Definition of Competency or Understanding of Competency
In order to discuss issues of concern to librarians from a global perspective, it helps to start with international professional standards and practices (Byrne, 2004, p 31). Many librarians around the world write policy around the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the International Federation of Library Associations and Institution’s (IFLA) code of ethics (Knox 2016, p 31; Shachaf, 2005). Applied ethics, including information ethics and computer ethics, because they are “closely related to epistemology, or the study of knowledge,” are the foundation on which library practice (how we store, organize, and circulate knowledge) stands, are often expressed in mission, vision, and values statements, and form the basis by which the profession measures competency (Knox, 2016, pp 27-32; Byrne, 2004, p 32). Information organizations around the world share common ethics and values, but they can be unevenly distributed. For instance, one study comparing ethical codes internationally, found that the preservation of culture, in the form of stewardship, could be claimed as a shared value, but that literacy and learning was largely absent from these statutes (Foster & McMenemy, 2012). According to Gorman, communities of learning have roots in antiquity, are still active in the present day, but are perhaps threatened by a narrowed focus on “feudal or proto-national” interests, rather than a truly global orientation (Gorman, 2012, p 119).
Several concepts are key to developing globally minded mission, vision, and values statements for modern information organizations, including multi-culturalism, inclusion, equity, and diversity (Wong, Figueroa, & Cardenas-Dow, 2018, p 53; Lor, 2007). The concept of diversity is central one in efforts to expand intellectual freedom and develop equity of access (Wong et al, 2018, p 56). Towards this end, modern information organizations seek to develop cultural competency among staff at all levels, so that they might increase communication that “promotes cultural exchange” (Wong et al, 2018, p 62). According to Hirsh, the information professionals in a new, globalized world, need to learn soft skills like the ability to network and collaborate, develop competencies in communication and outreach, and orient themselves toward a “user-centered mind-set” (Hirsh, 2018, p 9; Byrne, 2007, pp 32-33).
Modern reference service practice, for instance, puts the professional “on par with patrons,” and acknowledges the role of “cultural factors” in the reference interview (Stover, 2004, p 291). Yet it is worth pausing here to reflect on the user-centered orientation or valuation. According to Palmer, the idea of providing service to the user has “neither a very lengthy, nor a very universal history,” and is a “very American idea” (Palmer, 1999, p 2). A user-centered orientation seems to challenge the “cultural construction” of this “grand narrative” (Franks, 2010, pp 51-52) and yet, the newer, user-centered orientation seems to limit a universal approach to designing services in the realm of philosophy (Hogle, 2016), where the idea and influence of information communities (Fisher & Durrance, 2003) must of necessity take a back seat.
Because library and information studies as a profession have not always addressed issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion for whole demographics, nor have they historically partnered equally with “community-based organizations,” the term “social justice” came to be associated with a “commitment to address these disparities” (Wong et al, 2018, pp 62-63; Lor, 2007). IFLA’s code of ethics does not appear to address social justice per se, nor does it emphasize a user-centered approach to service, but it does outline what it means to be an “autonomous user,” and does delineate the librarian’s responsibilities to serve both the individual and society (IFLA, 2018). Of course, it can be difficult for information organizations to advocate for universal rights if public authorities exert their mandates in the form of censorship or control (Byrne, 2007, p 36).
Information organizations are globally intertwingled (Morville, 2005), and collaboration is a must in order to maintain Internet connectivity that is “housed in cables, powered by electricity, built, maintained, and co-created by millions of people worldwide” (Ashley, 2009). This “global landscape” seems to be most directly affected by globalization and rapid advances in information technologies, which brings up issues regarding equity of access, inclusion, and social justice, but also challenges our profession to define what roles libraries should play, to decide how to muster “skills, infrastructure, and funding,” and to plan collaborative endeavors (Hirsh, 2018, pp 4-6; Ford, 2008, p 196).
For instance, the former president of France’s Bibliotheque Nationale has risen to this challenge, voicing numerous concerns regarding Google’s impact on everything from “the world’s cultural heritage” to its effect on “moral and civil life,” and considering how collective, corrective action might mitigate against further imbalances and damage (Jeanneney, 2007). Researchers Ferguson, Thornley, and Gibb, in an international comparison of how information professionals deal with ethical dilemmas, and the ethical standards they use to make those decisions, found that emerging technology was the number one factor making those experiences more complex and challenging (2016, pp 543-556). Compounding these issues, treating information as a commodity has an effect on its value, unnecessarily creating a world of information have and have-nots (Ford, 2008, p 196).
Information organizations like IFLA and non-governmental bodies like UNESCO attempt to address the international digital divide through policy and programs that help establish new libraries and enable established libraries to flourish (Knox, 2016, p 35). IFLA also provides standards for information professionals, such as guidelines for the provision of information services (Shachaf, 2008). Libraries are readymade organizations for encouraging global collaboration, especially when linked to education and information literacy (Ford, 2008, p 189). Many of the same issues that US public libraries face, such as copyright, confidentiality, privacy, and “balancing the professionals’ obligations to individuals and to society” (Knox, 2016, p 37), are also to be found in libraries around the world (Hirsh, 2018, p 6). Information organizations also have a long history of national and international cooperation, in the form of consortia, “cooperative association[s] of library entities which provide[s] for the systematic and effective coordination of resources” (Burke, 2016, pp 138-151). Consortia as well provide a powerful example of how the information science profession, through communicating and having a shared set of beliefs, can partner with, and cross over into collaborative efforts with people in divergent professional traditions, such as those in the publishing or the software industry (Burke, 2016, pp 144-148).
Aside from applied ethical standards, librarians must also consider other collaborative practices when planning from a global perspective. For example, for libraries to be able to share digital records and materials, they must also share bibliographic standards, and these standards are constantly changing (Bolin, 2018, p 145). Those whose community is bibliographic instruction have their feet in at least two worlds— the “small worlds” of individual information communities, and the larger “lifeworld” of the global library profession (Burnett & Jaeger, 2008). Information organizations must also contend with standards regarding copyright law and fair use, issues which are embedded in the emerging open source technology movement (Ford, 2008, p 199; Knox, 2016, p 36). The ethical issue of equitable access, and the digital divide (or digital divides), bring up questions related to how information organizations can establish standards that would allow us to measure this gap, which is visible everywhere and at all levels, but especially between nations and among communities within nations (Knox, 2016, p 35). Establishing these shared standards as a “criterion of international rights and obligations” are a necessary prerequisite if the information profession is serious about social justice (Ford, 2008, pp 200-201; Wong et al, 2018, pp 64-65).
I have tried to show how the most fundamental elements of library and information science— ethics and values— are be basis upon which our profession develops its policies, constructs its strategic plans, builds its physical spaces, and maintains the technical structure whereby we connect with, and communicate with the rest of the world. These elements have international roots and understand no boundaries, and like the free flow of information, must be of primary concern for our profession. When designed as standards in the form of ethical codes, or professional guidelines, these principles can travel anywhere information does, informing our planning and decision-making at all levels. These shared standards also allow us to measure our professional competencies, which help to establish our identities as professionals, and establish our staying power as a profession. Personally, being able to see how my ethics and values as a professional are tied to the international information community via shared standards and practices, helps me orient myself as I navigate a career in library science.
Preparation to Understand Competency O: Coursework and Work Experience
I wrote a blog post for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) entitled ‘Down the Research Rabbit Hole,’ that discussed Fisher & Durrance’s five characteristics of information communities. Reading how these two researchers conceptualize an “information community,” offered me an opportunity to reflect on how applicable these characteristics might be for a global community, and what their analysis might imply about information organizations on an international level. For instance, I note that they define “information communities” as “constituencies united by a common interest in building and increasing access to sets of dynamic, linked, and varying information resources,” but find they vacillate on whether digital network infrastructures and the Internet “facilitated” these communities, or whether the former two emerged from the latter (Fisher & Durrance, 2003, p. 298). I observe that they use characteristics as a way to describe participants within virtual community networks (Fisher et al, 2003, pp 298-305), but cannot help but see, as time has passed, that these were replaced by a “sharing economy,” which is to say a sharing network that is not really about sharing at all (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015), and thus does not advance the public good.
In my Information Professions class (INFO 204), I co-designed an organizational analysis for the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP), and within that analysis I wrote a literature review that surveyed the history of mission statements within research societies. My literature review described a vision of user-centered institutions within a globally interconnected and networked world. My final project for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) was an overview of Google Scholar’s (GS) search capabilities and limitations, but this led me into some global level issues and questions, such as the problem of institutional repositories (IRs) not showing up on GS results due to the inadequacy of Google’s metadata schemas, and whether or not GS really could be said to have enhanced research capabilities for those living in countries experiencing a digital divide.
My work experience as a reference librarian informed my experience because it made me curious about reference librarians as a global community and renewed my interest in studying the global history of information and information organizations. That interest led me to read Jack Lynch’s book You Could Look It Up, which tells the globe-spanning story of how the reference genre and the reference form came to be (2016). For instance, Lynch discusses random access memory (RAM) by way of discussion of the codex (2016, p 64-66), argues that the theoretical “memex” is the progenitor of hypertext (p 384), and notes that the international Human Genome Project owes much to the ongoing existence of scientific handbooks (p 351). In Lynch’s book I was able to see how the unfettered iterative process of aggregating and disseminating information has always been a collaborative international project that benefits mankind in myriad ways.
I chose my first two evidentiary items because they are early papers I wrote for my Information Communities course (INFO 200), which show my abiding interest in, and understanding of, the information profession from a wide-angle view. The first item is an overview of reference librarians as a community, and the second item describes the evolution of the reference librarian’s stewardship and preservation ethic over time. I introduce my final piece of evidence, from my Reference and Information Services class (INFO 210) because of its analysis of a professional reference librarian using international IFLA coding standards.
Evidence
Reference Librarians as an Information Community
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A29af0e5e-1530-4415-9478-5241e8117d7c
In this paper I wrote for my Information Communities class (INFO 200), I survey literature related to reference librarians as an information community, in order to understand how that community came to identify itself as such over time, how that identity is periodically refreshed anew, and the iterative learning processes involved in that constant regeneration. In a way, this paper can be seen as my exploration of the relationship between the reference librarian information community and the professional traditions throughout history (mathematicians, lawyers, scientists, doctors, and so on), around the globe, who aggregated and disseminated information. Because my study casts a wide net, starting out with a consideration for how humans and tools have affected our behaviors, and then how those behaviors crafted our use of information, by definition it is concerned with a global perspective.
I posit that the present-day reference librarian community exists within smaller, less-fixed, digital worlds, and at the same time within a more physically grounded global community. I spend most of my time in this paper, teasing out the latter terrain. For instance, I open my review by arguing that the reference librarian information practice of self-reflection, has roots in the university and thereby, the peer-reviewed paper. I propose that a modern-day research paper that analyzes how closely reference librarians hew to Reference & User Services (RUSA) professional guidelines, has taken this process of self-reflection and made it into a formal professional practice. My aim here, as I progressed through the literature, and within self-imposed constraints of different subject matter, was to begin identifying behavioral traits of the reference librarian community, and how those traits developed over time into professional practice.
For instance, under the heading “Ethics, Values, and Education,” I illustrate how international professional ethical codes emerged from the professional tradition of law filtered through behaviors and values like self-reflection, collaboration, stewardship, and the process of lifelong learning. Elsewhere in the paper I clearly underline the fact that these practices emerged in a transnational context. I offer instances of where information practices have advanced cultural, economic, educational, and social betterment. For instance, self-reflection and the aggregation of information, applied to the information need to not get lost, led to the adaptation of mapmaking and cartography, an important cultural advancement. Another example might be fulfilling the need for wide intercultural collaboration through promising projects like Open Context, a web-based, open access publishing service, which enables scientific research to be shared through open-source software, arguably an international educational advance.
My research here illustrates that the information professions are central to global history, and that the behaviors that define our profession are rooted in institutional memory, in the form of accomplishments like written ethical standards, the international university system, the book, and the peer-reviewed paper. I am able to describe how the traits of our information community have led to standards and practices that have bettered the human condition in a transnational context. Having this broad, in-depth awareness is a transferable skill within the information professions, because our inter-relatedness, on an international level, remains integral to our decision-making, wherever we work.
