Continue reading »]]>
As promised, here is the argument and my own rebuttal from the Harvard event. Special thanks to Meg Backus, Jill Hurst-Wahl and all the great librarians who helped me put this together. I am putting this up in a sort of drafty form because I am interested in how the argument and counter-argument can be made better.

Libraries are Obsolete

There are few of us who can know the exact moment their career ended. However when a professor of library science argues libraries are obsolete against a Harvard law school professor and the head of the lead funding agency in the field I think that moment has arrived. This was where I found myself April 18th when I took part in an Oxford-style debate as part of Harvard Library Strategic Conversations. The idea was to mix humor with serious debate on the proposition that “Libraries are Obsolete.” I was asked to argue for the proposition.Now this is a rather odd position to be in since I have spent my career arguing exactly the opposite, but in the spirit of playing devil’s advocate, and the fact that I have tenure, I jumped in. After all, if we don’t honestly debate the point, how can we truly be sure we are not headed towards obsolescence [more on my rational see this post].

In looking at most of the cases against libraries many are focused on one type of library. For example, some argue against public libraries because they do not feel it is a wise use of tax dollars. Other arguments that fall apart in the face of evidence such as the editorial from the News Leader (Florida’s oldest weekly newspaper) where Mike Thompson opines:

“While local taxpayers pick up the biggest tab for America’s libraries, most librarians are little more than unionized pawns for the social-activist bosses of the American Library Association (ALA)…Today…ALA controls 62,000 members and, through its czarist accreditation program of many libraries, largely dictates what books are available for the most impressionable members of U.S. society, our children.”

This might be a valid argument is ALA did in fact accredit libraries, or if ALA had any supervisory power in libraries’ workforces – and you know, if Mike wasn’t nuts.

Other arguments have merit, but only from a given political view: libraries are a socialist attempt that interferes in the free market. Tax dollars would be better spent in other ways – namely giving it back to the taxpayers. If libraries are so valuable they should charge for their services and operate like businesses. These arguments are difficult to counter, because you often have to refute a basic tenant of ideology that is not likely to yield to evidence.

So frankly in preparing for the debate I was both relieved that I couldn’t find an argument worthy of Harvard, and dismayed that I was about to stand up before a crowd and have to half-heartedly make these weak arguments. Until I came upon an argument that scared the hell out of me. A very compelling argument that spans library types and ideology.

Libraries are obsolete because they act as institutions of remediation. Libraries were either created to fill some deficit in existing institutions, or over the years have adopted the role of remedying some deficit in the community. While this deficit model of libraries made sense at one point, today many of these deficiencies either no longer exist, or libraries now divert precious resources we should use to solve the underlying problem and/or institutions.

What scared me (and still does) is that the predominant message libraries use to justify their budgets (and continued existence) is as a sort of societal band-aid ministering only to what ails our communities. As with any argument about libraries in the abstract, the argument lacks nuance and parts are easy to refute, but I ask you to look to the core of the argument. This deficit model thinking has big implications for library advocacy, and even the evolution of the institution.

Community Deficiency: Access

So how do libraries present themselves as remediating institutions, and why is that a problem? Take the idea of libraries as sharing institutions. Many public and university libraries were created to pool and share information resources of a community (in the form of manuscripts, books, letters and so on). These libraries filled a need in the community to increase access to a commodity that was rare and expensive. The library, in this case, was a remediation for a larger problem of access.

Today this function is obsolete for two reasons. The first is obvious to anyone who has ever been on the web. There are plenty of sites that let you share resources. From sites like LibraryThing and Goodreads for books; to Flickr (and Instagram, and Facebook) for photos; to YouTube for video there are ample alternative, and arguably better ways to share ideas and resources. The second reason this deficiency argument no longer works is that libraries that began as sharing institutions have become lending organizations.

When Benjamin Franklin and his buddies put together their subscription library in Philadelphia in the 1700′s more members joining increased access and the resources available. As more joined, they brought in more books, so there was more to go around. Today libraries don’t share, they lend from a finite collection owned by the library. As more people join the library (use their services), they add demand, but not more resources. So when four people used the library, there were plenty of copies of Harry Potter to go around. Yet as hundreds of people use the library, demand increases, resources don’t, so Harry Potter becomes more scarce – access is actually decreased.

One clear way to see the difference between library as lending versus sharing comes from a story Eli Neiburger told me. Eli, Associate Director for IT and Production at the Ann Arbor District Library had a member of the library ask “if the catalog can keep track of books for lending at multiple locations (branches), can’t it also include books at my house? I’d be glad to share them as well.” This idea makes perfect sense in a sharing model, it makes no sense in a lending model.

A deficit approach to collections is to say the community doesn’t have access to information, so we’ll fix the community by making stuff available. A sharing model says the community is full of information assets (books, letters, photos, ideas, expertise, stories, music) let’s build a platform to allow the community to easily share with each other. Lending will lead libraries to obsolescence as demand increases, information resources costs escalate, and the library’s collections look more and more like everywhere else instead of like the community itself.

Community Deficiency: Democracy

When Carnegie wrote that “there is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library” he was right. Public and academic libraries had minimal fiction collections, and were one of the few places you could track the workings of government. The advent of the depository library program made up for a deficit in the public’s access to the workings of the federal government.

However today with the advent of the web, the government is often by-passing the depository program and publishing this material directly to the public. Before you say that we can’t we trust the government to be transparent I ask you how housing microfiche of government produced materials is equivalent to advocating for transparency? If anything it is a dodge of the true issues. If indeed public libraries are meant to bring to the masses information that can be used to promote and further democracy, why then do our fiche cabinets full of government documents sit unused as the holds for romance novels and spy fiction grow longer?

