Good at Reviewing Books But Not Each Other by Steven J. Bell

[Troy Swanson]

Steven J. Bell, has an article, Good at Reviewing Books But Not Each Other, on Inside Higher Ed, that criticized the library profession for a "chill factor that has descended on the library profession." He basically says that we play with kid gloves and do not have a meaningful discourse within our profession. I admire his guts, and I have to agree with him to some extent.

I was recently talking with some librarians at a conference, and we were noting the ways that librarians talk about information literacy, Web 2.0 and other topics verges on zealotry. We noted that some times we (myself included) verge on hypocrisy if we do not acknowledge the fact that the possibility exists that we might not be needed. If our starting point assumes that we must exist and that our "theories" have great impact, then we are working in the realm of belief and not science. In terms of higher ed (and education in general), we need to be able in link our work to true outcomes.

To bring this back to Bell's article, here is a little quote:

As a far less heated issue than Gorman’s blogger incident, a few librarians felt encouraged to wade in against the tide to voice opinions that Library 2.0 was little more than old wine in a new bottle, a new fad for those who seek out new technology solutions before they’ve identified a legitimate problem. Library 2.0 advocates were quick to band together in a “they just don’t get it” response. Ultimately groupthink won out over efforts to help all those interested in the topic to better understand it through thoughtful examination. Is it any surprise that few oppose the majority? And in the end the nice thing to do is just go along with the crowd.

We need a true discussion about the benefits and failings of Library 2.0, information literacy, and libraries in general. Like so many others, I am a believer and my faith in libraries is deep, so I recognize the need to justify my faith with evidence to the skeptics among us...and I value those skeptics. We have to allow our faith to be undermined by evidence produced via assessment and linked to outcomes. Libraries cannot live on faith alone.

I sometimes worry that communities such as this forum only serve to reinforce groupthink.

[Bill Drew]

Steven is right and wrong! there is not a real group think but there is an attitude among some L2 activists that L2 has all of the answers and should not be questioned.

[blgThree]

I'm glad Steven wrote the article. I agree with him that there is a tendency toward groupthink, at least in the blogosphere. However, I don't think that it blankets libraryland in general. As some of the comments on the article pointed out, there is often heated discussion on library email lists, where a) the list venue is based on conversation, question-and-response and b) the conversation is private and not broadcast to the wide world. Maybe the fact that blogs broadcast to the world beyond librarydom makes us want to appear more unified, forward-thinking, and not in-fighting or fractured. It's more group solidarity than groupthink in those terms.

I disagree with Steven about comments on blogs. I read comments, including all 15 thoughtful comments appended to his article. I often find as much or more substance in the comments than in the main post. Sure, they seem sparse per capita (per blog post), but there's some real quality there.

[Troy Swanson]

Now, if we agree with Steven, are we just being agreeable? But, if we disagree with him, do we just sound like we are disagreeing because we don't want to be agreeable?