July 19, 2017

JCLIS Vol 1, No 2 (2017): Critical Archival Studies

Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies

Vol 1, No 2 (2017): Critical Archival Studies
Guest Editors: Michelle Caswell, Ricardo Punzalan, and T-Kay Sangwand

Table of Contents

Editors’ Note

Critical Archival Studies: An Introduction
Michelle Caswell, Ricardo Punzalan, T-Kay Sangwand

Articles

A Matter of Life or Death: A Critical Examination of the Role of Records and Archives in Supporting the Agency of the Forcibly Displaced
Anne J. Gilliland

Critical Archiving and Recordkeeping Research and Practice in the Continuum
Joanne Evans, Sue McKemmish, Greg Rolan

Archives Without Archives: (Re)Locating and (Re)Defining the Archive Through Post-Custodial Praxis
Christian Kelleher

Archival Amnesty: In Search of Black American Transitional and Restorative Justice
Tonia Sutherland

Power to the People: Documenting Police Violence in Cleveland
Stacie M Williams, Jarrett Drake

Appraising Newness: Whiteness, Neoliberalism & the Building of the Archive for New Poetry
Eunsong Kim

Insistering Derrida: Cixous, Deconstruction, and the Work of Archive
Verne Harris

Critical Feminism in the Archives
Marika Cifor, Stacy Wood

A Queer/ed Archival Methodology: Archival Bodies as Nomadic Subjects
Jamie Ann Lee

ISSN: 2572-1364

July 9, 2017

New book: Queer Library Alliance: Global Reflections and Imaginings

Queer Library Alliance: Global Reflections and Imaginings

Editors: Rae-Anne Montague and Lucas McKeever
Price: $35.00
Published: July 2017
ISBN: 978-1-63400-031-4
282 pages

Available on Amazon.

Queer identities are complex. They are embedded in a web of intersectionality and often challenging to fully define. Sometimes queerness shines like a beacon and this radiance is captured in media. Sometimes it is more subtle. Often it is invisible. Promoting understanding and visibility are primary goals of this anthology. As library professionals that create, utilize, and make accessible systems of organization and classification for information, intersectionality must remain a clear objective in addressing these historical absences. These topics represent some of our efforts to respond to challenges, address critical needs, and serve as essential forces against systematic oppression across service areas, library types, and borders. The first section of this collection of essays looks at how we are developing understanding and library services that reflect and are responsive to LGBTQ user needs. The second emphasizes opportunities and approaches for augmenting queer professional practice, which ultimately benefits our diverse library users. Contributors hail from, reside in, and study issues from several countries around the world including Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo, England, India, Japan, Sweden, and the U.S.A. With many areas of the world not represented in this text, we recognize biases inherent in our perspectives. As librarians, archivists, and other information professionals committed to facilitating access and high-quality services for LGBTQ- and other marginalized users, it is important to stress that this is just one step in a larger process. There is still much more to consider and do as we continue to advocate for equity in library services to all.

Rae-Anne Montague is Director of Outreach Programs at Hawai’i Pacific University and affiliate faculty at the University of Hawai’i at M?noa Library and Information Science Program. Her interests include community engagement, inquiry, and social justice. She has developed and provided leadership for several LIS initiatives including WISE (Web-based Information Science Education) and LAMP (LIS Access Midwest Program). She is currently working with E Noelo I Ka ‘Ike (To Search for Knowledge), a project designed to increase awareness and understanding of Hawaiian resource materials.

Lucas McKeever is the Head of Technical Services at Elmwood Park Public Library near Chicago, Illinois. Since 2013, he has been an active coordinator of the LGBTQ Users Special Interest Group of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). Additionally, he has served on the Rainbow Book List Committee of the GLBT Round Table of the American Library Association and has been named an American Library Association Emerging Leader. Previously, Lucas was the director of the Gerber/Hart Library and Archives, an organization committed to documenting and preserving facets of LGBTQ life in the Midwestern United States.

