Attending and Presenting at AMC

AMC otherwise known as the Allied Media Conference, is the first conference I have been to whose focus is not libraries and/or education. The conference focuses on media-based organizing and change-making. Therefore the audience included a myriad and diverse community of people using media to incite change, including but not limited to, filmmakers, radio producers, technologists, youth organizers, writers, and artists. The conference was split into different tracks around radical change and community organizing. My panel “Librarians of Color Survival Guide: Truth and Self-Care” fell onto the “Radical Librarianship” track and discussed the various oppressive structures in place for librarians of color, and the mental and physical effects of these structures. The panel also talked about ways to engage in self-care practices and other techniques needed to prevent burnout, and acculturate into often toxic work environments while keeping an authentic voice.

AMC was a deeply fulfilling experience. Because the audience was mixed, librarians were able to engage directly with community organizers. Because the community organizers worked directly with their communities, the networking and collaborations of the groups allowed for direct and strategic plans for improvement within said communities. It was a change from most conferences I have been to and a refreshing one at that. For the most part, those conferences are librarians speaking to other librarians. The discussions at these conferences are about library communities without any actual community members in the audience. Consequently, there is a risk at library conferences of espoused values of librarians to differ from the values in action during the day to day. Additionally, the values of the library staff may begin to differ from that of the library community. I enjoyed seeing fewer barriers between the community and the librarians at AMC.

One of my favorite sessions on the Radical Librarianship track, Archiving our Stories: Narratives of LGBTQ API Organizing, discussed the erasure of both Asian and Pacific Islander (API) and LGBTQ stories from most mainstream archives, and suggested various methods in capturing and create powerful oral histories grounded in action as a measure to counteract that. Another session, Restorative Practices in Libraries, discussed how using practices of restorative justice can promote a participatory culture of civic engagement through the restructuring of program formats, staffing structures, and policies. While the focus of the session was public libraries, I learned strategies that could be transferred to higher education. 

Outside of the Radical Librarianship track, my scholarly and personal interests of social justice and community organizing aligned with the focus of the conference. For example, Designing Games for Social Justice, aligned with my rotation in the Digital Scholarship where I created my own game using Twine demonstrating the accumulative effects of microaggressions on the physical and mental state. It was great to see other games being created for social justice and discuss how games and gaming can be use for change. And Teaching Freedom in Our Classrooms, aligned with my previous work as a K-12 librarian and bringing social justice and decolonization into the classroom. As some of the teachers leading the session were from Detroit (where the conference took place), it was especially powerful to hear their work and ideas.

Overall, Allied Media Conference is one I would recommend to any librarians interested in radical and critical librarianship, community organizing, and social justice.

Attending and Presenting at LOEX

This blog post was co-written by Anastasia Chiu and Fobazi Ettarh, and was originally posted on the ACRL Residency Interest Group site on June 15, located here.

image of the pittsburgh skyline at night

Last month, we had the opportunity to attend LOEX 2016. LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange) is a “non-profit educational clearinghouse for library instruction and information literacy information” that hosts anannual conference on instruction and information literacy; this year, the conference was May 5-7 in Pittsburgh, PA. We presented a poster together on pedagogy training for academic and school librarians and incorporating K-12 teaching practices into academic library instruction. Here follow our individual reflections on the conference experience.


LOEX was the first topic-specific conference I have attended. Like most small conferences, it felt more manageable and therefore less overwhelming. There was no running from building to building and bus to bus to attend sessions I wanted to attend.  And as one of my main scholarly interests is instruction, LOEX was a dream. The conference focused not only on the practice of instruction, but how other aspects of identity such as disability and wellness affect instructional design and delivery. In fact, one of my favorite sessions at LOEX, Engaging Diverse Learners: Creating Accessible IL Instruction with Universal Design for Instruction, discussed designing instruction centered on principles of universal design. I found it invigorating to be amongst other professionals who not only understood how important instruction is within librarianship, but how many areas of librarianship instruction plays a role. I was able to connect with other professionals with the same scholarly interest, and witness what was being done at their respective institutions.

