cipr conference
I went to the CIPR conference this week. I was only able to attend 2 out of 3 days, but what I saw was truly inspiring. It was the perfect venue for me to present my first paper and attend my first conference. They’re podcasting the conference…not sure when it’ll be up, though. Here’s a rundown of what I learned/perceived/felt.
-
This is a great time to be a doc student. I’m getting the sense that critical thinking is still a marginal activity in library schools, but people are doing it, and now they are banding together and communicating with one another. It looks like the field is ready for a transformation, and I am so ready to play a part in that change. I’m having a lot of fun fantasizing about teaching and mentoring students in the future, discussing big ideas in LIS, and working with brilliant thinkers.
-
I have some pretty strong thoughts on feminist deconstructions of classifications, but I think I’ll save those for another post, or maybe an article. It comes down to this: I don’t think the best/only alternative to a patriarchal system is a feminine/feminist one. I think that by confining the discussion to a binary of patriarchy/feminist way of organizing, we lose sight of the greater objective. Why do we have to attach gender to ways of knowing?
-
Nat Enright’s paper on Lefebvre and everyday life was possibly life-changing. It really validated some of my feelings and opinions I’ve held since I started the doc program…primarily, looking at the big picture, rather than operationalization of everything for the purpose of empirical research. Nat heads one section of his paper, “Against a Philosophy of the Obvious: The Operationalization of Everyday,” and his conclusion reads, “In adopting a Lefebvrian gaze, we have seen how the “commodification” and “colonization” of everyday life effectively collapses the distinctions between “work” and “nonwork,” suggesting that alienation, exploitation, and domination are the primary modes of experience in contemporary society” (Enright, 2008, p. 52). Great stuff. It felt like the room changed after he presented. And this kind of framework helps me to think about LC…and potentially anything else I might be interested in.
-
Nate did really well. It was good to finally see him in action. I’d say he’s going places.
-
It was cool to find that my paper is in conversation with the ones that preceded me. I was glad to find people doing queer theory, and LCSH stuff…and to meet them. Yay!
-
I really liked most of the people there. It felt kinda homey and cozy.
-
I’m impressed by UW-M….their drive, their research program, the fact that they hosted this conference.
-
I was told my delivery was a bit weak…too girly and distracting. I can easily imagine that, given the fact that I was terrified, and this was a whole new experience…and I have self-esteem issues. I need to work on appearing to be confident, even if I feel like my heart is going to explode and I just want to run away. At least the first one is over, and I got good feedback on my paper. It should be easier next time, right?
May 19, 2008 at 5:46 am
I agree about Nat’s paper. It was “life-changing” for me, too. I’m very, very excited about it and hope we can talk more and at great length about it.
Congratulations on your paper. It will never, ever be as hard as it was that time. That’s a great thing to consider, don’t you think?
I agree with just about everything you said. One thing that I would like to explore further is the metaphorical/theoretical implications of notions of “space.” We can chat more about this soon, I hope.
May 20, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Nat’s paper was great, for sure. But what if his analysis is correct (and I think it is) that we’re totally totalized/colonized by capitalism? Is there room to move? Points of resistance? I don’t know, I just ended up feeling really depressed.