I have heard a lot of libraries from a lot of different types of libraries say smugly or proudly that they don't shelve books. That's a clerk's job.
Sure, clerks were indeed hired to reshelve, check patrons out and do other tasks that it doesn't require a degree to do. That frees up librarians to do more complex tasks like reference work, instruction and purchasing. That's what we get paid the big bucks (ok, moderate, non-inflation adjusted bucks) for!
But there is value to pitching in with those more mundane tasks on occasion. It's not only good for staff morale, to know that librarians will come down from their lofty chairs at the reference desk to help reshelve the 300 or so children's picture books that were returned just before story hour. And patrons see our shiny happy faces in other places in the library. They have increased confidence in us because they know (and we know) that we are capable of doing anything in the library, including being able to replace a lost card while the clerk is away from the circulation desk. It means that we're open to all of our customers' needs, and they don't need to be shy to ask, because they may be asking the "wrong" person for help with a particular thing.
It gives us more opportunities to interact with customers. When we check out their books, we see tangibly what particular patrons are interested in, and what is circulating. When we shelve books, we also see what is circulating, and we also see what materials are NOT. It can help us come up with strategies either for weeding, or for promoting lost gems.
Going into the stacks for more than just pulling books provides exposure--patrons see us out and about (thus making us less intimidating), but it exposes us to how the patrons are using our collection. Are they NOT checking out graphic novels, but there are plenty of patrons sitting in various nooks and crannies, polishing off Strangers in Paradise and Blackest Night? Are they not using the furniture for its intended purpose? Are there places that need furniture, or spaces opened up?
Getting out in the stacks, and out of the common areas can give insights into all this. When we walk through common areas without actually "using" the library, we don't see what patrons see--we see what we intended them to see, regarding configurations and the environment. Is it super-convenient to have chairs on the end of (or in the middle of) rows? Do you often find patrons sitting with a multitude of books on the floor, between the wall and the last row of books? Is it because the nearest table is too far away?
And patrons can ask questions they might not have asked otherwise. They may decide going to another floor, or another part of the building to ask the reference desk a question is too far to go, and may frustrate themselves further by looking for things (thus creating a negative connotation with the library in their mind), or they may just forget about it, and skip getting information or resources that a librarian could have easily provided.
Getting out and about gives us opportunities to connect with our customers in new ways too--if you see someone grabbing the second book in a series, you can ask if they've read the first. They may no know they're looking that "Bloody Red Barron" is the follow-up book to "Anno Dracula," and they'll be disappointed a few chapters in, to make that discovery--and even more disappointed when Anno Dracula has been checked out by the time they return. This makes them feel like they can't navigate the library, and it's too difficult, and so they'll just go to Amazon--or if they don't have the money, go to nothing at all for those resources.
Say your patron HAS read Anno Dracula. Have you read it too? Can you have a conversation about it? Can you find out what other things they like to read? Maybe they have a complain that they love steam punk fiction, but your library has none, and so they have to borrow or buy all of that stuff on their own, and the only thing they check out at your library is the vampire fiction. Maybe they've heard others complaining about the way the science fiction section is organized, and feel that since there is so much fantasy, it should have its own section, or a sticker to denote that it's fantasy, and not scifi. Maybe they really like the layout of the Young Adult room, and wish adults had a space like that, too.
Librarians do most of their work based on best guesses. We look at statistics and user behavior and make a best guess as to what a popular book or collection would be, what would be the best way to lay out space and organize collections, etc. But we don't really know first-hand. We pour over our statistics (which is right and good--most organizations, libraries included, live and die by statistics), but there are so many things our statistics CANT tell us. They can't tell us about items we DONT have, and how they would be received by patrons. They can't tell us that people absolutely hate those hard backed chairs, and prefer stools. They can't tell us that no one actually uses the study rooms, except to make out in.
Won't patrons say something to us about this stuff, if it's important? Maybe. Maybe they don't think it's important enough to mention. Maybe they think it's not important enough to US, for them to mention. It may slip their mind, or they may assume we just don't operate that way. Getting out there to shelf read, or reshelf books, or to weed gives an opportunity for insightful conversation, and off-handed gems of knowledge. It lets us develop real relationships with customers, instead of just an information exchange transaction at the reference desk.
It makes us look friendlier, it may even make us BE friendlier, since we know our patrons are keeping an eye on us all the time. We may develop real friendships. Shy or reluctant patrons may grow in confidence that we're here for them, and we're not a hurdle to get past.
Plain and simple, people need a reason to come back. We need to show them why we're of value, and help them feel welcome and important to us. Making ourselves more visible and more approachable is a terrific first step. Seeing how patrons behave with our space and our collections "in the wild," is invaluable because it helps us calculate future improvements. At the end of the day, good mojo begets good mojo--patrons who feel cared for both in the type of materials and the type of services we provide will come back, and tell others. And that's just good advocacy.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Hey kids, it's been a whille!
Yes, it has been, I know. Still ever on the job hunt. Every day when I drive in for work, and see the lake and the river and all the wonderful architecture, and am greeted by all of my lovely coworkers, I'm reminded that so much in life is temporary, and that as much as I would like to stay, it will be time to move on soon. I hope everyone here will remember my laugh, my smile and my mad collection development skills, and just pretend to forget just the sheer volume of Batman kitsch in my cubicle :)
Also, a few weekends ago, a magical thing happened. Chicks Dig Time Lords won a Hugo Award in the "Best Related Work" category. Katy Shuttleworth--magnificent human being and also the book's cover artist) and I created a comic for the book, so we're ecstatic. We get to say that we have a comic in a Hugo Award-winning anthology!
The editors, Lynne Thomas (curator, archivist, librarian and all-around awesome lady) and Tara O'Shea (graphic designer, fandom maven, and person Who Knows Everybody), were on hand Saturday night in Reno at Worldcon to get their very fancy rocket-shaped statues, and I had a great time watching them on the U-Stream video feed from home.
A few library things...
1) Have you been keeping up with The Atlantic, and their quest to find out what people don't understand about your job? The comments section of the original article, asking for feedback is rather interesting (in many ways, we're in the same boat as a lot of other fields).
Also, they did a post specifically about "What People Don't Get About Working in a Library," which is short, but also has interesting comments. There is a lot of frustration expressed about the field, the varying degrees to which education is used, the question of whether the MLIS is actually necessary, and a lot of comments about what librarians DON'T do. I think it's an interesting and informative look at the shared frustrations and worries of our field. There are also a few posts about what librarians CAN do, that is either hindered by lack of time, lack of budget, or lack of understanding on the part of the public as to what librarians do, and therefore they never utilize our skills.
2) In the are of "yet another lesson in how we are misunderstood," is this USA Today story regarding an ALA study regarding student utilization of librarians' knowledge and library resources. I look forward to the full paper being published in the fall. I don't think the contents of the paper will be of surprise to most librarians in an academic setting (or librarians in general, for that matter), but hopefully it will give recommendations and possibly galvanize the profession into being better advocates for ourselves not just with law makers and budget-controlling entities... but with our primary reason for being: OUR PATRONS.
If patrons do not know what we have to offer, and we are not reaching out to them before they ever come into the building, we've lost. They will never BE our patrons, because they never WILL come into the building. This is also a disservice, education-wise to students, because they're not learning how to use ALL of the resources available to them. They're getting into habits of shoddy research and only looking on the easily-discoverable portions of the web (namely Google and Wikipedia). They're missing out on valuable hidden resources in databases and on book shelves that would enrich their educational experience and help them academically. They're also possibly frustrating themselves unnecessarily with research, when they could have just gone to their library and received expert direction and advice from a librarian.
I think we need to get ourselves fired up to help students, then we need to get the administration fired up about giving their students the most resources and tools for success, then we need to reach out to instructors, and get THEM fired up about teaching students how to use the best resources available (and sometimes the EASIEST--it's quicker to ask a librarian than spin your wheels for days and days). Students often look at the library as a time-waster when they need to be taught that the library is a SHORTCUT to wading through 3 million Google hits that all reiterate the same four things, which also, consequently, are the four things listed in the Wikipedia article.
3) The Angry Librarian is sometimes rather inflammatory, yes. Often down on the profession, but he or she (dear, anonymous soul) says things that are often thought-provoking, and often cut to the heart of some major issues within the profession.
An article from a few weeks ago, "The Last Perk of Librarianship," looks at an angle of job hiring that cuts a little close to home, as I go through the job search process. This post focuses on the reduction in the number of secure, well-paying tenure-track jobs, the number of full-time jobs, and the number of actual professional positions within the academic arena as times get tougher and budgets get leaner.
This is something I have certainly been subject to ever since I got into the field. My first library job was part-time. By part-time, I mean 35 hours a week. You know, 2.5 hours shy of full time. Just enough so that, legally, they would not be required to give me health benefits, or equal time off. When all was said and done, I was still at the library usually 40 hours a week (sometimes more), and that comp time I earned for staying extra was often my only safety net as far as illness and vacation went. It was also a poor hourly wage. In fact, I took a very substantial pay cut leaving IT to enter the library field. I was hoping that by taking the cut, I could make my bones and move on to other better-paid positions where I could use my education and experience.
That time was stressful. Especially when I became ill, and had to spend the weekend in the hospital, which is very expensive, if you don't have insurance. I may have the hospital bill paid off sometime around when my student loans are done with. But, when I graduated from library school, despite applying all over the country, and having seven years of IT experience, and several years of library volunteer experience, that was the that I could get. Did they want a degree? Yup. Were they willing/able to pay for it? Nope.
I eventually ended up taking a few term/temporary jobs because it meant insurance and a grown-up paycheck. That's why I find myself right now in the position of searching for work as a term job comes to an end, and leaving a place I have really grown to love (never underestimate the joy of working for and with SANE people. Sanity and reasonableness are, perhaps, not found often enough in so many professions).
The process of applying for jobs has been frustrating on occasion. So many of the positions sound nice, but are extremely low-paying hourly wages, which make it hard to pay back student loans for both undergraduate and graduate schooling while keeping a roof over my head, and my belly fed, or they are part-time positions, which create the same student loan/roof/food dilemma, or they are temporary, and would require moving (at my own expense, of course) across country, which is very expensive in this economy. Or, they aren't really jobs at all, they're unpaid "internships."
Internship, for those in the know, is code for "we get professional-level work out of you, and you get 'experience' to add to your resume." It is very popular in many fields, especially publishing and entertainment. Over the years it has dribbled into other professions, including librarianship, and to greater and greater degrees as budgets tighten. In fact, when I was in graduate school, I did 150 hours of internship for credit. Yup, I paid money to work for free. It was awesome. But these aren't cutesy 150 hour positions where students learn valuable practical library skills and make professional connections, these are three month, or 4 month, or better yet, year-long internships. Yes, organizations as common as your local library all the way up to the Smithsonian get a year of professional-level work from a recent graduate, all with the promise of "experience," or "exposure."
Which should get you a great job when you're done, right? I mean, you interned at the Smithsonian for heavensakes! But why would people hire you, when they can just get another intern for another year? Sure, the turnover is high, and there's a near-constant training and trial period happening in the workplace, but they're saving tens of thousands of dollars a year! And they're "helping" inexperienced graduates get said experience! They're so altruistic!
I think, long-term, this will hurt the profession. It may seem like we're "giving valuable experience" to baby-librarians, and that will help the profession in the long run, but I think it attracts only a certain type of librarian--one that can afford to work for a year or two, unpaid. People who are independently wealthy, or for whom librarianship is a hobby. Or severely overworked people who are attempting to pay the bills AND get that valuable internship time, so that by year three of being a librarian, they're completely burnt out and are no longer giving it their best. That's certainly not the diverse group of professionals that we need to be tapping to keep our profession alive and well.
