In the Library with the Lead Pipe welcomes guest poster Micah Vandegrift. Micah is a graduate student in Library and Information Studies at Florida State University. He currently lives in Brooklyn, NY, and is interning at the Brooklyn Public Library. Micah’s education has focused on 20th century American culture, digital media and the humanities and he hopes to work in an art library, museum or academic library in the near future (he’s also on the market, so contact him directly if interested!). He loves hanging out on the internet and can be found tweeting, blogging and chattering about web tech trends, libraries and music pretty regularly. Contact Micah at micahvandegrift@gmail.com or Google Voice # 347-687-2096. Lead Pipe is pleased to provide a venue for the HackLibSchool project, and we hope you’ll join in!

UPDATE February 2011: The Hack Library School initiative now has a blog!

Photo by Micah Vandegrift

The “What.”

If you haven’t heard of Hacking The Academy, I’d strongly suggest you look into it. During the week of May 21-28^th a group of academics, librarians and higher ed techies crowdsourced submissions for a born-digital book. They compiled a variety of articles and blog posts focused around the theme of shared professional development resources, questions and innovations, with the goal of taking these important adaptations from across the field and centralizing the conversations in a digital space outside the institution, thus ‘hacking’ the academy. What I admire most about the Hacking The Academy project (#Hackacad on Twitter) is the fact that this group took it upon themselves to engage professional development in higher education and, utilizing social media and other technologies, craft it to their specifications. Call it DIY, curation, hacking or what have you, the point is because of the ever-increasing sociality of the real-time web people are able to interact with one another on a whole new level. When this ability is applied to the professional sphere, the possibilities are bountiful. This post is equal part inquisition and proposition that it is time for the emerging library professionals (we students) to take an active role in what we learn, need to learn, didn’t learn, and wish we had learned in library school by curating our own hack.

From what I know of librarianship thus far, as a student in Florida State University’s Masters in Library and Information Studies program, this field is highly adaptive to new technologies, and there are more than a few cases where libraries really stand out for their technological implementations, e.g. The Hub, Darien Library. Yet, as I have been scanning the social web these past months, I have come across more than a few posts from my peers wondering if they missed something in school, or offering their own posts on “what I wished I’d learned…” regarding the practicalities of librarian life. Is this indicative of blight in the system? Maybe. Is it perhaps a product Gen-Y’s increasing openness to use blogs for constructive criticism? Possibly. Is it worth a glance to see if library school is not lining up so well with the profession (a constant conversation in the field) in the eyes of recent, current students? Absolutely.

The “Why.”

Aside from having to actually find a job, the thought of being unprepared for the field is incredibly scary. Entering the profession with a degree and discovering that there are some skills or core knowledge that you missed is not the way to begin a career. I think this point gets at the heart of one of library school’s broad themes, and one that may be confusing to students; is this a professional or theoretical degree? When I chose to pursue the MLIS I did so under the assumption that I was going to gain some “practical skills” to enhance my previous M.A. in American Studies. I had no idea that social science and information theory was going to be so much of the program. The concepts I’ve learned and the skills I’ve obtained will no doubt be useful, but I didn’t feel prepared at all for the coursework, and am now starting to wonder how all of this will transfer to my day-to-day life in the field. I am interning right now in the Web Applications department at the Brooklyn Public Library, and despite being 75% of the way through my degree, I do not feel entirely confident talking about or working with the tools necessary to do the job. This is not to say that there are not plenty of students who begin the degree totally prepared and transition right into successful careers and do very well. But I can say with some confidence that these issues arise for more students than one might care to admit. Opening up conversations on this kind through a library school hack could better prepare future students, and also provide tips, advice and encouragement to those struggling through.

Then, there is an issue of identity that remains a complication. Are we “librarians”, “information professionals”, “knowledge managers”? Both Kim Leeder and Char Booth have written on this topic recently, which inspired a lot of my thoughts for this post. If working librarians are having such identity crises, what of us still in school!? Thankfully, one of my courses did introduce the idea that a spectrum of careers exist wherein the MLIS will be useful, but I am still unsure how to market myself on a job market. I will hold a Master of Library and Information Studies, and would love a useful title or phrase to promote my skill set, which will be broader than many people’s understanding of “librarian.” I tend to lean toward “Information Professional” although that still leaves so many questions and is nebulous at best. If the profession is set on the precipice of some great, inevitable change in definition, how is my course on Foundations of Information Professions going to be relevant next year when I am job searching?

