I remember that period well! I attended library school from '91-'93, and our collection development course was largely concerned with paper-based processes and filing systems. There was an Internet course, but it was optional and I didn't take it. "Online searching" was required but it prepared us for providing paid access for clients through pay-by-the-second connections to databases, which required considerable advanced query construction and editing so as to not waste our client's time or money. When I got out and landed in the workforce, suddenly we all had to learn about the Web and AltaVista, and I realized that much of what I'd just learned was already obsolete. It feels like that again with AI.
That said, I agree that our profession's obsession with techological disruption and preparing for "the library of the future" does merit some reflection --see my 2017 essay, "Seeing the Forest for the Trees on Mars: Locating the Ideology of the Library of the Future." https://cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/view/27560
Thanks, Michael. Depending on when we went to library school, and our subsequent jobs, have had some strange experiences in adapting over time, to the "techno-solutionism" frequently visited upon us. And maybe wanting the familiar anchors of the print environment (which actually still matter at times), while adapting to the juxtaposed imperatives of searching on "the Internet" (a large and amorphous domain not understand by many or most of our students, or even faculty, or other clients).
I recall the release of the FirstSearch databases from OCLC and the reaction from some colleagues, and the feeling of disintermediation involved--that our students and faculty would be searching them without librarian intervention and actually "finding things" on their own. Even within the library itself! I had interesting conversations about the merits of that approach to library service with some colleagues.
I think the inflection point now with AI and "frictionless" search results pre-packaged, is likely more extreme than other inflection points in the past.
Thanks, Kathleen. I am thinking of writing a companion piece to this article that identifies an even wider range of issues for librarians to think about re: A.I. There's so much written right now about A.I. in general, some of it overreacting, much of it underreacting, that finding some grounded approach based on reasonable extrapolations from technological impacts in the past isn't easy. I'm still "processing" a great deal myself, and these voices of leaders in the field from the past provided some anchors for me.
AI is all anyone is writing about in LIS. I liked your use of past visionaries very much. As someone who teaches in an LIS program all I can say is I'm very glad I teach library history and rare book history as I'm not trying to sort what we (librarians) should do. Thanks for the SK article. I skipped it because I'm so sick of AI talks, but I will look.
Yes, the discussion in the field right now is saturated with AI and likely reflects that we as a profession don't know how to respond among the polarized thinking about it. There isn't much clarity right now, and maybe that isn't possible. I see the same extreme reactions in higher ed in general and among many other writers on substack and elsewhere.
All of this discourse goes hand in hand with the increasing concerns about the "post-literate" society and the decline in reading, or at least deeper reading.
Some of the best teaching in libraries I know of, related to information "products" of a vastly different era, occurs where I work with instruction about rare books and manuscripts--which of course requires students to shift their mindset to understand manuscript production and learn to imagine a different period and the culture associated with it. This relates to Lipow's point in the article about the tangibility of books, or precursors to books, and the ingenuity involved in producing them. Students are fascinated by that world quite possibly because it's so different from their effortless use of search engines and now chatbots for "answers."
I joined the Bibliographical Society of America--which split from ALA in 1899 when a number of members of ALA felt it had nothing for them and was no longer about books. Many people are members of both. I find BSA valuable.
The most interesting professional conversations I have are often with (1) archivists, rare books and manuscripts librarians, and those who deal with the physical book as object and cultural signifier, and (2) those who delve deeply into varied research methodologies in different disciplines and understand the cultures of disciplines and also the nuances of interdisciplinarity, multi--disciplinarity, and transdisciplinary issues in scholarship. Maybe it's because the "generic" online searching/training model the profession has adopted, or has now off-loaded onto "end-users" (the old term), and now onto anyone, anywhere, isn't that appealing and doesn't produce that much intellectual interest for me. I'd venture to say that students might be more interested in libraries with some forms of engagement related to those two kinds of conversations as well, appropriate calibrated for them. Just a surmise on my part!
I switched out what I taught (public librarianship) to teach to special collections about 5 years ago. As our curriculum filled with more courses focused on data I created a small place within a broader curriculum that I thought might not succeed.
However, 5 years on I am happy to report that these classes are full enrolled and have wait lists. I would say 30% of our students enroll in my courses in Rare Books and Special Collections.