Stewardship and Preservation as an Ethic of the Reference Librarian
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xyDi6KMXwyjtRYOMNss-1Z3fJJQh0KLZwCd04w-E-B0/edit?usp=sharing or
https://ischoolblogs.sjsu.edu/info/encyclopediabrawn/2016/07/23/stewardship-and-preservation-as-an-ethic-of-the-reference-librarian/
This blog post for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) examines stewardship and preservation as an ethic of the reference librarian community. I begin my examination by placing
the information and library science profession in the international context of disciplines like journalism, a field with whom we share ethical concerns. As with my previous paper on reference librarians as a community, I start the exploration of stewardship and preservation with the Middle Eastern origins of the first ancient ethical code. However in this paper I shift my focus from the university to emphasize how the iterative process of human lifelong learning, a process embraced by information professionals, resulted in the invention of the codex, still the penultimate method of “both [the] dissemination and preservation” (Gorman, 2012, p 2) of the human record.
To illustrate this iterative process, I reference Lynch’s history of how the creation and use of logarithmic tables led to the invention of the slide rule and pocket calculator, and how this made the scientific, industrial, and information revolutions possible (Lynch, 2012, pp 107-118). Contained within this reference is my understanding that this iterative, self-reflective process, which resulted in so many international standards and practices relevant to the information profession, was carried out collaboratively by people all over the world. I use Wikipedia as an example of a truly global collaborative reference project, and how even at its inception was borrowing material from other reference sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica, itself a reference work built by people working in widely different professional disciplines.
In order to discuss preservation, I delve once again into our globally interconnectivity via the Internet. I cite Lynch once more to show that the only reason we can communicate with others anytime, anywhere, or reach patrons at their point of need, is because algorithmic processes first developed in the early-17th century (2016, pp 110-111) have reached the petabyte level (Ashley, 2010, p 10). I describe the many problems associated with digital preservation of the human record including a lack of international standards, and a tendency to believe that we can ignore the global physical infrastructure on which our digitally wired world relies. I paint a picture of what a universal collaborative digital preservation model would look like, the standards that would have to be developed, and the component parts that would have to be in place.
I note that the danger of failing to develop proper digital stewardship practices means great losses of cultural memory, and great losses to communities of memory (Ketelaar et al, 2005, p 1). Citing the failure of the Library of Congress, Twitter, and other entities to archive and make accessible the 170+ billion “tweets” created by Twitter since the company’s inception, I agree with Zimmer, who argues that stakeholders need to more closely collaborate with the wider community of library information professionals regarding “information policy, research ethics, and privacy” (2015, p 8). I close this paper with another, similar argument from Gorman, who says libraries need to collaborate and integrate on a large scale with other cultural institutions, emphasizing the interaction between these organizations, and codifying practices and values (2012, p 5).
I am capable of articulating how our profession shares ethical and practical concerns with other disciplines on an international level and can show how this plays out as collaboratively. I am able to describe how information science activities like stewarding and preserving digital records, or an iterative approach to lifelong learning, refreshes the profession through the establishment of standards and practices. I demonstrate an ability to connect-the-dots regarding how human well-being (cultural, social, educational, etcetera) is bound to the success or failure of our information practices, and therefore, illustrate my ability to advocate for our profession.
Reference Observation Field Report
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d90f9742-4017-4276-8517-0e420e054f7c
In this assignment for my Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) class, I arranged to sit with a reference librarian over the course of a single work shift and observe their interactions with patrons. I was to keep a field journal of notes on the reference desk experience and reference interviews and follow up with an analysis of what I observed, how the service was designed and delivered, and provide any examples of patron feedback. Part of the assignment was to keep the librarian, the user, and the myself (the observer) in mind. I chose to observe a virtual reference service assistant performing phone interviews at XXXX, a virtual chat service.
The heart of my work here lies in the second half of the paper, where I spend several pages tying my observations of professional reference service practices to IFLA and RUSA guidelines (Guidelines, n.d.; RUSA, 1996). I revisit my observations of the reference interviews and note where the library associate’s behavior matched coding schema within the guidelines. For instance, I observe the reference librarian explaining her search strategy, citing authoritative sources, rephrasing questions, sending prompt replies, avoiding jargon, and maintaining objectivity, all of which are indications that international professional standards are being followed.
After coding my notes, I analyze my observations. For instance, I describe the context of the observation, and how the XXXX workspace functions as a collaborative space, wherein the library associates can support one another to fulfill patron information needs. An observation of some informal chatting among the library associates brings up that they believe “passionate curiosity” to be a behavioral value to which they all ascribe, despite it not being designated one in any professional set of standards.
Toward the end of my analysis of the many IFLA and RUSA behaviors, I return to a supposition I made that virtual reference services were becoming more complex and intertwined with the world. I point out that the librarian associate I observed had 13 windows open on their computer desktop, including circulation software, browsers, phone and interfaces, email accounts, search engines, document software, web-based software, and website pages. Throughout the paper I also touch upon the institutional context in which the XXXX chat service is situated, and inquire into how a collaborative endeavor functions within that context.
I provide suggestions for redesigning the chat service based on these observations, including the idea that mentoring and training might be combined, so that neither experience nor innovation gets lost. This mentoring training, I suggest, might introduce newer library associates to IFLA/RUSA standards, and a revisiting of standard practices might enable neglected behaviors like being “passionately curious” to be formally added to those standards. I state later on that mentorship should be considered stewardship, that is, when we engage in the iterative process of revisiting and working on standards and practices, we are being stewards of the human record, which benefits people in myriad ways. I suggest that XXXX might provide better service by entering into a large consortium with other large library systems, or by taking a national model like Question Point, and doing it on an international scale.
Towards the end of the paper, I state that virtual reference is technically complex, but wonder if it might be reducing human complexity. I ask if we should or could develop a more expansive view or approach. I cite research that improvements to academic reference services need to come not from new technologies, but improvement in how humans are communicating with one another. Finally, I ask if we might not be able to have the best of both worlds—a rapid and complex technology that allows us to generate and disseminate professional protocols around the globe, and a slower pace of life where we get to know our patrons as neighbors.
