Just had an interview on Friday for the position of "Reference and Government Information Librarian" at the local public library. Although I've gotten used to being an academic librarian for the past few years, the job description (responsible for the government documents, electronic resources as well as the reference collection) sounds like something that I would do well at and really enjoy as well, as well as being a lot of work (which I don't mind of course). They said that it shouldn't be too long until they make their decision, so I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for them to contact me. I'm still applying for others whatever the case but it would great if I got this one.

How come it's exactly those events that you want to happen inspire in me a reaction that makes it even more difficult for it to come to pass? The more you want the job, the more nervous you are during the interview, and therefore the less "perfect" they see your effort at impressing them. I can speak in front of a class full of total strangers including professors, doctors, whatever, and have no problem, but the second I have to speak to a small group of people about how awesome I am at whatever, I feel the god (or demon rather) of chickening out descend on my little head.

Anyway, I feel good about this one. Wish me luck!

Labels: librarianship, thoughts, work

The Readius! Woah. Just play the video below to see this new product with a thin rollable, bendable screen in action. As I've read in a bunch of different places, this certainly seems like the technology to completely revolutionize the whole e-reading and handheld computing and communication industry. There's all sorts of talk about how the Readius can access not only ebooks but newspapers and other text sources all wirelessly and "seamlessly" but in my opinion, just the availability of a flexible computing surface like this is a huge step in getting more electronic "power" into small portable devices. Pretty cool.

Labels: reading, thoughts

Here's a link to the 43 page pdf document, "Information searches that solve problems" report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Can't we Canadians ever do anything ourselves? Sheesh.), but here's 4 of the 6 major findings from the executive summary (2 about gov docs and e-government... yawn) for those of you who are too lazy to read the whole thing... like me. LOL

• People use something called the Internet to get information! Duh.


• "Searchers usually end up satisfied." Yeah, and people flock to McDonald's... that doesn't mean they're getting what they need!


• "Libraries meet special needs." They say 'special needs' and then they talk about libraries being filled with people in their 20s. (Maybe this deserves some reading of the actual report.) I'm glad they're coming in and all but the people who really need information (doctors, politicians, teachers, parents, etc.) don't all fit in that category.


• Some people have access - others don't. Again, duh.

Not much new. Not much interesting. What really needs to be studied is why people don't want to read or learn or think any more (if they ever did). I think most of the world's problems would disappear if everyone just "chillaxed", became a little more aware of how things actually work and became a little more responsible for their own thoughts and beliefs. What we think and feel affects what we do, and therefore we need to be armed with the best raw material on which to base those thoughts and feelings so that the actions that burst forth make a little more sense and work a little better with everyone else's actions.

Can't we all just get along?!? LOL

Labels: internet, librarianship, thoughts

A few days ago, a colleague of mine remarked on how, being Jewish in an environment of mostly non-Jewish people she is usually called on to be the expert on her "people", how it really sets her apart, and how odd and sometimes uncomfortable that is.

Of course (being the completely self-centered person I am) I immediately tried to think about how this concept can be turned around and applied to me! LOL I'm not Jewish so that's out. In fact I'm not religious at all (I'm interested IN religion but am not a believer per se) and most people are if only just a little, but I don't think that really works either. But I am a male in a primarily female field (librarianship, for those of you not paying attention) and to some degree I can see how she feels. I take great care to communicate my non-stereotypically-male characteristics: I don't like sports, I don't drink (beer or otherwise), I'm a total spice-wuss, I'm not totally colur-blind, etc. but I still feel occasionally that I'm slotted into the "oh, he's just a guy" category. It's not vindictive and sometimes I play it up just to get a laugh. But there is slight pressure there to be the example guy in the room (there is one other male in the library out of 20 staff in total, so it's not all on me... lol) and a bit of barrier that I work at keeping down.

Or perhaps I don't know how she feels. I am not often specifically called on to be the expert on the male perspective and perhaps this feeling that I am an example is all of my own making. There are plenty of us guys around to examine and interogate so it's not like I'm a new concept to be explored or an issue to be tip-toed around. I can imagine this is probably how some "minorities" feel - like a specimen or a land mine depending on the level of comfort the people around them have - when all they want to be treated like is a regular Joe... er, Joan.

