A couple of years ago, Dave Lankes published his Atlas of New Librarianship to widespread acclaim. Motivated by the accelerating pace of change in the field, Lankes asked, “What is librarianship when it is unmoored from cataloging, books, buildings, and committees?” The answer, he contends, can be found in a new mission for librarians: to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities. Lankes’ book is insightful, thought-provoking, and a testament to his passion for librarianship. I also happen to find New Librarianship a very problematic framework for the profession. At the time the book came out, I criticized it for it’s social constructionism and I argued that the “Conversation Theory” of knowledge at the heart of New Librarianship impedes learning, disenfranchises minority voices, and works against the idea of the library as a valuable social institution. I won’t rehash these arguments in detail (you can go back and read them if you want) but it’s worth pointing out that even though I find fault with his theory, I still respect the hell out of Professor Lankes for his dedication to librarianship and for the passion he instills in others.
So, anyway, Syracuse is now offering a MOOC on New Librarianship…starting today! And, I signed up (along with thousands of other librarians). Taught by a team of most-excellent library school folks, this MOOC will attempt to accomplish two things. First, the class will attempt to provide “a foundation for practicing librarians and library science students in new librarianship.” Second, the class will try to “generate discussion about the future direction of the profession.” Both of these are important and I highly recommend that you join in. Seriously, go sign up if you haven’t.
I signed up mostly because I’m interested in seeing how other librarians react to Lankes’ worldview for librarians. Do other librarians have the same reservations I have? They may. They may not. But I’m willing to modify my beliefs in light of better evidence or argument. I also signed up because I’m interested in seeing how New Librarianship has evolved over the past two years. In particular, there are a few open questions about New Librarianship that I hope will be answered…
Open question #1: What about fiction?
If the focus of New Librarianship is on knowledge creation, where does that leave creative works such as popular fiction, music, and movies? To me, something just doesn’t sound right about saying that people read Harry Potter or Fifty Shades of Grey primarily for the purposes of knowledge creation. I’m not saying that we can’t or don’t learn things from fiction…of course we do. But, I don’t think that’s the primary reason we read novels. Maybe it’s the humanities major in me, but I think New Librarianship is incomplete without an account of the role of aesthetic enjoyment, cultural enrichment, or emotional connection as encountered in creative works.
Open question #2: What about librarians who don’t work in public services?
In a widely quoted passage, Lankes claims that “I have long contended that a room full of books is simply a closet but that an empty room with a librarian in it is a library” (p. 16). In other words, the library is the librarian, not the collection. This view of the librarian as a conversation facilitator is easy to accept for librarians working in reference, instruction, makerspaces, children’s libraries, and other positions where the majority of your time is spent directly interacting with patrons. But, what of the librarians in cataloging, archives, electronic resource management, web development, and other generally non-public facing roles within the library? If librarianship isn’t about collections, what does that mean for librarians who manage collections? Basically, the New Librarian can either (1) argue that things like cataloging and archives aren’t part of the future of librarianship or (2) argue that the definition of “facilitates conversation” is broad enough to include collection-oriented library responsibilities. The first response would probably entail that librarians who work strictly with the collection aren’t really librarians. I don’t have to explain how problematic that response would be. The second response would require interpreting “facilitates conversations” so broadly as to be meaningless. Where does facilitation end? Hopefully, a third alternative will come to light over the course of the class.
Open question #3: What about the autodidacts?
New Librarianship is all about starting conversations within a community, and that’s a good thing. But, what does New Librarianship mean for the person who wants to learn by themselves? Lots of research-savvy library users are perfectly content using the library without any direct intervention from the librarians on duty. Lankes does address self-directed learning insofar as he claims that conversations can happen internally for an individual. The idea being that we have an internal dialogue that counts as conversation. But, as with the definition of ‘collection’ this approach seems to strain what we normally think of as ‘conversation’. Basically, if the theory requires that even thinking is a form of conversation, then what isn’t conversation and why call it conversation at all? Why not just say that we gain knowledge through a combination of conversation, reasoning, observation, sensory-perception, reflection, and so on? Hopefully, the MOOC will offer more explanation of Conversation Theory.
Open question #4: What about non-institutional libraries?
A while ago I wrote about the DIY library trend, which I contrasted with “institutional” libraries (i.e., the places that employ librarians). If it takes a librarian to make a library, then what does New Librarianship have to say about Little Free Libraries? Should we work to convince our communities to stop calling them ‘libraries’? Who really decides what a library is? Communities? Librarians? Library-school professors? It can get pretty tricky when you start to think about it and I hope the MOOC will address the apparent tension between community beliefs about libraries and theoretical frameworks of librarianship.
