Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:01:15 EDT
From:         "Philip N. Alexander" <palex@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: secretaries using Grateful Med
X-To:         Medical Libraries Discussion List <MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>
              13 Aug 92 13:21:00 -0500. <9208141740.AA08496@Athena.MIT.EDU>

Michelynn McKnight's distinction between ``intermediary'' and
``end-user'' searching may be simple and elegant--but it is also, I
would contend, far too rigid and inflexible.  It fails to take into
account the complexity of many research environments.

Nowadays, lots of projects don't follow the neat pattern: busy
doctor sends secretary to the library to look something up.  No,
these projects depend on an intricate system of *team work* in which
several individuals (doctors, technical assistants, secretaries,
etc.) carry out assigned tasks.  A secretary's assignment may
include literature searches and other responsibilities--as may a
technical assistant's or a doctor's.  This is a reality which
librarians need to face up to.

When a librarian won't recognize or cooperate with (or, worse yet,
attempts to modify) a modus operandi that's been put in place
through the careful planning of a principal investigator, I don't
think it's unreasonable to wonder whether that librarian is
presumptuous or obstructionist--or simply out of touch with reality.
At the very least, such a librarian is going way beyond the call of
duty.  What gives him/her the right to suggest that it's
``inappropriate'' for a secretary (or anyone else) to conduct a
project's literature searches?  Is it even, from the librarian's
perspective, a sturdy limb to go out on?  I'm not saying a librarian
shouldn't make suggestions--but to *insist* that such-and-such is
the only way research or reference work can proceed (do it my way,
or forget it)?!?

I still believe that underlying this discussion is not so much a
concern about who's an ``intermediary'' and who's an ``end-user'' (I
don't hear anybody complaining, for example, about an
``intermediary'' literature search done by a doctor for a nurse) but
rather a *false* assumption--based on elitist notions--that
secretaries, as a species, should get back to their telephones and
typing pools and stop doing this kind of work.  It's reminiscent of
the discussion on dress codes that occurred on this list a while
back, when some proposed a minimum standard of attire for library
``professionals'' as a way of distinguishing themselves from
secretaries and other such underlings.

What this suggests to me is that some librarians have awfully
fragile egoes.  They feel upset, galled, and demeaned, for example,
that someone of a doctor's stature could possibly consider library
work so trivial that a ``mere'' secretary could do it.  But, if some
doctors feel that way, so what?  Is that reason enough to say
``we'll show 'em'' and take our revenge in petty (posing as helpful)
ways, like insisting we always talk to them in person?

I think it'd be wise to get off this obsession with hierarchy and
get on with our job--serving clienteles with diverse needs and
diverse ways of fulfilling those needs.  Is it sensible to make
across-the-board assumptions that secretaries can only be
``intermediaries,'' never an integral part of a research team
(beyond word-processing)?  Why do some librarians worry so much
about *image*?  Might *results* get lost in the shuffle?


--Philip N. Alexander
  M.I.T.
  palex@athena.mit.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU