The popular conception of a Librarian is as rooted in the public’s consciousness as any other tried and true profession. Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Police Officer. Librarian. But, what happens when an entire well-regarded line of work undergoes a fundamental transformation? It’s hard to say, and the devil is in the details, but I get the impression that for anyone who works with electronic media today the devil is the details.

As journalists, librarians, researchers, and others take on added roles as information disseminators the lines continue to blur between previously separated professions.

Librarians traditionally have held two responsibilities: maintaining libraries (duh!) and helping patrons conduct research. Journalists, on the other hand, have been responsible for informing the public of noteworthy events (sometimes). Researchers have always researched. Given a preponderance of free, easily accessible electronic information, though, professionals in different fields are starting to find themselves pulling switch duty. A few cases in point:

• Google is digitizing library books and calling it “web content.”
• Journalists for the New York Times routinely add interactive web applications to their articles.
• Librarians are creating totally unique information resources instead of just finding them.

Put succinctly, the United States  is no longer an industrial nation but a knowledge based one.

Ok. So, with job responsibilities bluring together – and new media in a state of flux – it’s hard to tell the extent to which this is happening. The future is always clouded, and it’s impossible to say what this means for future Librarians, but it’s still possible to define  a set of job requirements that can be expected to remain in place foreseeable future.

What would this “new model librarian” look like?

Does anyone know of something that I should be reading?

“Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”

If that’s the case then I’ve been too free at work lately. To be sure solo-librarians always operate independently, but I’m quickly finding that without a group to coordinate my activities with it’s hard to “hone in” on key priorities. Sure, I know what my patrons need and what I’m doing. I can explain everything I’m working on in detail too. The catch is – it seems – solo librarianship requires the librarian to sit down from time to time and the establishment of goals. More rigid goals than usual. Without something to hold on there’s nothing, and I’m wondering if anyone else has had this experience?

I expect so, but as a solo I’m detatched from external opinions. Interesting.

Spurred on by a book titled “Print is Dead,” Tennant makes the point that print dosen’t seem to be going anywhere. Instead he notes that we are moving to a mixed media environment. I’ve has suspicions as much for a while, but the fact that Jeff Gomez’s book was printed in PRINT seems to make the title either one of two things: 1. suspect (or) 2. an obvious attention grabber.

The full post can be found at here.

Libraries are almost always collaborative organizations so when I started work at MoDOT I wasn’t surprised to find out that my library was part of several networks. The MTKN (Midwest Transportation Knowledge Network) and the TPF-5(105) (Transportation Library Connectivity Pooled Fund Study) are two efforts to encourage the promotion of library services to transportation agencies; the idea being that better information helps encourage better performance. Lately, however myself and several others have come against a dilemma. Transportation libraries each have specific focuses, but it’s difficult to collaborate in building a uniform collection standard across all agencies. Transportation agencies share common purposes – especially State DOT’s – but they are also as unique as the customers they serve. Is it possible that there are certain publications that all transportation libraries should have?

On one hand, the possibility that all transportation libraries should have certain materials is very real. Useful too. Every State builds highways, and roads and bridges.  But, on the other hand, the possibility that a standardized benchmark could exist is tempered by local disparate needs. Transportation libraries are alike but not that alike… are they?

I don’t know.

To make matters more complicated, at least in my library, the majority of information isn’t owned but merely accessible. The Pooled Fund and MTKN each ensure that I have access to nearly everything other transportation libraries do. This aside makes me wonder… do I still need to focus on collection development? Am I seeing an emerging trend? Should I, as MoDOT’s Librarian, treat my library as a stand-alone repository or is it OK to lean on my partners. Things are working now, and I’m helping to provide material to my patrons without relying on collection development standards, but what if the other Pooled Fund and MTKN members jump ship? They need to look out for their interests after all.

I wish I had an answer, but the more I think about it the more I think about it them more I believe I’m seeing something new. I think I’m seeing the emergence of a library network that doesn’t deal with things like they used to.

I suspect that any “standards” for collection development should be geared toward ensuring I “do my share” to collaborate… and no more. The material is already there. Everybody seems willing to pool it. So long as there isin’t abuse by group members and everyone continues to pitch in it’s possible that things are this way to stay.