Print vs Digital?

Well, I was privileged to be part of a discussion this afternoon that involved one of Australia's leading feminist/education/academic theorists, dale spender (she insists on spelling her name in lowercase - probably an indication of how much she values the constraints of conventional written language), in which the topic up for grabs was the inherent obsolescence of print (and why everyone teaching students is being too stubborn to accept it and move on).

Her professed point of view was that print had no place in the future, and barely had a place in the present, and we should just embrace the wonder that is the digital age and accept whatever is created within it.

As an XY Cusper (born on the cusp between Generations X and Y), I've had to listen to this twaddle my entire life. Theorists keep saying digital literacy is more important than any other form of literacy, and most of my peers and successors have either bought into the theory or have been taught by people who have bought into it hook line and sinker. At the heart of the theory is a fundamental flaw:

Everything worth doing is digital, so we don't need print or anything to do with print any more.

There is this fundamental, basic concept at the core of the 'digital movement' that says "print is dead - linear thinking is dead. Let us speak of it no more."

To me, that's a bit like saying "we have elevators and escalators - you no longer need to climb stairs so stop doing it". For one thing, the stairs are still very much all around us regardless of how many buildings are now using elevators. For another thing, periodically, escalators and elevators have been known to stop working. Then the escalators mysteriously turn into stairs, and the elevators turn into pointless boxes taking up space in the building.

When such things happen, the ability to find and use stairs becomes handy.

This is where I sit on the whole 'print vs digital' debate: We need to be literate in both, in equal measure. We need to be able to create both comfortably and with some degree of skill. We can't just (dare I say it?) toss out the baby with the bathwater. Heck, in these drought stricken times we can't even afford to toss out the bathwater - not when it could be put to use somewhere else.

Sure, it's a great thing to be able to think and create in a non-linear fashion. It's also important to be able to think and create in a linear fashion. Sure, it's great to be able to jump from A to T without feeling bogged down by all the bits in between. It's just as important to be able to go right through the whole sequence from start to finish and be able to appreciate what effect that sequence has on the world around it. It's also good to be able to know where to find F without a computer just in case (heaven forbid!) you find yourself without one on occasion.

You see, my big beef with the 'digital age' is that our new tools are not infallible, and we need to have a Plan B that can work when the lights go out. You always have candles in the house in case the electricity fails. You should keep books and dictionaries on hand for the same reason.

I'm a big believer in not being deskilled or unskilled - especially if it involves basic things like being able to read a book or write a letter. However, too many people have bought into the idea that digital has done away with the need for print related skills. As a result, I'm surrounded by students my age and younger who simply cannot 'climb stairs'. More than that, they get highly offended if you imply it's something they should be able to do - that they're lacking a basic skill by not being able to do it. They have been actively deskilled (or allowed to remain unskilled) and they have been led to believe it is their God given right to remain so.

They try to tell me the future belongs to these people. I believe, in a world where the non-linear is being celebrated at the expense of the linear, the future belongs to whoever can read more than three paragraphs at a time without getting bored and loosing the plot. We'll see who's right.

I'm on a break

I've been on holidays for a week, and I will be for another week yet. I'll start updating when I come back.

You have to study for that?

I was talking to someone the other day about how I worked as a supply teacher while I was studying for my library qualifications.

For some reason he found it surprising that someone would have to study to be a librarian.

This from someone completing a Bachelor of Sports Science. I managed to refrain from asking him how long he had to study at a university level to throw a ball, but it was tempting.

Next time you feel compelled to think the person sitting at the reference desk just wandered off the street and got a job, you should keep in mind that most librarians have post-graduate qualifications. Not only do they have at least one degree in a different field of study (I have degrees in Education and English Literature), but they also have a Graduate Diploma, Masters or even a PhD in Information Management (or something similar).

And yet, in spite of the fact that we've spent about six years of our lives in some form of academic study and dedicated at least a year or two to learning how to find and organise information on a level you might never personally encounter, we are still more than happy to print out a copy of the street map and tell you how to get to the mall, or simply tell you where the toilets are located in the building.

Why? Because librarians are not only smart and well educated, we're also helpful.

That's why we do this job - we just love helping you find what you're looking for.

Forgive my tardiness

So much for my trying to keep the blogs updated once a week.

Maybe I should shoot for once a fortnight, that way if I managed to do it weekly it will be a bonus.

Half the problem is that I start writing an entry while I'm on the desk and I don't get to finish it, so it takes longer than I thought to publish something I started last week some time.

Must try harder...

By the way, an entry for the Information Literacy blog that was started on the 31st of March is finally posted. It was sitting there, finished, since last Thursday. I just needed to check over it, add lables and post.

The World's Most Boring Book Display

It happens all the time. I think of a scathingly brilliant idea for a book display, I sit down at the catalogue and dig up a great range of titles, I get hold of a trolley with which to carry my haul of great books...

But then I get there and find out that, thanks to our policy of removing dust-covers, the books are dead boring to look at. Either that, or books I think are really interesting are so old and well-used that the covers are practically falling apart. If the insides weren't worth keeping we would have thrown them out years ago.

Well, the other day I had three brilliant ideas in a row - and every single one of them had to be "re-thought" due to the fact that the covers weren't much to look at.

In despair I sat down with a colleague and tried to work out a way I could salvage any of my ideas... When the idea slowly dawned on me.

I had been talking to a someone the other day about turning one's weaknesses into strengths and then playing to one's strengths. Having boring or ugly book covers was my weakness - so I should turn it into my strength. Make it the point, rather than the problem.

Thus, we now have the world's most boring book display sitting proudly in the middle of our library. There's no theme, rhyme or reason to it. The only thing the books really have in common is that we wouldn't normally put them on display.

They cover subjects such as reptiles, the universe, puppet theatre, children's street games, scientific reasoning, classic novels... Most of them are really interesting once you pick them up and take a look at the insides.

Now all that remains to be seen is if anyone picks them up to look at the insides. Apart from the nice big A3 sign that says "Don't Judge a Book by its Cover", there isn't a lot of colour to attract attention.

I wonder if anyone will look at them at all...

"Knowledge Broker"

It's very strange, but I know that the minute I mention what I do for a living, the person I'm talking to immediately gets the wrong idea. All because I use one simple little word: Librarian.

The following conversation occurs far too frequently in my life:

"What do you do for a living?"
"I'm a librarian."
"Oh. Do you enjoy it?"
"Yes, I do. It's a great job."
"I wouldn't mind having to read books for a living."

Usually, at that point, they change the subject to something they consider more interesting before I get the chance to mention that I don't read books for a living and, in fact, I'm lucky if I even get to see the inside of a book in the course of my job.

The sad fact of the matter is, most people don't really know what a librarian does - but they honestly believe they do. This strange, shadowy stereotype slipped into the public psyche at some stage in time, and convinced everyone that they know what a librarian is and what a librarian would do as a normal part of their day. Should you, however, press for details, you would find they can't actually give a shape to their stereotype. They'd have better luck telling you what a brain surgeon does than a librarian.

So, what do I do as the normal part of my day? I find answers to questions. I teach people how to use technology. I point the way to lost souls who need direction.

It's my job to connect you to the information you want. That doesn't really involve reading many books. It does involve knowing where to look for books on given subjects - and increasingly it involves knowing a fair bit about the topics that would be covered by those books.

Especially at this time of year, when the first year students don't even know what they don't know, I find I have to give some of my clients a brief "overview" of the sort of information they are looking for. Someone has given them an assignment, but they have no idea what half the words in their question even mean...

Someone has to help them understand what they need to find and how they need to look for it. That someone is me.

This job is really a dream come true for a person like me. My problem is that I've always been interested in everything (I used to say I was interested in everything except sport - but now I've even started developing an interest in that) - jack of all trades, master of none. There aren't many jobs out there that encourage generalisation, but being a librarian is one of them.

As a librarian, I get to learn a little bit about everything. It's brilliant. Every time someone comes in with a question I either get to learn something new or share what I already know.

I used to be an English/Drama teacher, and I couldn't stand the fact that I was constantly trying to bring information to people who weren't interested in it. As a librarian, I don't have that problem. People come to me because they actually want to know something. I help them find what they want to know. Both of us end up feeling happy about it all.

And yet, this job which makes me so happy is so misunderstood by the general populace. That darn stereotype has just wedged itself in their brain - and there are people who clearly don't believe me when I tell them librarians aren't what they think we are.

Take Batgirl, for example. Okay, that's a really weird example, but hear me out. Barbara Gordon, who used to be Batgirl, was (and still is) a librarian for her day job. When the Joker shot her and she lost the use of her legs, she created a new alter-ego for herself: Oracle. Look up any "Who's Who" of the comic book universe and they will tell you that Oracle is a "knowledge broker" for the other superheroes in the DC comics. What does this "knowledge broker" do? She looks stuff up on the computer and connects people to the information they need.

Yes, that's exactly what a reference librarian does. So why do they call her a "knowledge broker" and not "librarian to the superheroes"? Because the average punter wouldn't be able to comprehend the idea of a "librarian" who spends all her time looking up things on the computer. Don't they just read books?

So, perhaps, as someone once suggested, we should call ourselves something other than librarians. Then maybe people will understand and respect what we do?

Not this little black duck. I absolutely love being a librarian, and I'm happy to say it loud and proud - and if no one else knows what I'm talking about, well that's their problem.

Blogging away with the smoothing iron...

Well, I'm now working full time at JCU, and I'm about to take over as Liaison Librarian for the School of Pharmacy.

This might be a bit more labour intensive than working part time as the Liaison for the School of Creative Arts, but I'm going to try to make sure the resources blogs get updated as close as possible to once a week.

Remember, if you have any websites you find particularly interesting/useful, send me a link and I'll see if I want to share them with the world (or just hog them to myself).