One thing that I do not understand (from the perspective of a new librarian from large research university) is the following: we are asked to do a lot with a little especially given the economic climate, however, we librarians are asked to serve on lots of committees or working groups of 10 or more people. Why do we need such large committees especially when our time is already crunched? And why can’t committees, who are usually made up of reps from various departments, make the decisions instead of sending the committee’s recommendation to the entire library system for review? Maybe these patterns that I see come from academic library culture beliefs….like the need to gain consensus from everyone in order to move forward.

Just like any job, my time as an academic librarian is full of ups and downs. Still, I feel lucky to be in this position.

Sometimes I think we (as a society) have made frantic busyness a virtue, one that nobody much enjoys, a stern virtue, like temperance and diligence; we’re too busy for the more generous virtues of patience, kindness, and charity. In that context (and considering another old-time virtue, humility) I’m not sure what achievement means.

Rather than an either/or, I see the lottery-sweatshop issue as a scale with different institutions falling at different points along that spectrum based on their unique atmospheres and administrative pressures. While in theory one would expect a standard among tenure processes in academic libraries, I think we’ve all seen a lot of variation across institutions based largely (or wholly?) upon the top-down performance expectations. Where your library falls on the spectrum will greatly affect your experience of how difficult the job has become.

Of course, outside of institutional pressures, any individual may perceive their own job as a sweatshop or lottery based solely on their view of the universe! Half full or half empty?

I’m going with full. One lottery winner, right here!