Defining a New Information Professional

LIANZA’s website states those that can use the New Information Professional Category as those that, “having started Library career within the last 24months, valid 3yrs”.

I’m intrigued by this, as I am with most definitions, as I like to deconstruct terms to help with my own understanding of it.

The point that I’m most intrigued by is the,

“having started Library career…”

When can you define when you start a library career?  Me, being the tenacious person I am (thank you Sally) always wants to get the best deal and I would’ve liked to have gotten in on this category if I hadn’t been a personal member for hmm 4 years, 5 years is it?  And if I hadn’t already written on the interwebs in numerous places that I started my Library career, well… more than 5 years ago, then I might’ve been able to get in on it.

How have you defined when you started your library career?

Or how will you define when you start your library career?

How do you know when you’re a librarian?

How do you know when you’re not new anymore?

I really feel like I’m in neverland sometimes. I’m not really a labels or tag person. I’m not one and and I’m not the other. I just am. If people want to say I’m a new professional then I’m fine with that. If people want to say I’m a youngun, that’s fine too. If people want to say I’m a techie, then sure, say that too (I’m not really – but wait, what’s a “techie” defined as??).

Maybe I should just put the dictionary down and think less…

Dictionary
Photo by Greeblie on Flickr

 

Finger on the pulse?

I wrote this before I gave birth to my first child in May of 2012. Interesting what you think is realistic before having children.

—–

How important is it *really* to have your finger on the pulse?

What happens to the blood supply when you take your finger away?
Is the blood your blood, or is it everyone else’s that you’re trying to keep a handle on?

So many analogies! I could keep going. Alright I will, and lets bring some context to it so I’m not just talking about blood and guts.

Lets say the pulse, is the heart of the library and information profession and sharing community. The “th thmp th thmp th thmp th thmp th thmp th thmp th thmp” is the regular flow of information and conversation between individuals and organisations, people that are proactively *doing shit* in the industry, to further us so we’re not seen as still in the doldrums.

The blood is …. hrmmmm the blood is…. conversation.  The blood is conversation and communication and people, aaall that stuff that makes up blood (I’m not a med student)

Over the past week I’ve unsubscribed from at least 15 different news sources and listservs.  Just this morning I unsubscribed from:

That’s a fair chunk of information coming right to my inbox every day right there.  With Peanut on the way in the next few weeks, I want to have as little as possible in my inbox.  And even then, I only want contact from real people.

Yep, my finger is still going to be on the pulse for the next 12 months.  I’m just not going to be bothered reading every Tom, Dick and Harry’s post, thought, promo, or conversation.  And I’m ok with that.  Am actually quite looking forward to it.

Besides, I’ve decided to use this next 12 months to work (concentrate?) on one or two projects (other than Peanut) that have some depth to them, rather like what I worked on with Alison Fields last year with our ALIALibTec presentation.

More completed readings today (Monday)

Reading 1.4

The one with the term infopunditry….

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information (pp. ix-xxiv). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Highlighted quotes from this one:

Bots, then, are impressive at identifying people as one of a certain type. People, by contrast, are impressive at identifying others as individuals and dealing with them in context – a complex, highly situated form of interaction that computers are unable to replicate.

– The author is letting us know that human interaction is never going to go out of fashion when compared to computers. No replacement on the horizon yet for face to face communication (yusss).

Pundits often talk in terms of replacement, but as often as not new technologies augment or enhance existing tools and practices rather than replace them.

Defintions of augument and pundit.

Storage does not correlate with significance, nor volume with value. Standing atop gigabytes, terabytes, and even exabytes of information will not necessarily help us see further. It may only put our heads further into the clouds.

I liked this one because it made me think of cloud computing.

Innovation is often developed in the productive management of related tension between emergent practice and formal process.

 

Where many old technologies inherently forced people together in factories, office buildings, schools, and libraries, new ones tempt them to stay apart, working for organizations without working in one, joining schools or libraries without going to one. … for certain aspects of work and learning, encounters with peers or mentors, while no longer inevitable, remain invaluable. (Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. xix) 

 

The printing revolution, in short, involved social organization, legal innovation, and the institutional creativity to develop what appears now as the simple book and the self-evident information it contains. Contrary to assumptions that all it takes is technological innovation, a digital revolution too will need similar nontechnological innovations to fulfill its potential. (Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. xx-xxi) 

 

The fact that people can go online doesn’t necessarily mean that at every opportunity they will or they should. (Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. xxii)