Also... should librarianship be a cut-throat kill-or-be-killed field? Is that going to help the profession? Will that bring the right personalities to the table? I have questions, but not always answers.
3) Library as a curator of culture: check out this curse-laden, possible NSFW video of Louis CK talking at the New York Public Library about George Carlin. It's possible to preserve our cultural history (including our pop culture) and still attract people to the library. The key: programming with a lot of popularity/desirability capitol. Sure, we all don't have NYPL's budget or it's geographic advantage of being in a cultural hub, but having programming that not only appears to have value to patrons (who DOESN'T need tax assistance, really?) but has a high cache of coolness, or desirability helps too. Cos lets face it, as far as entertainment and cultural enrichment go, we're not the only game in town.
Also, a few weekends ago, a magical thing happened. Chicks Dig Time Lords won a Hugo Award in the "Best Related Work" category. Katy Shuttleworth--magnificent human being and also the book's cover artist) and I created a comic for the book, so we're ecstatic. We get to say that we have a comic in a Hugo Award-winning anthology!
The editors, Lynne Thomas (curator, archivist, librarian and all-around awesome lady) and Tara O'Shea (graphic designer, fandom maven, and person Who Knows Everybody), were on hand Saturday night in Reno at Worldcon to get their very fancy rocket-shaped statues, and I had a great time watching them on the U-Stream video feed from home.
A few library things...
1) Have you been keeping up with The Atlantic, and their quest to find out what people don't understand about your job? The comments section of the original article, asking for feedback is rather interesting (in many ways, we're in the same boat as a lot of other fields).
Also, they did a post specifically about "What People Don't Get About Working in a Library," which is short, but also has interesting comments. There is a lot of frustration expressed about the field, the varying degrees to which education is used, the question of whether the MLIS is actually necessary, and a lot of comments about what librarians DON'T do. I think it's an interesting and informative look at the shared frustrations and worries of our field. There are also a few posts about what librarians CAN do, that is either hindered by lack of time, lack of budget, or lack of understanding on the part of the public as to what librarians do, and therefore they never utilize our skills.
2) In the are of "yet another lesson in how we are misunderstood," is this USA Today story regarding an ALA study regarding student utilization of librarians' knowledge and library resources. I look forward to the full paper being published in the fall. I don't think the contents of the paper will be of surprise to most librarians in an academic setting (or librarians in general, for that matter), but hopefully it will give recommendations and possibly galvanize the profession into being better advocates for ourselves not just with law makers and budget-controlling entities... but with our primary reason for being: OUR PATRONS.
If patrons do not know what we have to offer, and we are not reaching out to them before they ever come into the building, we've lost. They will never BE our patrons, because they never WILL come into the building. This is also a disservice, education-wise to students, because they're not learning how to use ALL of the resources available to them. They're getting into habits of shoddy research and only looking on the easily-discoverable portions of the web (namely Google and Wikipedia). They're missing out on valuable hidden resources in databases and on book shelves that would enrich their educational experience and help them academically. They're also possibly frustrating themselves unnecessarily with research, when they could have just gone to their library and received expert direction and advice from a librarian.
I think we need to get ourselves fired up to help students, then we need to get the administration fired up about giving their students the most resources and tools for success, then we need to reach out to instructors, and get THEM fired up about teaching students how to use the best resources available (and sometimes the EASIEST--it's quicker to ask a librarian than spin your wheels for days and days). Students often look at the library as a time-waster when they need to be taught that the library is a SHORTCUT to wading through 3 million Google hits that all reiterate the same four things, which also, consequently, are the four things listed in the Wikipedia article.
3) The Angry Librarian is sometimes rather inflammatory, yes. Often down on the profession, but he or she (dear, anonymous soul) says things that are often thought-provoking, and often cut to the heart of some major issues within the profession.
An article from a few weeks ago, "The Last Perk of Librarianship," looks at an angle of job hiring that cuts a little close to home, as I go through the job search process. This post focuses on the reduction in the number of secure, well-paying tenure-track jobs, the number of full-time jobs, and the number of actual professional positions within the academic arena as times get tougher and budgets get leaner.
