Skip to content

Pegasus Librarian Posts

Impossible Working Conditions

Yesterday was impossible. The entire library came to a standstill (or at least a slow and distractable crawl) at the news that one of my co-workers was having a baby. But, after an entire work day of not getting any work done, the news came that mother and daughter were doing fine.

Then there was celebrating… and then students started shushing us… and we retorted that since we’re on the fourth floor and since it was a special day, we could make a little noise.

Now we all wonder what we’re going to do at the baby shower we’d planned for next week…

Congratulations Ann!

[Update: here are some pictures]

Comments closed

The Research/Writing Connection and Why There Shouldn’t be Turf

Head on over to See Also, where Steve Lawson writes thoughtfully (as usual) about the connection between research and writing, information literacy, and the differences and similarities between librarians and disciplinary faculty.

To what extent should librarians help students see multiple sides of the scholarly conversation, develop their own arguments, or give other advice about constructing effective presentations? The only answer I have is “it depends.” It depends on a lot of things, but one of the most important is the librarian’s relationship with the professor. I know one professor, for example, who encourages her students to meet with me as they’re deciding on a topic, as they’re writing their papers, or at any other time in the iterative writing process. She and I in effect double team the students, pushing them to think not only about the answers to their research questions, but also about what makes a good research question in the first place. On the other hand, I know professors who bristle if I do anything more than teach the difference between keyword and subject searching. One professor would prefer me not to talk about evaluation of sources because that’s something properly done during office hours and by “struggling through” drafts.

While I would never suggest that librarians should usurp the professor’s role, I think that there are three specific ways in which we are uniquely placed to help students as they learn to engage with sources. First and most obviously, we are trained to think in terms of sources. We can make educated guesses about whether the information sought would be collected in a compilation, submitted to academic journals, explored in depth in a monograph, reported on in the news, or entered into an encyclopedia. We are adept at jumping straight to the questions “who would publish about this and where would they publish it?” Over the last few weeks, I’ve become acutely aware that most students cannot make educated guesses about these sorts of things. They just guess.

Second, we do not grade students. I’ve had students express confusion to me when they wouldn’t have jeopardized their standing in class to ask a “stupid” question. And I’ve had a couple of good responses from professors who, when I alerted them to a pattern of confusion in their classes, took steps to alleviate that confusion.

Third and most important, librarians are not usually as deeply immersed in the particular subject matter at hand as are the faculty. This often seems like a liability since we can’t simply pull related facts and theories out of our memories and construct searches from this base of knowledge. But far from being a liability, this is actually our greatest advantage. Because we don’t simply “know” the topic at hand, we get to model learning about the topic with the student. The hardest part about this is remembering to narrate our thought processes to students as we work together. I was reminded of this earlier this week when a student asked me how I knew which record in a result list to open. I explained that I didn’t and then consciously narrated through scanning the result list, picking up on clues from publication types and titles, looking at years of publication, and so on. Then I’d click on the record and narrate what I was seeing: title, author, publication name, subject headings, abstract. All this is new to students (especially first year students, though some seniors are almost here), but after a few minutes of this type of modeling most students will begin to take ownership of the search, suggesting new directions, pointing out records to open, and eventually running off to continue on their own. When we model learning, taking notes, going back and modifying old searches, picking up on clues, and getting excited when we find a juicy article, we’re not only helping students locate the information they need, but we’re also helping them learn the art of research.

On a related note, I would add that in addition to negotiating where librarians’ skills overlap with and complement disciplinary faculty’s skills, we should also consider how our skills overlap with those of the writing professionals on our campuses. Last spring I was invited to attend a meeting of writing professionals in our region, and it was eye-opening for all of us to realize that we both think about our jobs in similar ways, and that we both work with students on the same projects. And yet, students are trained not to expect too much help with mechanics and “proof reading” at the writing center. Writing professionals and faculty both expect students to learn about constructing effective arguments when they work with writing tutors. Why should it be so different for librarians? Just as writing tutors work with writers more than with papers, so also academic librarians are in the business of working with researchers, not simply of providing research.

Comments closed

A Wiki Library Web Site?

Jennifer over at Life as I Know It pointed me toward a new blog and a new idea, all in one post. The new blog is Library 2.0: An Academic’s Perspective by Laura Cohen (into my aggregator she goes….), and the new idea is that of making library web pages in the form of a wiki.

Here’s what Laura writes:

There are some people who rightly sing the praises of the Ann Arbor District Library because its site is blog-based. However, blogs are restrictive relative to wikis in that the typical user cannot create an entry but only comment on it. In the library context, librarians are in control of their Web site content and users can only respond. This is valuable, to be sure, but in terms of radical trust (a Library 2.0 buzzword), it falls short. […] The technologies exist to make library sites a joint venture, in which librarians and their constituencies work together to create an online presence that hears voices from both sides of the fence. In a way, this type of site would remove most of the fence.

This is an idea I haven’t heard before, and just based on that I’m inclined to say “Cool!” That’s my default reaction to ideas that bring together fun and usefulness, interaction, learning, and (hopefully) improved service. And I think this idea has the potential to be meet all of those coolness criteria.

However, my personal experience causes me to pause, just a little. Would the presence of wiki functionality actually increase participation? I’m not sure. Laura is not advocating a wiki-only approach. She mentions combining wiki and blog bases to come up with a more interactive environment. But the suggestion that a wiki is more interactive than a blog got me thinking.

I know that when I view a wiki, I am hesitant to change the content unless I either own the wiki or I’m one of a small group of people working on a collaborative project. Each page in the wiki looks and feels to me like a draft of someone else’s paper. I’m happy to comment on it and let the other person change the content, but I don’t want to go changing another person’s writing willy-nilly.

In fact, I’m even less likely to change a wiki than I am to post to a massive listserv, and for many of the same reasons. Call it shyness. Call it respect. Call it pathological inability to force myself on someone. Call it what you will, but the fact is that I’ve only written to a large listserv a few times in my life, and I’ve never changed any substantive content on “someone else’s” wiki.

Blogs, on the other hand, present no barriers to me. I’m happy to comment because I’m not fundamentally changing someone else’s work, but I can still add my two cents. And I create my own content secure in the knowledge that even if people disagree with me, all they can do is comment, so all the time I spend drafting will not be wasted. (Well, I guess wasted time could be argued… but we won’t go there now.) Not only that, but my content isn’t going directly to someone’s inbox unless they specifically want ME in their inbox. They can visit me or subscribe to me at will, but I’m not forcing myself on them.

So where does this leave me? I think my answer is still “cool.” I like the idea of including a collaborative and constructive research space where patrons can work with patrons, librarians with patrons, and librarians with librarians, and where everyone can contribute to the research experience. This collaborative space to include blog space for patrons who wanted to write and comment individually or in groups. Patrons should also have note-taking space via the library, citation managers, and the ability to tag and review resources that they find (see this earlier post for more on my wishes for a research portal). But as a library user, I’d also like the basic, predictable structure of an HTML page to organize my experience so that when I visit my library’s web page tomorrow I’ll still know where to find the catalog. What’s more, my reservations are based only on my own interactions with collaborative platforms, so others may have an entirely different take on it.

Ultimately, I end up with a similar reaction to Jennifer’s: I think the ideal research space would include a combination of a bunch of tools and formats which serve users and librarians and which, together, allow for constructive and healthy interaction.

p.s. What is the plural of “wiki”? I’ve seen “wikies” and “wikis” in use. Does it have an official plural? You’ll notice I scrupulously avoided plurals in this post even though that made the language a little wonky.

Comments closed

The Best Antidote to a Snowy Morning: Getting Published!


It was a dark and dreary morning when I got to work today to find a large envelope waiting for me. “Another publisher’s catalog,” I thought, as I opened it.

But it wasn’t a catalog. It was a stack of copies of an article I wrote with one of my library school professors and which has just been put out by Online Information Review. Suddenly the day doesn’t seem quite so dark and dreary.

Zhang, Jin and Iris Jastram. “A Study of Metadata Element Co-Occurrence.” Online Information Review. 30.4 (2006): 428-453.

p.s. This is also my 200th post!

6 Comments