I’ve chosen your site to be “it” in a virtual game of history blog tag.

For more information, please visit the World History Blog at http://www.worldhistoryblog.com/2007/07/tagged-by-jennie.html.

Miland Brown

I must admit, if I were seeking to become more of an expert in a different field of history, then I would probably ask someone in that field first because I would not so much be looking for tons of information about the subject so much as for the major current debates in that particular field. In other words, the historiography, which I expect a historian to know but not a librarian simply because of that distinction in professions. My second step would be to go through WorldCat for the monographs and J-Stor for the articles. Then, as my research became more in depth, I would turn to a librarian or archivist. I’ve actually found librarians and archivists the most help at the local level because they know their collections the best and (in most cases) know neighboring collections in passing.

Now, when I was working as an archivist (or what passed for one) I found that I was of much more use to the patrons if I could tell them where to find each of these levels of information. For instance, since I was working at a place where the subject was fairly specific, I could be of use if I knew the prominent historians or writers in that general field. I could also be of use if I knew the recent publications in the field, which would be the doorway into the debates in the field, and if knew the types of records that were commonly used in the field. In other words, if I had sort of an understanding of how historians put together a book and where to go to find specialized information on the subject of that book, then I could be most effective in helping the patron — if that makes sense.

More seriously (even though now I’m thinking about MadLibs), I find it interesting that you focus on trying to make a connection between these two parties, which is an issue that was fairly peripheral to what I was thinking about, even though it’s an issue that is both “all over” and “under” what I wrote. Part of the breach between “us” and “them” rests on, however, fairly different conceptions of professionalization and place in the academy (even though, yes, there are those who can “go native” and act as go-betweens on both sides). There are structures that make it difficult to bridge the divide (e.g., each side has its own culture that it wants to protect and enforce in a “why can’t you do it my way” mode) and recognizing those barriers to conversation is pretty necessary on both sides (which assumes that people actually care enough to want to surmount these barriers).

But since you are part of The Mysterious Other, do you see yourself (and perhaps other historians) in this little survey of information-seeking behavior? More importantly, what about the penultimate set of questions (regarding how well our current tools serve historians)? If you needed to learn more about, for some reason, labor history, would you feel that the best path is to just search in the catalog or in a database (and if so, which one would you use?)? Or would you prefer to ask someone with expertise in the field? Should this matter to librarians? Am I setting up a false distinction?

The social issue is vastly important, and the fastest way to learn about something, sometimes. Both historians and librarians can learn a wealth of information about one another by talking to one another in educational ways, not in the service way that we tend to encouter one another. I don’t think there is a single way to do this best, although the seminars that Rebecca was talking about are most intense. A mixture of blogs, conferences and other types of settings help disseminate this type of information.