“I am not the type who can simply fire off some wonderful essay in the form of a post in five minutes and make it look like a masterpiece. I have to think, reflect, and at times write and rewrite, ….”

Neither am I blessed with this skill. Many of my posts take from a few to several hours to compose and, even then, I won’t claim any masterpieces. Unfortunately, I do sometimes try and respond to something when I don’t have enough time. For example, see this post. I am actually happier with my comment above than the post itself.

I, too, care deeply about the issues of our profession, but there is little time to be involved in all of them. And a more important point, is the blogosphere really the best place to focus limited amounts of time and resources on these issues? My answer is a definite No!

While there are some great people out here and some interesting conversations, on occasion, the blogosphere represents such a minimal percentage of our profession any statistical way you slice it. It also reaches less people than many other ways of communication. Certainly that is shifting but I believe it to be the reality for now.

It is because people like Meredith Farkas, Andrea Mercado, Dorothea Salo and many others are out doing things “in the world” that makes me excited for our profession, and NOT because they are bloggers. That is just an added benefit.

Best

As someone in academia, not on a tenure line, I am somewhere between safe and unsafe. I can safely not worry about the publish or perish thing. However, as many bloggers, I have to be careful what I say at times. But that last is more the reality of the blogosphere (any sector of it): anything you post can come to haunt you later. Way I see it, no sense in burning a bridge. Someone who has the tenure pretty much has it made since unless they commit some horrible malfeasance, their job is permanently secure, thus they can say (pretty much) whatever they want. While I am not saying one way or the other about the issue of whether librarians should have tenure or not, I think we should call a spade a spade and say that yes, some people have a bit more freedom that others to say what they want and how they want to say it without worrying over reprisals. But that is just politics.

In the more immediate scheme of things, I don’t see a reason to attract unnecessary heat. So, if it has been covered ad nauseam, I just let it be. Overall, the picture is not as rosy. Like you, I wondered just where he has been looking.

At the end of the day, it is sadder that so many of us could be conversing, but often find various reasons keeping us out of it. In the end, it fosters an echo chamber for one. For me at least, and I admit, this is a little vanity on my part, I would not want others to think that I do not care about the issues of our profession. I do, deeply. But in my case, better to find other areas of inquiry, raise questions under the radar, and take it a step a time. Anyways. . . .

Best, and keep on blogging.

I find it very “interesting”–to use a term from an IM discussion last night–that much of these conversations about the conversations perhaps we ought to be having take place in private via IM, email, at the “water cooler,” etc.

“Interesting” is, of course, a euphemism for many things.

We have had this discussion before about who is or is not disagreeing and the often valid reasons for it. I have said–publicly–before that there are several people who I admire and respect greatly that I wish were contributing to various conversations, BUT that I also fully understand why they are not. I have no reason to doubt their professed reasons and I have seen some of the issues they describe in operation.

Luckily, so far, I have had little of that personally. I have been involved in a few disagreements, all of which have ended positively or just fizzled out. On that last point, I am particularly referencing being labeled an “interloper.”

But I’ve seen enough of the stupid, sustained stuff on Meredith’s and your blog, among others.

And, yes, Walt, you are correct that even I “censor” myself on occasion. I want a job someday. Soon even. My critiques take place within a complex context, some of which even I am not fully consciously aware of. For others to interpret them in the light in which I (try to) express them is an almost hopeless possibility. Nonetheless, I must try on occasion. But, yes, I do not join some conversations as I know my thoughts aren’t welcome, or I lack the time to do so or to do so coherently, and perhaps other reasons. If one were to look closely at my blogger “heroes” one of the prime criteria I used was that they all allow me to, and in fact encourage me to, question.

It most certainly would be easier for a tenured academic to offer disagreement, forceful or not. Although I am at a complete loss as to what might constitute an “academic library blogosphere,” I am unaware of very few tenured librarians who blog. Perhaps there are a few–other than at ACRLog–of which I am unaware, but it seems pretty clear that this blogging thing (among academic library-types) is comprised of students, those on the tenure track, and those in non-tenured positions. None of those are extremely safe positions from which to be blogging, period, much less offering serious disagreement.

This is a complex topic for a variety of reasons, and while Steven Bell touched upon several perfectly valid points, I think he–perhaps from a position of power–elides or completely ignores many important points.

I also wonder how many of those making comments on Bell’s article have bothered trying to elevate the conversation, either in blogs or in the more formal professional discourse. Lots of complaints about our lack of theory, rigor, etc. are showing up, particularly when compared to a previous discipline. And while they’ll get no disagreements from me on this generally, it can be found. It just takes hard work to seek it out, to find like minded spirits, and to engage each other. It’s easy to whine. It’s much harder to do the work itself. And while I do not yet claim any particular strength in rigor it is something I am striving for. While I may have my goofy moments, I also try and “elevate” many conversations by my questioning approach, by attempting to add nuance, etc. It may be a small step, but I’m trying.

And while it was primarily a lack of time for all involved–a perfectly valid reason–some of us did try to have a Virtual Journal Club to actually discuss articles of merit.

Yesterday, I received an elegantly stated email from a young academic job seeker on some of the issues I have mentioned here. I have been given permission to post it anonymously. I am mulling that over as a distinct possibility. It’s not that I have any problem with the anonymity–they are known to me and as elegantly stated as this is I wouldn’t care if I didn’t know them–but I need to ensure that they aren’t identifiable in any way.

Many people care deeply about the issues Steven Bell pointed out, but few of us feel comfortable discussing them in full-on public view. And I find that even sadder than not having the disagreements in the 1st place.

More later, maybe.

As separate email may elucidate: One issue here is that it’s a lot easier for tenured academics to disagree forcefully than it is for others.