LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT Archives

EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT  May 2009

EDUCAT May 2009

Subject:

FW: [eduCAT] Whom do you pay attention to?

From:

Janet Hill <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education & training <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 29 May 2009 12:04:21 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

I neglected to remove earlier messages, and the server rejected my first
attempt. So, I've removed a bunch, and I'm trying again ... This was in
response to a message from Suzanne Stauffer.

Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
[log in to unmask]
     *****
"For we are catalogers, and therefore the elect of God. To read is human;
to catalog, divine." Charity Blackstock. Dewey Death.



-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Swan Hill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education &
training'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [eduCAT] Whom do you pay attention to?

I'm interpreting research very broadly, and it would probably be best to use
the term we use here at CU: "scholarly work" .... so it includes historical
research; social sciences-type research; heavily numbers-oriented research;
state-of-the-art research; investigative or scholarly essays; case studies;
standards development; transactional analysis; interviews .... what have
you. Whatever is appropriate to the particular purpose. After all,
librarianship is essentially EVERY discipline, and to say that only THIS
kind of research has worth, or only THAT type of scholarly endeavor is
valuable, while THIS OTHER type of work is a throwaway is to misunderstand
the omni-disciplinary nature of the field.

(I'm NOT including things like reviews, reports, newsletter columns,
pedagogical texts, how-to-do-it manuals, journal editorship, etc., though,
which our institution would regard as "service" rather than "scholarship")

My best guess is that you are absolutely correct in your observations about
little such work being done in public libraries (more's the pity), and it's
probably based on public libraries seeming to have a different view of their
overall mission than academic libraries, AND having governing boards/bodies
that are unlikely to embrace (or support) the concept of research and
contributing to knowledge in the field being a part of every librarian's
job.

But if you just glance through the literature of our field, or even just our
subdiscipline, and read the IDs of the authors, I think you'll see that most
of the published papers come from practitioners. There may be a difference
in the types of research projects undertaken by LIS faculty (that would be
interesting to look into, actually), but just in terms of (1) sheer numbers
of LIS faculty vs numbers of LIS practitioners in institutions that
encourage scholarly work, AND in terms of (2) having "up close and personal"
contact with the questions/problems of the day and the laboratory (the
library) in which to observe them, it stands to reason that lots of the
published papers come from practitioners, AND that the type of work they do
may be different in type.

I also think you are right that right now most students would only see
research as important if it were part of their job descriptions, but it's my
opinion that we need to find ways to start changing that.

What I have observed over 20 years here at CU is that a habit of research
and inquiry, and a joy in it is infectious. If your colleagues are doing
it; if YOU develop a habit of it (even if you were initially forced into it
by the job requirements); if you begin to see its benefits in the
effectiveness of your library and the growth of your colleagues; if you
experience the warm and fuzzy feeling of seeing your work in print and
becoming known beyond your own walls, you CATCH it, and you keep doing it.

Something I have observed over the years is that lots of people have great
difficulty "putting themselves out there" -- being confident enough to
relate what they observe, to say what they think in public (print or
orally), either for fear of being wrong, or out of a feeling that what they
might have to say couldn't be important. (My second published paper many
years ago engendered a rebuttal from Michael Gorman. I thought I must have
arrived). And so that's one of the things we need to work at as well ....
figuring out how to convince people that what they think, what they
discover, what they wonder about, may be of interest and use well beyond the
walls of their own institutions, and that scholarly discourse includes the
possibility of being wrong, or being disagreed with, and that's OK -- but
having the conversation and raising the issues is important.

Right now, as the earth is shifting under our feet, we really need people
contributing to the field through scholarly work and publication and
presentation, but getting them to do that is something that we as a field
haven't seemed to be particularly effective at so far.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
April 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager