[1138] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Responses to Jennings' Article
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Fri Sep 4 10:42:26 1992
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:37:13 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
2 Messages, 100 Lines
*-----
From: k.webb@abn.nla.gov.au
Subject: Responses to Lois Jennings' article
I am pleased that the admirers of Lois Jennings' recent article do not regard
her outlook as insular. For our part, we in Australia have never thought of
our North American colleagues as Continental.
Kerry Webb
National Library of Australia
*-----
From: Lelde Gilman <ECZ5LBG@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: A response to the Jennings article
Any article that makes me react as strongly as this one is
probably, on balance, a good one, so why is it I have such a
love/hate response to Lois Jennings piece? First, it is an example
of technospeak, managementspeak, and psychospeak at its most
illustrative. The author seems to be in love with the term
"strategic". There is "strategic problem...strategic
plan....strategic vision...strategic guidelines... Terms such as
"regrowing" and "retaliatory innovation" abound, whatever they
mean... One can hardly recognize that we are still talking about
scholarship and the University. Instead of professors, faculty
and students there are only clients. Are we still talking about
the university? Herein lies my troubled response. We seem to have
fallen prey to the "information as a commodity to be milked,
managed, massaged, repackaged and sold" crowd. And though this is
coming, as the U.S. tries to stay on top of the production
sweepstakes, it is not yet the whole picture. There is not one
solid example in this particular article at to how this would work
in any named and specific discipline, i.e. in the humanities,
social, life, or physical sciences or applied sciences such as
medicine, engineering, etc. Does the author lump all of these
together? Scholarship (or information) is some generic product to
be retrieved and repackaged? If so, the author is not quite clear
as to how the University, scholars/scholarship works in depth. The
talk is of information, relevant and irrelevant. What is
irrelevant information in the various disciplines? Across
disciplines? Note Don Swanson's articles of cross-disciplinary
relevance which might easily go by the boards in this authors
suggested environment.
Now let me dwell on the "regrowth of champions," by the
library directors. To grow a champion, one must recognize what it
takes. I can think of relatively few extant library directors who
recognize either the need for this or have the temperament,
dynamism, self confidence, and courage (yes, temperament, dynamism
and courage) to do this well and inspire leadership in others.
So, if you don't have champions at the helm, you are not going to
have champions in middle management for too long... Most people
who excel at this sort of thing went into the competitive business
marketplace long ago, or, they never considered librarianship in
the first place. What the author might do well to recognize is
that character traits cannot be taught, one hires people who have
the requisite traits already as well as a love of scholarship, and
then trains them in what needs to be done. One can not force a
leader to lead. I have been around long enough to accept this as
almost incontrovertible fact.
Perhaps what bothers me most about this article is that it
seems to say a lot without saying anything concrete in any way.
It does not answer the specifics of who, where, what, when and how
so necessary for any informative article. It does not give
examples in real life. So, the strategic vision is still fuzzy and
nebulous, "vapor ware" as some of us say in the "business."
So, even though I think I know what the author is trying to
say (in short, that we should have more dynamic leaders and staff
to meet the needs of the future), I am tempted to classify this
article as yet another librarian's attempt to co-opt the lingo of
corporate management & business, lock, stock and barrel. I have
read the article several times now and am still asking "Where's the
beef?" In conclusion, to some of us in California, the cavalier
comment of: "They must not be weighed down by the worries of
funding constraints or wearied by the magnitude of the task of
satisfying both client needs and staff aspirations," seems
laughable. The author from Canberra, blessed with time, money and
those 6 month Australian vacations does well to admonish us in
California, especially Southern California, to pull up our socks.
Perhaps I have somehow missed the real substance in this
article, and if I have, I can only demur that the "strategic
vision" for libraries, as presented here by Ms. Lois Jennings,
frequently takes on a value which cannot be purchased by the
debased coin of my ordinary mind.
Yes, I do think articles such as this one are worthwhile, yes,
I think they should be more explicit as to exactly what the vision
means in real life given a real researcher/student and subject and
librarian combination. The vision must extend that far or it is
no good. Yes I do plan to go to Australia someday and visit
libraries.....
Lelde Gilman
Head, Collection Development
Biomedical Library, UCLA
ecz5lbg@mvs.oac.ucla.edu
