Matching up your text with theirs— the essence of an employer’s request for hiring academic librarians. It is up to the candidates to perform a close reading of a job ad, and figure out– and express that in their response– if their skills correspond to what employers are looking for. But what bothers me is that if the candidates do not have any practical experience, since they are applying for one resident program or another, they will likely have a vague idea to perform that critical close reading, a reading that allows them to include the expected tags, or rather categories within which particular examples must be given to reflect the sought-after skills.

 

So it all comes down to reading well—librarians’ fundamental skill, intimately linked to their majestic ability to put a written or an oral message into their audience’s words. Speaking of audiences, but changing gears, I had the chance to read some of my colleagues’ pieces of writing that they have posted on a sort of blog. Rather unsurprised by how well most of them write, I could not help comparing my writing skills to theirs, having realized, now more than ever, that I have to master the idioms and, constantly, absorb new words in their various contexts: a titanic work—there is little doubt here.

 

Today, 19 June 2008, I have looked for what I believe to be relevant articles about the pros and cons of the Google Scholar, which was a daunting task. Having now those articles at hand, it is imperative that I focus on a research question leading to an information literacy lecture for ESL students. The somewhat imposed question is, what are the positive and negative aspects of using Google Scholar (GS) in researching into plagiarism? ( I am being asked to subtly convey the idea that if there are any negative aspects resulting from the use of GS, then the positive ones must be in the realm of libraries, or librarians.)