Don’t be boring. Surprisingly, this is a characteristic a librarian should possess. Traditionally, librarians have been portrayed as females with cardigan sweaters, buns and glasses, thus making the profession appear uninteresting, but that is only a stereotype. There is more to providing countless citations and answers to questions; true librarianship goes deeper than that.
It is vital for a librarian to be interesting and charismatic. There should be some spark and zing that inspires members to learn, read and research. By having this type of trait, it could help us build a reputation for being creative, yet helpful.
Blogging is one way to help us start our reputations as librarians. By providing insight and solutions about current issues facing librarianship, we are starting to slowly share our opinions with the online community. What we write has to be captivating, short and to the point.
I don’t think blogging is easy. Some blogs ramble about boring topics with too much terminology or other people simply don’t know how to write, therefore sounding downright idiotic and losing my attention and time.
Unlike scholarly papers, blogs ideally should have a quick point. There needs to be something about a post that makes me want to read and ponder about the context. It should make me think and yes, giggle at times.
Still, blogging is only a baby step to building a reputation. We need to be creative, and think of unique solutions for every imaginable and impossible scenario.
So fellow librarians, blog, drink and be merry. Inspire me to think about something I haven’t thought of before.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Does literacy mean the ability to read Anne of Green Gables? Nope.
Surprisingly, I thought that public libraries have been around for longer than 150 years, but soon discovered this was not true. Before the free library became a widely-used entity, the rich and elite had access to knowledge, therefore power.
But, as public education became popular, and required across the United States, so did the need for public libraries. Students, young and old, needed a place to research and to learn. People desired free books so they could learn how to read and educate themselves about a variety of topics. In other words, they became literate.
Today, millions of more Americans are literate than in the late 1800s because of libraries and public education. Then, I began to think what it means to be information literate in the 21st century. Does it mean understanding the phonetics of the alphabet or understanding the context of a book? Or does it mean understanding computers and the Internet?
The American Library Association states that "To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.”
Apparently, my assumptions were far from correct to the real meaning of information literacy. In today’s world, it means that a patron has to know when he or she needs a question answered and know how to efficiently formulate a process to locate and gage the information.
When patrons pursue information literacy at public libraries, they seek the help of reference librarians (a profession that also emerged with the concept of the public library). These librarians help patrons correctly identify the question and how find and understand an answer; therefore, helping the patrons increase their information-literacy skills.
Because information literacy is increasing among patrons because of the establishment of the public library in the 19th century, knowledge and power are also increasing among the population. With the help of reference librarians and the availability and access to information they provide, patron curiosity about anything and everything has the ability to increase.
But, as public education became popular, and required across the United States, so did the need for public libraries. Students, young and old, needed a place to research and to learn. People desired free books so they could learn how to read and educate themselves about a variety of topics. In other words, they became literate.
Today, millions of more Americans are literate than in the late 1800s because of libraries and public education. Then, I began to think what it means to be information literate in the 21st century. Does it mean understanding the phonetics of the alphabet or understanding the context of a book? Or does it mean understanding computers and the Internet?
The American Library Association states that "To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.”
Apparently, my assumptions were far from correct to the real meaning of information literacy. In today’s world, it means that a patron has to know when he or she needs a question answered and know how to efficiently formulate a process to locate and gage the information.
When patrons pursue information literacy at public libraries, they seek the help of reference librarians (a profession that also emerged with the concept of the public library). These librarians help patrons correctly identify the question and how find and understand an answer; therefore, helping the patrons increase their information-literacy skills.
Because information literacy is increasing among patrons because of the establishment of the public library in the 19th century, knowledge and power are also increasing among the population. With the help of reference librarians and the availability and access to information they provide, patron curiosity about anything and everything has the ability to increase.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Winnie the Pooh and dead man, too
At 17 months old, my niece (Leah) already likes books. Instead of playing with toys, she will snatch Stellaluna with her little fingers, toddle to the couch, and hold the book up for me to read to her. Albeit Leah doesn’t understand the context of the book, she is showing interest at an early age for literature.
