In the article I alluded to earlier, Smith points out that models of service, supported by research, exist, but are not implemented in practice. He concludes “If staffs are to do better at providing readers’ advisory service, librarianship must find a way of moving these models from print into practice.” Further, he says “Continuing education and staff development are two strategies used to address these needs. … First, the profession needs to identify and define the nature of the readers’ advisory role. Library staff members need a map of readers’ advisory practice. Secondly, a means of transmitting this map to practitioners is needed so that they can change the way they provide readers’ advisory service.”25 Because we have excellent training programs and continuing education activities, the academy has, in many cases, perceived of readers’ advisory as just that: a technical skill that can be gained in the workplace.
MLIS programs frame their responsibilities and goals in terms of education. Education tends to focus on general principles and applications to practice and is oriented toward the long term. Training focuses on the skills and techniques needed to solve immediate problems. As noted above, the four areas of readers’ advisory competencies Smith identifies are reflected in all readers’ advisory courses. But the individual competencies that are listed are very straightforward and skills-based.26If readers’ advisory courses are to gain greater credence in LIS programs, the conceptual and research-based underpinnings must be acknowledged and emphasized. Certainly, Smith has contributed to this literature, as have several others who have been at the forefront of the resurgence of readers’ advisory services. Yet we constantly hear the phrase “training for readers’ advisory” and much of the literature is for staff training and continuing professional education. I do not mean to suggest that continuing education and staff training are unimportant and should not be pursued, merely that the role of MLIS programs is education, not training, and arguments for inclusion of readers’ advisory courses will be more effective if not framed in terms of training and skills.
Time Pressures
Many LIS programs find that they are trying to include too much in too short a time. With a growing knowledge base, smaller faculties, and programs limited to as few as thirty-six hours (twelve courses), many programs are pushed to capacity and can offer few opportunities for specialization. Further, readers’ advisory courses may be quite intense for faculty, as they are frequently very popular and usually require a fairly significant workload. In particular, online courses that encourage chat as a means of talking about books can be overwhelming. One faculty member reported that her student’s comments on the discussion board often were longer than the assigned books.
(Lack of ) Demand from the Field
While we often deplore the perceived lack of appreciation in MLIS programs, it appears that this only mirrors observations about the lesser value placed on leisure reading by librarians in the field. While some employers, as some educators, place high value on readers’ advisory services and education, this is not true of all librarians. Library directors have demonstrated an increased preference for beginning librarians who are technologically savvy and management ready. Mary K. Chelton (never one to mince words) asserts that
public librarians understand readers and their uses of and gratifications from reading rather poorly … [they] seem to have moved from their nineteenth-century view of actively demeaning “sensational fiction” to a posture of chronic devaluation of books and related media that present occasions for narrative experiences. … Public librarians now say that public libraries are about “information,” but consistently deny knowledge of or the will to act on the knowledge of the possibility for social and self-information contained in narrative stories.27
Process-Based Standards
The ALA “Standards for Accreditation” are qualitative, not quantitative, and are process-driven rather than prescriptive.28Each school must develop its own goals and objectives based on the foundations of the field and ongoing planning processes. This allows for considerable variation in the specific ways in which the standards are addressed. Schools that do not choose to emphasize public library service would not logically give much attention to readers’ advisory services, just as some schools do not offer courses in health informatics or law librarianship.
Suggested Strategies for Promoting Readers’ Advisory in MLIS Programs
Consideration of the issues discussed above suggests several strategies and avenues for promoting readers’ advisory in MLIS programs. If there is indeed demand from the field for more attention to readers’ advisory, it should be made known. The RUSA CODES Readers’ Advisory Committee or PLA can develop standards and guidelines to articulate expectations for service and to guide education. Standard II Curriculum of the Standards for Accreditation states that “The design of specialized learning experiences takes into account the statements of knowledge and competencies developed by relevant professional organizations.”29 Employers (library directors) can voice their demand for expertise in readers’ advisory service by serving on schools’ advisory committees and by offering input. Both Standard I Mission, Goals and Objectives, and Standard II Curriculum state that evaluation involves “those served by the program: students, faculty, employers, alumni, and other constituents.”30
Individuals can continue to contribute to the conversation through publication and engagement in association activities. The truly dedicated may volunteer to serve on a committee on accreditation external review panel. Those who can may choose to submit a proposal for teaching a readers’ advisory course or offer to guest lecture. Others may offer their libraries as laboratories for teaching and research.
Conclusion
A growing body of research, resource materials, refl ective practice, and creative pedagogies will sustain the readers’ advisory renaissance. Although there are challenges in practice and in education that should be addressed, readers’ advisory service is an exciting and expanding field that brings together librarians, educators, and researchers in their commitment to connect readers with the stories that enrich their lives and our world.
Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to Barry Trott, Adult Services Director, Williamsburg Regional Library, 7770 Croaker Rd., Williamsburg, VA 23188; e-mail: btrott@mail.wrl.org.
Connie Van Fleet is Professor, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman.