Comments on the fate of the Mitchel Library

THe following is from an article by Peter Coleman in Quadrant (April 2008) “The obssession of David Scott Mitchell”
Hopefully it is not an elegy for the traditional library…
“Over the past twenty years the Library has become, in Fletcher’s summary, “more corporate, managerial, technological and outward-looking”. An MBA and a background in business have become compelling qualifications for appointment. Readers and staff have been rebranded (clients, stakeholders, human resources). A more relaxed dress code now prevails, along with the use of first names. But there has been a price for the abandonment of the old library spirit of collegiality—and the Mitchell paid it in full. The idea was banished that Mitchell Librarians be scholars who would read and assess their collection and be able to advise the public on it in some detail. They are now to be “players in the information industry”. The Library has become part of a corporate body, to be judged at least as much by its popular appeal as by its contribution to learning. Some of its collection has been sold off. It has lost control of the content and format of exhibitions. In one advertisement for the position of head librarian the very words “Mitchell Librarian” were dropped…In this new businesslike age, young recruits in libraries, universities, galleries or museums are unwilling to make that old-fashioned, lifelong commitment to an institution of culture. They expect to move several times in a career. Yet the Mitchell requires many years of immersion in its collections if a librarian is to master them. When the senior members retire and younger members move on, who will be left to keep the faith?”

One thought on “Comments on the fate of the Mitchel Library”

  1. (Just to pick on one part of that quote at the risk of ignoring the context…)

    <i>The idea was banished that Mitchell Librarians be scholars who would read and assess their collection and be able to advise the public on it in some detail. They are now to be "players in the information industry".</i>

    Hmm, I know that "players in the information industry" sounds very business-speakish, but I don’t think it actually means anything different from someone who "would read and assess their collection and be able to advise the public on it" – unless perhaps to recognise that the librarians might also need to read and assess information sources beyond the traditional collection and advise the public on those as well.

    Doing that probably does mean spending less time on the traditional collection and I guess it depends on the library and its clientele as to the extent that gaining expertise in a broader range of sources balances out losing depth of expertise in the narrower library collection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *