Tomorrow, Wednesday, 18 June 2008, 2 - 3:30 PM
Library Colloquium: Michael Gorman : Are Libraries Still Vital to Research?
Why do we keep bringing him here?
And, yes, I am well aware of his connection to UIUC. But, honestly, you’d think people might have outgrown him by now. Perhaps if more of our students could learn to think for themselves and to read a bit more widely ….
This quote from the news announcement I find particularly ironic:
If you need a refresher on Michael Gorman’s fascinating career, check his entry in Wikipedia which also provides links to some of his publications and other biographical sources.
There’s something just a tad bit too delicious to think about when someone links to Wikipedia to reference Gorman’s career. Don’t you think?
Part of the lecture is supposed to be on core competencies for LIS education, a major platform of Gorman’s ALA Presidency. I am assuming this post at Doc Martens’ theorywatch is in reference to them.
What a nice laundry list that. I will be interested in hearing how and to what depth they will be measured/evaluated. Or will it be enough for ALA as accrediting agency—as it is now—for programs just to claim that they address them. Actually, now, programs only have to claim that they address what they think is valuable [Yes, it isn't quite so simplistic I know. But honestly that's about what it reduces to.]. Not sure if this is much of an improvement but I need more details first.
I could just as easily pick on any set of these competencies, but I’ll choose those particularly close to my heart:
3. Organization of Recorded Knowledge and Information
3A. The principles involved in the organization and representation of recorded knowledge and information.
3B. The developmental, descriptive, and evaluative skills needed to organize recorded knowledge and information resources.
3C. The systems of cataloging, metadata, indexing, and classification standards and methods used to organize recorded knowledge and information.
Is it going to be enough that prospective graduates of accredited programs can list some principles, some skills and some “systems” used, or will they actually have to understand these principles, apply the skills, and demonstrate knowledge and ability to apply these systems?
Here’s a cite from an email about Gorman’s visit:
Michael will address the continuing importance of libraries to researchers and will cover the nature of research, the nature of the human record today, the skills of modern librarians (this will touch on the proposed “core competences” for ALA accredited LIS programs), and the importance of the bibliographic architecture of research libraries.
I have no doubt that Gorman will address these topics. My concern is with what qualifications anyone thinks he has to address these topics, or some of them anyway. The nature of the human record today. The skills of modern librarians. This is just funny. In a sad way.
Yes. I will be there. Who could resist such a show? And, honestly, as someone highly interested in the education of “modern librarians”—whatever the heck those might be—I’m dying to hear more about the ALA version of No Librarian Left Behind.
Update: Before any comments came in I realized I ought to say a bit more but instead went for a run. While I was out 3 comments came in [for reference sake].
I want to add that I do have some respect for Michael Gorman, or more accurately for some of the things he has done, said, and written. I have read several of his books and many of his articles. I hold many of the same values as he does, particularly values in relationship to the profession of librarianship. I just think they can and should be espoused and embodied differently than he does. In fact, if you search this blog you will find several cases where I defended or, at least, supported him.
But I also lost most of my respect for him over the last couple of years based on many of the things he has said and written. I do think he has much to offer our profession still. I just have no faith that he will stick to those things, nor that he will realize that he is failing at many of the things on the proposed list of core competencies; things which are critical to the future of the profession.
And while I agree with all 3 of the commenters so far, I do not agree with jenny’s 1st point. Having been president of ALA in no way whatsoever qualifies any one to speak on the issues he is supposed to be addressing. It may “certify”, allow, or more accurately, entitle one to speak on them. But then I didn’t realize this is an entitlement profession. In fact, are not entitlement and profession, at least in the senses I mean them, exclusive of each other?
So, lest any one get confused, I am not a Michael Gorman hater. I just do not think he is qualified to address, or even willing to properly engage with, many of the issues at hand. I am also fairly certain that I can back those statements up to anyone but the most die-hard MG fans or the ostriches of the profession.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Dorothea Salo // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Give him hell, Mark! *cheers you on*
2 Kirsten // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The Wikipedia reference in the email at least gives out the hope that someone involved is aware and thinking.
3 jenny // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I know you don’t want to hear this, but
1) being (or having been) the head of the largest professional org qualifies you to say this.
2) most lis students want a job. they don’t want to read blogs or journals about the profession. and, at a time when left and right you are reminded how much reading and tangible things are going out of style, you like someone with some fancy credential to come tell you your degree is relevant.
3) I would hazard a guess that well over 50% of current librarians and librarians to be hold Gorman’s beliefs about the place tech should be in libraries. I infrequently meet librarians who like tech.
