Reflection on Reading, 13 March 2014

The reading for this week was

• "Dangerous Questions at the Reference Desk: A Virtue Ethics Approach" by Mark Lenker

And here I'd thought I'd never read another philosophy article. While I admit that I don't remember much from my undergrad ethics class, I did minor in philosophy, so this week's reading was a pleasant surprise. 

I began this reading skeptical of the possibility of applying a theoretical ethical system like virtue ethics to a real-life problem like reference service. I mean, that's what you're supposed to do with ethical systems, but I'm not sure it usually works out well. As I read the article, my skepticism was confirmed. Assuming that Lenker's definition of virtue ethics matches what is commonly accepted, the application of it doesn't actually simplify or clarify the moral ambiguity of "dangerous" reference questions. 

For one thing, it seems to me that a judgment of what kind of a person the librarian would be if s/he does x or y is already an implicit factor in that librarian's decisions. It is my experience that people put a lot of thought into how their actions reflect on them. But if we set that aside and assume that the librarian is considering virtues for the first time, we are still left with what is basically an ad hoc application of positive and negative adjectives. Lenker calls unquestioningly providing potentially dangerous information "mindless." Someone else may call it "dutiful" or "good-willed." How do you decide what word fits?

It comes down to intuition. Almost every decision can be characterized in multiple ways. We choose the word that seems to fit the best, right? We choose the word that feels right. That's why a librarian who unquestioningly provides information on how to build an explosive is acting mindlessly, while a librarian who without question gives a young girl information on how to obtain an abortion without her abusive father finding out is acting dutifully or professionally. (To my mind, anyway. But isn't that the point?)

Every individual librarian has to make these decisions for him/herself, often on the fly, often without any preparation. We can talk about ethical systems all we want, but in the moment when someone really does ask for information on suicide, we go with what feels right. Ethicists argue that such ill-considered decisions will be poorly made, but I don't think that attempting to formalize them helps. It's all intuition, even if we're just talking about choosing an ethical system to begin with. Me, I'm a Utilitarian. 

- K

Reflection on Class, February 27

I'll try to conjure up some memories of our book groups two weeks (and one very long spring break) ago.
I suppose what always strikes me about discussing literature is how, when you're listening to a group of people talk, you formulate ideas and thoughts without any real effort. As is evident from my last blog post, I didn't have a lot to say about most of the readings chosen by the rest of my group. I'm not the biggest fan of fairy tales, and this batch of them felt tiresome, expected in the worst way. I didn't want to talk about them at all.
But during the discussion, hearing other people discussing the stories made them more interesting to talk about - not surprising. That's why we have book groups to begin with, right? I'm not sure if it's wanting to participate in the discussion that makes the literature more interesting or if it's hearing other people's ideas and coming to understand a work in a new way as a result. It's probably both. In any case, this class really made me miss being an English major.
Something that surprised me was that there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which of our questions to the group went over well and which didn't. Some of the questions that seemed creative or insightful were met with total silence, while questions that I had thought of mainly as segues sparked the best discussions. I would be interested to repeat this reading ("The Man Who Built Catan", a nonfiction piece about the creator of the game Settlers of Catan) with a different group to see if they respond in similar ways.
On a professional level, this was one of the few exercises I have done that I feel I can translate easily into my anticipated career. So there's that.

Reading, February 27

This week, I'm lucky enough to be reading several short stories and essays:

• "The Duration of Life" by the Brothers Grimm
• "Parrot Land" from The Brazilian Fairy Book
• "The Fisherman and His Wife" by the Brothers Grimm
• excerpt from "Darkness Too Visible" by Megan Cox Gurdon and "Why the Best Children's Books are Written in Blood" by Sherman Alexie

These are mostly children's stories or are about children's stories, so the differences between them are very interesting. 

The first, "The Duration of Life," is a folk tale about the stages of human life. It is simplistic, but with the ring of truth that folk tales usually have. Being by the Brothers Grimm, it is, of course, dark. The themes seem to revolve around punishment for human greed and knowing when to be happy with what you have. Good lessons for children, I suppose. I expect the discussion about this one to be either very minimal or pretty intense. 

"Parrot Land" felt familiar in the same way that "The Duration of Life" did. It is a frame narrative in which a princess who is apparently friends with a parrot that tells stories is being courted (?) by her evil cousin. The cousin sets up a failed parrot sale outside the princess's home to get her attention, but she asks for the storytelling parrot to distract her. It tells her about a prince who runs a bunch of errands to get his father his sight back and ends up with a shiny sword and a nice horse. I don't have a lot to say about it. Maybe discussion will prove the story to have more depth than what I see now. 