I don't know how I would feel in that situation. I like to point out and push out my differences (and eccentricities sometimes) but to have your difference(s) defined and thrust upon you might become tiresome and restrictive. We all want to belong somehow and to constantly be held at arms length for some stupid, superficial reason would be difficult to handle.

Labels: librarianship, thoughts, work

I haven't received any of these warnings recently but I have been sent and told about all sorts of warnings not to use certain products or not to do certain things with the barest of anecdotal evidence to support the claims. Here are two firm denials concerning a message being sent around about how the evil Swiffer is apparently killing our poor defenseless household companions: Swiffer WetJet Toxic to Pets? - Netlore Archive and ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center Responds to Swiffer Wet Jet Rumor.

This is a perfect example of why the general public needs more education in the areas of general science (particularly as it relates to health) and in critical thinking and information skills. The average person would read a message like the Swiffer one and would probably think, "I'm not sure that this is so but I love my pet more than I love using this commercial product so I'll stop using the product just in case." This is not entirely a poor line of thinking and would probably have a good outcome if it stopped there or made them more doubtful of other commercial products. But no. Most people take this message and internalize it, spreading it to all their friends and acquaintances, adding their own personal acceptance of the message to the already emotional weight of the warning. They will also go out and buy some competing product, because if WetJet's no good, they'll have to go out and buy the Clorox ReadyMop Mopping System! Cuz you can't live without some sort of mopping system! What did they do before mopping systems?!? lol

Labels: internet, reading, thoughts

Here's a good article about a librarian who's a "wiz" at answering questions and all about the telephone reference service that she works in: News - Reference librarian: Where to turn when you need an answer - sacbee.com

Reading this article brings me back to my previous job where I occasionally had to march down to the basement and sit at the telephone reference desk myself. This pics in the article make their space seem a little nicer than ours was but not much different other than that.

I don't know if I'd describe myself in a favourable a light as Ms. Owens in the article but wouldn't it be great if all librarians were seen as such problem solvers, such "know-it-alls" as they say in the article? Especially in public libraries... this is really the reputation that librarians should try to cultivate. But there are too many librarians that don't think that librarianship is really about that, to who I say, "What else do we really do then?!?" And LIS masters programs don't really push this image. Come to think of it, I don't remember having any image pushed at me in library school! That's a shame. Just like any university program, and the professional programs in particular, an important part of the curriculum should be pointing the graduates in the direction of bettering the profession. They don't seem to do this... at least not enough. LIS programs are not typically very long so time is certainly a factor but I would expect some time devoted to what makes a great contributor and example for the profession... what our goals should (or at least could) be.

(Here's another of those librarians-we-all-want-to-be: David Smith from NYPL)

Labels: librarianship, thoughts

White sheep vs black sheep: The turbulent Swiss election campaign (from Radio Netherlands Worldwide) - An article discussing the issue of the "Swiss People's Party" (SVP) election poster depicting 3 white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag, and the reaction that the public and the party's opponents have had to it: claiming that the poster smacks of racism (update) and Nazism.

Now I am certainly not an expert in politics, let alone Swiss politics, but as a librarian and a philosopher, I do fancy myself somewhat of an expert on meaningful and informative expressions. We are all (at least the English speaking of us) familiar with the idea of the "black sheep" (definition) as being the one in the family that the rest of them don't want. I suppose that's because real black sheep aren't very valuable because you're only going to get grey or black wool out of them - not very marketable. When someone uses that phrase, no one accuses them of racism, so why should a political poster be seen in that light?

