Thursday, November 29, 2012

Bibliometrics & Citation Analysis as a Tool

Bibliometrics is an important part of the LIS field and the Information Literacy toolbox (Larivière, 2012).
Bibliometric data is compiled using a citation index and the two leading ones are Thompson Reuters’ Web of Science or Elsevier’s Scopus (see e.g., WoS found at /products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/) .  These two services look at citations of scholarly scientific articles and determine their “impact” by the number of times each is cited, where it is cited, and so forth.  Scholarly journals are also tracked this way (DeBellis, 2009; Larivière, 2012). 
While bibliometrics is a general term, there are other related metrics such as scientometrics.  “Scientometrics is the measurement of science communication, and bibliometrics deals with more general information processes” (Patra, Bhattacharya, & Verma, 2006). 
While it all sounds confusing, bibliometrics and scientometrics are widely used in the LIS field today.
Citation analysis helps researchers understand what are the best journals and resources from which to get their information.  I thinks its important today with the proliferation of open source journals and electronic publishing. 

As an analogy, I wouldn't know anything about buying a good car.  They all look the same.  Four tires, an engine, doors, etc.  However, there is a whole industry dedicated to telling us which are the best and safest cars. 

The same with citation analysis.  Which journals are the best?  Which academic discoveries (big or small) are firmly rooted in good science?   This is all done through citation analysis. 

It's also a good tool for self-evaluation.  Many times a journal will make an editorial decision based on an article's "impact factor".  This keeps out research that is done just to get published which is often the case when dealing with institutions that survive on grant money. 

Now, as the literature suggests (Larivière, 2012), citation analysis and bibliometrics is not as accurate in the social sciences and humanities field because the nature of scholarship is different.  SSH disseminates its knowledge differently than the natural sciences but it can still be a useful tool (Patra, Bhattacharya, & Verma, 2006). 

In the end, we should not think of citation analysis as "cheating" but an important part of Information Literacy.  How do we know the different between what is returned from an academic library search and a Google Scholar search, which doesn't do as well with citation analysis?  Tools like bibliometrics, scientometrics and citation analysis.
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis : From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press. 
Larivière, V. (2012). The Decade of Metrics? Examining the Evolution of Metrics Within and Outside LIS. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 38(6), 12-17.
Patra, S., Bhattacharya, P., & Verma, N. (2006). Bibliometric Study of Literature on Bibliometrics. DESIDOC Bulletin Of Information Technology, 26(1), 27-32. 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Values, Rights, and Ethics in Librarianship

The values, ethics, and rights in the field of librarianship are an intersecting web of ideas designed to guide librarians and information professionals in their duties.  In fact, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Code of Ethics and the ALA Bill of Rights form the foundation for ethical conduct (Rubin, 2010, p. 427).   

For example, all three systems advance the idea that censorship is detrimental.  Gorman’s revision of Ranganathan’s Laws provides for the protection of access to truth (Rubin, pp. 409-410).  Articles III and IV of the ALA Bill of Rights specifically state that censorship should be challenged (ALA, 1996).  Finally, Provision II of the Code of Ethics requires that “We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources” (ALA, 2008). 

Another area of overlap deals with the issue of privacy.  The ALA Core Values of Librarianship (2004) states that “Protecting user privacy and confidentiality is necessary for intellectual freedom and fundamental to the ethics and practice of librarianship” (ALA, 2004).  The third provision in the Code  similarly states that “We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted” (ALA, 2008). 

While these and the other tenets that make up the ethical foundation of librarianship are general guidelines, a few of the issues listed above are easy to identify and defend.  For example, we should all agree that the overriding principles are freedom of access and intellectual freedom (Rubin, 2010, p. 427).  However, the more difficult ethical issues are the ones that may come up daily. 

The first issue is the Fifth Value:

“The public good – libraries make a positive contribution to society by promoting literacy, providing information, preserving the cultural record, etc.  This requires us to reach out to all, regardless of age, economic status, cultural background, etc.”  The problem posed is simple and one that can arise everyday:  “[D]o we provide the same level of service to someone who asks for help with a homework assignment as we do someone who asks for help using Facebook?” 

