So here’s the “why,” in bold print, first page: “Passionate librarians make the difference.”
Of course, that’s really what I like to see. Without the librarians working hard to execute all the different facets of the campaign, who would? Dedicated people make for dedicated work, which is probably why this campaign found success. Well, some credit is probably owed to the open-mindedness of Geek the Library participants, but thinking in practical terms, it’s probably the librarians of the pilot areas that deserve the most credit.
Anyway, just a small wrap-up to my exploration of this article. It’s thoroughly intriguing, and an initiative that I hope can find its way across the U.S
p.s. Please let me know if my breakdown of Geek the Library counts as only one post. In which case this is only Entry 8-ish.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Entry 11: Geek the Library, Part 4
The report states that the Geek the Library program did have a good deal of success. What I want to know is the “why”—why is it this program succeeded like it did? And what is the future for it?
The report goes by steps in reporting why it was a success. Step one, for instance, was the goal of raising awareness. Success was found through polling; for example, polling whether or not citizens of the “pilot” library counties noticed Geek the Library signs or not—and more did than did not. Visual advertising apparently became key, as shown in these statistics:
A question the campaign also asked itself (not as an entity but a conglomerate of individuals, I mean) was whether or not people liked the campaign—and the result was positively positive (or neutral)! Those who reacted negatively seemed to have very unimportant quibbles.
Step two in Geek the Library’s mission was “Changing perceptions.” The way a shift in perception was measured was in the asking of about 40 questions concerning library perceptions and attitudes. Results (apparently) were positive and likely to impact long-term support for libraries; for example, the shifting idea of the library as something “nice-to-have” to a necessity. When compared (in the pilot areas) to other public services for a willingness in citizens to raise taxes to fund libraries, libraries failed to top the other services but did increase in percentage from the last voting year. How about that!
The report claims that in pilot areas, people were educated in ways they could help their public libraries, as they didn’t even know before the campaign that libraries were in dire straits financially to begin with. More residents in these areas also began to increase in perception of the transformative values in a library; that the library allows one to pursue passions and interests. Another perception that was changed concerned funding. A great percentage of people who had believed libraries had enough funding to get on with learned that funding was, in fact, insufficient for day-to-day operations.
Step three in the campaign, called “Driving behavior,” focused on taking new awareness and changed perceptions and turn them into action. Because it is still a relatively new campaign, not a great deal of focus was given to how funding had changed; there was, however, a noticeable difference in conversation with regard to libraries. In short surveys in both pilot areas, about two-thirds of respondents said they had begun to take action for their libraries. In these pilot areas, many went from sitting on the fence to supporting a library ballot measure. Although percentages and statistics did not make stunning, high-jumping movements forward or upward, movement is visible.
So this explains, I suppose, how the campaign worked—but I think I recall asking why? I’ll leave this here for now and do some more investigating.
The report goes by steps in reporting why it was a success. Step one, for instance, was the goal of raising awareness. Success was found through polling; for example, polling whether or not citizens of the “pilot” library counties noticed Geek the Library signs or not—and more did than did not. Visual advertising apparently became key, as shown in these statistics:
A question the campaign also asked itself (not as an entity but a conglomerate of individuals, I mean) was whether or not people liked the campaign—and the result was positively positive (or neutral)! Those who reacted negatively seemed to have very unimportant quibbles.
Step two in Geek the Library’s mission was “Changing perceptions.” The way a shift in perception was measured was in the asking of about 40 questions concerning library perceptions and attitudes. Results (apparently) were positive and likely to impact long-term support for libraries; for example, the shifting idea of the library as something “nice-to-have” to a necessity. When compared (in the pilot areas) to other public services for a willingness in citizens to raise taxes to fund libraries, libraries failed to top the other services but did increase in percentage from the last voting year. How about that!
The report claims that in pilot areas, people were educated in ways they could help their public libraries, as they didn’t even know before the campaign that libraries were in dire straits financially to begin with. More residents in these areas also began to increase in perception of the transformative values in a library; that the library allows one to pursue passions and interests. Another perception that was changed concerned funding. A great percentage of people who had believed libraries had enough funding to get on with learned that funding was, in fact, insufficient for day-to-day operations.
Step three in the campaign, called “Driving behavior,” focused on taking new awareness and changed perceptions and turn them into action. Because it is still a relatively new campaign, not a great deal of focus was given to how funding had changed; there was, however, a noticeable difference in conversation with regard to libraries. In short surveys in both pilot areas, about two-thirds of respondents said they had begun to take action for their libraries. In these pilot areas, many went from sitting on the fence to supporting a library ballot measure. Although percentages and statistics did not make stunning, high-jumping movements forward or upward, movement is visible.
So this explains, I suppose, how the campaign worked—but I think I recall asking why? I’ll leave this here for now and do some more investigating.
Entry 10 – Geek the Library, Part 3
“The goal of the Geek the Library project was to design, execute, measure and disseminate a public awareness campaign that uses advocacy and marketing to increase awareness of the vital role public libraries play and library funding challenges.”
This is where I begin reading about the actual execution of the Geek the Library project.
(Well first, one sort of side-note question: on page 2 of this section of the report, it is mentioned that there are guidelines that restrict “lobbying” by libraries. What does this mean? For a library, I mean.)
As has been said before, the main thing that needed to happen for libraries under the Geek the Library program was that perceptions of modern libraries needed to change. As well as the research that went into finding who would and would not support library funding, Geek the Library used effective (and adorable) advertising techniques, such as the appropriation of the word “geek” as a positive construct and even posters showcasing how libraries support all that a person could possibly “geek” over. The campaign also required what were called “pilot libraries,” or the libraries to first test the water, so to speak.
The report talks about its “multipronged marketing approach,” using traditional advertising techniques (“traditional” meaning billboards, posters, radio ads and the like, right?), as well as events and presentations to local communities. There was e-mail marketing, online marketing, public relations initiatives, and even a website (that is still operational).
Community promotional events seem particularly effective to me, as it seems to give a chance for the initiative to present facts one-on-one while receiving the kind of feedback one does not necessarily get from just pasting ads on billboards. But seriously, so many different kinds of advertising tools were employed in this project that it would be better for me to leave it to the report to tell about it. What I’m curious about at this point is: how does one create so much material for advertisement while lacking funding at the home front? I’m sure that will be answered slightly further on.
This is where I begin reading about the actual execution of the Geek the Library project.
(Well first, one sort of side-note question: on page 2 of this section of the report, it is mentioned that there are guidelines that restrict “lobbying” by libraries. What does this mean? For a library, I mean.)
As has been said before, the main thing that needed to happen for libraries under the Geek the Library program was that perceptions of modern libraries needed to change. As well as the research that went into finding who would and would not support library funding, Geek the Library used effective (and adorable) advertising techniques, such as the appropriation of the word “geek” as a positive construct and even posters showcasing how libraries support all that a person could possibly “geek” over. The campaign also required what were called “pilot libraries,” or the libraries to first test the water, so to speak.
The report talks about its “multipronged marketing approach,” using traditional advertising techniques (“traditional” meaning billboards, posters, radio ads and the like, right?), as well as events and presentations to local communities. There was e-mail marketing, online marketing, public relations initiatives, and even a website (that is still operational).
Community promotional events seem particularly effective to me, as it seems to give a chance for the initiative to present facts one-on-one while receiving the kind of feedback one does not necessarily get from just pasting ads on billboards. But seriously, so many different kinds of advertising tools were employed in this project that it would be better for me to leave it to the report to tell about it. What I’m curious about at this point is: how does one create so much material for advertisement while lacking funding at the home front? I’m sure that will be answered slightly further on.
Entry 9 – Geek the Library, Part 2
I suppose I’ll go a bit section by section on this, as it is a long read and I’d like to get through as much as I can in the time that I have. I’ve started now on the section titled “Geek the Library Theory,” which is actually the first actual chapter in the study.
So the questions I had left at the end of the last segment of this seems to have been answered in the first few sentences. I had been concerned about why a library would require funding for increased activity when I had thought library activity had decreased. I was also concerned about where increased activity might be coming from. Apparently, most U.S. public libraries have increased traffic due to an increased demand for computer and Internet access, with people using such resources to find jobs or to “reeducate themselves”. At the same time, however, libraries are facing more and more budget cuts—which I have to admit, I do not in the least bit understand. I suppose that’s another misconception of mine: that places like libraries, post offices, parks and public services are untouchable by a sinking economy. I’m guessing the economy is the reason for budget cuts, anyway.
The report goes on to address the strategies that would be employed in their funding initiative, and it seems that most of the potential funds libraries are looking at are to come from the voting community—not from organizations, banks, or anything like that, that I can see. In researching potential funding groups, the report also mentions the creation of “segmentation,” an important role in advertising and understanding consumer demand, according to the previous report by Kathy Dempsey.
Something interesting to me is that, according to the report, perception and attitude towards libraries and librarians is more important in funding efforts than other demographics, such as age, gender, race, income, and so on. Perception and attitude seem to play a great deal in much of the success this initiative finds, actually. This fun and understandable visual aid was created with the use of segmentation to chart, from top to bottom, who would be the most and least supportive in funding:
I think I now understand where voting plays a vital role in funding initiatives, as voters are segmented as well into those who probably would not vote for a library referendum, those who definitely wouldn’t, and those who definitely would, as well as sub-sections of those categories. One aspect affecting these categories is what people do and do not know about their local libraries—and apparently the average voting population does not know a lot. There is also the perception that those who visit the library most often would be the most likely supporter of their library’s funding, but the two do not necessarily correlate. So perhaps it is not important for funding supporters to know exactly what services a library provides, only that it does provide a community service. This is again where perception plays a role.
There were enough charts and graphs in this section to leave me boggled for hours, so I don’t think I’ll interpret them here. What these charts essentially came down to is the question of “how well do we know our supporters, and how well do our supporters know us?” The report makes the statement in one sub-section that “the library must be repositioned. The library can no longer be viewed as an institution that is ‘nice to have,’ but rather as a vital part of the community infrastructure.” All of this requires a change in perspective for the voter or supporter or whatever else—maybe not a one-eighty transformation, but at least a slight turn of the head in understanding the role of the public library and its importance alongside other public services that require tax dollars and public funding to function.
So the questions I had left at the end of the last segment of this seems to have been answered in the first few sentences. I had been concerned about why a library would require funding for increased activity when I had thought library activity had decreased. I was also concerned about where increased activity might be coming from. Apparently, most U.S. public libraries have increased traffic due to an increased demand for computer and Internet access, with people using such resources to find jobs or to “reeducate themselves”. At the same time, however, libraries are facing more and more budget cuts—which I have to admit, I do not in the least bit understand. I suppose that’s another misconception of mine: that places like libraries, post offices, parks and public services are untouchable by a sinking economy. I’m guessing the economy is the reason for budget cuts, anyway.
The report goes on to address the strategies that would be employed in their funding initiative, and it seems that most of the potential funds libraries are looking at are to come from the voting community—not from organizations, banks, or anything like that, that I can see. In researching potential funding groups, the report also mentions the creation of “segmentation,” an important role in advertising and understanding consumer demand, according to the previous report by Kathy Dempsey.