But what about the idea they are trying to communicate - that criminals ought to be kicked out of the country? Ok, I don't think that that's the answer - that's just making it someone else's problem - but does anyone actually argue rationally against that? Not that I've seen. And that if they're too young to be kicked out alone, then their parents will be kicked out with them? That's not exactly what the Nazis did, but even it was, just because a evil person did something, doesn't mean it's pure evil too. Hitler was an artist (bio) but that doesn't make painting evil. (Although I have not seen any of his work so... LOL)

People need to argue against the issue, not the details surrounding the issue. But of course, it's so much easier to find a connection to something scandalous and dismiss the idea as foolish or insane. Like I said before, I don't think simply deporting individuals for committing crime would solve any of the problem. Maybe, in the short term, for Switzerland, it would, but if everyone did that, we'd quickly run out of places to put criminals. That doesn't solve the problem of crime, but rather ignores it. Problems don't go away if you don't look at them. And although parents SHOULD be held more accountable for the actions of their children, especially if parents are to be given final responsibility for their children's upbringing, flat-out "punishing" the entire family for the actions of one person will inevitably result in much hardship for the innocent.

Moral of the story: Don't be any colour of sheep. Especially when thinking.

Labels: reading, thoughts

It's funny what occurs to you when you take the time to just sit and think. I wonder if it's Secretary's Day.

Labels: funny, thoughts, work

So, I was sitting in my office at work thinking, "I wish I had a way to make blog entries quickly from other pages" -- online newspaper articles, other bloggers entries, cool sites, etc. -- and, as a lark, I typed in "blog this" into Google (in the vein of bookmark this and digg this, etc.). Lo and behold, the first link is to Blogger Help : What is BlogThis! ?. Problem solved. Way to go me! (With a little help from Google and Blogger, of course.) So, I just made this entry with the "BlogThis!" link. QED.

Labels: internet, thoughts, work

Let start by saying (again) that I do like Wikipedia. But (and here we go) I don't think people really know how to "use" it. And I don't mean, they don't know how to look up specific articles in it, or modify things in it, etc. I mean, people don't know how to treat it as an information source. The common complaint about it is that it's not "authoritative" like the Encyclopedia Britannica (the usual comparison). And then the retort to that is, "Well the Encyclopedia Britannica makes mistakes too!" I hate that. First of all, let's try to get along people, ok?

Second of all, that dismisses the whole value of both sources, particularly Wikipedia. And it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is, or rather, what it does for us. Take as an example, how people usually refer to information they find in Wikipedia. I'm reading along in the 2006-07 Annual Report for the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre (the Canadian part of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization successfully high quality, timely, and most importantly as near-certain as possible, health care evidence materials... read the first few pages of the report) and they refer to a description of Cochrane found in Wikipedia by saying "Wikipedia, the popular online community encyclopaedia states..." it. This is the common mistake. Wikipedia did not state it. A user of Wikipedia stated it. You may think, "Well, duh!", but this is an important distinction. Encyclopedia Britannica (the organization) is an entity that has taken on the responsibility for the information put forth in the Encyclopedia Britannica (the information source). Wikipedia has not. They can't. All they've done is provide a forum in which anyone can manipulate text, that happens to be in the form of an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that this makes it less truthly or trustworthy or authoritative, just that when you citing something in Wikipedia, the author isn't Wikipedia. It's "Chrismoore123" or "Thinboy00" or "Noodlenozzle", the user that typed it in. They're responsible. They're the source that you're judging authoritative or not. Individuals created the entries in Encyclopedia Britannica too, but Encyclopedia Britannica (the organization) has taken efforts to make sure those individuals are qualified and us readers trust them on that, or at least hold them responsible for their efforts.

One interesting difference is how time plays into judging the authority of these two sources. In Encyclopedia Britannica, we assume that the newer the information is, the better, the more accurate it is. Although in Wikipedia we do this to some extent too, it should also be seen that in a community where anyone and everyone can change anything and everything, the older the content is, that is the longer it's stayed around without anyone changing it, the better (or at least, most agreed upon) it probably is as well.

Labels: internet, librarianship, reading, thoughts

Excellent list of ways that we humans regularly and often unintentionally misunderstand or misrepresent the world around us. They're a little academic so it's good that there are links to some sort of definition (although I probably wouldn't have chosen Wikipedia for so many of them). Read through them if you can... I particularly like some of the comments, or rather am somewhat dismayed at the comments -- too many of them are needlessly critical or bring up unrelated issues.