The first instinct would be to choose the patron requesting homework help over the patron asking for help with homework.  However, given no other information that would elevate one choice over the other (i.e., the Facebook page is for a group of illiterate orphans or that the homework is worth half the grade), such a choice is difficult because we don’t have the ability to fall back on the “righteousness” of intellectual freedom. 

While intellectual freedom is the cornerstone, I would submit that the polestar of librarianship should be the value of service.  According to Rubin, librarianship is more than meeting an information need (p. 405).  According to Butler (1951) as cited in Rubin (2010), “[t]he librarian undertakes to supply literature on any and every subject to any and every citizen, for any and every purpose” (p. 406).  Thus, according our value of service, there can be no distinction between helping a patron with homework or with Facebook.

I feel comfortable with this and with the foundations of our ethical behavior.  We should look at all ethical issues wearing our “service-orientated eyeglasses”. In that it is the one value that permeates all of the others.  In fact, I appreciate the fact that most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights and the Code of Ethics are positive statements (i.e., “We shall”) as opposed to negative statements on conduct (i.e., “We shall not”). 


American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of Rights, intfreedom/librarybill, accessed on November 7, 2012.

American Library Association. (2004). Core values of librarianship,, accessed on November 17, 2012.

American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association,, accessed on November 17, 2012. 

Butler, P. (1951). Librarianship as a profession.  In Richard E. Rubin, Foundations of Library and Information Science (3rd Ed., p. 406). New York: Neal-Schuman. 

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science (3rd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Service - Our Most Important Value

I think that the value of service is important to the profession because it separates librarians from other information professionals.  Additionally, the requirement of service as an ethical obligation is a foundation for the other values and requirements under the Code (ALA, 2004, 2008). 

Without the value of service, I would submit that the profession would be very different.  In fact, a large number of librarians don’t deal directly with the public.  Areas such as technical services, archives, and collection development do not normally deal with patron on a daily basis.  However, “equitable” and “unbiased” service is important if the rest of the library is to function properly. 

So while the main value we cherish is intellectual freedom (Rubin, 2010, p. 427), I would argue that the one consistent value is “to place the needs of the client above all other concerns” (Rubin, p. 426). 

In fact, I would argue that the service element is so pervasive in all of the other provisions, that without the First Provision, they become weaker (ALA, 2008).  In short, I would argue that in interpreting the Code and the Library Bill of Rights, they should be interpreted in light of the value of service.  Should there be any close calls regarding what is or is not ethical (value driven) behavior, the question should be decided in favor of whichever choice grants better and equitable service. 


American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of Rights, intfreedom/librarybill, accessed on November 7, 2012. 

American Library Association. (2004). Core values of librarianship,, accessed on November 17, 2012. 

American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association,, accessed on November 17, 2012. 

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science (3rd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Is it Black and White or more “Grey”?

In order to survive one must have a plan and I think it is not only insightful, it is necessary (Asato, 2011).  I’m not sure how often censorship matters come up in the public library setting today.  When I was working in a public library, we didn’t have many controversies, at least ones I can remeber.  However, as I posted previously, the Fifty Shades of Grey caused quite a stir in some Florida counties this past year. 

So it may be easy to say “I would stand for intellectual freedom,” but could we today as we navigate our lives during the worst financial crisis in generations?  It’s a point worth thinking about for our institutions and ourselves.  We have mortgages, car payments.  Some of us have children.  We all have bills to pay.  Would we really be expected to lose our jobs over a Fifty Shades of Grey?  Would we be willing to sacrifice public funding over Fifty Shades of Grey?  Is this book “important” enough or do we pick our battles and wait for “better literature”? 

We can look to the past for guidance.  Two areas of censorship are fascinating and possibly quite disturbing.  The first occurred immediately after World War II in response to the growing “Red Scare” and the rise of McCarthyism.  The second involves the post-9/11 threat and the removal of GPO documents.