Community Deficiency: Internet Access

The focus libraries have on remediation continues in the area of Internet access. The argument is made that libraries of all sorts provide Internet access to the disadvantaged and disconnected. To be sure this is a real problem that needs a solution. Yet rather than divert funding to rural libraries to provide Internet access, why not follow the model of rural electrification and take it to the home where it can be used? Imagine in the days of the Tennessee Valley Authority if they ran a power line to the library and told rural citizens that if they needed light at night or to listen to the radio they needed to go to the library.

The money we spend on libraries would be better spent buying the underprivileged a tablet and expanding eRate to include monthly allowances to buy quality information. Already states and universities are licensing databases for public use…is there something so special about libraries that acquisition of resources can’t be done by existing procurement procedures at these institutions?

Community Deficiency: Literacy

This argument hinges on the belief that our public and school libraries are necessary to promote reading. That might have made sense when universal public education wasn’t so universal. When the color of skin and gender were barriers to accessing education. Libraries were the people’s university. In essence we need libraries to provide remedial reading education to fix our communities.

Today, while racial and gender discrimination are far from gone, the world has changed. Women now constitute the majority population in our college and universities. In terms of race, rather than creating a separate system of education for minorities, affirmative action, minority scholarships, and other mechanisms are integrating minorities into the same high performing educational institutions as white males. Separate, but equal was discarded long ago.

The answer to increasing literacy rates is to improve the performance, and lower the barriers of access to education. The money and time spent on libraries would be better spent on our schools and teachers. Instead of working around a test-driven K-12 schools in the nebulous world of informal education, we should focus our time and talents on getting a “No Child Left Behind” system that actually works. Instead of believing that librarians that have little formal training in reading instruction (and math instruction, and science instruction) can somehow solve the education gap through a do-it-yourself-here-are-the-books model, we should be focusing on enabling teachers to teach.

Community Deficiency: Information Seeking

What about the deficit in people’s ability to find information? We need libraries to make sense of the glut of information now coming at our students and citizens. It is no wonder our reference statistics drop. Who needs a librarian to use a search engines that can traverse billions of pages in milliseconds when we can now do it for ourselves. Has Google become like a new Dialog, where we must have patrons line up to our gatekeeping search abilities? Rather than use librarians as band-aids to bad search tools, let’s fix the search tools.

Community Deficiency: Embedded Librarians

There was one thing that all the speakers agreed upon at the debate – even if libraries are obsolete, librarians aren’t. Rather than dividing our time and effort on compensating for an inadequate educational system, or inequalities in the market place, we should free up our brilliant librarians to work within these organizations to make the institutions better. Why take amazing information professionals and saddle them with leaky roofs, security at the door, and maintaining physical artifacts in often duplicative collections just waiting to be digitized? We see this at the Cushing Academy, a boarding school in Massachusetts that made the press when they significantly downsized the physical collection of the library. They did so at the same time they hired more librarians. Close the library and hire more librarians.

Real Danger of the Deficit Model of Libraries

If libraries continue to be remedial organizations, focused solely on the problems and deficits of our communities the communities themselves will find libraries obsolete. How long will our communities tolerate being told how they are broken? How long will we be welcome if all we do is highlight what doesn’t work and add little value beyond filling in the gaps of other organizations?

Rebutting the Easy Reactions

Now, if you are anything like me you have been mustering your counter arguments as you have read this. For example, there is a big assumption in here that all information will be digital. And you would be right. But we must be careful of the rebuttals to this argument as well. They often feed right into the deficit model argument.

Fixing organizations is a great idea, but it’s not realistic

So our big argument here would be that life sucks, get used to it (great replacement for the READ posters)? This is also very reminiscent of the arguments that not all information would be available digitally. Then Google started scanning books by the literal truck full. The perception on what is available digitally and what in physical form has shifted in those we serve. More than that, you are still saying the reason for the library is to care take stuff not important enough to be digitized yet, or that we are a temporary organization until the technology catches up.

Supporting democracy is more than just government documents

Being informed in a democracy is more than simply keeping up with the information and documents that government produce. It involves reading newspapers, treatises, even keeping up with pop culture. This is true…have you seen the Internet lately? Where once libraries filled the gap of providing a rich and diverse corpus to enrich our communities’ thinking the Internet now represents a richer and more diverse corpus of thought.

Fostering a love of reading

Literacy is more than just reading you say. Libraries foster a habit of reading and a love of reading. What exactly is it about four walls and stacks that does this better than say a living room? You can read anywhere, and with digital delivery to ebooks you could argue that people are better able to follow their passions with instant delivery.

But use of libraries is increasing

This fact, if arguing a deficit model, only points out that there is need for remediation – not the form of the remediation. For example, in the unprecedented economic downturn over the past years the number of soup kitchens and beds in shelters have probably also increased. I think we can all agree that instead of building more soup kitchens and shelters, we should fix the economy.

You callous careless bastard

First, remember that I am playing devil’s advocate here (and give me another paragraph until I talk about how libraries aren’t obsolete). Second, assuming that wasn’t just an ad hominem attack, this is about the idea that a deficit model isn’t a bad one, because there will always be a role for a safety net. The deficit argument isn’t against the social safety net, but rather that we can fix the net through mechanisms other than libraries.

The Real Rebuttal

The real retort to the deficit argument that libraries are obsolete is not to find new and bigger problems, but to focus on (or at the VERY least include) aspirational arguments for libraries. Now before I dive into this, let me say that most of these approaches are already in full effect, my point is to highlight them and support them.