Additionally, with the information landscape changing so rapidly, I find that textbooks, course syllabi and conference topics that are supposed to be authoritative are lacking valuable content related to current issues in the field and are behind the curve on engaging new ideas. For instance, I am intrigued by the concept of transliteracy, the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, a relevant and pressing topic in the field. I discovered transliteracy through following librarians on Twitter, and have yet to see it addressed in a textbook. The speed at which professional life is evolving right now due to immersive social-technological layers is, in my opinion, far more effective in preparing me for work as an information professional than a textbook that is barely two years old, of no fault to authors and researchers. It is in this kind of a space that a dynamic, participatory text edited and updated in near real-time could function.

To take this argument a step further, I would also argue the case that the professional organization(s) that we all participate in are no match for the relationships that are possible and the value that can be created through curating one’s own network via Twitter, LinkedIn or Facebook. To say it plainly, I am beginning to think that the staid traditions and topics of librarianship that are addressed in Library School are outdated. If so, what can be done to keep this amazing profession on the cutting edge?

Finally, as a student inundated with articles, papers and conflicting theories to weed through, not to mention any hobbies or other interests I’d like to keep up with, I find it difficult and overwhelming to dig into a professional journal, or get more in touch with recently published research, which traditionally formed the cutting edge in a field. I understand that research is important, and I agree wholeheartedly that it may appease some of my desires for an accurate sense of relevancy for my degree, but as a Gen-Y reader and a former researcher myself, often my interest is just not piqued in academic publications. I like to say that two of the most important advancements of the recent social web are the comment box and the “share” button, both of which do not exist in the majority of academic publishing (kudos to PLoS One and Shakespeare Quarterly

for some pioneering work there.) The paper to conference to journal model does not feel immediate or dynamic enough for my plugged-in sensibilities, although I recognize the value of the peer review process. I’d like to think that projects like Hacking The Academy are moving us toward content curation as a form of peer review and digital presentation as equal to analog publication. Models like this excite me about my participation in a field open to evolving technological workspaces.

The How.

On Oct. 24^th, 2008 Char Booth guest posted a “Library Student Bill of Rights” on the popular Tame the Web blog. As a guiding document, I think this is a great example of a model for change. She stated, “In full recognition that it is far easier to tear down than to build up, I leave it up to the faculty and administrators of the library school world to do something about it.” However, I disagree with her on this point. Two years have passed and the “Rights to Challenge, Innovate, Redefine” and more touted in this document are not, to my knowledge, being actively pursued or employed. I think Ms. Booth had the right idea, but placed responsibility on the wrong group. Armed now with tools to organize and collaborate, it is the current and recent students and professionals who must “do something about it.” So, in alignment with my belief in the social web, crowdsourcing and user-curation, I propose that the body of library school students should become the change they wish to see enacted.

Thus the #HackAcad connection; why isn’t there a collaborative, online text like that for Library School? There are enough people writing prolifically about their experiences in school, and through transitions to the field, that it would be easy to gather posts on a variety of topics. In fact, as I was researching this post, I came across a post by Bobbi Newman titled “So You Want to be a Librarian? A Guide For Those Considering an MLS, Current Students & Job Seekers” that sets up a great starting framework for a #HackLibSchool experiment.

There is no shortage of content already floating around the web that would fit into a web-text like this. What I propose is that we (the students, the bloggers, the Web 2.0ers) get active, curate this content, and centralize it. We are all familiar with the variety of tools that are available to make this happen, and the process for growing, contributing to and curating content will be open and adaptable to new ideas. Great with coding? Feel free to build a framework for the site. Enjoy social media? Spread the word. This is a chance to get creative, showcase your skills, and participate in something that will resonate in our field.

Practically:

• HackLibSchool will begin as a Google Doc, open to all as of today, and eventually move to its own webspace.
• Content should have a focus on library school, providing tips, insights, challenges, definitions or any other type of “hack” that a current or future student might benefit from.
• Nominations and submissions will be welcomed for the remainder of the month of October.
• Articles will be organized by relevant topics.
• All organization and editing of the document will be entirely crowdsourced, requiring participation, engagement and some level of commitment from involved parties.
• HackLibSchool can and should be a meme that exists across many networks. It can and should be a Wiki, a Delicious tag, a Twitter hashtag, a .com, a .org, a Flickr group, an unconference, etc.

