NextGen Librarians: Interviews with RUSA Interns

Diana D. Shonrock, President

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Because I knew the goals of my Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) presidency would cluster around encouraging membership by new librarians, I took the opportunity as vice president of RUSA to appoint interns to all the RUSA-level committees and to nominate some for American Library Association-level (ALA) committees. My second column takes a peek at the people who filled these positions. I will outline the interns’ opinions relating to Millennial and NextGen librarians and their characteristics and discuss their views about librarianship, both as it exists today and its prospects for the future. In addition to being termed NextGen or Millennial Generation, this demographic cohort is sometimes referred to as NetGen or Gen Y.¹ I would like to thank the new RUSA committee interns for their time in responding to my questionnaire, and I would also like to thank Megan Perez, who is the RUSA Spectrum Scholar this year, for his comments relating to their responses. (The list of questions is included in the appendix.) Some of the interns’ thoughts and ideas, along with Megan’s, are included throughout this piece.

In the July/August 2005 issue of Public Libraries, Features Editor Renée Vaillancourt McGrath wrote about Tecker Consultants’ analysis of Millennials (which Tecker Consultants defines as the generation born between 1983 and 1993) as “the digital generation.”² She notes that Tecker Consultants reports that younger generations:

• want to be part of a highly motivated team of committed people;
• thrive where they can be who they are and express themselves;
• want to work closely with and learn from colleagues they respect;
• want to socialize and form friendships; and
• set goals big enough to engage their imagination.³

Many of these characteristics make the Millennial Generation good organizational members. McGrath then argues:

younger generations will join associations not because they have to, but because they really want to. They seek life challenges that match their skills and interests. They are also looking to contribute to something greater than what individuals can accomplish alone, as well as human connections that make work fun.⁴

Certainly some of what McGrath and others like Rachel Singer Gordon, who writes and edits the NextGen column for Library Journal, say is true. I admit that for the most part these new librarians are technologically savvy, but how different are they from the Baby Boomer librarians, like myself, who they will be replacing? For the purposes of this column, I thought it would be interesting to examine several characteristics of NextGen librarians. In the process, I would like to consider several aspects and characteristics of being a new librarian–according to both what the literature is saying about them and what they are saying about themselves. My discussion will focus on the following aspects of NextGen librarians: their library school experience, their motivation for joining ALA and RUSA, and their attitudes about the future, including the changes the profession will undergo, and their feelings about what will remain the same.

Library School Experiences

Of the fourteen responses I received from the new RUSA committee interns, all were demographically NextGen or Millennial in age, and all but one have been practicing professional librarians for between one and three years (although a couple of them are second-career new librarians). Their current positions are all in academic libraries of varying sizes and locations; several have past experience in public libraries either as students, paraprofessionals, or professional librarians. The library schools they attended were located across the country from east to west and north to south, and all but one did some type of internship or practicum. In addition, two had been paraprofessionals before going to library school to earn an MLS. For most, the experience they received from their practicum, paraprofessional days, or assistantship was listed as the single most important part of their library education learning experience. The areas where they worked during these experiences included reference (in three cases, in a public library), instruction, creation of online guides, teaching, and even (in three cases) cataloging and digitizing of materials. What most felt they had missed out on was information about budgeting and collection development. A couple of interns mentioned they did not expect needing to know “how to be a liaison to an academic department” in their new jobs.

Some of the interns’ responses are perhaps best explained by the work of Stephen Bell and John Shank, who suggest that the modern day librarian is a “blended librarian” (http://blendedlibrarian.org).⁵ The term “blended librarian” reflects the need for librarians to juggle multiple tasks in their positions; now, more than ever before, new librarians are being asked to be multifaceted librarians, responsible for reference, instruction, collection development, and information technology all at once. Several of the interns’ comments centered on the importance of the internship or assistantship in demonstrating this aspect of librarianship. One intern noted that, “The program seemed far too general; none of the classes went in-depth enough to prepare me for the workplace. It did, however, acquaint me with the principles of librarianship.” Another said, “It was hard to decide whether to concentrate in one area or spread yourself thin in a lot of different areas. I chose the latter and was disappointed.” Still another (perhaps not to be unexpected) said, “Despite my work at the library, I started my first position still not fully understanding what exactly I would do all day as a librarian. I was not at all prepared for my work as a liaison to an academic department.” Megan, too, noted that work experience while a student was critical both in its own right and in combination with coursework. One person who had been part of a new online program said, “[I] felt it failed to provide the distance students with an environment of community.” Megan, who is currently a student, noted that the responses to this question probably depended a lot on the library school and the individual, that the respondents somehow saw theory as negative if there was no practical to complement it. He felt that the important comment here was that “despite preparing students well, online programs did not provide students with a sense of community.”

