WebJunction

I've always found it interesting that to the public, anyone working in the library is a librarian. My mom had the title Assistant Librarian when she worked the circ desk of a small NJ branch library (which of course annoyed the heck out of me, with an MLIS!University of Oklahoma, 1990). Our reference staff is required to have MLS degrees but the children's librarians don't, which is another aspect of the field that is confusing.

A related topic: I can't work as a school librarian because I don't have an education degree, even though I think we do very similar work (do I really need all those Methods/How to teach science, math, etc classes to run a school library?).

I enjoyed the Reference Resources class I had, even though though the sources have changed dramatically. But the Reference Interview is something I've found usefull in all aspects of life! And even though I hated the research/statistics class, it did teach me to really analyze any research I read, and be suspicious of numbers and how they were interpreted.

This topic is one we debated even back then, so it's not likely there is an easy answer to the professional v. para-professional debate!

I'm curious why librarybob thinks that reference education is not so great. Like Pam, I found reference training to be incredibly helpful in every aspect of my life, not just my profession, and...I thought it was a lot of fun too! Digital reference training was especially important to me because I hadn't used certain types of chat software before, nor had I ever used QuestionPoint, 24/7, or LSSI's software. I've tried to pick these skills up (or polish them) even after I finished my degree, and even though I don't regularly work in a library. It also really helped me to think about the nuances of in-person v. online reference interviewing. Personally, I enjoy both types of reference, though they are certainly different! Serious training for online community development, let me tell you!

Anyway, back to the MLIS thing. I have my MLIS, but I don't think that it's necessary to "defend" librarianship with the Master's level degree as the qualifying factor. I loved the education that I received (at the iSchool, UW, Seattle). It was a great experience and I'm glad I did it. However, I've worked with plenty of MLIS folks who were (in my estimation, at least) bad, bad librarians because they (for example) didn't value customer service, or technology enhanced librarianship, or growing our services, or whatever. My point: perhaps there are a number of features/qualities that make a librarian, one of them could be the MLIS, but perhaps it's not a *required* factor (at least, not in my book). I know lots of MLIS folks disagree with me on this; and I do understand the reasons behind why some folks want to protect the degree...

Good point; I have an MA in History, and spent most of my reference time in a Humanities Dept., so my experience with "in person" reference worked out well. Still, they had the Legal stuff mixed in with HUM at that time, and I really had a very tough time with those questions! But I wouldn't have been able to attempt to answer even the history inquiries with my historical training & interest alone. My library training taught me how to do a reference interview, and then approach sources in a different way than a historian does. If you can't answer it off the top of your head, then training or experience with reference resources (even non-traditional ones, like the phone!) really helps!

This was in a large urban Central branch library where every department had subject-specific experts. Don't you think, though, that working in either a neighborhood branch library or small/rural library really is different from doing specialized reference with subject expertise in a large urban central library?

I've worked in neighborhood branches too, and often found that it was necessary to "call up" to the subject specialists working in Central.

I believe that reference training really can prepare to you answer a majority of reference inquiries in either setting. Maybe that's what's behind the infamous 52% rule. Now, with the advent of very easily finding quick reference "good enough" answers on their own, patrons are really giving us a run for our money. Librarians have to be more sophisticated researchers, and more willing to "pass off" to another specialist when they're at a loss.

Look at me, singing the praises of experts.

Here's another thought: when I do distributed digital reference, I have the luxury of picking and choosing which questions I think I can handle well. Everyone involved does. And so the patrons have the benefit of getting not only an information professional, but also one who (presummably, but prob not always) choose to handle the question.

Back to the original question: I think you can learn this stuff (and more!) outside of library school.

May a former assistant registrar and director of admissions jump in here? Long ago I came to the conclusion that education only does five basic things for us. One, it gives us a foundation upon which to build. Two, It teaches us what our resources are. Third, it teaches us how to find the information that we need. Fourth, it teaches us how to get the information into a usable format. Fifth, it teaches us how to use it. I have found that the higher the education, the narrower the information. So Librarians with a MLIS Degree are specialist in the information field, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a knowlege of all resources in all areas of knowledge. Librarians with only a degree have to learn the sources of information. Otherwise the field is level. Sorry I'm out of breath.

I think we have too many aspects of "librarianship" to have one "library degree." Reference training, in my view, should emphasize "informal logic," thinking skills, and a general overview of the various knowledges one should have in our society -- one might call this a master's degree in cultural literacy.

(E. D. Hirsch, Jr., by the way, agreed when I laid out the issue.)

Reference librarians, further, should be able to specialize in particular areas of knowledge and, I think, the field should also be able to offer doctorates to those who've done significant research -- perhaps such things as writing subject-specific thesauri.

This is similar to what Ranganathan was offering in Madras, IIRC.

Michele, of course you should post to this topic! I was hoping that "pro" librarians (thanks Chris) and everyone who works in libraries would engage in this conversation. Lance, it's also good to hear from folks who are pursuing the MLIS - hearing why really adds to the conversation too. Thanks to all for jumping in.

I am very torn on the idea of "protecting" the profession. I support pay equity for professional librarians and understand why it is somethign pro librarians are concerned about. Sometimes the elitism innferred by that makes me uncomfortable. I really believe that the skills involved in librarianship don't and shouldn't require the MLIS, but that the MLIS can be helpful to the practice. I'm not trying to be moderate here just to be moderate - I really do feel both sides.

