----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
I don't think that Alice Hudson's wondering (and asking) about why key
map library positions are going unfilled is rude at all.  It certainly is
a question in my mind! (Apologies in advance for the length of this reply.)
 
There are probably many factors creating this problem.  First, although I
don't know if it is foremost, many of the folks appropriate for these
positions might not be willing to move -- they're comfortable and well
established where they already are.  The profession as "matured" in the
ten years that I've been "doing maps," and until this past year there
weren't many openings.  Now, when there are spots to move into, those that
are qualified have firm roots in their current work and other
situations.
 
Secondly, I'm not so sure that the open positions have offered adequate
compenstation for the depth of expertise and breadth of experience that
are being requested -- Either in $$ or in staff support within the
individual "units" so that the librarian can fill all of the roles
needed.  After reading the Illinois job description, I could easily see
the same kinds of frustrations building there that I have here in
Washington.  We're being required to take on more and more -- and perhaps
don't feel that we're "expert" in what we already  were doing.  Or we
never have the time/opportunity to truly become proficient in the new
tasks/responsibilities.
 
I also can't tell if the people doing the hiring for these positions are
able to articulate what they think the map librarian should be doing.  I
think that most library administrators know that something is happening
in the world of digital geospatial data -- but they aren't able to
forecast (just as we really can't) what the impacts will be.  Because all
of this digital stuff is still amorphous in many ways are library
administrators/hiring committees looking for "geospatial data gods" (in
contrast to Secret Masters of Mapdom)?  These "gods" would be able to
handle every electronic data thunderbolt without even THINKING of
sweating!  Can any of us aspire to this yet?
 
Also, perhaps because of the same fuzziness, mixed messages about
priorities are being sent.  I know that much of what appears in
advertisements is boiler plate -- but it still should reflect what the
actual situation is.  Reading the responsibilities paragraph the
priorities are:  administration, supervision, reference/information
services, cataloging, collection development, new technologies/GIS.  I
suppose that the GIS bit could fall under reference/information services
which is why the qualifications line up as:  administartion, supervision,
GIS/digital data, reference, collection development, cataloging.  I found
the Illinois ad interesting (and scary) because it listed SPECIFIC packages
and platforms!!  Is this akin to requiring catalogers to know MARC and OCLC?
 
Yes, all of this digital stuff is becoming increasingly important -- but
it shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of the "traditional"
formats (which for most users are still much more accessible).
 
Again, my apologies for this too long message -- Alice's question
appeared at a time when I've been thinking about all of this and MAPS-L
was the first forum for me to broadcast/vent what I've been thinking.  I
look forward to reading what others think!
 
Jenny Marie Johnson
Head, Map Collection and Cartographic
  Information Services
University of Washington Libraries
[log in to unmask]; (206) 543-9392