My only gripe with LOEX was how academic librarian oriented it was. As the LOEX member institutions are mostly academic libraries, it was unsurprising, but as a former school librarian where my job was primarily instruction, the presence of school librarians would definitely have been beneficial. In fact, it made the poster that my colleague Anastasia Chiu and I presented, K-12 Praxis in Academic Library Instruction, that much more poignant. There is so little dialogue between academic and school librarians regarding instruction, and both communities can stand to learn from each other. It was gratifying to see how much support we got for our posters, and the conversations that it sparked. We actually met two other library professionals with similar research interests, and we plan to work together in the future so that this information can be more widely disseminated. I was extremely pleased to sit in on the session On the Rhode to Success: DIY Designing a College Research Experience for High School Students which was a collaboration between a high school librarian and an academic librarian. It was a true collaboration with instruction and learning between both parties for the benefit of the students. I exchanged contact information with the speakers and look forward to working with them in the future.

Most of the sessions I went to I thoroughly enjoyed. The very first session I went to, Rhetorical
Reinventions: Rethinking Research Processes and Information Practices to Deepen our Pedagogy
, felt like a breath of fresh air. It set the tone of the conference for me. While there were introductory material in the session to set the contextual stage, it got right down into the meat and bones that could only happen when most people are on the same page. And it continued like that throughout most of the conference. Unfortunately, it wasn’t all rainbows and roses. There were a few panels where the adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was all too real. I did my best to speak up where I could, and leave feedback where I couldn’t, but all in all it was an enriching and satisfying conference. I learned a lot, and the work being done at other institutions sparked thoughts, ideas, and projects of my own that could potentially be done at my own institution.


LOEX 2016 was the first topic-specific conference I ever attended, as well. At larger conferences, I’ve always felt harried having to switch modes between various professional interests that I have; at LOEX, I got to concentrate entirely on library instruction for two days. The poster that Fobazi and I presented was also my first professional poster presentation, and though I was initially nervous about it, I ended up having lots of interesting conversations with people who stopped to ask us about our research and teaching. It felt gratifying to hear many other librarians express interest and give feedback to our work, after weeks of data collection, writing, and formatting, plus some anxiety over whether or not attendees would see our topic as valid or necessary.

I also met lots of librarians whom I’ve only ever spoken with online at LOEX; two of the excellent talks that I attended were presented by folks whom I’ve conversed with during #critlib Twitter chats. Fobazi and I also signed up for a “dine-around” that the conference organizers set up; we got to enjoy delicious food at a local restaurant and meet and talk to some great colleagues. We also met up with several fellow residentsfrom other institutions, and I got to catch up with a much-missed former supervisor.

Like Fobazi, I attended a couple of talks that made me very uncomfortable in a way that I suspect happens often to practitioners of marginalized identities at conferences. When this happens, I generally don’t say anything (publicly) about it, but another colleague pointed out that it is important to leave feedback through available channels; surfacing and questioning issues in others’ work is a natural piece of scholarship and practice. I followed the advice and am glad that I gave some voice to the problems that I saw.

That said, most of talks that I attended were useful and thought-provoking. I particularly enjoyed Starting with “Yes, and…,” in which the presenters (Erin Pappas and Kate Dohe) engaged attendees in improv acting exercises, then led a collective reflection and discussion on collaboration in public services and the similarities between strong collaboration and good improv. I also enjoyed many other talks, including:

All in all, I feel that I came back with a lot of new ideas about information literacy instruction that I wouldn’t have encountered at my home institution, and I hope to incorporate some of them into my own practice. Thanks, LOEX!

K-12 Pedagogy and How it Can Inform Academic Instruction

Because of my background knowledge in school librarianship, and the skills and training that comes with it, my supervisor mentioned that it might be a good idea to lead a talk for the Instructor Coordinator’s Group. The talk would focus on how some of this knowledge and training, such as educational psych and lesson planning has informed my own academic instruction as well as more generalizable skills for instruction librarians.

I started the coffee talk discussing my own background and some of the classes that I had to take in library school for the school librarianship track. These classes included things like Student Learning Development and Behavior Management, Curriculum Design/Integration and Teaching Methodologies, and Theory and Foundations of Education. It was in these classes that I learned concepts such as learning styles, accommodating for various cognitive and physical disabilities, and lesson planning and delivery. The cornerstone of all of these theories and skills was to meet students where they are. Especially in a library setting, where there is a lot less control in the range of skills and literacies present in your classroom.

