ALIA 2004 Biennial Conference: Challenging Ideas

The conference started for me at 9:00am on Tuesday 21 September with the full-day Brisbane library tour. The libraries in the tour were Chermside Public Library, North Lakes Community Library, Queensland Parliamentary Library, and the University of Queensland Ipswich Library. The distinguishing features of the libraries were lots of windows and natural light, a sense of spaciousness, the integration of print and electronic resources, good signage, and the adoption of new technologies such as RFID tags. From the perspective of a librarian or a library user, I found the libraries attractive and welcoming spaces, the sort of place you would want to visit. From the perspective of someone studying a conservation and preservation unit, I have to admit a certain unease about the amount of light the collections were exposed to and ambivalence about the internal garden and water feature of the University of Queensland Ipswich Library (gorgeous, yes, but what about the risk of insects, water leaks, etc?).

Being able to view the O'Donovan Collection of the Queensland Parliamentary Library was a privilege. Denis O'Donovan was the parliamentary librarian from 1874 to 1902 whose catalogue of the collection was widely recognised as a scholarly work. The brochure on the O'Donovan Collection points out that the Queensland Parliamentary Library was voted one thousand pounds ($400 000 in today's money) to establish its collection just one week after Queensland Parliament's inaugural meeting in May 1860 - an unfortunately rare example of the importance of a well-funded library being recognised early on. The funding would certainly explain why the collection is rich in rare material.

I did feel the organisers of the tour had set themselves a difficult task in trying to get everyone back to the bus on schedule (probably the same level of difficulty as herding cats) and we slipped nearly an hour behind schedule. We did, however, manage to get back in time for the welcome reception. An important point was to get back in time as people go to conferences for the networking, the food, the trade exhibition, the chance to run away from work for a few days, and maybe even listen to a few papers and new ideas along the way.

Rather than comment briefly on all the papers I listened to, I have decided to comment in more detail on the papers which were of most interest.

Pamela Leuzinger's paper: "'But you're restricting access to information!' - the ethical and cultural dimensions of installing access gates in the UTS City Campus Library" discussed the practical and ethical aspects of the decision in 2003 to install access gates at Blake Library to prevent the theft of personal property from library clients. As Blake Library is in the Sydney CBD it is a magnet for professional thieves and the security measures previously implemented were not reducing the number of thefts. UTS staff, students, and associate members of the library have a card which allows them entry to the library. Non-members are permitted access to the library on their first visit provided that they register and have sufficient ID. Community users (people not studying but who want to do some research) may apply for membership. The majority of those who apply for continued access are approved (8480 out of 9439 applicants in the first year, mostly students). Some of those initially rejected are accepted on a second application (stating the reason for using the library as 'researching Australian history 1900-1950' or some other specific topic apparently works much better than stating 'research').

Thefts have gone down dramatically since the access gates were first used, the library is less crowded, and the number of missing books has decreased. Community users still have access to the library, although they must go through a registration process first. Some interesting points from Leuzinger's paper are:

only 32 per cent of the university's funding comes from the government (this makes the 'as a taxpayer I help pay for these facilities and should be able to use them' argument 68 per cent less credible)
reciprocal borrowers from other universities have to pay a $50/year fee for borrowing rights (I'm really glad that I've been able to turn up at UWA and ECU with my current enrolment form and only had to pull out my wallet to get my Curtin student ID)
within two weeks there was confirmation that many private colleges were sending their students to UTS. Year 11 and 12 students, community users, and students from other tertiary institutions are allowed to use the library but students from private colleges are excluded from continued access. I agree with this policy as it should be the responsibility of private colleges to provide and pay for their own library facilities from the substantial fees they charge and not freeload on other institutions.

I would recommend Kate Burnham's paper "Why do I have to explain what I do: the challenge of language and definition in librarianship" to everyone. It is clear, concise and makes the important point that librarians need to explain what they do in terms that library users and those who control the budget will understand. The examples from the NSW Pay Equity Inquiry and the 2002 Pay Equity claim make clear how professional status and pay are affected by the ability to articulate in plain English the skills and qualifications needed to be a librarian. There is also a warning about moving from the terms 'library' and 'librarian' to other terms as this has not worked in the past and allows employers to downgrade positions (a timely warning - see Linda Lee Elford's letter in inCite, September 2004 for an example).

