blyberg.net » Pragmatism vs. Idealism

I didn’t really want to bury this in a comment thread, so I’m posting.

Bo Kinney responded to my Buzzkill post with an excellent post on collection development and I’m actually not in complete disagreement with it. Bo makes a number of very valid points and uses the Charlie Robinson, “Give ‘em what they want” campaign as an example of appeasement for the masses gone awry. But that’s not quite what we’re talking about here.

The issue at hand is whether, as libraries, we overrule the demand of our users with our own sensibilities. That’s a very dangerous path to tread. What if a group of librarians converged upon ’80s music and deemed it to be mindless noise, driven by rampant consumer confidence and cocaine? Should they then be allowed to weed it out of the collection or keep it from getting ordered? What if the target was material written or recorded by gay and lesbian artists? Perhaps it would be in the interest of the community to strike such material from the collection–especially now that gays and lesbians are gaining acceptance in popular culture. No, there needs to be a more objective criteria for ordering the bulk of our collection and that is the aggregate popularity (or anticipated popularity) of a given item. It’s a cold, impersonal, impartial, and unbiased process–just as it should be. That’s right up central management’s alley, if you ask me.

But Bo is correct as well. Librarians absolutely need to have a hand in developing collections. The librarian’s purview is a far murkier, far more interesting venue: the long tail. The problem with Robinson’s approach is that it docks it (of course, there was no understanding of what the long tail is back in the ’90s). Being able to embrace the long tail distribution is very much a key component to library 2.0. Maybe this is what the Sacramento administrators are not quite seeing. Without provisioning for the popular stuff, you get a lifeless, disembodied tail. Without the tail, you get a Borders.

Certainly there is a balance to be struck here and I certainly understand and appreciate the concern expressed by John Berry. I share it as well, but I see contemporary developments in our libraries as moving to address those shortcomings. Technology is a large piece of that puzzle as we use it to enable new methods of service and as we continue to expand our user base through it. But Library 2.0 is more than that. It encompasses major changes to our spaces, our policies, our programming, and our practices. I heartily disagree with Bo’s comment that we’re pursuing change out of fear. I believe most of us pursue change out of a knowledge that we can do better on all fronts and a desire to want to. The struggle between those who want to change and those who desire status quo indeed goes on, like it has for decades. And just like it always has, change inevitably overruns inertia.

In the meantime, otherwise normal and intelligent people act like idiots because change is scary and it’s anger that fear leads to, not change. The easiest course of action is to do nothing at all and scorn those harbingers of change. It may be that yesterday’s Fireside Poets have become today’s Paris Hiltons, but that’s life and we have to cater to it. We can’t very well elevate the minds of our people without first getting them in the door. We won’t get anyone if all we do is build sky-walks between ivory towers. Is it an ideal representation of our grand vision to stock the shelves with Jackass? Not likely, but pragmatism is, in itself, a form of idealism when applied correctly toward a common good. You just need to stomach the sight of sausage being made.

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

9 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Thanks, John, for the really thoughtful response. (And thanks for helping make my entry into the biblioblogosphere an interesting one.)

I think what I took issue with, more than anything, about your original post, was the comment that librarians shouldn’t be placing value on content. I think that placing value on content is the central task of librarians, especially those doing collection development. One good way of placing value on content is by paying attention to what people want. Popular materials, and materials with high demand, are likely to be quite valuable to library patrons, and I’m not suggesting that we should discount that. But popular demand is not the only way to measure value, and may not even be the best way. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry, and I think that determining value of materials is one of the most challenging jobs librarians have. I mentioned the Boston Public Library trustees and John Berry in my post because I think their writings are good examples of some serious attempts to wrestle with this difficult issue. More than anything, I want libraries to recognize that it is a difficult issue. Most of what I’ve seen written about this in the blogosphere hasn’t suggested that.

“To admit authorities, however heavily furred and gowned, into our libraries and let them tell us how to read, what to read, what value to place upon what we read, is to destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of those sanctuaries. Everywhere else we may be bound by laws and conventions - there we have none.” Virginia Woolf

Found at: http://ofbooksandbikes.wordpress.com/

I used to work in public service and do collection development. I certainly appreciate the need to consult with the public in as many ways as is possible about all types of collections. However, there is a very vital role for collection development staff (librarian or not). This is especially true in areas where censorship is possible.