For example, I talked about lesson and unit planning. The act of lesson planning is helpful both in focusing your lesson to match the learning goals and objectives, but also in thinking ahead in what sort of modifications and accommodations one might have to do to a lesson depending on disability, technology, and general unexpected happenings. And unit planning helps to think more broadly about what the curricula the lessons fall under as well as figure out how best to scaffold the concepts.

Scaffolding is probably one of the most important educational theories that I learned, and anyone who does instruction can learn from it. Scaffolding refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and, ultimately, greater independence in the learning process. The term itself offers the relevant descriptive metaphor: teachers provide successive levels of temporary support that help students reach higher levels of comprehension and skill acquisition that they would not be able to achieve without assistance. Like physical scaffolding, the supportive strategies are incrementally removed when they are no longer needed, and the teacher gradually shifts more responsibility over the learning process to the student. Scaffolding assumes that no concept is too small to skip over. And it can be leveled up or down as needed.

The example I used to demonstrate this was the 802 workshops that RIS does every semester. The two workshops are done to introduce (or reinforce) the concepts of information literacy (finding, evaluating, and using resources). The workshops are good! But I realized fairly quickly that they skip over some steps in between. And of course this is no fault of anyone. You don’t know what you don’t know. But to talk about the different ways to use resources, one must know how to evaluate the source. I mentioned to my colleague the acronym COCOA P that I used with the middle schoolers. It stands for Content/Coverage, Objectivity, Currency, Origin, Authority, and Purpose. It seems implausible that students could be in college, and not understand the basic tenets of information literacy, but there are a number of factors that can explain their lack of knowledge.

Another important lesson that I got from both my training and day to day as a school librarian was knowing the difference between disruption and disability. According to Disability Resources and Services, at least 11% of the students who enroll have a disability which translates to at least 4347 students. So these students are definitely passing through our doors. That prior knowledge of creating an academic environment that reaches the most amount of students is definitely something that I use often.

I wrapped up the talk with what I believe are the two most important things from K-12 conventions that would could potentially really benefit academia- shared knowledge base, and constant evaluation. The documentation and sharing of lesson plans, unit plans, instructional materials, curricula, etc makes it really easy for consistency across the board as well as easier to jump back in. And as much as evaluation (much like assessment) are super scary words, the routine evaluation of the librarians as well
required professional development related to instruction and educational pedagogy meant that growth and change were always occurring. Always in the betterment of instructional delivery and design and therefore always in the benefit of our students.

There was a pretty good Q&A that followed afterward, and it prompted Ana and I to submit a poster proposal for LOEX on the topic. The proposal was accepted so we shall continue this come May.

RIS Rotation Reflections – Drop-In Workshop

As I briefly noted in my general reflections on my rotation in Reference & Instruction Services, I designed and delivered a standalone drop-in workshop on plagiarism, academic honesty, and copyright last semester. It turned out to be my biggest project in my RIS rotation.

The impetus for the workshop came from my personal interest in copyright and fair use issues, particularly as they apply to digital publishing and scholarship. I also happen to think that teaching about copyright can start empowering conversations; where many conversations about being a scholar begin weightily with ethical responsibilities, the copyright conversation starts with one’s rights as a creator. As an undergrad some years ago, I never thought of myself as a scholarly contributor or creator, and neither did many of my classmates; I didn’t think that I had the right or the agency to be a creator of scholarly information as a student, and I’d like to change that experience for current students.

Since copyright issues in traditional scholarship intersect a lot with plagiarism and academic honesty, I decided that my workshop should broadly cover all three of these topics. And, since the Libraries’ programs follow a gaming theme this year, I structured it as a Jeopardy-style game show, drawing from a workshop that I once facilitated at St. John’s University’s libraries.

One of the surprising aspects of putting together this workshop was the contrast in logistical work to be done for it, as compared to the Analytical Reading & Writing workshops that I had been teaching, and with my previous experience with drop-in workshops. Where the AR&W workshops were directly integrated into course curriculum (and thus had a built-in audience), my drop-in needed to be publicized as a special event. In other libraries I worked in prior to coming to Temple, drop-in workshops were the primary mode of instruction; channels of publicity already existed and the workshops were offered in loose series, with certain stock workshops repeated every semester. Here, while no framework or stock procedure yet existed for workshop publicity, there proved to be plenty of communication channels for it, and my wonderful colleagues in Reference and Instruction and Public Programming here at Paley helped me spread the word widely. I was gratified by the number of registrants and attendees, and pleasantly surprised by their feedback; quite a few stated interest in further details about copyright and fair use, and I hope to participate in that conversation more in the libraries.

In the two sessions of “Jeopardy Challenge! Using Sources Ethically” that I offered, there was plenty of interesting discussion on the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement, as well as some in-depth questions about what constitutes fair use. The spirit of friendly competition was high, and all participants seemed ready to discuss and analyze the ethics of scholarship and content creation with high interest. Coincidentally, shortly after this, TU Libraries and TU Press hired a Library Publishing & Scholarly Communications Specialist, a new position for us, much like my own. I look forward to hearing Ms. Annie Johnson’s perspectives on these topics and seeing how these conversations develop at Temple!

RIS Rotation Reflections

It’s hard to believe that it has been six months since my first day at Temple. In that time, I’ve completed my first rotation in Reference & Instruction Services and my second in Acquisitions. I moved over to Cataloging & Metadata this week. So let’s start getting up to speed! Here follow some general reflections on my rotation in RIS.

Reference and instruction are two of my favorite things to do as a librarian. When I help someone with research at the reference desk or teach a class session, I aim to help people build habits and skills for personal empowerment in everyday life, as well as for scholarship in the university setting. Like every other kind of teaching, library reference and instruction are rewarding, and I believe that they represent the heart of what libraries exist to do. Therefore, when I was asked to name a few areas of interest in the library for potential rotations during my interview process, I used the opportunity to express interest in some areas of library work that I don’t have much experience in, but I also took care to make room for reference and instruction, an area that I do have some salient experience in. When I discovered that RIS would be my starting rotation, I was glad because it meant that I was starting out in a new workplace with something familiar, something that I’ve done in some form in every other library I’ve worked in.

I was integrated into the regular reference schedule (both in-person/desk and virtual) after “shadowing” a few other librarians, and in just three months I tackled all kinds of questions, from how to get to other campus buildings (which was embarrassingly difficult in my first 4 weeks), to how to decide whether an article was appropriate to cite in a research paper. It was very engaging, and also provided my first glimpses into how teaching and learning works at Temple. Even now that I’ve rotated to Acquisitions, I still cover an hour or two of reference every week.

I also taught the integrated library workshops for some sections of English 802, Analytical Reading & Writing. All undergrads are required to take AR&W in their first year, and every section of AR&W has two library workshops built into it to cover how to retrieve, evaluate, and synthesize information sources for academic writing. This was my first time teaching information literacy within university-wide general education curriculum; previously, I had only taught “one-shot” drop-in workshops on narrow topics, and had frequently wished for the advantages of curriculum integration. I found that curriculum-integrated library instruction was easier in some ways (there was a standard syllabus to help me get a ballpark idea of where my instruction fell within the larger context of the course), but more difficult in others (I had to cover some very abstract and broad concepts within two 50-minute sessions without boring anyone to tears).

In addition to AR&W, I also taught a standalone drop-in workshop on plagiarism, academic honesty, and copyright. As you may have noticed, Paley’s programs have a gaming theme this year, so I took the opportunity to run the workshop in a game show format. In the two sessions of the workshop that I offered, there was a lot of interesting discussion on the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement, as well as some in-depth questions about copyright and fair use. Stay tuned for a little more reflection on this!

Last but not least, I made some new video tutorials to add to the Libraries’ “How Do I…?” guides. The first was for faculty and instructors, on embedding library guides in Blackboard courses. The librarians of TU Libraries create many great guides to help students and faculty with their research; this tutorial was to help instructors embed those guides into their Blackboard courses to point their students to some curated resources to get started with their research. The second video tutorial that I made was a brief introduction to the citation management tool RefWorks. Every other RefWorks tutorial that I’ve seen is at least five minutes long (usually more like twenty) and can be a lot to sit through; I did my best to keep mine short and sweet, and I hope it helps students and faculty get started with using citation management tools.

The wonderful Jackie Sipes acted as my site supervisor in RIS, and she provided me with lots of guidance and support throughout my months there. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with the department in my future rotations.

ALA Midwinter 2016 Thoughts

Earlier this year, Fobazi and I attended the American Library Association’s Midwinter conference, which occurs every year around mid-January. Many children’s librarians know it as the conference at which the winners of major youth media awards, like the Newbery and Caldecott medals, are announced. Midwinter is also a conference at which many of ALA’s divisions, committees, working groups, task forces, etc. hold rare in-person meetings, and this was a major source of the conference’s value for me.

One of the difficult aspects of early-career librarianship is the importance of involvement with professional activities outside of one’s own workplace; this usually means speaking at conferences or volunteering on library association committees, working groups, and task forces, and the degree to which an aspiring librarian does them plays a direct role in getting hired above the paraprofessional level and in promotion. Yet, the opportunities to volunteer or speak can be difficult to discover without “getting one’s face out there” by attending a conference on one’s own dime first. This was not the first ALA Midwinter conference I attended, but it was the first at which I felt that I could devote the majority of my attention to prioritizing meetings and talks above finding cheap food and transportation. As a result, I’ve found opportunities to start working with several of the groups and committees whose activities I’ve been tracking for over a year. I have begun to work with the ACRL Residency Interest Group’s web team on website overhaul and social media, and have accepted appointments to the ALCTS Publications Committee and to an organizing group for a special anniversary event of ALCTS. (Yes, librarians’ professional groups are quite the alphabet soup.) I also attended interesting talks on information literacy instruction, librarian education, and cataloging standards. I met with some colleagues whom I had only ever spoken with online, and caught up with colleagues from New York whom I have only spoken to rarely since relocating to Philadelphia.

All told, I’m glad that the TUL residency program has been designed with some pre-allocated resources for our professional development activities, like conference attendance. This has been an area of difficulty in my early career as a librarian, and I feel that now that my job partially supports my professional development, I can finally begin to contribute substantially to professional groups like ALCTS and ACRL, and I have a better grasp on how their resources can inform my work.

Critical Digital Humanities

Elizabeth Rodrigues (CLIR Postdoctoral Fellow) and Sara Cohen (Editor, Temple University Press) created a Digital Scholarship & Publication Working Group. When I heard of its creation I knew I wanted to be a part of it. Not only because digital scholarship was one of my future rotations, but because it was combining participants from the Libraries and the Press. At the inaugural meeting, there was a discussion in the directions this group could go because of how broad, and ever-evolving, the field of digital scholarship is. I had mentioned my own interest in looking at the field as a whole more critically. Liz and Sara suggested that I do an introduction to critical digital humanities and at the next working group.

To start the presentation, I did an activity. Everyone receives a piece of paper and is instructed on how to make paper name tags. The twist is that only a few people are allowed to create the name tag with full mobility. Some must only use their non-dominant hand, and some are not allowed to use their hands (or other people) at all. Everyone had a couple of minutes to complete the activity. As you can imagine, some groups finished faster than others. I used the activity to jump start the introduction; the act of naming and getting one’s work out there is not equal. Depending on race, gender, class, and other facets of identity one’s path to flourishing in the field is very different. These barriers come in two forms- personal and institutional. On the institutional level, the types of universities that would build DH centers tend to have more money and more funding which in turn are primarily white institutions (PWIs). On the personal side students from low-income families have less computer access and are less likely to have learned a computer language, skills necessary to entering and flourishing within digital scholarship, as well as microaggressions, hostile work environments, and acculturative stress that can and often does drive out the already marginalized.

So critical digital humanities (from hereon out referred to as critDH) is a way of looking critically at the field of digital scholarship. It is informed by critical race and ethnic studies; feminist and gender studies; queer and LGBT studies; postcolonial, transnational, diaspora studies; and disability studies. It deconstructs how these matrices of identity and oppression play into the way people approach and engage in digital spaces.

So now to answer the “so what?” Currently, digital ethnic and cultural studies scholarship and products are not necessarily being recognized as digital scholarship. They’re lauded within their fields, but put in a separate box than the greater digital humanities field. This imposed segregation prevents projects from the prestige (as well as monetary compensation) they deserve. In addition, without being cognizant of queer theory, critical race theory, etc. digital scholarship being produced can alienate and further marginalize certain populations.

