(Scary stuff and I don't think I can pull off the Bun)
This is the image of Librarian 2.0: the hair is loose, the clothes are tight and the shush is bordering on erotic. She dies in the throws of passion while attempting some of the more physically demanding moves she read in the digital copy of the Kamasutra her library holds (ISBN 0973338644). She haunts nobody and heaven gets a new angel.
(Much sexier and still bespectacled)
So, what talents does this sexy wench of the stacks possess that makes her so superior to Librarian 1.0? A freewheeling attitude and a willingness to try new things (even though she probably should have left the Kamasutra positions requiring the flexibility of a contortionist alone). She openly defies library convention to better serve the users and she does all this while wearing a garter and suicide heels. She plays in the users sandbox and not only uses their toys (rss, wikis, etc) she does so in ways they never imagined and is able to teach them a thing or two.You need to smoke a cigarette after you read her blog and you keep trying to put yourself in a relationship with her via the library's facebook page that she updates often. She is always pinterested in the latest trends but she still tweets about the classics. The library's flickr photos are tagged by the teenage boy users for how much cleavage you can see in them and there's that video from the Christmas party where she got a little tipsy and a lot naked that is circulating on the less reputable site of the web. She's almost the perfect woman - a chef in the kitchen (learned from the books in 641.5), a maid in the living room (learned from the books in 648.5) and a whore in the bedroom (though sadly the books in 307.6 will be the death of her) - although she still does have the annoying habit of taking pictures of her food and uploading them on instagram.
As good as the sexy Librarian 2.0 sounds, she is just as big a myth as the spinster Librarian 1.0 illustrated above her. The truth is the terms library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 are "meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (T. Scott Plutchak as cited in Black, 2007, pp. 10-11).
It doesn't mean we can't be sexy although if you intend to go for the ideal illustrated above, I suggest you limber up before trying out the most difficult positions in your freshly checked out copy of the Kamasutra. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be embracing the new technologies that can improve library service. It just means that the essential knowledge is an evolving knowledge that keeps up with whatever can improve the library, the skills too are ever evolving to incorporate the new into the still relevant old and the attributes are a the sexy librarian's freewheeling attitude and willingness to try new things. I've seen some great ideas that I consider library-novas (the term I'm throwing out for the evolved library) that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 since beginning this degree. There are great advances in personal service like roving reference or the removal of the reference desk altogether like UNSW has done so the librarian is front and centre to greet you and ask if you need assistance as you walk through the door (Bailin, 2011). I'd hate to see great ideas like those passed up in favour of something just because it has a 2.0 tacked onto the end.
References:
Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian academic & research libraries, 42(4), 342-359.
As good as the sexy Librarian 2.0 sounds, she is just as big a myth as the spinster Librarian 1.0 illustrated above her. The truth is the terms library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 are "meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (T. Scott Plutchak as cited in Black, 2007, pp. 10-11).
It doesn't mean we can't be sexy although if you intend to go for the ideal illustrated above, I suggest you limber up before trying out the most difficult positions in your freshly checked out copy of the Kamasutra. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be embracing the new technologies that can improve library service. It just means that the essential knowledge is an evolving knowledge that keeps up with whatever can improve the library, the skills too are ever evolving to incorporate the new into the still relevant old and the attributes are a the sexy librarian's freewheeling attitude and willingness to try new things. I've seen some great ideas that I consider library-novas (the term I'm throwing out for the evolved library) that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 since beginning this degree. There are great advances in personal service like roving reference or the removal of the reference desk altogether like UNSW has done so the librarian is front and centre to greet you and ask if you need assistance as you walk through the door (Bailin, 2011). I'd hate to see great ideas like those passed up in favour of something just because it has a 2.0 tacked onto the end.
References:
Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian academic & research libraries, 42(4), 342-359.
Black, E. L. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond:
Innovative technologies and tomorrow's user. (N. Courtney, Ed.)
Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
(And because I couldn't help myself: the sexiest librarian I've ever seen!)
(And the librarian I'll likely become)
No comments:
Post a Comment