I show here that I understand how to tie observations of information practices to international standards, and evaluate those practices based on the values contained therein. I also show an awareness of how those standards came to be, precisely through this kind of observation, analysis, and evaluation. This ability to judge competency on my part also remains cognizant that we judge in order to re-evaluate present standards, to determine if those standards still serve us from a modern (global) perspective. My ability to critique information practices contains within it an understanding of how technological complexity and interconnectedness, collaborative and consortial efforts, and education and innovation, all play a role in how information professionals and organizations can support, or fail to support, the betterment of the human condition. I show an awareness of global issues that could hinder cross-cultural communication and demonstrate an openness to rethinking how information services are conducted, based on a more global perspective.
Conclusion
I am able to describe how the traits of our information community have led to standards and practices that have bettered the human condition in a transnational context. Having this broad, in-depth awareness is a transferable skill within the information professions, because our inter-relatedness, on an international level, remains integral to our decision-making, wherever we work.
I am capable of articulating how our profession shares ethical and practical concerns with other disciplines on an international level, can describe the myriad issues confronting collaborative cross-disciplinary efforts, and can explain the direct effect of these efforts on our professional standards, and on human betterment, for instance in the realm of cross-cultural communication, or in bridging the digital divide.
I demonstrate an ability to connect-the-dots regarding how human well-being (cultural, social, educational, etcetera) is bound to the success or failure of our information practices, and therefore, illustrate my ability to advocate for our profession. I show an awareness of how standards came to be through observation, analysis, and evaluation, and demonstrate that I can evaluate competency in order to re-evaluate present standards, and to judge if those standards still serve us from a modern (global) perspective. Being able to bring a global perspective down to earth, in order to practically effect positive, progressive change within the workplace, is a hallmark of my overall competence as an information professional and an indication that I will be able to directly apply this perspective in a professional environment.
References
Ashley, M. (2010). Digital conservation and access: Saving humanity's history in the petabyte age. Virtual Archaeology Review, 1(1), 9-12.
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Burke, R. (2016). Cooperation and consortia. In Smith, L.C. & Wong, M.A. (Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
Byrne, A. (2004). IFLA and professional ethics. The Australian Library Journal, 53(1), 31-38. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00049670.2004.10721611
Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harvard Business Review, 28. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all
Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). Beyond codes of ethics: how library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 543-556. Retrieved from http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/7076/1/Information_ethical_dilemmas_eprints.pdf
Fisher, K. E., Unruh, K. T., & Durrance, J. C. (2003). Information communities: Characteristics gleaned from studies of three online networks. Proceedings of the american society for information science and technology, 40(1), 298-305. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/meet.1450400137
Ford, B.J. (2008). LIS professionals in a global society. In Haycock, K. & Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Westport, Connecticut; Libraries Unlimited
Foster, C., & McMenemy, D. (2012). Do librarians have a shared set of values? A comparative study of 36 codes of ethics based on Gorman’s enduring values. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 44(4), 249 - 262. Retrieved from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/34315/1/proof_of_1st_draft_for_dept_website.pdf
Franks, S. (2009). Grand narratives and the information cycle in the library instruction classroom. In Critical library instruction theories and methods, 43(54). 43-54. Litwin: GSE Research. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8ec3ad42-2940-4015-919b-3a0abc2ffe3d
Gorman, M. (2012). The prince’s dream. SCONUL Focus, 54, pp.11-16. Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/4_0.pdf
Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2016, from: http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Hirsh, S. (2016). The transformative information landscape. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.). Information services today: An introduction, 183-194. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Hogle, P. (2016). Buzzword decoder: User-centered design and universal design. Retrieved from https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/2140/buzzword-decoder-user-centered-design-and-universal-design
IFLA (2012). IFLA code of ethics for librarians and other information workers. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20Long_0.pdf
Jacobs, H. L. (2009). Posing the wikipedia problem: Information literacy and the praxis of problem-posing in library instruction. In Critical library instruction theories and methods 177(198). 177-198. Litwin: GSE Research. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=jacobs+posing+the+wikipedia+problem&btnG=&httpsredir=1&article=1024&context=leddylibrarypub
Jeanneney, J. (2007). Google and the myth of universal knowledge. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Ketelaar, E., McKemmish, S. M., & Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2005). Communities of memory: pluralising archival research and education agendas. Archives & Manuscripts, 33(1), 146 - 174.
Knox, E.J. (2016). Ethics. In Smith, L.C. & Wong, M.A. (Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
Lor, P. J. (2007). International advocacy for information ethics: The role of IFLA. InternationalReview of Information Ethics, 7(09). Retrieved from https://www.infodata-edepot.de/volltext/ijie/08095.pdf
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from Ancient Babylon to Wikipedia. New York: Bloomsbury
Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: What we find changes who we become. Sebastopol: O'Reilly
Palmer, S. S. (1999). Creating our roles as reference librarians of the future: Choice or fate? Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 1-12. Reference and User Services Association. (1996). Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information services professionals. RQ, 36(2), 200-203. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Schachaf, P. (2005). A global perspective on library association codes of ethics 2005-12. Library and information science research, 27(4): 513-533. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/106281/Code_of_Ethics.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Schachaf, P. & Horowitz, S. (2008). Virtual reference service evaluation: Adherence to RUSA behavioral guidelines and IFLA digital reference guidelines. Library & information science research, 302(2), 122-137. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/12414/1/virtualReferenceServiceEvaluation.pdf
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The journal of higher education, 77(1), 1-39. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/vxuayd9
Stover, M. (2004). The reference librarian as non-expert: A postmodern approach to expertise.The Reference Librarian, 87(88): 273-300. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.csun.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.2/3051/StoverMark200409.pdf?sequence=1
Wong, P., Figueroa, M., & Dow, C. (2018). Diversity, equity of access, and social justice. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Zimmer, M. (2015). The Twitter archive at the library of congress: Challenges for information practice and information policy. First Monday. Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/5619/4653
In order to discuss issues of concern to librarians from a global perspective, it helps to start with international professional standards and practices (Byrne, 2004, p 31). Many librarians around the world write policy around the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the International Federation of Library Associations and Institution’s (IFLA) code of ethics (Knox 2016, p 31; Shachaf, 2005). Applied ethics, including information ethics and computer ethics, because they are “closely related to epistemology, or the study of knowledge,” are the foundation on which library practice (how we store, organize, and circulate knowledge) stands, are often expressed in mission, vision, and values statements, and form the basis by which the profession measures competency (Knox, 2016, pp 27-32; Byrne, 2004, p 32). Information organizations around the world share common ethics and values, but they can be unevenly distributed. For instance, one study comparing ethical codes internationally, found that the preservation of culture, in the form of stewardship, could be claimed as a shared value, but that literacy and learning was largely absent from these statutes (Foster & McMenemy, 2012). According to Gorman, communities of learning have roots in antiquity, are still active in the present day, but are perhaps threatened by a narrowed focus on “feudal or proto-national” interests, rather than a truly global orientation (Gorman, 2012, p 119).
Several concepts are key to developing globally minded mission, vision, and values statements for modern information organizations, including multi-culturalism, inclusion, equity, and diversity (Wong, Figueroa, & Cardenas-Dow, 2018, p 53; Lor, 2007). The concept of diversity is central one in efforts to expand intellectual freedom and develop equity of access (Wong et al, 2018, p 56). Towards this end, modern information organizations seek to develop cultural competency among staff at all levels, so that they might increase communication that “promotes cultural exchange” (Wong et al, 2018, p 62). According to Hirsh, the information professionals in a new, globalized world, need to learn soft skills like the ability to network and collaborate, develop competencies in communication and outreach, and orient themselves toward a “user-centered mind-set” (Hirsh, 2018, p 9; Byrne, 2007, pp 32-33).
Modern reference service practice, for instance, puts the professional “on par with patrons,” and acknowledges the role of “cultural factors” in the reference interview (Stover, 2004, p 291). Yet it is worth pausing here to reflect on the user-centered orientation or valuation. According to Palmer, the idea of providing service to the user has “neither a very lengthy, nor a very universal history,” and is a “very American idea” (Palmer, 1999, p 2). A user-centered orientation seems to challenge the “cultural construction” of this “grand narrative” (Franks, 2010, pp 51-52) and yet, the newer, user-centered orientation seems to limit a universal approach to designing services in the realm of philosophy (Hogle, 2016), where the idea and influence of information communities (Fisher & Durrance, 2003) must of necessity take a back seat.
Because library and information studies as a profession have not always addressed issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion for whole demographics, nor have they historically partnered equally with “community-based organizations,” the term “social justice” came to be associated with a “commitment to address these disparities” (Wong et al, 2018, pp 62-63; Lor, 2007). IFLA’s code of ethics does not appear to address social justice per se, nor does it emphasize a user-centered approach to service, but it does outline what it means to be an “autonomous user,” and does delineate the librarian’s responsibilities to serve both the individual and society (IFLA, 2018). Of course, it can be difficult for information organizations to advocate for universal rights if public authorities exert their mandates in the form of censorship or control (Byrne, 2007, p 36).
Information organizations are globally intertwingled (Morville, 2005), and collaboration is a must in order to maintain Internet connectivity that is “housed in cables, powered by electricity, built, maintained, and co-created by millions of people worldwide” (Ashley, 2009). This “global landscape” seems to be most directly affected by globalization and rapid advances in information technologies, which brings up issues regarding equity of access, inclusion, and social justice, but also challenges our profession to define what roles libraries should play, to decide how to muster “skills, infrastructure, and funding,” and to plan collaborative endeavors (Hirsh, 2018, pp 4-6; Ford, 2008, p 196).
For instance, the former president of France’s Bibliotheque Nationale has risen to this challenge, voicing numerous concerns regarding Google’s impact on everything from “the world’s cultural heritage” to its effect on “moral and civil life,” and considering how collective, corrective action might mitigate against further imbalances and damage (Jeanneney, 2007). Researchers Ferguson, Thornley, and Gibb, in an international comparison of how information professionals deal with ethical dilemmas, and the ethical standards they use to make those decisions, found that emerging technology was the number one factor making those experiences more complex and challenging (2016, pp 543-556). Compounding these issues, treating information as a commodity has an effect on its value, unnecessarily creating a world of information have and have-nots (Ford, 2008, p 196).
Information organizations like IFLA and non-governmental bodies like UNESCO attempt to address the international digital divide through policy and programs that help establish new libraries and enable established libraries to flourish (Knox, 2016, p 35). IFLA also provides standards for information professionals, such as guidelines for the provision of information services (Shachaf, 2008). Libraries are readymade organizations for encouraging global collaboration, especially when linked to education and information literacy (Ford, 2008, p 189). Many of the same issues that US public libraries face, such as copyright, confidentiality, privacy, and “balancing the professionals’ obligations to individuals and to society” (Knox, 2016, p 37), are also to be found in libraries around the world (Hirsh, 2018, p 6). Information organizations also have a long history of national and international cooperation, in the form of consortia, “cooperative association[s] of library entities which provide[s] for the systematic and effective coordination of resources” (Burke, 2016, pp 138-151). Consortia as well provide a powerful example of how the information science profession, through communicating and having a shared set of beliefs, can partner with, and cross over into collaborative efforts with people in divergent professional traditions, such as those in the publishing or the software industry (Burke, 2016, pp 144-148).
Aside from applied ethical standards, librarians must also consider other collaborative practices when planning from a global perspective. For example, for libraries to be able to share digital records and materials, they must also share bibliographic standards, and these standards are constantly changing (Bolin, 2018, p 145). Those whose community is bibliographic instruction have their feet in at least two worlds— the “small worlds” of individual information communities, and the larger “lifeworld” of the global library profession (Burnett & Jaeger, 2008). Information organizations must also contend with standards regarding copyright law and fair use, issues which are embedded in the emerging open source technology movement (Ford, 2008, p 199; Knox, 2016, p 36). The ethical issue of equitable access, and the digital divide (or digital divides), bring up questions related to how information organizations can establish standards that would allow us to measure this gap, which is visible everywhere and at all levels, but especially between nations and among communities within nations (Knox, 2016, p 35). Establishing these shared standards as a “criterion of international rights and obligations” are a necessary prerequisite if the information profession is serious about social justice (Ford, 2008, pp 200-201; Wong et al, 2018, pp 64-65).
