blyberg.net » Going to the Boneyard?

Going to the Boneyard?

The Boneyard - Where Russian MiGs go after their planned obsolescence I have to say that, like a number of other people, I was struck by Mark Hirschey’s piece in Lawrence Journal World decrying the state of the modern library. I certainly understand and appreciate Sarah Houghton’s retort–it sums up my initial reaction by taking inventory on many of the great, innovative, and worthy services libraries do provide their communities. Michael Stephens also points out some of the intrinsic value of libraries.

However, I can’t help but think that we’re missing something really important here–that Mr. Hirschey is exactly the type of person we need to be listening to. While I fundamentally disagree with his conclusions, he’s raising a number of very serious and reasonable concerns. While his opinion may not be shared by the majority of his community, it’s an indication of what’s to come. He will not be the last to raise these same points–critics of libraries are only going to get louder and their arguments stronger. Why? Because, as much as we do not want to admit it, there is some truth to those arguments. Libraries are neophyte marketers in a world where perception and opinion trumps logic and truth. So we can circle the wagons and remind ourselves how important we are, or we can be pragmatic and do something about this.

I was on a conference call the other day with several people talking about a new web site and the topic of public perception came up. I relayed some comments I heard on an AM radio talk show I had been listening to in a waiting room somewhere. The radio personality was talking about the piece of legislation we know as DOPA and was being highly critical of librarians, insisting that libraries were standing with and protecting child pornographers and pedophiles. When I heard this, I got so angry that I think I swore out loud and earned a few glares. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that libraries, and certainly the ALA, is virtually incapable of doing spin control. Some might argue that it’s not the job of libraries to do spin control, but the sad truth is that it’s an unpleasant necessity.

I faithfully watch a fantastic show on HBO called The Wire that is now in its fourth season. One of the main antagonists is an untouchable drug dealer named Marlo who, when confronted by a security guard after stealing something from a convenience store, says, “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.” I thought that was a brilliant line. Do we want it to be one way when it’s actually the other? I think some of us do.

The problem with Mr. Hirschey’s argument is not his reasoning, but the conclusion he arrives at which is, “don’t build a library.” He writes:

We need to embark on an aggressive plan to bring broadband access to the doorstep of each and every home in Lawrence. There is no need to do anything in west Lawrence, the private sector has already done that in the newer part of town. It’s east Lawrence, the older part of town, that desperately needs access to new information technology.

He’s absolutely right, and again here:

Don’t expect kids, seniors, and everyone else to trudge downtown for the convenience of librarians. Put information technology at the fingertips of every kid, and every senior in Lawrence. Because low incomes limit the ability of some to connect to high-speed access, even when it’s brought to their door, the city might give low-income families computers on a needs basis. Otherwise, offer reliable Internet access at small 24/7 City of Lawrence Free Internet Cafes (”libraries”) that are broadly distributed for easy walking access by kids and seniors.

I agree on both points, especially with the “Don’t expect kids, seniors, and everyone else to trudge downtown” part. But let me ask you this, is there any reason why a new library initiative couldn’t encompass all those things? Why not subsidize wifi hot-spots around town that default to the library web page when a user first logs on? If you don’t have the money, raise it. Why not have our libraries represented on planning commission boards so that we can push for ubiquitous broadband access? Why the hell are we not the ones spear-heading these efforts? Let Mr. Hirschey answer that: because many libraries are “monument[s] to 19th century information technology.” Those of us in the biblioblogosphere might not fall into that 19th Century category, but we all know that for every one of us, there are five or ten of our colleagues (who are excellent at what they do) that plug away just as they always have, blissfully unaware of the storm outside.

I think that this is changing, too slowly, but changing nonetheless. The problem is that libraries are not typically aggressive beasts. I’m afraid we need to be now or we will be quickly trumped by other sources of information that will have the ability to distribute information much more efficiently and rapidly. I’m afraid that, at some point, Mr. Hirschay’s conclusions will be shared by enough people.

So, where and how do we get aggressive?

Damage Control

I used the DOPA example to illustrate the need for libraries to do spin and damage control. We need people at the national level (and the ALA is the likely place for this) who are talented marketers who can sell the nuances of our message. We just don’t have enough of this right now. Yes, I’m talking about talking heads–everyone else does it, we should too because the alternative is that we get chewed up on issues like DOPA and the Patriot Act. We’re not really unpatriotic child pornographers, but there are a lot of people who are painting us as such.

