Unless you’ve lived Ted Kaczynski style this past year, nobody in their right mind would say it’s been a harmonious one – politically, socially, or economically. I guess you can say a lot of people are pissed off. They’re pissed at heathcare reform, they’re pissed at the economy, and they’re pissed at a gazillion other little things like the I-Pad. Let’s face it, in America righteous indignation is in.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

Yesterday I took a quick trip to Ellis Library to read up on competitive intelligence.  Maybe it’s just me, but the majority of what I found was managerial business stuff that an MBA student would read. Don’t get me wrong. Business and administration books have their value, even though I’m not interested in them, but it seems odd to me that everything I found focused on supply chains and the like.

Does anyone know of something that I should be reading?

In a previous post I hinted that working as a solo librarian was making me feel alienated.

After reading a colleague’s post at Library Attack I’m convinced that others feel the same way too. In fact, I’m willing to bet that any librarian who dosen’t work in a traditional environment will likely suffer from some form of existential dread. This probably varies in scope, of course, but there are several reasons to believe we’re a Kierkegaardian bunch.

First, as specified in my post on solo librarianship we don’t have co-workers who share our expertise. We’re the only librarian in the library! Without a group to confide in it’s difficult to vent workplace frustrations, explain complex technical problems to others, or seek professional validation. All of these situations can elicit feelings of detachment.

Second, embedded librarians usually blur the lines between job roles to the point that it can become disorienting. One instance was mentioned in another of my posts that patrons assume “because you can find something on a subject and talk about… then it you’re an authority.” Not true! Plus, embedded librarians can always become more interested in the applied side of things too. If you don’t do library work it’s hard to conceive of yourself as a librarian.

Last, technology is bypassing and shaking up traditional duties. Just because someone takes classes to do one thing they won’t necessarily end out doing it. Refer to my point earlier. If you don’t do library work it’s hard to conceive of yourself as a librarian.

From when we grew up, we were taught that librarians are people who check out books. That they tell us to be quiet and ask us to not bring food or drink into the library. Unfortionately, this conception is blantantly at odds with a number of progressive manefestations within the profession. As a young librarian, I wonder what sort of cracks this might produce? Most imporntantly, if we don’t know “who we are” then how can they know what to do for our patrons?

Last year was not my best running year. Probably, the only worse years I’ve had were 2008 and before I started in High School. For whatever reason, I got started on the right foot around last February but fell apart by summer. Bigtime. Anyway, I’ve picked it up again and should be ready for Chicago in October.

Everything below accounts for my running from Jan. 25th, 2009 to Jan. 16th, 2010. That’s 51 weeks of data I’ve recorded.

Embedded Librarianship has gotten a good rap -  in part – thanks to patrons who opt to use the Internet instead of visiting libraries. This is a good thing, I think, but not many Librarians actually work with their patrons. Not surprisingly, then, the practical problems associated with being embedded don’t seem to be very public.

As an embedded librarian, I can say without hesitation that the most difficult aspect of working directly with patrons is facilitating technical discussions. Working with patrons requires that you know something about the nature of their work. But, it doesn’t require you to know everything. Instead, you operate as a middleman. Interestingly, though, people seem to naturally assume that “if you know about it then you can solve it.”

Therein lies the challenge. Embedded Librarians work so closely with their patrons that a clear distinction between roles can disappear. This can happen on both sides too.