Of course it’s not enough to just name a problem. What can be done? Many think that it’s just “add marginalized and stir” and not only does it put pressure on the few to speak for the many, but creates an expectation that they will focus their own scholarship purely on diversity. Instead, creating a culture of interdisciplinary scholarship is the answer. Thinking about how your scholarship interacts with other fields not only makes your products more comprehensive, but naturally adds the critical pedagogy. For example, if you’re studying women’s protest in Chicago, unpacking the hegemonic assumption that women=white women is important. What may be true for white women movements might not be true for Black women ones.

Overall, I think that the discussion that resulted was interesting and important. I look forward to learning more about critDH and digital scholarship as I enter my rotation in the Digital Scholarship later in the year.



If you would like to learn more:

Moya Bailey (2011),  All of the Digital Humanists are White, All of the Nerds are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave

Fiona Barnett (2014), The Brave Side of Digital Humanities (in Differences)

Anne Cong-Huyen (2013), Thinking Through Race (Gender, Class, & Nation) in the Digital Humanities: The #transformDH Example and Transformative Asian/American Digital Humanities

Alexis Lothian and Amanda Phillips (2013), Can Digital Humanities Mean Transformative Critique?

George H. Williams (2012), Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities (in Debates in the Digital Humanities)


Meet Fobazi

As I spoke on another panel with mostly academic librarians in the audience, I began to think about the direction my career was going. I was a school library media specialist, and yet my publications and presentations reached the ears of mostly academic and to a somewhat lesser extent public librarians. Because of this, and because I often talked about the gap in achievement, culture, and expectations between high school and college, I thought it might be helpful to have a better understanding of academia.  However, I did not know if I wanted to become an academic librarian. So a residency was the perfect go-between for me. The residency program gives me a way to “dip my toes in” so to speak. I become a part of various departments, and learn which one(s) fit my interests and skill sets. And now I’m here.

But let me back track for just a moment. Hello everyone, my name is Fobazi Ettarh. I went to Rutgers for my MLIS and specialized in School Library Media.  During my program, I focused most of my research and projects on outreach and the information needs and desires of diverse populations.  I am interested in discovering how the intersections of identity (race, gender, sexuality, etc) affect librarianship as a field as well as the interactions with our patrons. On the action side of that research interest, I have spoken on multiple panels and written articles for Hack Library School and In The Library With the Lead Pipe.

Meet Anastasia

Hello, Temple, and hello, World.

These past 4 months as a pilot Resident Librarian have been very engaging, and I look forward to sharing more about it here in the months to come. I arrived at Temple in September from New York City, where I had lived for six years and gotten my MS in library and information science from St. John’s University. I’m a native of San Diego, CA.

I’m excited about the Temple Libraries residency because it presents a unique opportunity to re-orient the makeup of my library work experience. To date, the bulk of my experience has been on the public-facing end of library services – reference/reader’s advisory, instruction, and programming. Part of this is because I was a public-facing children’s librarian for two years before shifting my interest to academic librarianship during graduate school. Much of my Master’s coursework focused on the technical end of library services – cataloging & metadata, database design, web design, and my hope is to become a technical services librarian with plenty of reference, instruction, and perhaps even liaison duties. You can read more about me here and here.

Recently, I finished my first rotation in Reference & Instruction and put on a new hat in Acquisitions. In keeping with my personal goals, I’ll continue to work some hours at Paley’s reference desk and teach a light load as I shift into new technical services work. First rotation reflections to come soon!


What’s a Resident Librarian?

A resident librarian is a professional librarian engaged in a residency program for a specified term. So, what’s a residency program? Library residencies are somewhat analogous to medical residencies, in that they are term-limited positions designed to launch new librarians into practice and research. Many library residencies in the United States are in college and university libraries, and are also designed to help new librarians break into academic research and publication while balancing full-time everyday responsibilities. This is an aspect of academic librarianship that presents many difficulties to aspiring early-career academic librarians.

Temple University Libraries’ residency program, like many others, is a 2-year program. The first year is dedicated to “rotations;” we work for 3 months fully embedded in a library department or area (ex, Digital Scholarship Center, Programs & Events, Special Collections), then rotate to another, totaling 4 rotations over the year. During the second year, we will each execute a major project, with the goals of gaining robust and specific experience, and of feeding our work into professional publications & presentations.

We are Temple Libraries’ first residency cohort, and we hope that many cohorts will follow.