The Screen is Flat

As a Librarian the question I ask myself when evaluating new services, products, and programs is “How will this impact, help, or effect the user?” Will “X” help faculty and students get their work done better, faster, and in a more convenient manner? Will “X” help research, scholarship, and teaching?

Generally, I have focused on helping users understand resources in a way that relied on the structure and terminology that the Library had organized. I think we did a great job of organizing and arranging materials. But web 2.0 means that we no longer have control over the data or how it is being utilized.  So now I’m starting to wonder if I should shift my attention away from the user to the data.  Can I improve customer service by figuring out how we can make the data more flexible and friendly so as to conform to the users needs? Rather than insisting that the user access and engage the data entirely in a way that the data (or the Librarian) likes to be utilized?

Take a trip back in time to when the Library was in control of the data. In web world 1.0 the Library collected stuff, processed stuff, and listed the stuff in the catalog for all the world to find. When electronic versions of things came out, we wrestled with how to represent the same but different stuff, and make it available in the catalog. We also created webpages to better communicate about all the stuff at the Library. Sometimes, these web pages duplicated the stuff in the catalog, and sometimes the web guides represented unique stuff. So we told folks to check out both places to really make sure they knew about everything that was available from the Library. This duplication of information was well intentioned and helpful. Its important to communicate the message in as many places as possible. But sometimes it also felt like I was creating information silos. I added another layer of complexity, not simplicity to the process. In a nutshell for the web 1.0 world, the catalog = print stuff and the web pages = electronic stuff.   The new technologies permitted greater access, but wsers had to learn our hierarchy and learn our structure to get to the data.

Now, our personal and professional lives in the digital world can be summed up as: Personalized, Individualized, Customized, Malleable, and Social.  Though we have all these fun new toys to play with in the web 2.0 world, I think we are still struggling to integrate all the free and fee data into one seamless experience for ourselves and for library users.

The Integrated Library System, which is responsible for managing all the stuff is rooted in the print world and has served everyone quite well. But this old friend is having a hard time keeping up with the digital web 2.0 world. The ILS captured all in house activities when all the people and resources were all in house. But now Elvis has left the building and I don’t think he’s coming back.

A second problem is the public view of the ILS, AKA the catalog. I think users generally think the catalog is full of old print things and while utilitarian, is quite boring and not as fun and interesting to search as Google, etc. How can we better integrate the catalog with the Library website and provide a seamless and robust entry point that showcases Librarian expertise and Library collections while engaging the user in a meaningful way?

Social Tagging, Social Networking Sites, RSS and Blogs can help users stay more connected to the Library if we offer such services and technologies. However, are we trying to utilize emerging technologies in way that maintains the status quo of data management, or are we thinking about how we can use new technologies to transform the way we manage Library resources and connect with our users?

Will the ILS be able to meet the challenge? Is there another data management system or option to help the Library better manage resources, while providing even better service to our users? Can the Library take control of the data better through an open source system? What corporate models (Amazon, Facebook, Igoogle) should we emulate in whole, or in part, to better connect our users with all the data and resources we manage?

Some forward thinking libraries have already utilized the “My Library” approach, creating space for users to customize their research experience. Such customization fits into the way people like to engage with the online world. However, can we take this process even one step further?

Are we are still trying to control the data and expecting users to utilize data in the ways in which we have organized? I’m not suggested that Librarians get out of the game of offering expertise in the area of knowledge management, research, or scholarship. Its just that I wonder if our attempts to control how and from where the data will be used is really just a game of herding cats.

How can we make the library experience more personalized, individualized, customized, malleable, and social in ways which users will want to be engaged with the Library?

Certainly, greater minds than mine have been thinking about data management issues for longer, and in greater depth than I have.  The questions and issues I am just beginning to think about are better addressed in a fascinating report released January 2008. The authors of this report predict “a future for bibliographic control that will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based…change will happen quickly, and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static.” To read the full report: On the Record: Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Post script: I wish the title of this blog was original. But alas, I "borrowed" the idea from the genius mind of F.R. "Fritz" Nordengren. Thanks Fritz! Can we chalk this incident up to "Fair Use" or "Imitation is the highest form of flattery"?  Want to read and hear more insights from Fritz?  Join Ann York, PhD. and F.R.”Fritz” Nordengren, MPH as they share their insights and experiences as digital instructors with other faculty and learners in their bi-weekly podcasts at their website PowerProfs.org

In the days of print, I don’t think library users believed that the Library was in anyway responsible for the packaging or format of the materials in the collection. The Library = The Collector, not The Library = The Creator.  But at least library users identified the Library as the place to go to when research materials where needed.

In the digital age, the Library is not necessarily viewed as the provider of resources.  In the Old World/New World transition, the Library is not the only gatekeeper for information and  ”There is much evidence that young people are unaware of the Library sponsored content, or at least are reluctant to use it. This is the Library’s problem, not the fault of young people.” [information behaviour of the researcher of the future, page 20.]

Its a frustrating problem to be sure.  Librarians are doing everything in their power to acquire digital resources, and to make sure you, the user, know about what the Library has licensed.   Were just having trouble roping you back into our world.  I think folks generally know that the Library is involved somehow. But the ease of IP access on a university campus, while fantastic, unfortunately cuts the Library out as the middleman in the transaction.  Libraries have tried to make their presence known to the user by adding branding and logo information within vendor systems. But this is not possible to do everywhere with every resource. (Or is it……?) 

Its hard to convey the connection between the Library and ”Library” resources.  I agree with the authors of the information behaviour of the researcher of the future report that this is a Library problem.  I admit to some personal frustration that I don’t always know how to better market the Library as a more visible presence. I do know that the Library has lost control of how and where the data is accessed.  This is not necessarily a bad thing I guess.

Maybe we just need to follow the advice given by L. Gary Boomer in the World is Flat: “Those who get caught in the past and resist change will be forced deeper into commoditization. Those who can create value through leadership, relationships, and creativity will transform the industry, as well as strengthen relationships with their existing clients.”

OK. I’m ready for change and I want to create more value in what the Library has to offer. What’s the next step?  How do we create more value instead of focusing on whether or not the user necessarily merely knows that we are responsible for some of the best digital content being accessed?

In the last year I have been reading about the information or learning commons environment. For the most part I am enthusiastic about the guiding principles underlying this type of setting. I am particularly intrigued by the institutions that have created shared service desks for Library and IT departments (and/or Writing Center, Multimedia software, etc.). Since information and technology are so intertwined, it makes sense that staff from different departments should work together to create new spaces that support the teaching, learning, and social environments on campus. Providing students and faculty one physical or virtual space in which to seek help sounds more appealing to me than bouncing people from one department to the next, never knowing if in the end, the person who needed help ever found the answer they sought.

In the old print world, we had different locations for teaching, researching, learning, and socializing. Technology has broken down these barriers. Sure, print resources and real places are still necessary and important. We simply need to rethink how we want to utilize the online and offline places and spaces in order to better accommodate the needs of people, resources, services, and technology.

One of my favorite books to read this year was The Information Commons Handbook by Donald Robert Beagle. I found this manual very inspiring, right from the introduction pages where the author asks “What is the best environment for communities, culture, learning, and research?” The answer? “Start with the user. ” This statement seems, like an obvious idea, but this principal can easily get lost in assumptions, finances, personalities, and politics within an organization.

Both this book and another fun read, Learning Spaces by Educause, reminds me that there are a lot of brilliant people out there who see beyond their own cubicles to the greater mission of the university, and more importantly, the greater good of the student. It is possible for Librarians, IT, and Faculty to rethink and re-imagine our roles and contributions in academia and to really show that we honor creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and ingenuity in higher education.

The only thing about the information/learning commons movement that makes me sad is this: I thought the Library was the information commons. Call me selfish, but I wish that the word “Library” was the hip new term for these collaborative places. Oh well. I don’t think the Library is getting left behind. Maybe I’m just feeling nostalgic.

Did you know that the Libary is predicted to become extinct by 2019? A quick glance at the proposed time-line raises the question of whether or not the author is serious about his predictions or not. See: Cher.  See also: A Good Night’s Sleep.  However tongue in cheek this time-line may be, it does make me wonder how libraries will continue to adapt and change in the future.  What will the Library of the future look like? What roles will Librarians play in this future world? What training and skills will the profession need in order to meet the needs of our future clientele?”

Before envisioning what the Library will look like in the future, we need to first think about what the Library is all about right now.  What you think about the Library now will determine how you create or utilize this physical or virtual world place in the future.  Your past experiences with Librarians will determine what relevance you think the profession has in the future Library. 

What is a Library? Is it a place, a space, or an idea? What words come to mind when you hear the word “Library?” Databases, books, journals, newspapers, warehouse, repository, study hall, Internet, cultural center, meeting place, learning, studying, reading, or the cornerstone of democracy? Why do you use this space or place? How do you think the Library meets your teaching, research, and scholarship needs?

Is a Library about finding, searching, and investigating? Is it about a process, or a result?  Is a library about education, teaching, or learning?

Is the Library about people or stuff?  What about the people who work in Libraries? What words come to mind when you think about Librarians? Are they guides, Sherpas, helpers, bun wearing book lovers, professionals, colleagues, scholars, experts, or searchers?

What do I think? Libraries certainly are about stuff.  Libraries collect all sorts of interesting things. But without the people to give the stuff meaning and context, its just a useless pile of data.  And by people, I mean both the people who work in the Library and the people who need what the Library has to offer. You can tell when a Library space is more about honoring stuff than helping people.  I don’t enjoy visiting those places as much.

I often describe what I do as a Librarian in Agatha Christie terms. We are the recipients of partial clues and facts that must be investigated in order to solve an important mystery. If this sounds far fetched, then you have no experience looking up health care statistics. Talk about looking for needles in haystacks….

In the end, there is a lot about the Library and about Librarians that I think work really well.  So, when we talk about reinventing Libraries, I feel both excited about the prospect of participating in the creation of something new, and frustrated when it seems like we are trying to reinvent the wheel.  I hardly think the Library will become extinct. But I certainly hope we continue to be people and places where excitement and mystery continue to thrive.

“There can be, and increasingly may be, librarians without libraries (in the sense that they are not based at a single physical institution). But can there be libraries (or even the Universal Virtual Library as some have imagined) without librarians? Or without tangible institutional existence (per the bricks and mortar cliché)? Obviously, many think so. Others, particularly those responsible for institutional budgets, may hope so. We think this is nonsense.”  What is a library anymore, anyway? by Michael A. Keller, Victoria A. Reich, and Andrew C. Herkovic
First Monday, volume 8, number 5 (May 2003), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_5/keller/index.html