The Australian Library Journal
volume 50 issue 2
Letters to the editor
The public library as archive: a comment
I noticed in your editorial [ALJ 49 [4]] your assertions that 'the largest repository of images, verbal and graphic, of [our] cultural identity was the libraries of Australia' and that 'against this almost willful cultivation of ignorance and the
celebration of boorishness, the collections of libraries are one of the few balances'.
May I add a supporting detail to your broad brush?
One of the particular values of our collections can be the fact that we have inherited, and can therefore offer, resources that are no longer in print. Our patrons do not have to rely solely on what is currently, in print, on line, or in stock.
Unsatisfactory indeed would we be, if we only offer our readers a free [thanks to our ratepayers and taxpayers] look at what they can buy in a bookshop today. One of our functions is to stock resources that are out of print. I maintain that most of my
users' book needs are met by resources selected by my predecessors. I hope that most of my acquisitions will be of similar value.
John Houghton, teacher-librarian, Rosny College, Hobart
Quality service from quality education? A response to Ross Harvey 'Losing the quality battle in Australian education for librarianship' ALJ 50 [1] February 2001
With some trepidation at the possibility of re-igniting the 'Conan debate', [1] my response to Ross Harvey's article emanates from within the purview of academic and research libraries. [2] In essence Harvey raises problems relating to the structure of library education about which discussion is long overdue. He also points to a range of solutions to deliver education that deal with some of the issues he
raises. In writing in the Australian Library Journal his audience is clearly the producer of library services rather than the consumer. From his style of presentation, Harvey seeks to provoke discussion. This response is written with similar intent,
and mindful of the fact that not all problems within libraries can be blamed on the current economic and political constraints.
Harvey raises the question as to how well the tri-partite structure of library education in Australia serves the profession. Internally, one result of the imprecise difference between the different levels of qualifications has been the effective
exploitation by the 'current crop of library managers' in larger libraries to reduce costs and, more insidiously, devalue the professional expertise of which they are meant to be the leading advocates. Less often, the range of levels of expertise of staff
has been used creatively to release those with higher levels of expertise for new kinds of roles. While these internal issues have caused division and dissention within libraries, there is one point on which Harvey has remained silent surrounding the issue
of library education, but it is one which is important to raise. Has the library user noticed a change in library services, and if so, how is the cause of this change understood by the consumer? Perhaps another way of posing the question to an audience of
librarians is: what are the consequences of this perception of a problem in library education on quality library services?
Much that can be said about the state of major libraries in this country ricochets around the tea-rooms of library staff and the communities of users alike. It is breaking no confidence to say that much of the perceived malaise of libraries in the research
and academic community relates to a perception of a reduction in the quality of library services. If there is any validity to this perception borne by high-level users, can it be drawn back to Harvey's argument for the Masters degree as the base
professional training for librarianship? He argues that this kind of scholarly qualification will produce professionals who have demonstrated skills in both critical thinking and problem solving. What he doesn't ask, and perhaps what needs to be answered
is: how many of these skills can be gained through the MBA and other similar degrees that were so revered a decade ago, and which are held by 'the current crop of library managers'. Is this path of education chosen by many of our library leaders part of
the cause of the perceived current malaise in library services?
Having spent the past few years researching in libraries, and prior to that working as a librarian, I would argue that the effects of the quality of Australian library education have been with us for some time. This manifests itself in the unchallenged
rise in the importance of management philosophy based on process above consideration for the users' needs or the specialist forms of materials being managed. One consequence of this is that high-level users are articulating their grief at the loss of the
specialist and scholarly librarians whom they see as having been destabilised by the process of multi-skilling, and driven out by institutional failure to understand the value of scholarship above process. This is one point where Harvey's argument as to
training high-level thinkers is important. If librarians are not trained to think critically, then what are the consequences for quality service in libraries?
It can be argued that one major effect of the lack of high-level and scholarly training in librarianship is the manner in which managers of large libraries are attempting to tailor a multiplicity of library services into a single delivery model. [3] Thus the process of service delivery, rather than the structure of the information, much less the product being delivered, is the determining factor. Consequently, rather than understanding the differences between the
structures of scientific and humanities information, and recruiting specialist staff to design services to cater for this difference, the much simpler structure of scientific information is currently determining service delivery design across the
disciplines. No wonder that the community most vociferous in their discontent at the current decline in library services comes from the humanities where the information structures are both more complex and varied. Is it too much to argue that this kind of
approach to service delivery design can be related to the training of librarians who have been encouraged to think along the lines of a management rather than a pedagogical model?