July 5, 2017

Timothy Gorichanaz wins the 2017 Litwin Books Award for Ongoing Dissertation Research

Press release
7/5/2017
Media contact:
Rory Litwin, rory@litwinbooks.com

We are pleased to announce the winner of the 2017 Litwin Books Award for Ongoing Dissertation Research in the Philosophy of Information. We are granting this year’s award to Timothy John Gorichanaz of Drexel University, based on his dissertation project, “Understanding Self-Documentation.” In this work, Gorichanaz seeks to better understand our current obsession with self-documentation – pictorial documentation in particular (e.g., the “selfie”) – through a study of the popular artistic practice of self-portraiture from the point of view of document theory and the philosophy of information.

A member of the award committee says, “Gorichanaz shows a wide-ranging knowledge of the relevant work in philosophy and information science, displaying an ability to make novel and insightful connections amongst a broad range of theorists. On this base he builds a set of well-crafted and fascinating research questions about the nature of the self-portrait as a document and as a form of experiential understanding.” The committee is confident that this dissertation will be a valuable contribution to the areas that Gorichanaz identifies in his proposal: document theory, information behavior, the philosophy of information and critical discourse within information science.

The award consists of a certificate suitable for framing and $1000 check.

Since this award is for ongoing research, other applicants who are still working on their dissertations will be eligible to enter their work next year, and we strongly encourage them to do so.

For more information about the award, please visit http://litwinbooks.com/award.php.

###

July 2, 2017

Library Juice Grants and Awards

The Library Juice Press Annual Paper Contest
Rewarding good work in the field of library and information studies, humanistically understood, through a monetary award and public recognition. Criteria for judgment are clarity of writing; originality of thought; sincerity of effort at reaching something true; soundness of argumentation (where applicable); and relevance to our time and situation.

The Litwin Books Award for Ongoing Doctoral Dissertation Research in the Philosophy of Information
An award that consists of $1,000, given annually to a graduate student who is working on a dissertation on the philosophy of information (broadly construed). As we see it, the range of philosophical questions relating to information is broad, and approachable through a variety of philosophical traditions (philosophy of mind, logic, philosophy of information so-called, philosophy of science, etc.).

The Litwin Books Travel Grant
Litwin Books provides financial support to scholars in LIS and related fields for travel to conferences they attend, domestically or internationally. Travel grants are limited to $500 for domestic conferences and $1000 for travel to a conference outside the recipient’s home country.

The ACRL ULS Outstanding Professional Development Award
Sponsored by Library Juice Academy, this award is intended to recognize librarians, archivists or curators whose contributions to providing professional development opportunities for librarians have been especially noteworthy or influential. The effect of these contributions may be the result of continuous or distinguished service to the profession, but may also be the result of extraordinarily active, innovative or collaborative work that deserves national recognition.

The Library Juice + DLF Forum Fellowship
This is a fellowship and travel award meant to support one mid-career professional in digital libraries and related fields. These fellowships are designed to offset travel and lodging expenses associated with attending the Forum. Library Juice+DLF Forum fellows additionally receive complimentary full registration to the Forum (up to a $750 value) and an invitation to special networking events.

June 9, 2017

Library Juice Press Annual Paper Contest

The intention of this contest is to encourage and reward good work in the field of library and information studies, humanistically understood, through a monetary award and public recognition.

The contest is open to librarians, library students, academics, and others.

Acceptable paper topics cover the full range of topics in the field of library and information studies, loosely defined.

Papers submitted may be pending publication or published (formally or informally) in the past year. Unpublished papers are acceptable if they are publicly accessible (informally published) and written in the past year.

Single and multiple-authored papers will be accepted.

Any type of paper may be entered as long as it is not a report of an empirical study. Examples of accepted forms would be literature review essays, analytical essays, historical papers, and personal essays. The work may include some informal primary research, but may not be essentially a report of a study.

Submitted papers may be part of a larger project.

The minimum length is 2000 words. The maximum length is 10,000 words.

Criteria for judgment:
Clarity of writing
Originality of thought
Sincerity of effort at reaching something true
Soundness of argumentation (where applicable)
Relevance to our time and situation

The award shall consist of $1000 and a certificate suitable for framing.

Entries must be submitted by August 1st, to inquiries@libraryjuicepress.com. Entries must be in MS Word or RTF format to facilitate removal of identifying information (PDFs not accepted).

The winning paper, and possibly a number of honorable mentions, are announced on October 1st.

Papers will be judged by a committee selected for their accomplishments in the field, and in order to represent a range of perspectives. The jury uses a blind process in which identifying information is removed from the submitted papers.

Although we are a publisher, submission of a paper for this award in itself does not imply any transfer, licensing, or sharing of your publication rights.

Past winners
2016 – Lisa Sloniowski, for “Affective Labor, Resistance, and the Academic Librarian,” published in Library Trends in 2016.
2015 – James Lowry, for “Information and the Social Contract,” unpublished at the time of award.
2014 – Michelle Caswell, for “Inventing New Archival Imaginaries: Theoretical Foundations for Identity-Based Community Archives,” published as a chapter in Identity Palimpsests: Archiving Ethnicity in the United States and Canada, Litwin Books, 2014.
2013 – Ryan Shaw, for “Information Organization and the Philosophy of History,” published in JASIST in June 2013.

June 2, 2017

Librarians, Archivists, Scholars, Educators, Artists, and Activists Tackle Climate Change

Media contact:
Rory Litwin, (916) 905-0291
rory@litwinbooks.com
P.O. Box 188784
Sacramento, CA 95818

Release date: Friday June 2, 2017
Sacramento, CA

Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene: Colloquium 2017 (LAAC 2017) was held on May 13-14, 2017 at the Moving Image Archiving and Preservation Program at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. About 40 librarians and archivists attended, as well as a handful of artists, educators and scholars, to explore their roles as stewards of a culture’s collective knowledge and the unique implications of the missions and activities of libraries and archives in the face of cataclysmic environmental changes. Speakers presented from HathiTrust, Future Library, The Prelinger Library, Interference Archive, The Library of Approximate Location, DearTomorrow, The Next Epoch Seed Library, Brooklyn Public Library, as well as many academic libraries and archives.

Keynote speaker Roy Scranton (author of Learning to Die in the Anthropocene and War Porn) kicked off LAAC 2017 with a note of stark pessimism around climate disruption and a call for a reckoning with a radically different future. Presentations followed as either 20-minute papers or 5-minute lightning talks and ranged from environmentally sustainable practices, climate change communication, government policy to the raising of public awareness. At times, bold envisioning countered the speculation of unraveling of systems and infrastructures — imagining an augmented role of libraries as hubs for pre- and post-disaster training, shelter, and community resilience. LAAC 2017 served as an intensive two-day opportunity for information professionals and others to explore the social and physical realities of climate disruption, peak oil, toxic waste, deforestation, food and water shortages, loss of biodiversity, mass migration, sea level rise, and extreme weather events.

A field trip to the Interference Archive in Brooklyn reinforced LAAC 2017 with its focus on cultural production and preservation vis a vis social movements, creative engagement, and the value of archival collections in accessible, open stacks in potentially threatened environments.

“I can’t underscore enough how important it was for me personally to share the weekend with librarians and archivists who ‘get’ how foundation shaking the anthropocene is for our species. I do not get this kind of affirmation in my everyday life. Despite the grave issues we discussed I left the colloquium feeling happy to connect with my new community,” wrote one attendee.

Publisher Rory Litwin of Litwin Books, the sponsor of the colloquium, said, “This event was extremely gratifying to me, as I consider the issues we discussed to be the most important issues facing us in the information and cultural heritage professions. I hope that it will turn out to be the start of a larger effort and an active community within, outside, and across LAM organizations into the future.”

The Planning Committee was made up of Casey E. Davis Kaufman, Associate Director of the WGBH Media Library and Archives and Project Manager at the American Archive of Public Broadcasting and co-founder of ProjectARCC: Archivists Responding to Climate Change; Madeleine Charney, Sustainability Studies Librarian at UMass Amherst and co-founder of the Sustainability Round Table of the American Library Association; and Rory Litwin, former librarian and the founder of Litwin Books, LLC (Colloquium sponsor). Howard Besser, professor of Cinema Studies at NYU, hosted the Colloquium.

