Librarianship in the Information Age
1
L564: Computerization in Society
Rachel Radom
Librarianship in the Information Age: Do We Need Librarians?
Introduction
“Do we need libraries?” This question has been asked repeatedly ever since the Internet
became common in middle-income American households. The question seems to pit libraries
against the Internet, although most librarians will admit that the Internet has made much of their
work easier and is useful as a tool. (The author, therefore, has no qualms in verifying that the
phrase “do we need libraries” is found in hundreds of web pages indexed by Google.)
Librarians, unsurprisingly affirmative in response to the question, may justify their answer in a
number of ways: not all materials are available on the Internet, not all people have access to the
Internet, libraries provide books, periodicals and other materials for free to everyone, librarians
are knowledgeable in finding good information--that is, accurate, credible, authoritative
information--fairly quickly, and so on (ALA, 2005).
Library and information science literature likewise highlights that library circulation
records are high, that there is often a queue to use libraries’ public computers, and that people
who buy books are among the most regular users of libraries (Webster, 2002). While there are
many instances of libraries closing due to lack of funding (Buffalo and Erie County Public
Library in New York is just one recent example), there are also stories of community fundraising
efforts and tax referenda to ensure that libraries will stay open (as in Bedford, Texas). Whether
the reference is to academic libraries, which provide access to astronomically expensive serials
and serials databases to researchers, or public libraries, where popular fiction, nonfiction, and
audio/visual materials are free to borrow and access to the Internet is free, it is obvious that the
desire for library materials is high and that there is a significant number of people with an
interest in libraries that is strong enough to ensure the institution’s survival for many years to
come.
So, if the answer to the question posed above is that many groups of people do need, or at
least want, libraries, why is the question still asked? Perhaps it is because the question, “do we
need libraries?” is not the right one. A better question may be “do we need librarians?”
Librarianship in the Information Age
2
At this point, it may be difficult to prevent an instinctual professional self-preservation
from taking over and insist that, of course, librarians are necessary; but once the initial panic
recedes and defensiveness is held in check, the current or aspiring librarian might consider the
following:

recent advertisements for library directorships and administrative positions list
experience in business and finance as part of their preferred qualifications; one message
posted on the PUBLIB listserv in December 2005 was a job listing for an Executive
Director of the Ohio Public Library Information Network that required an MBA, MPA,
or MLS (note that the MLS is last in the list)

in the face of municipal and federal budget cuts, library administrators must find outside
funding sources, ranging from grants to corporate donations; this requires skills often
beyond the pale of library science curricula (Rehman, 2003; Warner, 1999)

outsourcing traditional library technical services, such as cataloging, is on the rise
(Ebbinghouse, 2002)

hiring freezes on professional library staff are not uncommon and have resulted in a
dramatic increase in and dependence upon library support staff (Moran, 2004) as well as
a greater number of temporary professional positions (Maatta, 2004)

the amount of information on the Internet is increasing, with Project Gutenberg and
Google Book Search addressing growing interest in making library materials available on
the Internet in digital format
As this list suggests, the future of librarianship is not simply related to the Internet, or to
any one particular issue, but is situated in and influenced by larger society. Therefore, in
considering the question “do we need librarians?” it may be useful to think about the role of
libraries and librarians in society. To do so, it is helpful to begin by examining several
influential theories of society and, in particular, the so-called “information society,” as they
relate to librarianship.
The Information Society and the Public Sphere
After reviewing many prominent thinkers’ theories of contemporary society, Frank
Webster (2002) concludes that the phrase “information society” is a misnomer insofar as it is
used to describe late 20th- and early 21st-century society as a completely new era, unique and
separate from earlier ages; however, Webster does acknowledge that information is available to
Librarianship in the Information Age
3
most people today in unprecedented amounts and both the availability and amount of
information are defining features of our culture. Webster refers to this cultural shift towards
information as the “informatisation of life” (2002, p. 29) and it is possible due to the
development of information and communications technologies (ICTs) and, in particular, the
Internet.