During the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the New York Public Library and its librarians often came under attack because of the content of its holdings or because of some associations it had with scholars (Francoeur, 2011).  The library was able to weather these storms and “survive” by taking a pragmatic approach.  When its personnel was attacked using “red-baiting techniques” it vigorously defended them.  Many times, however, when general attacks were levied in the press, it would use the influence of its powerful board members to obtain relief, usually through retractions.  When interest groups challenged its holdings, the NYPL would hide behind bureaucratic language in giving a vague response.  Lastly, when controversy appeared to be on the horizon, the NYPL would quietly change its conduct to avoid drawing its attention to itself and its “questionable” holdings (Francoeur, 2011). 

So in this drastically repressive age, the NYPL survived by being flexible.  It should be noted that the library never destroyed or banned any of its “questionable” material.  It just hid them.

More recently are our experiences with the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA).  After the events of 9/11, the federal government sought expanded surveillance powers.  In casting its net, the USAPA targeted libraries as an area of concern because of the availability of computer terminals for public use and the nature of the library as a repository of information, some of it governmental. 

Libraries were uniquely aware of such situations after the problems with the Library Awareness Program  (Matz, 2008).  They challenged such governmental invasions of privacy as required by the ALA Code of Ethics (ALA, 1996, 2004, 2008).  In 2002, the ALA had adopted guidelines for dealing with government requests for information.  When the ALA raised issues with the USAPA, Attorney general John Ashcroft dismissed them as “breathless reports and baseless hysteria” (Matz, 2008, p. 77). 

Unfortunately, in 2005, breathless and hysterical librarians in Connecticut were issued with a request for information that included a gag order, prohibiting them from discussing the case or even the fact that they were litigants in Doe v. Gonzales, the style of the case after the Connecticut library consortium decided to challenge the request.  Eventually the consortium was successful in court. 

The response of the Connecticut library consortium was helped by the fact that the ALA had guidelines in place for government requests and had been constantly educating its membership regarding the USAPA.  It took a lot of personal courage by the librarians because if they violated the gag order, they were subject to criminal penalties (Matz, 2008). 

However, could we do the same if the stakes were not so high?  What if it didn’t involve such weighty constitutional issues?  Would we be willing to lose our jobs for a romance novel?  Perhaps the answer isn’t black and white, but “grey”. 


American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of Rights, intfreedom/librarybill, accessed on November 7, 2012.

American Library Association. (2004). Core values of librarianship,, accessed on November 17, 2012. 

American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association,, accessed on November 17, 2012. 

Asato, N. (2011). The Origins of the Freedom to Read Foundation: Public Librarians' Campaign to Establish a Legal Defense against Library Censorship. Public Library Quarterly, 30(4), 286-306. doi:10.1080/01616846.2011.625598 

Francoeur, S. (2011). Prudence and Controversy: The New York Public Library Response to Post-War Anti-Communist Pressures. Library & Information History, 27(3), 140-160.

Matz, C. (2008). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act: Values in Conflict. Journal Of Library Administration, 47(3/4), 69-87.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Ulysses - A Short History of Censorship

“[T]he answer will be that it is filthy and filthy books are not allowed to be imported into this country." (Casado, 2000, p. 484) 

That’s usually how these things start and with Ulysses, James Joyce’s masterpiece, there was no exception.  What is unusual, however, is the way and magnitude with which the issue was settled. 

Allow me to be a little more personal with this post because I thoroughly enjoy the subject.  As a professed and incurable bibliophile, collecting Ulysses is my passion.  I own twelve separate printings of this work .  Why?  Because, fortunately for us, Joyce was a constant (and horrible) editor, sometimes correcting the wrong manuscript. So each printing is different (Slocum, J. & Cahoon, H., 1971). 

When I read the ALA website, I was stunned at the paucity of information for Ulysses which simply states: “Burned in the U.S. (1918), Ireland (1922), Canada (1922), England (1923) and banned in England (1929) (ALA, n.d.). 

Ulysses was not only burned, it was banned, seized and zealously burned with enthusiastic fervor. 

By the time the censors finished their work, Ulysses had virtually been banned in the entire English-speaking world.  This unity in action prompted a comment from Joyce that this should make him eligible for a Nobel peace prize (Vanderham, 1998, p.4). 