Something interesting to me is that, according to the report, perception and attitude towards libraries and librarians is more important in funding efforts than other demographics, such as age, gender, race, income, and so on. Perception and attitude seem to play a great deal in much of the success this initiative finds, actually. This fun and understandable visual aid was created with the use of segmentation to chart, from top to bottom, who would be the most and least supportive in funding:
I think I now understand where voting plays a vital role in funding initiatives, as voters are segmented as well into those who probably would not vote for a library referendum, those who definitely wouldn’t, and those who definitely would, as well as sub-sections of those categories. One aspect affecting these categories is what people do and do not know about their local libraries—and apparently the average voting population does not know a lot. There is also the perception that those who visit the library most often would be the most likely supporter of their library’s funding, but the two do not necessarily correlate. So perhaps it is not important for funding supporters to know exactly what services a library provides, only that it does provide a community service. This is again where perception plays a role.
There were enough charts and graphs in this section to leave me boggled for hours, so I don’t think I’ll interpret them here. What these charts essentially came down to is the question of “how well do we know our supporters, and how well do our supporters know us?” The report makes the statement in one sub-section that “the library must be repositioned. The library can no longer be viewed as an institution that is ‘nice to have,’ but rather as a vital part of the community infrastructure.” All of this requires a change in perspective for the voter or supporter or whatever else—maybe not a one-eighty transformation, but at least a slight turn of the head in understanding the role of the public library and its importance alongside other public services that require tax dollars and public funding to function.
Entry 8: Understanding the Information User
Dempsey, Kathy. "The Key to Marketing Success." Information Outlook 14.8 (2010): 6-9. Library Lit & Inf Full Text. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. (Web source here)
It would seem to me that in almost all cases of promoting libraries, it’s necessary to present the library as a product with value, and consider library-goers less as “patrons” and more as “consumers.” In this report, Kathy Dempsey lays out what seems like a model advertising campaign for a large corporation, but actually can have real application in “advertising” libraries. It is a model based on conversation and feedback; know what the customer wants, and you will be able to deliver. It is a model by which businesses and corporations live by.
Even though a library’s end goal is not profit (not currency-wise, that is), that should not impede it from following the same advertising model as any profit venture. Businesses and corporations spend millions of dollars a year researching their target demographics, and so should a library spend the time getting to know how to cater to their patrons. Dempsey posits that the better one knows one’s demographic and how to “segment” them, the better served they are.
After reading this article for a while, I forgot that I was reading anything relating to a library and got the impression I was reading aimed at an entirely different group. But why should it be any different, really, between for-profit and non-profit organizations? The only problem I could see the non-profit encountering is in securing the initial funds for research into demographics of patrons and their needs and then being able to supply the tools needed by the patrons. But I suppose this is where initiatives for library awareness come in, don’t they?
It would seem to me that in almost all cases of promoting libraries, it’s necessary to present the library as a product with value, and consider library-goers less as “patrons” and more as “consumers.” In this report, Kathy Dempsey lays out what seems like a model advertising campaign for a large corporation, but actually can have real application in “advertising” libraries. It is a model based on conversation and feedback; know what the customer wants, and you will be able to deliver. It is a model by which businesses and corporations live by.
Even though a library’s end goal is not profit (not currency-wise, that is), that should not impede it from following the same advertising model as any profit venture. Businesses and corporations spend millions of dollars a year researching their target demographics, and so should a library spend the time getting to know how to cater to their patrons. Dempsey posits that the better one knows one’s demographic and how to “segment” them, the better served they are.
After reading this article for a while, I forgot that I was reading anything relating to a library and got the impression I was reading aimed at an entirely different group. But why should it be any different, really, between for-profit and non-profit organizations? The only problem I could see the non-profit encountering is in securing the initial funds for research into demographics of patrons and their needs and then being able to supply the tools needed by the patrons. But I suppose this is where initiatives for library awareness come in, don’t they?
Entry 7: Geek the Library: A Community Awareness Campaign
(Not entirely sure who to attribute this article to. Web source here)
The entirety of this reading was something like 108 pages, so I did tend to skip around a good deal. I may actually end up breaking this into sections, as there was a great deal to take in and a great deal that caught my attention.
