Articles for Jan 22

I forgot we didn't have to post on this week, so I wrote on it anyway. Figured I may as well post it.

Articles for 22 Jan
Basbanes
As an undergraduate who has never had a class in library history or library sciences, this article definitely shocked me. Like most people, I – incorrectly – hold that perception of the public library as a quaint and traditional place where everyone is simply happy and reads books. However, as Basbanes makes clear in his article, the public library is in fact an institution complete with bureaucracy and hierarchy – one that doesn’t mess around. Kenneth Dowlin was “not very good politically” within the political structure of the library, and was later essentially “voted out” by the ALA. The politics of technology, specifically in terms of space and purpose, blocks and complicates the goals the library hopes to achieve (a striking resemblance to gridlock in the U.S. Congress). To complete the Washington political scene within the library, San Francisco even seemed to have its own lobbyist and interest groups urging librarians to their side through the Edith Cedar Group. As president of the Library Commission Steven Coulter commented that politics is a contact sport, which seems like an out of place comment for someone in the public library.
Still, as the public library is an old and traditional institution, it makes sense that some librarians would hesitate to implement new technology and systems into their library, which was clearly portrayed through the back and forth arguments in Basbanes’ article. Baker published an article “bemoaning” the diminished use of the card catalog, yet critics condemned his reluctance to hop on the computer bandwagon. While such a debate seems to still exist 10 years later, there are aspects of the argument that almost seem like librarians want to keep certain elements more for preservation purposes – as if the library were like a museum. I am not sure what the library perceives its role in something like this to be, but as a public institution – and not a corporate business – the library should look to be functional while not wasting funds on unnecessary or duplicative materials. Such a solution, however, does not seem to be necessarily met through technology. If it costs more to have an electronic version of a journal – especially in the 90’s when computer use was not a common daily occurrence – perhaps it’s not money well spent. Politics, though, is a strategic game, and the library elite seemed to catch on to it as well as Washington. By hyping up the danger of storing brittle books that could no longer be used, they made the issue seem more urgent and salient, garnering public support when it perhaps was not warranted. Dowlin asserted that the card catalog was no longer adequate, yet statistics a few pages earlier in the article point out how in the first years of operation the New Main made user access to books more difficult – below the national average, in fact. In this case, ideology and practicality don’t seem to match up. This debate seems pertinent to libraries today, and I look forward to learning more about both sides of the issue.

Wiegand
This article seemed difficult to analyze critically, or to have any particular response to it, as it was more like a bibliography expressed in prose instead of standard notation. As I read it, though, I paid close attention to the books he lists as potential avenues for the final book “report” in the class at the end of the semester. His introduction, though, made me a little cautious going into the readings for this class. From Wiegand’s article, he makes it seem like there is a heavy lack of critical analysis in the field of library history, a field where such analysis seems particularly essential since librarians are supposed to be the ones guiding library users in research and other such inquiries. Still, this will be a good thing to keep in mind as I read future articles for the class, and force me to keep and critical yet open mind in doing so. Especially since I am taking this class as a history class more so than a library sciences class, I found it interesting that much of the library literature Wiegand mentions seems to be in need of updating. I am shocked that the field of library and information sciences would be the field where this is so, but it will definitely make fore an interesting historical perspective that forces readers (me) to think hard and critically about what I read and compare it to all the other articles we will and will have read.

Pawley
Another article that makes a bit alarmed to jump into the world of library sciences, but I think this article somewhat explains the lack of diverse ideologies and analysis in the previous article (Wiegand). The fact that history is a disappearing field from library sciences should send up a red flag, since you have to know and understand the past to understand the present – and the future at that. History is essential in giving us a perspective with which to view today; without it, understanding contemporary events is near impossible. When presented with two conflicting interpretations of something, as Stearns notes in the article, the background and perspective needed to analyze and make sense of both comes from a historical knowledge and background. Particularly connecting with Wiegand’s previous article, being able to read and understand history provides students with the necessary critical analysis skills needed to be a good student, and at that a good librarian/researcher. Ron Day argues that there is an antiquated positivist dominance in library history, but in reality his point should only further the case for history education within the LIS field of study. Because students, librarians, and others within the field lack this knowledge (and apparently this ability), it is no wonder that there is no diversity in theoretical discourse within LIS. It is important to receive all perspectives in order to develop critical analytical skills, otherwise we all may as well be living in George Orwell’s 1984. Pawley also brings up the lack of female depiction in the field which only further supports her claim for history in LIS. You cannot appreciate the female contribution to librarianship without its historical study. By disregarding history and not studying it, the stereotypes and prejudices of the past become a reality. If we did not teach Jim Crow in elementary schools, there would be no perspective and analysis by the coming generation to negate such beliefs and practices and push for diversity and equality. By ignoring history, the people who helped create it die along with it. There seem to be bigger issues within the LIS curriculum, as Pawley points out a disregard for “deepening students’ understanding” and an abandonment of “research methods course requirement[s].” Now, I’m not a LIS student so obviously my authority on the issue is lacking, but these seem to be the very elements that librarians are supposed to share with library patrons seeking help and information. I certainly will be very intrigued to learn more about the issue in the coming classes and readings.