LES Blog

[This is the first post in a series of chapter-by-chapter discussions of the book ‘Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing Environment,’ edited by Kathleen Johnson and Steven Harris. ACRL Publications in Librarianship #60, 2009.]

So I’ve finished about half of the book and, despite taking some slack for posting it in my “Currently Reading” queue on Facebook, I am enjoying it so far. I particularly appreciate the perspectives of literature and rhet/comp faculty members on reshaping the way we teach literary research for a new generation of students.

Van Hillard, the director of the College Writing Program at Davidson College, begins the first chapter by discussing the ACRL Information Literacy Standards, which he finds to be useful guidelines but also problematic in several ways. First, they are “autonomous,” i.e., they are independent of any context for their use. Instead he argues for a “situated” view of information literacy, one in which “literate practices shape and are shaped by social, cultural, political and economic forces such that literacy events–a particular search for information, a specific occasion for composing an argument, a certain classification of a tradition of inquiry, the cataloguing of a monograph, the use and definition of a key term in writing–are understood as context-specific within the universe of social activities of knowledge production and reproduction.” Another problem comes with the very term “information literacy” itself:  while it is clear that librarians think in terms of “locating information,” those who teach and practice academic writing think in terms of evidence, analysis and argument, which “are typically not understood as predominantly informational in nature.” (13)

More to the point, Hillard sees in ACRL’s standards a set of skills the student is expected to acquire for the purpose of becoming a fully independent researcher. They stress efficiency in finding information, not critical skill at evaluating or incorporating it into the body of one’s argument, thus ignoring the fact that literacy is both social and “situated” in nature. By “situated information literacy,” Hillard means literacy that is made up of “events,” specific interactions between a user and the research tools designed to answer a specific question at a specific point in time. It is not a context-free skill, but one that is very much determined by the social/political/cultural context in which the researcher’s question is asked and answered. The context determines how and what information is created, acquired, organized and accessed; it is therefore impossible to ignore and offers opportunities for inquiry. Likewise, literacy is social because of those interactions, not just between the researcher and the text, but between the researcher and his fellow researchers (past, present and future), librarians, etc. who are also a part of the process. I found his description of the library as a social sphere especially inspiring:

“One starting place for such recovery comes with thinking of the library not as some vast storehouse of data, but rather as an elaborate argument, a site where users activate and reactivate conversations and disagreements across space and time… Every time a student enters the library (physically or virtually) she, in effect, involves herself in a vast community of participants whose exchanges represent traditions of inquiry, public controversies, disciplinary disputes, and schools of thought.” (16)

It’s a beautiful depiction of humanities research, in which the researcher joins a conversation that is already in progress. (Later in the book, Kate Koppelman’s chapter on “Literary Eavesdropping and the Socially Graceful Critic” elaborates on (and points out additional difficulties with) this same idea, but I’ll wait to discuss that.) Hillard’s point is that librarians and faculty should work together to “treat research not simply as contact with information, but as participation within the professional culture we call the library” (19). He concludes by giving some general suggestions for how this can be accomplished, but admits that “This is a project that undoubtedly will require time, energy, and resources.” The questions he asks about information literacy and the research culture have no easy answers, but I’m glad that someone is asking them.

What is your most recent publication?

A chapter in the book Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing Environment, ACRL Publications in Librarianship #60.   Co-written with Austin Booth, the chapter is entitled The Changing Nature of the Book: Literary Research, Cultural Studies, and the Digital Age.

How did you decide to write it?

The editors, Kathleen Johnson and Steven Harris, put out a call to the LES List asking for proposals from librarians interested in contributing to a publication about the challenges of teaching literary research in the twenty-first century.  At the time, our University libraries were going through many administrative and staffing changes.  My supervisor, the Director of Collections (who also had been the Literature liaison prior to me) was interested in writing about the way collections and reference was evolving.  Digital resources were becoming the main focus of our bibliographic instruction. As we reflected upon past teaching experiences and collaborations with faculty, we agreed that cultural studies had a tremendous influence on the English curriculum at the University at Buffalo and heavily influenced what we incorporated into our library workshops.  We assumed other librarians and faculty might be interested in some of our practical approaches.

What was the process that you went through?

We first had to write a proposal for a chapter.  Once we found out the chapter idea was accepted, the editors sent us guidelines to follow, including deadlines, format, style manuals, content/length, copyright permissions. We were instructed to model the chapter on the previous book sponsored by LES, Literature in English: A Guide for Librarians in the Digital Age (ACRL Publications in Librarianship #54). The book’s audience is meant for both academic librarians and English (or Modern Languages) Department faculty members.  Authors were instructed to explain any discipline-specific terminology in order to make their meaning clear to non-specialist readers and to avoid library jargon.

While Austin and I did some research to form the proposal, a lot more research and outlines followed before we came up with our first draft.  We had taught many literature-based information literacy classes and wanted to put together practical tips for literature librarians, while also providing some sort “conversation” about the changing nature of the book, and the influence of cultural studies on the English curriculum.  The chapter went through several editing stages before it actually was ready for publication. The first round of changes was the most difficult because we were told to shorten some sections, expand others, or provide more unique teaching examples.

Talk a bit about the publication.

The emergence of cultural studies as a theoretical framework for literary studies and the wealth of digital technologies available to humanities scholars has certainly changed how students and faculty teach and do research.  Alternative research methods include examining the production, distribution and consumption of literary texts in their sociohistorical contexts; studying canon formation and genre definition; and examining a wider array of material, including popular texts and non-written material such as film and hypertext productions. Our  chapter describes approaches to teaching literary research that explore the significance of cultural studies as well as the relationships among cultural studies, digital texts and information literacy standards.  We provide descriptions of classes and assignments that we used for English undergraduate and graduate students at UB.

What did you like most about the process/project?

The best part was that we were forced to re-evaluate some of our past teaching practices.  While most of our classes tend to benefit both the students and faculty, there is always room for improvement. Writing about class assignments or collaborations among faculty gave us more ideas for future projects. We also identified new ways librarians can incorporate the basic philosophy of the ACRL’s “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” into the English curriculum.

What did you like least?

Editing my own work was very difficult.  The editors made some very good comments about certain things that needed to be changed or revised.  Even constructive criticism is hard to acknowledge at first.  I thought it would be difficult co-writing a chapter, but it was actually a valuable experience.  I learned a lot from my writing partner, who had more experience working with our English faculty and also more knowledge about the history of cultural studies.  It also made the editing process less painful because we had one another to bounce ideas off of and we could proof each other’s work. Waiting for the final product to finally come out was a little frustrating because it took a few years for the actual book to be published.  However, most academic publications tend to go through a long publication process.

What suggestions would you have for LES members who would like to become involved in research and publication?

Most of my publications have come from calls for papers distributed through listservs.  Staying abreast of what topics are “hot” is very important.  Also, write about something you like to do-it makes the writing so much easier.  And if you have a co-author, make sure you know the author’s writing style and work ethic. You don’t want to have to do drastic editing to make the paper read smoothly. And you also do not want to carry all the weight.  Each writer should have an equal amount of work to contribute to the piece. I began writing book reviews for a journal that one of my colleagues edited.  That’s a good way to get into the writing mode and start to understand the publication process. You should look at a publication’s turn-around time if submitting to a scholarly journal.  Most people writing are on a tenure-track and need to publish to receive a promotion, so timing is important. And always understand the copyright provisions.  Authors should consider alternatives to the traditional modes of scholarly publication such as open-access journals.

Why is something like this important to you?

I always liked research and writing and being around books, so becoming a librarian seemed a natural fit.  Having an academic position is demanding in the sense that I am expected to teach, publish, do reference and collection development work as well join numerous university committees.   Finding time to write has become a top priority for me. Just knowing that the final product will be a contribution to the scholarship of the library field is both professionally and personally rewarding.

–Laura Taddeo, Humanities Librarian, University at Buffalo

Get ready everybody! The Literatures in English New Members Discussion Group forum is fast approaching.  We will gather in the Museum  Room of Denver’s Crowne Plaza Hotel on Saturday, Jan. 24th, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. to talk about anything and everything of concern to members new and old. We will seek the answers to age-old problems and emerging mysteries and hope to tap into both the wisdom and experience of our long-time members as well as the fresh and innovative perspective of our new members.  Bring your questions, problems, solutions, flashes of brilliance and genius, and join the conversation. Part of the forum will include a discussion centered around the theme, “If Only I’d Known When I Started!”.  Start thinking now about some of the things you wished you had known when you first started as a Humanities/English librarian (even if that start date was just last week).

If you have suggestions for topics you would like us to be sure and discuss, please drop a note to either Frank or Arianne, and we will weave them into the conversation.

And if you can’t make it to Midwinter, please feel free to post your thoughts in the comments of this post.  Hopefully we can also continue this discussion on the blog after Midwinter.

Thanks!

Co-chairs,  Frank Gravier (gravier@ucsc.edu) & Arianne Hartsell-Gundy (hartsea@muohio.edu)

     My colleagues and I just returned from lovely Monterrey, Mexico, where we presented at a conference which we co-organized with our “sister library” at the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (aka ITESM, or simply, “The Tec.”) The name of the conference was “Working Together: Librarians and Faculty Collaborating to Transform Student Learning” and over two full days presenters from the University of Maryland and the Tecnológico de Monterrey discussed various aspects of librarian-faculty collaboration. Altogether it was a wonderful experience, and I think everyone on both sides learned a great deal.

Our relationship with the Tec dates back to 2005, and has included a smaller “experience exchange” on library instruction, also held in Monterrey, as well as two visits by Tec personnel to our campus. We feel that the Tec has much expertise to offer us in the area of information technologies; in turn, their librarians are eager for our help to professionalize librarianship at the Tec and develop their system of liaison librarians. In addition, an interlibrary loan agreement will benefit both of our institutions.

If you are interested in finding a “sister library,” check out the ALA/IRRT Sister Library Initiative wiki–they have lots of great information about success stories, suggestions for activities, and, of course, a list of further resources.

What is your most recent publication?

