Whilst not necessarily agreeing with everything in the report - I think the point made about library schools and the relevance of their curricula to the profession is a valid one.
Having been in my first professional post for 18 months now I can say that significantly less than 50% of the skills I learned at library school have been relevant to me in my post (adult services librarian in a relatively small public authority) and that my employer had to spend a great deal of time and effort training me in fundamental areas of my role which they, quite reasonably, would have expected me to have at least been given an introduction to.
During my placement I had several interesting discussions with library professionals regarding their concerns at the gaps in knowledge they noticed in graduates from my course. I have also had the opportunity to speak to those graduating throughout the five years before me who all pointed out their own, and their employers' frustrations with areas of librarianship which had been ignored by the course.
My own main frustration was that in each year students had given feedback, had mentioned these issues and all met with the same response as my own year - zero.
Yes - accreditation is a form of feedback - but it doesn't go far enough - I feel there is a need for the criteria for accreditation to be revisited and for the profession as a whole to become involved in a dialogue with library schools to ensure that the qualification meets the needs of prospective employers. Of course the library world is evolving and library schools have to adapt to provide the skills needed for a constantly changing environment - but not at the expense of skills which remain both relevant and necessary - a balance has to be struck.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David McMenemy
Sent: 19 February 2005 22:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What Future for Public Libraries? New Laser Foundation
paper published today
Well I'm sure we have another report here that will kick off a debate. So
here's my tuppenceworth....
On first reading for me the report is full of broadly-sweeping statements
backed up with little or no data. I'm also concerned that there seemed to be
no discussion of the development needs of professional and para-professional
staff. Staff are talked of as a single entity, which is very warm and
cuddly, but not realistic if public libraries are to retain their position
as a profession and not a chain of shops. But then I have to admit that
reading the report, I felt no sense of a profession in it at all, I felt the
words of an organisation who wish to raise their profile with the powers
that be. Indeed given the criticism CILIP have had on this list over the
fact they don't over-sell their press releases, maybe they should look to
the press release for this as the way forward when you want to make
something out of nothing!
The report is obviously designed to be controversial, which isn't
necessarily bad, but like I said on this list last year I'd love to see
LASER actually conduct proper research that helped the profession as a whole
REALLY discover the issues at stake, rather than what we see at the moment,
what looks like a turfwar for who is the best pressure group for libraries.
My favourite quotes in the report include:
"Some staff in the retail sector appear well suited to libraries' changing
requirements"
Based on what exactly? Their cheesy grins; their knowledge of literature;
their all-round joi-de-vivre? Some data or facts to back such tired
statements would be nice? Which sector of retail staff? Is this just the
old "book shop staff are better" mantra? Are we talking about McDonalds
here, or Marks and Sparks? I've always felt Big W was a great store myself!
"These changes in library staff requirements will draw attention to staff
who will have little to
contribute to the new service and who are unable or unwilling to change, or
who may even actively
work against the revised objectives of the service organisation. It is vital
that these people leave and
a variety of methods should be used to assist them in this."
Oh dear! So gone is the era of trying to take your staff with you I guess.
What if the collective feeling among good, highly expereinced, staff is that
the new objectives are smoke and mirrors and have no place in public
libraries? More worryingly, what if they are correct. What if the much
lauded Retail Guru comes along with ideas that are ill-conceived and
unworkable in a public library? I love the notion of "assisting" staff in
leaving, too. Would this be the kind of "assistance" that included a wee
piece of paper with the letter P and the number 45?
And of course if in doubt, have a go at the library schools:
"staff will need skills which go well beyond the content of any present day
library school syllabus. This will have to change if the schools are to
remain relevant."
OK, if so, what exactly is the content that is missing? Facts, please!
And, ever heard of CPD or lifelong learning? Library schools throughout the
UK offer entry-level degrees for the profession PLUS enhanced career
opportunities in degrees like Health Information Management (Aberystwyth)
and Digital Libraries (which we're launching later this year - cheap plug),
to name just two I'm aware of. Speaking for myself I am not aware that
anyone from LASER or the futures group has been in touch to review our
curriculum and point out our inadequacies. Can any other library schools
confirm this? Broad statements such as this made without investigating the
facts do not help the debate. And I'm sure library schools would welcome
constructive feedback about where their curricula may be failing the
profession. This is exactly what they get when the CILIP accreditation
panel visit each institution, they receive REAL input and suggestions as to
how the courses need to be tweaked and bettered. More sinister is the
charge that the library schools may cease to become relevant. Relevant to
whom? The Government? Just what is their real stake in librarianship?
But of course given the tired old "libraries need a retail mentality"
mantra espoused by this report and Coates, if by meaning that library
schools don't teach "Supermarket 101" in library schools we are out of touch
with today's needs, then I'm delighted to say that they are correct. But
frankly, it's time people who criticised curricula actually started offering
some examples of what they think IS missing, rather than hinting at the
Utopia that would exist in the profession if the big bad evil library
schools could just toe the line.
I'm actually looking forward to the day when LASER put all of their ideas
into the library school curricula; how's "Point-Scoring Tips for
Malcontents!" as the module title?
More seriously such reports, with follow-up conferences headlined by
Ministers and Downing Street Policy people, just confirm that there are some
people in the profession who think that their priority is the needs of the
Government and not their customers or their profession. Please spare us the
ludicrous notion that the needs of the three are one and the same. That
road leads to the intellectual death of public librarianship in the UK.
With apologies for the length of the post, I would just add that all views
expressed are of course mine and not my institution's.
Cheers
David
---------------------------------------
David McMenemy
Lecturer
Department of Computer and Information Sciences
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com
**********************************************************************
Email Disclaimer - East Lothian Council
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender and ensure it is deleted and not read copied or disclosed
to anyone else. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any
attachments for computer viruses or other defects. East Lothian
Council do not accept liability for any loss or damage which may
result from this email or any files attached. Email is not secure and
can be intercepted, corrupted or amended without the knowledge of the
sender. East Lothian Council do not accept liability for errors or
omissions arising as a result of interrupted or defective transmission.
**********************************************************************
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com
|