Then I started thinking if children in school are reading good literature. At my high school, we read books written by dead white men. Fitzgerald, Shakespeare and Steinbeck were popular and appropriate choices in central New York. Schools simply didn’t have money to buy additional, or different, books. That is still a shame today because there are other notable authors for school-aged children to explore.
It wasn’t until college and receiving book recommendations from librarians that I explored other literature. As an English major, I was required to take global, British lit and poetry. My eyes were opened up to a new world filled with no dead white men’s works. Jhumpa Lahiri and Kiran Desai soon became some of my favorite authors. Reading about different cultures by new authors has helped me grow intellectually.
Some people may ask why it is important to read books by different authors and different genres. It is vital because countries are now connected and interacting; cross-cultural information is increasing and shared, so an understanding about the people and culture it’s coming from helps us appreciated and know information better.
So, next time Leah wiggles her way onto the couch with a book, I just might slip something new along with Winnie the Pooh.
P.S. I just remembered what my favorite book is: A Room with a View by EM Forster. Go figure, Allie.
Then I started thinking if children in school are reading good literature. At my high school, we read books written by dead white men. Fitzgerald, Shakespeare and Steinbeck were popular and appropriate choices in central New York. Schools simply didn’t have money to buy additional, or different, books. That is still a shame today because there are other notable authors for school-aged children to explore.
It wasn’t until college and receiving book recommendations from librarians that I explored other literature. As an English major, I was required to take global, British lit and poetry. My eyes were opened up to a new world filled with no dead white men’s works. Jhumpa Lahiri and Kiran Desai soon became some of my favorite authors. Reading about different cultures by new authors has helped me grow intellectually.
Some people may ask why it is important to read books by different authors and different genres. It is vital because countries are now connected and interacting; cross-cultural information is increasing and shared, so an understanding about the people and culture it’s coming from helps us appreciated and know information better.
So, next time Leah wiggles her way onto the couch with a book, I just might slip something new along with Winnie the Pooh.
P.S. I just remembered what my favorite book is: A Room with a View by EM Forster. Go figure, Allie.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Squeal like piggies, or remain silent as the grave
In my reference class last Thursday, we discussed the fine line between keeping our mouths silent or shouting about a patron’s book selection that could potentially lead to harmful problems toward him or others. But, do librarians have the right to object when we are ideally supposed to follow the golden rule of ethics and intellectual freedom?
With the ever-increasing use of the Internet and the publishing of books, the practice of protecting patron confidentiality comes into play. If patrons are using the library to research and view uncertain or unpopular information, it is questioned whether librarians have the moral obligation to inquire further into the situation or produce patron information if requested by an outsider.
If a patron checks out a book on suicide, does that automatically make the librarian think he or she may be contemplating the deed? Maybe or maybe not. Perhaps the patron is only doing a research project on suicide for a high-school or college course.
Let’s say that the patron’s high-school principal finds the book in his locker, therefore, demanding to know what other books the patron has checked out. In this situation, I believe freedom of privacy and intellectual freedom are being abused. No one has the right to this person’s library records.
However, if people subpoena and demand the patron’s records, it goes against the intellectual-freedom code. If librarians and outsiders do not value confidentiality rights, then the rules should be rewritten, as to not make them two-faced. There should be no exception to the code: All or none.
The chief purpose of libraries is to provide intellectual freedom where patrons have the guaranteed, written right to study and research without fear of persecution or question. If we break this freedom, we are being hypocritical.
I’m not sure what the correct answer is to this question because I have not encountered it yet. However, I think that though each case is different, ethics and intellectual freedom should be upheld no matter what the situation encompasses. If librarians and patrons cannot rely on those two fundamental foundations, then what is the purpose of a free library and community without interference?