My favourite is the first one that says that these are "26 things which differenciate humans from logic machines" and that it's "a partially upsetting, partially comforting list… i.e. it's ok to have human faults!" The very first sentence in the post describe these biases as things "that our minds commonly do to distort our own view of reality". It's ok to have a distorted view of reality? You're proud of it? Yes, there's very little we can do to avoid all errors and biases at all times, but isn't it a good idea to be aware of some of the ways we make those mistakes? Shouldn't we try to make fewer? Human limitations are not something to revel in, nor should they make us feel ashamed. They are to be seen as challenges, things to be accepted as natural and sometimes unavoidable but ultimately areas for improvement.

Am I right? Or did I commit one of those biases listed? Please tell me... I'll try to do better next time, I promise. LOL

Labels: internet, reading, thoughts

Watched The Agenda again tonight. It was one of those episodes that had me almost yelling at the TV! LOL It was about the fairness of publicly funding, in full, the Catholic schools in Ontario. Two Catholic representatives and the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress "argued" for inclusion of others faiths in this funding, and two other panelists on the side of having only one school system. I have to agree with having only one school system, for several reasons:

1. As the show asked and everyone there answered, there is an unfairness to having one belief system's education funded by our tax dollars, and all others given little or nothing. There are only two ways of resolving this: fund all equally (and I wrote about this at length on The Agenda's blog entry for this part of the show) or fund nothing but the non-religious public system.
2. As was also mentioned on the show, have separate schools, can only result in segregation and increased cultural mistrust and misunderstanding. Prejudice exists, in my mind, mainly due to lack of understanding and therefore wild assumptions and therefore fear and hatred. Although the gentleman from the London District Catholic School Board pointed out that religious schools regularly teach about other cultures and about tolerance and understanding, the only real way to see the similarities between us and respect the differences is to experience them. All the reading and teaching in the world can't make up for two culturally different children giggling behind the teacher's back together, sharing their lunches together, or eating paste together! LOL
3. And finally, my reason for many important things: why is it necessary at all? I don't see why Catholicism would need to teach their children math in the "Catholic way". Is Jewish science better than Buddhist science? Do Hindus believe history is fundamentally different than Muslims? Perhaps in interpretation yes, but in terms of facts, no. Yes, these different interpretations and viewpoints ought to be taught, but not to the exclusion of all other interpretations and viewpoints. In fact, that's probably the most important reason to teach about interpretations and viewpoints of certain facts, so that children learn that different ones exist.

If there's a problem with the public system, fix it. Don't run away and make your own. Come, join us. We need everyone's input and talent.

Now, I KNOW you've all got comments (or questions or cheers or hate mail) on this topic... Bring 'em on! LOL

Labels: thoughts

Tonight's "The Agenda" was about what we're going to argue about if/once the concepts of left and right are no longer on the table. Pretty interesting. But most of the discussion, rightly so, was actually based on what each panelist thought of the concepts of left and right. I don't really think any of them really got it. I think left v right is a little more basic and fundamental than government involvement v hands-off/minimal government. It's more like this, I think: The "right" sees the best outcomes coming naturally (or at least potentially naturally) out of much of what we do when left to our own devices. That human activities generally even themselves out to take care of the problems of the world. The "left" on the other hand feel that there is too much that falls through the cracks when humans act naturally, and that we have to act specifically to correct these problems, to help those who need it, and that aren't being helped by the others acting naturally. I think both of these extremes are true at times, depending on the situation: human processes do tend to be generally good and effective and self-regulating, that sometimes careless meddling can do more harm than good, but that it's too easy to be caught up in the momentum and miss the flaws in our systems, that we have to tweak the machinery and prod certain people to make it all work a little better.

What do you think?

Labels: thoughts

Just finished watching an episode of The Agenda about the issue of banning trans fat, whether it is the best way to fight against unhealthy behaviour, but the debate seemed a little one-sided, and not in a particularly reasonable way either.