The censorship history of Ulysses is essentially a history of its publication.  Perhaps no modern book from the outset received so much scrutiny from censors where it substantially affected its entire publication and printing history. 

Due to its questionable content, Joyce was unable to get a printer in England (Casado, 2002). Thus, Ulysses first began as a serialization in March 1918 in Margaret Anderson’s literary magazine The Little Review (Ellman, 1982, p. 421) for which Joyce would write one chapter and then have it printed.  Surprisingly, the first hint of censorship came not from the authorities but from fellow author and foreign editor for The Little Review Ezra Pound who proposed several edits to keep it from being censured by the U.S. authorities.  Joyce often refused (Vanderham, p.18). 

Eventually, Ulysses was seized on four separate occasions by the U.S. Post Office between 1918 and 1920, before serialization ended in December of that year, leaving the last four chapters unprinted.  This was due both to an accident of circumstance and by purposeful intent. 

When The Little Review began serialization, the magazine was already under the watchful eye of the U.S. government as being a politically subversive magazine.  With World War I in the backdrop, anarchists and communists were spreading their propaganda.  Thus, by 1917, The Little Review was being monitored by the time the first installment of Ulysses was mailed.  By January of 1920, the U.S. Post office had seized and destroyed copies of The Little Review three times (Vanderham, p. 2). 

Margaret Anderson chanced on a fourth and sent an unsolicited copy of the July –August 1920 issue to the daughter of a prominent New York lawyer.  She was appalled by its language.  The distraught father complained to District Attorney Joseph Forrester and John Sumner from the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice (Vanderham, p. 38).  The editors of The Little Review were charged under section 211 of the Criminal Code and trial was scheduled (Casado, 2002, p. 91).  John Quinn, counsel for the editors argued that Ulysses did not provoke immoral desires, citing as evidence the fact that the District Attorney had just read portions of the offending text into evidence without any desirous effect.  The judges laughed at this argument and then convicted Anderson, fining her $50 and prohibiting her from publishing any more of the book.  Ulysses was thus banned in the United States (Vanderham, p.3). 

Ulysses met the same fate in England when the Deputy of Public Prosecutions declared the book to be obscene.  This was done despite the fact that he admits “I have not had the time nor, I may add, the inclination to read through this book.”  (Casado, 2000, p.483).  By January of 1923, England had declared the Book undesirable and began seizing it from the posts under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876.  Ireland and Australia had done likewise.  A formal ban, which was irrelevant because it could not be printed or imported into England, came later. 

By the 1930’s, Ulysses had been printed in France and Germany, included some very famous unauthorized copies.  Several scholarly works analyzing Ulysses were written, all for a book that could not be read. 

Seeing its literary value, Bennet Cerf of Random House hired famed civil rights lawyer Morris Ernst to litigate the issue of its exclusion.  Ernst obtained a copy of the Paris edition of Ulysses, had numerous scholarly reviews of the work pasted inside the front cover, and had it imported into the United States, making sure that it was seized by U.S. Customs, and then litigated the seizure (Vanderham, p.88). 

Ernst’s defense was radical.  He did not try to argue that the book was not obscene as had countless other attorneys defending previously seized books.  Using one piece of evidence, the copy of Ulysses with the critical reviews pasted into it, Ernst argued that it was a piece of esthetic art.  Because there is no obscene art, Ulysses cannot fit the definition of obscenity under the statute (Vanderham, p.97).  After trial and briefing on the point, Judge John M. Woolsey ruled in favor of Random House, declaring that Ulysses was not obscene in December of 1933.  More importantly, by siding with Ernst’s argument, Woolsey declared that since Ulysses was a piece of esthetic literature, it could not be banned.  Judge Woolsey’s opinion was so powerful that Cerf had it reprinted in the very beginning of the Random House edition.  The next year, Ireland lifted its ban, with England following in 1934.  The rest of the English-speaking world soon followed (Vanderham, p. 5). 
 (Marilyn taking a break)

Ulysses, sometimes called the longest day in literature, marks a turning point in the history of censorship.  By successfully advancing an esthetic theory of literature, wholesale national banning of books through prior restraint would become more difficult in the future. 


