While I would agree with some of your statements about the conference, I
would disagree that it was a disappointment. Perhaps "the medium" was
"the message" and I, for one, left the videoconference with an invigorated
feeling of commitment to push ahead and work toward necessary
technological change. Call it a pep talk or reality check instead of
future trends! The videoconference brought librarians together in a way
that traditional meetings have not done in the past and I think it opened
our eyes to the possibilities of future conferencing on a regional and
national level. I think it's important for librarians to get on the same
wavelength. Understanding the expectations of our colleagues within our
industry helps to unify a vision for our profession. I don't think it was
a waste of time and I look forward to the next conference.
On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Mitch Counts wrote:
> Subject: Time: 2:01 PM
> Satellite Videoconference Date: 3/25/97
>
> I, for one, was disappointed in the videoconference. The pre-program
> materials stated that two of the most important objectives of the
> videoconference was (1) to address the impact of new technologies on
> libraries, and (2) to forecast what libraries and information services would
> look like in the next 10 years. What specific new technologies were discussed
> in the videoconference and does anyone really have a better idea of what
> libraries and information services will look like in the next 10 years after
> viewing this videoconference? Thus, I don't think that either one of these
> objectives was adequately met.
>
> Specifically, I don't think the videoconference provided much in the way
> of new information. For example, Joanne Marshall supposedly was going to
> provide the kinds of competencies that special librarians would need for the
> 21st century. Yet, with few exceptions, her listings of these competencies
> could just as easily have applied to librarians in the 20th century. Also,
> the competencies provided were so general as to diminish their overall worth.
>
> This brings me to my second objection to the videoconference which is
> that the panelists provided far too many generalizations and too few
> specifics. There was also far too little emphasis placed on discussion of
> practical, specific technologies that would be required in the next millennium
> for libraries.
>
> Finally, I think too much emphasis was placed on the "knowledge
> management" discussion, yet the term was never adequately defined and
> developed in my opinion to be of much help to listeners.
>
> As the Site Coordinator for the videoconference in my area, I am privy to
> the Program Evaluation Forms that were turned in, and the "knowlege gained,"
> "I feel I achieved the objectives as stated," and "the presenters showed how
> course concepts have practical applications," were easily the lowest rated
> questions as rated by the attendees at my site.
>
> So, while I like the possibilities offered by videoconferencing, I don't
> think that this specific program made very good use of those possibilities.
> An overall "thumbs down" for "The Future for Librarians: Positioning Yourself
> for Success" from me this time around.
>
>
>
>
> Mitch Counts
> Law Library Director
> Baylor Law School
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:32 PST