For example, let us take the deficits and show how libraries add value and have positive effects on communities (rather than mitigating the negative effects):

• Internet access: the library uses the Internet to push the passions and possibilities of our communities to the whole world. Yes folks can use the Internet connection to check mail and apply for jobs, but they can also use it to create businesses, and start global conversations.
• Literacy and Reading: the library allows you to explore the great thoughts and imaginations of the world throughout time, and add to that pool. Come to the library, get inspired, and add your great ideas.
• Democracy: did you know your government came with an owner’s manual? It’s at the library. Help shape the direction of your town, your state, your country – the library can help you learn how.

Like I said, these approaches are hardly unique to me. But there is one point of the deficit model that takes more than just sloganeering – the shift of libraries from places of sharing to lending organizations. To me, this is the real damning argument against libraries. If libraries continue to see themselves as focused on things that can be borrowed or consumed, and continue to build collections for the community not of the community, there is real danger.

Libraries must become true platforms of the community. Want an example? I have been working with Polaris on a community portal to be added to their ILS. With it librarians can add information about community organizations (locations, services, events) directly to the catalog. So now you can search for materials on first aid, and the Red Cross will show up beside the results.

However, the system is built to allow community organizations to add and maintain their own information. Very small organizations or even individual community members (if the library choses) can add their information and get a landing page on the net that they may not have had before. For organizations with their own web sites already, they embed library and community information in their own websites easily. So now the Red Cross can embed books about first aid on their web site.

This is taken one step further, because the same mechanism that allows this embedding can be used by other software and platforms. For example a doc student here in Syracuse is building an iPad app to mount on local busses. At any stop a passenger can find out what events and services are available community wide at within a given distance.

This is library as community platform. The iPad app is not built or owned by the library. The information being presented is not owned by the library. Yet the library is indispensable in making this happen. The library is a platform that helps the community do something new, innovative, and helpful. The most powerful arguments for libraries, aside from the brilliance of librarians, are around the theme of community platform for improvement and advancement.

The people’s university (when presented as a place of knowledge acquisition, not as a bandage to other educational institutions), the agora, the creation space, idea factory, all of these metaphors present a compelling and positive vision of the library that communities can take pride in. Now rather than being associated with the library out of charity, or desperate straights, they are part of an exciting and progressive organization. Rather than trying to fix the community, or bring everyone up to some sort of norm, libraries are foundations for individual advancement.

Let me be clear, I believe both in the necessity and importance of libraries and the social safety net. I know our communities face terrible problems, and our service mission is necessary. However, if you lift someone out of hell and don’t tell them about heaven, how much hope have you given them? Libraries are not obsolete. They serve a vital and important mission in today’s society, and in tomorrow’s society. That mission that has driven libraries for the past 3,000 years is in service of a better tomorrow. That mission is hope through knowledge and the empowerment of the individual.

Libraries as band aids may be obsolete, but that is not why we need libraries. We need libraries so we can fix our education system, so we can fix our economy, so we can fix our democracies yes. But we need libraries even more to discover new knowledge not found in any textbook. We need libraries to create whole new opportunities for innovation. We need libraries to give our communities a voice and power in the working of government. Libraries will never be obsolete so long as our communities dream, and strive, and work to ensure a world of insurmountable opportunities.

Continue reading »]]>
A few weeks back Lane Wilkinson put together a nice thoughtful piece on the Little Free Libraries. While he and I don’t see eye to eye on everything he always makes me think and I have great respect for his point of view. This time he got me thinking about fiction, and the role of recreational reading in libraries.
The following is not really a response to Lane; it doesn’t really need a response. I agree with most of what he says. Also, I’m not hitting every point he makes about stories and shared literary experience (still thinking on that). His noting that my work has “(literally) nothing to say about the aesthetic and cultural value of literature or fiction in libraries” is true. Other than broad strokes that I don’t separate out what we learn from fiction or while we are having fun from non-fiction and when we are doing serious study – I haven’t been explicit. Let me be explicit and ask for your thoughts and reactions. I’ll start with the mission of librarians:

“The mission of librarians is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities”

Take a look at the mission again: improving society through facilitating knowledge creation. What ever happened to promoting a love of reading and/or books? Does this adopting this mission mean abandoning reading and literature, fiction and prose? No. The reason reading isn’t in this larger mission is that not all libraries are centrally focused on reading. Where school libraries and public libraries see one of their core goals the promotion and expansion of reading skills (and therefore should include these in their missions); corporate and academic libraries assume the folks they serve already have these skills. What’s more, while reading is a crucial skill to creating knowledge, it is not the exclusive route to “enlightenment.” Some learn through reading, some through video, others through doing (and the vast majority through combining these). We should expect our libraries to support all of these modalities of learning.

When folks ask me about libraries, reading, and my proposed mission they are normally asking “can’t I just use the library to read a good novel or borrow a DVD without worrying about saving the world? Isn’t there value in just reading for recreation?” My answer is yes and that fiction is as important to learning and building knowledge as non-fiction. Stories are how we dream and how we test our ethical bounds. A good novel can often reveal fundamental truth in ways no academic tome of philosophy ever can. What’s more, the ideas and inspirations for great action often come when we least expect it.
Much of library literature focuses on concepts of information and empowerment often ignoring or silently assuming that libraries can still support recreation and reading development. To be sure my work is focused on libraries as places of social engagement and learning. The question isn’t “should libraries support recreational reading.” The answer to that question is dependent on the community — like supporting the arts or parks. The real question revolves around folks who want to turn recreational reading into something social, or geared towards some larger goal.

So I read and love a book. That may be enough for me. But what if a beautiful piece of fiction inspires me to write my own novel, or invent some new device, or form a group of others who love the book and seek to act. It is not the role of the library to predetermine the outcomes of reading (or inventing, or movie making) – that edges too close to telling people what to read and why. Rather it is the place of the library to be a platform for the community member to turn their love and passion into something for the good of the community and/or themselves.