The Internet is frequently touted as a great equalizer, where hierarchies are flattened and
people can exchange information and ideas without barriers or restrictions. Framed in these
terms, the Internet is closely related to Jurgen Habermas’s theory of the “public sphere,”
succinctly summarized by Peter Dahlgren (2004) as “consist[ing] of the institutional space where
political will formation takes place, via the unfettered flow of relevant information and ideas” (p.
33). Dahlgren elaborates that, “...fundamentally, the notion of the public sphere invites us to
reflect upon the relationships among media, communications, and democracy” (p. 35) because
the public sphere is intimately tied to the cultivation of rational debate.
Within the library profession, there has been recent attention to the theoretical foundation
of libraries in terms related to the public sphere. Oldenburg’s (1989) theory of the “third place,”
a place for people to gather that is neither home nor work, as well as Robert Putnam’s (2000)
desire for places that foster and increase social capital, have led librarians and library advocates
such as Nancy Kranich (2001), Ronald McCabe (2001), Katherine de la Pena McCook (2000),
and Diantha Schull (2004) to reintroduce a focus on the civic and social mission of libraries. In
McCabe’s words, civic librarianship “seeks to strengthen communities through developmental
strategies that renew the public library’s mission of education for a democratic society” (2001, p.
77).
Intrinsically associated with rational debate and the unfettered flow of information, this
civic mission of libraries is not new. McCabe’s definition is influenced by 19th century library
missions and by the Enlightenment belief in education as a means of realizing a true and
informed democracy. Whether or not librarians agree with the participatory undercurrents of
civic librarianship, the ideas of education and democracy are part of the bedrock of library
history and still influence professional purpose. Like libraries, the Internet also offers significant
opportunities for educational and democratic experiences. Their shared potentials for education
and communication make both libraries and the Internet into potential public spheres. While
Dahlgren admits that “as with the traditional mass media...the public sphere generally on the
Librarianship in the Information Age
4
Internet is small in scale compared to the growing space occupied by the market” (p. 50), he goes
on to say that “despite these structural constraints, the Net does make a positive contribution to
the public sphere and has the potential to do even more” (p. 50), with Dahlgren’s examples of
“even more” including the ability to create communicative spaces, collectively generate new
spaces, move between communicative spaces, and customize news. The Internet is essential and,
at the same time, analogous to the library as a resource and as a potential public sphere.
Yet it is unclear whether actual Internet usage reflects this role of the Internet as one form
of public sphere. It is not simply web content creators with profit motives that limit this potential
for, clearly, there is a huge market for e-commerce, evident in the popularity of sites such as EBay or Amazon and the ubiquity of pop-up advertisements. For librarians promoting a social
mission, a relevant question to ask is: do the library’s motivations for providing access to the
Internet match actual usage? In other words, what do patrons want when they use the Internet at
libraries? Martin Hand (2005) surveyed public library patrons in one United Kingdom library
and found that the majority of patrons’ Internet activities were job seeking and emailing friends
and family. Hand also notes that while patrons spoke about the informational and political
potentials of the Internet, very few used the Internet for these purposes. Librarians and patrons
know that the Internet has amazing informational and civic potential but neither patron nor
librarian activities reflect a great interest in realizing this potential.
In short, the rapid and continuing growth of ICTs, especially the Internet, has made
available to people today an unprecedented amount of information and potential for education. It
has also made available another arena for advertising, sales, entertainment, extremist views, and
so forth. As with telephones, radio programs, television shows, films, newspapers, books, and
other media, all of which are available to varying degrees on the Internet, most people choose to
use the Internet as a means of entertainment, communication with friends, or personal gain (i.e.,
employment seeking). In many ways, people are not interested in the public sphere, lifelong
learning, democratic principles, and so on. Just as in the days when librarians promoted book
lists for self-improvement when many patrons simply wanted to borrow the latest Western,
romance, or mystery fiction, librarians now may be talking about civic participation and
education when patrons simply want to check email, download a song, or search the online
classifieds. If library patrons are satisfied with most of what they find on the Internet or on the
Librarianship in the Information Age
5
bookshelves, and the support staff keep it all running fairly well, the question remains, why do
we need librarians?
Guarding the Public Sphere
The public sphere is theoretical and utopian. “Its characteristic features of open debate,
critical scrutiny, full reportage, increased accessibility, and independence of actors from
economic interest as well as from state control” (Webster, 2001, p. 164) cannot be practically
realized. Yet it is an ideal, like democracy, that is relevant to speculations on society, public
dialogue, and the public good. There are few places in society where all people can congregate,
and even fewer places where neither the activities nor the overall purpose of congregating
involves capital. As such a place, libraries function as a public sphere more than nearly any
other place in society and serve as imperfect but tangible examples of Habermas’s theoretical
space. Like the public sphere they exemplify, libraries are endangered and are threatened by
what Habermas calls “refeudalization.”
This refeudalization, according to Webster’s synopsis of Habermas, “centres around the
continuing aggrandisement of capitalism” [original emphasis] (p. 164-165). Politically, this has
resulted in “a reduction in the autonomy of the public sphere” (Ibid., p. 165) as governments
court and are courted by corporate interests (conflicts of interest be dashed). With regard to
media, “during the twentieth century the mass media developed into monopoly capitalist
organisations and, as they have done so, their key contribution as reliable disseminator of
information about the public sphere is diminished...The net result is that the public sphere
appreciably declines as the press assumes advertising functions and increasingly expresses
propagandistic positions even in its reportage” (Ibid.). Corporate capitalism, in many ways, has
defeated the public good. Not only has governmental funding of public broadcasting, museums,
social agencies, and public libraries been cut repeatedly (Webster, 2002) while government
favoritism towards corporations has increased--just one example being an increase in abusive
corporate tax shelters--but public debate on such action is not being facilitated by corporateowned mass media.
While libraries and degrees of library patronage have not changed much over the years-information collection, organization, and accessibility are still basic to the profession and
expected by patrons-- public funding for libraries is no longer guaranteed. In the refeudalization
of the public sphere during this “information age,” commodification of information is one goal
Librarianship in the Information Age
6
of private companies (Webster, 2002). As a result, libraries are at a disadvantage because
librarians view information not as a commodity but as a right. In other words, information is
something so essential to the well-being of citizens and the health of democracy that it should
have no price or barrier to use. According to this view, the right to information should not be
monitored or observed because as a right, and not a privilege, there is no qualification or
justification required for its exercise. Governmental monitoring of information and access gives
government the power to decide which thoughts and people are suspicious, inappropriate, or
dangerous. This regulation of ideas is antithetical to democracy and antagonistic to the public
sphere.
As one of the few places where the commons is encouraged in American society,
libraries need librarians to defend the public sphere. Even if most patrons, and most people, do
not think much about engaging in public debate or seeing the library as a place free from
commerce and governmental observation, there are some who greatly value these attributes. If
these qualities are met nowhere else, the library can be at least one haven available to those who
seek them, and available to others as an example of an environment that embodies an alternative
to commodification, commercialization, and surveillance.
Libraries, as one form of community centers, have roles to play due to the
“informatisation” of society that are not dissimilar to their roles in the past except for the
addition of new media, new ICTs, and new challenges to the profession. In the face of sizable
budget cuts and federal acts that condone surveillance of information seeking, library staff and
administration must find ways of subsidizing both their virtually and physically open doors. As
guardians of the public sphere, librarians must ensure that these subsidies do not make their
institutions vassals of corporations or governments. They must do this by convincing people—
patrons, the general public, politicians, philanthropists, other librarians, library boards, and
library staff--that libraries free from corporate, private, and political interests are imperative to
education and democracy. This is not a passive role that needs to be filled. In this regard,
librarians, especially librarians who are capable of advocacy and thoughtful action, have a role in
the information society.
Evaluating Information
In her 2005 article, “Librarians as Disciplinary Discourse Mediators,” Michelle Holsuch
Simmons describes a lack of critical thinking in undergraduate students and brings attention to
Librarianship in the Information Age
7
the discontinuity between professors and students in methods of identifying quality information,
forming arguments, and understanding how the discourses of particular fields are developed.
