Readings from September 11

Christine Pawley, Libraries

I thought Christine raised several interesting points in her brief but broad history of libraries, especially in her comments on how digital media have changed the traditional library. She points out that libraries face challenges in allocating (often decreased) financial resources between digital and print media, to the point where “the digital, virtual, or electronic library…. inevitably threatens the traditional library.” A bold statement that made me see the situation in a different light. She also acknowledges problems with digital media, including the problem of required hardware swiftly becoming obsolete. It seems to me that electronic media make current accessibility much better, but at the same time complicate future accessibility immensely. I was also pleased to learn when, where, and why the term “library science” came into being. I’m not a fan of it, but at least now I know where it came from.

D.D. Rusch-Feja, Libraries: Digital, Electronic, and Hybrid

Like Christine Pawley, Rusch-Feja raises some potential problems with digital media. He points out that electronic subscriptions to journals or literature do not guarantee archiving or permanent accessibility, which I see as a potentially large problem in the future. The situation seems analogous to a person who subscribes to an online music service which allows them to keep the music for only a set period of time, and while that seems like a fine choice for some individuals to make, for a library to have only electronic forms of literature which they don’t necessarily have lasting rights to seems to invite future complications. One of the other useful things I drew from this article were several clearer definitions of useful terms: metadata, interoperability, and virtual library.

Wayne A. Wiegand, Tunnel Vision and Blind Spots

I must say that Wiegand’s opening quotes (“There are more public libraries than McDonald’s”, etc.) were very heartening and inspiring. On the whole, this article engaged me the most of the four, and I enjoyed his writing style. I hadn’t given much thought to the canon represented in public libraries, possibly because the “canon” in my English undergraduate classes referred to a far narrower set of works and library collections seemed immeasurably large; but of course a collection can be large and still systematically leave out groups of works. I also didn’t realize the extent that published catalogs determined (and still do) the holdings of public libraries. I was pleased to see a shout-out to my own home library system (the Hennepin County public library system in Minnesota), and the discussion of suburban and urban library systems. Though the Minneapolis public library system (the urban branch) recently built a huge and wonderful new central downtown library, other libraries in the system are facing reduced hours or possible closure. Though his cry of “tunnel vision and blind spots” grew old, the points he raised struck me as thoughtful and valid. This is an article I can see myself returning to in the future.

Saracevic, Tefko, Information Science

I found this article a bit repetitive after the others, and it wasn’t always easy to follow the logic behind the words. Nevertheless, the section on “education” was very interesting. When I was researching library schools, I felt the divide between “information” schools and “library” schools, though I didn’t realize the split was as formal as it seems to be. I think the analysis of strengths and weaknesses was right on, and I found myself wishing that the divide could be bridged a little better. Saracevic did a good job showing that both camps need the other, and hopefully the future will bring better collaboration.