In one public library where I worked, some of the patrons would have preferred that we not have any gay and lesbian material - unless it explained how disgusting this “choice” was and how evil such people were. They were quite vocal in challenging any material that deviated from this and they vigorously checked out their preferred materials.

I was not then (and am not now) interested in catering to bigots. If that makes me an intellectual elitist - so be it. So, these patrons did not get the material that they wanted because I would not waste money on it (and I use that phrase deliberately). Our board and my boss at the time backed me on this - against statistical and vocal evidence.

Did the GLBT items get checked out? Not much - it was too dangerous socially to be caught reading it. Does that mean that they weren’t used? Absolutely not! We collected in-house use stats as well as check-out stats and the GLBT items were off the charts for in-house use. Our board (and I) were pleased that we were meeting a previously unmet need - even if that was for a minority of the populace that didn’t feel that they could check the items out.

A long story and an extreme example - but you simple cannot judge everything via check-out statistics (how do you evaluate a reference collection?). The tyranny of the majority is no way to run a public library in my not so humble opinion.

Thanks Bo and John, for sharing your thoughts.

[…] really enjoyed reading ALA Editions author John Blyberg’s post Pragmatism vs. Idealism, which is a continuation of a thread (with links for latecomers) discussing collection development […]

John, given the competing demands for library resources, how many copies of “Jackass 2″ and the Paris Hilton video, “Confessions of an heiress”, do you figure your own library ought to purchase? For the benefit of collection development people everywhere, could you show how you arrived at your numbers?

Searching the Darien Library catalog just now I didn’t find either title. How come?

GeekChic, I think you make a very good point that I had meant to address, but you’ve done a great job illustrating it. Let me be clear about what I mean when I say “aggregate popularity.” I’m referring to popularity as reflected by industry-wide, not regional or local statistics. I think that would obviate any anomalies due to attitudes held by a library’s community.

Larry, I think you miss the point that I’m trying to make which is that it’s not about specific titles but instead a process by which collections can be built objectively, without bias or prejudice. Perhaps if you consider my post in its entirety, you’ll see that I think it’s the job of the collection developers to make those collections unique by augmenting them with their own input. If you think about it, it takes the monotony out of the process and lets librarians focus on what they really want to do.

John - Aaah, I understand the point that you’re trying to make. I definitely understand the concept of “aggregate popularity” (and I like that term). At that same library I had a policy of trying to buy at least one copy of every best-seller and Oprah’s pick, for example (and I only say “try” because there were funding issues).

If they were on those lists, I assumed that people would want them and I didn’t want to make people have to request them. I had a lower set of standards for these items because they were likely to be popular. They were almost like automatic release items for me… I didn’t have to think much about them. I could (as you note) spend my time augmenting the collection in other ways.

Thanks for providing a forum for stimulating discussion John.

John, I was annoyed by your first posting about Sacramento but didn’t comment there because who reads comments about yesterday’s posts? This second post of yours is much better.

Nothing in the first post about the long tail. Nothing in the first post about the possibility the Sacramento administrators may be missing something.
Nothing in the first post about the possibility that it’s the number of copies of the Paris Hilton book (not video as I had it earlier) or Jackass 2 that some staff object to. Nothing much but righteous indignation about buzzkilling idiot Poindexters.

I doubt you have much to do with collection development there at Darien but I note that subject searches for Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Christina Aguilera all return zero hits. Nothing by Donald Goines. Maybe your patrons turn to some sort of regional catalog for books by and about these people, or maybe your acquisitions people are so in tune with the community that they know there is just no interest … or maybe you should have a talk with them about building circulation - I notice there are six copies of “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks just sittin’ on the shelf. Maybe someone there thought that’s what the public should be reading.

No “Learning Perl”, nothing about Ruby (Computer program language). Collection development is hard.

[…] of all, some great comments were posted in response to what I wrote, both on this blog and on others. Some helped provide support for my arguments, some respectfully disagreed, and some pointed out […]

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>