ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 3 3 6 /C&RL News Bibliographic instruction or The W a y research: What's in a name? I See It By Steve McKinzie Teaching research skills is the essence o f o u r task T he w orld o f bibliographic instruction is in the midst o f a crisis. If the quarrels within the professional literature and the flurry of elec­ tronic postings over LIBREF-L are any indica­ tion, something is rotten in the state of public service librarianship. Things just ain’t the way they ought to be. What is interesting about this new crisis— and the profession has had its share o f them— is that it isn’t to be found in any o f the places one w ould expect. It has, for instance, nothing to do with the electronic revolution. Librarians have em braced the gadgetry of the informa­ tion age with a near religious zeal. We have cham pioned the Internet, defended online cata­ logs, and cam paigned for CD-ROM technolo­ gies as well as anyone could have h o p ed or feared. (Some of us even forward p hone m es­ sages with m oderate success). No, the electronic revolution has brought change, but nothing that public service librarianship can’t handle. Nor does the crisis entail any o f those p e­ rennially troubling questions of academic li­ brarianship: faculty status, managerial style, the ambiguous roles o f support staff, the rising costs o f periodicals, th e equitable distribution o f break-room kitchen duties—persistently impor­ tant questions in and o f themselves, but far from crises. These recurring problem s are rather like those low-grade fevers or nagging winter colds: they sap energies, rattle nerves, and sour dis­ positions, bu t m ost o f us can still m ake it through the day. W h a t is it w e do? No, the crisis is more fundamental and more far-reaching. It has to do with how w e view w hat w e do: how w e regard our w ork with patrons. Or, more specifically, w hat do w e la­ bel the varied and manifold teachings now perform ed by librarians under the present-day banner of “bibliographic instruction?” A growing consensus o f the profession has com e to insist that this venerated expression just has to go. The phrase “bibliographic in­ struction” is as hackneyed as yesterday’s politi­ cal rhetoric. It verges on the irrelevant. It bor­ ders on the absurd. Almost everyone recognizes that it is at best meaningless, at worst misleading. Mention of the term draw s blank stares from seasoned scholars and ruddy-faced freshmen alike. Even w hen the phrase does seem to signify some­ thing meaningful, it conveys nothing o f w hat The p h ra se “bibliographic instruction ” is as h a ckn eyed as y esterd a y’s p o litica l rhetoric. It verges on the irrelevant. It borders on the absurd. librarians w ant it to suggest. It conjures the w rong images. It implies lists o f monographs, or maybe the skills n eed ed to compile them. To m ake matters worse, the recently pro­ po sed candidates o f replacem ent for the out­ m oded expression (candidates enjoying vogue in som e circles)— ’’library instruction” and “in­ formation literacy,” for instance—are scarcely better. Everyone recognizes that what w e are about is far more than instruction on how to use the library. We also know that our ambi­ tions for our users go beyond some sort of minimal literacy. W hat w e do w hen w e en ­ gage in w hat w e commonly label “bibliographic instruction” is a host o f diverse and compli­ cated tasks—a myriad o f approaches to access- SteveM cKinzie is a librarian a t D ickinson College, Carlisle, P ennsylvania; e-mail: mckinzie@ dickinsn J u n e 1 9 9 3 /3 3 7 ing information that go far beyond w hat­ ever the term “bibliographic instruction” and its new-fangled rivals can ever hope to relate. What we need is a term that explains more accurately w hat it is that we really do and what it is that we teach. I suggest that all of these terms both old and new are actually about “re­ search.” Our task is meeting the research needs W hen will some self-appointed g u ru begin to talk o f o u r work as “inform ation empowerment, ” “instruction in new-age access, ” or some other obnoxious title? of researchers. From involved discussions of critical thinking and the subtle sifting of re­ sources to the uses of an index and the mas­ tery of electronic formats, our concern is to give users the tools and skills to access whatever information they need for w hatever endeavor they attempt. The teaching can be as simple as informing people about the procedures of interlibrary loan or as involved as training users about the intri­ cacies of the Internet. Whatever the level of complexity, our work is in one sense always the same. We are meeting research needs. It is essentially about teaching people how to get at information—how to do research. If we begin to think of our pedagogical con­ cerns as “research,” w e actually will be doing something very similar to other, more tradi­ tionally academic, disciplines. No one commit­ ted to the teaching of English literature in the academic community has ever thought of call­ ing their work “literary literacy” or “English in­ struction.” They rather simply describe them­ selves as “professors of English literature” or “teachers of English.” Our work is similar. Like the traditional literary professor w hose goal may be to en lig h ten a class a b o u t a literature’s importance or influence, our aim is to develop a sophisticated researcher. We serve no one by confusing our patrons with high- sounding notions like “bibliographic instruc­ tion,” “information literacy,” or whatever else may strike the fancy of librarianship’s collec­ tive conscious. How long does anyone think it will take before some ALA pundit recommends some more faddish or politically correct label­ ing? When will some self-appointed guru b e­ gin to talk of our work as “information em­ powerment,” “instruction in new-age access,” or some other obnoxious title? Who thinks up these insipid expressions anyway? N o m ore outlandish pretensions No, w e should jettison the outlandish preten­ sions to which librarianship is so prone and return to the essentials of our calling. We are much better off considering our responsibility to be “research.” We are to equip our users to analyze materials and ferret out resources to meet their complicated information needs. In one sense, like the professors of English literature, w e are specialists, with the particu­ lar field of research as our responsibility. We are paid to know any and everything about the research process, to understand the subtle­ ties of information access, to communicate the complexities of the information revolution, and to equip our users with the skills needed to acquire data in an age rich with information resources. Terms like “bibliographic instruction” may be adequate within the profession itself as code words for the varied dimensions of what w e’ve discussed. “Information literacy,” with its con­ notations of contemporary relevance may also serve equally within the rarefied climate of pro­ fessional library literature. But in communicat­ ing with the world in general, I suggest a sim­ pler, more straightforward label: research. Nothing embodies the essence of our task more comprehensively. Nothing communicates its goals m ore clearly. We teach "research skills.” We aid the curriculum by offering that quintessential “research co m p o n en t” to the educational task. We are the research special­ ists. Research is our game. That—all of that— and nothing more. ■ Share your library's news C&RL News wants to hear about your library’s activities. Information in the News from the Field, Grants & Acquisitions, and People in the News columns is gathered from press releases and notices we receive. If you don’t share your ideas and activities with us we can’t share them with C&RL News readers. Be sure to put C&RL News on your mailing list today. Send notices to the Editor, C&RL News, 50 E. H uron St., Chicago, IL 6 0 6 ll; or bitnet: U38398@uicvm.bitnet.