Archives

Categories

CILIP has RSS feed for job vacancies

Finally, CILIP has RSS feeds for its Lisjobnet library vacancies service! Hurrah! Although the RSS Jobs Feed page still has the title Temporary Librarian Jobs RSS Feed and text saying

LIS Jobs Temps uses this technology to update you with the latest jobs as they arrive throughout the day, making sure you’re among the first to know about the jobs you’re searching for.

Which is not ideal. Presumably they copied the code from the existing temps site which has had an RSS feed for a little while.

One upshot of this, which was part of a total site redesign at CILIP, is that my own unofficial CILIP Lisjobnet RSS feed no longer works and will not be maintained. This is however no problem except for the feed’s subscribers who I will have to point in the direction of the new one.

New submission for the Urban Dictionary?

I am considering submitting the following entry to the Urban Dictionary:

1. Had their authority record updated by the Library of Congress.

Euphemism. Died.

Hey, where’s Michael?
Dude! Didn’t you hear? He’s had his authority record updated by the Library of Congress.

As the linked article explains: “Remember the REVISED LCRI 22.17 contains a new option for cataloguers to add death dates to personal name headings with open dates. “

Librarians go like the clappers, say experts, says the Daily Mash

According to the Daily Mash,

QUIET, bespectacled female librarians really do go like a bloody train, it was confirmed last night.

I expect CILIP are, as ever, behind this contribution to the image of the librarian.

Grappling with web 2.0 by holding a large formal meeting

The UK library world (at least online) today seems obsessed by the debate/session being held at CILIP today to discuss the organisation’s involvement with web 2.0, mostly centered on CILIP’s failure to engage with anything like Twitter, Facebook, open blogs (by which I mean ones non-members could comment on, which they couldn’t until this whole thing blew up), RSS feeds (this being my own personal beef for some time), and the like. It all became a big issue following this post by CILIP CEO Bob McGee, followed by this post from Phil Bradley. I personally think it’s shocking, even if we take into account Bob McGee’s claim to be merely consulting on the issue, that CILIP have been so slow to develop any kind of presence in these kinds of sites and technologies. The reaction to hold a meeting was in some respects a good one, in some respects bad, as it shows how formal and slow CILIP still feels the need to be. They could have set up some official presences in various places like Facebook, their news feed could have been diverted to Twitter to reach a larger audience, and a vacancies RSS feed surely wasn’t beyond the realms of possibility, all cheap, quick, and easy to set up.

There are two issues here really: 1) that the professional body for information professionals is not involved in up-to-date methods of information dissemination, which is bad for its reputation and credibility; 2) that it is not using these technologies for its own purposes, e.g. marketing research into its own reputation and credibility, although, to be fair, Bob McGee started the whole thing by pointing out that people had been asking on Twitter about any official CILIP presence on micro-blogging websites.

Follow #CILIP2 on Twitter if want to see what is going on and you have nothing else to do this afternoon. I get the impression everyone who is going is also Twittering the event, so I wonder who will be actually partaking in the debate. The feed at the moment feels like a forum during the Eurovision Song Contest. There does seem a fair bit of optimism around the session, although I don’t think a formal session such as this can effect the cultural change at CILIP HQ to really make a difference, especially as these things keep changing and can’t rely on one meeting and one set of resolutions.

Twittering about CILIP

Bob McGee (chief executive of CILIP) asks if CILIP should get involved with Twitter. Phil Bradley answers in no uncertain terms.

My own comment on the matter can be found on Phil Bradley’s post (together with a further plug for my CILIP vacancies rss feed). However, I think it is not without significance to this debate and CILIP’s attitude to technology, its own reform, and outreach, that I cannot comment on Bob McGee’s post itself as I am not a CILIP member. FTW.

On depressing contents notes

Perhaps the most depressing contents note I’ve come across for a while:

” … disc 5. Loss of a parent in adult life, loss of a partner or spouse and depression & helplessness (57 min.) — disc 6. Anger, aggression & violent deaths and disasters (69 min.) …”

If you must ask, this is from Colin Murray Parkes’s Bereavement, loss & change, 7 DVDs (484 minutes) of grief and depression, or at least how to cope with it, although I confess I haven’t actually actually watched it, so it might in fact be littered with cartoons, quips, good humour, and general gaiety.