The LAAC 2017 website provides presenter bios and abstracts
http://litwinbooks.com/laac2017colloq.php
A recording of the event’s Livestream can be found on the Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/events/638779516326338/
Twitter handle #LAAC17

Videotapes of sessions, slides, selective papers and the Twitter feed will soon be accessible through the University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries Special Collections & University Archives in CREDO, their digital collection
http://credo.library.umass.edu/

Plans are underway for LAAC 2019. For more information, contact Rory Litwin rory@litwinbooks.com.

###

May 31, 2017

ALISE Historical Perspectives Special Interest Group (SIG) Call for Papers

ALISE 2018, Denver, CO, February 6-9, 2018

Historical Perspectives Special Interest Group (SIG) Call for Papers

DEADLINE: July 15, 2017

The ALISE Historical Perspectives SIG invites the submission of abstracts for a panel at the 2018 conference in Denver:

Over the years, library historian Wayne Weigand has called our attention to three core professional values: reading, place, and users as the focus for our understanding of libraries. Primary sources inform his vision of librarianship as a field which should prioritize these three facets in order to serve diverse communities.

The 2018 ALISE Historical Perspectives SIG seeks papers to constitute a panel that will critically engage these powerful, evidence-based, and elegant conceptual tools. Specifically, we seek papers that examine the degree to which these framing themes inform LIS education and how they might apply to histories of all types of libraries in the United States and abroad.

Abstracts should be no more than 250 words, though a select number of references can be supplied in addition to this word limit. Send queries and abstracts to SIG co-conveners Jennifer Burek Pierce (jennifer-burek-pierce@uiowa.edu) and Anthony Bernier (anthony.bernier@sjsu.edu) by July 15, 2017.

May 27, 2017

ALA Annual Conference in Chicago

We are looking forward to the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, where we will be exhibiting as usual. The full catalog of books from Library Juice Press will be there, as well as materials related to Library Juice Academy. We look forward to meeting our customers and potential customers, answering questions, and talking about ideas. Find us in the exhibits hall at table 2636.

May 7, 2017

New: Library Juice Events Calendar

You can add this to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus-sign at the bottom. The calendar includes all events we are sponsoring or participating in: our colloquia, conferences we attend, webinars we put on, and the start of each month’s classes.

April 17, 2017

Alanna Aiko Moore wins the 2017 ULS Outstanding Professional Development Award

From ACRL’s press release:

“The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), is pleased to announce that Alanna Aiko Moore, academic liaison coordinator and librarian for sociology, ethnic studies, and gender studies at the University of California-San Diego (UCSD), has been chosen to receive the 2017 University Libraries Sections (ULS) Outstanding Professional Development Award.

“The $1,000 award and plaque, donated by Library Juice Academy, will be presented to Moore at the 2017 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago.”

Read the full press release

April 9, 2017

The Change We Seek Understanding EveryLibrary’s Work for Libraries

This is a recording of the webinar we recently did with EveryLibrary:

“The Change We Seek Understanding EveryLibrary’s Work for Libraries”

March 24, 2017

CFP extended: Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene Colloquium

The Planning Committee for Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene: A Colloquium is seeking an additional four lightning talk proposals (5 minutes each) and two paper presentations (20 minutes each), which will take place on May 13-14, 2017 at New York University.

Please submit proposals here: https://goo.gl/forms/dEX38aB3WrdhgYq92

Deadline: April 3, 2017 (presenters informed by April 7th).

Note: Presenters must pay the registration fee of $75 to attend.

Original Call for Proposals:

Call for Proposals:
Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene: A Colloquium
May 13-14, 2017
New York University

As stewards of a culture’s collective knowledge, libraries and archives are facing the realities of cataclysmic environmental change with a dawning awareness of its unique implications for their missions and activities. Some professionals in these fields are focusing new energies on the need for environmentally sustainable practices in their institutions. Some are prioritizing the role of libraries and archives in supporting climate change communication and influencing government policy and public awareness. Others foresee an inevitable unraveling of systems and ponder the new place of libraries and archives in a world much different from the one we take for granted. Climate disruption, peak oil, toxic waste, deforestation, soil salinity and agricultural crisis, depletion of groundwater and other natural resources, loss of biodiversity, mass migration, sea level rise, and extreme weather events are all problems that threaten indirectly to overwhelm civilization’s knowledge infrastructures, and present information institutions with unprecedented challenges.

