The Australian Library Journal
volume 50 issue 2
Editorial
John Levett
A resounding silence?
In our previous issue, Dr Ross Harvey raised some fairly serious questions regarding 'the quality of education for librarianship at the professional level, as well as expressing concern about the academic quality of students admitted into the pro-fessional
category through graduate diploma and masters' level courses. He argued, provocatively, that this was a contributing factor to a perceived deterioration in the quality of practicing librarians, especially in thinking and problem-solving abilities. He also
argued that the issue was clouded by a lack of differentiation between the roles of technicians and professionals. In a letter to the editor in this issue, [see p107] Joanna Sassoon responds to Dr Harvey. But apart from her letter, there has been no other
response, not even from the chair of ALIA's body responsible for the overall quality of education in librarianship, the Board of Education. No head of school, no dean of studies took issue with Dr Harvey.
It is, of course, possible, that none of these saw, much less read and considered, the article, as it is also possible that no employer, colleague, student or graduate, has drawn it to their attention: or that they were in fact aware of the article and its
serious assertions, and thought that these were not worth replying to; or that this journal was not seen to be an appropriate vehicle for comment or discussion. The latter may be the case, for public debate in our ranks is seldom robust or evident, and
there are now a great many other, more private contexts in which such issues are discussed. Even so, ALJ is the 'journal of record': it is widely read in this country and is of interest to many colleagues overseas. What are its readers to make of the
overwhelming silence regarding the fundamentally important questions that have been raised?
It may be that what Dr Harvey noted as critical, other educators do not regard as significant issues. It may be that in the struggle for survival and the emphasis on student numbers which characterise the present tertiary context, the willingness of
students to enroll and their capacity to pay are the critical factors, in which case there may be no further ground for debate, since the arguments raised by Dr Harvey will no longer be relevant. This observation is not a facetious one: for years now,
employers, or rather their surrogates, in the shape of library managers, have been asserting that the quality of many new entrants to the profession was, to put it in terms of the current laconic phrase, 'fairly ordinary'. The weakness in their argument is
of course, that no professional school in whatever discipline claims to produce 'finished' practitioners: my own view has always been that the 'first professional qualification' is essentially a license to learn, and that the 'day one' competent
practitioner is a myth. Nevertheless, the complaint is still heard, and if Dr Harvey is right, with some justification. If it is more muted than in the past, it may be because managers now regard all staff as roster-fodder rather than autonomous, judging,
competent practitioners, and that the best that is hoped for or even wanted, is a 'fair average quality'. It may also be that as the language and mores of the corporate sector pervade the service professions, process rather than product is now the required
outcome, and the issues that might be raised by autonomous professionals in the arduous process of 'doing more with less' are seen as irritating interruptions to the workflow and the production line.
But even if all this is true, Ross Harvey's three key questions:
- what is our field?
- what is our product?
- where is the quality?
remain unanswered, and so far, undiscussed. Is this because they are too difficult? Or is the lack of response due to the flux engendered by the electronic storm? Our profession has been affected to an extent which perhaps exceeds that of any other:
certainly to an increasing degree it seems that in the communications and commercial contexts [which now includes tertiary education] in which most of us work, previous academic qualifications are much less significant than they once were, and general
qualities such as entrepreneurship [whatever that is], or the school you attended are more relevant. Indeed in any gathering of librarians operating at managerial levels, you will sooner or later be told, often with a degree of smugness if you happen to be
an educator, of the uselessness of the first professional qualification, and of a corresponding lack of utility in the graduates you are turning out. Perhaps this even happens in those other professions such as commercial aviation, or surgery, in which
'hard knowledge', rather than the human qualities of adaptability, compassion, a sense of social justice, or communication skills, are more highly prized. But if this is true, then the question must be asked: why do we bother with the whole academic
process? Why have the lower-ranked professions such as nursing or accountancy fought so hard to have their disciplines included in the tertiary curriculum? Why did we? Why did we mount the barricades whenever the appointment of a 'non-librarian' to a
significant post seemed imminent?
Dr Harvey's general assertion regarding 'quality' rests, presumably on the 'scores' that constitute the entry bar and provide a more or less legitimate means of streaming intakes to the high-demand and preferred courses in the universities such as law and
medicine. If the inference is that by comparison the scores attained by students selecting 'librarianship' as a preferred course of study are significantly lower, what are the consequences of this? To what extent does it matter? Or to put it in more
practical terms: what feasible options are available for changing it?
The lack of response by the Board of Education to Dr Harvey's article is, however, the most disturbing aspect of this discussion. ALIA's Board of Education is the standard-bearer in all matters relating to the education and training of entrants to the
profession: not inappropriately, it is allocated a significant budget to enable it to carry out its many tasks, one of which must surely be to participate in discussions such as that opened by Dr Harvey. Its silence is pregnant, and will give rise to
questions about the Board's overall effectiveness and commitment, and will perhaps provoke the thought that its role, effectiveness, membership and funding should be reviewed. It may be that the phenomena that give rise to Ross Harvey's misgivings have
rendered the Board irrelevant.
In this issue: Anne Galligan reveals for us the importance of libraries as part of a global information commons, illustrating her narrative with an examination of their significance in the work of historian Henry Reynolds; Bonna Jones gives us a
solid account of the ways in which story, reader and context can interact in the evolution of a moral and ethical foundation for the profession; Richard Pascoe and Hilary Black, lawyers both, examine the legal implications of the virtual library and some
of the implications of the law, especially the Digital Agenda Act, as it relates to intellectual property and suggest that the knowledge commons of which we dream may still lie some distance from fulfillment; Roxanne Missingham gives us a run through the
National Library of Australia's practices in the maintenance of acceptable levels of customer service; Kirsty Williamson and her colleagues report on recent research on the use of the internet by people with disabilities; Mary Anne Temby writes about the
more than insidious intrusion of mould into a collection located within the wet tropics; and John Maguire gives us a brief account of a stint in one of the world's hot spots. A smaller clutch of reviews this issue: not related to the variable fortunes of
the reviews editor's beloved Roos.
And another thing: as I write this, I listen to a news bulletin which reports on the erroneous release of three prisoners jailed in Corsica for serious crimes, including the carrying of firearms. Apparently an accomplice sent the prison governor a
fax on what appeared to be official letterhead, ordering their release. Provenance be damned!
|