I understand that this seems like selling out to the very media we’re trying to provide an alternative to, but if that’s where the “message” and the people are, why are we not there? I mentioned in a previous post that I didn’t believe that there was a moral equivalency between what we do and what those who would limit our rights are doing. I still believe that, but we’re not doing a good job of taking the fight to where the fight is. What do we do? We take our licks, then come back to the flock to spread our message where we’re met with approval and acceptance. Good, if you want to delude yourself, bad if you want to explain yourself to a confused public.

Radical Change

More specifically, the tolerance of radical change. I think as we push further into the 21st Century, a lot of librarians are going to have to reconcile their expectations of what they think a library should be with what a library needs to be. This is hard, because in order to effect the changes needed to do business in this new, emerging market (yes, we’re part of a market), and find a place among the commercial giants we need to be much more nimble than we are now.

Every organization is like a piece of raw material in that each one has its own flexural strength–that is, you can subject a group of people to a finite amount of change before something ruptures and causes the group cohesion to break down. I love libraries, but they are not very adaptable organizations. They could be, however. Through a regimen of conditioning, hiring practices and managing expectations of staff, libraries can eventually get to the point where they are more flexible–injured athletes do the same thing with their bodies in physical therapy. We are out of shape and complacent and its starting to really show.

Aggressive Lobbying

Does the ALA have a strong lobby in Washington? Well according to this page, which only gives data up through 2002 (but the numbers are basically flat), “ALA lobby expenses average $173,000 for a six-month reporting period or about $350,000 per year. Expenses are primarily incurred at the Washington Office based on time reported by staff.” Considering that the New York Library alone spent $80,000 of its own money in 2004 on lobbying efforts, what does that say about this particular priority? ALA has opted for a cap of $1 million on lobbying, which has not come close to to being approached. For six years, our First Lady has been a librarian–have we used that to its full potential?

We need to be investing in this effort now so that we can secure our ability to do things in the future, such as distribute content electronically, maintain our right to determine our own filtering policies, or collect whatever material we want. Right now, we are severely hamstrung by an extremely vague fair use clause that prohibits libraries from coming to the same party as the likes of iTunes and Rhapsody. The legality of sharing electronic content is our biggest impediment. Without more flexible distribution options, there will be no long tail for us.

Activism, not anger

I predict that we’ll start seeing more and more library opponents like Mr. Hirschey. We have the choice of reacting with anger and disgust to their views or engaging and talking to them directly to find a way to meet their needs and expectations. After all, if Mr. Hirschey walked in to our library and asked us directly if we could do X, Y, or Z, we wouldn’t shout or laugh him off the premises–it’s not the way we conduct business inside our libraries. That same approach to customer service shouldn’t stop at the threshold of our front door.

The best defense is a great offense, and actively addressing the very same concerns he talks about–chiefly the issue of providing broadband access to low-income families–should be a major concern of ours. He’s not an asshole, he’s genuinely concerned for a group of disenfranchised people–perhaps more concerned than we are. So you tell me, why are we not doing anything about connecting up low-income families? Perhaps if we were a little more proactive about addressing the needs of our community, we wouldn’t be subjected to some of this negative public perception.

The real story here centers on a few simple questions. Why should we get those dollars? Are we entitled to the money we get because we’ve always gotten it? I’m not so sure–it might do us some good to scratch and fight for our sustenance–the people Mr. Hirschey wants to help certainly do for theirs.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

18 Comments so far
Leave a comment

John Blyberg embraces criticism with dialogue…

However, John reminds me that the place is only important in so much as it meets the needs of our user communities.

To me, libraries are much more than collections, but instead represent a broader set of ideals related to universal access and inte…..

[…] blyberg.net » Going to the Boneyard? […]

John, I could not agree with you more about the need for us to take a perspective that seeks a two-way conversation with the uncomfortable views of a growing proportion of those who take part in public discourse, and to create services that respond to what our patrons want, rather than what we believe they need.

Your point that libraries are not very adaptable organizations reminds me that Darwin suggested that it was not the fittest that survived, but the most adaptable.

I really like your thoughts on this. One of the trends I have noticed in the library world is the resistance to change no matter what form it takes. This attitude is in conflict with a society that is accelerating every chance it gets. Other elements such as business are constantly reevaluating their position just to survive. Libraries are just begining to be effected by these forces as there are more and more information channels. Libraries do not seem to be entering into strategic planning mode that business enter into. Defining goals and measuring returns. Rather there seems to be the us vs. them outlook. The ever popular Google vs Libraries. It would be interesting to hear of a library that created a quartery service strategy that focused on growth in a certain area that there was oppertunity and they created a marketing plan that matched their overall technology plan.

[…] In general, I agree with John: I can’t help but think that we’re missing something really important here–that Mr. Hirschey is exactly the type of person we need to be listening to. […]

John, you articulated my thoughts perfectly. Once we get through the “indignation” phase of our response to his message, we need to get to the “listening” phase. Have none of us been to libraries that were dirty, unwelcoming, underequipped, unfriendly, or overall apparently superfluous?

That said, he’s coming to this argument with a card up his sleeve: he does use library services–just not public library services.

google stupidity and leaking television…

Somehow, I missed the story of Google’s acquisition of YouTube on Monday. It was the Thanksgiving holiday here in Canada so I wasn’t paying much attention to the news. I remember reading last month when Mark Cuban said that only a moron wou…

This pressure is keenly felt (by those who are paying attention) in school libraries, which are increasingly being closed as funding gets reallocated to support testing (never mind the correlation between strong library programs and test performance).

In my (middle) school, at our year-opening orientation for the teaching staff, we offered a “who, what, when, where, how, why” of the library. The “Where” is obviously that the library is everywhere. For the “What,” meaning what is this physical space, they were told that “the library is a sandbox.” Most of them got it with a minimum of explanation. Now we’re starting up after school gaming, we host the monthly faculty breakfast, a tutoring collaboration with a local business, students fasting during Ramadan, whatever service we can reasonably provide. (And, by the way, our circulation numbers are up).

Bob, that’s a very interesting example, indeed. From what it sounds like, you’re frantically trying to counter this reality with these programs. Do you get a sense of whether your colleagues are willing to address this pragmatically?

[…] I should note that blyberg has a nice post talking about this. […]

To answer your question — sorry it took me a couple days to get back — I’d have to say some yes, some no. In any case, not enough.

I’m certainly not qualified to judge all school librarians; I’ve never studied the matter formally and don’t think I’ve seen any comprehensive survey of the field. But I can judge anecdotally from my own conversations and from watching the traffic on LM_NET, probably the most broad-based listserv for school librarians, where these issues erupt periodically between otherwise collegial discussion of reference questions and collection development. And there are still — to me — alarming numbers of librarians out there who are meeting this challenge with some variation of, “That’s not the way we’ve ever done it and I’m not going to start now.”

Some others are way out in front. I lay no claim to original ideas; I’m just following the leaders. Joyce Valenza, for example, is a one-woman engine for paradigm shift. School Library Journal is always full of instructive advice about new technology, new services (like gaming), and ways to LISTEN to our users, with contributions from insightful and forward-thinking bloggers like Chris Harris and Will Richardson. But I do wonder whether we as a group will be able to transform before it’s too late, before some critical mass of school library programs are defunded and destaffed. Those of us who deal with teens are facing escalating irrelevance on two fronts: administrators and school boards who don’t understand our value; and students who increasingly see us as old and in the way.

I think you raise a really poignant question, “Why should we get those dollars?” We should all be asking that question at the start of every morning.

[…] The new Second Life library is open, and in light of the recent controversy surrounding a certain opinion piece, and its incredibly thoughtful response, I am very excited by this. […]

I’m not a librarian, but have recently felt a calling to become one. Currently, I am a copywriter for an interactive advertising agency and applying the skills and insights from this industry to a cause bigger than generating sales and gaining market share is an exciting proposition to me.

My first thought in reading this post and your responses is maybe it’s time to bring the librarian to the people. To me a library offers a human aspect that cyberspace—not matter how hard it tries—can never match. Being equipped with technology and tools and Internet access is only one part of the equation. Understanding how to navigate in this new world is the other. Let’s face it: There’s a lot of information out there. In fact, it can be down right duanting to find the information you’re looking for even when you understand and know how to use the tools to mine through it all.

Sure, some libraries offer “online chat” options but it’s still such an abstract form of service—even for the most tech-savvy individual. It is unlikely that even the most well-funded libraries can compete with the world wide web as far as volume of information goes. Therefore, librarians and libraries should embrace the one, sweeping competitive advantage they have—the human factor.