This colloquium will serve as a space to explore these challenges and establish directions for future efforts and investigations. We invite proposals from academics, librarians, archivists, activists, and others.

Some suggested topics and questions:
– How can information institutions operate more sustainably?
– How can information institutions better serve the needs of policy discussions and public awareness in the area of climate change and other threats to the environment?
– How can information institutions support skillsets and technologies that are relevant following systemic unraveling?
– What will information work look like without the infrastructures we take for granted?
– How does information literacy instruction intersect with ecoliteracy?
– How can information professionals support radical environmental activism?
– What are the implications of climate change for disaster preparedness?
– What role do information workers have in addressing issues of environmental justice?
– What are the implications of climate change for preservation practices?
– Should we question the wisdom of preserving access to the technological cultural legacy that has led to the crisis?
– Is there a new responsibility to document, as a mode of bearing witness, the historical event of society’s confrontation with the systemic threat of climate change, peak oil, and other environmental problems?
– Given the ideological foundations of libraries and archives in Enlightenment thought, and given that Enlightenment civilization may be leading to its own environmental endpoint, are these ideological foundations called into question? And with what consequences?

Planning committee:
Casey E. Davis Kaufman, WGBH, ProjectARCC
Madeleine Charney, UMass Amherst Libraries, ALA SustainRT
Rory Litwin, Litwin Books, LLC

March 11, 2017

Librarians’ knowledge and attitudes about print-on-demand: an informal study

Print-on-demand printing, or POD, is a technology that allows publishers and individuals to have books printed one-at-a-time, instead of doing a whole print run of hundreds or thousands of copies at a time. The per-unit cost is higher, but there can be a savings in not having to deal with warehousing a large inventory or dealing with remainders. POD has ushered in a new era of self-publishing, so many people associate it with self-published books exclusively. It has also allowed small companies to make money by printing a large catalog of out-of-copyright classics from Project Gutenberg. I noticed recently that some catalogers on the AUTOCAT list used the term POD interchangeably with this kind of publishing, which I knew to be a misunderstanding of how the technology is currently used in the publishing industry. I think it is important for librarians to understand how POD is being used, for reasons that I will get into, so I decided to do a study to test librarians’ knowledge of POD. I designed a survey to find out what librarians think about POD, how knowledge that a book is POD would affect their treatment of books that are printed this way, and how they believe they can tell if a book is POD when they encounter it. I ran the survey and have some results that I will share here. It was an informal survey, and I am not using the kind of statistical techniques that you would find in an academic journal article, but I think the implications of the study turned out to be very clear nevertheless. In this report, I will say a bit about my methods and share some numbers.

First, some facts about POD in today’s publishing industry:
– Traditional publishers are now using POD publishing to maintain a large backlist, to economically publish academic titles that are expected to have low sales figures, and to deal with sudden spikes in demand.
– Inks, paper, and binding have improved to the point where POD paperbacks are superior in quality to paperbacks printed traditionally a few decades ago, and are not easily discernable from traditionally-printed books by their physical attributes.
– Since traditional publishers are using POD, POD books are often professionally designed and edited. The printing method doesn’t necessarily imply anything about the content of the book.
– POD books are not necessarily hard to catalog, if they come from a traditional publisher. Catalog records are readily available, often from the Library of Congress’ CIP program. Although the CIP program is not intended for POD books, some publishers ignore this, and many academic publishers will do an initial print run and switch to POD when demand has subsided, without calling it a new edition.
– Ordering systems such as GOBI, Title Source 360, and Oasis often do not show any indication that a book is POD. To be sure of this, I tested three titles I know to be POD, one from the University of Georgia Press and two from Library Juice Press. In all three ordering systems, the University of Georgia Press title was not identified as POD. In the case of the two Library Juice Press titles, one title was indicated as POD in one of the three ordering systems but not the other two, and one title was missing from one of the ordering systems and not identified as POD in the other two. (The ISBNs for these titles are 978-0-8203-3891-0, 978-1-63400-021-5, and 978-1-936117-01-7.)