Of course, there are other open questions, but these are the ones on my mind the morning before the Master Class in New Librarianship begins. It’s true: I do not identify with New Librarianship. Shoot, I actually identify with the polar opposite of New Librarianship. I hold what I’ll call the functional view of librarianship: a librarian is a person responsible for all or part of a library, where ‘library’ means a shared, organized, and searchable collection of information objects. To me, librarians are defined by their relation to a collection. To a New Librarian, that counts as stinkin’ thinkin’. But, in order to avoid the problems of social constructionism, as well as to address issues surrounding creative works, diverse roles within our profession, self-directed library users, and non-institutional libraries, I’m going to stick with the functional account. Yet, even though I’m not going to become a New Librarian, I’m ecumenical in my approach to theory-construction and I want Lankes’ vision to succeed. My hope is simply that the MOOC will offer a more robust version of New Librarianship than we’ve seen in the past. Fingers crossed and maybe I’ll see you in class!
i’m in as well 🙂
I would think a librarian in web development certainly could be seen as a conversation facilitator these days–helping those autodidacts get to the information they need as quickly and easily as possible.
I think my larger point is just that “facilitates conversation” is treated so broadly by Lankes that just about everything facilitates conversations. At times, he talks about librarians as being directly involved in conversations (talking to patrons), at other times he backs off and allows indirect involvement (maintaining the systems that allow for conversation). Overall, it’s inconsistent and unclear. Hopefully the MOOC will clear things up.
Well, I’m looking forward to learning more about this. Thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t have any reservations because I think Lankes is just trying to get in front of all of the changes and get some type of handle on how librarians can be active rather than reactive. Somebody might get left out depending on definitions but I don’t find his views to be exclusive, myself. In a similar way, perhaps overtly social librarians were left out of previous definitions (a bit of a stretch, I know). See you in the MOOC..
True, Lankes is trying to get in front of accelerating change, but he has yet to explain why librarians should be active rather than reactive, or what that even means. For example, it’s reactive to listen to and respond to the needs of your community. But, what’s wrong with that?
I have found myself agreeing with you since your earlier blog posts about New Librarianship. I am attracted to the desired outcomes of New Librarianship, but not the philosophical foundation on which it builds. So I am curious if you have an opinion about the thoughts of someone like Gadamer. I am still learning about his philosophy, but it sounds like a possible bridge between conversation and collections. I could easily be wrong, but I think he manages to talk about conversation without succumbing to relativism, emphasizes discovery over constructionism, and for bonus points tries to points towards praxis, which librarians could adapt. Either way, the class would improve interesting. I might sign up.
To tell the truth, I’m not too familiar with Gadamer outside of his (excellent) work on Plato. From what little I’ve read, your description sounds accurate and I think it could in fact be a good foundation. The thing is, I might disagree with Gadamer about a lot of things, but I at least can respect a more or less consistent philosophical theory. Since New Librarianship doesn’t really have a solid foundation, (i.e., Conversation Theory is cybernetic pseudo-science) I’d say that ANY substantial theory would be better than nothing. Also, if you’re into Gadamer, you may be interested in Habermas. Oh, and sign up!
Does this mean, if I read one chapter of Habermas and thought it was amazing even if I didn’t have time to finish the book, I’d like Gadamer?
Good question, I suppose it depends on your general philosophical leanings. Habermas borrowed a lot from Gadamer, and they tended to agree more than disagree about hermeneutics. The biggest difference I see is in how Gadamer denied that we could obtain an objective position from which to evaluate the (social) world, while Habermas thought that we *could* reach a sort of quasi-objective standpoint. There’s a really good debate between the two that is totally worth reading (or at least Duckduckgo-ing) as a good primer to both of their theories.
Thanks for the post and the link. Based on merely your post, I think I’m in agreement with you, at least in part. New LIbrarianship probably isn’t my cup of tea.
I take the view that a library does not need a librarian as such (where that this is defined as one who has been to library school); though it needs a person to manage the collection. What makes the library is the collection, and so an empty room apart from a librarian, is merely a room with a librarian. Not that there is anything wrong with being a librarian! (I’m almost one myself.)
Regardless, thanks again for the link, I’ll might see you around.
I totally agree with you, “an empty room apart from a librarian, is merely a room with a librarian.”
So real quick: the definition of a library is? And this is different from a bookstore, or a community center? Or the web?
A library is a social institution that ensures equitable access to information and that communicates values and beliefs between generations.
Or something like that. Reword it however it needs to be reworded, but the basic idea is that the library is an institution that fulfills at least three needs within a well-ordered society. First, there is the need for information understood as a Rawlsian primary good (cf. “Distributive Justice and the Value of Information” by van den Hoven and Rooksby). (A primary good is something necessary for an autonomous person to plan a rational life, to make rational choices, and to exercise moral powers.) It follows that a well-ordered society will create institutions that promote and provide the equitable provision of information to all members of a society (especially a pluralistic society). Second, there is the idea of justice between generations (cf. Rawls, Theory of Justice, Sections 44-45). A well-ordered society will provide a means by which beliefs, values, principles, &c. are communicated between generations. Third, there’s the idea or reasonable pluralism. We don’t live in a community (shared doctrine) or an association (voluntary membership) we live in a reasonable pluralism. There are competing doctrines, beliefs, needs, desires, etc. all coexisting within the well-ordered society and such a society needs to provide places (physical or virtual) whereby we can safely and freely encounter this pluralism (or, encounter The Other, if you prefer). Libraries are those places, providing access to a diversity of doctrines, beliefs, stories, &c.