It started off well, with details about what trans fats are, where they're found and what has been or will be done about the problem. However, when it got into the real issue: whether banning (as is done in NYC, Denmark, and possibly soon in Toronto) is the best way to help people, the discussion seemed to go down a rather narrow and frustrating path.

Nadiim Esmail from The Fraser Institute, brought up the comparison of banning versus education as the means of reducing trans fat in the public diet. And he spoke of the issue on a seemingly much higher level than the rest of the panel. The other four immediately disagreed with him, so much so that they eventually returned to simply stating, as William Smith said, "I just disagree." No attempt to take on the issue that Nadiim brought up, that banning trans fat, deals ONLY with trans fat, that why were we choosing that particular issue when there are other closely related issues such as saturated fats as well, and that it brings us down the road of government protecting citizens from their own actions.

Several guests said that banning trans fats was a "no brainer". Certainly in the short term it is: it will certainly, as they all acclaimed, reduce trans fat usage, and improve out health. But where do you stop? If you ban trans fat because of the undeniable and immediate health benefits, then why don't we ban smoking? That would undoubtedly make everyone's health improve. It wouldn't happen because there would be a public outrage. The real answer to Nadiim's point is not that banning is simply better than education, but that education doesn't work because people don't want to think. Banning is a "no brainer" because it allows us not to have to think about what we are shoving into our mouths.

One possible better way to explain Nadiim's point is that banning trans fat would be like banning benzene in cigarettes, assuming that there is something that could replace the "great taste" of benzene in your cigs. LOL Benzene is bad for you. Removing it from cigarettes would certainly improve the health of smokers. But aren't there all sorts of other things in cigarettes that are bad? What you want is for people to stop smoking. In the trans fat example, what you want is for people to stop eating so many french fries. Taking out the trans fat in foods doesn't miraculously make fries health food! But that's what a ban on trans fat says. By pointing out one particular bad thing, you are raising it's importance, resulting in the neglect of any other bad things.

There's only two ways to effectively ban things like trans fat: all or none. Maybe a third: to somehow draw a line where you think banning should stop/start, that there must be x amount of risk to ban something. If you don't, then all government will ban are those things that the industry doesn't mind banning. Lynn Silver from New York said specifically that the restaurants had no problem with the idea of the ban. That's because it's a free advertising concept, an opportunity to reduce on of their biggest barriers to increased profit: the idea that pleasure eating is unhealthy. Well, despite the improved message that's it's ok, it's still not ok. We still all need to be better prepared to judge what we eat. We may not want to be nutritionists, but no one is responsible for what I eat (or what my children eat) except for me, regardless of any helpful ban that exists.

Read more on TVO's blog entry on the topic.

Labels: health, thoughts

Long simple day at work today. I received an email requesting advice/help with a search yesterday that was described as being for a systematic review. Now, in medicine, systematic reviews are the cream of the crop in terms of documentation/publication. They take a lot of research (in the literature), a lot of care, a great deal of analysis, are incredibly practical and focused, and are meant to be regularly and eternally updated. I thought, "Yes! I'm going to really do a good job on this and be part of something really useful!" I worked all day preparing the search, checking definitions, finding subject headings and synonyms to ensure that the search would be comprehensive, and I wrote back to the requester mid-stride to make sure they were aware of what I was doing and what they could expect. Also, for stats purposes I wanted to know whether they were faculty or professional health care staff... Near the end of the day I get a response saying that they are a student actually working on an assignment that they will be handing in (the first part of, anyway) to US!!! All that work for someone I can't do the work for! Gaaahhhh!!! Well, hopefully their supervisor (this person is on a work assignment outside of the school doing this research) is the one doing the systematic review so that I can at least give the work to someone. Maybe. Who knows. At least it was a good experience and the next time a request like that comes in I have learned a few tricks and tips to help me do an even better job!