With the ever-increasing use of the Internet and the publishing of books, the practice of protecting patron confidentiality comes into play. If patrons are using the library to research and view uncertain or unpopular information, it is questioned whether librarians have the moral obligation to inquire further into the situation or produce patron information if requested by an outsider.
If a patron checks out a book on suicide, does that automatically make the librarian think he or she may be contemplating the deed? Maybe or maybe not. Perhaps the patron is only doing a research project on suicide for a high-school or college course.
Let’s say that the patron’s high-school principal finds the book in his locker, therefore, demanding to know what other books the patron has checked out. In this situation, I believe freedom of privacy and intellectual freedom are being abused. No one has the right to this person’s library records.
However, if people subpoena and demand the patron’s records, it goes against the intellectual-freedom code. If librarians and outsiders do not value confidentiality rights, then the rules should be rewritten, as to not make them two-faced. There should be no exception to the code: All or none.
The chief purpose of libraries is to provide intellectual freedom where patrons have the guaranteed, written right to study and research without fear of persecution or question. If we break this freedom, we are being hypocritical.
I’m not sure what the correct answer is to this question because I have not encountered it yet. However, I think that though each case is different, ethics and intellectual freedom should be upheld no matter what the situation encompasses. If librarians and patrons cannot rely on those two fundamental foundations, then what is the purpose of a free library and community without interference?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Librarianship dead? I think not
When asked how many students have had experience in a library setting, about half the class did not raise their hands, so not everyone was familiar with this field. This made me relax a bit because I have not had any experience or library internships at all.
Right when I got my acceptance letter for SU, I was a journalist, and about to accept another job as a copy editor in Oneonta. When I told my friends and family I was going to pursue a library and information science degree, numerous believed I was going from the dying journalism/newspaper field to another field with limited opportunities. However, after researching and physically being in last night’s first class, I’m going to prove my people wrong.
Libraries have been around for thousands of years. From ancient Egyptian libraries with diplomatic and royal scrolls to medieval monk illuminations to the digital library, the field has kept evolving. The idea that libraries are dead is not true; but the way information is used and presented has changed drastically. The general population does not fully comprehend and see this difference, yet.
Still, information will always be around, but they way it is presented has changed. The functions of libraries in the 21st century have changed. Because of the Internet, more and more information is found online. To keep with the trend, libraries are digitalizing books, artifacts and articles because people find information online. The important thing to remember is that patrons are still seeking information, but receiving it in a different method.
Because information is now moving online, some automatically assume books will not be around in the future, therefore, libraries and librarians will be eliminated. Once this innovation becomes the norm, I think people will realize that books may not be as popular, but librarians will still serve a purpose to help others obtain information.
Similarly, people think that newspapers are dying, but only the physical print publication is suffering. People still want and seek news, but they move to online publications for it. Journalists and bloggers create multi-media stories with photo slides, videos and articles. News is still presented to people, but again, the format and functions have changed.
Though print edition of books may be obsolete in a few decades, people will still hunt for information, but through a different format. We realize that knowledge and information are power, and we want to cultivate our minds and interests to the best of our abilities. Librarians, myself included, will help people understand and obtain information they require in the future, no matter what the current and popular method may be.
Right when I got my acceptance letter for SU, I was a journalist, and about to accept another job as a copy editor in Oneonta. When I told my friends and family I was going to pursue a library and information science degree, numerous believed I was going from the dying journalism/newspaper field to another field with limited opportunities. However, after researching and physically being in last night’s first class, I’m going to prove my people wrong.
Libraries have been around for thousands of years. From ancient Egyptian libraries with diplomatic and royal scrolls to medieval monk illuminations to the digital library, the field has kept evolving. The idea that libraries are dead is not true; but the way information is used and presented has changed drastically. The general population does not fully comprehend and see this difference, yet.
Still, information will always be around, but they way it is presented has changed. The functions of libraries in the 21st century have changed. Because of the Internet, more and more information is found online. To keep with the trend, libraries are digitalizing books, artifacts and articles because people find information online. The important thing to remember is that patrons are still seeking information, but receiving it in a different method.