American Library Association.  (n.d.)Banned and/or challenged books from the Radcliffe Publishing Course top 100 novels of the 20th century,, accessed on November 7, 2012. 

American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of Rights, intfreedom/librarybill, accessed on November 7, 2012.  

Casado, C. (2000). Sifting through Censorship: The British Home Office "Ulysses" Files (1922-1936). James Joyce Quarterly, 37(3), 479-508. 

Casado, C. (2002). Legal Prudery: The Case of “Ulysses”. Journal of Modern Literature, 26(1), 90-98. 

Ellman, R. (1982). James Joyce. Oxford University Press: New York. 

Slocum, J. & Cahoon, H. (1971). A Bibliography of James Joyce [1882-1941].  Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 

Vanderham, P. (1998). James Joyce and Censureship. New York: New York University Press.


Saturday, November 10, 2012

Search behavior is an important field in library science.  LIS professionals are responsible for the classification, storage, and retrieval of information.  As each of these areas become more complex, search behavior and strategies are evolving into more sophisticated exercises with definable patterns (Ercegovac, 2008). 

A person’s search behavior or choice of strategy is based on four factors:  task, time, interest, and availability (Singer, 2012, p.1).  During a search, one factor can become dominant, affecting both the quality of the search and the behavior of the searcher. 

Rubin (2010) describes one model of search behavior in which individuals are classified into five different groups:  Horizontal Information Seeking, Navigators, Viewers, Squirreling Behavior, and Checkers.  Other researchers classify the way people search as strategies (Singer, 2012) and classify them as either steps or preferred methods.  

Academics focus on two competing models of search behavior or strategy (Baro, 2010).  According to Ellis (1989) a searcher uses six actions: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting.  Kulthau’s (1994) Information search Process (ISP) utilizes six stages of searching:  initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation.  

By understanding the way patrons search for information, we as librarians can tailor our services to meet their needs.  Of all the services we offer (eg., reference, job-search help, reading suggestions) I submit that the task of Information Literacy is the most important. 

Why?  With the proliferation of information now available on the web, most patron searches begin on the web (Zickuhr, 2012).  In addition, the mission statements of today’s libraries are now focusing on patron “self-reliance” (USF, 2007; Rubin, 2010).  Thus, if more people are becoming more self-reliant (as opposed to asking a librarian for the information directly) then I submit that our primary goal should be learning how our patrons search and our primary service should be helping them understand what is the best information to use. 


Baro, E. E., Onyenania, G. O., & Osaheni, O. (2010). Information seeking behaviour of undergraduate students in the humanities in three universities in Nigeria. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 76, 109-117. 

Ellis, D. 1989. A behavioral model for information retrieval system design, journal of Information Science, 15: 237-247. 

Ercegovac, Z. (2008). Information Literacy : Search Strategies, Tools & Resources for High School Students and College Freshmen. Linworth Pub. 

Kuhlhau, CC. 1994. Seeking meaning: a proeess approaeh to library and information serviees. Nowood, N.J.: Abex.

Lesk, M. (2005). Understanding Digital Libraries. Elsevier. 

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science (3rd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman. 

Singer, K., Singer, G., Lepik, K., Norbisrath, U., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2012). Search Strategies of Library Search Experts,, accessed on October 28, 2012. 

University of South Florida. (2007). USF Libraries Strategic Plan: 2007-2012. Tampa, Florida. 

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). Libraries, patrons, and e-books. Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 22, 2012 2012/06/22/libraries-patrons-and-e-books/, accessed on September 9, 2012.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Missions of Libraries - USF and Pasco County

Public libraries have broad missions, visions, and values (Rubin, 2010, pp. 173-174).  These can differ based on the size of the population and the type of community they serve (p. 174). Pasco County, Florida, is a small rural community north of Hillsborough County and the metropolitan city of Tampa.  Similar to most systems, Pasco County administers its libraries through a cooperative.  The mission for the Pasco County Library Cooperative (2012) is one which: 

 “Attracts and satisfies customers through outstanding and responsive customer service, an excellent selection of materials and resources, and an environment that encourages personal and community betterment.” (p.15) 

Apart from the mission statement, Pasco County embraces six “strategic focus areas”:  discovery, collaboration, technology, creation, spaces, and awareness.  These strategic focus areas complement and expand upon the American Library Association’s eight roles for public libraries discussed in Rubin (pp. 173-174) without overextending itself. 

