Another world of Librarianship

Within the past three months, I have entered the world of State Librarianship. Prior to my current position, I was vastly unfamiliar with what the State Library actually might do within a state.

Our State Library encompasses:

• Federal grant funding for Systems (regional service centers) and Libraries directly
• Talking Book Program
• State-wide access to subscription databases and resource sharing initiatives
  
• State Archives, Genealogy Room, Reference Services, Library Science Collection
• Consulting and Continuing Education on all topics related to Librarianship

Tools for moving...

As a fairly recent MLS graduate and having also moved for both of my professional positions, I'm not only familiar with the job search, but also with gathering information on potential cities. I don't like to apply for positions unless I'm fairly certain it's a place I'm willing to relocate to. Thanks to a blog I frequently read, I've discovered a new resource to help with moving, neighboroo. It's a very cool site, providing information on housing, demographics, cost of living, schools, safety, health, climate and a couple of other statistics in a map format. And, you can get the information down to the zip code level. I checked out my current zip (having just moved here) and found the information interesting. So, check it out if you get a chance.

A couple of other sites that I like are: epodunk.com for city information, Find Your Spot, provides really nice city profiles and recommended cities based on a profile you complete, and the Move Salary Calculator, for finding out just how far your salary will go in potential future city.

Do you know your Mission?

As mentioned previously, I started a new position in January. This week I had my new job "orientation." Naturally, I did the univeristy's orientation shortly after I started. My current library also has a new employee orientation. Sounds hokey and in a way, it is. On the other hand, it was good. Basically, it's spread over 2 days for about 2 1/2 hours each day. The first day, the Dean and Assc Director meet with us and give basic information. We also hear from the Staff Assocation (this library has about 120 employees) and visit the other libraries (Science & Engineering and Architecture & Fine Arts). Day two involves visits to and overviews from each of the different library departments. I had a lot to do, so was I bit stressed about losing a couple hours for a tour of my workplace (especially since on day two when I lost my whole morning just trying to get onto our network due to issues related to the latest storm). However, it was a good thing. I know what departments there are, but it completes the picture to hear from them what they do.

One of the most interesting aspects for me though was on the first day, when the Dean of the Library went over the Library's Mission Statement. I'm pretty sure I saw the Mission Statement for the library I worked at previously, but I can't tell you anything about it. The one here is one sentence. Short and to the point followed by statements for supporting the mission. One of the ways they support the mission is to "hire and develop knowledgable staff." This spoke to me. I'm sure other mission statements do this, but it was cool to see staff development as a way to support the mission. It seems basic, but I think a lot of places tend to overlook this. You can offer everything under the sun, but if the staff can't support it or isn't knowledgable about it, what good is it?

The Mission Statement naturally led to the Values Statement. Again, one item stood out. "Respect - an understanding and appreciation of the individual skills, abilities, opinions, and diversity of our users and staff." Too often, respect is no where to be found. I once had someone say to me "she'll just have to do it the new way" in regards to someone I supervised and our transition to a new system. My theory about this was whatever works for her. I can't ignore a new system and must use what the university uses (so must she), however, if adapting includes something someone else might not do or might seem odd to someone else, who am I to say she shouldn't as long as the job gets done (and she did it very well). It might not be the way I would do it, but then I'm not the one doing the job. My dad once told me I was washing the dishes wrong. I can't see how one can do that wrong as long as they come out clean, but the big lesson I learned from that was everyone does things differently and no method or way is wrong as long as it accomplishes the job. So, to see "Respect" in a Value Statement really jumped out at me. I've not been here long enough to say "yes, they practice this," but I haven't seen anything that says they don't either.

How much overlap?

I'm currently in the process of reviewing a database and it's usage for renewal while looking at a new product from the same company, and upgrading another database from a different company. Same discipline, but different areas.

The information in the renewing database is specific to a certain group, but I think it is also available in other database's, but the user would have to do a more specific (advanced) search. So, I've looked at several of the other database's we have in this field to see where the overlap might be, while taking into consideration what is offered in other database's we are considering. The questions that are coming to mind: a) how many different ways do you offer the same information (i.e. DataMonitor reports), b) is there a way to define what type of different information or feature would justify the overlap, and c) what criteria should we use to determine what we can drop, taking into account we might lose features and or information, or d) should we not lose anything and go with the overlap?

At previous job, we used Serials Solutions, thus I had access to their wonderful Overlap Analysis tool. Alas, not so here. So, now I'm stuck with the question of the best way to compare overlap of one of the databases under consideration with two other databases, which we subscribe to, offering the same type of information. This time, the database is rather specialized, so it may not be as much of an issue, but what about the next time? After using SS, I really hate think that I might have to go in and (gasp) manually compare the full-text holdings for each database. Gads. It just seems so archaic to me. But, we do what we gotta do and I just may have to.

When simple might be too simple...

My library is in the process of redesigning the search interface for the OPAC. This is a process done by committee and was started long before I got here. They've rolled it out via a Preview button right now and have put methods there for feedback. Naturally, I'm giving it a test.

Currently, I use the OPAC rather than the ILS client to search for titles currently held (title searching), authors (author browsing), and to see what we have in various subject areas (subject browsing). What is currently being re-done, with Google-like visions, is the Simple Search. Sadly, this is where the current browse feature resides. The new simple search will be one search option only (Catalog Search) and that is over the entire record. Advanced search is still there, but it does not have the option to browse. So, when the OPAC is rolled out (unless they change it based on feedback and I did give feedback), users will no longer have the ability to browse subjects or authors.

I was aghast. It's second nature to me to subject browse and always has been, even before I became a librarian. Maybe it's because I learned to do research with a card catalog and print indexes. These force you to think in terms of subject. When I worked the reference desk and a student wanted information on a particular subject, I showed them how to do a subject search and most were quite pleased when they learned they could could search this way.

Bananas is a search I recently did, but I was looking for titles related to the banana trade, marketing, economic factors, etc. A search in the "Simple Search" box for bananas, netted 40 hits. Not overwhelming. Near the top of the list is Language, bananas and bonobos : linguistic problems, puzzles and polemics by Neil Smith; the only assigned subject is Linguistics. Bananas is simply in the title. Another match midway down the list is Walking after midnight : one woman’s journey through murder, justice & forgiveness by Katy Hutchison; it has a chapter titled "Yes, we have no bananas." I think few students are going to want to cull through 40 matches, but that is better than the several hundred which a Simple Search for Latino Culture brings up.

Advanced Search allows for searching within the subject field which gives much better results, but by title. To actually browse by subject, the user must select a matching title, then expand to the full record, then click on the Subject heading that matches what they are searching for. It takes about three clicks to get to where you can actually browse and then there is no Search box to refine or further browse; you have to either go with "previous" or "next" buttons to browse the subjects. I find myself adapting and the user probably will too, but I still think the ability to browse subjects and authors should be there.

I understand the desire to simplify. However, I think sometimes we underestimate the users and eliminate functionality that some use or would use if taught. I hear librarians say "but, they don't use it." Then, teach them.