According to Simmons, the academic librarian should be a mediator between the two groups: on
the one hand, academics so immersed in their discipline’s conventions, methodologies and
pedagogies that their attempts at describing these things to novices are often unsuccessful and
frustrating and, on the other hand, students who have never before encountered scholarly
literature and are enrolled in a variety of courses in different disciplines, each with unique
expectations and styles of discourse.
In public libraries, the need for mediation is similarly apparent. While print collections
have been selected by library staff (or by vendors through agreements with libraries) and thus
have undergone some kind of subjective evaluation with attention to authority, accuracy, popular
appeal, community interests, and so on, mass media and web sites available in and out of the
library have a limited and very different type of quality control. For example, television
networks use rankings to determine the size of their audiences and this information influences
how much money their sponsors/advertisers are willing to pay for access to the largest audience
at any given hour of the day. These transactions affect not only entertainment but news as well,
often resulting in sensationalism of the latter. Similarly, web sites, used to conduct trade, display
advertisements, provide news, and facilitate communication, are also used to promote ideologies.
Facts, lies, and opinions are interwoven in many web pages, with extreme examples including
sites maintained by hate groups (Douglas, et. al, 2005).
In order to navigate this ocean of information, bearings of truth and falsehood, legal and
illegal, ethical and unethical need to be found. Yet critical thought is often underdeveloped in
American society. A simple lesson from grammar school, often neglected, may suffice in
helping others locate their bearings at the most basic level: librarians should promote the
consideration of the who, what, when, where, why and how of information. This exercise,
typically referred to in elementary schools as “the 5 ‘W’s’”, is, foundationally, what critical
thinking encompasses and what, in its most basic form, librarians should advance. If librarians
are opposed to the commodification of information, they should also be opposed to the mindless
consumption of it. As Webster (2002) advises, a chief concern in today’s culture is not the
quantity of information, but the quality of it. Sharing this concern publicly, and encouraging
attention to it, is an ethical responsibility of librarians.
Librarianship in the Information Age
8
It is also a challenge. Librarians face many obstacles in finding ways to suggest to
independent information seekers and “libertarian library patrons” (McCabe, 2001) that
evaluation of information is an important aspect of information use. It may even be difficult to
suggest the notion of critical thought to patrons who actually approach librarians for assistance.
Promoting critical thinking or evaluation is necessary, though, because if librarians only ensure
access and do not advocate evaluation, then the “informatisation” of society will not lead to a
more informed society but to a more insular one based on apocryphal and adulterated
intelligence.
Evaluation of information is necessary for a literate society, which in turn is necessary to
a true democracy. The idea of “information literacy” is relevant to this discussion but, too often,
information literacy instruction focuses on finding information by using appropriate technologies
and moves critical thinking to the periphery. Library patrons and Internet searchers are
increasingly independent. Though perhaps not adept at finding the most relevant information for
their needs, they are often able to find material that is satisfactory. Many patrons neither want
nor need instructions in using the print collection or the Internet. Most likely, they are not
interested in improving critical thinking either. While librarians accept patrons’ imperfect
information seeking behavior and may give advice to improve it when appropriate, avoiding the
topic of resource evaluation is a disservice to patrons. This is because avoidance of evaluation
precludes questions of truth and purpose from entering the discussion. It fosters passive media
and information consumption. It avoids considerations of bias and spin found in information
both in and out of the library’s walls. Information literacy and critical thought contribute to the
creation of an informed society and discourage a blindly influenced one. Librarians do not have
to “pick a side” in terms of bias, they do not have to disclose personal opinions (and perhaps they
should not), but they ought to draw attention to the existence of bias if for no other reason than
that libraries are one of very few places where commonplace evaluation of all kinds of
information is acknowledged and advanced. For this reason, too, librarians are beneficial to
society in that they support an informed public capable of qualifying information.
