|
The April 2008 issue of LTAIG News invited readers to offer their thoughts on the commends made about the "deskilling" of the library profession through having non-MLS library workers doing some of the work traditionally done by degreed librarians, or filling jobs with the title "Librarian". Here are the thoughtful replies we received.
The April LTAIG Snapshot survey asked:
What do you think of the recent discussion about the "deskilling" of the library profession - that is, non-MLS library workers doing work traditionally done by degreed librarians, or being called librarians just because they work in a library.
Whether you have a library degree, diploma, or simply an abundance of experience in libraries. Tell us what you think, using one or both of these questions as a starting point:
Are librarians becoming obsolete, as the comment in the LTAIG Salary Survey suggested? Are library technicians a threat to librarians? Do you think people without MLS degrees should be called librarians, if they are doing the same work as a degreed librarian?
I have a MLS and over 25 years of public library experience in a wide variety of jobs. Many of them I worked alongside of library assistants who were functioning as library technicians do now. I loved working with these colleagues, and found that it was a perfect meshing. I appreciated (and still do appreciate) the potential that library technicians represent - that they can and do take on the routine questions (and they do a great job) and programs, and the high-end database, word-processing, spread-sheeting, organizing, among a thousand things, that I don't have the time nor the skill (anymore) to do. Librarians who are concerned should think about what value the relationship can be to them - to be able to get out into the community, to analyze the use of our collections and services, and to ANTICIPATE what our future collections and services will be. So that we (librarians) don't become an evolutionary dead end. As to what people call us, let's get real. Even our family members don't understand what we do, and they think everyone in a library is a "librarian." Personally, I don't care what I'm called (and I can guess a few names that aren't complimentary.) I'm happy as long as I can still encourage people to use the library - and I know that those people will get great service from my colleagues in the library, regardless of their formal job title. Whether a technician should be called a librarian depends upon the context in which the technician is working. In major public or academic libraries, I think the distinction between librarians with an MLS and library technicians should be maintained. However, in small special libraries such as church libraries or company libraries, the patrons just want someone to be in charge of their library and they want to call that person their librarian. Someone with an MLS probably wouldn't want these small jobs, many of which are volunteer positions. When mass mailings go out to libraries, they are usually addressed to "librarian" or "library director". I know of a bookstore that holds a "church librarians' night" twice a year. They mean whoever is in charge of the church libraries. This is the way the word "librarian" is used in the public arena and it is best to use the words the public understands. As a lib tech, I don't feel that techs are a threat to librarians. I work for a public library, side by side with fabulous librarians who treat me no differently than those with an MLS. However, there are those who feel we are a threat and treat us as such. In my mind, librarians are not become obsolete. I'm happy to let them handle the admin work and reports while I assist patrons. That's why I became a tech, to help people out - not to fill in forms. As a tech, I really don't mind being called a librarian but am happier with my title of tech. I really despise being called a paraprofessional though - I do the same quality of reference and readers' advisory work as the librarians I sit with but that word implies that I'm not quite up to their standards. I think that anyone doing the work of a degreed librarian should be called librarian. The general public has no idea which worker in a library has a degree or not, nor should it matter really. Credentialism is a big deal in many occupations these days, and libraries are not immune. I'm a "library clerk" whose position includes many tasks normally included in library tech jobs, and I work with library techs who do many traditional librarian tasks. I have done on-line searches for jobs similar to my own, and found that in a lot of places, I would not be considered for even a circ desk job in spite of 15 years' experience, because I don't have my library tech diploma. I find that silly. You can't demand "respect" for a profession by making the credentials needed to get a job in it ridiculous compared to the task at hand. It's like requiring an MD to get hired to take blood samples at a clinic. I've had my hand slapped many times for voicing an opinion when I "couldn't possibly know about that" by librarians who have a degree, about a minute's experience, and zero common sense about how a library runs in reality. When I get called a librarian, I am always correct people. I'm not - it's not my job title. But I know that there is a whole lot of overlap in our jobs where I work. Unfortunately, some of the credentialed folk are a might touchy about acknowledging that, which is a shame - we should be working together. I feel that librarians are not obsolete. I feel that librarians fill the roles of managers in public as well as technical services quite naturally and library technicians can perform the roles that require specific education in public and technical services quite