Finally, over a week and a half later, I get to post about the final day of the conference, which rather gives the lie to the professed immediacy of blogging. But a glass of gin and Dr John will help me get this done.
In any case, this is perhaps the easiest session to describe, not only because it’s only half a day but because it was the day when the conference became worthwhile, and this because of T. Scott Plutchak’s Bishop-LeFanu lecture, which lifted the level considerably. I’ve been going to these events since the days when they were only Bishop lectures (the first one I attended would have been around 1991), and this was certainly one of the best. Incidentally, last year’s lecturer, Abigail Woods who spoke about her work on the history of foot and mouth disease, has just had her book published.
But Scott lifted the conference, which for me this far had been not very inspiring (but bear in mind I missed the first day, including Maggie Haines, who was bound to have been good). He was witty and inspiring, describing the development of the idea of the clinical librarian, initiated back in the 1970s, into the informationist, first proposed in a paper in Annals of Internal Medicine, and further as the Information Specialist in Context (ISIC), now the subject of a pilot project at Vanderbilt.
Scott defined the characteristics of the ISIC/Informationist:
· A foot in both information science and clinical camps
· Has retrieval and synthesizing skills, but also functions as part of the clinical team
· Accredited and certified
· Integrated into clinical care structures
Scott posed the question, is the ISIC the future of the library information profession, and if so what if any place there might be for generalist librarians?
For more on all this, read Scott’s editorials in JMLA:
Informationists and librarians.
Plutchak TS.
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000 Oct; 88(4): 391-392.
The informationist—two years later.
Plutchak TS.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2002 Oct; 90(4): 367-369.
Scott was followed by Steve Rose, gallantly standing in for another Oxford colleague who was indisposed on a project on guidelines in practice in an A&E department, and Claire Honeybourne, who spoke on Leicester’s PDA project. I’ve heard Claire before on this, but what was interesting this time was that she described some of the more recent developments, including developing the project to involve all 58 of their junior doctors.
After coffee I unburdened myself of my presentation, the overheads and resource list for which I posted the other day. In the same session, and much more interesting, were papers from Mary Edmunds Otter and Sue Spriggs from Leicester, who used a novel presentation technique for a paper on their information literacy training programme; the technological limitations of the Waterfront Hall did not permit them to do it quite as they had planned, with questions from the audience asked in a random order, but they managed very well in a linear style. Interstingly information skills are assessed inter alia through a Medline station in an OSCPE . Rachael Adair and Wendy Stanton from Nottingham reported on integrating information skills into the graduate entry programme at Derby, a satellite medical school.
One point struck me during this session, which is how keen we are to vilify Google when we talk about information literacy. We happily counterpose a finely crafted and methodologically sound search conducted on a bibliographic database with an end user's cack-handed Google search. But google is not the enemy, and we should be working with google to add our knowledge of user needs and behaviour, and the organisation, description and classification that are the core of our proefsssion
Finally Bruce Madge gave an urbane invitation to attend ICML9 in Brazil and announced that ICML10 in 2009 would be held in Brisbane.
Recent Comments