What hooked me first about this campaign was the use of the word “geek” as a verb used to simplify the object of this campaign. To be a geek about something is to compulsively love or obsess, pretty exclusively, over one thing. It’s the love of an object or a craft or a hobby or an anything that, when effort is put forth into the object of geekiness, one can see great returns—like investing in stocks. So to “geek” a library or to be a geek for a library is to put a great deal of dedication and love into the organization. It would seem, however, that there is not much return or growth in the area of libraries for the geek. They don’t seem to receive the attention they deserve, being always in the public eye. But libraries seem to be getting something like the billboard effect, where a public billboard may always be in sight, but could lose meaning or relevancy to the eye the more one sees the same billboard. They’re matter-of-fact and they can be ignored, consciously or unconsciously.
“Geek the Library” wishes to put libraries back into public vision in a big way, and not in the way a billboard works. The report spells out exactly what could bring about public awareness for libararies:
“A successful community awareness campaign has to do three things:
1. Wake up potential supporters to the fact that the library is relevant in the 21st century
2. Put libraries squarely in the mix of important community infrastructure, alongside fire, police and schools
3. Activate conversations about the vital and transformative role that the library plays, and its value to the community.”
Point number 2 seemed especially significant to me. The report mentions often the necessity of opening up a dialogue about libraries with those on a level kind of “outside.” That is to say, it would do no good to raise awareness about libraries within the library infrastructure itself—that’s just preaching to the choir. Instead the initiative should be taken to all facets of the community, and made relatable to those who don’t necessarily “geek” libraries.
It’s the way in which the campaign seeks (sought?) to make libraries relatable to everybody—to find out what people “geek” about—and show how libraries support all kinds of geeking.
All of this geeking was for the goal of generating funding for public libraries. A point is reached in the report where I admit I was reading more and taking notes less, so I’m not certain how to summarize or explain how the campaign was first launched. It seems that what contributes most to campaign success starts first with some kind of voting, and the categorization of voters who would be less or more helpful toward success of the campaign. On page 13 of the report, there is a run-down of different ways in which people support libraries and the perception of this support, and some actually surprised me. If I’m interpreting this correctly, it seems most people would rather support their library financially from a distance—that is, without actually using the library. Perceptions of librarians themselves also seem to factor into financial support of a library. However, of the voters mentioned earlier, many do or would support their library.
What I love about this campaign is that it is not a “poster campaign”—these librarians want people talking about what is important to them and how the library can support that.
One thing I’ll admit to not quite understanding—maybe because my own perceptions of public libraries are rather skewed—is the reason why public libraries required additional funding (something really noticeable in 2005, the report says). According to the report, funding was required because of the demands being placed on libraries. My own perception has always told me that libraries are kind of a dying thing, and library awareness was something necessary to resuscitate them. However, the report talks about heavier demands on resources, staff, and so on, which makes me think that people must be utilizing their libraries fairly well for the demand being created. There’s something in the middle here I believe I’m missing.
I’ll stop here for now and pick up on this article later, as it is kind of a demanding read. I’ll post a part two to this later on.
The entirety of this reading was something like 108 pages, so I did tend to skip around a good deal. I may actually end up breaking this into sections, as there was a great deal to take in and a great deal that caught my attention.
What hooked me first about this campaign was the use of the word “geek” as a verb used to simplify the object of this campaign. To be a geek about something is to compulsively love or obsess, pretty exclusively, over one thing. It’s the love of an object or a craft or a hobby or an anything that, when effort is put forth into the object of geekiness, one can see great returns—like investing in stocks. So to “geek” a library or to be a geek for a library is to put a great deal of dedication and love into the organization. It would seem, however, that there is not much return or growth in the area of libraries for the geek. They don’t seem to receive the attention they deserve, being always in the public eye. But libraries seem to be getting something like the billboard effect, where a public billboard may always be in sight, but could lose meaning or relevancy to the eye the more one sees the same billboard. They’re matter-of-fact and they can be ignored, consciously or unconsciously.
