Yesterday I went to LibCampNYC, a library “un-conference” hosted by Brooklyn College Library and Metro. It was far and away the most useful and fun professional library event I’ve ever attended. I have information literacy exercises to create, a poster session to plan and an inventory project going on, so what I write here about LibCamp is only a tiny fraction of what I got out of it.
You can check out the link above to learn more about un-conferences, but the basic idea is to providing people a chance to get together and share experiences and ideas without using the traditional powerpoint conference format that already felt old ten years ago. The sessions were planned collectively in the opening gathering and each session was “facilitated,” not led, by a volunteer with a particular interest in the topic. The list of potential topics was generated by participants using a wiki in the weeks leading up to the event.
Six discussions were held in each of the four sessions during the day, resulting in an embarrassment of riches (anomalous in my experience of library conferences…), in that there were so many really relevant interesting topics during each session, it was hard to pick which session to attend. This was addressed with the “Law of Two Feet” which basically stipulates that it is up to you to get the most out of the un-conference, so if a session is not meeting your needs, you should get up and find a different session that does. I ended up staying in all the sessions I attended, but I love that rule.
The first session I attended was called “How should we handle the dinosaur known as the reference desk?” It was facilitated by Bruce Slutsky from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Participants included academic, special and public librarians, all of whom shared their experiences, frustrations and hopes with the changing face of reference. The discussion to alternatives to the traditional reference desk and the pros and cons of moving away from the model we’ve ”always” used. Both electronic reference and roving reference cane up several times. One of the most interesting ideas came from Alexa Pearce from NYU, who suggested combining these two ways of reaching students by using chat, text message and/or sms reference software to let us know where and when we need to be ”roving” in our libraries. NYU’s experience, echoed by that of many other libraries, is that email, chat and text reference are not used only by students who can’t make it to the physical campus library, but also by students who are sometimes in the library, just a few feet away from the reference desk! While it isn’t always possible to answer in depth questions using these electronic reference techniques, we can use them as “pagers” to let us know where in the building students need our help, truly providing service at “point of need.”
The second session I attended was called “Librarianship as an Intellectual Craft.” Jonathan Cope from the College of Staten Island. This was probably my favorite session. The discussion seemed to focus on the tension in librarianship between our tendency to focus on practical aspects of the profession and the need to ground these practical considerations in a theoretical framework. We discussed whether or not Library and Information Science is actually a “science,” and how the structure of LIS programs influences the profile of the profession. There was also talk about the “myth” of library neutrality and the need to critically question the libraries and librarianship and information issues in the same ways we question other constructions. Participants debated whether the direction of librarianship and the specifically ALA is too political and whether or not it is possible to engage professionally without engaging politically.
Then lunch, which was lovely because I got to chat with Carrie, who was a fellow camper, and some new and interesting librarians from other libraries as well.
The third session I attended was “The Future of Digital Reference” and it was facilitated by Stephen Francoeur from Baruch. This session was PACKED and I think it turned out to be just too big of an issue to cover in an hour, but it was still really useful to hear about the experiences other libraries have had with digital reference products and services.
We talked about potential uses for the “traces” of digital reference, such as chat transcripts. Some libraries use them to create FAQs or knowledge bases, other libraries have been deleting identifying information and posting the questions and answers on a secure blog, so all librarians can read them and learn what kinds of questions students are asking. NYU (again) is also using transcripts in reference training to create “MadLibs” by deleting certain key words from the transcripts. Librarians and reference staff then try to fill in the correct word to see how close the librarians expectations are to the reality of actual reference transactions between librarians and students. I think that’s really cool, and not just because I’m fascinated with MadLibs.
The last session I attended was “Critical Pedagogy/Critical Information Literacy,” facilitated by Jonathan Cope. It was really interesting though I would’ve liked the discussion to focus a little more on the relevance of critical educational theory to the whole enterprise of “teaching” information literacy. The concept of critical pedagogy comes from the Brazilian educational theorist Paolo Freire. I don’t know a whole lot about it, but the focus is on shifting away from the “banking” model of classroom in instruction, in which a teacher “deposits” information into the students, and toward a collaborative model of education, in which the instrurctor serves as a facillitator for students, working to create active and engaged subjects invested in their own learning because they are invested in the social world around them. Part of this idea is that education never occurs in a vacuum and for teachers (or librarians) to attempt to maintain complete “neutrality” does a disservice to the students by failing to ask the very real questions about the world we all live in for fear of appearing partisan.