well. However, many librarians find library technicians a threat. The following is one example. There are very few "library technician" positions. Many librarians in high positions advertise positions stating that a library technician diploma would be an asset, but offer standard clerical pay. New library technicians see this type of advertisement as stating in effect that the organization wants a library technician but does not want to pay appropriately for this educational requirement. Very rarely will you see an advertisement for a position in which an MLS would be an asset. Another example of the view that librarians see library technicians as a threat is the introduction of the Community Librarian Training Plan courses available for free (or it is re-imbursed) to public library employees who do not have any post-secondary education beyond high school. This program was implemented to fill the need for library positions that are getting increasingly more complex. This move was unnecessary because this need could have been filled by creating new library technician positions. This, however, has not happened. Instead, library workers have signed up for the Community Librarian Training program, asked librarians for answers to their assignments and even asked librarians answers to their tests. This online program is a watered-down program which puts nothing into regulating or supervising the training program. As a result, it is not accredited by any post-secondary institute and, yet, librarians at the top levels are creating more positions requiring this program and not the accredited library technician diploma. I think there is nothing wrong with calling people without MLS degrees librarians. Librarianship is not a crown. To do so does not take away the academic credentials of someone with an MLS degree. Are librarians fixated with there own status? I have a library technician diploma. I think the reverse is true. Library technicians are being replaced by librarians in the system I formerly worked in. My position was abolished and replaced with a librarian when I left. I have a Library Technician diploma from UCFV. I don't think it matters whether one has an MLS or not, the average library user can't tell the difference between a library tech and a librarian anyway. I don't believe that librarians are becoming obsolete nor that library technicians are a threat to Librarians. Librarians are really information specialists and in some cases, administrators, while library techs are information generalists and daily operations supporters. I believe the title of "librarian" for use solely by MLS holders is outdated. We are all librarians, and we all have our areas of expertise. MLS holders have more intense learning backgrounds and as such should be considered specialists in the field of librarianship. We are a team in each library that creates the best possible environment for our users. If we do not work as a team and if MLS holders don't acknowledge the efforts of the library techs in their library, then that is to the detriment of the user and creates an unproductive work and learning environment. I would prefer to use the term Library Specialist for an MLS and Library Technician for, of course, Library Technicians. But we are all librarians, even those without diplomas. I have a diploma as a library technician and work in an academic library. I feel that librarians are a necessary part of the system and fill a vital position. They are better trained at helping students search for material and at refining their research. I am often called a librarian (even by my husband) and always correct people as I do not have the years of education that a librarian has and feel that this education and training needs to recognized. In other fields, a degree or certification makes a difference in how people are recognized or treated pay-wise - why not with librarians? I don't understand what is causing all this uproar on this LT vs. LB issue. For the most part, librarians still have large clout in the library profession. For one thing, librarians decide when and why a library technician should be hired. It's in their discretion to decide whether to hire an LT or an LB; And for the most part of it, they'd rather hire a librarian rather than an LT. There was, for several years (around 7 years), a library in the lower mainland which didn't hire any LTs at all, instead they preferred to hire librarians. 2nd thing, LTs can never become supervisors... only librarians get that coveted job. 3rd... Go to UBC and SFU and apply for an LT job... you get nothing. An LT would have to compete with a person that has "a minimum high school completion and UBC courses" to get a circulation job. And what about public libraries? An LT who wishes to start in circulation to get into the system would compete with "high school graduates." Circulation could have been a great starting point for fresh LT grads instead, they prefer high school grads. Should LTs get the librarian designation if they're performing the same work? Absolutely. Especially if it's in a non-governmental company or corporation because they are not affected by governmental regulations that regulate professional titles and such issues. But, for the most part, librarians already have a huge influence on these companies and corporations anyways so... So what is causing this uproar? It's obvious that this clearly is one unfounded point of view of one person. So you tell me now which profession is in danger of getting axed. Now the question is, can an LT with a BSc degree and an MBA become a library director? I bet not. I do not believe librarians are becoming obsolete, nor do I think that anyone who didn't spend the time and money to obtain the degree should be content