The more we do of something the better we get. So we need to support reading of all kinds where appropriate (in the library, in school, on the playground, on vacation, in the laboratory, in video games). When you read the words “knowledge” and “learning” throughout my work, don’t think I am limiting that to just to the ideas found in textbooks and research articles. Poetry, novels, a good science fiction story all carry equal weight to me in knowledge creation. However, I believe that we should also expect our libraries of all kinds to be ready to support the outcomes of that reading.

Continue reading »]]> Here is the tweet that led to this post:

“Bad Libraries build collections. Good libraries build services (of which a collection is only one). Great libraries build Communities”

Due to character limits it was often re-tweed without the parenthetical:

“Bad Libraries build collections. Good libraries build services. Great libraries build Communities”

Let’s face it, this is snappier, but it is also apparently more controversial. There were a number of responses along the line that good and great libraries must build collections too. I thought it was worth more than 140 characters to add some nuance and depth to the tweet, so here we are.

Before I jump all the way in here…if you are an auditory or visual type, I made a lot fo these points in this screencast:

http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/blog/?p=1406

Now, back to the tweet.

First, there is nothing that says that good and great libraries don’t or can’t build collections. It is a matter of focus. If librarians focus solely or disproportionately on the collection, that is bad. This shows up in a couple of ways. The first is obvious: acquisitions with little or no input from members of the community. Are you adding to a collection because of what is on the New York Times bestsellers, or that’s what the jobber sends? Bad. If you aren’t looking at circulations data, having conversations with the community, or looking at ILL data: bad.

I am reminded of this in the current debate around ebooks. There is a lot of talk about whether libraries should be buying ebooks at all. Someone asked me what I thought and I said that tactically librarians should build their own ebook platform that brings a lot of value to authors, and; two, ask your community. If you are planning on boycotting or simply staying out of ebooks, have you had that conversation with the communities? Does the community think it is a bad deal what the publishers are proposing? Are they ok with not having that as a library service? Note this is not simply asking meekly, but truly having a conversation where you are presenting an argument and showing the community the big picture and then listening.

If we are talking focus, what is the difference between bad libraries and good ones? Good libraries focus on users. That is they evaluate the utility of the collection is relation to user needs. What do people want and need in terms of the collection, and how does that balance with all the other things the library does (reference, programming, digital resources, instruction, etc.). Here not only do we look at user data such as circulation and such, but the whole user experience.

There was once a debate among the faculty here at Syracuse about where we should teach collection development. It was (and is) part of a class title “Library Planning, Marketing, and Assessment.” The instructor at the time didn’t like it there. How do weeding and marketing go together? Well, it turns out the questions you ask about the collection are like any other service: what are the objectives? How is it used? Is it easy to access (and assess)? The collection is a service like any other – it needs budgeting, planning, and a reason to exist.

Good libraries understand that any time you add value to a user experience you are proving a service. Shelving? Service. Cataloging? Service. Weeding? Service (to save the user time and eliminate rapid access to out of date information). I know all of these things are wrapped up as “collection,” but by breaking them apart you can better evaluate them, and better accomplish them.

I pick the term “user” carefully in this part of the discussion, because I believe it is what separates good from great. You see a good library sees the collection as a service and therefore monitors and plans for its use. A great library sees the collection as only a tool to push a community forward, and more than that, they see the library itself as a platform for the community to produce as well as consume. The library member co-owns the collection and all the other services offered by the librarians. The library services are part of a larger knowledge “eco-system” where members are consuming information yes (a user), but also producing, working, dreaming, and playing. That is the focus of a great library. They understand that the materials a library houses and acquires is not the true collection of a library – the community is.

So, do good, bad, great, and ugly libraries have collections? Yes. But great libraries realize that the collection is not what sits on the stacks, but the members and their worlds. The focus is on connection development, not collection development. Will there be collections developed? Probably, but that collection may be of links, digital scans, books, building materials, video production equipment, performance time on a stage, and/or experts.

This is clear in the discussion around school libraries. As districts around the country are eliminating school librarians they often cite that the hours of the library won’t go down. “We can keep the doors open with library aids, or existing staff in the building.” They ignore the data that shows that it is certified school librarians, not open hours, or the collection, that improves test scores and student retention. Librarians not libraries make the difference.

Once again, does the school librarian use a collection? Certainly, but great school librarians have a collections of lessons they teach, student teams that assist teachers with technology, and collections of good pedagogy. Want to save money in a school? Close the library and hire more school librarians.

This tweet is not a call to throw out collections of materials – there is great value there – but to change focus and realize that that value comes not from the artifacts, but the community’s ability to improve. That value may come from licensed databases in academia. It may come from shipping containers full of paper books in rural Africa. It may come from genealogy materials in the public library, or special collections in the Ivy League. But for some communities it may come from the rich array of open resources accessible via any smartphone, or, increasingly, artifacts, ideas, and services created by the community itself.

Great libraries can have great buildings, or lousy buildings, or no buildings at all. Great libraries can have millions of volumes, or none. But great libraries always have great librarians who engage the community and seek to identify and help fulfill the aspirations of that community.

Continue reading »]]> It’s time for the end of the year post. You know the one filled with lists, lessons, and proposals for the future. I would not want to buck the system. So let’s start with some lists:

• Rome
• Florence
• Salzburg
• Visby
• Stockholm
• Munich

This is a list of international cities I visited as part of conferences and meetings this year. They were all spectacular. You know what I learned from this European Tour? Every country’s librarians think another country’s librarians are in better shape. In the U.S. we envy the support libraries in the Nordic countries get. The Italians envy how U.S. public libraries are integrated into the communities. I have talked with librarians in Africa, the UK, in Chile, and throughout the U.S. You know what I learned? The prosperity of your library has a lot less to do with where it is then who is in it.

