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.

We couldn’t have asked for a better group of people at the 2006 Library Camp, last Friday. Many of the attendees were from in-state, but several logged a good number of travel hours to get here. It was for those, especially, that I was nervous, hoping that the format would yield some discussion worthy of their troubles. It did, and I had a great time.

I apologize in advance that I’m leaving out a lot of (probably important) detail in this post. During the talks, I chose to put my laptop away and not take notes–I wanted to be as engaged as possible. My mind is not exactly clear at this moment, either. The time between then and now has consisted of Easter preparations, Easter itself and the wholesale carnage that ensues when a two, five, and seven year old are all in various stages of a candy binge.

Getting Started

Friday morning began with coffee and bagels (thank-you Talis!) and a short meeting to put together the agenda for the day. As an open space event, this meant that the attendees themselves were responsible for the day. As we went through introductions, I jotted down some of the topics people were throwing out which generally came in the form of specific ideas or reasons for attending:

• How to get buy-in for new ideas.
• Gaming in libraries.
• Integrating searches. (Don’t remember the specifics on this one)
• Personal digital asset management.
• How do we make it easier to find info/material?
• How can L2 make patrons happier?
• Disconnect between techies and non-techies (this is a big one)
• Web 2.0: where to go to now?
• If you build it, how do you get them to come?
• How to combine new technologies with the OPAC
• How do we make the OPAC better?
• How do we get the library out of the library?
• Which tools are other people using?
• Just attending to spy on us!
• How should libraries handle emerging technologies?
• Strategic planning? What should we be planning for?
• Alternative methods of circing material.
• Getting user feedback.
• How do we measure success?
• When explaining web 2.0, how do you answer “So what?”
• Just plain curious.

From the final schedule, you can get a general sense of which topics were hot. Feeling a little like a kid in a candy store after this exercise, I took part in the two “Bridging the Gap” sessions.

Bridging the Gap

The title “Bridging the Gap” hearkens back to a blog post of mine about some of the deep divisions between tech and non-tech staff in libraries. Priming this discussion took very little effort, because it seemed to be something that resonates strongly on both sides of the aisle. The group’s numbers favored the techies (and, as I sometimes find, the techie non-techies or non-techie techies) but the discussion did not turn into a gripe session, as I had feared it might, rather a very candid discussion about where problems exist in our organizations and how to address them. A number of people had some very good things to say here and the time quickly slipped by.

There is a level of miscommunication and mistrust that seems to have saturated the relationship between library and IT staff. Many veteran librarians feel threatened by technology because they are not as adept at incorporating it into their profession as their greener counterparts. This feeling is entirely understandable. In fact, one library’s approach was to ask existing managers if they were comfortable, willing, and able to facilitate the appropriation of emerging technologies. If they were not, then their position would be redefined. In other words, someone else would take their leadership position. While my initial reaction was to think this policy was harsh, I have to wonder whether protecting people’s egos is worth sacrificing innovation.

Another participant has put a great deal of thought and effort into making the IT staff/rest-of-the-library relationship work. (I think it was Sean Robinson, Information Technology Manager for Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, IN) His approach was to radically transform the IT department in such a way that customer service became the modus operandi. By instilling simple policies like, “answer the phone with a smile on your face” to broader, more radical attitudes, such as “always say yes“, he has been able to earn back a good measure of trust from his users. How did he find out what was bothering them? He sent out an anonymous survey via HR asking staff what they hated most about IT. Among answers like, “you never return my calls”, or “it takes you forever to fix my problem”, was a very interesting comment, “You guys have all the control”. Even though it makes perfect sense, I had never really thought about the fact that we could be perceived that way–it’s a completely valid observation. In many ways, IT departments do have “all the control”. It stands to reason, then, that finding ways to put control back in the hands of staff can help to alleviate the problem. The “always say yes” policy is part of that initiative. My feeling is that, instead of blindly saying “yes”, however, we can work together to achieve a shared vision. By improving communication, we can improve service through the combining of ideas, alternatives, and possibilities.

The second part of the discussion focused on technology and the patron. We talked a little about the OPAC here, knowing that another session was forthcoming on the very topic. The general feeling was that many of our OPACs simply do not return friendly results. One comment was made along the lines of, “patrons shouldn’t need to be a librarian to search the catalog”. I feel very strongly about this as well. A great example is the fact that most author searches require last-name first. Someone mentioned that they wanted Amazon or Google-type searches that would do spell-checking and suggest alternatives.

On the matter of getting technical expertise into libraries, Sean Robinson posed another good idea–that libraries “pay it forward”. In other words, if one library has the expertise to accomplish something, then they could help another library complete the same with with the expectation that the second library would, in turn, help out another. I thought this was an incredibly inspired notion, and completely doable! I’ll be the first to volunteer…

Low-hanging OPAC fruit

A discussion about OPACs doesn’t take long to turn into a vendor-roast. Admittedly, there was a little of that going on here–mostly for the usual reasons, all completely valid. From an academic standpoint, access to research databases is also in need of attention. My thought was that, technically, the two things hampering innovation the most at this point are 1) the lack of a meaningful API into our ILS and 2) no standards-based, dynamic index for our research databases. Given those two tools, we could completely transform our interfaces into something truly new and unique.

The problems with our OPACs can be split into form and function. The OPAC interface needs a major face-lift while search functionality and results leave a lot to be desired (relevancy ranking, anyone?)

Alan Gray (Darien Public Library) offered a number of great thoughts on approaching vendors, suggesting that many of the open-source tools now being developed could somehow be leveraged in such a way that vendors would have to take notice and react. The problem with open-source solutions, however, is that even though the software is free, implementation can be impossible for a library without much of a tech staff and support is almost non-existent.

On the subject of open-sourcing code: While I write much of my code modularly so that it can be reused by other people, most of the code behind AADL’s website is highly customized and cannot simply be dropped into place at another site. One of my goals is to get closer to the object model, so that the code can be reused. Much of the code written in libraries is highly site-specific and cannot be transplanted without a lot of work. Can we write code with portability in mind?

So what can we focus on now? Ryan Eby talked about the judicious use of iframes and javascript to embed dynamic content. Those have a number of drawbacks, however, and amount to “lipstick on the pig”. He used III’s screen file tokens as an example.

Many libraries would like to do a complete overhaul of their websites, like AADL, but are not able to due to technical or staffing constraints. Therefore, they fall back to shoe-horning new features in here and there at the expense of cohesiveness.

Web 2.0/Library 2.0 — What’s next?

I wasn’t sure what this discussion was going to do, or where it would go. I think someone started the discussion by simply throwing out, “so, what now?”

We talked a little about physical spaces and the way they shape the library experience. Alan Gray filled us in on some of the amazing things Darien Library is doing in their new building to foster a closer relationship with the patron. Apparently, they are installing reference “pods” where reference librarians can have one-on-one sessions with people. They’re also experimenting with some IP telephony products.

We heard from the folks at South Lyon who have been featured in both the New York Times and Library Journal for their use of the tablet PC. Hearing them talk, I couldn’t help being reminded that it’s not just the technology that transforms, but how it’s implemented and how committed we are to making it work.

I spoke a little bit about how we handle tech support here at AADL. I mentioned that we have an internal IRC server with a support channel and a web client for our help-desk folks. This allows them to field problems directly to a large number of technical staff.

We talked, quite frankly, about the term Library 2.0, and it seemed to me that most people present had very little problem with the name itself and simply wanted to talk about the ideas behind it. As one person said, “we need to call it something…” We also addressed the “change-or-die!” ideology. Basically, I don’t think libraries will wither away to nothing if we don’t take advantage of emerging technologies and opportunities (the key being opportunity). I do think, however, that we run the risk of missing the boat and relegating ourselves to a myopic role in our communities that will be difficult to break out of if we don’t take advantage of emerging trends–that includes popular culture. Someone else felt that perhaps we are making too much of this and that this kind of talk was part of a larger “culture of fear” that exists in America. It was mentioned that we need to continually reinvent ourselves, just like the business world does. Separating value from fad is difficult, but we shouldn’t ignore the trends.

We spoke a little bit about rising circulation, harnessing the long tail, setting up a Netflix model for patron holds, and a few other material-related topics, such as circulating laptops.

Many thanks to Les Orchard who bailed me out and did a quick intro to del.icio.us.

Wrap-up

Honestly, I wish the entire day had been filmed, or recorded, or both. I was struck by how fast time went by. Because virtually everyone in every discussion played an active role, a heck of a lot was accomplished. Unfortunately, it doesn’t lend itself to easy blogging because there were no slides, no prepared remarks and very little time to write. As we discussed at the end, the open spaces idea could translate very well to other locales, if you’re so inclined, I’d suggest one in your area.

links:
Library 2.0 Wiki -> Library Camp 2006
The unLibrarian
Les Orchard’s OPML notes (neat-o!)
Ryan Eby

Today begins the 2006 HigherEd BlogCon, “an online event focused on how new online communications technologies and social tools are changing Higher Education.” Looking at the schedule for this month-long event, I’m seeing a lot of very interesting topics by some great speakers, er, writers.

You’ll notice that April 10-14 is dedicated to “Library and Information Resources“. LJ Mover and Shaker, Meredith Farkas has gathered a fantastic group of people to present during this block–I just hope mine can keep up with some of the other great topics planned!

As a public library person, I’m looking forward to getting a taste of librarianship in higher education. I think, with much of the Library 2.0 discussion focusing primarily on public libraries, school libraries have been left out in the cold a bit. It’s important to include them in the discussion of new ideas and the overarching discussion.

I’ve never participated in a BlogCon before, so this is a first for me, but it’s apparent that a lot of work and planning has gone into making this succeed. The fact that there is no geographical barrier to attendance really intrigues me and I’m looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.

Be sure to subscribe to the HEBC feed (comment feed too) and participate! It is, after all, a conference.