4 Steve Oberg // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Oh my. You had me, Mark, from one of the opening sentences: “Why do we keep bringing him back here?!” Why indeed.
But as someone, like you, who is officially affiliated (what a mouthful, probably that’s bad English) with UIUC GSLIS, I need to try to throttle back my immediate negativity.
But it’s hard. Lightning rod just doesn’t even begin to capture my sense of this one person.
Steve
5 Angel // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:59 pm
That is exactly what I was thinking. Of all the ways to give info about the guy to suggest his Wikipedia entry is just rich, haha.
Have fun at the colloquium.
Best, and keep on blogging.
6 jenny // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Wait–being popularly elected by the largest organized professional body in your field doesn’t qualify you as an expert? Sheesh! I wonder what does!
Whether you agree with him or not, he has a lot of library and library school experience. I think it’s fundamentally ridiculous to think someone who has headed the ALA (an org I TOTALLY disagree with, I might add) is unqualified to speak on the future of libraries. Particularly someone with a well respected and highly honored (with awards) publishing and professional career.
There are many librarians I disagree with but who have positively advanced the discipline. MG is one of them, and a recognizable name people will go see. Also most people are in library school for two years, and since it’s a talk for students, it seems like once every few years is pretty reasonable (not to mention every ala pres. speaks at uiuc during their term, so that talk invite was irrelevant to who he is).
7 jenny // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
also, the gslis reality is whoever is willing to go get the speaker picks who it is.
8 Mark // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm
jenny, I know how these work–who’s on the committee, who’s available when needed, etc.
And in some regards I do agree with you re MG’s qualifications. But. In the other regards, and based on much of what he has written and said in the last couple years, he is not qualified.
The reality of the world–whether he or I or anyone else likes it–is different from the world in which his vast experience and knowledge accumulated. And he consistently refuses to engage with, or attribute much, if any, value to some of the ways in which the world has changed. With that fully in mind, how is he qualified to discuss the future of libraries?
Now, don’t go pulling out any straw man arguments on me. You know as well as anyone what my views are. I.e., I do not generally subscribe to generational talk, I do not think we should give undergrads (or anyone else) only a single magical search box, I do not believe the Semantic Web will scale, I think research and learning is a long, hard (and valuable) process, and so on and so on.
MG and I have a fair amount in common. But I also realize that there is value in some of the newer ideas and techniques while I highly value much about the older ideas and techniques. But I am also fully aware that much about our older ways of being no longer scale (in various ways) and that they were also always flawed–as will be any technique. Our previous/current ways rely on the assumption that we have complete and accurate metadata and that we have never had, nor will we ever have it.
Thus, for these and other reasons, I stand by my comments that MG has something of value to give back to the profession and that in many ways he is qualified to do so, but also that the things he seems to want to talk about and influence are exactly those things for which he is (partly) unqualified due to his bigoted recalcitrance toward the new.
If I (or any librarian) do not keep learning and engaging with the world as it is (and was) and as it is moving towards being what it will then I, my knowledge and my skills, and my degree will be irrelevant.
The exact same goes for Michael Gorman. And the fact that he was ALA President cannot impact that at all.
9 jenny // Jun 18, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The majority of librarians have the experience of Michael Gorman. The majority of them in library school even. Realize that you are in an odd position that most people around you don’t HATE all tech in libraries. The majority of librarians in decision making positions reject technology.
Hence, MG is more relevant than almost anyone who is super pro-tech, IMO.
It’s not about increasing your skills as a professional. It’s about being MORALLY OPPOSED to the tech. Many people believe libraries and life in general would be better without it. That’s not “not keeping up”–it’s a disagreement about where the profession should go.
Just because you (and I) think a certain part of the profession will go one way doesn’t mean everyone should develop expertise in it.
And after all, the point of libraries is to hear a lot of different opinions, and the anti-tech one is not often expressed in the GSLIS.
10 jenny // Jun 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm
also i would point out MG was MERCILESSLY skewered on twitter live. ha.
11 Kurt // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yes. I’m glad he had a chance to speak, glad folks (including me) were able to listen to the live stream, and glad folks were willing to challenge him on some of his more objectionable points (though it seemed quite clear that he frequently missed the point of comments from the room.
12 Faux-Twitter re Michael Gorman’s visit today // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm
[...] promise to get to the newer comments on my previous blog post soon, too, but this is my one month anniversary and I am about to spend the rest of the evening on [...]
Leave a Comment