How do we contribute “tangibly”?
This is a belated thanks to Wrkshy, for her plug on sgLEAD. Quoting her last paragraph:
Overall, I think sgLEAD is an interesting effort and something I would support. I’m not sure about how I can contribute tangibly, but since I have an interest in museum and library design, and a desire to explore different ways to make art and information accessible and available to people, it’s worth joining in and checking out.
I’m reminded of the discussion with three other NLB colleagues (and one ex-colleague) one evening. We were mulling over the idea of the mailing list and blog (which was eventually created, as you see here).
“What would be it’s purpose?”
The ultimate aim for sgLEAD is to do something tangible w.r.t. Library Disability Services. Of course we could plan something concrete now, with a very definite future time-line. But the current reality is that we’re all caught up with our day jobs and what-nots. I’m not making excuses here. Just stating the facts.
So given the current reality, at the bare minimum there should then be a way for people of like-minded interests and motivation to network and share information/ experiences. Which is why we’re here. Sure, the cynics would say “It’s just talk”. I feel we have to start somewhere. At least we’re talking and sharing, which is two more things than what existed before.
And because we’re here, we get to know there’s someone like wrkshy, who has “an interest in museum and library design, and a desire to explore different ways to make art and information accessible and available to people”. That’s one piece of information, one more contact, that we didn’t have before. That counts for something.
As mentioned, ideally we should aim for something concrete. How we’ll use the contacts and network is something we’ll have to work out. For now, it’s still baby steps. It’s likely this baby will take longer than most to get to the running stage. Or it may never go beyond baby steps.
At least we’ve tried. And we’re trying something now.
February 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hi Ivan,
What about my suggestion on creating special resouce sections on disabilities at NLB? I emailed to your Gmail sometime back.
Cheers,
Alvan
February 27, 2007 at 12:44 am
Hi Alvan, hmm… can’t quite recall the email. I remember replying to all of yours
Do you mean create specific sections for collections like on “Down Syndrome”, “Blind”, and “Deaf” etc? I can’t answer for NLB. You can try submitting your suggestion via the website and see what sort of response you get. Maybe NLB might want to review it’s current classification.
I suppose it could be done, although there is the usual space constraints issue. Also, some people may feel that disability resources should not warrant a separate section, as it may further reinforce the differences (rather than emphasising integration). For instance, currently a book like “Coping with your Autistic child” is classified under “child rearing” (DDC 649) and shelved together with the other Parenting-related books. If this book was specially segregated, would it give the wrong impression that the collection is for “Disability” Vs “Normal”?
That being said, I’ve not done enough research on this. Let me bring this up to colleagues and see what other issues we might have — or perhaps there isn’t any issue after all.
February 27, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Erm, well, actually, there already exists this disabled-normal chasm. I doubt having a separate section will marginalise people like me (with a disability) because where else will we find such books? In which sections? Under which classfications?
Medical, probably. Special needs. And that already is a big red flag saying we aren’t ‘normal’.. so why not might as well make life easier for PWDs by providing easy access to resources at NLB at least?
February 27, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I see the value of having a dedicated section on disability-related books. It raises awareness and the profile of the collection (that otherwise might have been missed if they were inter-shelved). Also, it does increase the convenience to users who want to browse through the materials physically, rather than browse through online records (which admittedly is tedious, in the sense that you have to search using various keywords).
One issue might be the relative few books to make this section substantial. But that being said, the library ought to start somewhere. I suspect that in the end, the decision to start a Disability-resource section will not be based on hard facts and figures, but on the willingness of the library to play an advocacy role.
Alvan, I can’t promise anything for the library, as I can’t speak for the library (I’m writing this in my personal capacity). But I can promise that I’ll bring this suggest to my colleagues and see what comes out of it.
March 3, 2007 at 10:53 am
Thanks, Ivan.
That’s the most I can ask. Hoping the library sees the value of it too!
(When I see the massive sections on IT stuff - OS, programming, security etc. - which will be outdated in relatively short time and have to be replaced regularly, it really seems NLB has infinite finances, though of course I know it’s not so lah. :P)