuncture, we're working on a realignment, a little course correction, and it feels good. If you've known acupuncture, you've known the zen space that it creates. Time for a little deep breathing, a little visualization, just sorting things out. You leave that appointment feeling fantastic, and you feel better and better after the treatment. Getting better is fun and easy it's magic with no cost. Okay a little cost, but not too much really. That's how it works, right? That's how it should be?

This week, though, what happened at acupuncture was this: what we found was an old issue that was possibly the cause of a bunch of other stuff. So we went to work on it. I did not get 20 minutes of meditative visualization. There was twenty minutes of pain and suffering. Incoherent moaning even. It just hurt. The whole time. A lot.

In fact, it still hurts. The the exercises that I am supposed to be doing, they also hurt. My shoulder? it hurts. It'll probably hurt when I go back next week. Because it wasn't working right. I didn't hurt when it wasn't working right. But it hurts now. And it's gonna keep hurting for a while.

I guess I could ignore it and hope it goes back to mostly not hurting and not working right. We could do that. But I won't, and we shouldn't.

I want to get better and I want us to get better and I want to believe we want to be better.

Sometimes it hurts.

Relationships matter: on #mashcat and building the unified library scene

I moderated the second #mashcat Twitter chat last week and it was really fantastic. You can read the Storify of this chat here and poke around the site a little more to learn about the #mashcat movement.

I wanted to talk about building relationships between catalogers and library technologists. Because if you give me the chance to talk about any topic, I will want to talk about building relationships between the major players.

I felt like the conversation was really constructive, but the downside was that I was too busy moderation to answer my own questions. So...I'm going to document them on the blog. 

Q1: What do you see as areas for mutual concern for catalogers and library technologists?

Creating an encoding standard for bibliographic data (by which I mean any data that lives in your ILS) to replace MARC; creating better user experience by building systems that better leverage metadata; finding ways to migrate library-created metadata into the wider world of the Web.

Q2: How can we build consensus in these areas? What stands in our way to building consensus in these areas?

I think that the 'us vs. them' mentality that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago can definitely stand in the way of building consensus. The perceived scarcity of resources can also stand in the way of building consensus.

I think we can build consensus by creating safe spaces to have difficult conversations and to learn from each other. Creating safe spaces often means setting ground rules and creating boundaries about what is (and isn't) acceptable. Becky Yoose pointed people to social rules section of the Hacker School Rules.

Q3: Terminology is often a barrier. How can we move past our specialty’s jargon in conversations with our colleagues? What strategies have you found effective when communicating with your colleagues on the “other side of the house?”

Someone in the chat pointed out that jargon itself isn't the problem. It's the confusion it causes. 

An effective way to eliminate confusion created by jargon is to always offer a definition or explanation of a word or acronym you use in conversation, even if it seems unnecessary or redundant. Don't assume that someone else knows what you know. Even more, don't assume that someone who doesn't know what you know will feel comfortable enough to ask for clarification.

On a related note--check for understanding when you're talking before moving on. Make sure that you're on the same page with the person you're speaking to.

Q4: What technical skills do you think are important for both catalogers and library technologists to possess?

A rudimentary understanding of both cataloging rules and library software; data literacy/data modeling; logical/algorithmic thinking; project management; communication; creating documentation.

Q5: What is the most effective way to share those skills? What would an effective skillshare program look like to you?

I think it would be cool if there was a skill share wiki for people in libraryland. I know that ALA Connect has an Opportunities Exchange, so maybe that's one way to share skills? Anyway, I think it would be cool to have a place where you list what you know and what you want to know. You could find your skill share match. In the absence of that, I think that free or low cost workshops and webinars are a good way to share skills.

Q6: What are the particular challenges for people with feet in the cataloging and library technology worlds? How can the #mashcat community support them? 

I suspect that people with feet in both worlds end up translating the concerns of one side to the other a lot. When it goes well, I suspect it facilitates a lot of productive conversations. When it goes poorly, I suspect it ends up doing nothing to end the 'us vs. them' mentality.

I think we can help support people with feet in both worlds by not pushing back against them and wanting them to be more like us. Instead, let's listen with open minds.

Q7: What do you want to say about building relationships between catalogers and library technologists that I haven’t asked? 

It's hard but important work. We can't build the future of bibliographic description and encoding in silos, which is what I feel like we're doing now.

Stay positive,

Erin

Friday Jams! (4/24/2015)

Rachel:

The other day I was talking to my friend about our Queen, Janelle Monae. She said that she appreciated Ms Monae's entire thing, but that maybe, you know, her music is sometimes weird. I was all, I KNOW RIGHT! HEART EYES EMOJI. (not really because it was real life). So I give you some Janelle, and I want you to think about, while you listen, think about how weird this music is.

Erin:

It's possible that you think you've never heard a song by The Refreshments. But if you've ever watched King of the Hill, you totally have. They do the theme song. Anyway, I have had thing song stuck in my head since I heard it yesterday. If pressed, I would probably make the argument that it is the perfect pop song. Please enjoy this live version from Late Night with Conan O'Brien. It features a young Conan at the beginning of the clip.

I've got the pistol, so I'll keep the pesos. That seems fair.

The Dangers of Vocation

I've talked before about how words matter, and I want to talk today about a trope not specific to library work, but one that is used heavily in library work, library education, and professional discourse. This is the talk of our work as a calling and as a vocation. This language is dangerous.

If you know me, you might assume that my major opposition is based on the religious connotations of this language. It is, but not because of the christian-centric world that created this language, although using language steeped in religious tradition is something that we should avoid. While the religious background of the language has faded, it remains quite strong.

What actually bothers me about the language of "vocation" or "calling" is the way that it impacts how we view our work, its value, and our own value.  While there isn't anything particularly wrong with feeling specifically drawn to a field that matches your demeanor and particular expertise, the sense of vocation that we use in relation to library work or education and some other fields is overlaid with a sense of service for the sake of service.

Vocation in this sense indicates that people are called to certain types of work not only based on their skills but based on a call to service. The call to service is even more specifically christian, implying a kind of drive toward good works that are valuable as good things, not necessarily having other types of value to society. Indeed, the history of library work in the United States looks a lot like mission work. I want us to push against language that has connotations that our work isn't essential to society, and I believe that our work has become more and more valuable over time.

Language that frames library work as a call to service also opens a door wide open to devalue the labor of library work. If we are called to do service in the sense of a vocation, and that work is good work, the calling is one that pulls us apart from general life, from business life. Why then would one called to this work demand to be appropriately compensated for labor? Think of the fields other than library work where this language of vocation is used. Notice anything?

Let's talk more about how this language frames our understanding of our own work and our profession. Let's be more careful about the words that we use because the impact of how we speak is far more broad than we imagine.

Keep Rockin'
Rachel

A thousand compromises (don't add up to a win)

I often find that when I am uncomfortable with something, I need to pause and think about what it is about that thing that makes me uncomfortable beyond my initial knee-jerk reaction.

So it was when I read this this essay from Inside Higher Ed. (hat tip to Jacob Berg, noted BeerBrarian).

I agreed with much of what Ward had to say about how envisioning the future a campus library has to be a collaborative effort between the library’s leadership and campus-wide stakeholders.

Ward writes: 

It will take a university community to shape a future library that meets the specific needs of learning and research at that institution. This transition is not just about libraries. It is about how colleges and universities come together to solve a collective challenge. Libraries cannot puzzle out their future alone.

And as much I as I agreed with Ward on this, something didn’t sit right with me. After writing and deleting several blog posts worth of material, suddenly I was confronted with what made me uncomfortable about Ward’s essay.

Ward is right in that academic library leadership must understand the decision-making process of key university stakeholders and he is correct that that process is both “complex and ambiguous.”  Understanding what faculty and administrators value is important when considering what areas of collections or services you need to develop. Are members of your science faculty working more on securing grants? Great—work on developing a plan to build up your data management services, including better understanding grant requirements. Are members of your humanities faculty working more on incorporating geospatial components to their research? Great—maybe it’s time to consider investing in a GIS Librarian!

Ward writes:

At the same time, librarians will be unsuccessful in planning for the future on their own. They possess much expertise about libraries, but less about trends in research and curriculum. Moving forward, the process of recreating the library must be one that involves many people in many roles on campus.

But I feel like it goes both ways. The academic library plays a unique role on a college campus, but I feel like its leadership is not always invited to participate in conversations in which it possesses expertise. Does someone from your library serve on your college’s curriculum committee? Is your library represented on your college’s committee on rank and tenure?

Academic library leaders should absolutely involve campus stakeholders in the planning process. Have summits, run focus groups, host strategic planning days to better understand the needs of constituencies.  Develop relationships with your stakeholders based on areas of mutual concern. I have written before about how important it is to develop relationships with stakeholders by crafting compelling stories about our services and collections.

But academic library leadership shouldn’t stop there. They should be active in their college’s community, offering their expertise on issues where their library is uniquely qualified to comment and offer solutions.

So, I guess the question is—what is it that the academic library is uniquely qualified to do that no other department on campus can? And how do we include stakeholders in developing our future without giving that away?

Stay positive,

Erin