Empower. Engage. Energize. These three words describe the relationship between a sustainable library and its users. It’s a two-way street: a library can empower patrons to do good things by engaging with them to understand their aspirations. A community can feel the authentic interest a library has in being a part of that community’s conversations, whether by being at the table or convening “the table” to find community-based solutions.
The struggle to improve the affinity between library schools and applied librarianship has just gained a powerful ally. In June, the University of Washington’s Information School (iSchool) announced the appointment of its first Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Susan Hildreth. She is one of the most experienced and visionary librarians in our ranks, having served stints as a library director, state librarian, head of consortia, and, most notably, director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
Highlighting resources, sticking up for designers, are bathrooms services?, and more letters to editor from the June 15, 2016 issue of Library Journal.
As I look at the many areas in which libraries are working, thriving, and expanding (see Where Are We Headed? An Unscientific Survey, Not Dead Yet, October 15, 2015), the question occurs to me: do we need to consider not doing some things so that we can do those things our researchers need us to do?
We spend a lot of time talking about new and emerging literacies in our field. Conceptualizing how information is created, shared, and understood becomes especially intriguing when we add a new language to the mix, a language that many citizens globally understand. Consider this: 92 percent of all people online use emoji as a means to convey information and emotion. A recent piece in Wired by Clive Thompson, “The Emoji Is the Birth of a New Type of Language (No Joke),” exploring this phenomenon got me thinking about what it might mean for communication, sharing, and interaction with others and with libraries.
Don’t punish businesses, a call for OER, starstruck by Charlie, and more letters to editor from the June 1, 2016 issue of Library Journal.
I hadn’t heard of the Diversity Council of Australia’s #WordsAtWork campaign until my feed lit up with its call to remove the word guys from workplace use. The comments express conflicting perspectives on whether it was on target or over the top in terms of political correctness. While I basically agree with the council—I’d already been working to break my habit of using guys when addressing colleagues at LJ and School Library Journal (SLJ), a team predominantly made up of women—the full-throated response made me reflect on how challenging and necessary such conversations are.
Copyright is the only right defined in the main text of the U.S. Constitution. It is specified in Article 1, Section 8, so it didn’t have to be added in the amendments known as the Bill of Rights, which tells us how important the concept of copyright was to the founders. They enumerated its dimensions in a sparse sentence: “To promote the Progress of science and useful Arts by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”