New Oral Traditions
In his book, Civic Librarianship: Renewing the Social Mission of the Public Library,
Ronald McCabe (2001) describes two types of public library philosophies, libertarian and
communitarian. Libertarians focus strictly on the utility of the public library to individuals, with
Librarianship in the Information Age
9
an emphasis on library collections and individual research. In contrast, communitarians consider
the social mission of the library to involve community development, social capital, education,
and civic-mindedness. The two philosophies can be characterized by introverted and extroverted
library patrons. Whereas introverted patrons prefer to find their own materials and read or reflect
in quiet, subdued spaces, extroverted patrons seek out interaction and social engagement.
It is likely that the numbers of communitarian, extroverted patrons will increase in the
future. Younger generations are growing up in a more aurally oriented society than older
generations (Frey, 2005). While telephone and radio technologies began this trend in the early
20th century, it is the recent advent of portable ICTs such as cell phones and MP3 players that
have played a large role in shifting greater attention to this particular sensory awareness of the
world.
Yet another characteristic of younger generations is their comfort and familiarity with the
variety of media and technologies available. Several commentators and academics have referred
to the Y Generation, or “gamers,” who are adept at muti-tasking, have short attention spans, and
do not compartmentalize schedules and plans according to work or leisure, for example, but blur
the barriers between what were previously held to be distinct areas of public life and personal life
(Gardner & Eng, 2005).
Similarly, there has been a tendency in media to blur the lines between information and
entertainment. According to Delli Carpini and Williams (2004), what maintains the polarization
of entertainment media from public affairs media is
“...a set of understandable but ultimately artificial structures and practices of
the media, academic researchers, and political elites that distinguish fact
from opinion, public affairs from popular culture, news from nonnews and
citizens/consumers from experts/producers. These walls--in place
throughout most of this century--are rapidly eroding, the result of changing
communications technologies, the new economics of mass media, and
broader cultural trends. This erosion not only makes more obvious the
political significance of popular culture in the social construction and
interpretation of the news, but also makes the very distinction between news
and nonnews increasingly untenable” (p. 161).
Librarianship in the Information Age
10
An example of this is The Daily Show on the cable television channel Comedy Central in which
comedians and commentators take national and international headlines and, mimicking typical
network news broadcasts, weave together jokes, criticisms, political satire, social commentary,
and popular culture.
For many young library patrons accustomed to auditory learning who possess a unique
understanding of barriers and social distinctions, the libertarian, introverted library may be
obsolete. This is certainly not the case for everyone in this age group. The quiet of the library is
still a valued refuge for some and it is unlikely that this quiescent model will become an
anomaly. Yet, to serve these young, extroverted patrons, both now and as they grow up
surrounded by even more ICTs and even fewer structural distinctions between
education/entertainment or work/play, libraries need to attend to this group’s norms and
preferences. In other words, these generations who learn and think through speaking, listening,
verbal banter, and infotainment/edutainment, should have a space to learn in such ways in the
library.
Libraries are traditionally known as studious places of repose, fastidious and serious and
silent. While there are many patrons who appreciate these qualities, there are bound to be some
patrons and non-patrons, both young and old, who feel unwelcomed, intimidated, or shunned by
the reserved atmosphere fostered by library staff and other patrons. The free exchange of ideas
takes place for some in the rapid slide of the eyes over a book in a quiet, still space, for some in
the glow of a terminal with music playing through headphones, and for others in the presence of
friends and strangers brought together by a mutual interest. Depending on circumstances, people
often use a combination of these methods to learn, stay informed, or simply interact. Just as
libraries have made space for computer terminals, there is also a need for areas of interaction
(outside of the children’s department) in libraries. Education does not take place only through
books, periodicals, or computers. If library collections aim to represent entire communities
through a variety of perspectives, then library spaces should also appeal to entire communities
through a variety of uses. Libraries span the individual and the communal, the libertarian and the
communitarian, the public and private; they should also serve both the introvert and the extrovert
within their buildings.