If people aren’t coming to the libraries, the librarians need to go to them. Remember bookmobiles? Perhaps the time has come for the mobile librarian? Allow the public to schedule one-on-one time with a librarian in their home. They could submit inquires that the mobile librarian could research beforehand and bring materials to the patron… the role becomes educational.

To take it a step further: What if there is a “special collections” book of interest to the patron. Or a program offered in the library that could help them in their quest—however large or small (i.e. to read more=join the monthly book club meeting). The mobile librarian could inform the patron that they need to physically visit the library to utilize that resources. Innately, you are selling the patron on why libraries are important and why they need to physically be there to reap the full benefit.

This may be out of context or off topic a bit. But like I said, I’m just starting downt the path and have no library experience or inside knowledge other than reading and being a lifelong patron myself. All I know is that I would agree that big business can be self-serving and have the wrong motivations. But the strategic thinking in a big business is a highly useful exercise. The best businesses know that in order to survive, people need to hear and subscribe to your message. It is no different for anything else—libraries, political parties, an artist or a band, a scientific theory… Enough people need to support an idea in order for it to survive, grow and flourish.

My advice would be to tap into your greatest resource—your patrons. Get your communities to talk about their changing lives and needs and see what your library can do to meet those needs. The 21st Century is all about customization of user experience and I believe that, in order for libraries—particularly public libraries—to be a relevant force in a “2.0″ world, they need to adapt and change.

How? Well, I’m not enough of an insider to answer that question. But judging from what I read on this and other such blogs—you all just might be the people to figure it out. And hopefully, someday soon I’ll be joiingn your ranks.

*Kelly

I happened to be looking for some examples of new technology that could be used as the libraries in the Katrina zone are being rebuilt, and I came upon your mashup prize (congrats) and the Lawrence KS piece.

I live in Silicon Valley, and support for libraries as well as some of the bond measures has been pretty good, considering we need 2/3’s approval to pass. However, I meet so many people here and in other places who have little idea of all the resources available. While some won’t consider print reference any more, many don’t know about online resources paid for by many libraries, and as others have mentioned people like Mark Hirschey really think the web ecompasses most of human knowledge.

In working with indigenous groups and some oral cultures I think of the domains in a sort of Venn diagram where the online and print (current and archival) stuff overlaps with what is online. I don’t think there is the money or will to put everything online, and part of this is due to IP issues. A third intersection is the world of oral information and knowledge. Sure, some chats reside in telco databases and voice traffic at three letter agencies or in the archives of security cameras, but it’s not really accessible yet.

It would be interesting to engage a group of people like Mr. H. in an ongoing conversation and get the discourse outside of the library ghetto. I do note that some of the previous comments were not from librarians though.

[…] Edited to add: Since my post, Library Journal published an article about this debate, and listed John Blyberg’s blyberg.net response. After reading his blog post, I decided that, though I agree with the sentiments of the previously listed bloggers, his response gets more to the heart of the issue. Information professionals need to admit to and address the weaknesses of our profession if we can hope to respond effectively to (and, hopefully, be proactive about) public perception of who we are, what we do, and why the public should care. Filed under: Continuing legitimacy of libraries | […]

Why is any or all of this surprising? Library literature has been proclaiming the demise of libraries for at least ten years now!

This may mean the public has finally listened to the doomsayers and other library directors’ idiotic declarations that libraries are no longer needed or wanted. The fact that it took ten years for the buzz to catch fire out there in the customer base we serve might mean the whole critique is stupid and wrongheaded to begin with - possibly.

But we look foolishly silly and just a bit clownish reacting to this argument as if it suddenly cropped up from outside. We invented, crafted, and nurtured its nuances. A simple search of the professional journals, the conference workshop sessions, or intermittent (we)blogs will allow one to trace the incidious creep of this absurd debate.

[…] I applaude John’s effort to approach criticism with dialogue and agree with many of his conclusions. As an institution, libraries have a well established history as central repositories of physical, and now digital, collections. In my last post, I pointed out how we need to transition our thoughts of library as place to the digital world. However, John reminds me that the place is only important in so much as it meets the needs of our user communities. […]

[…] Going to the Boneyard? (blyberg.net) […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>