By focusing on spaces, Pasco Libraries are focusing on the library as “a community gathering place” (Rubin, p. 178).  Svanhild & Ragnar (2012) found that library patrons tended to socialize more than bookstore customers because they greater sense of “ownership” of the library and treated it as their own. 

The strategic focus of “create” is interesting in that Pasco County is not only seeking to store media content (Rubin, p. 11-8) but is striving to be a place where patrons can “create content” such as videos, presentations, music, and art  By focusing on collaboration, Pasco also is expanding its new role as an “e-government gateway” similar to other public library systems (Jaeger & Fleischnann, 2007) .  

In Summary, the vision, value and mission statement of the Pasco County Library Cooperative is consistent with a small community library that is well supported by the community. 

Academic libraries have a specific purpose to serve those students where the library is located (p. 200).  They also provide a service to the academic community at large by engaging in scholarship and building collections that go beyond the needs of the campus for which they serve (University of South Florida, 2007).  In fact, there is a trend for libraries to go “more global” (USF, 2007; Rubin, 2010, p. 200). 

The USF library system has five libraries and a budget of $17.5 million (USF, p. 1).  Its mission is “to become a globally recognized academic library system advancing knowledge through integrated resources, responsive services, research, and instruction” (p. 2).  It seeks to implement this mission through five strategic goals. 

A few of these strategic goals were interesting.  First, while there was an emphasis on “patron self-reliance” (p. 3) consistent with Outsell (2003a) described in Rubin (p.  200), there was no information literacy program specifically mentioned that would help achieve this goal.  Second, two of the strategic goals focused on the acquisition of interdisciplinary academic and special collections.  Again, this was consistent with Rubin (p. 200) but surprising in that the interdisciplinary academic collection goal was announced as late as 2007.  Regarding the specific special collection areas announced in the strategic goal, the focus has shifted away from “Floridiana” and others such as Medieval studies and cartography to holocaust and genocide studies (B.Lewis, personal communication, September 11, 2012).  This change was surprising. 

The most fascinating mission statement I found, however, was the fairly nondescript one from the Harry Ransom Center (2012) at the University of Austin.  It states: 

“The central mission of the Ransom Center is to advance the study of the arts and humanities. To this end, the Center: Acquires original cultural material for the purposes of scholarship, education, and delight; Preserves and makes accessible these creations of our cultural heritage through the highest standards of cataloging, conservation, and collection management; Supports research through public services, symposia, publications, and fellowships; Provides education and enrichment for scholars, students, and the public at large through exhibitions, public performances, and lectures.” 

As Basbanes (1995) points out, the HRC went on a buying spree funded by Texas oil money from 1956 to where in 1970 it was considered one of the top 5 libraries.  Today it boasts one of the largest collections of manuscripts and letters from the great nineteenth and twentieth century writers.  Its policy of aggressive acquisition has led some to criticize the HRC but, in the end, it ranks as one of the greatest repositories of modern literature. 


Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin. (2012). Mission and History. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from 

Jaeger, P. T., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Public libraries, values, trust, and e-Government. Information Technology & Libraries, 26, 34-43. 

Pasco County Library Cooperative. (2012).  2012-2015 strategic vision.  Retrieved October 5, 2012, from 

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science (3rd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman. 

Svanhild, A., & Ragnar, A. (2012). Use of library space and the library as place. Library And Information Science Research, 34,138-149. 

University of South Florida. (2007). USF Libraries Strategic Plan: 2007-2012. Tampa, Florida.

New Series of Posts

Beginning today I will be publishing a series of posts based on the discussions we have as MLIS students.  I will try and cover those opportunities and challenges affecting the profession such as Web 2.0 functionality, the internet, Google, DRM, and others as they arise.

Even though they are conversations, I will endeavour to add the appropriate citations and references whenever possible.