to own the title of librarian, regardless of what kinds of duties are performed. It merely perpetuates the public's perception that everyone who works in a library is a librarian. We all contribute to the libraries we work in, whether you process books or oversee the budget and while I realize that in some libraries the same person might do everything I think it is important that the job title reflects not only the scope of the work but the designation attained through education. I don't think librarians are becoming obsolete, they just aren't reflecting the changes in library training and task allotment in their opinions. Technicians are only a threat to librarians if the librarians refuse to go through the doors opening to them in new areas of library work -- though I admit that there are some librarians who cause problems by acting upon their (dare I say it, old school) opinions on the capabilities of techs. As long as the users are getting the information/materials they need, what difference does it make what the staff are called? Users don't understand the difference between librarian, library tech, clerk and page...so maybe we're already past the place where this question matters (my humble suggestion). I am a library tech: mostly cataloguing though I have worked the reference desk in a large public library system, and I currently also offer help desk support to the librarians in our organization. I don't care what they call me so long as I am valued for the work I do as much as a librarian who does the exact same job, by the supervisor AND the librarians themselves. Is it deskilling? I don't think so. I was taught the exact same things librarians were taught 20 years ago so where is the loss? If anything, given the recent trends in MLS/MLIS training, giving frontline jobs to techs is the responsible thing to do. If the librarians don't like being pushed more and more into management and systems, perhaps they should ask ALA and CLA to mandate technical training as a necessary requirement of any accredited librarian degree program. Until that happens, I feel no guilt (though there are places I will not work because I believe that they are ignoring fundamental differences in the mandate inferred in each of the levels of formal library training). Realistically, given the explosion in the digital world, I am kind of glad some of the librarians have shifted focus to its management. Someone had to, and I trust the library group more than others who might have had reason to take it on. If that leaves holes for techs in the middle of things, well, they have to be filled whether or not the less technically oriented librarians agree or not. Samantha B. Lib Tech, earthling, all round cosmic occurrence. People without library degrees should not be called librarians or library technicians even if they do the same work. I spent over seven years in university, which is seven years more than some people I've worked with who always acted superior simply because they started right out of high school. They never intended to go back to school yet continue to look down their noses at those of us who want to continue learning. Libraries of all types should be places of lifelong learning, for staff as well as patrons. People who work in libraries should be acknowledged and encouraged to have their experiences and skills validated, and to be life long learners who build on those skills. People who fund libraries and patrons who use libraries should have some sense of the range of skills and work needed in order for their libraries to give them what they want. Making library work less transparent requires the same kind of shift that web 2.0 requires of us. Because there is competition for funds that libraries need and because of workplace hierarchies and traditional systems for evaluating workplace responsibilities and skill sets, and because people outside our professions do not understand our work, all library workplace skills are and will continue to be undervalued. All library workers need to educate/ advocate for all our work, and support each other. These days, library workers need more skills and a wider range of interpersonal, communications, organizational, technological and media (including print) based skills. This is a bad time for perceptions of "deskilling" in our profession. MLIS degree. Librarians are not becoming obsolete at all, in fact, I would argue the opposite, that they are needed more than ever. In some cases, library technicians are a threat to librarians -- but not in all cases. I have encountered the situation of people without a MLS or MLIS degree being called librarians. This irks me. For example, why did I go to school for six years, to be called a librarian, when that other person has no formal education at all? I think this is a very slippery slope. If you have someone who practices as a lawyer, doctor, accountant or engineer who does not have formal educational training, that person will be terminated from their job and possibly brought up on legal charges. Just something to ponder.... Name: Ann, Masters of Library and Information Studies. I don't see why library technicians would want to call themselves librarians, since it implies that a librarian is "better" than a library technician. Is there no pride in being a library technician? We need both sets of skills and both streams of education. My argument is that we'd be better off combining forces - and voices - in order to gain true recognition of our individual value and strengths. The goal would be to improve the salaries of ALL library workers (library assistants included), while working toward reversing the current trend of increased management in both numbers and compensation. For librarians, I think it would also be