I had a conversation with the director of the University of Georgia Press, Lisa Bayer, about their use of POD publishing. Lisa had the following to say about POD:

“Most if not all university presses are using POD for their monographs and trade paperbacks. It’s very widespread and allows us to manage our inventory investment. We use the POD programs at Lightning Source (Ingram), Baker & Taylor, and Amazon… We certainly don’t do our illustrated art books or jacketed hardcovers in POD. It’s best for paperbacks and printed case library editions. The quality has improved tremendously in the past few years. I’m not aware of vendors designating POD editions; one of the benefits of putting a title into the system is that it is always ‘available.'”

As I mentioned, I noticed that in discussions on the AUTOCAT list some librarians did not seem to be aware of these facts, and as you will see from the numbers, my survey bore out this impression. Some details on the survey:

I asked five questions; two were demographic and three were designed to gauge librarians knowledge and opinions about POD, as well as their ideas about how to identify POD titles. The demographic questions were to find out what kind of a library the respondent was from and what kind of position they held in their libraries. The other questions asked for some words they associated with POD, how knowledge that a book is POD would affect their treatment of it in their jobs, and how they know a book is POD if they think they know that it is. The questions that asked for words that they associate with POD and how POD status would affect their treatment of a book revealed value judgments, while the question about how they know if a book is POD revealed whether they were knowledgable about POD or clearly held misconceptions.

Since this was an informal study that did not pretend to have the rigor of scholarly research, I went ahead and coded these responses myself, without worrying about such issues as intercoder reliability and the like. A future study on this could use more rigorous methods.

In total, there were 408 responses. 27 respondents stated that they did not have knowledge of POD and couldn’t answer the questions. 37 gave responses that were too difficult to understand to use in the study. 32 respondents understood the notion of POD in a different way, interpreting it as a service offered by the library. While not incorrect, that is a different understanding of the term POD than I was intending to study, so I disregarded those responses. So, of the 408 responses, 312 were from people who had clear ideas about POD (whether or not they gave opinions about it). Of those 312 people, 271 showed in their answers that they held mistaken ideas about POD and how it is used in the industry, while 40 understood POD more or less correctly. That means that 87% of librarians surveyed have incorrect ideas about POD. That is a strong result, and somewhat disturbing, as it has implications, in some cases, for how librarians do their jobs.

I also coded responses to see whether respondents viewed POD positively, negatively, or neutrally. Of the 312 otherwise usable responses, for 40 of them I couldn’t really tell how they felt about POD, leaving 272 usable responses. Of 272 usable responses to these questions, 198 librarians viewed POD negatively (73%), 12 viewed it positively (4%), and 62 viewed it neutrally (23%). I counted responses as neutral if they indicated that a book’s status as POD would not affect their treatment of it in the context of their work.

In terms of comparing librarians in different settings, the demographic questions didn’t reveal much. The data on the work role of the respondents was not usable, because such a high number of librarians worked in more than one role, and the combination of roles didn’t follow a strong pattern. The data on type of library showed that the majority of respondents were in academic libraries. A comparison across library types showed no real difference as far as their understanding. Of the 408 responses, 234 were from academic libraries (170 usable); 103 were from public libraries (86 usable) and 64 (55 usable) were from a mix of other types of libraries and institutions (school, corporate, government, non-profit, consortia, vendors, and LIS programs). This is good for the study, from my point of view, because it is primarily in academic publishing where traditional publishers are using POD.

So the data from this survey show that librarians mostly have an inaccurate understanding of POD, as well as viewing it negatively in a way that affects their treatment of POD books in their job roles. Let’s look a little more closely at the responses themselves to see what we can learn, since the questions were open-ended. Bearing out my initial impression from discussions on the AUTOCAT list, most librarians associate POD books with self-publishing and reprints of out-of-copyright works, and they also think that the signs indicating that a book is self-published or a reprint are what tell them that a book is POD. Common reasons given for identifying a book as POD were ugly covers, poor layout, poor editing, no ISBN, no catalog records available, known self-publishing imprints like CreateSpace, Authorhouse or iUniverse, and a lack of publishing dates. Many librarians who gave this type of response said that they could “always tell” when a book was POD. So that raises the question, aren’t they effectively just biased against self-published books and reprints? If they don’t recognize a traditionally-published book as POD when it crosses their desk, what difference does it make if they have a negative view of POD? I think the answer is that it is not impossible to know that a book is POD even if it is of high quality and easy to catalog. As several respondents pointed out, most POD books have printing on the back page with some arcane data:

Some catalogers and others look for that tell-tale information and may draw conclusions from it about the book as a whole. Also, although ordering systems may not usually give an indication that an academic title is POD when it is, sometimes they do give that indication. Some librarians in an acquisitions role, as they stated in their responses, will avoid purchasing a book on that basis. This means that librarians’ decisions are sometimes affected by a bias against POD that is not borne out by the facts about POD.

For those interested in the raw data from my survey, you can look at it here

I’d like to make a final note of full disclosure. I am personally interested in this issue because I am a former librarian who owns a book publishing company that uses print-on-demand printing. We primarily publish library science titles, so I view our customers as my colleagues as well. It bothers me that many librarians would have a bias against our titles if they knew about how we print them. We use POD because in our field sales volumes are typically low. I decided to go with POD when I formed my company after extensive conversations with a head of another publishing company that publishes a lot of LIS titles. In those conversations I gleaned important and useful information about the publishing business, and I learned that most publishers in the LIS field are using POD, for the same reason I decided to – being in a small, niche market. Because of the stigma attached to POD, however, publishers typically don’t reveal this fact. I hope that with this report I can do a little bit to de-stigmatize this common method of printing books.

March 10, 2017

Izzy Award Winners

In a banner year for journalism by non-conglomerate news outlets, the Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) has announced the ninth annual Izzy Award will be shared by Mother Jones senior reporter SHANE BAUER and Nation Institute Investigative Fund reporter SETH FREED WESSLER who, working independently, revealed major abuses at for-profit U.S. prisons; and by The Nation senior contributing writer ARI BERMAN, who exposed voter suppression.

A “special documentary honor” will be conferred on “AMERICA DIVIDED,” a docu-series that powerfully illuminates structural inequality in the United States.

The Izzy Award, presented for outstanding achievement in independent media, is named after the late I.F. “Izzy” Stone, the dissident journalist who launched I.F. Stone’s Weekly in 1953 and challenged McCarthyism, racial injustice, the Vietnam War and government deceit.

The award ceremony will be held in Ithaca in April; details to be announced.

Full release here.

Democracy Now! broke the news this morning.

CFP: Allied Media Conference 2017

Call for Proposals
Radical Libraries, Archives, and Museums
Allied Media Conference 2017

Conference Dates: June 15-18, 2017
Location: Detroit, MI

Submission Deadline: March 12, 2017

Libraries, archives, and museums (LAM) are more than places for collecting and storing books and exhibiting artifacts. LAMs can be living, transformative spaces where artists, educators, technologists, and activists convene to access, document, share, organize, and find solutions to issues that impact their communities. We welcome proposals for sessions that will be accessible to participants of all ages and backgrounds, and interpret the work of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums through the lens of media-based organizing. In previous years, we have covered subjects such as restorative justice practices in teen librarianship, starting seed libraries, zine libraries, tool libraries, and community archives that center the narratives of people of color.

We are especially interested in sessions that:
– Challenge traditional gallery, library, archive, and museum structures, institutions, and organizations
– Discuss best practices for community-based organizations that provide books, technology or internet access, creative materials, or collaborative opportunities centering people of color, queer and gender nonconforming folks, disabled people, incarcerated people, and undocumented people
– Consider the role of librarians, archivists, and curators in strengthening the knowledge, culture, and collective memory of communities impacted by social and economic disparity and state sanctioned violence
– Address racism, white supremacy, and issues of inclusion in galleries, libraries, archives, or museums

Beyond the themes outlined above, if the idea of radical libraries, archives and museums resonates with you, we’d love to hear from you. The deadline to submit proposals is March 12th. Please feel free to reach out to me (vmilliner@gmail.com) or one of the other track coordinators on the Allied Media website if you have any questions.

https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/rad-libraries-archives-museums-track