24th Mar 2008
Article in Conversants
Conversants (ISSN: 1940-5022), “a limited-run, open-access journal about participatory networks,” did a soft launch on Friday, with Participatory Librarianship rock star R. David Lankes at the helm as editor. When Dave emailed me just after ALA Midwinter and asked me to write an editorial on “how library school can be better” for the new journal as a from-the-field view of what technology should be included in library school education, I was more than happy to oblige. As you’ll read, my article isn’t just about knowing about the latest social networking site, or having the latest tech toys in the library; it’s a more holistic approach to technology that keeps service and customer behaviors at the forefront.
The articles in Conversants are on the academic side, but are not limited to the academic library point of view. They raise interesting questions, and I hope they’ll promote interesting discussions about the truly conversation- and sharing-based nature of the web and emerging web technologies. The journal also sports an interesting comments format, and I’m interested to see how it works out: readers can leave comments on individual paragraphs as well as on the entire page.
It’s an innovative publication with a comparatively unique approach to the technology side of things, examining the human element more than the toys, bells, and whistles. I can only hope that smart library school professors will include this journal in their class readings, and library school curriculum developers will take notice!
Tags: conversants, innovate, librarianship, me, mls, social networking, technology
3 Comments » | 
Print This Post
|
RSS
Interesting article, Andrea. I wanted to comment over there but until I am sure I will read (and comment) there often I am NOT setting up another account.
In paragraph 7 you talk about tech skills which I can only assume you mean should be had before entering school. How do you intend for schools to pragmatically assess such skills?
Here is a link to our admission requirements and also to those intended to be acquired before leaving:
http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/admissions/requirements/tech.html
By the way, these are being upgraded from the pathetic state they are in right now (floppy disk, anyone?). But they are in no way checked as neither are the ones “expected to be acquired during your time at GSLIS” so I am unsure what purpose they really serve.
I do agree that these are important and that something needs to be done. But how is that to be accomplished? Are we going to require potential students to show up on campus prior to final submission of the application process for an interview? Or are we going to do like some of the preppier schools my boy applied to and have an alum out in the “local” community (perhaps 100s of miles away in reality) do the interviewing? That could be a long, slow process until we get enough qualified alums to do the interviewing.
While both of these might, in fact, be feasible I do not really seeing the schools implementing either.
Any thoughts? Thanks for the link to the article and the journal.
[...] Mercado of LibraryTechtonics has a new post, Article in Conversants. Recommended, by the [...]
@Mark:
“In paragraph 7 you talk about tech skills which I can only assume you mean should be had before entering school. How do you intend for schools to pragmatically assess such skills?”
It’s an interesting question, and I don’t have a perfect answer for it, but I have some ideas.
I’m sure it’ll sound like a total copout to say that we really just should recruit more computer-savvy people (like they’ll just fall out of the sky or something), since it sounds like I’m evading your question. But it’s really the best way. Generally, if you have computer skills of any kind, they are (somewhat, theoretically) properly reflected on something as basic as a resume through your *experience*. If we all submit resumes with our applications, and those resumes are scrutinized by people who know how to read for computer skills of various shapes and sizes, then that should at least be a piece of the assessment puzzle.
From what I’ve been hearing and seeing, more and more library schools seem to be amending their technology competencies, and enacting some sort of competency assessment, like an exam. I know that when I went to Simmons, I took one because everyone had to, which was fine with me (and I totally agree, floppy disk? seriously?). However, I wasn’t allowed to take it in advance of starting classes. Perhaps we should be looking at these competencies as a component of admission.
In terms of actually assessing skills, I think library schools could learn something from A+ certification. Given how much time librarians now spend working with computers, and often working basic support capacities (especially in the absence of an official tech support person because of budget or other constraints), the combination of technology skills and soft skills taught and test in A+ certification could be used as a baseline for what we should really be expected to know. It would be ideal, someday, to require A+ certification as a requirement, but, you know, baby steps.
“Are we going to require potential students to show up on campus prior to final submission of the application process for an interview? Or are we going to do like some of the preppier schools my boy applied to and have an alum out in the ‘local’ community (perhaps 100s of miles away in reality) do the interviewing? That could be a long, slow process until we get enough qualified alums to do the interviewing.”
I believe Simmons required some sort of interview, and I know I had to go in for one. I think that interviews are a way for the profession to take responsibility for it’s future colleagues, really, and if undergraduate programs all over the country can make an effort to use their local alumni to interview prospective students, I don’t see why library schools can’t do it, too. And while some people may be limited geographically, I see phone interviews and Skype/ooVoo/<insert VoIP or video conferencing option here> as viable options for this.
“While both of these might, in fact, be feasible I do not really seeing the schools implementing either.”
The sad thing is, neither do I. And it’s sad, because we are *far* behind, farther than we think we are. Our “progress” may be exciting within our profession, but for bringing in new recruits, we’re missing the savvier prospects because they see our “progress” unacceptably slow, and go into more exciting industries.
What I can say is that library school students are consumers. They buy a product, education, from a vendor, the library school. As consumers, I believe that library school students have a right to petition for their money’s worth. However, it doesn’t always end up that way, with the administrations of said vendors sometimes being so unreceptive. I encourage library school students to bring these issues up with their library schools, as diplomatically as possible, in an effort to get their money’s worth. It’s about making sure that everyone who comes out of library school should have that degree, so that the degree isn’t devalued by substandard students who don’t measure up.
I also encourage professionals to actively speak out on library school education issues, instead of being reactionary. Some of the comments I’ve seen on the article so far have an “Amen!” ring to them, but without feedback from alumni organizations on how students need to be better qualified when they graduate, there is no impetus for library schools to change.