In Kenya librarians pack libraries onto the backs of camels. In Egypt, the library of Alexandria became a beacon of liberty in the Arab Spring. Across Illinois librarians embraced entrepreneurship and transformation in towns like Eureka and DuPage and Joliet. I found innovation in Delaware, Vermont, and Dallas. I found amazing libraries in urban cores, and rural outposts. I have seen a suburban library take the idea of a newly graduated LIS student and turn itself into a Maker Space. What I learned from my travels? You create your own landscape.

Another list:

• Mainstream Hack
• Communist
• Fascist
• Radical
• Militant, and
• Lacks “self esteem as a librarian”

These are the names I’ve been called this year. The good news in 2011 was that my Atlas of New Librarianship was published. The better news was that the book did what I hoped – started conversations. Many of these conversations were thoughtful, intense, and fruitful. Some, however, were not.

A mentor of mine once said that questions are good. If you present something and it raises no questions, it means it wasn’t interesting enough to comment upon. This year I must have said something interesting. I’m not going to pretend that I didn’t take some of these comments personally. There was a lot of cursing in front of my computer. However, I learned to take a deep breath, and always respond to the substance of the comment, not the vitriol. I also learned that no name stings so keenly as the silence of mediocrity. I have a healthy respect for those who take the time to comment in public regardless of their position. I fear those who disagree, but remain silent. That is not how we move the field forward.

One of those names, however, takes some further comment. One commenter said that “Lankes’ deconstruction of the library profession to an inexplicit pottage of universalistic buzzwords is an indication of his lack of self-esteem as a librarian.” Now of all the criticism I have received in my life, lack of self-esteem is a new one.

The comment implies that by questioning and reimagining the profession that somehow I, and others, either dismiss the value of the profession, or “know not what librarianship is.” I like to think I know what it is, but I admit to being more focused on what it can become.

As Ranganathan enshrined in his 5th law “the library is a growing organism.” That is, to know what librarianship is today does not mean you know it tomorrow. It will change. eBooks and websites in our collections, digital reference and gaming in our services are today’s latest changes, but librarianship HAS ALWAYS evolved and changed. It is the defining aspect of a vital and relevant profession that it evolves and reforms itself.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines esteem as “respect and admiration.” I have an immense respect for the field and librarians. However, the lesson that I have taken away from this year, and that I will carry as a theme into the New Year is to expect more.

For far too long we have treated the innovators and leaders in our field as exceptional. While they are brilliant and brave, we can no longer treat them as the exceptions. We must see their work as the standard. Librarians who have raised their budgets in these economic times should not be treated as fortunate, or beyond the norm; we must see their example as the new normal. We must stop seeing those who create new technologies, or who raise the usage of our services as superhuman, and see them as the benchmark. No longer can we allow the mediocre of our field train the expectations of our communities. No longer can we simply talk about the future of our field among ourselves, sheltered from the withering criticism of the uninformed.

We must expect more of ourselves. We must stop talking about doing “more with less” and start talking about “doing better to get more.” We must expect all librarians, with degrees or without, with tenure or not, to lead and innovate. No more worker bees.

We must expect more of those whom we serve. They are not customers or consumers – they are members of our libraries with an ownership stake in our survival. They are not users that simply take and leave nothing behind….they are our collection – pour ultimate mission.

This is my resolution: expect more, of myself, of you, and of those whom we serve. So let’s give ourselves a huge pat on the back for making it through a very tough year, toast the New Year, and then get back to the work of making the world a better place.

Continue reading »]]> Some folks have recently commented that in my presentations and writings I have a political agenda. They are right, but it is not what they think it is.

I believe that librarians must be political. That is they must be aware of politics, aid their members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political process. Now directors of libraries will see this as nothing new, but I believe that all librarians must be politically savvy. Why? Well, let’s start with my definition of politics: politics is the process by which a community allocates power and resources.

Now the obvious link would be thinking about politics related directly to the library. That is funding, staffing, intellectual property, and the policies that shape how the library works. However, the political nature of librarians extends far beyond the library as an institution.

If you seek to empower people, you are talking about how power is distributed throughout a community (the “power” has to come from somewhere). Take reading as an example: why do libraries care about reading? Is it because it entertains and distracts community members from how the community makes decision (i.e., reading is for consumption), or is it to enable the reader to participate within the community (i.e., reading as empowerment)? If you buy into the concept that libraries are enmeshed into the larger concept of democracy, then we are preparing people for democratic participation. That is preparing people to join the conversation of how they are governed…that is political. The same could be said of academic libraries educating students (we are preparing students to be part of a market, but also part of a society). While special libraries tend to focus on helping members participate in markets (industry), they are also preparing the corporation, or non-profit, or government to participate in governance (from lobbying, to shaping regulation).

So libraries are political entities, and librarians are political creatures. This brings us to the real concern people raise about new librarianship -that I am somehow calling for librarians to pick sides. That is that I am either calling for librarians to rally against the tea party and begin a massive campaign of wealth redistribution. Or that I am calling for librarians to take over city hall and shape a community to our vision and definitions of good. The implication is that I am calling for librarian to declare themselves as democrats, or republicans – progressives or conservatives, etc. This leads to a very real concern that in doing so libraries and librarians would lose their status as honest brokers, and so lose their support by their communities. I actually agree.
However, when I call for librarians to be political, I am not calling for them to partisan, that is picking winners and losers. If there is one thing that librarians understand, it is that the world is much more complex than that.

Librarians see many sides of one issue. They may believe strongly in a given idea, but they are open to all ideas, and at least seek the merit in them (realizing they may find none). If librarians were to become partisan, they not only threaten their ability to serve and the communities trust, they would collapse ideas down to simple black and whites and not stay true to their professional ethos.

Librarians need to engage in politics not to reinforce the divisions of us versus them and not to perpetuate all or nothing win or lose ideals. They must become engaged in politics to ease these divisions. Just as librarians facilitate knowledge creation with the individual, they must also facilitate conversations and knowledge across political ideology (I never said that would be easy). Just as we are trusted agents in the land of reading and job searches, so too must we be trusted agents in the land of power and political debate. Think of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service, State Law Libraries, and agency libraries.

Furthermore, rather than thinking of political involvement as some sort of debate at the national level, realize that political conversations occur at all levels of a community and society. From school boards, to governors, and from Wall Street to the kitchen table, librarians must bring their skills to democracy. Our job is not to win some partisan point, but to ensure the very conversation on how we govern ourselves (in the city, in the classroom, in the business) is fair, open, and informed. This conversation is the heart of democracy. Libraries need to be at the Occupy protests to ensure the power of the people, and the destruction of these libraries is either horrific ignorance, or the worst kind of cynical suppression.

I have heard a lot of talk about the “American Dream” recently. On the radio, on TV, and throughout the political discourse there are questions being raised about is the American Dream dead. Certainly this is in part a reaction to the economic times and a lack of economic mobility. It is definitely due in large part of gridlock in Washington, and an increased polarization of the political debate in the media. However, I have heard all too often that politicians are to blame – when they are there at our behest. Just as a library is product of people (community, librarians, staff), so too is our government. It is the role of librarians to first remind our communities that every citizen is responsible for the performance of our government and that the best elected government is one that is elected in the light of knowledge. This is the difference between citizen and consumer. A citizen is a participant who does not simply vote and forget.

The quest for dignity. the quest for prosperity, the quest for the American dream is neither kindled nor sustained in a mall. Freedom is not bought nor consumed. The quest for a better community and a better tomorrow requires the most fertile of grounds. Our dreams demand libraries and librarians. It is in the potent mix of ideas and reality – of the radical and the mundane – in the glow of both solitude and community – that we care take the dreams of a nation. Librarians are political because we all need to be political and join the debates of how power and resources are divided in this nation and indeed the world. Librarians, however, have a special responsibility to ensure that all participation is informed, nuanced, and ongoing.

Continue reading »]]> I have too much to do to write this post, but this post has to be written.

“I’ve also gotten a sense lately that some working librarians are getting frustrated with constant advocacy, and are starting to believe the hype that libraries/librarians are doomed. How can we change their minds?”

That was part of a comment left on my blog by Topher Lawton, a current (and excellent) student. I share his frustration. Every week I go into my introductory class for librarianship and talk about amazing librarians, big ideas, and the opportunities to shape the future. On a pretty regular basis mostly receptive students tell me “I love it, I get it, but when I go into some libraries, I don’t see it.” There are simply too many librarians that can’t see beyond what they do today to see a brighter tomorrow – or realize that what they do today will shape that future brighter or not.

I am getting tired of the “yeah, but…” questions that seek to ground new ideas and innovations in what those opposed to change call reality. Their reality is in fact their limited view of the world. I am tired of the hand wringing, and committees, and paranoia. I am tired of those who wait for the white knight, or the new app from Silicon Valley that will save us. I am tired of hearing about cataloging backlogs, government bureaucracy, conservative management, the Tea Party, and the other million excuses for resisting change. If your library won’t let you do something, start a blog. If your policy doesn’t allow it change the damn policy.

I am sorry if my frustration is leaking out here, but you have to understand my view. Take every preconceived notion of the library school student – second career woman who loves cats and quiet – and throw it out the window. I see the most amazing people becoming librarians. I see people fresh out of undergraduate degrees (the average age of this year’s class is 25), and lawyers looking to give back to society. I see technologists, and humanists, young and old who have a fever to be a librarian. They are no longer coming to library school to read, or because they are good at crosswords. They are coming into library school to change the world.

Then I see these amazing people run into a librarian who toss the student into the meat grinder of lowered expectations and mediocrity. To be sure not every student will hit this wall. There are a huge number of progressive and supportive library role models, but it only takes one librarian who is pissed off the world has changed to damper the enthusiasm of a new librarian.

Understand if you are a librarian today, these students revere you. They want to be you. You are a role model. I know it’s not your job description, but it’s true. So every snarky comment and your foreboding sense of doom, it has an effect. I am begging you to expand your sense of professional responsibility to mentorship.

I hear, from time to time, that library schools are not preparing graduates for the jobs available. I listen to these critiques closely, and do my best to act upon them. However, understand that you as a working librarian have an equal responsibility here. Are you looking for the skills of yesterday or today? Every conference presentation you give is a classroom. If you don’t get excited about your topic, the students know that – it has an effect. When a student shows up to interview you or look for an internship, you are the most powerful classroom there is. If you don’t think there is a future in the field, get the hell out of the way for those who do.

I have been called (and now wear the title proudly) a pragmatic utopian. I am someone who sees a brighter future, but understands we need to slough through the mud to get there. Here’s the thing, don’t be the mud. As librarians we can and should argue about the shape of the future. We can and should have honest and heated debates on where we want to go now. But if you are convinced that you are the last generation of librarians, that the field is going away, then get on with it and let the folks seeking a better tomorrow get to work.

I have seen glorious librarians. I have seen librarians work in the cloud forests of Costa Rica, and bravely support the revolutions of Egypt. I have seen librarians organize camel caravans to get learning to the remote villages of Africa. I have seen librarians help the homeless, give dignity to the unemployed, inspire students to learn, and save lives of abused women. I have little time for those that would say these librarians are exceptional. To be sure these librarians are brilliant and amazing, but to say that they are exceptional is to say that their work falls outside of the mainstream of our vocation –excepted from the norms. They are not exceptions – they are the yardstick that we must measure ourselves by.

Topher, I wish I had a good answer for you. I wish I had the ability to stop librarians from worrying about their future, but instead go about creating it. I wish I could change the minds of librarians waiting for the end. I can’t…but I will keep trying. And your job is to become a librarian that sees extraordinary as your job description.

Continue reading »]]> Bullet Point: Why Publishers Need Librarians
I have been trying to write this blog post for a week. I want to say something useful in the disappearing ebook issue, but every time I start I turn myself into knots. I am a published author. I really do like the publishers that I have worked with, and think they still serve a purpose. However, what Harper Collins is doing is just – well – stupid.

So I want to publish a rant, but keep feeling like a hypocrite…my published book comes out in a few days – hell, I was a publisher when I ran an ERIC Clearinghouse. Then it hit me. Harper Collins’ move is not a stupid move, it is an unrecognized call for help (mostly unrecognized by Harper Collins). They have no idea how to work in this new open digital environment. They had a business model, skill set, and focus on books. Their customers are changing, the technology is changing, and the future is anything but clear In essence, today’s publishers are the librarians of 5 or 10 years ago.

Expiring ebooks is our equivalent of 300 item long lists of licensed databases, web links organized by Dewey, OPACs that are only open on the web from 9-5 (I’m looking at you Library of Congress). Kindle, Nooks, and iBooks are their Google – the trendy new cool kid that gets the attention, and frankly does one part of their jobs really well. The part the publishers (and librarians used to) see as central.

We shouldn’t be angry with publishers – we should help them see there is life in the digital frontier – that they can be more than their inventory. Just like us. And like us it doesn’t have to be for free (libraries are not free – members pay for them with tuition, taxes, budget lines and so on).

We need to show them that a model of cash for an item derived from artificial scarcity is a short-term business model. The long term is participation and services that helps everyone become a publisher. The value is not in the artifact, digital or analog, but in the knowledge creation process and facilitating it. The value is not in the fact that there is a book, but that that book engages a community. People will pay for the facilitation. Call it editing, production, graphic design, selection, it is all facilitation. The value isn’t in collections it is in memory. It is not in space, but in community gathering. The value isn’t in a website, it’s in what that web site allows you to do. The scarcity they need to be modeling is not in artifacts (titles), but in attention.

Publishers have a hard time ahead. Margins are shrinking, titles are proliferating, and venues to sell their wares are shrinking. eBooks as a concept are quickly disappearing in the face of “the app.” Publishers need to become developers, and community publishers, not gatekeepers, but curators (as we are learning from our museum brethren). To be sure, many publishers are already on this road. From those experimenting with open access, to those producing apps there are folks in publishers that get it. I, for one, hope they make it. I see value in the edited high-production artifact – along side the fan fiction. I see the value in an edited series where the value is in the editor and the contributing authors, not the paper – or digital file.

Librarians we need to help them out. We need to show them how to function in this new world. How libraries are an amazingly valuable physical community presence. After all, when they close the Borders down the street do you see picketers? The only signs I see are 20-30% off. When they close that Blockbusters on the corner do you get angry mobs at city council meetings? That kind of dedication doesn’t come with best sellers, it comes with dedicated professionals who are part of the community and working to improve it. As librarians need to show publishers of all stripes how openness of information helps them. How books are not information – they are tools to learning (about the world and oneself).

And if we can’t show them? Well then I ask librarians – how is tying our future, brand, and business model that has evolved and existed for over 3,000 years to one that is short term, in rapid transition, and ultimately short sighted a good idea? To read some of the blogs and articles you’d think that if the latest Dan Brown novel isn’t available through OverDrive we might as well shutter the doors. Why not go to Dan Brown and talk to him about a publishing platform where he gets 90% of book revenue and his work is guaranteed to be accessible in 100 years? Oh, and by the way marketing opportunities in every city, town, and hamlet in the country.

Of course to do this we will need to build our own publishing platform (OR PARTNER WITH PUBLISHERS WHO SEE THE LONG TERM). The hardware platforms already exists (iPad, iPhone, Android, etc). The distribution network is already there and subsidized by consumers (3G networks, WiFi). Even the standards are there (like Adobe’s ebook standards to make authors feel comfortable). We can even show, over the long term, how a new model of engagement with readers wins over DRM.

In the short term will we be low on Best Sellers? Yup. Will such a system allow for a wide range of quality in published materials? You bet. Will librarians need to work across geographical and organizational borders to get an economy of size? Absolutely.

Is there room in this world for publishers? Amazon? Apple? Barnes & Noble? Yes, but not if they see librarians as the enemy, or seek to protect an ever dwindling profit and market instead of advocating for a better future. You know what MIT Press said when I told them I wanted to co-publish with ACRL? “Great!” You know what they and ACRL said when I told them we’d give away half the book, or slim down the margins to get the cost of the book under $60? “Bring it on”. Know what they both said when I told them we were going to build an App? “How did you do that – we’d like to share?” I know there are more folks like MIT Press and ACRL out there. I see publishers of all stripes that once balked at sharing metadata, now offering full text indexing to vendors.

The next Dan Brown, or Ernest Hemingway, or Dr. Seuss might be in your library right now…what are you doing to help them find their voice in the future? What are doing to become the publisher of your community?

So what’s the action plan?

Stop talking (or forming a committee or doing an environmental scan) and start doing.

Prototype an ebook platform now. Can’t write an app? Do it in PowerPoint as screenshots. Think app, not book. Think social not bed time.