useful to direct some energy toward demanding a much better and more relevant curriculum at SLAIS, rather than begrudging library technicians their jobs and worrying about being replaced. While SLAIS takes much direction from library management, it seems to carefully ignore input from other library staff. How much of this is a political game? How much is plain ignorance? In either case, it's hurting the profession as well as the people we serve. Let's do something about it! Librarians aren't becoming obsolete, although there seem to less of them in certain positions and their training seems to be less relevant to what is actually needed. I do think that technicians are a threat to librarians, as they are paid less than librarians is and they have they same sort of skill set. Yes, I do think that those without MLS degrees should be called librarians, as the public doesn't see a distinction between a librarian and library technician. I have a Library Technicians diploma along with a BA in History. No, librarians and library technicians are not becoming obsolete. In many cases we are being discovered as the information professionals. However, many organizations are discovering that a well trained library technician is just as valuable as a librarian... Should a person without the MLIS degree be called librarian? As for being called "librarian" rather than library technician, there are still people who figure, how ever wrongly, that if you work in the library , whether you are trained or not you are the "librarian". I work in a school, to the younger crowd I am the "librarian" because I work in a library... a six year old doesn't care what I am called... just as long as I am able to help him find a book, check it out, and answer his question... On the same front ... should a library assistant be classified and paid the same as a technician, even though in many cases they do not have formal library training??? Does this not "cheapen" the value of a trained library technician? My education: Library technician diploma plus supplemental library courses. I think it is perfectly fine for people without MLS degrees to be called librarians. The general public do not know the difference. In Websters dictionary it defines a librarian as: a specialist in the care or management of a library. Isn't that what we all do. It also bothers me that MLS librarians define themselves as professionals - perhaps they should look that up in the dictionary. It is defined as: relating to or characteristic of a profession. OR exhibiting a courteous, conscientious and generally businesslike manner in the workplace. There is far too much elitism, and it does make you wonder if it is because someone with an MLS has spent a lot of money and time to receive their degree only to find out that many others without the MLS can do the job just as well and in some cases even better. I do not believe that librarians are becoming obsolete and library technicians are a threat only because we will do the same job for far less pay! I possess a B.Sc. degree, and a Library Technician's Diploma obtained at Langara College. I am currently working full time as a "solo" librarian in a not-for-profit scientific research organization; my business cards list my position as Librarian. I am performing work single-handed that until 3 years ago was carried out by one MLS graduate, plus two library technicians, of which I was one. I am proud to be an active member of Vancouver's Science & Engineering Librarian's Association, and a member of SLA. However, I take every opportunity that I can to point out that I trained as a Library Technician, and emphasize that with dedication, hard work, willingness to accept change, and lots of enthusiasm, a technician can reach for the sky and get there. Library administrators are a far larger threat to librarians than library technicians could ever be. The tech diploma won't destroy the librarian profession; the MBA might. I personally don't mind if a person without a MLS is called a librarian as long as they are paid as a librarian, have the same autonomy as a librarian, and are good at what they do. I am a librarian and have a MLIS. I love being called a "librarian" even though I am a library technician. I suppose it isn't fair for the people who have put in the years to earn a degree as opposed to those of us who have haven't. On the other hand, I am usually doing the same work as a degreed librarian, and I usually point out the difference to the people who should know the difference. As far as our customers go, a "Librarian" is someone they can go to and I'm sure it doesn't matter to them what the credentials are as long as their needs are met. Also, I have worked with some librarians who may have a degree, but who are not as capable as I am. In the end, degreed librarians still earn more money than library techs. Also, in my experience, librarians are still given more responsibility than most library techs and I am more than happy to let them have it - they are after all, "Librarians." I believe that there is still a need for properly taught librarians in the academic arenas - the expertise and knowledge that comes with Masters degree is extremely valuable for aspiring professionals. Are "Librarians" becoming obsolete? I do not believe they are. And I encourage any young person who is interested in working in a Library to work for the degrees - the experience and education are worth it. There is a much longer life span for a degreed librarian. The Library Technician Diploma suits me well - it is a second career for me and helped me achieve a life-long dream of working in a library. However, there have been many occasions where the degrees would have been much more satisfying. I also believe I have much to