In sum, the Library is a political institution (political in the broad sense) that assists in fostering a well-ordered and just society through the equitable provision of information, stories, and related services. Particular library types, such as medical or law libraries serve the same function just for smaller communities, such as health professionals and legal professionals, respectively.
A bookstore is not equitable ($$$), neither is it a political institution (privately run). A community center is not focused on preserving information/stories/beliefs/&c.
The web is a tricky case, and the debate rages as to what an equitable web would look like.
And a librarian is a person responsible for all or part of a library (n.b., that’s “responsible for” not “works in”).
I’ve never bothered writing up a full account, but you can probably get the gist of it. Call it Liberal Librarianship? Humanistic Librarianship? Something like that.
@David
I wrote a piece on digital libraries that looks at what I consider a library to be (defined as “a curated collection of information sources intended for use”), and in it I discuss bookshops. The point of a bookshop is to sell an item. The point of a library is to provide access to information. The bookshop doesn’t care what you do with what you bought, it has your money. And the web is not a library, because it is not curated. It’s basically random.
I’m not sure I agree with Lane’s definition, as I’m not sure that a library needs to exist across generations, moreover, it seems to discount private libraries to a certain extent. (Equaitable access to a community that is defined as those who have paid a membership fee?)
The piece I mentioned is available at http://next-nexus.info/writing/infostudies/digital_libraries.php
First, I love this definition.
So it is an institution with goals and values that are carried out by a responsible party (since I think we can agree that a building or standing collection of artifacts do not have political intentions, goals or values)…so it is in fact a human institution with a responsible party…like a librarian. I also assume you are flexible in the size and nature of the community? So an empty room with a well informed librarian could actually fit this definition no?
Oh sure, it’s *possible* that an empty room with a well-informed librarian could actually be a library, assuming the librarian is a some sort of genius polymath storyteller. The crux is in that “well-informed” bit you added. But, even then, it would be the information the librarian has that constitutes the library, not the librarian per se.
Also, it’s not so much the library qua institution that has goals and values, rather, it’s the well-ordered society that instantiates certain goals and values by way of the library. I view library goals and values as either (1) process oriented or (2) supervening on the broader goals of a just society.
I’m curious to see how it all turns out from the sidelines, as I didn’t get in. I love the questions you’re asking, and I’ll be excited to see what comes of the class!
Stay tuned…it’s bound to get more interesting!
I’m one who uses “facilitate” because I think it incorporates all those back-of-house activities. Our spaces, our web pages, our metadata– these are ways we facilitate the connections between people and the information stuff they want to lay hands and brains on. Probably moreso than the reference librarian, in sheer tonnage of access enabled.
I’m totally with you that the back of the house facilitates connections between people and information. And not just probably more than reference librarians, but definitely more. I’m just thinking specifically in terms of facilitating conversations. Trying to get every library function under the umbrella of conversation facilitation ends up making conversation facilitation too vague to be meaningful.
[…] also discussed theories of knowledge and learning, specifically Conversation Theory. Jacob Berg and Lane Wilkinson (see links in first para) have convincingly argued about the dangers of limiting one’s […]
[…] A couple of years ago, Dave Lankes published his Atlas of New Librarianship to widespread acclaim. Motivated by the accelerating pace of change in the field, Lankes asked, "What is librarian… […]
Thanks for your post. I enjoyed your thoughtful reflection. I’d love to hear what you think of the MOOC when you complete it. Justine.
[…] this article by Lane Wilkinson, the writer wonders about fiction. If the mission of librarians is to improve society by facilitating the creation of knowledge, how […]
[…] New Librarianship and open questions by Lane Wilkinson (Sense and Reference, July 8, 2013) […]
Two years later, Lane, your definition of libraries is one of the most beautiful and reasonable I’ve ever seen. I’ll probably steal it and spam it whenever I can. You should write it in a referentiable place (aka, a post).
[…] me non è vero (e neanche secondo Lane Wilkinson: ottimo post e commenti qui) a meno di non accettare la stessa metafora con scuola e insegnante, ambulatorio e medico. In […]
[…] frase non è mia, ma di un certo Michael, che ha commentato un post di Lane Wilkinson, che a sua volta commentava una frase di David Lankes: A room full of books is […]
[…] You’ll see that Chapter 19 is titled “FAQs (Frequently Argued Questions).” I’m looking for your questions or the issues that pop up when you are trying to implement the community-centric, community as collection idea. I can’t promise to include them all, but I would like to provide responses to as many as possible. You’ll see a few examples already under that chapter (and a special thanks to Lane Wilkinson for letting me use his blog post to get the ball rolling). […]
[…] You’ll see that Chapter 19 is titled “FAQs (Frequently Argued Questions).” I’m looking for your questions or the issues that pop up when you are trying to implement the community-centric, community as collection idea. I can’t promise to include them all, but I would like to provide responses to as many as possible. You’ll see a few examples already under that chapter (and a special thanks to Lane Wilkinson for letting me use his blog post to get the ball rolling). […]