It's funny though. This really came at an appropriate time. I have been thinking lately about how I (and other librarians) really should do "more work" helping our users. Not that librarians don't already do a lot of work, or that we have loads of extra time on our hands. I just feel as though we could (and should) be doing more impressive work for our users. For example, not many libraries do literature searches for their patrons. Many, if they do, charge for the service. Bracken Library here at Queen's University does this for staff and faculty and health care professionals for free (at least on an individual level). But even though these are time consuming, difficult, and usually much better than the user could have done alone, sometimes I feel as though we're still not doing enough. I discussed this with a colleague of mine and I'm not as confident in this opinion as I was... I'm not quite sure what exactly we could do more, given our time and education restraints, but I feel as though we are not quite as impressive as I know we could be. Or perhaps I'm just feeling as though I could do more and wish I had the opportunity. I don't know.

On a completely unrelated note, I've been playing the free beta version of Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) for the past week or so. It's not bad. World of Warcraft (WoW) is still my favourite but I can definitely see how someone could like LOTRO more. The graphics (of the environment) are much more impressive (flowing grass, more realistic animal behavior, etc), the quests and activities, etc. are much more involved, serious and have many more layers than WoW. But there're still some things that are keeping me in WoW: the interface graphics are much nicer and clearer, the world seems much bigger and full of more possibilities, and there are vastly more people using it making the experience a little more varied in terms of interactions and socialization. They both have jerks and morons who cheat, swear, hate, disturb others, or don't play "fair" although I'm surprised at the numbers of these players who have swarmed into LOTRO already. I'll play it until I have to pay, and then move on to another free demo/trial edition: Final Fantasy, Matrix Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Trek Online (whenever that comes out), etc.

My daughter is suffering from a bad headache right now. Well, actually she's probably asleep now but she was feeling pretty bad before she went to bed a while ago. Aren't headaches about the worst kind of pain you can imagine? It hurts sometimes just to think, and try not thinking for a while! Go on, try it. LOL Unfortunately, migraines seem to be common on both my side of the family and my wife's.

And I just finished watching my current favourite show on TV now: TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin". Not for the faint of heart, or rather, mind. A political show, but one that deals with issues calmly, rationally, and intelligently. Today's show discussed France's upcoming presidential election, and the recent provincial vote in Quebec. One of the leading candidates in France (in second place no less) is a woman, who, if elected, would be the first female president in France's history. It always dismays and confuses me why, in this day and age why (US, Canadian, European, etc.) political leaders are still always white and male. Are voters the last to be able to see past our prejudices? And an interesting last note in the French election portion of the show was some comments about the animosity France has for the States, talking about how France sees itself as having once what America has now, and that it represents for France both their worst fears and their best dreams for their future. At the end of the discussion about Quebec politics, one of the "panelists" spoke of how Quebecers tend to vote for and respect intellectual candidates more than Ontarians (gawd, what a mouthful). I think this is a trend throughout Western society (and probably the whole world), that we seem to be getting smarter on average and yet we still despise or at least avoid intelligence. Quebec may be able to fend this bad habit off a bit more, thanks to a language barrier between them and us english-speaking troglodytes but we'll bring them over to the dark side yet! LOL Finally, at the end of the show, Steve spoke with one of the producers of the show, which totally cracked me up. Following on the heals of the anti-intellectualism comment, it was brought up that the producer had (and has) spoken to guests on the show about words they cannot use: "narcissism" and "ontological" being two examples of words that "don't travel well". Writing this down now makes me wonder why I totally cracked up at this at the time! LOL

Labels: family, funny, librarianship, thoughts, work

Check out this entry from InfoTangle. Warning: It's incredibly long (for a blog entry) but it's totally worth it. It's a great summary of some of the trends, changes, new tools and new concepts in web design now such as drag-and-drop functionality, use of bold colours and bold shapes, and navigation by "heat map". Some old hat stuff for those who are paying attention, but it's always great to see it summarized so succinctly. (Found via this entry on Tame The Web.)

