 |
 |
Some of us have been doing a good job introducing new concepts and processes by writing to, or discussing with, fellow librarians. Many of us have been in the situation where a librarian who doesn't want a change (i.e. add homework and work for her/his load) would hide that by saying 'I don't understand, let's discuss it some more, reach a consensus', etc. Alas, those who refuse a change can be re-programmed only by the administration. Anything else is a democratic waste of our time. Ya'aqov Ziso On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Peter Schlumpf wrote: > > > And you are correct in pointing out that the natural response of > librarians to a problem is to seek consensus in a self-absorbed way. Form > committees and all that nonsense which never goes anywhere. They are happy > enough going around in circles, like the Nowhere Man making all his nowhere > plans for nobody. > > The above certainly does seem to jive with my experience. Going around in > circles. Endless consensus. Librarianship could use a bit more democracy > and/or science to their (our) method. At the same time I agree that "E V E R > Y T H I N G ! ! !" is wrong with the profession creating our own language. > > -- > EL Morgano > -- ya'aQov