Other than that, HackLibSchool has no other set parameters. I’d like this to truly be a group-owned project, and I only see my involvement as a progenitor. Eventually, a team may need to be formed to keep the project focused and forward moving. Living up to the dynamic, adaptive nature of the webtext, perhaps a quarterly review will be necessary. I shy away from nominating an Editor, but that may be a future iteration of the project. I’m open to suggestions as to how to continue this project as a seminal document for our profession.

I’d like to clear about my intentions behind this idea. This is not meant to subvert the education that library school provides, but to supplement it. Not sure of the differences between an MLIS and an MLS? Well, here are three perspectives from bloggers who wrote on that exact topic. Can’t remember the top five articles that every library student should have read? Here are two reviews and a Delicious tag to follow. Wondering what is happening right now in librarianship that can help you be better prepared for the field? Here are the most comprehensive Twitter lists, and two emerging scholars who blog regularly. I imagine this serving as a dynamic, adaptive document highlighting what one can expect from grad school, as well as some tips and ideas about the profession as a whole. (Key words: dynamic and adaptive, living on the web and allowed to change and morph as the field does over time.)

For those who skipped to the end for the summary – This is an invitation to participate in the redefinitions of library school, and the thus the field of librarianship, using the web as a collaborative space outside of any specific university or organization. This is an ambitious project, I know, but I have the sense that peers and colleagues are ready for this. Imagine standards and foundations of the profession that we will create, decided upon by us, outside of the institutional framework. Ideas like the democratization of the semantic web, crowdsourcing, and folksonomies allow this to exist and we should be taking advantage of it. What will the information professions be next year if we define it for ourselves today? If we had a voice in the development of curriculum, what would that degree entail? This is my challenge to you; participate or come up with a better idea. How would you hack library school?

Thank you to Trevor Dawes, Ellie Collier, Emily Ford, and Kim Leeder for reading an early draft. Your comments were very insightful and made me remember the value of collaboration in academia.

The impetus for this blog post was an email that has been making the rounds, originating from Dr. Richard Price of Oxford University, that reads as follows:

I recently finished my Ph.D on the philosophy of perception from Oxford. With a team of people from Stanford and Cambridge, I’ve just launched a website, www.academia.edu, which does two things:

- It shows academics around the world structured in a ‘tree’ format, displayed according to their departmental and institutional affiliations.
- It enables academics to see news on the latest research in their area – the latest people, papers and talks.

We are hoping that Academia.edu will eventually list every academic in the world — Faculty Members, Post-Docs, Graduate Students, and Independent Researchers. Academics can add their departments, and themselves, to the tree by clicking on the boxes.

The message concludes with the names of a few notables who have joined (or been added) to the site, and a request to assist Dr. Price and friends in their efforts by further circulating the announcement.

Call me a sucker, but I got that message and immediately joined up, forwarded it to my colleagues, and started envisioning the possibilities. What intrigues me is Academia.edu’s combination of a professional networking site with a digital repository. Could this take the place of our nascent institutional repository or save my fellow librarians from having to put together an institutional bibliography each year?

A screen shot of Academia.edu's homepage.

The networking-repository hybrid model was new to me, though I learned later that Academia.edu is not the first to do this. Nor is it the only virtual platform where researchers can create a profile and search for others with similar research interests. A lot of people in academia already use Facebook and LinkedIn to connect with their colleagues and friends, but Academia.edu and its competitors are different because they were specifically created to serve the needs of academics, in terms of research, professional networking, listing citations, and file sharing. Try some of those activities on Facebook, and you’ll soon agree that it falls far short of an academic’s networking needs.

Here’s an overview of the major academic networking sites and their features (if you know of others I overlooked, please comment below). All allow you to create a profile and search for other academics by research interest, so I’ve omitted those features in the table.

In addition to the characteristics above, these are the qualities that make each site unique.

• Academia.edu: Networking for academics in all fields. Offers unique visual format with organization by institution. Features Facebook Connect.
• BibApp: Must be hosted on your server for campus-specific organization of faculty experts and research. Functions more like a catalog of faculty than a networking site, but could be used either way.
• Epernicus: Networking targeted for scientists. Features “BenchQs,” which is like Yahoo! Answers for science.
• Graduate Junction: Networking for graduate students that professes to be less intimidating than professional sites. Offers a conference diary & job listings.
• Labmeeting: Networking for scientists in the biomedical and related sciences. Offers features to assist in organizing and sharing information in lab settings. Also includes strong privacy protection.
• Pronetos: Networking for academics in all fields. Organization by discipline, and offers discussion forums for each discipline.