Civic Librarianship
Librarianship in the Information Age
11
For librarians interested in serving both the solitary and the sociable, offering public
space is a start, but facilitating community dialogue is a prominent aspect of the educative and
democratic mission of the library. Who better to mediate dialogue, whether through availability
of casual public meeting areas or specific programming on difficult and sensitive issues, than
librarians, whose institution and profession have a reputation for attempting to create balanced
and representative collections, fair and equitable access to information, and objective, impartial
evaluation?
Librarians as advocates of the common--an idea closely related to the protection of the
public sphere from capitalist and governmental control--as well as promoters of information
evaluation and community dialogue are roles tied to modern ideas of rational debate, ideal
communities and transparency of information (McCabe, 2001). These concepts are often
included in library mission statements that emphasize education and democracy. For librarians
uncomfortable with promoting a social mission in the library, consider the following statement
from Ronald McCabe (2001):
“As public librarians move from providing education to providing access, they
move from the high professional calling of improving people’s lives to the
technical, mechanical process of distributing materials and services without
regard for the impact these materials and services might have on people’s lives”
(p.99).
He goes on to say that “providing materials distribution service without a positive social
purpose is not a sufficient basis for the institution to justify public support” (p. 101).
Indeed, as the digitization of library materials and the creation of open archives and
institutional repositories continue, libraries focused solely on the issue of access may
become nothing more than collections of computers and print materials where
information technology (IT) and administrative staff are the only professionals employed.
One framework that suggests alternatives to the access mission and activities of
libraries is the civic librarianship model. Diantha Schull describes a civic library as “an
institution that is self-conscious about its civic role and active in efforts to promote
community discourse, community identity and citizen participation” (2004, p. 57). She
describes six areas that require the attention of librarians who want to create civic
libraries: “public space, community information as a medium for engagement, public
Librarianship in the Information Age
12
dialogue and problem solving, citizenship information and education, public memory,
and integrating the newcomer” (p. 62). She suggests that libraries organize and offer
information about local resources, invite the community to public forums on local issues,
serve as a conduit for local agencies to reach the community, promote information on
government, foster community identity, and provide information and support to
immigrants. Whereas libertarian library patrons and Internet searchers usually gravitate
towards information sympathetic to their own beliefs, which may lead to insularity and a
decline in civic awareness, librarians, as part and protector of the public sphere, have the
opportunity and perhaps even the responsibility to attempt to advance civic tolerance.
It may be appropriate at this point to consider a case study by Lynn Schofield Clark in
which a community technology center established in a disadvantaged neighborhood in Denver
became valued not nearly so much for its intended purposes of job preparation or education as
for its position as a “third place” for community interactions.
“It is important to note that the primary users of the Center--namely,
disadvantaged young people, as well as adults seeking job assistance or
retraining--found great value in the Center’s ability to provide a safe, hightech haven for entertainment as well as for job preparation….the Center
itself has the potential to encourage civic engagement, albeit not through the
online means of information-seeking and discussion groups usually
envisioned in conversations about the potential role of the internet in civic
life…[In community technology centers], young people interact with
acquaintances whose ages, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and gender differ
from their own. Therefore, community technology centers…provide a safe
place for them to be and to interact with one another, and hence to develop a
sense of the interests--political and otherwise--that they share with other
members of their community” (Clark, 2003, p. 108-109).
Clark goes on to describe how such interactions contribute to the development of social
capital that often assists in employment seeking and the improvement of community
conditions.
Like the example above, social interactions in libraries are almost always
occurring, whether or not there is formal programming or public space available. One
Librarianship in the Information Age
13
question that follows is: to what degree libraries should facilitate social interactions in the
library, especially for patrons who may prefer more formalized interactions or events
such as panel discussions or public forums? Is it good enough to offer community space
alone? Are libraries simply community technology centers? Or should libraries actively
seek to encourage social engagement? The civic librarianship model, and any library
mission statement that includes a social purpose, surely champions the latter.
Conclusion
This paper encompasses an idealism that is challenged by the realities of
overworked staff, shrinking budgets, disinterested and difficult patrons. In addition,
librarians and library administrators are disinclined to invite unusual and, at times,
difficult programming into their libraries, especially if they feel programs such as panel
discussions or community forums, or even the adoption of a social mission, will tarnish
their library’s impartial reputation. In such cases, it is even more important for librarians
to critically examine their own profession and ask what libraries are and why they are
important.