Criticism of CILIP

There have been a number of recent posts debating, and in some cases criticising, CILIP and why one would join or become a chartered member:

In CILIP: What is it good for?, Information Overlord asked

if you’re a member, why are you a member? Out of habit? because you think it looks good if you are? some other reasons? If you’re not a member, what would make you want to become one??

The many commenters were mostly law librarians and mostly unenthusiastic. There was some debate, including some rare input from CILIP people who focussed on the publicity angle. Elspeth Hyams of CILIP made the point in response to CILIP’s silence on difficult issues with reference to the Kent “deprofessionalisation” that CILIP cannot intervene publicly in these cases as they represent both sides:

Kent was an interesting case because it illustrated why, unlike the Royal College of Nursing, CILIP cannot act like a union: the disagreement was between managers and their staff, at both levels, members of CILIP.

I think this is an admission that CILIP cannot and will not do public advocacy of the profession and support its members. In reply I wrote:

However, I cannot see why CILIP could not have even made a statement of the kind you just made, explaining the case, even[if] it only appeared on its website. Why when I read about this [issue] in the Guardian were CILIP not mentioned emphasising the importance of professional librarianship- which is surely half the point of the organisation- while the AUT were mentioned as campaigning against job losses? Surely too, there were also AUT members on both sides of that dispute: many university managers are also AUT members.

Matthew Mezey (news editor of Update) and Debby Raven (editor of Gazette) seemed to suggest that part of the answer lay in contributing more to these internal publications, to which I replied:

Update is an internal document. I doubt that many university or council managers outside the library read it, so I don’t think this is publicly advocating the profession at all. You talk of publicity, but preaching to the converted is hardly the issue. It is people and organisations outside the profession that need to be convinced. For example, when library closures are in the news, why is Ian Snowley [CILIP president, or not anymore I believe] not on TV?

Information Overlord provides an excellent summary and discussion of the above comments (without the vain self-references as above). In a comment to this second post, Jennie points out another Kent story, this time of a library closure, where the local community are marching and protesting and forming action groups, and still no word from CILIP

Anne Welsh picked up on this post by asking Why CILIP? She is a lot more positive and while noting,

I also noticed that although the post went up on 26 January, the first comment from a Cilip representative / employee was not until 11 February, indicating, perhaps, that RSS flows slowly to Cilip HQ.

she is generally much more positive and gives a number of reasons which she summarises thus:

So, I guess for me Cilip is all about keeping informed and networking. Further, I’d say that, as a member, I think of Cilip as something that I am part of, that I can contribute to, and, if there are enough other members with similar views, change.

Fair enough, although I think there are increasingly more ways to keep informed without handing over cash to Ridgmount Street, and that CILIP has failed to lead the way in information delivery and dissemination. I understand that CILIP will be invaluable for networking, depending on how you view networking and its necessity/benefits, something I don’t want to go into here. Anne also wrote a related post called Why charter? which discussed a talk she attended on the subject. There are some reasonable reasons given at one point (my numbering):

  • 1. improve your skill-base
  • 2. gain an insight into the library profession
  • 3. show a commitment to your profession and organisation, which can often lead to increased organisational security
  • 4. map your exper[t]ise – useful for future job applications

These are all things (no. 3 excepted) I feel I can, and should, do myself without having to rely on a crutch such as CILIP or part with money for the privilege. What worries me is the observation near the end that:

She and the other chartered librarians in the room all agreed wholeheartedly that chartering is a personal journey, so that although everyone fulfills the same criteria, the experience they gain along the way is totally unique.

I believe a qualification (counting chartership as a qualification) should not be about the journey but should prove something to a current or future employer. I don’t go to work for personal gratification or for a journey: I do so because I need the money but I want to do the best I can while I am there. A commenter, James P. Mullan, says something similar which I wholeheartedly disagree with:

I also think Chartership shows a committment to a career in Librarianship, I’m always concerned about anyone who doesn.t want to become a Chartered Librarian as a result.