I remember that period well! I attended library school from '91-'93, and our collection development course was largely concerned with paper-based processes and filing systems. There was an Internet course, but it was optional and I didn't take it. "Online searching" was required but it prepared us for providing paid access for clients through pay-by-the-second connections to databases, which required considerable advanced query construction and editing so as to not waste our client's time or money. When I got out and landed in the workforce, suddenly we all had to learn about the Web and AltaVista, and I realized that much of what I'd just learned was already obsolete. It feels like that again with AI.
That said, I agree that our profession's obsession with techological disruption and preparing for "the library of the future" does merit some reflection --see my 2017 essay, "Seeing the Forest for the Trees on Mars: Locating the Ideology of the Library of the Future." https://cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/view/27560
Thanks, Michael. Depending on when we went to library school, and our subsequent jobs, have had some strange experiences in adapting over time, to the "techno-solutionism" frequently visited upon us. And maybe wanting the familiar anchors of the print environment (which actually still matter at times), while adapting to the juxtaposed imperatives of searching on "the Internet" (a large and amorphous domain not understand by many or most of our students, or even faculty, or other clients).
I recall the release of the FirstSearch databases from OCLC and the reaction from some colleagues, and the feeling of disintermediation involved--that our students and faculty would be searching them without librarian intervention and actually "finding things" on their own. Even within the library itself! I had interesting conversations about the merits of that approach to library service with some colleagues.
I think the inflection point now with AI and "frictionless" search results pre-packaged, is likely more extreme than other inflection points in the past.
I re-posted this at the FB "Library Think Tank." Hope some people come over to read this.
Thanks, Kathleen. I am thinking of writing a companion piece to this article that identifies an even wider range of issues for librarians to think about re: A.I. There's so much written right now about A.I. in general, some of it overreacting, much of it underreacting, that finding some grounded approach based on reasonable extrapolations from technological impacts in the past isn't easy. I'm still "processing" a great deal myself, and these voices of leaders in the field from the past provided some anchors for me.
Have you seen this Scholarly Kitchen post?
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/10/30/guest-post-do-academic-libraries-have-a-strategy-for-ai/?informz=1&nbd=10fcc72d-5e75-45d8-9bdd-654a43a4ba8c&nbd_source=informz
AI is all anyone is writing about in LIS. I liked your use of past visionaries very much. As someone who teaches in an LIS program all I can say is I'm very glad I teach library history and rare book history as I'm not trying to sort what we (librarians) should do. Thanks for the SK article. I skipped it because I'm so sick of AI talks, but I will look.
Yes, the discussion in the field right now is saturated with AI and likely reflects that we as a profession don't know how to respond among the polarized thinking about it. There isn't much clarity right now, and maybe that isn't possible. I see the same extreme reactions in higher ed in general and among many other writers on substack and elsewhere.
All of this discourse goes hand in hand with the increasing concerns about the "post-literate" society and the decline in reading, or at least deeper reading.
Some of the best teaching in libraries I know of, related to information "products" of a vastly different era, occurs where I work with instruction about rare books and manuscripts--which of course requires students to shift their mindset to understand manuscript production and learn to imagine a different period and the culture associated with it. This relates to Lipow's point in the article about the tangibility of books, or precursors to books, and the ingenuity involved in producing them. Students are fascinated by that world quite possibly because it's so different from their effortless use of search engines and now chatbots for "answers."
I joined the Bibliographical Society of America--which split from ALA in 1899 when a number of members of ALA felt it had nothing for them and was no longer about books. Many people are members of both. I find BSA valuable.
https://bibsocamer.org/
The most interesting professional conversations I have are often with (1) archivists, rare books and manuscripts librarians, and those who deal with the physical book as object and cultural signifier, and (2) those who delve deeply into varied research methodologies in different disciplines and understand the cultures of disciplines and also the nuances of interdisciplinarity, multi--disciplinarity, and transdisciplinary issues in scholarship. Maybe it's because the "generic" online searching/training model the profession has adopted, or has now off-loaded onto "end-users" (the old term), and now onto anyone, anywhere, isn't that appealing and doesn't produce that much intellectual interest for me. I'd venture to say that students might be more interested in libraries with some forms of engagement related to those two kinds of conversations as well, appropriate calibrated for them. Just a surmise on my part!
I switched out what I taught (public librarianship) to teach to special collections about 5 years ago. As our curriculum filled with more courses focused on data I created a small place within a broader curriculum that I thought might not succeed.
However, 5 years on I am happy to report that these classes are full enrolled and have wait lists. I would say 30% of our students enroll in my courses in Rare Books and Special Collections.
Put it online and resign