What I have to say about all this is that there are two reasons a user visits a site (and I'm really focusing on library web sites here but I think it can be generalized), or rather two situations they are in when they come to a site: they either have time or they don't. They are either there to find something they need or they are browsing and wandering around. In the first case, your site must be simple and straightforward. They are looking for what they want and if they don't find it within microseconds, they'll get fed up and leave. In the second case, intricacy is often preferred, or at least enough "stuff" to entertain, to tempt, even to confuse temporarily. These two design guidelines are somewhat contradictory but they can be used simulataneously. Obviously the first case takes priority: navigation must be simple. But then you can fancy the rest of the pages up with some interesting images, tools, interactivity, etc. as long as they don't crowd out the simple navigation. It's a fine line, but I have faith in you... LOL

Labels: internet, thoughts

Max continues to get up several time during the night and managed to, for the past two mornings, end up in bed with us without knowing until it was too late. I swear he's now hardwired to get up and stumble over (with incredibly ninja stealthing abilities) to our room.

Listening to Pink Floyd's "Coming Back to Life". I remember listening to this in university, alone in my dorm room. It starts out as a very "pity me", "how could you" kind of song but then turns into "Damn straight, screw you, I'm gonna make it" kind of song.

Did a HUGE literature search for a faculty member/resident/grad student (not sure really... it's very complicated... LOL) yesterday on zinc. Yes zinc. That's pretty much all I had to go on. Rather broad don't you think. Just RCTs and reviews of course, but still. Now you're jealous of my fantabulous job, aren't you?

The fire alarm went off yesterday... Thank GAWD it was a pretty nice day, weather-wise.

Found out that a co-worker of mine is pregnant. Congratulations and good luck and all that, yeah, yeah... go on maternity leave already so I can stay at Bracken a little longer please!!! LOL

Watched a couple webcast/webinars today. One on the databases Expanded Academic ASAP and Academic OneFile (didn't learn much new, already played around with them a few weeks ago), but the other one was about getting new knowledge to clinicians more and faster (see a summary of the session). We thought, "Hey, that sounds like libraries should and would be involved in that. Nope. He didn't really put librarianship in too flattering a light. In fact, he put us in a column of other "ways for doctors to stay current that DON'T work". Thanks, Bri.

But in a way I agree with him. We don't do enough. We do a lot of work, and, what we do, I think we do well. But when it comes to pushing the information out to the users, changing people's minds about the value of good research practices, helping answer the questions that people have and may not even know that they have, we're not pushing hard enough. Most of the time we're not pushing at all. We need to be proactive, to be out there in people's faces, showing them that we exist, that we are valuable, and that we want to help. We can't always wait for them to come to us. That may sound odd from a librarian, but we need to be "loud and proud" and prove out worth. But it will take more work and smarter work for us to do it. But we can. I hope we will.

Labels: family, librarianship, music, thoughts, work

This news item makes me think of the whole "no sex ed is the best sex ed" theory -- people thinking that if we give kids information about sex they'll go out and have more of it... That's like saying that despite all the signs out there that point to a particular minefield nearby, the best way to keep people out of it is not to mention it. That way no one is tempted to go and play in it! Oh, and screw anyone that accidentally goes there or doesn't recognize the dangers of a minefield! LOL

Of course the article doesn't mention any of this. It's your standard, "things are getting better but there's more work to be done" political statement...

Labels: reading, thoughts

This news item talks about a study done to see if providing individuals with a primer on health risks and interventions would help them understand those risks and interventions. (See Steven Woloshin et al. "The Effectiveness of a Primer to Help People Understand Risk: Two Randomized Trials in Distinct Populations" Ann Intern Med, Feb 2007; 146: 256 - 265.) Not bad but it's on a pretty high level... it would have been better to test particular methods of teaching within the primer than testing the effectiveness of the primer as a whole. What they basically proved was giving people info about something helped most of them learn a little more about something. And although they say there's never been any study like this, I highly doubt that. There's certainly work on effectiveness of teaching materials and methods in the education literature. Maybe there's never been anything done specifically in the area of learning about health risks assessment but surely this can be generalized.

Labels: reading, thoughts