Priorities

I have recently concluded a usability study at Iowa. One of my main concerns is the number of links from the home page (82 incase you are wondering). I recently clicked on "staff directory." While scrolling down, looking for a librarians email, I noticed there were a lot of catalogers, 49 in fact. That seems like a lot to me, especially when one considers that the University currently employes 5 digital librarians.

Catalogers: 49
Digital Librarians: 5

Hmm. What does that say about Iowa? More importantly what does that say about where the technological priorities of this university rest?

Seriously, 49 catalogers and 5 digital librarians. Are you freaking kidding me? The relevance of cataloging is marginal at best in an era when books arrive at the library, already catalogued, what can 49 people possibly be doing?

Of the reference interview

Traditionally, the use of the library was heavily dependent on a librarian being able to aid the patron in decoding paper indexes and various other bibliographic resources. Over the past 10-15 years the services originally found in such paper indexes have been supplanted with electronic databases, which are available to anyone at a library that has access to a computer. Additionally, these electronic resources are used outside of the guiding help of a librarian or instructor.
My question is: how are these electronic resources helping information literacy? Students increasingly view themselves as being "tech-savvy" but what happens when a student navigates to a sophisticated database such as Web of Science or Emerald and has no luck finding what it is they are after? What happens when these students become frustrated and rely on EBSCO for all of their information needs? When going online to use library resources patrons are left on their own to figure things out, i.e. there is no form of the reference interview. Is this a problem? How do we fix it?

The Cult of the Individual (COTI)

Recently I've discussed what I call "the cult of the individual" with several colleagues and friends. I realize that I did not coin this phrase, but I find it quite an intriguing idea to discuss. To me, basically, the cult of the individual is visible in many areas of our culture and society. Shirts that say "princess," cell phone conversations in public places, facebook accounts, etcetera. All of these things are meant to draw attention to the person. To show how very important we are to other people.
One might argue that cell phones are for convenience and maintaining contact, but why would someone subject other people to an otherwise private conversation, no matter how insignificant? Also, why disturb other people by talking on your phone? What about all those Jazzy ringtones? Ah, how nice it is to let other people know how cool/hip/ironic/[insert something here] we are with our unique ringtones. The answer is because people think that they are important to everyone else.
Okay, so I don't like cellphones (you can read about it on my facebook page) but I hope the idea is clear. Society seems increasingly concerned with what everyone else is doing and everyone else seems to want society to notice.
Now, why does this belong on a blog that discusses Information and Librarianship? To be honest, I am trying to figure that out too. I recently had coffee with my friend Steve, who asked me how the Cult of the Individual affects librarianship/Information Literacy. I know the connection is there I just can't seem to find it.

Low Context versus High Context

At last week's ACRL meeting in Davenport the keynote Speaker, Dr. Roberto A. Ibarra spoke about the general trend of libraries becoming some of the most multicultural spots on college campuses.

A brief Discussion of "Context"
Low Context: North-Western European. Specifically the Germanic university model that is currently the "norm" in North American universities. Low Context is described as relying heavily on writing and reading. Hence a relatively "low" amount of contact/interaction. Space is private.
High Context: Pretty much the rest of the world. Things that are important in hight context include; reading, writing, architecture, tone, social interaction, gestures. Generally, space is communal (no closed doors).

Ibarra's discussion focused on how libraries do a lot to enable multicultural learning. One of my favorite quotes from Ibarra was that "putting posters up doesn't do anything for multiculturalism." That might not be the quote exactly, but it is pretty close. Ibarra's main point was that libraries are creating open spaces for people to come together and work in a more comfortable and "high context" environment. i.e. collaboration is the name of the new library game.

Okay, that's fine. HOWEVER, what happens in those collaborative spaces? Everyone gets together and sits at a table and looks at a computer screen to start working.....where we go head over-heals back into the world of über low context. Ibarra makes a good point about libraries, but falls short because he does not address the fact that what has become the way to do research in the library (i.e. databases and OPACs via a computer) is still excruciatingly difficult to use.

Click Here for a PDF of Dr. Ibarra's paper, A Place to Belong: The Library as
Prototype for Context Diversity

An Ethical Delima

So, lets say that, hypothetically, a graduate student assistant was at the reference desk. And that a student asked for a book that was required reading in a class. And lets say that it is the sixth week of class. And that the book review is due in 14 hours. The following is a possible scenario.....
The student, dressed in pajama pants, and smacking gum, flippantly asks for a book. The reference librarian finds the book on the OPAC only to discover it was checked out. Books 24x7....no luck. Google books.....no luck. What to do?
Now, lets suppose the reference librarian is about to try and find book reviews to help the student get a better understanding for the book. As results are coming up the student utters the following sentence, "It doesn't matter if I have the book, I'll write the review with or without it."
Now, lets say that the reference librarian is no book snob, but the preceding comment convinces him that this patron is not serious about their scholarship and closes the book review search before the results come up.
My question, was this hypothetical behavior ethical?