Because information is now moving online, some automatically assume books will not be around in the future, therefore, libraries and librarians will be eliminated. Once this innovation becomes the norm, I think people will realize that books may not be as popular, but librarians will still serve a purpose to help others obtain information.
Similarly, people think that newspapers are dying, but only the physical print publication is suffering. People still want and seek news, but they move to online publications for it. Journalists and bloggers create multi-media stories with photo slides, videos and articles. News is still presented to people, but again, the format and functions have changed.
Though print edition of books may be obsolete in a few decades, people will still hunt for information, but through a different format. We realize that knowledge and information are power, and we want to cultivate our minds and interests to the best of our abilities. Librarians, myself included, will help people understand and obtain information they require in the future, no matter what the current and popular method may be.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Cookies or Career?
A few days ago, my friends and I talked about feminism, and I’m honestly not sure what the 21st century definition of it means. As we gathered around to talk about our career aspirations and goals after college, no one but me wanted to get married and have a family. When I spoke this fact, they were surprised that I would pick a family over a career. This got me thinking about the “F” word.
Back when feminism hit the big wave in the later part of the 20th century, it was girl power. Careers, no husbands, no shaving, burning bras. Activists wanted to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force. But, what if some women wanted to stay there because they enjoyed cooking or spending time with children?
Now, these radical feminist are trying to make decisions about what will make us happy. Isn’t that what the patriarchal society did to us before the wave? So, basically, we are shifting from one dictator to another.
Personally, I think women should have the right to choose what they want to do, whether it is a cook or a corporate executive. Each person knows what he or she is good at, so ideally that should be enough.
Some of my friends criticized me for wanting to have both a career and family, while others thought I would waste away my talent on a heinous husband. Why can’t I have both? I plan to have a career as a librarian and a family one day.
My career doesn’t define who I am; neither does the person I marry one day. I define me. Those other things are part of my life, but they aren’t my being.
So, the next time my friends decide to burn their bras defying The Man, I’m going to make chocolate-chip cookies for myself because they are delicious.
Back when feminism hit the big wave in the later part of the 20th century, it was girl power. Careers, no husbands, no shaving, burning bras. Activists wanted to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force. But, what if some women wanted to stay there because they enjoyed cooking or spending time with children?
Now, these radical feminist are trying to make decisions about what will make us happy. Isn’t that what the patriarchal society did to us before the wave? So, basically, we are shifting from one dictator to another.
Personally, I think women should have the right to choose what they want to do, whether it is a cook or a corporate executive. Each person knows what he or she is good at, so ideally that should be enough.
Some of my friends criticized me for wanting to have both a career and family, while others thought I would waste away my talent on a heinous husband. Why can’t I have both? I plan to have a career as a librarian and a family one day.
My career doesn’t define who I am; neither does the person I marry one day. I define me. Those other things are part of my life, but they aren’t my being.
So, the next time my friends decide to burn their bras defying The Man, I’m going to make chocolate-chip cookies for myself because they are delicious.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Ohhh, me so hungry
Santa Clara County officials are proposing a ban of eliminating Happy Meal toys with high-calorie children’s meals. Unless fast-food restaurants can provide health alternatives, children may not be receiving toys in their food bags.
To fight the obesity epidemic in the United States, Supervisor Ken Yeager supports this proposed action. He claims that banning promotional toys will keep obesity levels down among children. The proposal states that unhealthy food includes any meal that has more than 485 calories and more than 600 mg of salt, sugar or fat.
However, it is unsure if this ban will be helpful or not because children can receive unhealthy meals at places besides fast-food restaurants. Schools and the home are a few of the many places that supposedly add to childhood obesity.
But, instead of blaming fast-food restaurants and vending machines for making children overweight, why is there no blame administered on parents? All I see on the news is blame of corporations and companies, never the person ultimately responsible for what goes into a child’s mouth.
