Berry at Library Journal loves to stir the pot, but I don’t get the fuss over his latest about the Vanishing Librarians. Still, heck, I’ll give it a go.
It looks like the “transformation” we seek for libraries and librarianship may turn out to be more of a “deskilling” of library jobs than an enhancement of the profession. More and more working librarians are “managed” by a new breed of library leader. Their model for the new public library is that dehumanized supermarket or the chaotic disorganization of the largest Barnes & Noble.
Is this the lede for this article, or a Zagat review?
As this process unfolds, the once professional responsibilities of librarians are being dumbed down into the duties of retail clerks or the robotic responses of machines. Our circulation desks are disappearing. The humans who once greeted and discussed with patrons our wares and services as they dispensed them are being replaced by self-service. Those circulation clerks are either being terminated or sent to work elsewhere in the library.
O.k., let’s parse this paragraph. Librarians are clerks. No, they are robots. No wait, they are neither. OMG, furniture is vanishing, employees are being made to work Elsewhere in the Library, and Angry People-Eating Self-Check Machines are taking over!
Our reference services and the desk from which they were delivered are gone, too, replaced by wandering “librarians,” with or without an MLS. They are supposed to be proactive in searching out patrons in need but are too often summoned on walkie-talkies or terminals to come to the aid of only those who ask or to respond to the few inquiries that arrive online. Of course, we need fewer and fewer of these librarians, because patrons are urged to do it all for themselves, via Google, PACs, or whatever they discover through our terminals or their own laptops and PCs.
Damn straight, John. We sit at those desks for a reason: because it makes us look important. If patrons need assistance, they can come beg for it, and we can continue asserting our professionalism by pointing patrons to an appropriate section of the stacks — preferably up several flights of stairs and down some sepulchral hallway. If they don’t find what they’re looking for, tough nuts. What do they think this is, a service industry?
Our catalogers began to disappear with the takeover of that function by OCLC, the nonprofit that aspires to be a corporation in this brave new retail library world. The standardized result of the effort is bypassed by patron and librarian alike, as they turn to the more friendly Amazons, Googles, et al., for the less precise, more watered-down “metadata” that has replaced what used to be cataloging. Apparently, users don’t miss the old catalog, except as a familiar artifact, which is testimony to how low this dumbing down has taken us.
Exactly right here as well. We need a lot more expensively-produced, randomly dissimilar MARC records floating around privatized ILS silos. Makes us look sharp as a profession.
In the new model, that most sacred of our professional duties, the selection of materials to build services and collections, is turned over to either small centralized teams of two or three librarians and clerks, or in extreme cases to an external vendor, usually a library book distributor.
Once again Berry is on the bus. If only we could go back to the good old days, before organization, teamwork, and the “because I like this author, that’s why” school of collection development!
The resulting “destination” libraries resemble the cookie-cutter design of the grocery store, aimed at making sure everyone who comes in goes out with “product” (books, CDs, DVDs, or downloads). What the patron takes is of as little concern to the storekeeper librarian as it is to the supermarket manager. The success of the enterprise is measured in the number of products collected by patrons, now called “customers.” It is no longer measured in the usefulness or impact of the service on the quality of life in the community served.
Wow, I wish I had worked in Olden Tymes, when libraries knew how to measure the “impact” of reading on their users instead of asking stupid questions like how many “products” the “patrons” were actually able to get their hands on. Sounds like a real lost art.
Many of the American Library Association-accredited LIS programs that once claimed to “educate” the professional librarians who run these libraries have been invaded by faculty from other disciplines, a great many of whom are far more adept at the politics and pedagogy of academic survival than they are at the principled professional practice of librarianship.
Are you sure it wasn’t a hostile take-over by the Employees Who Don’t Want To Work In Other Parts Of The Library?
Now the progress of this deskilling has come full circle. Having discovered that the manager librarians of these supermarket libraries need fewer and fewer professional librarians to staff their simplified operations, the governing authorities are beginning to decide they don’t need a professional librarian to manage them. Some have been turned over to successful business types from industry, some to lawyers, some to academic administrators or fundraisers, and some to professional financial managers.
Methinks Berry either has some examples in mind he forgot to use, or he copied this paragraph from “Michael Gorman: Hits From the Golden Years.”
The most surprising part is that so few library leaders have raised their voices in alarm or outrage at this erosion of the standards to which libraries once aspired. It is frightening to think that we will stand quietly by and watch as professional librarians disappear from libraries and with them the quality of the services and collections in which we once took such professional pride.