Develop a community centric acquisition policy. Do NOT do this without said community. Every library that is boycotting any publisher better have their community standing right with you. That community should be willing to forego those books in your library and their personal Kindles. Remember that authors are part of that community.

Invite the publishers to play. Know a great publisher? Give them a shout out. All my academic library brethren we need our academic presses on board.

Every dollar you don’t spend with a boycotted publisher ? Pool it together into a field wide innovation fund. $100k, and buy in by library consortia, and vendors and we have an amazing platform in three months. Project Gutenberg? Invited. HathiTrust? Invited. OCLC? Invited. Overdrive? Invited. SerialSolutions? Small Town America? State Library? MIT Press? Our Members? Invited.

Not invited? Annoyed librarians who think libraries have no power. “Publishers/Amazon/Apple/Whomever will never change” they’ll say. Just like Music companies will never get rid of DRM or movie studios will never agree to stream movies. Times change. But not on their own. WE MUST CHANGE THEM! YOU must change them.

One of the first times I presented the mission of librarians as improving society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities a publisher said that it could stand for his organization as well. I agree, but only if we truly share the same commitment to improve society. The same commitment to knowledge and most of all community. A community is not a set of customers. A community is a set of participants and members always learning and always creating, not mindlessly consuming – wallets with a face (or a borrower with a library card).

Librarians it is time for us to serve by innovating and leading!

Continue reading »]]> One of the great joys I have is visiting with very cool librarians. I got that chance in Delaware last week. The State Library is kicking off a stimulus broadband project with the Gates Foundation; public libraries around the state; state agencies in workforce development, adult education and volunteer services; and businesses.

During the kickoff Maureen Whelan, State Director of Adult Education showed the following graph (explanation after the picture) that is simply chilling:

Those red dots are folks 45-54 that have a high school degree. The green dots are folks 25-34 with a high school degree. All of these are arranged by country. Now the chilling part. If you look across the graph note the one big difference with the United States. It is the only country listed where the red dot is above the green dot…the only country where the older generation has more education than the younger generation. The parents are more educated than the children.

Now I realize there are many factors here…as a country we have a lot of folks with high school degrees already for example (hence while Germany is close to even), but there is still a long way to go to 100% of the population has at least a high school diploma.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about grand challenges recently – big complex goals that are hard to achieve, but can have major positive impacts on society. How we educate ourselves is clearly one and librarians have a huge role to play.

For more on this graph: http://www.nationalcommissiononadultliteracy.org/content/nchemspresentation.pdf

Continue reading »]]> A year ago I wrote about resolving to make 2010 the year of the librarian. I think we did a pretty good job. I talk to more and more librarians who feel, as I do, that the tide of self-loathing and questioning our future is (slowly) subsiding. It is being replaced by a sense of cautious optimism that libraries and librarians will continue. The very real fear remains that there may not be as many of either, or that budgets will continue to be cuts to be sure. But the more existential crisis seems to be settling. The question of “will there be librarians” is being replaced by “what will we do in the years and decades to come?”

Some focus on the tools we will use (“what is the impact on libraries of ebooks?”), some focus on the skills we will need. Still others, like me, focus on why we do what we do (it’s all about learning).

In the coming year you will hear many ideas and “certainties” about our future, and our needs. You will hear the inevitable backlash and conservatism of those who fear change. You will read blogs and tweets and Facebook updates full or quotes and links and videos. Some things will scare us, some appall us, and some inspire. But if all you do is hear them, or watch them, or read them, then we all have failed – both the progressives, and the conservatives. For words, images, and all the media in the world that does not lead to action is useless.

The true test of the future of librarianship is not in my presentations, or the words I write, but in the actions I perform and enable. Inspiration without execution is a false drug – it deludes us into thinking ourselves involved.

If all I do is preach and then return to my ivory tower, then I am a fraud. And Ii you hear my words and yell “amen,” but do nothing then you too are a fraud. Agree, disagree, yell, fight, prove me wrong, prove me right, try something else just do something.

If there is anything that this past year has shown us it is that there is a bright future for librarians, but it will not be delivered to us. We break usage records and they cut our budgets. We show up in the newspapers and on TV and some still question our value. No, we cannot simply continuing our current path and expect salvation and restored budgets. We must act – change – improve.

So here is our resolution for this year – act. Make one positive change every day. Start small: fix the signs in your library. Start small: enforce a 30 minute time limit on all meetings. Start small: replace fines with food donations for the needy. Then get bigger: read 10 blogs each day. Then get brave: map every service you spend money on to the needs of your community – kill any service that doesn’t map. Get brave: leave your buildings on a regular basis for a space in the community.

Then get active: start your website from scratch, and center it on the members not your stuff; convene a town meeting with your members. Start a community mentoring program where you loan out professors, and hackers, and accountants, and lawyers. Then hunt down every post on my blog, or that of the Annoyed Librarian and tell us where we are wrong or right.

If 2010 was the year of the librarian, then let’s make this the year of the librarian in your face. The librarian proactively helping members. The librarian holding administration to account. The librarian demanding more from LIS education. The librarian on a first name basis with the business community. The librarian doing office hours in academic departments. The librarian in the face of their community always helpful, always pleasant, always a radical agent of positive change.

Continue reading »]]> So a politician, a nun, and a librarian are trapped in a collapsed mine.

After the initial shock they decide to tie themselves together and as a group to venture down the remaining shaft for some means of escape. Soon they bump into a smooth and clearly man made object. They gather around it trying to feel what it is.

The politician says “I think it is a piece of faulty mine equipment. Once I am on the surface I shall hold hearings and find those accountable.”

The nun says “I believe it a door sent by God to save us. Librarian, what do you think it feels like?”

“Let’s see a group of people without a leader groping around in the dark looking either for someone to blame or a miracle? Feels like a library committee to me.”