Library school curricula, like the profession of librarianship, are focused on the
importance of everyday, practical activities such as cataloging or search and retrieval.
But familiarity with the theoretical underpinnings of the profession are important as well
because they provide purpose and direction, especially in times of uncertainty and
change. The roles of protectors of the commons, civic programmers, and advocates for
critical thought and new types of learning are positions that may be unsuitable or
uncomfortable for support staff. These roles, however, should be inherent to librarians
and cultivated in the profession to a great degree. Library school curricula should include
courses on ethical concerns of the profession, workshops on grant writing and
government aid, and classes about library programming and literacy instruction.
Librarians need to continue to publicize the roles of their institution and profession in
society, create innovative programs, and foster intelligent, tolerant communities.
The Internet, that global, virtual public sphere also threatened by market interests
and governmental control, is a counterpart to the local and physical public sphere of the
library. Both were created to promote the exchange of ideas and encourage rational
debate. Librarians, therefore, like many journalists, open source software
Librarianship in the Information Age
14
developers/users, academics, and social service workers, have a role in the information
society, not only as organizers and navigators, but also as participatory advocates for the
commons, literacy, new forms of lifelong learning, and civic engagement.
Librarianship in the Information Age
15
References
American Libraries Association (2005). ALA: Tough questions and answers.
Retrieved December 11, 2005, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/pio/campaign/prtools/toughquestions.htm
Clark, L. S. (2003). Challenges of social good in the world of Grand Theft Auto
and Barbie: A case study of a community computer center for youth. New
Media & Society, 5(1), 95-116.
Dahlgren, P. (2004). The public sphere and the Net: Structure, space, and communication.
In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication
in the future of democracy (pp. 33-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X. and Williams, B. A. (2004). Let us infotain you: Politics in the new
media environment. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics:
Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 160-181). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Douglas, K. M., McGarty, C., Bliuc, A., & Lala, G. (2005). Understanding cyberhate:
Social competition and creativity in online white supremecist groups. Social Science
Computer Review, 23, 68-76.
Ebbinghouse, C. (2002). Library outsourcing: A new look. Searcher, 10(4), 63-68.
Frey, T. (2005). The future of libraries: Beginning the great transformation. Retrieved
November 11, 2005, from http://www.davinciinstitute.com/page.php?ID=120
Gardner, S. & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing
function of the academic library. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 405-420.
Hand, M (2005). The people’s network: Self-education and empowerment in the public
library. Information, Communication & Society, 8(3), 368-393.
Kranich, N. C. (2001). Libraries & democracy: The cornerstones of liberty. Chicago:
American Library Association.
Maatta, S. (2004). Placements and salaries, 2002: Salaries stalled, jobs tight. In D. Bogart
(Ed.), The Bowker annual library and book trade almanac (49th ed.) (pp. 349-363).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
McCabe, R. B. (2001). Civic librarianship: Renewing the social mission of the public
library. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Librarianship in the Information Age
16
McCook, K. P. (2000). A place at the table: Participating in community building.
Chicago: American Library Association.
Moran, R. F. (2004). A view from the ranks: An interview with Dorothy A. Moran,
paraprofessional, Liverpool (NY) Public Library. Library Administration and
Management, 18(4), 176-178.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good places: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers,
beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the
day. New York: Paragon House.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rehman, S. U. (2003). Information studies curriculum based on competency definition.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 44(3/4), 276-95.
Schull, D. (2004). The civic library: A model for 21st century participation. Advances
in Librarianship, 28. 55-81.
Simmons, M. H. (2005). Librarians as disciplinary discourse mediators: Using genre
theory to move toward critical information literacy. portal: Libraries and the
Academy, 5(3), 297-311.
Warner, A. S. (1999). Teaching about library budgets. Bottom Line, 12(1), 19-21.
Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the information society. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge