I recently came across this interesting critique of the core theory presented in my readers’ advisory class last term: Back to the Future? A Response to Dilevko and Magowan. The classs was taught by Dilevko and focused on many of the ideas presented in his book, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005. We spent several classes on the history of readers’ advisory, looking at the early educational purpose of public libraries and early RA practices. We also examined the publishing industry today, the tools used for readers’ advisory, such as NoveList and Genreflecting (the text for the course), defined current and emerging genres through group presentations, and considered the RA interview.
I found some of the critiques in the article to be a bit harsh, but do agree that we need more concrete examples of how RA services might be improved. The RA class presented us with many theoretical critiques of current RA practices, but few suggestions for how we as future librarians could make a difference in this area when starting out in the field. Above all, both sides of the argument are thought-provoking but not easily resolved.
Filed under: Readers' Advisory