This is something I have certainly been subject to ever since I got into the field. My first library job was part-time. By part-time, I mean 35 hours a week. You know, 2.5 hours shy of full time. Just enough so that, legally, they would not be required to give me health benefits, or equal time off. When all was said and done, I was still at the library usually 40 hours a week (sometimes more), and that comp time I earned for staying extra was often my only safety net as far as illness and vacation went. It was also a poor hourly wage. In fact, I took a very substantial pay cut leaving IT to enter the library field. I was hoping that by taking the cut, I could make my bones and move on to other better-paid positions where I could use my education and experience.
That time was stressful. Especially when I became ill, and had to spend the weekend in the hospital, which is very expensive, if you don't have insurance. I may have the hospital bill paid off sometime around when my student loans are done with. But, when I graduated from library school, despite applying all over the country, and having seven years of IT experience, and several years of library volunteer experience, that was the that I could get. Did they want a degree? Yup. Were they willing/able to pay for it? Nope.
I eventually ended up taking a few term/temporary jobs because it meant insurance and a grown-up paycheck. That's why I find myself right now in the position of searching for work as a term job comes to an end, and leaving a place I have really grown to love (never underestimate the joy of working for and with SANE people. Sanity and reasonableness are, perhaps, not found often enough in so many professions).
The process of applying for jobs has been frustrating on occasion. So many of the positions sound nice, but are extremely low-paying hourly wages, which make it hard to pay back student loans for both undergraduate and graduate schooling while keeping a roof over my head, and my belly fed, or they are part-time positions, which create the same student loan/roof/food dilemma, or they are temporary, and would require moving (at my own expense, of course) across country, which is very expensive in this economy. Or, they aren't really jobs at all, they're unpaid "internships."
Internship, for those in the know, is code for "we get professional-level work out of you, and you get 'experience' to add to your resume." It is very popular in many fields, especially publishing and entertainment. Over the years it has dribbled into other professions, including librarianship, and to greater and greater degrees as budgets tighten. In fact, when I was in graduate school, I did 150 hours of internship for credit. Yup, I paid money to work for free. It was awesome. But these aren't cutesy 150 hour positions where students learn valuable practical library skills and make professional connections, these are three month, or 4 month, or better yet, year-long internships. Yes, organizations as common as your local library all the way up to the Smithsonian get a year of professional-level work from a recent graduate, all with the promise of "experience," or "exposure."
Which should get you a great job when you're done, right? I mean, you interned at the Smithsonian for heavensakes! But why would people hire you, when they can just get another intern for another year? Sure, the turnover is high, and there's a near-constant training and trial period happening in the workplace, but they're saving tens of thousands of dollars a year! And they're "helping" inexperienced graduates get said experience! They're so altruistic!
I think, long-term, this will hurt the profession. It may seem like we're "giving valuable experience" to baby-librarians, and that will help the profession in the long run, but I think it attracts only a certain type of librarian--one that can afford to work for a year or two, unpaid. People who are independently wealthy, or for whom librarianship is a hobby. Or severely overworked people who are attempting to pay the bills AND get that valuable internship time, so that by year three of being a librarian, they're completely burnt out and are no longer giving it their best. That's certainly not the diverse group of professionals that we need to be tapping to keep our profession alive and well.
Also... should librarianship be a cut-throat kill-or-be-killed field? Is that going to help the profession? Will that bring the right personalities to the table? I have questions, but not always answers.
3) Library as a curator of culture: check out this curse-laden, possible NSFW video of Louis CK talking at the New York Public Library about George Carlin. It's possible to preserve our cultural history (including our pop culture) and still attract people to the library. The key: programming with a lot of popularity/desirability capitol. Sure, we all don't have NYPL's budget or it's geographic advantage of being in a cultural hub, but having programming that not only appears to have value to patrons (who DOESN'T need tax assistance, really?) but has a high cache of coolness, or desirability helps too. Cos lets face it, as far as entertainment and cultural enrichment go, we're not the only game in town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)