I learned a lot about information literacy in elementary school and high school, because it interested me and because I paid attention. Many of my peers absorbed very little, and integrated very little of it into their adult lives. Maybe the new standards will change that for this generation, and I hope they will since it would be to society’s great benefit. Sadly, none of it will make a difference at all if our legislators keep putting school librarians out of a job, like they are in my county and nationwide.

It’s great being a sherpa, but a sherpa who doesn’t understand the tools out there isn’t credible, and increasingly I think sherpas who can’t also build some tools are going to find themselves without enough work to do.

(And I do agree that lots of people need sherpas but if, as you say, they don’t know that — because what they see is the base of a mountain with trails and tools on it, and what they don’t see is the cloudy tops of that mountain and their own climbing skills — they’re not going to go looking for sherpas, either. Comes to the same thing either way for the sherpa.)

This post was mentioned on Twitter by librarianbyday: RT @wawoodworthThe Reports of Our Professional Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated http://bit.ly/9oQDd2 #library…

But the idea that engineers and programmers who build the programs and the systems are the sherpas? Nuh-uh. Maybe we have a different understanding of the meaning of sherpa.

The sherpa is the GUIDE… We don’t have to build the databases and search tools, we don’t have to KNOW how to build them. We just need to be knowledgeable enough about the what data is out there, and where/how to access it. So much data is still invisible (or nearly so), hard to find, difficult to access, and lacking in context. Not only do many library customers not know where to look for or how to find information (beyond putting words into Google), they often don’t have enough information to know what they *don’t know*. They might not even have a conception or a mental model of the types of finding tools and resources available, so it wouldn’t even occur to them to look for them.

I know things have changed somewhat since 1997 when I worked at the EPA helping lawyers, scientists, students and politicians navigate the many little-known, and hard-to-use databases in search of environmental data sets, articles, government reports, rules, regulations, etc. BUT they haven’t changed *that* much. There are still a gazillion badly-designed databases chock full of oodles of useful information that most people will never find. Are you saying that an engineer or a programmer is better positioned than a librarian to be the sherpa, guiding our customers through these rocky and unpredictable information terrains?

If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree.

Recognizing that we have been for many years dealing with the explosion of the Internet and the “well known automated tool[s]” for information access, and finally realizing that the Internet did not “totally” replace the librarian, librarians today at least still have a slim lead in the evaluation of information sources, accuracy, validity, value, bias, etc. skills, and can therefore offer those services to the Digital Immigrant patrons, and some less well skilled Digital Natives.

That situation appears to be coming to an end, based on the initiatives of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, American Association of School Librarians, and other sources.

These future developments should give librarians cause to pause to consider their future, and their role in that future.

I do think, on reflection, that CS and LIS approaches cannot both be subsumed into a sherpa role. They don’t fit into the same metaphor. LIS, sherpa, sure; CS, maybe more of a trailblazer, providing people with unmediated (or seemingly unmediated) access to data. My concern here is that even when people need sherpas they’ll go for open trails (we’re humans; we satisfice, no matter how meticulous and shiny the sherpa).

But more so, I don’t think it’s possible to be an effective, or credible, data sherpa without a sound understanding of the data landscape, and I don’t see that understanding being taught in my program — in fact sometimes I see the opposite.

That said…there is many a slip ‘twixt a curriculum standard and widespread proficiency. And didn’t I just see some report on how widespread technology use among digital natives doesn’t actually imply any sort of widespread conceptual understanding? Rather in the way that people of my generation can, legendarily, program the VCRs our parents could not, but that doesn’t mean most of us can build or explain them.

I also do not see the two roles combining into one super role. To me, it seems that it would be too much to take on, and with the technology changing at such a rapid rate people would not be able to both build the structure and help others with such consistency. I do believe librarians have a role and that the role is relevant to others. Admittedly, this is wishful thinking, but I’m standing by it, darn it!