I have tried to show how the most fundamental elements of library and information science— ethics and values— are be basis upon which our profession develops its policies, constructs its strategic plans, builds its physical spaces, and maintains the technical structure whereby we connect with, and communicate with the rest of the world. These elements have international roots and understand no boundaries, and like the free flow of information, must be of primary concern for our profession. When designed as standards in the form of ethical codes, or professional guidelines, these principles can travel anywhere information does, informing our planning and decision-making at all levels. These shared standards also allow us to measure our professional competencies, which help to establish our identities as professionals, and establish our staying power as a profession. Personally, being able to see how my ethics and values as a professional are tied to the international information community via shared standards and practices, helps me orient myself as I navigate a career in library science.
Preparation to Understand Competency O: Coursework and Work Experience
I wrote a blog post for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) entitled ‘Down the Research Rabbit Hole,’ that discussed Fisher & Durrance’s five characteristics of information communities. Reading how these two researchers conceptualize an “information community,” offered me an opportunity to reflect on how applicable these characteristics might be for a global community, and what their analysis might imply about information organizations on an international level. For instance, I note that they define “information communities” as “constituencies united by a common interest in building and increasing access to sets of dynamic, linked, and varying information resources,” but find they vacillate on whether digital network infrastructures and the Internet “facilitated” these communities, or whether the former two emerged from the latter (Fisher & Durrance, 2003, p. 298). I observe that they use characteristics as a way to describe participants within virtual community networks (Fisher et al, 2003, pp 298-305), but cannot help but see, as time has passed, that these were replaced by a “sharing economy,” which is to say a sharing network that is not really about sharing at all (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015), and thus does not advance the public good.
In my Information Professions class (INFO 204), I co-designed an organizational analysis for the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP), and within that analysis I wrote a literature review that surveyed the history of mission statements within research societies. My literature review described a vision of user-centered institutions within a globally interconnected and networked world. My final project for my Online Searching class (INFO 244) was an overview of Google Scholar’s (GS) search capabilities and limitations, but this led me into some global level issues and questions, such as the problem of institutional repositories (IRs) not showing up on GS results due to the inadequacy of Google’s metadata schemas, and whether or not GS really could be said to have enhanced research capabilities for those living in countries experiencing a digital divide.
My work experience as a reference librarian informed my experience because it made me curious about reference librarians as a global community and renewed my interest in studying the global history of information and information organizations. That interest led me to read Jack Lynch’s book You Could Look It Up, which tells the globe-spanning story of how the reference genre and the reference form came to be (2016). For instance, Lynch discusses random access memory (RAM) by way of discussion of the codex (2016, p 64-66), argues that the theoretical “memex” is the progenitor of hypertext (p 384), and notes that the international Human Genome Project owes much to the ongoing existence of scientific handbooks (p 351). In Lynch’s book I was able to see how the unfettered iterative process of aggregating and disseminating information has always been a collaborative international project that benefits mankind in myriad ways.
I chose my first two evidentiary items because they are early papers I wrote for my Information Communities course (INFO 200), which show my abiding interest in, and understanding of, the information profession from a wide-angle view. The first item is an overview of reference librarians as a community, and the second item describes the evolution of the reference librarian’s stewardship and preservation ethic over time. I introduce my final piece of evidence, from my Reference and Information Services class (INFO 210) because of its analysis of a professional reference librarian using international IFLA coding standards.
Evidence
Reference Librarians as an Information Community
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A29af0e5e-1530-4415-9478-5241e8117d7c
In this paper I wrote for my Information Communities class (INFO 200), I survey literature related to reference librarians as an information community, in order to understand how that community came to identify itself as such over time, how that identity is periodically refreshed anew, and the iterative learning processes involved in that constant regeneration. In a way, this paper can be seen as my exploration of the relationship between the reference librarian information community and the professional traditions throughout history (mathematicians, lawyers, scientists, doctors, and so on), around the globe, who aggregated and disseminated information. Because my study casts a wide net, starting out with a consideration for how humans and tools have affected our behaviors, and then how those behaviors crafted our use of information, by definition it is concerned with a global perspective.
I posit that the present-day reference librarian community exists within smaller, less-fixed, digital worlds, and at the same time within a more physically grounded global community. I spend most of my time in this paper, teasing out the latter terrain. For instance, I open my review by arguing that the reference librarian information practice of self-reflection, has roots in the university and thereby, the peer-reviewed paper. I propose that a modern-day research paper that analyzes how closely reference librarians hew to Reference & User Services (RUSA) professional guidelines, has taken this process of self-reflection and made it into a formal professional practice. My aim here, as I progressed through the literature, and within self-imposed constraints of different subject matter, was to begin identifying behavioral traits of the reference librarian community, and how those traits developed over time into professional practice.
For instance, under the heading “Ethics, Values, and Education,” I illustrate how international professional ethical codes emerged from the professional tradition of law filtered through behaviors and values like self-reflection, collaboration, stewardship, and the process of lifelong learning. Elsewhere in the paper I clearly underline the fact that these practices emerged in a transnational context. I offer instances of where information practices have advanced cultural, economic, educational, and social betterment. For instance, self-reflection and the aggregation of information, applied to the information need to not get lost, led to the adaptation of mapmaking and cartography, an important cultural advancement. Another example might be fulfilling the need for wide intercultural collaboration through promising projects like Open Context, a web-based, open access publishing service, which enables scientific research to be shared through open-source software, arguably an international educational advance.
My research here illustrates that the information professions are central to global history, and that the behaviors that define our profession are rooted in institutional memory, in the form of accomplishments like written ethical standards, the international university system, the book, and the peer-reviewed paper. I am able to describe how the traits of our information community have led to standards and practices that have bettered the human condition in a transnational context. Having this broad, in-depth awareness is a transferable skill within the information professions, because our inter-relatedness, on an international level, remains integral to our decision-making, wherever we work.