"The Fisherman and His Wife" is about how women are greedy and wrathful and don't know what they want. What else would it be about?

And finally, three cheers for Sherman Alexie. I'm sure this is the popular opinion, but I'm no hipster. The juxtaposition of these two excerpts highlights a lot of issues surrounding writing and librarianship, chief among them that literature is highly personal, and a lot of people feel that their way of thinking about it is the one true way. I can never condone censorship or book-banning (clutching my petticoat as we speak), but I can sympathize with a parent who sees the dark world of contemporary (or any?) teenagers and worries. Thanks to Mollie and Krista, though, for giving us the Alexie piece to calm our nerves. I think I know the direction this discussion will take. 

- K

Reflection on Class, February 20

We discussed book clubs in class on Thursday, and it was one of my favorite discussions so far. That might be because it was one of the few discussions we've had that relates directly to my intended career as a public librarian, or maybe it's because it made me feel like an English major again. In any case, it was nice to talk about something other than teaching.
I especially enjoyed the Socratic seminar in the second half of the class. Actually acting out a book group scenario was helpful for putting our readings into context. The index cards that we used to record our questions, for example, was a good exercise. In this case, only a few people actually read their questions to the group before the conversation hit its stride. In another group or class, though, all of the questions might have been needed.
I also noticed that the discussion felt very much like many of my undergraduate classes, where we sat in a circle around the room with the professor at the front, but we spoke to each other, not just to the professor. In this class, though, even though Kristin was a facilitator and not the leader of the discussion, it still felt like she was the leader. Maybe it would have been different if it had been a student facilitating, or maybe it wouldn't have mattered. I would be interested in how this dynamic would play out in different circumstances.
I am looking forward to seeing how our book groups this week will compare. We covered a lot of guidelines in our discussion last week, but I suspect that it is more or less intuitive in practice. I suppose we'll find out.

Reading, February 20

Our readings for this week were: 

• "The Evolving Book Group" by Beth Dempsey
• "The Book Club Exploded" by Barbara Hoffert
• "Teaching reading: beyond the plot" by Margaret Metzger
• "Socratic Seminars: Engaging Students in Intellectual Discourse" by Lynda Tredway

These readings ran the gamut of comfort for me. The first, which discussed mostly traditional but updated book groups was familiar and made me want to run over to the YDL and join a book club. The second was still about book clubs, but in a more large-scale, technologically savvy way. A little less Jane Austen and a little more Mary Roach, but okay. The last two readings concerned Socratic Seminars, and that's where I disengaged a bit. 

The accounts of various seminars, especially Metzger's first-hand account of seminars in her own classroom, are interesting (and I wish my teachers had had them) but what is the application in a library setting? I can't imagine a group of adults dutifully arranging their chairs in concentric circles to discuss (but only during their turn!) the Game of Thrones series. It's the sort of thing that a free-thinking, progressive teacher does, but that people are just too cool for out in the real world. The Metzger article did have a helpful discussion, though, about the pitfalls of leading a book group - derailing the conversation by accident, influencing the way people are talking in unhelpful ways, and distracting people from talking to one another by forcing them to talk to you. 

I much preferred the "Not Your Ordinary Book Group" discussed in the Dempsey article (no surprise there). That model - monthly meetings supplemented or substituted by online discussion - involved much less stress than the seminar model and even the examples given in the Hoffert article. All of that to-do, the arranging for authors or videoconferences, the ritual of the Socratic seminar seem antithetic to what my idea of a book group has always been: a place to talk intelligently but not pretentiously about a shared experience, which happens to be a book. A place to explore your own mind and get to know your neighbors a little better. Do we really need chair-circles and publisher-sponsored pre-packaged programs for that?

- K

Reflection on reading, February 13

This week's readings were (links require U of M log in):

• "Put Understanding First" by Wiggins and McTighe
• Chapter 3 of How People Learn

The readings for today concerned learning transfer and what teachers can do to assure that students understand material deeply enough to allow for it. Again, I think this is a discussion that fits more neatly into areas of librarianship with a captive audience, such as school and academic libraries. In these environments, students are (in theory) entirely oriented toward learning, so in-depth instruction is expected. In a public library, even if you take the long view of helping patrons to educate themselves, those patrons would need an exceptional level of interest and motivation to engage in learning the way our readings specified.