The book is titled Literary Research and the Era of American Nationalism and Romanticism, part of the Scarecrow Press Literary Research Series. It was published in December of 2007.

How did you decide to write it?

For this series, there was a post to the LES list looking for people who were interested in working on the books. I responded for more information on the series. After looking at the first book in the series and corresponding with the editors, I decided to throw my name in for consideration.

What was the process that you went through?

For this book, I had to write a short proposal that summarized the anticipated content and organizational scheme of the book. I then had to submit a chapter outline that included representative examples of the types of resources that would be covered in each chapter. Once those submissions were approved, I received a contract, read it, signed it, and returned it to the publisher. Then, I started working on the book.

I had to do a lot of research before writing the book, and I was surprised at how much I learned during this process. It was fun to explore older resources that I sometimes tend to overlook in my own research and reference interactions. There are many useful and interesting bibliographies that were compiled decades ago. These types of resources allow researchers to uncover information about authors and works that may have faded in scholarly appeal over the years.

I followed the pattern established by Jenny Bowers and Peggy Keeran in their volume. They did an excellent job of speaking eloquently yet clearly to a wide variety of potential users. I tried to create a readable narrative that would connect the annotations in a logical and readable manner. Anyone who has ever created a pathfinder or research guide for a class can understand the challenge in writing annotations that don’t all sound the same. I forcibly expanded my vocabulary in order to more efficiently vary the discussion of resources.

Talk a bit about the publication.

The book and the series as a whole represent a much needed tool in literary research. The book is designed to be read as a cohesive whole, but it can also be read in parts. If someone only needs information of microform collections, for example, he or she can go to that one chapter for help.

My book deals with the literary output of the United States from nationhood to the threshold of the Civil War. Because literary scholarship increasingly expands its purview into cultural and historical studies, this book includes many resources that reach beyond traditional literary research tools—borrowing liberally from the standard tools belonging to other areas of scholarship.

What did you like most about the process/project?

I really felt that I was learning a great deal as I researched this book. As a result, I felt pretty confident in believing that the book would be a strong addition to the milieu of literary research.

What did you like least?

I never like to read my own work. Receiving the galleys was very exciting…having to read over 200 pages of my prose was a daunting task.

What suggestions would you have for LES members who would like to become involved in research and publication?

There is a great list of calls for papers on the University of Pennsylvania English Department’s web page at: http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/. I’ve ended up at many conferences after submitting papers to calls on this list. I’ve also written some encyclopedia articles for calls on this list. It was once am email service, but now you actually have to go to the page and look through the list. It’s also an archive, so you have to remember to check the dates for calls.

Why is something like this important to you?

I like research and writing, and I’m lucky to be at a university that supports those activities for its librarians. I like the sense that I am contributing to both literary research and to librarianship.

The Publications Committee is happy to announce a new feature on the LES Blog: Conversations with LES Authors.

By featuring these authors and their publications, we hope not only to bring attention to these informative works of scholarship, but also to help encourage others who may be interested in publishing to seek out opportunities and to learn from the experiences, successes, and mistakes of other section members.

Authors will start the conversation with a brief introduction to themselves and their work.  Afterward, members are encouraged to post comments and questions for the author by using the “comments” feature of the blog.  The authors will check back weekly and respond.

Our first author will be Angela Courtney. Angela is the Bibliographer for English Literatures, Film, Theatre, and Philosophy at Indiana University, Bloomington.  Before moving to Indiana, she was a senior reference librarian and the university archivist at Fairfield University.  Her career in libraries started at Auburn University in 1996 where she was the librarian for English literature.

Check back soon for our conversation with Angela.

It has arrived from Amazon (on pre-order since February)! The fifth edition of James Harner’s Literary Research Guide. Woot! I should have shot an unboxing video! Sure, get one for your reference collection, but you gotta have one sitting on your desk too! Essentially brain food for librarians of literatures in English (LLE).

A sad commentary on the state of humanities scholarship in academia:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/04/2008040401c/careers.html

We often think of the adjunct faculty situation as an unfortunate by-product of university funding.  Thinking of it as intentional exploitation starts to raise the blood pressure.

Well, aside from the additoinal reading below, that’s the end of my attempt to radicalize you.

Reading:

Bousquet, M. (2008). How the university works: higher education and the low-wage nation. New York: New York University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1997). The Cold War & the university: toward an intellectual history of the postwar years. New York: New Press.

Soley, L. C. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: the corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA: South End Press.

I’ve been thumbing my way through a couple different volumes in the Oxford “Very Short Introduction” series. (I only thumb these days, no actual reading!) They are quite attractive and useful works. We’ve bought quite a few volumes in the series. In fact, our head of reference has been keen for us to get the entire series. I’m not sure they warrant that much devotion, but it does strike me that they are a pretty good resource for librarians to learn more about literary genres and critical practices that they may not be familiar with. Brief, [fairly] authoritative, entertaining. Increase your reference skills and your collection development acumen at the same time. I am also a fan of Routledge’s “New Critical Idiom” series. I am less familiar with “Edinburgh Critical Guides,” but they look pretty good too.

Oxford Very Short Introductions

Routledge New Critical Idiom

Edinburgh Critical Guides