Motivation for Joining ALA and RUSA

Another telling piece of information revealed by the interns’ responses was that only four of the respondents had had any orientation to professional organizations during their library school experiences, and for most that was optional. RUSA is hopeful that its new RUSA Ambassador Program, which is taking RUSA members into library schools to discuss professional organizations, will serve to increase this participation in RUSA. A couple of the respondents indicated that instructors and mentors (and in one case, someone they met during a practicum) encouraged them to get involved in ALA. Interestingly enough, more than half of these interns were initially nominated for their intern positions either by former library school instructors or experienced librarians where they are now employed, who saw my call for nominations and volunteers on a discussion list.

So what do new librarians expect from their organizational memberships? Tecker Consultants, during a workshop I attended, suggests that members expect their organizations to use technology for the following purposes:

• to identify and anticipate their needs;
• to give them instant, easy access to useful knowledge;
• to enable them to actively participate in the work and decision-making of the association; and
• to create a sense of community that fosters attachment and connection.⁶

Of the RUSA interns, three respondents mentioned being student members of ALA. The interns’ motivations for joining ALA and RUSA after graduation varied and included such reasons as:

• staying engaged in the profession;
• meeting tenure requirements;
• participating in discussions with colleagues;
• being part of the future of the profession;
• avoiding getting left behind professionally;
• adding to a “weak” resume; and
• sampling library organizations.

Perhaps some of their comments are simply reflective of their status as NextGen librarians. One person said, “I felt I wasn’t a complete librarian without an involvement in my professional organization. RUSA’s related to my job and I thought this was also [a] way of connecting and sharing ideas with other professionals doing the same thing as I do.” McGrath cites research by Tecker Consultants that indicates that it is difficult for organizations to attract younger members because:

• programs are not relevant enough for younger
  members;
• programs are not interactive or hands-on;
• it takes too long to get involved;
• leadership opportunities are not accessible;
• associations are not open to new ideas; and
• associations are not welcoming to new members.⁷

To some extent, what Tecker Consultants says about the difficulty of attracting and keeping younger members is born out by some things the interns said. One remarked, “At the moment I’m sampling library organizations. Based on my experience, what I’d tell new library students is that there’s a wide range of organizations out there–if something doesn’t fit, keep looking and something out there will.” Megan felt these responses were “quite honest.” He noted that most responses were fairly typical and expected: to network, to keep up with the latest trends, to stay engaged, to connect with and learn from the more experienced members of the profession, and so on. However, responses indicating a need to serve the profession as part of a tenure-track requirement or to have something to add to a weak resume surprised him, as did the one respondent who admitted to “sampling” library organizations.

Although the rationale may have seemed surprising to other NextGen members, it is what such writers as McGrath and Richard T. Sweeney have expected. According to Mark Levin:

Whatever the underlying reason, baby boomers carried their need to network into the mainstream of membership organizations in every industry, profession, and community. As Generation Next questions the value of participation in association leadership, the generation that gets credit for the whole concept of challenging values is now having its own values challenged. Virtually every trade association, professional society, social-service organization, and community group is seeing a (sometimes dramatic) reduction in the involvement of young people.⁸

While the first step may be to get the NextGen librarians to join an organization, the important next step will be keeping them involved and letting the strings of leadership fall into their care. Now that these new librarians are involved in RUSA, we must make it relevant for them to be involved–that is, more than something to be merely “sampled” and discarded. This very topic was the subject of a brainstorming session at the 2006 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio that resulted in suggestions for ways to engage and keep these NextGen librarians involved in our organization. The high-priority items identified during this session included:

• targeting communications for new librarians,
• publicizing new opportunities
• emphasizing benefits of face-to-face communication,
• promoting participation in the RUSA Ambassador Program to reach library school students, and
• incorporating more of the new technology, for example, blogs, wikis, and online communities.⁹
• Some of these ideas will come to fruition during the coming year.

Pages: 1 2