“Geek the Library” wishes to put libraries back into public vision in a big way, and not in the way a billboard works. The report spells out exactly what could bring about public awareness for libararies:
“A successful community awareness campaign has to do three things:
1. Wake up potential supporters to the fact that the library is relevant in the 21st century
2. Put libraries squarely in the mix of important community infrastructure, alongside fire, police and schools
3. Activate conversations about the vital and transformative role that the library plays, and its value to the community.”
Point number 2 seemed especially significant to me. The report mentions often the necessity of opening up a dialogue about libraries with those on a level kind of “outside.” That is to say, it would do no good to raise awareness about libraries within the library infrastructure itself—that’s just preaching to the choir. Instead the initiative should be taken to all facets of the community, and made relatable to those who don’t necessarily “geek” libraries.
It’s the way in which the campaign seeks (sought?) to make libraries relatable to everybody—to find out what people “geek” about—and show how libraries support all kinds of geeking.
All of this geeking was for the goal of generating funding for public libraries. A point is reached in the report where I admit I was reading more and taking notes less, so I’m not certain how to summarize or explain how the campaign was first launched. It seems that what contributes most to campaign success starts first with some kind of voting, and the categorization of voters who would be less or more helpful toward success of the campaign. On page 13 of the report, there is a run-down of different ways in which people support libraries and the perception of this support, and some actually surprised me. If I’m interpreting this correctly, it seems most people would rather support their library financially from a distance—that is, without actually using the library. Perceptions of librarians themselves also seem to factor into financial support of a library. However, of the voters mentioned earlier, many do or would support their library.
What I love about this campaign is that it is not a “poster campaign”—these librarians want people talking about what is important to them and how the library can support that.
One thing I’ll admit to not quite understanding—maybe because my own perceptions of public libraries are rather skewed—is the reason why public libraries required additional funding (something really noticeable in 2005, the report says). According to the report, funding was required because of the demands being placed on libraries. My own perception has always told me that libraries are kind of a dying thing, and library awareness was something necessary to resuscitate them. However, the report talks about heavier demands on resources, staff, and so on, which makes me think that people must be utilizing their libraries fairly well for the demand being created. There’s something in the middle here I believe I’m missing.
I’ll stop here for now and pick up on this article later, as it is kind of a demanding read. I’ll post a part two to this later on.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Entry 6 - The Ivory Tower as Preparation for the Trenches: The Relationship Between Library Education and Library Practice
Article by Robert P. Holley.
Original source: College & Research Libraries News 64 no3 172-5 Mr 2003 (web source here)
"Why can't library education and library practice get along better?" is the opening question of Robert Holley's article, a question that also opens the floor to addressing several issues within the library community. Mr. Holley's article I found positively reassuring after reading Mz. Bates' article. Though Mr. Holley does propose change in several areas of the field, he embraces also several "old world" practices (my terminology).
(If I could take an aside here: I find it kind of disturbing that both articles, regardless of stance, use the term "the L word" to refer to Libraries, or when talking of removal of the word from teaching establishments. Is this such an issue? I really had no idea.)
Mr. Holley, in his article, seeks to offer a "dual perspective"--and he really does deliver. He divides his article into three parts, concerning "program name, the curriculum, theory versus practice, and accreditation." The first matter on the agenda actually addresses my earlier aside about the removal of "L word" from program names. While Mr. Holley addresses the fact that the removal of the word "library" from program names and so forth could alienate some, as words like "information" are incredibly open to interpretation, he also can see the need for such a change; he reports that, in creating "information schools," closures of schools have decreased dramatically. Better to have the "L word" removed than the schools, I suppose.
The article's next point concerns the shaping of a curriculum for schools, and seems almost a direct attack on Mz. Bates' article on how programs should be programmed to make students more marketable. Bates a remarks that there is a rigidity already in library programs that is almost equivalent to what a lawyer might have to go through in his or her education. There is, of course, the recognition that the programs in a library school of thirty years ago would, of course, fail to meet the new technological and information standards of today, so of course programs would have to meet those standards.
The next section, "Theory versus Practice," flows right from the last section. Where Bates' article seemed to argue that graduates of LIS programs should have the kind of hands-on experience that would prepare to them to attack a first job readily, which seems almost an unrealistic expectation for me. Holley seems to argue that the first job out of a library program is really the kind of hands-on experience that librarians will get to prepare them for a career in the field, as students will prepare for a first job through theory, research methods courses, and so on. This I feel more inclined to agree with; it seems a more natural process.
The next section in Holley's article talks about the importance of accreditation in LIS programs--but I admit to not understanding, really, a word of it. What I believe I understand of accreditation is that a committee determines criteria shaped for a school's curriculum, this criteria determines what a student must have under their belt to be properly graduated--but that's about it. This is something I think I should definitely know more about.
Holley concludes his article talking about the fact that practice and education have more in common than they think they do, and wishes they (a kind of big "they," I don't suppose to know exactly who "they" are) would realize the congruence between the two. I agree with a great deal in this article--and not only because I'm most comfortable, at all times, in a more moderate position, but because these two aspects, education and practice, do make up one large whole, which seems kind of obvious.
Original source: College & Research Libraries News 64 no3 172-5 Mr 2003 (web source here)
"Why can't library education and library practice get along better?" is the opening question of Robert Holley's article, a question that also opens the floor to addressing several issues within the library community. Mr. Holley's article I found positively reassuring after reading Mz. Bates' article. Though Mr. Holley does propose change in several areas of the field, he embraces also several "old world" practices (my terminology).
(If I could take an aside here: I find it kind of disturbing that both articles, regardless of stance, use the term "the L word" to refer to Libraries, or when talking of removal of the word from teaching establishments. Is this such an issue? I really had no idea.)
Mr. Holley, in his article, seeks to offer a "dual perspective"--and he really does deliver. He divides his article into three parts, concerning "program name, the curriculum, theory versus practice, and accreditation." The first matter on the agenda actually addresses my earlier aside about the removal of "L word" from program names. While Mr. Holley addresses the fact that the removal of the word "library" from program names and so forth could alienate some, as words like "information" are incredibly open to interpretation, he also can see the need for such a change; he reports that, in creating "information schools," closures of schools have decreased dramatically. Better to have the "L word" removed than the schools, I suppose.
The article's next point concerns the shaping of a curriculum for schools, and seems almost a direct attack on Mz. Bates' article on how programs should be programmed to make students more marketable. Bates a remarks that there is a rigidity already in library programs that is almost equivalent to what a lawyer might have to go through in his or her education. There is, of course, the recognition that the programs in a library school of thirty years ago would, of course, fail to meet the new technological and information standards of today, so of course programs would have to meet those standards.
The next section, "Theory versus Practice," flows right from the last section. Where Bates' article seemed to argue that graduates of LIS programs should have the kind of hands-on experience that would prepare to them to attack a first job readily, which seems almost an unrealistic expectation for me. Holley seems to argue that the first job out of a library program is really the kind of hands-on experience that librarians will get to prepare them for a career in the field, as students will prepare for a first job through theory, research methods courses, and so on. This I feel more inclined to agree with; it seems a more natural process.
The next section in Holley's article talks about the importance of accreditation in LIS programs--but I admit to not understanding, really, a word of it. What I believe I understand of accreditation is that a committee determines criteria shaped for a school's curriculum, this criteria determines what a student must have under their belt to be properly graduated--but that's about it. This is something I think I should definitely know more about.
Holley concludes his article talking about the fact that practice and education have more in common than they think they do, and wishes they (a kind of big "they," I don't suppose to know exactly who "they" are) would realize the congruence between the two. I agree with a great deal in this article--and not only because I'm most comfortable, at all times, in a more moderate position, but because these two aspects, education and practice, do make up one large whole, which seems kind of obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)