This essay focuses on the ways in which ideas popularly associated with the Enlightenment function as common sense in the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which was formally approved by the Association of College and Research Libraries at the beginning of 2015. This essay begins with a close reading of the Framework for Information Literacy, followed by an analysis of its ideological underpinnings, specifically liberalism. I then use postcolonial and political theory to think through the role of historical difference in pedagogy generally and in the information literacy pedagogy articulated by the Framework more specifically. The hegemonic ideological liberalism of the Framework, its universality, narrative of progress, and disinterest in power, must be supplemented with historical difference in order to provide context for its truth claims and to inculcate responsibility to the other. This work could take the form of kairotic information literacy pedagogy, or local and contextual articulations of the Framework, or something else. The Framework is not worthless or useless, but it is also not the answer.

This paper will consider the Core Values of The Public Good and Democracy as articulated in the American Library Association’s “Core Values of Librarianship” (2004) and its affiliated documents in conjunction with the ways in which these two Core Values are deployed in library discourse around the Ferguson (Missouri) Public Library, particularly during the last four months of 2014. Both the ALA’s Core Values document and library discourse around Ferguson heavily rely upon liberalism in regard to power and conflict, subjectivity and equality, and capitalism. This reliance results in a vision of librarianship and an understanding of the Ferguson Public Library that are completely decoupled from political, economic, social, and historical contexts. This decontextualized discourse fits seamlessly within neoliberal ideology and is ultimately antidemocratic.

In this essay, we explore the relationship between the MLS and professionalization within librarianship broadly and then look more specifically at academic librarianship, which increasingly turns to other means of professionalization, such as more prestigious forms of credentialing, due to its precarious existence within higher education. The emphasis on professionalization through credentialing invisibilizes library labor, which is already feminized and devalued. Academic librarianship instead seeks to gain prestige and power by associating itself with whiteness and masculinity, rendering its specialized work and knowledge domain unimportant. Removing the MLS requirement from professional library positions will not address these broader issues, and as hiring trends demonstrate, might already be a moot point. Prestige, professionalization, and credentialing within academic librarianship have been debated since the inception of the profession; the interaction of these with gender ideologies and a predominantly female workforce has received attention since the 1970s. Librarianship's constant state of crisis and search for external markers of prestige can only exist comfortably outside of historical memory and critical analysis, however. This essay problematizes individual solutions such as credentialing that paper over systemic sociopolitical issues; specific solutions are beyond the scope of this paper, but we do suggest that solutions need to account for broader context, such as current and historical gender ideologies.

In September 2010, the Association of College and Research Libraries released The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report. The spread of the novel coronavirus and the resulting global pandemic has raised questions about the concept of value in academic libraries. How is value attributed? How does value function? What does it mean to demonstrate or prove our value? We begin with an overview and analysis of ACRL’s Value of Academic Libraries Initiative. We then provide a description and timeline of the spread of COVID-19 and the reaction of both institutions of higher education, academic libraries, professional library organizations, and individual librarians. The pandemic has created a new category of workers - “essential workers” - who provide vital services, perform maintenance work, and labor to keep infrastructures intact. The role of carework and careworkers in the pandemic helps illuminate the situation of academic librarians within regimes of neoliberal austerity. Ultimately we argue that although the discourse of library value seeks to prove library value rationally and empirically, through a lot of quantitative data, capitalism, the economy, and value are fundamentally irrational. Academic library value must be claimed politically; misrecognizing the nature of the problem and relying on commonsense understandings of value and the economic, which is what the discourse of library value has done for the past decade, goes nowhere.

In this essay, we explore the timescapes of library learning analytics. We contend that just-intime strategies, a feature of late capital modes of production, New Public Management, and future-oriented risk-management strategies inform the adoption of learning analytics. Learning analytics function as a form of temporal governmentality: current performance is scrutinized in order to anticipate future performance and prescribe just-in-time interventions to mitigate risknot only for the student but also for the institution. Ultimately, we argue that using time as a lens to examine discourses surrounding library learning analytics reveals the temporalities reproduced in this discourse, which obscures questions of power, politics, and history. In describing what the future is, rather than what it could or should be, this discourse erases our ability to shape our futures, and our responsibility for so doing.