Comment Half-right (Score 2, Informative) 218
I agree that part of learning to be a scholar is learning to use the tools of the scholar. But at the time the online tools of the scholar were developed, librarians were thinking in terms of replicating a paper system, not making the best possible use of the digital world.
IANALibrarian, but I worked as a cataloger and cataloger team lead in the early '90s, entering card catalogs, books, and other media into online databases for a vendor that serviced libraries. Many of the people I supervised or worked beside held or were seeking their MLS degrees, and at the time cataloging was respected among librarians as perhaps the most technically demanding part of their degree. I was informed last year by a librarian/cataloger colleague that the curent tendency is more and more to outsource cataloging to highly trained non-librarians, and that schools are starting to drop cataloging as a requirement to obtain a library science degree.
While there, I participated in a brainstorming session developing new services for libraries, and improving information accessibility (this was 1992). Among the suggestions given were scanning books, creating new ways of searching for data, creating new interfaces, allowing searches outside the library itself, and many more. Anything involving redesigning presentation of cataloging data was shot down because "people are used to the card catalog system." The idea that new users might want a different way, or that old users might profit by an improved approach and embrace it, was not supported.
The problem lies in the fact that librarians tend to categorize within existing systems. Even librarians who have migrated into the web world do this. I sat on a meeting discussing user interface for a personalized telecommunications site, and two people actually argued that the user interface should be identical to the directories storing the content. Those two were the sole librarians on the team, and the rest of us had to explain that the core concept of personalization (and indeed a major strength of the internet) is that content can be presented effectively in a broad variety of ways. One of them continued to resist, nonetheless, not comprehending that the architecture taxonomy did not need to equal the UI taxonomy (although of course it affected what was possible).
I agree wholeheartedly that learning to use library tools is part of learning to be a scholar. I think librarians serve an invaluable purpose. But I do think there is a hidebound tendency, which is being shown in the tendency to diminish the emphasis on online technical competency (not requiring cataloging for MLS degrees) and the tendency to dismiss the potential for improved interfaces out of hand.
IANALibrarian, but I worked as a cataloger and cataloger team lead in the early '90s, entering card catalogs, books, and other media into online databases for a vendor that serviced libraries. Many of the people I supervised or worked beside held or were seeking their MLS degrees, and at the time cataloging was respected among librarians as perhaps the most technically demanding part of their degree. I was informed last year by a librarian/cataloger colleague that the curent tendency is more and more to outsource cataloging to highly trained non-librarians, and that schools are starting to drop cataloging as a requirement to obtain a library science degree.
While there, I participated in a brainstorming session developing new services for libraries, and improving information accessibility (this was 1992). Among the suggestions given were scanning books, creating new ways of searching for data, creating new interfaces, allowing searches outside the library itself, and many more. Anything involving redesigning presentation of cataloging data was shot down because "people are used to the card catalog system." The idea that new users might want a different way, or that old users might profit by an improved approach and embrace it, was not supported.
The problem lies in the fact that librarians tend to categorize within existing systems. Even librarians who have migrated into the web world do this. I sat on a meeting discussing user interface for a personalized telecommunications site, and two people actually argued that the user interface should be identical to the directories storing the content. Those two were the sole librarians on the team, and the rest of us had to explain that the core concept of personalization (and indeed a major strength of the internet) is that content can be presented effectively in a broad variety of ways. One of them continued to resist, nonetheless, not comprehending that the architecture taxonomy did not need to equal the UI taxonomy (although of course it affected what was possible).
I agree wholeheartedly that learning to use library tools is part of learning to be a scholar. I think librarians serve an invaluable purpose. But I do think there is a hidebound tendency, which is being shown in the tendency to diminish the emphasis on online technical competency (not requiring cataloging for MLS degrees) and the tendency to dismiss the potential for improved interfaces out of hand.