Generational change was one of the issues of the conference. This was evident in the youth of some of the presenters, one or two so new they were waiting for the ink to dry on their degrees. There was a 'challenge session' with presentations from three new generation librarians and an interactive question session. I found this quite a confronting session because I did not always agree with the views of the new generation librarians, even though I belong to Generation X, and found some of the responses a bit too flippant. The flippancy may be partly due to the format and shortness of the session not contributing to a nuanced consideration of the issues. While I feel there is perhaps too much discussion of the image problem of librarians and too little positive action, saying 'get over it' does nothing to fix the problem or the effects it has on career paths, pay rates of library staff, and on library budgets.

There seemed to be a significant gap between the expectations of new librarians and employers. One public librarian complained that she received around thirty applications for a library clerk position but only six for a librarian position. I suspect this is due to the way advertisements for librarian positions often implicitly or explicitly demand experience in that type of library which discourages some potential applicants who are not able to meet what is evidently an essential criterion.

Sue Hutley presented a paper co-authored by Terena Solomons "Generational change in Australian librarianship: viewpoints from Generation X" as Terena had taken her own advice in the paper about younger generations taking time off to contribute to the birth rate. This paper raised questions about the effects of baby boomers retiring and suggested some strategies for dealing with the changeover of generations in the workplace. The most significant statistics were the ABS statistic that 52 per cent of Australian librarians are over 45 and the projected figure of 40-60 per cent of librarians retiring in the next 10-15 years based on a retirement age of 60. Hutley and Solomons call for better data on the number of graduates from Australian library schools and for research on whether there will be sufficient new librarians to maintain the status quo given that many new librarians are mature age.

From my own struggles to find work I would have to say that I find it difficult to believe that there will ever be an undersupply of librarians rather than the reverse. However, there is a need for good quality research into the current and future state of the library job market and the supply of librarians and library technicians. A potential PhD topic for anyone wanting to heed the call of Peter Macauley in his paper "Challenging librarians: the relevance of the doctorate in professional practice". There is also a need for leadership from those in senior positions to develop the library staff they have now and provide opportunities to develop or improve skills. Biddy Fisher commented in her paper "Workforce skills development: the professional imperative for information services in the United Kingdom" that:

"It is not always possible to recruit those with existing skills for LIS posts. What is possible is to find development opportunities that prepare staff for their roles." Imogen Garner paid tribute to past leaders of the profession at the conference for, among other qualities, 'their nurturing and mentoring of future generations of leaders and damned-good library professionals' (A tribute to our past leaders inCite November 2004: 12-13). Leadership was one of the themes of the conference; one of the 'challenging ideas' of the conference should be not to just talk about leadership but, as some of the new generation librarians would probably phrase it, to 'just do it'.

When I last checked the conference website thirty-four of the papers were available. The timely publication was quite pleasing but I was disappointed that some of the main papers such as Glyn Davis's "The power of your influence: a personal prescription for leadership", and Belinda Weaver's "New stars in the sky - how open access is transforming the information universe" were not there. I would also have liked to read the presentations from the 'challenge session' as one of the presenters made a comment about librarians with their 'lights on' (engaged in their profession, innovative, enthusiastic, etc.) and those with their 'lights off' (it's just a job) that became the buzz phrase of the conference. It was good to see that of the papers that have been made available, only one was a Powerpoint presentation rather than a real paper. A Powerpoint presentation is a visual aid; it supplements but cannot replace a written paper (see the letters in inCite January-February to April 2004 for more on this issue). The Powerpoint version of the Gettysburg address (see http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/making.html for a link to this and some background information) aptly demonstrates the difference between the written paper and the Powerpoint presentation.

My general impressions of the conference were that it was well organised with an interesting programme and social events. A few things didn't go quite to plan but that is inevitable with anything as complex as a conference. I particularly enjoyed CarnivALIA, the conference dinner which was held at Dreamworld. For a profession with a reputation for telling people to shush, there were certainly a lot of librarians making a lot of noise that night. The band had to work hard to be heard above the sound of all the maracas. Eleven pm seemed too early to wrap up the fun.

Other personal highlights of the conference were winning Friday's quick quiz (name the ALIA presidents for the last 10 years) and getting a signed copy of Nick Earls' The Thompson Gunner after the thought provoking 'one book one conference' session where Nick Earls discussed his latest book. I don't know whether I will hold onto the conference bag permanently (the distinctive green colour showed up remarkably well against the more sober colours of the other items on the baggage carrel at the airport at 12:30am) but I will certainly be retaining the conference papers, my signed book and my memories of an eventful conference.

Camille Peters

A a