Stewardship and Preservation as an Ethic of the Reference Librarian
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xyDi6KMXwyjtRYOMNss-1Z3fJJQh0KLZwCd04w-E-B0/edit?usp=sharing or
https://ischoolblogs.sjsu.edu/info/encyclopediabrawn/2016/07/23/stewardship-and-preservation-as-an-ethic-of-the-reference-librarian/
This blog post for my Information Communities class (INFO 200) examines stewardship and preservation as an ethic of the reference librarian community. I begin my examination by placing
the information and library science profession in the international context of disciplines like journalism, a field with whom we share ethical concerns. As with my previous paper on reference librarians as a community, I start the exploration of stewardship and preservation with the Middle Eastern origins of the first ancient ethical code. However in this paper I shift my focus from the university to emphasize how the iterative process of human lifelong learning, a process embraced by information professionals, resulted in the invention of the codex, still the penultimate method of “both [the] dissemination and preservation” (Gorman, 2012, p 2) of the human record.
To illustrate this iterative process, I reference Lynch’s history of how the creation and use of logarithmic tables led to the invention of the slide rule and pocket calculator, and how this made the scientific, industrial, and information revolutions possible (Lynch, 2012, pp 107-118). Contained within this reference is my understanding that this iterative, self-reflective process, which resulted in so many international standards and practices relevant to the information profession, was carried out collaboratively by people all over the world. I use Wikipedia as an example of a truly global collaborative reference project, and how even at its inception was borrowing material from other reference sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica, itself a reference work built by people working in widely different professional disciplines.
In order to discuss preservation, I delve once again into our globally interconnectivity via the Internet. I cite Lynch once more to show that the only reason we can communicate with others anytime, anywhere, or reach patrons at their point of need, is because algorithmic processes first developed in the early-17th century (2016, pp 110-111) have reached the petabyte level (Ashley, 2010, p 10). I describe the many problems associated with digital preservation of the human record including a lack of international standards, and a tendency to believe that we can ignore the global physical infrastructure on which our digitally wired world relies. I paint a picture of what a universal collaborative digital preservation model would look like, the standards that would have to be developed, and the component parts that would have to be in place.
I note that the danger of failing to develop proper digital stewardship practices means great losses of cultural memory, and great losses to communities of memory (Ketelaar et al, 2005, p 1). Citing the failure of the Library of Congress, Twitter, and other entities to archive and make accessible the 170+ billion “tweets” created by Twitter since the company’s inception, I agree with Zimmer, who argues that stakeholders need to more closely collaborate with the wider community of library information professionals regarding “information policy, research ethics, and privacy” (2015, p 8). I close this paper with another, similar argument from Gorman, who says libraries need to collaborate and integrate on a large scale with other cultural institutions, emphasizing the interaction between these organizations, and codifying practices and values (2012, p 5).
I am capable of articulating how our profession shares ethical and practical concerns with other disciplines on an international level and can show how this plays out as collaboratively. I am able to describe how information science activities like stewarding and preserving digital records, or an iterative approach to lifelong learning, refreshes the profession through the establishment of standards and practices. I demonstrate an ability to connect-the-dots regarding how human well-being (cultural, social, educational, etcetera) is bound to the success or failure of our information practices, and therefore, illustrate my ability to advocate for our profession.
Reference Observation Field Report
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d90f9742-4017-4276-8517-0e420e054f7c
In this assignment for my Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) class, I arranged to sit with a reference librarian over the course of a single work shift and observe their interactions with patrons. I was to keep a field journal of notes on the reference desk experience and reference interviews and follow up with an analysis of what I observed, how the service was designed and delivered, and provide any examples of patron feedback. Part of the assignment was to keep the librarian, the user, and the myself (the observer) in mind. I chose to observe a virtual reference service assistant performing phone interviews at XXXX, a virtual chat service.
The heart of my work here lies in the second half of the paper, where I spend several pages tying my observations of professional reference service practices to IFLA and RUSA guidelines (Guidelines, n.d.; RUSA, 1996). I revisit my observations of the reference interviews and note where the library associate’s behavior matched coding schema within the guidelines. For instance, I observe the reference librarian explaining her search strategy, citing authoritative sources, rephrasing questions, sending prompt replies, avoiding jargon, and maintaining objectivity, all of which are indications that international professional standards are being followed.
After coding my notes, I analyze my observations. For instance, I describe the context of the observation, and how the XXXX workspace functions as a collaborative space, wherein the library associates can support one another to fulfill patron information needs. An observation of some informal chatting among the library associates brings up that they believe “passionate curiosity” to be a behavioral value to which they all ascribe, despite it not being designated one in any professional set of standards.
Toward the end of my analysis of the many IFLA and RUSA behaviors, I return to a supposition I made that virtual reference services were becoming more complex and intertwined with the world. I point out that the librarian associate I observed had 13 windows open on their computer desktop, including circulation software, browsers, phone and interfaces, email accounts, search engines, document software, web-based software, and website pages. Throughout the paper I also touch upon the institutional context in which the XXXX chat service is situated, and inquire into how a collaborative endeavor functions within that context.
I provide suggestions for redesigning the chat service based on these observations, including the idea that mentoring and training might be combined, so that neither experience nor innovation gets lost. This mentoring training, I suggest, might introduce newer library associates to IFLA/RUSA standards, and a revisiting of standard practices might enable neglected behaviors like being “passionately curious” to be formally added to those standards. I state later on that mentorship should be considered stewardship, that is, when we engage in the iterative process of revisiting and working on standards and practices, we are being stewards of the human record, which benefits people in myriad ways. I suggest that XXXX might provide better service by entering into a large consortium with other large library systems, or by taking a national model like Question Point, and doing it on an international scale.
Towards the end of the paper, I state that virtual reference is technically complex, but wonder if it might be reducing human complexity. I ask if we should or could develop a more expansive view or approach. I cite research that improvements to academic reference services need to come not from new technologies, but improvement in how humans are communicating with one another. Finally, I ask if we might not be able to have the best of both worlds—a rapid and complex technology that allows us to generate and disseminate professional protocols around the globe, and a slower pace of life where we get to know our patrons as neighbors.
