No abstract

Public services (PS) and technical services (TS) librarians play equally crucial roles in providing library services to meet user needs to support institutional goals. For PS and TS librarians to develop effective workplace collaborations, both groups must have a better understanding of the other side’s perspectives, values, and concerns. This paper sought to learn how librarians in the two areas currently perceive and/or stereotype each other. The authors conducted a survey on cross perceptions of public and technical services academic librarians. The study tested and confirmed assumptions that previous papers have made about the negative perceptions of TS librarians held by PS librarians. Analysis of survey results, however, found that TS respondents expected to be viewed more negatively than was evidenced by the PS responses. Nonetheless, both PS and TS respondents recognized and agreed on the important role that library technical services play within the larger context.

This article joins the debate about the popular pervasiveness of antitort and antilitigation attitudes by examining whether, and to what extent, antitort or antilitigation sentiment is present in the narratives about law offered by reality‐based television judge shows. Given the persistent debate about tort reform and scholars' recognition of the role played in this debate by simplified narratives about the legal system, we analyze whether reality‐based TV judge shows as a genre contribute to the creation and dissemination antitort and antilitigation sentiment. Earlier studies led us to hypothesize that TV judge shows would largely support the antitort and antilitigation narratives. After coding over 55 hours of such shows, however, we conclude that they do not adopt this narrative. Rather, these shows present a view of the civil law system that largely treats plaintiffs' claims as legitimate and showcases the majority of defendants as wrongdoers. In spite of this, we argue that the particular dramatic qualities of TV judge shows limit their potential to serve as a strong counternarrative to antitort and antilitigation stories.

No abstract

No abstract