3A: Reflection on Class

The more I learn about reference the more I realize it is impossible to make grand generalizations. I think the same can be said of libraries as well, but that wasn’t necessarily the focus of class, so I will attempt to not digress. Generalizations seem to be a bit rampant when it comes to the conception of the reference service. By now we are all familiar with the big imposing desk, the librarian who points and says “over there”, and a myriad of other stereotypes. While I do not hold these particularly iconic, albeit false, images of the reference librarian, it seems I did hold a similar set of fallacious conceptions. Reference books, the main focus of our last class in Hatcher, rather were the object of my misconception. Since the first day they took us to the library back in elementary school, reference books were presented to me as encyclopedias. First, the fun, colorful, picture filled children’s versions were laid before us as the place to find a quick snippet of information. Even after I graduated to the less colorful, infinitely less fun, and less animated imagery of Encyclopedia Brittanica, I still held the misconception that they (and dictionaries) were the only reference sources on the planet.

And I suppose that I held this limited view of reference until I stepped into our first class just a few weeks ago. Reference, a noun, a book you looked at when you needed to quickly know a little bit about something. Stepping into the library last week and cycling around the tables quickly changed that preconception. Much like I am letting go of my generalized idea of reference librarianship, I am expanding my knowledge of reference sources beyond the stereotypical encyclopedias and dictionaries. I gained a lot of knowledge in a short time and am still processing through a lot of it; separating indices from genealogical sources and more subject specific encyclopedias and dictionaries.  The Encyclopedia Brittanica is not the only encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not limited to a broad range of subject matter and seven volumes. Case in point, the Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. It is a single volume with entries limited to a very specific subject matter. Who knew? And who still doesn’t know? Is it part of the reference librarians job to make these resources more well known? And how in the world did I go through my entire education thinking that only two reference sources existed?

Those questions aside, there is one other generalization I noticed. It is not limited to reference books, but for the purposes of this post we will be focusing on them. There seems to be an assumption that print sources are intrinsically inferior to printed reference materials. I can’t say that all reference books is print are relevant. In the case of a book consisting entirely of names in an index format, it does not seem necessary to print additional editions of regularly. This seems especially true when it is much easier to update such things online. However, I cannot simply assume that all online databases are superior to print. Many of the online databases were difficult to navigate. If you didn’t know what you were doing or exactly what you were looking for, you were likely to get very frustrated rather quickly; it seemed a bit futile. The corresponding book, however, generally possessed a user’s manual of some kind on the first page that showed you how to use the resource effectively. Additionally, it is much easier to skim through a reference book (versus an online database) when you do not have a very specific query in mind. Simply find a book on the subject of interest, open it up, read the user’s manual, check the appendix, or skim through to find various articles of interest and slowly build up your knowledge. In an online database, it is difficult when your search term is too general and you end up with a lot of information to sort through that is not necessarily related to what you actually want to find.

In summary, I learned much about the error of over generalization. Reference, from the librarian to their books, seems to form very subtle, yet distinct, variations that defy generalizations. Needs vary by community, resources can be limited by technology, and the material by subject. It is as false to say all online databases are superior to print sources as it is to say that the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Oxford English Dictionary are the only to reference books. It will be interesting to see how these subtle variations develop across different communities with different need and even how their function shifts from user to user.

===

Brittanica Kids: Animals all Around Image from here and Encyclopedia Brittanica Image from here.
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “3A: Reflection on Class

  1. Good point about the superior navigability and user-friendliness of some of the print versions of sources that also have newer digital variants. Reference books do a pretty sound job of teaching the reader/seeker how to use them, whereas some of their digital analogs (sic) assume a lot in the way of tech literacy or just intuition on the part of the user. I am curious whether this dynamic will change because of active design improvements or simply fade away as users become more and more technologically savvy and intuitive.

    Like

  2. In response to Nicco’s comment about whether or not the dynamic in digital resource will change or not, I think to a certain extent certain things will become more common place, such as using a search bar has, but I think it will change because of active design improvements. I feel as if tech and information professionals are constantly looking for ways to improve systems and in changing longstanding practices, some instruction will be necessary. I think certain things will fade (I have memories of learning how to type using a special computer program/game and now kids are coding using minecraft) but as new ideas are introduced, there will always be a level of instruction.

    As for your questions about not knowing what other reference sources exited outside of dictionaries and encyclopedias, I think part of it may be due to the fact millennials seem to straddle the technological divide. I think we grew up in an interesting cross-section where online resources were becoming more and more accessible and there seemed to be a push to learn how to use these new resources more so than print materials and some of us may have had more experience than others in one or the other. I think I did more research online in middle and high school outside of my English classes but I still tended to write my papers out on looseleaf before typing them up to hand in. That also could just be my perspective of living at an intersection, I’m sure other generations feel the same but I just wouldn’t be too worried too much about not realizing there are more print reference materials than dictionaries and encyclopedias.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s