I show here that I understand how to tie observations of information practices to international standards, and evaluate those practices based on the values contained therein. I also show an awareness of how those standards came to be, precisely through this kind of observation, analysis, and evaluation. This ability to judge competency on my part also remains cognizant that we judge in order to re-evaluate present standards, to determine if those standards still serve us from a modern (global) perspective. My ability to critique information practices contains within it an understanding of how technological complexity and interconnectedness, collaborative and consortial efforts, and education and innovation, all play a role in how information professionals and organizations can support, or fail to support, the betterment of the human condition. I show an awareness of global issues that could hinder cross-cultural communication and demonstrate an openness to rethinking how information services are conducted, based on a more global perspective.
Conclusion
I am able to describe how the traits of our information community have led to standards and practices that have bettered the human condition in a transnational context. Having this broad, in-depth awareness is a transferable skill within the information professions, because our inter-relatedness, on an international level, remains integral to our decision-making, wherever we work.
I am capable of articulating how our profession shares ethical and practical concerns with other disciplines on an international level, can describe the myriad issues confronting collaborative cross-disciplinary efforts, and can explain the direct effect of these efforts on our professional standards, and on human betterment, for instance in the realm of cross-cultural communication, or in bridging the digital divide.
I demonstrate an ability to connect-the-dots regarding how human well-being (cultural, social, educational, etcetera) is bound to the success or failure of our information practices, and therefore, illustrate my ability to advocate for our profession. I show an awareness of how standards came to be through observation, analysis, and evaluation, and demonstrate that I can evaluate competency in order to re-evaluate present standards, and to judge if those standards still serve us from a modern (global) perspective. Being able to bring a global perspective down to earth, in order to practically effect positive, progressive change within the workplace, is a hallmark of my overall competence as an information professional and an indication that I will be able to directly apply this perspective in a professional environment.
References
Ashley, M. (2010). Digital conservation and access: Saving humanity's history in the petabyte age. Virtual Archaeology Review, 1(1), 9-12.
Bolin, M.K. (2018). Metadata, cataloging, linked data, and the evolving ILS. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information services today: An introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Burke, R. (2016). Cooperation and consortia. In Smith, L.C. & Wong, M.A. (Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
Byrne, A. (2004). IFLA and professional ethics. The Australian Library Journal, 53(1), 31-38. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00049670.2004.10721611
Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harvard Business Review, 28. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all
Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). Beyond codes of ethics: how library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 543-556. Retrieved from http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/7076/1/Information_ethical_dilemmas_eprints.pdf
Fisher, K. E., Unruh, K. T., & Durrance, J. C. (2003). Information communities: Characteristics gleaned from studies of three online networks. Proceedings of the american society for information science and technology, 40(1), 298-305. Retrieved from https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/meet.1450400137
Ford, B.J. (2008). LIS professionals in a global society. In Haycock, K. & Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Westport, Connecticut; Libraries Unlimited
Foster, C., & McMenemy, D. (2012). Do librarians have a shared set of values? A comparative study of 36 codes of ethics based on Gorman’s enduring values. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 44(4), 249 - 262. Retrieved from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/34315/1/proof_of_1st_draft_for_dept_website.pdf
Franks, S. (2009). Grand narratives and the information cycle in the library instruction classroom. In Critical library instruction theories and methods, 43(54). 43-54. Litwin: GSE Research. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8ec3ad42-2940-4015-919b-3a0abc2ffe3d
Gorman, M. (2012). The prince’s dream. SCONUL Focus, 54, pp.11-16. Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/4_0.pdf
Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2016, from: http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Hirsh, S. (2016). The transformative information landscape. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.). Information services today: An introduction, 183-194. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Hogle, P. (2016). Buzzword decoder: User-centered design and universal design. Retrieved from https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/2140/buzzword-decoder-user-centered-design-and-universal-design
IFLA (2012). IFLA code of ethics for librarians and other information workers. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20Long_0.pdf
Jacobs, H. L. (2009). Posing the wikipedia problem: Information literacy and the praxis of problem-posing in library instruction. In Critical library instruction theories and methods 177(198). 177-198. Litwin: GSE Research. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=jacobs+posing+the+wikipedia+problem&btnG=&httpsredir=1&article=1024&context=leddylibrarypub
Jeanneney, J. (2007). Google and the myth of universal knowledge. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Ketelaar, E., McKemmish, S. M., & Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2005). Communities of memory: pluralising archival research and education agendas. Archives & Manuscripts, 33(1), 146 - 174.
Knox, E.J. (2016). Ethics. In Smith, L.C. & Wong, M.A. (Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
Lor, P. J. (2007). International advocacy for information ethics: The role of IFLA. InternationalReview of Information Ethics, 7(09). Retrieved from https://www.infodata-edepot.de/volltext/ijie/08095.pdf
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from Ancient Babylon to Wikipedia. New York: Bloomsbury
Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: What we find changes who we become. Sebastopol: O'Reilly
Palmer, S. S. (1999). Creating our roles as reference librarians of the future: Choice or fate? Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 1-12. Reference and User Services Association. (1996). Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information services professionals. RQ, 36(2), 200-203. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Schachaf, P. (2005). A global perspective on library association codes of ethics 2005-12. Library and information science research, 27(4): 513-533. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/106281/Code_of_Ethics.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Schachaf, P. & Horowitz, S. (2008). Virtual reference service evaluation: Adherence to RUSA behavioral guidelines and IFLA digital reference guidelines. Library & information science research, 302(2), 122-137. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/12414/1/virtualReferenceServiceEvaluation.pdf
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The journal of higher education, 77(1), 1-39. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/vxuayd9
Stover, M. (2004). The reference librarian as non-expert: A postmodern approach to expertise.The Reference Librarian, 87(88): 273-300. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.csun.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.2/3051/StoverMark200409.pdf?sequence=1
Wong, P., Figueroa, M., & Dow, C. (2018). Diversity, equity of access, and social justice. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.), Information services today: An introduction. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Zimmer, M. (2015). The Twitter archive at the library of congress: Challenges for information practice and information policy. First Monday. Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/5619/4653