academic libraries

All this talk about academic libraries has me jonesing to hang out in my alma mater, Cornell College's library.   

Early on in the video, "The Future of Academic Libraries", I picked up on a theme: academic librarians seem to be spreading themselves quite thin, perhaps to justify their existence.  Jay Schafer suggested that libraries might serve as a sort of publisher/printer.  He also brought up digital preservation and access issues related to that.  How about modeling university libraries after the Apple Store?  What should be done about e-books and e-journals?  I am not entirely opposed to any of those ideas (except the publishing one--I didn't get that at all), but I worry that librarians in all settings are becoming jacks-of-all-trades and masters-of-none.

There is no doubt that librarians in this economy need to make sure their jobs are necessary.  My first instinct on how to do this is for librarians to instruct (especially since I'm in Information Literacy Pedagogy right now!).  My impulse was supported when Susan Perry urged academic librarians to focus on digital asset management and teaching.  A bit about digital asset management: I had never heard this term before, but it seems to be just another facet of cataloging.  There are an enormous amount of unresolved issues swirling around this topic, many of which were brought up during Nancy Mulhern's lecture.  Libraries may need to share digital assets, but it's important that those be accessible in some kind of consistent format.  Then there are the questions looming around the Google book project. 

Anyway, teaching is easier to talk about since it's certainly more relevant to me.  And it's certainly important to campus libraries.  Susan Perry said that university students still don't know how to research.  She called for library instruction to be "systematic, but not those boring library lectures", claiming that the term information literacy "turns people off".  Does her suggestion, "digital media literacy", really sound that much more enticing to young people?  This reminds me of the switch from the term school librarian to school library media specialist.  I feel the same way about both: the title really doesn't matter.  As far as information literacy instruction goes, it should include how to find, evaluate, and use information, digitally or physically and should be grounded in the classroom curriculum.  To get the faculty on the side of the teacher-librarian, information literacy instruction has to enhance the curriculum, not take time and attention from it.  It makes a lot of sense for librarians and faculty to "see [the library] as the logical extension of the classroom", though I think it might take more convincing for some faculty members to get on board.  The video suggests that libraries would not only be a resource for print and digital materials, but a place that would foster critical, analytical thinking, most likely through its teaching librarians.

all photos from cornellcollege.edu

To comment on the Apple Store model of organization, I like the idea of libraries as "group study and social centers".  Also the aesthetic of the Apple Store is incredibly pleasing, so I would not mind if libraries drew from that.  On the other hand, Apple Stores are not attempting to organize hundreds or thousands of books and documents, sometimes on different topics.  The Apple gives most every item equal footing/presentation, which would not be useful for libraries.  Besides, libraries already have a "genius bar" at the reference desk and geniuses wandering, ready to answer your questions-librarians!

In the video, "Challenges to Campus Use of the Kindle", I could see the Goldsteins' point--if they're not actually promoting the use of the Kindles and there are no visually impaired students on campus, who does it hurt to test them out?  I even wondered if it's fair to prohibit all students from using a technology tool because of a few who did not have accessibility.  After hearing the second half of the video, I still agree that Princeton wasn't really doing anything wrong, but they weren't doing anything proactive either. 

Marty Ringle's talk about accessibility and technology seemed less about whether Princeton was right or wrong and more about the impact that large institutions like universities can have on the development on technology.  As one measly consumer, I usually assume that my role is confined to accepting whatever developers shove out onto the market.  If it is an insufficient or inconvenient product, I just don't buy it.  I hadn't considered what kind of sway a university might have with Kindle or other technology developers.  I think Ringle's point was that if we accept an e-reader or other tool that is less than fully accessible, movement towards accessibility will be slow or nonexistent.  Further, he said "accessibility tends to benefit the entire community" and I am now convinced that is true.  I was impressed with his examples of accessibiliy features that have made easier the lives of people with many other disabilities, ranging from paralysis to dyslexia.  While it is noble and economically necessary to cut back on the paper used to print digital reserves, universities should not settle for a mediocre digital tool.  They should swing their weight towards technology developers and insist that all students have access to the technology.