For this learning objective, I used the product of my directed research, LS 598, that I completed on libraries and sustainability as a core value in my second semester here at the School of Library and Information Studies as well as a combination of the slides I used to present for my final project on neoliberalism, democracy, and academic libraries from LS 531: Academic Libraries, and the research paper on the very same topic. The directed research project was initially much larger in scope. The goal was to find the overlap between the ALA core values of “sustainability” and the “common good” and explore the shared meaning therein. As things remain, I still have work to do on both of the projects on this page.

​

As I’ve kind of mentioned before in at least one other piece of content on this site, I’m extremely interested in the transformative nature of library and information studies. When we discussed threshold concepts while reviewing the ACRL Framework for a class not showcased on this page, LS 527: Information Literacy, the idea reasonated so much with me because studying the discipline of LIS has felt entirely like a threshold concept of extreme proportions, and while I’ve read everything I can on vocational awe, but I can’t help but still feel it as a calling to pay back what I owe libraries for helping me through hardships in my life. While I know that holding such a belief means that I not only need to be wary that this belief  may potentially make it slightly easier for others to exploit me, but, arguably more importantly, it also makes it more likely that I would potentially be willing to excuse some of the injustices that happen in the field simply as a result of existing in society as it currently exists (Ettarh & Vidas, 2022).​

 

Though sustainability, neoliberalism, and democracy might not seem directly related to the ‘philosophy, principles, and ethics’ of the field as mentioned in the learning objective, there are ongoing discussions between people like Buschman (2024), Seale (2016), and Yap et al. (2024) about how interrelated the interdisciplinary field of LIS is to these concepts. Not only is sustainability a core value, but the free flow of information in a democracy is also core to the field’s existence and in line with its values.I’m not as worried about the field feeling like a calling blinding me to the injustices, because I see the field of library and information science as something that can be radically transformative and focused on rebuilding (Casillo & McElroy, 2022).

​

​

References:

Buschman, J. (2024). Democracy: A modern definition for the library field. Journal of Documentation, 80(6), 1384–1395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2024-0021

​

Castillo, D., & McElroy, K. (2022, August 24). Solidarity is for librarians: Lessons from organizing – In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2022/solidarity/

​

Ettarh, F., & Vidas, C. (2022). “The Future of Libraries:” Vocational awe in a “Post-COVID” world. The Serials Librarian, 82(1–4), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2022.2028501

​

Seale, M. (2016). Compliant trust: the public good and democracy in the ALA’s “Core Values of Librarianship.” Library Trends, 64(3), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0003

​

Yap, J. M., Hajdu, Á. B., & Kiszl, P. (2024). Professional identity and knowledge practices of librarians in critical times of information disorders: A conceptual framework. Information Discovery and Delivery, 53(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-09-2023-0112