Recently, we read a 2007 article by Lankes titled The Ethics of Participatory Librarianship. The theoretical lens for this article is conversation theory, which tells us that knowledge is gained through conversation. At one point, Lenkes tells us that since libraries are in the knowledge business, they must be in the conversation business (5) and then Lenkes rhetorically posits ...Can librarians interfere with, and shape conversations. Absolutely. Should we? We can't help it (p. 5). Finally he says that ethical neutrality is a myth. Do you agree with that? Take the poll. And do you agree that libraries should interfere and shape conversations? Add your comment below!
Librarians cannot help but to interfere and shape conversations in the daily reference interview. Either we guide the conversation into the appropriate area of information or we impose our own ideas in our communications with others. And sometimes you have to shape a conversation when a patron is not quite sure of what they are looking for or what they want. You can only continue based off what you already know even if it is biased in some manner whether it be from library policy or your own belief system.
ReplyDeleteThis may be true but I take issue with "guide the conversation into the appropriate area>, maybe I don't quite understand what you mean by appropriate" A true reference interview helps to guide the librarian and the patron to the what the patron wants. Sometimes they are embarrassed or shy about actually asking what the want information on - librarians have to be sure that we don't use body language that indicates we are embarrassed or the patron shouldn't be looking at this subject. It isn't our choice what a patron wants, it's our choice and our job to help them find what they want. Yes we all have biases but we must be careful to not show them as best we can.
ReplyDeleteI think that sometimes we assert our biases inadvertently. As librarians we have to watch what we say or how we say it to ensure that we don't guide the conversation as we see fit. As Sharon stated, "It isn't our choice what a patron wants." We are part of the conversation and we might spur them into deeper thought about their search, but we should not assert our views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you! I was glad that you argue that we have biases which will inevitably leak through, but at the same time we should work to minimize their impact. Many people seem to follow the reasonable idea that "everyone inevitably has biases that they can't completely eradicate" with the less-reasonable "so we shouldn't even try; we should just disclose those biases as far as we can and be done with it." The purpose of acknowledging that we have biases shouldn't be to use them as an excuse for ethical laziness.
DeleteEmma,
DeleteI really like how you worded your last sentence there.
--Kathy
Even though we try not to assert our views, we are human. We will inadvertently guide the patron perhaps not down an "appropriate" path, but a familiar path. Librarians use their own knowledge, training, and background to ascertain how best to help the patron find the perfect material to meet his/her need. How I conduct a search for said information may be completely different from how another librarian conducts the search. One is not necessarily more objective than the other. We are each relying on our own skill set to achieve the desired goal. I think every librarian purposes to be completely objective and neutral, but to some minute degree, we will never completely succeed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is expected that librarians might try to interfere or shape conversations simply because that is sometimes part of the process when you are trying to assist someone in finding what they need. As far as remaining neutral on the ethics part, I think a lot of that would depend on the topic and what is required to help the patron as part of the reference interview.
ReplyDeleteIt might even depend some on something as simple as the library's floor and stacks arrangement, with particular care to the reference area, and if there is someone waiting in line to speak with someone. This of course, isn't even addressing electronic reference. I wonder if it's easier to be more neutral when doing online reference in realtime then live face-to-face? I imagine that non-realitime reference assistance, such as assisting via email would potentially allow for the time to chose words better, but written words can often be harder to predict various reactions.
DeleteEveryone has biases including librarians. Does this mean that we should allow them into our conversation with patrons? No. To the best of our ability we are to conduct a reference interview with one thing in mind, finding the patron what they really want or need. This is why it is so important to train in how to conduct a reference interview, develop collections that meet the needs of your service population and try to the best of our ability to find materials that cover a variety of points of view whether we personally believe in some of them or not. Perhaps the greatest tool we have is an awareness of ourselves and our beliefs so that we can be more careful not to let those beliefs influence our reference interviews and collection choices.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lankes, libraries definitely effect the conversation, from everything from collection development to offered services, including the hard and software we offer. Lankes mentions that people expect to have input in the internet conversation; this means that the technology a library offers can affect the input. Giving the users access to cameras, video recorders, Photoshop, editing programs can make a huge difference.
ReplyDeleteAs far as neutrality goes, it is library’s job to present all sides of an argument. We may not be able to stop from influencing the conversation but we can keep it going and explore all sides.