How much learning is required in order to facilitate transfer? As much as can happen at a one-shot workshop? A screencast? A workshop series? And how much time would patrons have to take out of their lives to engage in that much learning time? I also wonder what level of immersion is necessary. School children and college students are constantly involved with their class work; would a working mother taking one class a week on digital literacy be able to accomplish the same level of understanding, given all the other demands on her attention?

I guess my question really is: how do you teach deep intellectual understanding to someone who only wants a skill or working knowledge?

"Bonus" blogger blog

As an assignment, we were asked to read four bloggers for the past few weeks. Here is the write-up for the assignment.

The Bloggers

Libraries are for Use

• Karen R. Harker, MLS, MPH
• Collection Assessment Librarian, University of North Texas Libraries
• Harker's blog is based on the teachings of S.R. Ranganathan and his book, The 5 Laws of Library Science. Though posts are no longer explicitly about the chapters of the book, Harker includes elements of Ranganathan's teaching in her discussions.
  The main topic of the blog is academic libraries. Posts largely concern developments in the field (published studies, news, etc) with some of Harker's personal experiences mixed in. The tone is friendly and informal, but professional, and the posts tend to be medium-to-long and thorough. This would be a helpful blog for a smart person who isn't very familiar with academic libraries, since it covers a range of issues that concern a university library. 

Swiss Army Librarian

• Brian Herzog, MLIS
• Reference librarian, Chelmsford Public Library
• Herzog's blog revolves around the daily experiences of a reference librarian at a public library, combined with updates on the information field at large. The topic coverage is very broad, but Herzog shows a special interest in digital concerns such as surveillance and copyright. His voice is very personal, so that even posts about national trends or movements are based on a strong point of view and often a strong opinion. Herzog also posts particularly interesting reference transactions. The story of the patron who believed that her computer timing out was the work of the government trying to block her access to certain information was one of the better ones.
  Herzog is an active writer and speaker in the field of public librarianship, and the tone of the blog reflects the mix of his academic background and pursuits with his daily work with the public. 

David Lee King

• Digital Services Director, Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library
• King's blog is similar to Swiss Army Librarian in that it is focused on technology in a public library setting. The blog's tone and voice are also similar, though King takes a strong stance on issues like copyright less often than Herzog. King often discusses content creation and focuses more often on the use of digital hardware (cameras, sound equipment) than does Herzog. He also writes occasionally about makerspaces. The blog is very community-focused, and King is clearly interested in social media and its role in librarianship.
  He is an international speaker with a background in service. 

Tame the Web

• Dr. Michael Stephens
• Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University
• Stephens, like the other bloggers mentioned here, largely writes about technology as it applies to librarianship (in his case, mostly academic librarianship). The technology about which he writes, though, is geared toward higher education. He writes often about MOOCs. Like Libraries are for Use, many of the posts on this blog are announcements and brief discussions of recent reports and other news.
  Stephens's tone is much less personal than Herzog's or King's. While he does discuss his own work, he does not delve much into his personal life or views. 

Analysis

• All of these bloggers were very interested in (surprise!) technology. It was interesting to see, though, how they all discussed technology in different ways. Libraries are for Use was the least tech-oriented, but Harker did cover reports and news that concerned technology and discussed it some in the context of academic libraries. Swiss Army Librarian wrote about technology as it concerns the general public, especially those who visit public libraries. Those posts were on big issues like DMCA and surveillance, which are not only related to libraries. David Lee King was also concerned with technology in public libraries, but he focused much more on content creation, such as videos and podcasts, as well as makerspaces. Tame the Web took a much more academic approach to talking about technology, focusing on its potential as a teaching tool for higher education. 
• I noticed a strong service ethic in all of these blogs. While only Swiss Army Librarian discussed interactions with patrons in the form of reference service, all of the bloggers wrote about their work in terms of making their library (or class) the best it can be for their patrons. They all also expressed a concern with bettering the world at large through information or libraries. 
• My Big Takeaways (TM) from this were:
• There is endless variety in libraries and librarianship, but you pretty much always know when a librarian is speaking. 
• As much as we may complain, our patrons and communities are still the most important things to us (professionally, at least). 
• You can't be a Luddite and a librarian at the same time. 

- K