Before attending large conferences like ALA, I like to gather some of the thoughts I’ve been casually tossing around in my head. I say casually, because I really haven’t given any of them the benefit of any formal thought process.  At any rate, this is the baggage I’m bringing to ALA:

A library on the Edge?

Like two distinct brands of the same religion, librarians are drifting into two camps–those that believe libraries are in peril and those that don’t. Those who find themselves as a member of the former tend to feel that their libraries need to change in a number of fundamental ways in order to remain relevant. Those who identify with the latter group feel that good old-fashion librarianship is still what their users want or need.  They’re the purists. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying this, but I do believe that all of us sit somewhere between these two poles.

This dichotomy yields some interesting implications for discussions about the future of libraries and what we should be doing now and in the future. For instance, if you’re inclined to think that libraries are in danger of becoming irrelevant, you’re probably going to be more open to many of the more radical proposals and developments we’re seeing and hearing of today. Purists, of course, are just as vehement and passionate about libraries, but want to see the core values of their libraries shored up.  To them, good old fashion reference and circulation is what libraries are all about.

So the question is, how do these two groups find a middle ground that will not compromise us into mediocrity? I’m skeptical about the prospect of creating more excellent middle-of-the-road libraries. That’s what most of us are right now.

Web 2.0 is saturated while Library 2.0 is parched

The library corpus cannot absorb all the 2.0 being thrown at it. I see two major problems that are causing a veritable 2.0-anemia.

First, while Library 2.0 may not be exclusively about technology, it’s hitched its wagon to technology in inextricable ways. That means that in order to be deft L2 wagon-drivers, we need to have great technologists and great technology. Libraries have a severe shortage of both and while we may try to make ourselves gleam to one another as best we can, what we really ought to be doing is focusing on how libraries can be attracting new blood into that particular sector of the industry. There is no doubt that great work is being done by a lot of talented people (and they know who they are). But for most of us, implementation is still that big old swollen caveat hanging out there uncomfortably.

Second, after implementation, integration tends to be awkward, at best. There is a fairly severe disconnect between what the 2.0 pundits say (among whom I count myself), and what is really happening. Your library may have, for instance, a Flickr account, IM reference, a bloglines blog, delicious bookmarks, whatever. But are they truly embedded into the way your institution works? In almost every case, this approach seems like throwing seeds into the air, letting them land where they may. I think it’s time to start talking about how we arrange these components into a more suitable constellation of services. These technical elements of L2 must be aligned along our institutions’ field of influence and expertise so that the seams don’t show. Seams send the wrong message, they say we’re being disingenuous and sloppy. In effect, poorly implemented technology amounts to spamming our users and staff with “new features.”

The user is sometimes broken

Sorry Karen, but sometimes the user is broken. And that’s ok. We’re all broken in some way and that’s what makes us human. Let’s not forget that, at its core, the library is a human construct created by humans for use by humans.  I think we can be there to help fix the user, to enable the user to change in the ways that he or she would like.

There will be times when we get it right and the user still can’t handle it, because the user can’t deal.  We shouldn’t change a good thing for him because accommodating him will send us down an endless rabbit hole.  It’s those cases that we rely on our hospitality and deference to help the user as best we can.

The librarian is sometimes broken

Of course, the flip side of this is that, yes, sometimes the librarian is broken too.  In comparison, it’s much easier to deal with a broken user than a broken librarian.  The broken user is a support issue, and support is simply a commodity.  The broken librarian, if not fixed, is an institutional liability.  But God bless us, we’re a compassionate, sensitive bunch and we’re going to tip-toe around that person’s shortcomings and weave them into the fabric of our organizations.  That’s the way we roll.

Outgoing ALA President, Leslie Burger, is sponsoring the President’s Transformation Track later this month at Annual. It’s a must-attend series of five events covering, what I feel, to be the five brightest stars in the constellation of the American Library: services, technology, staff, space, and community. This track is aimed at giving you the knowledge and insight you’ll need to transform your library into an institution that can make the most of each of these virtues. If you attended Leslie’s inaugural dinner last year, you’ll remember that she wanted to make the theme of her tenure “Libraries Transform Communities,” so there is a nice symmetry to this track.

She writes about this series on the transformation wiki:

I am delighted to sponsor the Transformation Track programs at this year’s annual conference. During my presidential year I’ve talked to thousands of people about the power of libraries to transform the communities they serve and seen hundreds of examples from libraries of all types where transformation is taking place every day. I am convinced now more than ever that when we invest our time and energy in transforming our libraries that support for our libraries and what we do grows in unimagined ways. Come to the Transformation Track programs — get inspired, make new contacts, find helpful tips, and then transform your libraries.

Of course, the technology session will be the best *smile*. Alan Gray and I will be co-chairing this panel of experts Lori Ayre, Roy Tennant, and Casey Bisson. The session will cover a number of germane topics, but we want to give you the opportunity to make your voice heard before the event, not just during the Q&A. A participants notes page is available on the wiki where you can suggest some topics to be covered and formulate some questions to be answered. In addition, attendees can use the discussion tabs for any follow-up dialogue.

Depending on connectivity in the venue, we may try to incorporate IM and *cough* Twitter into the mix somehow. These are longer than usual sessions (about two hours). I often feel that a good session is just hitting its stride after 90 minutes, so I’m looking forward to seeing what will come out of those 30 extra minutes.

We’re extremely lucky to have grabbed these three panelists for this track and we’re looking forward to seeing you there.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention that if you attend three transformation sessions, you get a free T-shirt!

Alan gave me a heads-up on Microsoft’s new Surface this morning. We want them in our new library. Strike that. We will have them in our new library:

(link)

Can you imagine plopping a CD or DVD down on this thing and getting an instant preview, then checking it out by simply placing your library card anywhere on the table?

How about letting the kids go nuts on it.

Or using it as a reference tool, “…have a seat while I blow your freakin’ mind.”

At about $10,000 a piece, these might just be a killer app for libraries.

(more info)

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.

Since I’m in the video marketing mode lately, let’s just keep it going.

Andrew Dubber emailed me today about a female duo in New Zealand who recently released this video:

A great video, but I’m biased, of course. What I’m really intrigued with, however, is Dubber’s thoughts on connecting libraries with marketing initiatives. I think he’s really on to something here. He knows his marketing, and like any good marketer is a true pragmatist and pragmatism often leads to good ideas:

I bet if you offered free downloads of the music through library websites, did a Libraries tour or something similar, BoingBoing would find that noteworthy.

When was the last time your library was linked-to from BoingBoing? Instinctively, I like this kind of out-of-the-box thinking. I obvioulsy don’t want to see libraries go down the “this book is brought to you by” route, but it’s clear to me that marketing departments are the places that can “make it happen” in most companies. So if we can work with them and not be so terrified of their agenda, we stand to benefit tremendously. How great would it be if we could be the venue for focus groups, screeners, performances, and the like. The traditional model consists of us seeking programming opportunities from the community while only occasionally being approached. Judiciously leveraging the power of corporate marketing could potentially fill our events schedule. More importantly, it pushes free content out to our users who really don’t care where it comes from.

The hows, whats, and whos are the details that need attention, obviously, but I’m certainly not recoiling from this idea.