contribute as a library tech - but I also bring 37 years of work and life experience with me that cannot be discounted. I consider myself very fortunate to have my LT diploma and also to be able to work alongside "real" Librarians. PS - I have rarely been dismissed as not being qualified and often find I have more knowledge and ability than many of the new, recently graduated librarians. I don't think librarians are becoming obsolete, but I do think there should be opportunities for librarians and technicians to collaborate and for librarians and library administrations to foster collaboration. Now, more than ever, there is a need for librarians, library technicians and information professionals to navigate the wealth of resources available to library users. The more people who can help patrons in that search, the better. Although it seems contradictory, I don't think people without MLS degress should be called librarians, but I do think it is alright for library technicians without a diploma to be called library technicians, if they are doing the work of lib techs. All of the roles within a library require specific skills and aptitudes, some librarians and techs share those skills and others bring different skills and experiences to their libraries, which is one of the reasons why working in a library is so interesting. I have a Bachelor's degree and 18+ years of library experience. As someone who has both credentials and teaches library and information technology students, I firmly believe there is a role for both. Indeed, I think posing such questions are counterproductive because we need to be looking for ways to operate collaboratively to ensure that the broader populace understands the significance and importance of libraries and information work. Rather than focus on concepts like obsolescence, we need to be framing questions that bind us in a common mission. Of course, the lines, at times, may blur but one can argue this happens in every profession. We need to stop fretting about our differences and start focusing on our common need to educate and support access to information. If pressed to distinguish the two groups, I would argue that librarians, as a whole, exercise more leadership and policy making. Technicians have a firm grasp on the daily operations of information work and deploy meaningful service. So, why not build on this and work together to produce a solid field that is adequately funded and utilized? I possess a Library Technician Diploma and a Masters of Library Science and have worked in the field for 12 years, and never plan on leaving it! I think librarians make a very important contribution to information delivery. I don't think they are becoming obsolete. Librarians have a depth of knowledge that technicians may not. I don't like being called a librarian because I do not have the same qualifications. I have some formal library training and have worked in an academic library for 20+ years. I am proud to be a library technician. I'm really tired of MLS/MLIS librarians bemoaning the fact that some non-MLS/MLIS library workers are doing their jobs. Some of them don't even know that a ton of non-MLS/MLIS workers are degreed workers, albeit not technically librarians. I find a lot of MLS people are just worried that we are going to snap up their jobs. Well, listen, I don't want your job. In a lot of ways, some of you are just pencil-pushers and deadweight. I know because I work at an academic library and have done so for more than 11 years. I have a BA degree in English and a Library Tech diploma. Am I qualified to work the REF desk. Yes, and with a bit more training, I could be even better than those with bees in their bonnets. Get over it. Librarians are not becoming obsolete; I think their role is just changing. Library technicians, of which I am one, are doing many of the jobs that traditionally librarians did but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for both of us in the library world. I plan and run programs for preschoolers, school-age children and teens plus handle questions at the Information Desk. The librarians I work with are fabulous sources of information and we work well together. That said, I have no desire to go back to school to become a librarian as I'm happy with my job as it is and don't want to be responsible for administrative duties like many of our public librarians. I am called a librarian all the time by children and adults. Sometimes I correct them but it depends on the situation and if it is worth the time to try and explain. Most people think if you work in a library, you are a librarian. It doesn't matter if you check our books or answer reference questions, they think we are all interchangeable. Librarians aren't becoming obsolete, but are valuable staff. Library technicians are only a threat if there aren't clear job descriptions (team work). - a Lib. Tech. with 25+ years experience. I don't believe librarians are becoming obsolete, but as technology becomes more advanced, the roles of what librarians and other library professionals do will become more and more blurred. Library technicians are not a threat to librarians. If there is any threat at all to librarians, it is the technology that the librarians worship itself. With regard to the 2nd question, I think titles are all about egos anyways and therefore pointless in my own opinion. Perhaps we should all call ourselves "Grand Poobahs" and call it at that. In all seriousness though I have never seen myself as a librarian, because for me this title seemed rather narrow. I however have seen myself as a "Library Professional" and that title suits me the best. Richard Birkenes 2 years library training (Lib Tech diploma) 17 years of library work experience and counting.
[top]
|