The library profession seems obsessed by proving commitment (rather than providing skills): I’ve heard that used as a reason to pursue the M.A. too. Surely this is something for an employer to worry about: commitment to a job is surely far more important than commitment to a career or a profession. I’m happy to do my job to the best of my ability and don’t think I am a worse librarian in any way because I don’t attend certain seminars or training courses in order to pursue chartership.

101 Tips for School Librarians has a different take on chartership:

CILIP are often accused of non-representation in the school library community. They take £17 off my pay every month, and I still can.t figure out why, other than the fact that I can continue to call myself .chartered.. My wife pays £30 a year for the same privilege as a teacher. Something doesn’t add up. I’m sure CILIP would disagree with my assessment, so their end of the stick can be found here.

However, they do have a couple of useful spots on their website, and they offer decent training events if you can afford to travel to London.

Most of this of course is available without membership, although training events will obviously cost more; the range of training courses, especially in terms of specificity, also needs drastic improvement in my opinion. He also mentions LisJobnet (freely available online, even to non-members), and their special interest groups. Having never been a member, this latter is one area which I really cannot comment on, although Mr 101tips says they “vary between the bland (2 shoddy leaflets a year) to the sublime (real support)”.

I would in any case recommend you read the actual posts and comments, especially the Information Overlord ones.

More Cataloger’s Desktop comments

The Library of Congress’s Cataloging Distribution Service is doing a survey on the development of its Cataloger’s Desktop, which they are planning to overhaul. They seem keen to rework it for the web rather than replicating the CD product it is based on. I hope they think profoundly about this to make sure it is properly a web-based resource or, as I would prefer, a loose collection of separately accessible resources. Below are the comments I put in answer to one of the earlier questions on general satisfaction:

The content is second to none, but the presentation of the content is appalling:

  1. It is extremely unwieldy: there is no reason to shoehorn everything into one package and one great list. E.g. AACR2 would be better presented as a separate product as it is complex enough as it is. Rather than having shaky preferences, I would like to see separate sites for which I can produce my own list of links, as I do anyway for other sites.
  2. Despite being presented on the web, the site tries its hardest to discard the advantages of the web by imposing its own interface. This is bad practice as it means another interface to learn and is not intuitive (e.g. I cannot use the Back button to go back, or link to a section of a resource). Standard HTML pages are more than up to the job. I don’t think a system like this is very successful if you have to provide training in how to use it: it would be like inventing a different kind of book where you have to train readers in how to turn the pages.
  3. There is no need to have a system which has to find its way round popup-blockers: this just shouldn’t be an issue.
    These factors prevent me from using Cataloger’s Desktop nearly as often as I should. I mostly want it for quick look up of AACR2 and other standards. Instead I often find myself referring to an out-of-date paper copy for simple rules and abbreviations. I was hoping to have weaned myself off it by now.

My previous comments on a similar survey in 2005 are here.

Library-themed weddings

Speaking as a librarian married to another librarian whose brother is a librarian I still cannot find the stomach to appreciate this library-themed wedding (via post on Autocat mailing list), although I am unusually sensitive to work-home infringements. One commenter also apparently had a library themed wedding with Dewey-numbered tables at the reception. Another commenter also claimed:

We did the same with the birth annoucment [sic] for our youngest. We put a shelf of books on the announcement, each with a name of our older children and ourselves with a Dewey number on each book befitting each of us. We sent these announcements out to library friends…

When our youngest was born, I barely had enough energy to compile a round-robin email and throw a few photos onto the computer. Quite how this person managed something so elaborate with at least two other children to look after I don’t know. Good on them though: maybe the other children helped, or something.

No evidence on bibliographic issues

Lorcan Dempsey makes a much overdue point:

In all the discussion about bibliographic data and catalogs, and about their advantages or disadvantages when compared to other approaches, it is striking how little appeal there is to actual evidence.

I’ve noticed this on email discussion lists where appeals are made to personal experience (of the librarian/cataloguer) and to how a user should use a catalogue, but rarely is this backed up by research as to how library users could use catalogues most intuitively and effectively and how they want to use catalogues to find material. I think this has profound implications for the cataloguing rules and OPAC design.

I expect the framers of RDA are using a wealth of such research data diligently compiled by the researchers at our library schools to compile the rules. With this much academic research behind us, Amazoogle doesn’t stand a chance!