I’m going to use the remainder of this post to critically review these academic networking sites, looking at the benefits, limitations, and possible future outlook.

The Good

There are two major benefits offered by participation in most of the sites I’m looked at, especially Academia.edu and Pronetos:

1. The ability to locate other scholars with similar research interests.
2. The power to upload papers, articles, and even books to contribute to a worldwide digital repository.

As far as #1, the networking aspect goes, it would be natural to ask why any of these sites are an improvement over the ubiquitous Facebook. Who needs another social network, for goodness sake? Vivek Murthy, one of the founders of Epernicus, addressed the question in a post on the Epernicus blog: “Mikhail and I started Epernicus because we realized that the social networks to which we belonged weren’t able to serve our needs as scientists. The profiles didn’t capture what was important to scientists. And equally as important, we couldn’t use these networks to help us find expertise in real world scientific networks.” If they had a question or issue unique to their research that no one they knew personally could address, they wanted a way to find others out there who might know more. This is not what Facebook was built for.

In theory, the opportunity to share research interests and connect with other scholars sounds idyllic. Finally, the chance to find out who’s walking the same path and reading the same articles. It’s like eHarmony for the brain instead of the heart. If there is a need and a demand for such a thing, it could really take off.

Personally, I get more excited about #2, the digital repository side of this project. The sites that actually host files, especially Academia.edu and Pronetos, are contributing to the open access movement in ways they may not even realize. Although those of us in libraries already know that faculty usually don’t want to take the additional time to post their papers to our repositories, these two sites could be different because (a) they’re easier to use than any library repository I’ve ever seen, (b) they’re prettier, and (c) they make it clear that the papers uploaded will be shared with others instead of stored in a dusty server room, never to be heard from again.

The Bad

First, any social networking site, whether personal or professional, is only as good as its membership. With that in mind, I would say that all of these sites have a long way to go in soliciting members. Academia.edu appears to be the largest, at about 20,000, but this is still a small percentage of academics worldwide. GraduateJunction may have the greatest potential in this arena due to its specific target audience (graduate students) and the fact that it boasts more “useful” (job and conference) features than the other sites in this review.

Second, although I initially found it entertaining to search for others with similar research interests to mine, once I found a few I realized that I just didn’t know what to do with them. I could add them as contacts and review their publications. What then? If I were extremely motivated perhaps I would email them and say a few words in our unique research interest language (“speaking geek,” I think they call it). But how often would such contact lead to something constructive? The more I searched, the more skeptical I became.

Third, academic networking sites are facing big challenges in finding an effective way to ensure that only legitimate academics participate. The UK Times Higher Education expressed concern about Academia.edu because “anyone can pass themselves off as an academic…and scholars could be misled into putting their details on it because it occupies the generic top-level domain ‘.edu,’ which is normally reserved for universities.” On the other hand, some sites are so careful to screen members that they seem almost impossible to join. Despite repeated attempts, I was unable to join Labmeeting or Pronetos due to their screening standards. Pronetos sent me an activation message that somehow disappeared into cyberspace (and no, it wasn’t in my spam folder), while Labmeeting did not recognize my university email address as being from a legitimate academic domain (my university president would take issue with that!).

The Ugly

All in all, social networks of any variety are a curious tradeoff. How much time are you willing to put into them in order to expand your web of connections? In writing this blog post, I spent 8-10 hours crawling around on the various sites mentioned here, creating profiles, exploring group and research interests, checking to see if I knew anyone (or wanted to know anyone) on any of the sites. I found many of the sites appealing at first, and enjoyed some of my wanderings. But now that I’ve had some exposure to these platforms, returning to Facebook feels kind of like going home. True, I can’t search for other scholars based on my research interests. But considering how many other avenues I have to find them — from publications to blogs to conferences — do I really need a new one?

As Jeffrey R. Young noted in “New Social Network Hopes to Catalog All Researchers and Their Interests,”an article in the September 16 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, “It’s too soon to tell whether any of these sites will catch on, and it seems that the services will only become valuable if a critical mass of researchers join in. The final winner may be Facebook itself.” So, are these new-kid-on-the-block academic networking sites worth your time? Based upon my admittedly limited experience on these sites, probably not. But if you have some free time, go for it. Create your profile and see who else is out there. You might get lucky.

-

Many thanks to Brett Bonfield and Ellie Dworak for taking the time to offer feedback on the draft of this post, and to Brett for his coding kindnesses.