Did anyone see the "elitist garbage!" editorial in last issue of Library Journal? This is more connected to the "authority" topic that library bob and I have been tossing about (in Policies) but these two threads really are very connected (no pun intended!!)

I am coming into the field from a 7-year stint in the computer industry. 1 year in Manufacturing, 1 in Marketing, and 5 in Technical Support. I intended to go to graduate school and earn an MLIS degree out of college, but the idea was back-burnered for a number of years for a variety of reasons. Just last year I remembered what I wanted to do. I am now in a distance ed program and completing my first year of study.

What do you say to the seasoned professional looking to make a jobshift? (I hesitate to use the term "career change" because I do not see career and job as one and the same.)

I have worked in a small library in college and have a wide range of experience, but I have not had experience in public libraries and that is where I perceive my vocation.

Best regards,

Lance

I am happy to see the posts from mgraves, Chris and teknosof because this thread was starting to make me a bit nervous that maybe non-MLIS library employees could no longer consider themselves to be "true librarians".

According to Merriam Webster, the word librarian is defined thusly:

Function: noun

: a specialist in the care or management of a library

I didn't see any degree requirement associated with the word. In most rural communities it is tough enough to find and afford good people without adding that sort of pressure. Don't MLIS degree holders enjoy a monetary reward for their efforts via expanded career and paycheck horizons? Is there really a need to redefine the word librarian to exclude those without a MLIS degree?

I am sitting here trying to figure out how to weigh in on this subject without writing a tome! Oh well, I guess I will just dive in.

I also don't have a library degree. I have a BA in Theology with a minor in Bible. I have worked in libraries going on 10 years now, but always in a computer support/automation position. I have met all kinds of librarians and for the most part have not run into serious elitism. When I have, it has tended to be from those who have had their MLIS's for many years, but what I have done to reduce the problem is to understand my job and role in the library. I set a line that I will not tell librarians how to be librarians and I expect them to be respectful of my position and knowledge of automation. Sure, we banter ideas about and listen to each other, but I respect their expertise and training and most of the time, they respect mine.

I did not finish my degree until rather late in life. I dropped out in 1976 and did not pick it up again until the early 90's. During much of that time, I was a programmer and I found an extreme elitism among those graduating college with computer science degrees. They thought they knew it all and looked down upon us who did not "pay our dues"; however, it was not long before they were in our offices, begging for help. It seems that their degree did not prepare them for the real world of programming. Usually within a year, we had them retrained to function adequately.

I believe the same is true in many professions. Having a degree in theology, one gets to meet a lot of pastors. The first question they ask is which seminary you went to? When I tell them, I did not have an MDiv, many would look down on me, but I have spent so much time in churches, helping pastors and dealing with problems, I bet I could handle almost everything they do. I had just as many hours of preaching classes as they did. I had the same Koine Greek classes. The biggest difference I found is that my papers did not have to be quite as long!

Back to libraries....Probably the worst case of elitism I have found was in my school district. Our Library Officer was an older woman whose MLIS was earned many years ago. She was a good cataloger and supervised two cataloging clerks. When I say supervised, I mean that they did almost all the work and only asked her for clarifications on rare occasions. One of the ladies had over 11 years experience in that position, so she knew what she was doing.

Well, one day, our Library Officer resigned and her position was not going to be replaced. One of the decisions that had to be made was what to do about the 2 clerks. They were given a new supervisor, but this person was not even a librarian and could not answer cataloging questions. Well, what happened was that a few of the degreed librarians got their hackles up and started complaining that these 2 ladies could not do that job alone. They were only clerks after all, but in fact, they were better catalogers than any other librarian in the district! It is sad that they were not paid adequately and were mistreated by these few elites on numerous occasions. Every librarians meeting, these same people would harangue and harrass those 2 clerks no matter how well they did their jobs.

I suppose my point is that the degree should be one component of what a librarian really is. Each and every employee should be respected for what they can contribute to the organization, rather than looked down upon if they don't happen to have that piece of paper.

I mean no disrespect toward those who have worked hard for those degrees. You deserve what you have earned and the degree should mean something in your job and profession; however, there are many of us who either by choice or circumstance do not have that education but still contribute much to the operation of the library.

Finally, I have thought about going back and getting my MLIS, but have chosen not to yet. There are many reasons, but one is that I have some serious disagreements with the ALA view of certain issues. To get a decent job, you must not only get the degree, but must get it from an ALA approved school. Perhaps I am wrong, but that smacks of indoctrination and speaks against freedom of thought and expression, at least to me. I have to ask myself if I will be persecuted because I happen to believe in internet filtering? Will I be looked down upon because I feel that materials should be age appropriate and that my moral views may prejudice my purchasing decisions? I don't make big deals of these, but when asked, I give my opinion. I refuse to get emotionally hyped over the issues, yet they still remain one consideration.

One thing I do hope is that if/when I do pusue this degree (after my wife finishes her PhD), that I will not use it as a club against my peers and co-workers. After all, most patrons have no idea if the person they are speaking to has that fancy degree or not!

*verbosity mode off*

Wendell

Boy do I have to agree! I am the only MLS (Univ Wash, 1974) on my staff of 5 FT and 3 PT employees. Yet we all do what needs to be done!