My first two actual sessions were today, so we are definitely underway now!
My morning session was on continuing professional development, one of those major challenges in librarianship. Technology is changing so quickly and so constantly, that the information field is evolving nonstop too (you have no idea the number of papers I've written on the subject so far in my program). Like many professions, librarians must continue learning even after earning their degree, as they must stay current technologically, as well as develop their personal skills. Like many academic programs, the LIS master's degree has been trimmed down to be the bare minimum number of credit hours, and many skills are learned on the job or in professional development courses after earning the degree. You only have 36 credit hours in a master's program after all; there's a lot to cover. As a result, many librarianship degrees, for example, don't require a management course, or the school might not even offer one that's library specific. (As a side note, my school thankfully does offer one - I took it a year ago, and found it very interesting, especially with the variety of managers and workplaces I've had as we've moved around).
Adding to the discussion, some countries have a professional certification for librarians. New Zealand, for example, has a professional registry for librarians (like the PG or PE certification for geologists and engineers, respectively). You can still work in the field without that certification, but having it does open up more doors professionally. To renew, a NZ librarian has to complete annual CEU work covering standard topics according to LIANZA guidelines. The US currently does not have anything comparable, though personally, I think it's a great idea to have some sort of current standard that a professional must maintain, beyond the initial degree. That opinion probably reflects my experience working with so many PEs and PGs and seeing Zach work on CEUs for his job.
Adding to the discussion, some countries have a professional certification for librarians. New Zealand, for example, has a professional registry for librarians (like the PG or PE certification for geologists and engineers, respectively). You can still work in the field without that certification, but having it does open up more doors professionally. To renew, a NZ librarian has to complete annual CEU work covering standard topics according to LIANZA guidelines. The US currently does not have anything comparable, though personally, I think it's a great idea to have some sort of current standard that a professional must maintain, beyond the initial degree. That opinion probably reflects my experience working with so many PEs and PGs and seeing Zach work on CEUs for his job.
So anyway, required or not by the country's professional organization, professional development typically covers a variety of topics, including technology, professional skills, management topics, advocacy and fundraising skills, etc. But how do these
professional development courses happen? What's the best way to deliver
them to librarians - in person, webinars, workshop, lecture? What is
the most effective way to present the material? Who should be
providing them - the professional organization, the institution, or
someone else? What are some of the current practices? All of these questions bring us back to the session I was in this morning.
I was very interested to see how international these issues are. The papers presented were from Qatar, the UK, Switzerland, and Africa (a training program that was conducted in several countries). And at my table, there was myself and one other from the States (two different states), plus three from South Africa (again, two different states represented), two from Namibia, one from Uganda, and one from Benin. And yet there was so much that overlapped or was common to our jobs and our libraries, no matter the country. Like when we discussed management support, or lack thereof, for library professional development - everyone could relate to micromanaging bosses, or ones who don't delegate, or being unable to escape our email inbox and really focus on a training or webinar.
I was very interested to see how international these issues are. The papers presented were from Qatar, the UK, Switzerland, and Africa (a training program that was conducted in several countries). And at my table, there was myself and one other from the States (two different states), plus three from South Africa (again, two different states represented), two from Namibia, one from Uganda, and one from Benin. And yet there was so much that overlapped or was common to our jobs and our libraries, no matter the country. Like when we discussed management support, or lack thereof, for library professional development - everyone could relate to micromanaging bosses, or ones who don't delegate, or being unable to escape our email inbox and really focus on a training or webinar.
My afternoon session was one I was really looking forward to. Titled "Do THEY have the right to information?", this one discussed library and information access for those homeless, incarcerated, or with mental difficulties. I wasn't disappointed in the session, but the speakers were hit or miss for me. Either the projects they presented were really on-point personally, or I just didn't have the background or experience to fully appreciate everything they were presenting.
One I was very excited about was Gerd Peschers, the director of the prison library in Munster, Germany. This library won the German Library of the Year Award in 2007. Yup, against all other libraries, this one was honored. I was very curious to see what he'd present about. His website libertree.eu tells more of his goals and his work (it is in German, so you'll have to use a translation site to really get the most out of it). And there was a surprise guest too. Peschers had come early to South Africa to visit some of their prison libraries before the IFLA conference began, and he had talked to one of the staff members (I missed whether it was a guard or administrator or what) about coming to present today. So, we had a brief surprise presentation! It was really neat. Peschers had been impressed by the SA libraries, and thought that it had been largely due to Mandela's influence, both from his value of education, and from his time personally spent in prison. The guest agreed. The right to information is in the South African constitution (yes, actually in their Bill of Rights!) and the prison libraries continue to support that.
One I was very excited about was Gerd Peschers, the director of the prison library in Munster, Germany. This library won the German Library of the Year Award in 2007. Yup, against all other libraries, this one was honored. I was very curious to see what he'd present about. His website libertree.eu tells more of his goals and his work (it is in German, so you'll have to use a translation site to really get the most out of it). And there was a surprise guest too. Peschers had come early to South Africa to visit some of their prison libraries before the IFLA conference began, and he had talked to one of the staff members (I missed whether it was a guard or administrator or what) about coming to present today. So, we had a brief surprise presentation! It was really neat. Peschers had been impressed by the SA libraries, and thought that it had been largely due to Mandela's influence, both from his value of education, and from his time personally spent in prison. The guest agreed. The right to information is in the South African constitution (yes, actually in their Bill of Rights!) and the prison libraries continue to support that.
Aside from the content, I had a few thoughts on the format of these things, and talked about it a little with my professor. There are pluses and minuses to each of the ways that my two sessions were run today; which one you use just kinda depends on your goals and schedule. And probably some personal preference too. The morning session had each speaker present, then after each one, we broke into smaller groups (our tables) to discuss a handful of questions relating to the topic just presented. In the afternoon, all the speakers presented, then all discussion was at the end. Personally, I preferred discussing after each speaker. I felt like I could process more of the material, talking about it right then instead of moving immediately onto the next topic. The first presentations in the afternoon just didn't feel as fresh in my mind by the time we could discuss and ask questions. On the other hand, this session had the discussion at the end to allow all the presenters to entertain small audiences and answer questions. Attendees could move between the groups, talking to several of the presenters during the discussion time. My professor also pointed out that with so many overlapping presentations at the conference, going straight through the papers meant that people could slip in or out to move between sessions and not miss as much.
I do wish the afternoon session had been broken into at least 2 sessions. I know that the presentations did overlap some, in broad topics, but it felt like each of the three subcategories could have been its own section. Not that I didn't get anything out of them, but I feel I could have gotten more out. As it was, it felt like each topic was just brushed over lightly. I know that's how these major conferences can feel sometimes, with just so much material to cover in relatively little time. But at the same time, to work with any of these populations (homeless, incarcerated, or mental difficulties), you have to be motivated, given the challenges and stigmas associated with them. And you could definitely tell from the presentations, that these were people who were passionate about their work. I'm sure there were practical scheduling reasons for setting up the session as it was, but I would have loved to have given them each a little more time.
I do wish the afternoon session had been broken into at least 2 sessions. I know that the presentations did overlap some, in broad topics, but it felt like each of the three subcategories could have been its own section. Not that I didn't get anything out of them, but I feel I could have gotten more out. As it was, it felt like each topic was just brushed over lightly. I know that's how these major conferences can feel sometimes, with just so much material to cover in relatively little time. But at the same time, to work with any of these populations (homeless, incarcerated, or mental difficulties), you have to be motivated, given the challenges and stigmas associated with them. And you could definitely tell from the presentations, that these were people who were passionate about their work. I'm sure there were practical scheduling reasons for setting up the session as it was, but I would have loved to have given them each a little more time.
Finally, do something that scares you every day.
I presented my group's highlights to the room after our discussions this morning. I realize that I only spoke for about 3 minutes, but it was about a half ballroom full of people, all way more senior in the profession than I am (seeing as I'm still working on my degree...). And actually saying something, presenting something no matter how small, is very different than just asking a question in one of these sessions. Plus, I hate public speaking (am sooooo much better talking one-on-one). So consider this a conscious effort to do something to challenge myself!
No comments:
Post a Comment