Parents take children to fast-food restaurants. Parents give children money for soda and candy in school vending machines. They are as much responsible as these companies for the obesity epidemic.
Fast-food restaurants offer an easy, quick meal for busy people. There is no prep time or clean-up needed. You sit, order, and eat. Parents may be too busy, or lazy, to prepare a healthy meal for themselves and children after work and school, so McDonald’s is on the menu one night and Taco Bell the next.
I understand this is a problem the country is facing, but fault lies with the individual, not the whole. People do know what is right and wrong, so they can tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy food.
They are too lazy to take time out of their schedules to do anything about it, though. But after a long day at work, is it worth the effort to cook a healthy meal? Maybe yes or no, depending on the person speaking.
Another reason contributing to the obesity epidemic is lack of exercise. Adults and children can spend hours watching television or sitting at a computer playing games. Many video games are a sit-down activity, and those are highly popular among children.
Again, these games are bought by parents or children. Again, the individual can be blamed for the fatness of America. It is up to the individual to take care of his or her problems. It’s a strict mindset, and it will be a tough one to get out of.
If America really wants to get out of this fat funk, maybe more programs and education about food needs to happen rather than banning toys in Happy Meals. Ultimately, if you want someone to do something, you can’t just say “No.” There has to be reasons and examples how to fix a problem. The average American is dumb; we literally need things to be outlined for us on a plate.
Still, I’m not sure how effective this proposed ban will be if it passes in Santa Clara. Maybe it’s crazy; maybe this proposal will have some positives in the future. But, if fatty wants a burger, nothing will stand in his way of oozing calories and salty heaven.
To fight the obesity epidemic in the United States, Supervisor Ken Yeager supports this proposed action. He claims that banning promotional toys will keep obesity levels down among children. The proposal states that unhealthy food includes any meal that has more than 485 calories and more than 600 mg of salt, sugar or fat.
However, it is unsure if this ban will be helpful or not because children can receive unhealthy meals at places besides fast-food restaurants. Schools and the home are a few of the many places that supposedly add to childhood obesity.
But, instead of blaming fast-food restaurants and vending machines for making children overweight, why is there no blame administered on parents? All I see on the news is blame of corporations and companies, never the person ultimately responsible for what goes into a child’s mouth.
Parents take children to fast-food restaurants. Parents give children money for soda and candy in school vending machines. They are as much responsible as these companies for the obesity epidemic.
Fast-food restaurants offer an easy, quick meal for busy people. There is no prep time or clean-up needed. You sit, order, and eat. Parents may be too busy, or lazy, to prepare a healthy meal for themselves and children after work and school, so McDonald’s is on the menu one night and Taco Bell the next.
I understand this is a problem the country is facing, but fault lies with the individual, not the whole. People do know what is right and wrong, so they can tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy food.
They are too lazy to take time out of their schedules to do anything about it, though. But after a long day at work, is it worth the effort to cook a healthy meal? Maybe yes or no, depending on the person speaking.
Another reason contributing to the obesity epidemic is lack of exercise. Adults and children can spend hours watching television or sitting at a computer playing games. Many video games are a sit-down activity, and those are highly popular among children.
Again, these games are bought by parents or children. Again, the individual can be blamed for the fatness of America. It is up to the individual to take care of his or her problems. It’s a strict mindset, and it will be a tough one to get out of.
If America really wants to get out of this fat funk, maybe more programs and education about food needs to happen rather than banning toys in Happy Meals. Ultimately, if you want someone to do something, you can’t just say “No.” There has to be reasons and examples how to fix a problem. The average American is dumb; we literally need things to be outlined for us on a plate.
Still, I’m not sure how effective this proposed ban will be if it passes in Santa Clara. Maybe it’s crazy; maybe this proposal will have some positives in the future. But, if fatty wants a burger, nothing will stand in his way of oozing calories and salty heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)