Perhaps another of the consequences of the nature of library education has been upon us for some time, and is visible amongst many of the so-called leaders of the profession. When most heads of libraries no longer seek to wear the badge of their
profession, preferring to hide behind the label 'chief executive officer' or 'manager', then the profession certainly has a problem which stretches far, wide and deep. Beyond such simple signifiers of the possible malaise in our profession, where in our
library education have we gained the understanding that the current corporate management model is the most appropriate manner to run cultural institutions? Where in our education is there a fostering of a continuing critique of contemporary library
practice? Do we have a generation of librarians waiting to critique Revolting librarians, [4] or writing its sequels?
Will changing the nature of professional library education to a Masters-based system break the cycle of decline in contemporary library practice that seems to have been noticed by at least one large group of high-level users? Can we link one of the causes
of the perceived crises in contemporary Australian librarianship to the professional education system, which has apparently failed to produce verdant crops of critical thinkers?
Perhaps one last question: even if the professional system was changed from training to the Masters-based approach to education, can the profession honestly cope with critical thinkers? Who knows? But we do need to continue to have a long and vigorous
debate about the issues raised by Harvey, a debate central to our professional survival and growth.
That is, if we are allowed to.
Joanna Sassoon, Research Institute for Cultural Heritage, Curtin University
1 McQueen H, 'Conan the barbarian' 24 hours July 1991 44-46; Mary Ronnie. Rites of access. Australian Library Journal 40(3), August 1991, 181-186.
2 Harvey R 'Losing the quality battle in Australian education for librarianship.' Australian Library Journal 50 (1), February 2001.
3 Burrows T (2000). 'The historian as librarian.' Limina 6.
4 Revolting librarians ed by C West, E Katz et al. San Francisco: Booklegger Press, 1972.
Feedback: Dr Ross Harvey
The editor requested me to summarise the feedback I have received since the publication of my article in the May issue of the Australian Library Journal. I intended that it would act as a catalyst for discussion, and it seems to have achieved that.
I know of two forums where it was discussed. The first was the aliaLIBTEC e-list. One contributor was not impressed: 'The issue I have with Professor Harvey is that he is referencing the development of librarians by saying technicians have caused a gaping
wound. What tosh!' Another contributor suggested that the article highlighted the evolving nature of the information profession, and that the best feature of the article and the resulting discussion on the aliaLIBTEC list was the recognition that
information professionals 'must engage in continuous learning and training, both formal and informal.' A further contribution suggested that the technicians had got it right: 'the goal posts have changed rapidly and while the technicians seem to have gone
with the flow, librarianship does seem to have a bit of a grey area about it.' A more balanced view indicated that 'regardless of qualification, or perhaps because of them ... all library workers complement each other, rather than the opposite.'
The second forum was the recently-established Professional Reading Group formed by the ALIA (WA) CPD Committee. It met in Perth on 12 June to discuss the article.
I have received a steady stream of e-mails, from people I know and from others I have not met. Many were along these lines: 'very interesting paper, in which you said many things that needed to be said' and 'thanks ... for raising an important and
controversial issue.' One writer indicated that 'it raises a number of home truths but additionally it has started people talking about these important issues even if people are responding negatively.' This writer had been 'stunned by the serious lack of
general knowledge, whether it be events in the news or big world issues' of the candidates they interview, and awarded a brickbat to ALIA: 'If it hasn't already, ALIA has alienated the people it needs to have on board if it has any chance of reviving the
profession to attract the quality candidates and quality educators it so desperately needs.' Another had 'often mused over the question of why librarians generally don't get ahead in this wired world, even though we have the skills (and had them before
most IT people)'. librarians 'daily fight (silent) battles with IT experts who claim they know all about indexing, XML, content management, and information architecture. I work with these teams but sometimes I think they just tolerate me as an extra. In
actual fact I should be leading these teams but I don't have the professional standing, nor the training that would give me 'the edge'.' The same person wondered, as an aside, 'does the profession attract people who are naturally retiring, quiet, etc?
Another interesting theory is that a large percentage of librarians are Virgos.'
One who e-mailed asked 'Are many people offended??? Have you succeeded in stirring up anything?' I hope so, and I look forward to seeing the profession debate what I believe to be these urgent and all-important issues.
Ross Harvey, 12 June 2001
|
