I was excited to see so many people I know and admire had been recognized this year as Movers and Shakers by Library Journal. Congratulations to everyone, but especially to my peeps: David King, David Rothman, Evette Atkin, Chris Harris, Peter Bromberg and Tim Spaulding, and the folks I’ve admired from afar: Char Booth, Caleb Tucker-Raymond, and Josh Ferraro. A special congrats has to go to my partner-in-crime, Michelle Boulé. I think so much of her that I’m absolutely bursting with pride. Michelle is one of those rare people who is both full of innovative ideas, and is also willing to put in the hard work to make those ideas real. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone so passionate and full of energy. She’s always willing to question the common wisdom and to fight for people in our profession who aren’t as lucky as she is to have support for professional development. I still remember the day that I asked her to be my “wingman” for HigherEd BlogCon; little did I know that it would be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Congratulations Michelle!!!
Yesterday, I read a really awful post by a health science librarian in Canada who ranted about how people without an MLS don’t deserve to be recognized as Library Journal Movers and Shakers (which was an obvious swipe at a certain Mover and Shaker he likes to refer to as a “non librarian”). He has since removed the post, but I wanted to mention it because I think what is so wonderful about the LJ award is that it goes to people who are moving libraries forward, whether or not they are degreed librarians. Because it’s not all about the librarians — there are so many people who are doing amazing things for libraries. It may be a library worker, a board member, a vendor, or a volunteer. I just think it’s horrible for people to dismiss the contributions of library staff (or folks associated with libraries) without degrees or treat them like they’re less deserving of recognition. Library workers are awesome!!!
I also wanted to recognize a few other folks who I think are moving libraries forward (a few of many who deserve the honor). These are people who have moved and shaken me with their dedication and great work. I’d like to give my own recognition (little as that means) to Sarah Houghton-Jan, Karen Coombs, Chad Boeninger and Paul Pival. I have gained so much knowledge and inspiration from all of you. Thanks for all you’ve given to the profession.
I think people who are recognized as LJ Movers and Shakers should be so proud of what they’ve accomplished. But we should always remember the thousands and thousands of other people doing wonderful work in libraries every day. How can we work to improve recognition of everyday great work in our own libraries? Everyone doing good work in libraries should be allowed to feel this good. 🙂
Totally with you on those four additional “honorees.” All people I could see honored in the future, along with a few others, most notably Dorothea, although she’d hate me for saying so.
Agreed. Dorothea does rock and deserves it! But I know she’s still got some amazing work to do in the worlds of repositories and open access in the next year or so that’s going to blow all of our minds. I felt like I got mine WAY too early.
Well, sure, it’s not a lifetime achievement award, after all.
Very true 🙂
Thanks, Meredith! Besides 1/50th of the bright national library spotlight, all the bloggy love is wonderful as well.
If people we know aren’t being recognized, our job is to nominate them for awards!
I, of course, agree with Caleb on that point. The Twitterhive noticed that no librarian from Kentucky has ever been selected, so my goal is to rectify that. Cindi Trainor immediately comes to mind, but I can think of some others.
Hey thanks Meredith, right back atcha! BTW, LJ seems to have taken the hint and has redone their page showing both names and tags, and sorted into categories to boot!
Mua-hahahahahaha. It’ll never happen.
Without taking away from the excellent honorees, I hope I may say that I’m slightly ticked MY nominee didn’t get the nod. Wait ’till next year.
Since the winners are based on nominations from peers, perhaps Canadians should take more of an active role in nominating their brethren for the award. And if you look at the list, it’s not as if people in Canada have not been getting recognized http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6535115.html (there were two this year).
“It’s simply difficult for any American librarian to know or understand what it must be like to be shoved aside by non-degreed librarians (’non-librarian librarians?).”
I honestly have no idea what that means. We have lots of non-degreed people working in libraries in the U.S. in professional positions.
And George, does anything David Rothman has ever done make it ok for that other librarian to say something so offensive to all people making contributions to libraries who don’t have a degree? There is no justification, and clearly he realized that it was offensive or he would not have removed the post.
I’ve nominated some excellent people before for the Mover and Shaker thing who have not won and I’ve thought a lot about why that might be. It seems like with the techie people, there’s a real focus on people who have a specific project or constellation of projects in a certain area to show. Like me and wikis, or Helene and Learning 2.0, or Casey and Scriblio. David King is a notable exception and I’m pleased to see them recognizing folks who have made an excellent, but more general, contribution to the tech knowledge of librarians. But still, I think the focus is more on big and specific accomplishments in a certain area. And I don’t believe that is the only thing that makes someone a Mover and Shaker.
Dorothea, you never know! Greg and I may have to start a nominate Dorothea campaign next Fall. If you get an absolute ton of nominations, they’ll have a much more difficult time ignoring you. 🙂
It won’t happen. I’m not soundbiteable, not working in a sexy area of librarianship, not in demand as a speaker or writer, and not possessed of a sterling list of accomplishments.
Save your noms for someone electable.