Berry states the solution in the second paragraph. We must rise up in arms against the Angry People-Eating Self-Check Machines… because when self-check is outlawed, only outlaws will have self-check.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Walt Underwood on the 2.0 Video - 2007
- The Codrescu Program at ALA - 2006
- Free Range Librarian, Simpson Version - 2006
- Media Manager - 2006
- Update on Batesline Debacle - 2005
My ancient-gadfly response is short and sweet: Oh Piffle, Mr. Berry.
Great comments, Karen.
I do think there are some tiny valid points in the “editorial”.
1) Centralized selection. I have implemented it and worked closely with it and have talked with a lot of librarians about it. Because we seldom study ourselves, I am not convinced whether anyone truly knows if centralized selection as implemented in particular libraries is a good thing for the customers or not. My gut feeling is that it’s been a good thing, but I don’t think there’s any real data to support that.
2) I do remember the days of catalogers tailoring classification to individual libraries. That was a good thing. We could easily and relatively cheaply have standard cataloging and more tailored classification.
3) I’m as much in favor of the MLS as any librarian I know; however, one of the best run libraries I’ve ever worked in had exactly zero staff with the MLS (including the cataloger who did this individualized classification).
But Anne said it best “piffle”!
Dale, I think all of your comments are good. I just think this piece rode on “I am Berry, hear me roar” coattails and as such it was a weak piece of writing. He’s capable of better.
On this statement: “2) I do remember the days of catalogers tailoring classification to individual libraries. That was a good thing. We could easily and relatively cheaply have standard cataloging and more tailored classification.”
You know, we were all taught it was a good thing but two points about this. There is very little evidence that it was a good thing. We just assumed that all that time and effort spent on futzing with local records led to better discovery. That’s what it’s all about: better discovery. We also didn’t step backwards and ask, why are we doing this to records at the local level rather than finding ways to enhance records at the cloud (master record) level?
Find me the study (non-anecdotal) that shows me the ROI on local enhancements…
“Is this the lede for this article, or a Zagat review?”
I lolled.
I keep having these random thoughts about how, rather than local traditional cataloging, we might more easily include tagging in the search record. I don’t think I’m ready for a free-for-all with the public, but a few public service and technical staff here and there could be good. Being public-oriented, I have no memory of what field in the MARC could be used for this idea. Even our cross-mapping subject-headings with BISAC hasn’t quite done it – but we’re getting closer.
Karen – love your comments.
As a cataloguer and librarian, I am continually surprised by other librarians’ thoughts on what we do. Do cataloguers seek the need to get rid of reference librarians? Who better to find information in a catalogue or online than a cataloguer – someone who specializes in organizing and analyzing information. But I digress.
The profession is in trouble. In my view, caused by librarians who continually wring their hands and question what we are and what we do. Legal information is freely available for lay people (in a society where more and more people are educated), however lawyers don’t continually question where their future lies.
I think we need to take a good look at what we do well and enhance those services. Catalogues will never be google, but do we want that? I agree, the interface should be easier and tagging, social bookmarking, etc. should be considered. However, subject searching and the concept of organizing information is what is important. Cataloguers will always be needed for that.
Why is it libraries are seeking a reason to get rid of cataloguers while more and more businesses are seeking to hire cataloguers to manage their information?
We so need catalogers. Their efforts give the public service team the tools we need to serve the external customers! With those tools we create community and interaction.
I do wish the public service librarians had a better handle on the LCSH headings (or whatever you’re using in your library) and the vagueries of the good ‘ol DDC. Oh the times I have with them young whippersnappers who never had to learn to use cataloging! Oy, it makes my lumbago act up.
” In my view, caused by librarians who continually wring their hands and question what we are and what we do. ”
Very well said. I think Raganathan gave us that answer in 1932 if we listen: “The library is a growing and changing organism.”
Here’s my radical plan: Take the thousands of years of practice in the profession and use it to implement changes that serve both our external *and* our internal customers.
I know, crazy thought.
Laurel and Anne, I’m going to echo what I was told over and over in the writing program: don’t tell me. Show me.
Note that I didn’t say cataloging was unnecessary. I said that there wasn’t any known ROI for *local enhancements* (as in, those not surfaced to the master record and shared with anyone who can benefit from them) .
I’m a believer in metadata, and I’m a believer in the value librarians bring to structured information. But I’m not a believer in how we do things now. Why aren’t we leveraging more collective effort?
Karen, good point. I might not have expressed myself properly. I understand your position and recognize that most “proactive” librarians do understand the necessity for cataloguing (as well as all of the other areas of our profession). We should be working together and I recently blogged on that issue. In “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: That’s Not Professional Conduct” I discourage the “them or me” behavior that can be exhibited among librarians (and in libraries). I propose that it’s a product of tight budgets and fighting for one service over another.
Ideally, I’d like to see librarians working together and understanding how, collectively, we are a profession that is critical to society in this information world. Perhaps a professional association for librarians (not library techs or lay people), rather than libraries would act as a cohesive device? I don’t know.
Just a thought on *local enhancements*…they are very important in non-US libraries. Terms can very significantly from country to country (First Nations vs. Indians of North America, African American vs. Black, etc.). And, like most libraries, we tend to follow LC. Even changing measurements to the metric system is necessary when copy cataloguing. Anyway, of course I’m biased as a cataloguer and I know it.
I would like to kill the concept of “local enhancements” and replace it with “conditional enhancements.” There is no reason for us to be editing local privatized records any more. It’s time to change.
While we’re at it, I’m going back to my ROI question. Don’t TELL me enhancements are important. Give me the data.
When OCLC starts providing cataloguers with uniform records, there might be a comparison. In the meantime, since we’re already fixing mistakes, we might as well consider that not everyone in the world uses US terms and alter records accordingly. It would be great to see some data as it helps when backing up an argument. Has there been any research on a “one size fits all” model?
You don’t necessarily need a one-size-fits-all model. But there isn’t any need to wait for “uniform records” to do the lit search or if need be testing to determine if enhancements made in specific silos truly benefit those communities.
You’re right. Regrettably, this area of research is sadly lacking for both sides of this argument.
We have decades of research available about user behavior and discovery. What needs to be proven is that enhancing records plays any role in it at all.
Boy howdy do I wish I could “show you.” The call for study is a good one.
I do know that using the “closer to US English” BISAC headings has increased user satisfaction with search via our catalog. What I have is anecdotal evidence, not scientific evidence. Nor will my current job duties allow me time to study it. Not with 12% budget cuts and a strong possibility of that much more in July.
I would like to see studies that include library users and non-users, public service desk staff and technical services staff. In many settings, not just academic, not just public. Setting that up takes far more skill/education/training in methodology than I ever hope to have. I would be a willing participant for sure.
ditto the above comment calling for an end to the “us vs. them” stuff. We’re a team getting the info to the people. Let’s act like one.
And I am curious to see what a Librarian’s Association would look like. ALA does great stuff for libraries but, well, hmm…librarians?…must cogitate.
Karen, the burden isn’t on us to show that the existing model works, the burden is on you to show that it doesn’t. As you keep saying, don’t tell me, SHOW me.
Anne, your comments reflect similar thoughts and situations among many of us. Time and money is such an important issue and does not allow many of us the luxury to delve deeper into our professions.
No, Laurel, the burden IS on catalogers to prove that local enhancements translate to discovery — and for that matter to defend concepts of “success.” You should be able to elucidate how extra effort translates to improvements that are worth the cost of doing them — not complaining that catalogers don’t get respect or blaming everything on “OCLC.”
Karen, your provoking comments will not serve to change my position. You are suggesting a new model of cataloguing that will result in poor record quality and diminished public access. I can only assume you have no evidence to back up your position.
While John Berry’s opinion may err somewhat on the ‘doom and gloom’ end of the spectrum, I am largely in agreement with his viewpoint. The trend to ‘dumbing down’ is sadly not restricted to libraries but is broadly evident in modern society as a whole. I am reminded of a highly applicable cartoon by Bruce McCall which appeared in the April 9, 2007 issue of the New Yorker entitled, “The Reading Room : a seasonal look at booksâ€. The cartoonist’s vision of contemporary libraries while exaggerated, strikes an all to familiar chord. In this fictional library, shelf labels read “History – American Idol to Anna Nicoleâ€, “Autobiography – see MySpace.comâ€. You get the picture. I’m also reminded of comments made by Annoyed Librarian in a posting on doing away with Dewey, “…librarians are still interested in bringing order out of chaos instead of making the chaos more comfy.†http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/search?q=dewey+desert
On the public service end, I’m much more inclined to dive headfirst into chaos and triumphantly emerge with what my patron needs. Although a knowledge of, in my case, the hierarchical structure of the DDC makes it much easier. So it’s not entirely chaos. Too bad, because that makes a fun picture in my head.
As for “dumbing down?” Tired of hearing of it. I think Plato’s friends and neighbors were probably tired of hearing it from him, too. 😉
We have thousands of years of history of taking what has worked before and improving on it. We can do this too. I’m put to mind of something I saw in an Abrams lecture a couple of weeks back. The millenial generation’s very brain-wiring is different from those older. Their way of processing information is completely different. It is wired into their brains. Organic.
How will our profession address these new ways of thinking. What will we build on top of the MARC record et. al. to make it serve them as well as it has us?
I am a copy cataloguer and also do some original cataloging here at UC Berkeley. It seems to me that it is important to continue the cataloging system we have in place, but I also believe Google can be a useful supplement, as it allows one to search for keywords within a book that might not be covered in the subject headings, particularly in collections of conference papers or in general works that include chapters on specific topics not covered in the subject headings.
The “different local terms” argument, as presented above, see,s an argument for better software and enhanced shared cataloging instead of more cataloging.
A new local term is either an alternative name for an existing concept or a new concept. If we assume that “First Nations” in Canadian usage refers to the same concept as “Indians of North America” in LCSH usage, then all we *should* have to do, with the right software, is to make sure that both names are in the same authority record (as is currently the case in LC authorities for these two terms), and then register a directive with our online catalog that “First Nations” should be preferred to “Indians of North America”. Our catalog will then automagically convert any occurrence of the latter term in a subject heading to the former term.
No, most catalog software doesn’t do that. But it *could*. And the work to implement promoting “use for” terms as directed for local usage only has to be done once per catalog system, which is potentially a lot more efficient than lots of Canadian catalogers doing it manually for every book that comes in with “Indians of North America” as a subject.
In cases where the term truly describes a different concept, and could be used by more than one library, it makes sense to try to register it as a new authorized term (whether in LCSH, or Canadian subject headings, or what have you), make relations between it and existing terms, so that the term can easily be included in shared records instead of having to be inserted locally by every library that could use it.
The other local enhancement mentioned above (metric conversion) should also be automated in software if needed; it’s not as if computers aren’t able to figure out how to convert inches to centimeters on demand.
Better software and better shared coordination doesn’t happen overnight or without pain, I’ll admit. But it seems to me a better long-term investment than a lot of redundant local work.
I received several looks while reading this and snickering at the reference desk. The reference desk where I waited on students to come begging for my expertise.
Great comments. While I too recognize the need for catalogs with good headings, I completely agree with your comments. ROI has not been proven for original cataloging. Let’s use that time elsewhere.
John – yes! I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. I would like to see this happen in the future.
Well, ROI definitely hasn’t been proven for the arcane local enhancements done at the local level and then expensively repeated in every OTHER silo. Metadata rocks. Cataloging is Good. But we need to leverage the network cloud.
Karen,
Thanks for making me laugh. I think your’s was a much more fun way to poke the holes in the John Berry article. I gave it a shot as well. I’m afraid mine was a much more serious tone.
“As a customer and taxpayer – I expect public libraries to be efficient and well managed. I expect them to use new operating tools to improve their overall quality of service. I expect that the time savings created by new ways of doing things will allow librarians and library staff to be more engaged with their “customersâ€, not less. If librarians aren’t out on the floor working with customers it is not because they are being “deskilledâ€. It is because they are simply providing poor customer service.”
I also believe libraries need to be good “operatorsâ€, in order to be well funded. A library can’t be “great†without good funding.
So here’s to all those libraries implementing all the “new and improved†ways of doing things. My congratulations and thanks to you!
http://thefishbits.wordpress.com/
Brad, I would add that My Local Library is fabu at reference-by-walking-around. What a pleasure to have library staff come up to ask me if I was finding what I was looking for — the Nordy’s Experience!
“But we need to leverage the network cloud.”
Huh? what the hell are you talking about?
You take the low road in cheap sarcasm, but offer nothing of substance of your own to refute Berry’s argument. And you misspelled “lead” in your first sniping comment. I get that you don’t want to strain yourself, but could you at least work a little harder to be funny?
Mike, a “lede” is the beginning of a story. I worried that this might fly past some readers, but I thought to myself, most readers will either get the joke (I was making reference to Berry’s profligate quotation marks, which “remind” me of the famous “Zagat’s” style of reviewing) or do the good-librarian-thang and look up the term. (A quick-and-dirty “define: lede” in Google snarfs up some fine examples.)
I agree that line only works well if you know what a “lede” is; if you have to look it up, the humor loses some impact. Had this been a less ephemeral piece, I wouldn’t have risked that joke on the all-important first line. You can afford a slightly flat line here and there, but it shouldn’t come in the all-important — ahem — lede.
I won’t do the same exercise for “network cloud,” though it concerns me that someone with a fairly new LIS degree isn’t familiar with that term. As for your other comment — tit for tat, Mike (hmm… that expression can’t possibly mean “breast for tattoo,” can it? Call Geoffrey Nunberg, STAT!).
Interesting these days how simple it is to look up. I’d totally forgotten about “clouds” and WANs!
[…] to add KG Schneider’s response to Berry . Apparently I need to read things more carefully. Posted in […]
I don’t read it quite as harshly. As a library student about 2/3 of the way through the MLS program, I think there are some very valid concerns expressed here about the future of libraries, and of the public library in particular. Except for the part about being “free”–and every taxpayer realizes that the services of their public library are not in fact free–if we can’t do it as well or better than the big-box bookstores, what is our purpose in life? Does our job really require a professional degree?
Sharon, the writing felt very kabobbled… and contradicted some of the advances that will help libraries survive. Getting out from behind the desk and helping customers is good for libraries… libraries don’t staff circ desks… etc.
Oh, okay. Then I misread it. It’s JB who doesn’t get it. In my limited library experience, I find this is more true of those who are at or approaching retirement. The future of the institution and the profession is not a whole lot of concern to them as it is to those of us who are still looking at another 15-20 years of working.
The self-check at my library is rarely self-check… either its not working or the patrons don’t know how to use it… so I intellectually “get” self-check but the reality is so different.
M.J., it’s possible to screw up the implementation of anything.
To Anne in AZ: I am tired of hearing “global warming.” But the fact that I am tired of hearing it doesn’t make it an any less real phenomenon.
When I ran “lede” through my online American Heritage Dictionary, it did not find the word but instead matched “lederhosen” to my query.
Which I think is quite funny.
I found this on the site of a University of Arkansas journalism prof:
“Lede is often spelled lead. The odd spelling was adopted when newspaper type was set in lead. To keep from confusing the word for the metal with the word for the beginning sentence, the spelling ‘lede’ was used.”
For awhile, Microsoft Word, whenever it encountered my surname, Schallan, wanted to spell-correct it to “stallion.” Hmmmm.
And when I searched for the TEDtalk delivered by the extraordinarily self-important architect, Joshua Prince-Ramus, Google came back and asked me if I meant “godtalk prince-ramus.”
There must be a term for this phenomenon.
In any case, after reading Karen’s attack on John Berry (too mild! *mugging* of John Berry, complete with iron pipe and brass knuckles), it occurs to me that Karen has a longstanding problem with authority and the patriarchy.
Actually, Joe, I have more than a longstanding problem with the patriarchy; I reject it out of hand.
As for Berry, he can write better than that, and has.
[…] Blatant Berry: The Vanishing Librarians (Library Journal) LJ’s John Berry “Writes†an “Opinion Piece†(Free Range […]
To Joe – Here’s the thing. I don’t think libraries are dumbing down. I think public libraries that are not NYPL, are becoming public libraries instead of trying to be academic libraries. I find this completely appropriate. Especially in light of current economics.
(OT: Found the family names in Red Oak – Kewl!)
This is a rather round about way of dealing with K.G Schneider’s response to John Berry.
Steve Jobs of Apple Computers writing in a New York Times Blog on January 15th about a new electronic reading gadget said that: “It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year.â€
Well, what is wrong with reading one book a year, one may ask? It depends on the book, does it not? In Other Colours: Essays and a Story, the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk recalls that a few years ago he reread Stendhal’s Charterhouse of Parma. After finishing certain pages of this wondrous book,†he said, “my eyes would pull back from the old volume in my hand to gaze at its yellowing pages from afar. As I was carrying the book around with me that summer, I asked myself many times why it was such a pleasure just to know the book was at my side.â€
And in the course of a very fine essay, Pamuk goes on to say that in reading the book he “experienced the joy of youth, the will to live, the power of hope, the fact of death, and love, and solitude.â€
And he concludes: “as in novels, there is in life a genuine wish, an impulse, a race towards happiness. But there is more than that. A person wishes to reflect on that desire, that impulse, and a good novel (like The Charterhouse of Parma) is well suited to this purpose. In the end a wondrous novel becomes an integral part of our lives and the world around us, bringing us closer to the meaning of life…â€
It seems that it took Pamuk a whole summer, three months, to read The Charterhouse of Parma. And so it should.
Reading Pamuk’s ideas on reading go the heart if what librarianship is all about.
John Berry in his Library Journal piece writes about the focus of librarianshiop today being “aimed at making sure everyone who comes in goes out with ‘product’ (books, CDs, DVDs, or downloads).†And he writes: “What the patron takes home is of as little concern to the storekeeper librarian as it is to the supermarket manager.†And he continues: “The success of the library enterprise is measured in the number of products collected by patrons, now called ‘customers.’ It is no longer measured in the usefulness or impact of the service on the quality of life in the community served.â€
And he comments that he is surprised that so few leaders of librarianship are raising their voices in alarm at what is going on.
Jean-Francois Manier, the French poet and philosopher, is also concerned about such matters. And he is particularly concerned about how such matters are viewed in the kind of world we live in today.
“Confronted with the risk of having only ‘fast food’ literature left to enjoy,†he said, “I feel an urgency to resist the growing powers of the entrepreneurs of culture.â€
He continued: “The book is such an inordinate life stake that it requires criteria of value other than the rate of its turnover.â€
As John Berry points out: it is the quality of the book collection, and how we assemble such a collection, which is of vital importance.
Just to go back to Pamuk again, he writes: “I have a vivid memory of reading The Brothers Karamazov at the age of eighteen, alone in my room, in a house which looked out over the Bosphorous….I felt as if its most shocking revelations were thoughts I’d entertained myself. I felt as if Dostoyevsky were whispering arcane things about life and humanity, things that no one knew, for my ears only: I felt like saying, I am reading a book that shocks me deeply and will change my entire life.
One need have no doubt that reading a book such as The Charterhouse of Parma or The Brothers Karamazov does what good books have always done; it enlarges the world of emotional and ethical options. When you are finished reading such a novel, you are stronger than when you started, though it may have made you feel pained or shocked. “The great value of such a novel is that it provides an arena for mustering emotion, intellect and imagination.†As the Polish writer Jerzy Kosinsky reminds us, “to read a novel is to practice for real life.â€
Perhaps the great value of the public library space is that it provides an arena for mustering emotion, intellect and imagination. It is a space which enlarges the world of emotional and ethical options.
Pat, that is a beautiful and thoughtful comment that reminds me why I both write and read.
I know I’m late to the party, but I have to say something. The article might have been disjointed, but he made some legitimate points. Most disturbing to me was your cheap dismissal of his complaints against centralized purchasing. In some cases, this makes sense–have a central mechanism buy a lot of copies of stuff you know you are going to buy anyway, like Stephen King or the Next Big Diet Book. But in practice, libraries have made all their purchases centralized, meaning that there is no money to buy items that 1) are not published by big publishers, meaning that the library’s purchases are all mainstream, conventional wisdomthink and 2) books that are not on specialized topics–my particular interest is books on nonprofits–that don’t get reviewed by PW and LJ are never purchased. Some of these topics have appeal to segments of the community that is never tapped, because they aren’t bought by the library, and never show up in bookstores. Patrons have told me, “I didn’t know they had books on this.” If we had centralized purchasing in my library, they STILL wouldn’t know. 3) Centralized purchasing–much of it farmed out to jobbers–will result in less books that jobbers have a hard time finding. As it is know, we have our purchasing people hunt those down like dogs, because jobbers are too lazy, EVEN WHEN we give them ISBNs, titles, etc. I ordered a book on fiscal sponsorship, and it took them over a year to get. Many libraries that adopted centralized purchasing hand over the whole budget to the process, and the result is a homogenized collection that is exactly what you can get at a middle-brow bookstore, without any technology or specialized information, or niche literature that the library traditionally provided. Yes, patrons can buy more specialized things at Amazon, if they know it exists already. But isn’t one of the functions of the library to educate people to what they can get? We are bailing out on that, and all you can get in is a cheap shot? Shame on you.