Thanks for your shout out Meredith. I’m as honored by that (really) as the actual MS selection. I’m slightly uncomfortable with the whole thing (and more than a little embarrassed, but trying to deal.) There are so many people who deserve recognition, and I think some of them — certainly those that you mentioned — might not be nominated or selected because people perceive them as already beyond the mover/shaker level. For example, Leslie Burger is certainly a mover/shaker, but who would think to nominate her? (And wouldn’t we all be surprised to see her chosen?)
One other comment about the selection process (based on my assumptions from other selection processes I’ve been directly involved in.) It’s not just about who’s “the best”. It’s also about having a diverse group of people who are doing different things. If you’re moving and shaking doing cool things with technology, but have the bad luck of being nominated in a year when 20 other cool people are doing cool things with technology, you might get passed over. Try again next year, when the mix may be different, and the likelihood of being selected after repeated nominations is in your favor.
Thanks again Meredith!
There’s an exciting batch of shaking movers (!) this year. It’s fun seeing people I know or know of and respect honored by LJ. Of course this list doesn’t include all of those who inspire me professionally, but we can all say that, right? As a health sciences librarian I applaud David Rothman’s recognition. His blog is a dependable resource, and I value the energy and intelligence he brings to discussions of medical librarianship and web geekery. That’s not to say I agree with everything he’s ever written. He has strong opinions, but I appreciate that his blog, at its best, is a platform for thoughtful dialogue.
Thanks, as usual, for the kind words.
You are right about non-MLS people getting awards. Who cares? What matters is that people are working hard to make libraries and librarians better. The coolest thing about M&S is that most of us have a community supporting them and making us want to be better. No man is an island.
I love librarians. They make me want to be better at the work I do.
Thanks Meredith, and you’re dead-on about Chad – my neck hurts from looking up to the guy.
If I’m not mistaken there were a couple non-MLSs in the bunch, but I’m *really* hoping I was the “non-librarian” in question!
Kidding aside, I think the basic point is that while it’s an honor to get it, not getting it is meaningless. It’s not a careful, rational, fair process designed to get at some M&S quintessence–which would be impossible anyway–but a fun way to recognize some people, give the nod to some trends and produce an article that isn’t boring.
One of the Canadians points was that there weren’t enough such “prizes” to go around. Well, how hard is *that* to change? Library Journal made it up, after all!
what a great post!
especially the nice mention about non-MLSs… dividing people into this group and that, while ignoring skill and value is such a waste of energy.
i heart librarians, whether they move, shake, or stay still! 🙂
George Easton, a friend and proxy of Dean Giustini’s, takes a swipe at me above and, like Giustini, doesn’t bother to provide support for his criticism- so I thought I’d do it for him.
Easton says that I “can parse people’s statements to the point that it’s embarrassing” and suggests that others see what I “said about Susanna Fox recently.”
Dean’s post and every “non-librarian” snark he’s made in the last several weeks (all of which were removed from his site after Meredith put up this post) were inspired (by Dean’s own admission) by my criticism of an editorial he wrote. Perhaps this is where Easton sees something embarassing.
I wrote about Susannah Fox that she was wrong to criticize the AMA for suggesting that doctors are a more reliable source of health information than chat rooms (because Doctors ARE a more reliable source of healthcare information than chat rooms) and that her comparison of the RIAA and the AMA was a very poor, misleading analogy.
I implore George Easton to attempt to support his own assertions- because I’m tired of people like he and Giustini making unsupported ad hominem attacks instead of ever debating the merits of an argument.
I’m very grateful to Meredith for this post and to Rachel for hers.
well i’m Canadian
– so i guess that’s a plus
but i don’t have my MLIS yet (May ’08)
– so i shouldn’t be included in the M&S list.
in such an interdisciplinary field, deeming only those with alphabet soup after their name as worthy to “move” and “shake” would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
and yes, i appreciate i don’t know the finer points of Canadian librarianship, and that my lack of experience calls my credibility into question.
but i still believe that excluding those without an MLIS because they aren’t “librarians” is ridiculous and backward-thinking.
then again, i frequently say outrageous things.
amy “shakes when she moves” buckland
Saying outrageous things is a classic symptom of being a Mover and Shaker, Amy. 🙂
Don’t let the sour grapers get to ya!
Since I could be seen to be the sour-graper, I thought I would contact Amy and I had a wonderful exchange with her (using Google talk – great tool, btw). See my post.
There are many aspects to this story that I think I would like to write about for a future Library Journal. The responsible use of social software, for one, and the limits of free speech. Next year, I’ll be sure to be less complacent and nominate several young movers and shakers too. (I don’t know why I missed that.) Oh, and a few more health librarians such as Michelle Kraft and Mark Rabnett.
Do you think they would be interested in that?
Great idea, Dean. I think if you see a certain group not winning a lot of M&S awards, perhaps it’s because they are not being nominated. Gotta be “in it to win it.”
It takes me a while – but I’m learning Meredith. One of the positive aspects of this episode (and my role in it) is that I’ve been able to meet quite a few of you whose blogs I’ve been reading for years!
Quite an impressive group. Dean
I had a similar conversation about the status of certain library workers just the other day: