The Screen is Flat

1. We admitted we were powerless of our information needs and that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. We came to believe that a Librarian greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. We made a decision to turn our information needs over to the care of a Librarian.

4. We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves and our information literacy skills.

5. We admitted to the Librarian, to ourselves, and our academic community the exact nature of our shortcomings as they relate to our information literacy skills.

6. We were entirely ready to have the Librarian remove all these defects.

7. We humbly asked the Librarian to remove our information literacy shortcomings.

8. We made a list of all search strategies we have harmed and became willing to make amends to the Librarian.

9. We made direct amends to the Librarian with either a Starbucks gift card, or a Nancy Pearl Librarian Action Figure.

10. We continued to take a personal inventory and  where we wrong with our search strategies, promptly admitted it.

11. We sought through prayer, RSS, and text messaging, to improve our conscious contact with the Librarian, seeking only for knowledge of their search expertise for us and the power to carry out these suggestions in our search processes .

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

The best adage I ever heard to describe the Internet is that it is the “World’s Biggest Vanity Press.” Sure, the web has lots of useful information. I spend a good portion of my day utilizing online resources and tools for both my personal and professional life. But it still holds that anyone with a computer and a little bit of moxie can publish anything they want directly to the masses.

In the traditional scholarly publishing model, publishers and academics served as gatekeepers for the peer review process. And Librarians served as a second tier, acquiring those resources seemed best suited to their clientele’s needs. But now, all bets are off. The world of scholarly communication and public discourse is changing. I leave the discussion of the peer review process as it relates to publishing and tenure to my academic colleagues who are in the middle of this debate.  

Self publishing and the accompanying technologies that enhance our productivity and communication has proven to be a good thing overall. However, in the realm of scholarly communications, self publishing has raised two interesting questions: Who gets to be an an expert? and Who decides if that person really knows what they are talking about?

From a Librarian perspective, I think it’s an interesting challenge in terms of how to acquire and then process or catalog these new resource formats for library collections.

What to do we do with all the fabulous blogs, Wiki’s, and other web based content that doesn’t fit into old school scholarly communication categories? Should librarians continue to catalog the web, at least selectively? Everyone in libraryland seems pretty excited about using social software sites like delicious to manage our web content. Is this the answer? Whatever happened to our beloved old friend, the catalog? Until recent history the library catalog was the ultimate source for determining what a library owns, leases, or otherwise accepts as having scholarly relevance.

But the catalog started to lose its authority once Internet based resources clamored for so much attention, and our old friend didn’t quite seem up to the challenge. So, we tried to just make new web pages until social bookmarking utilities came to the rescue. But adding on these solutions only make further distinctions about format and function by dividing out some materials in the Library catalog, some on the library web space, and now increasingly on the various web 2.0 collaborate sites.

Web 2.0 is changing all the scholarly communication processes and poses new challenges in the classification, storage and retrieval of communication in all its various forms. I don’t know what it will all look like in the future. But just as the printing press changed the publishing and scholarly world in the 15th century, the Worlds Biggest Vanity Press is certainly bringing about another revolution in the way we think, write, communicate, and distribute our intellectual ideas around the globe.

I have been experimenting with social bookmarking this week, specifically on del.icio.us and I have to say, my brain is off in way too many directions when I think about the purpose and potential applications of these types of tools. So, if you’ll excuse the following post as just another ADD moment, I have the following thoughts thus far.

Libraries traditionally are viewed as places of order and stability. Library resources are organized using rules and hierarchies of terminology or numerology. I think we can all agree that when applied consistently, these rules of order are good both for librarians and for library users. As my mom was fond of saying “There’s a place for everything and everything in its place.”

I believe authoritative and consistent taxonomies will continue to be relevant in the future, particularly when you consider the astronomical rate at which information and data continues to be generated and published. In addition to the volume of data, the variety and types of digital tools and formats continue to change and evolve. Consistent rules and language will be needed in order to efficiently and effectively find all the stuff that’s out there. 

However, despite the benefits of authority control, based on my experience teaching people how to use digital information resources, I would agree with the old adage in libraryland which states that “people don’t care about searching, they care about finding.” Library users sometimes don’t seem to care what language or semantics or rules are utilized. This ambivalence can be frustrating for me as a Librarian, but I understand that not everyone loves MeSH as much as I do.

So, it’s with this background that I have been wondering lately how traditional library rules of order will be influenced in the future by social bookmarking and folksonomy.

On a personal level, when I found something worth saving in Web World 1.0, I might cut and paste the content of a website into a Word document and then save it locally. Or I would download the PDF into a folder. Then I would use a detailed filing system on my computer to arrange content, or utilize EndNote to manage my research findings. Who knew bibliographic management software was the precursor to social bookmarking?

In Web World 2.0, services like del.icio.us make my homegrown solution easier in many ways. Social bookmarking sites are a handy and fun way to approach personal productivity. It’s much easier to keep track of the items I want to squirrel away with tagging. User generated tags are generally similar to the vocabulary that I would select, and it’s a neat trick to follow the links of other enthusiasts to stumble upon similar areas of interest.

Of course, the assumption is that I will more easily find and retrieve content that I have saved. Even as a librarian, I will confess that I find it a challenge to keep the vocabulary simple and consistent when using social network sites. Too many terms and synonyms and I get lost in my own over-organization. Too few and my sites are lost in sea of generalizations. Social bookmarking and folksonomy reminds me that most people are probably meant to be catalogers and indexers.  Note to self: send a big “thank you” card out to all the professional cataloguers and indexers.

From a professional standpoint, I’m still thinking about the applications for social bookmarking sites as they related to library resources and services.

First, personal customization of library space is not a new concept. Allowing users to “tag” their own content and create personalized library portals has been accomplished already by some forward thinking libraries.

Assuming the web 2.0 generation would like to have more access and control over their experiences with the Digital Library, the challenge is how to incorporate folksonomy style social indexing with established Library systems of order. To what extent can or should the Library invite our users to enter “our” digital space and customize their research experience? Are we creating web content that is of such value that users want to tag them?

The most obvious use of del.icio.us that I can see is its use as a partial replacement for subject and research guides. Social Bookmarking allow for greater ease, speed, and flexibility in the creation of a reference or subject database.

However, while del.icio.us links to content well, these types of tools do not explain howto do use the conent once you find it.  Research guides, tutorials, and other instructional media will still be necessary to assist users with the research process. This is an important point. Social bookmarking tools are about organizing your data more efficiently and collaboratively. But you still need to know what you’re looking for, why you are looking for it, and then know what to do once you find it what your looking for. And as useful as del.icio.us is as a productivity tool, it still doesn’t solve the problem of broken links and migrating content.

Another concern I have relates to the differences between free vs. licensed content. I  am not sure how delicious helps with the problem of communicating to users that not everything is available for free. “Libraries are increasingly between a rock and a hard place: the publisher or search engine gets the credit, they just pick up the tab.” How do we best utilize social bookmarking sites to consolidate or segregate out free vs. fee content?

I also think these tools are another example of the format deconstruction. First, we had blogs and other web content to read. Then RSS enabled us to have content delivered to our desktops so we didn’t have to go out and retrieve it. Now we can use del.icio.us to save the bits we want and trash the rest. It reminds of me of other formats that we enjoy picking apart like Music and journals.  The original format of the content is not as important anymore.

ADD moment: Is anyone bothered by the aesthetic of del.icio.us? I find it really hard to look at visually. I know it’s supposed to be really clean and simple. But all the tags on the right remind me of code for some reason. Just asking.  New and Improved Updatesince original post: After using del.icio.us for a few weeks, I am not bothered by the aesthetics anymore. In fact, I love how del.icio.us integrates with my browser and that is so simple to use.

Final True confession: one of my guilty TV addictions is Law and Order. It’s very difficult to work from home and complete writing deadlines when you know that at any given time, some version of the show is on syndication on at least two different channels. I have a friend who actually gave up Law and Order for Lent this year.

I’ll admit to a bit of smug satisfaction to read in the “information behaviour of the researcher of the future ” report that the ‘Google Generation’ is a myth.”  The authors of this report must have employed the psychic hot-line directly to my brain when they wrote:

“google generation: myth or reality?”
They are expert searchers 
Our verdict: This is a dangerous myth.
Digital literacies and information literacies do not go hand in hand.

In my experience, while students are generally technological savvy, many have no idea how to conduct Library research. Or put another way, students may know more about txt messaging than I do, (LOL) but they don’t necessarily know a search engine from a citation database, and this lack of knowledge hinders their ability to engage in research an scholarship.
 
Finally, there is a bit of research I can point to the next time I hear something like “my students don’t need Library based instruction on how to use research resources because they are really smart and use technology all the time.” I never said your students weren’t brilliant. I would merely like to point out that using Facebook and searching PubMed were too entirely different kettles of fish.

My collaborators in the TheScreenIsFlat propose that there are three different types of literacy’s: information literacy, a knowledge skill set, and a technical skill set. “Information behaviour of the researcher of the future” re-affirms our notion that all three skill sets are vital in today’s educational setting.  

As there are three different spheres of knowledge, there are three distinct, yet overlapping roles in the academic institution that teach these literacies: the librarian, the faculty, and the IT staff. All three players working in collaboration are necessary to effectively teach these vital skills to our students.

There are two question that should be asked first though when considering this tool. First, what existing news or information is desirable to our user community? Second, what new services or information can the Library provide thanks to the capabilities of RSS?

Idea 1: Utilizing RSS journal feeds is similar to concept to the old TOC services. However, RSS enables the user to have more control over the journal data they wish to keep receive. One project worthy of emulation is the “Journal Feeds by subject” page at the Ebling Library, Health Sciences Learning Center, University of Wisconsin.

Idea 2: Integrating RSS capabilities into the acquisitions/cataloging processes to better inform the community when the Library has added material relevant to their research and teaching.

Idea 3: News blog for changes in Library hours, new services, and other promotional events.

Idea 4: User account updates, including overdue materials, fines, etc. Feed should include links back to the user’s account so they can update their records.

Idea 5: Marketing. The Library couldpromote services and resources not only on Library websites and blogs, but also on other blogs within the organization. For example, Library staff can post training opportunities within HR, IT, or other training websites/blogs in order to promote instructional events sponsored by the Library. An example of this type of integration are the courses offered by the University Libraries within the Human Resources Training site.

Idea 6: The Next Big Thing. Whatevernews, information, or services the Library can think of which would add value to the Library experience for our clientele. Who knows what services we will think to offer in the future? Regardless of what news or data is pushed out, we need to think creatively about how this information will lure faculty, students, and staff back to the Library, either to our virtual or physical space.

Web 2.0 software is about communication, interactive experiences, and social connectivity. Each Web 2.0 tool has advantages and unique features. Like Blogs and Wikis, Social networking Sites are about communication, sharing information (text based, images, video) and supporting common interests or relationships.

The primary difference is that with web sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, you can more easily establish online connections with a community of people, either folks you know in real life, or just online through shared interests. By establishing a webspace on these two sites, you can connect your profile with other friends and colleagues who also utilize the service. These sites can now serve as your email, photo sharing, file sharing, and professional referral source all in one.

However, to be honest, I do see a difference in the utilization of these tools in my personal and professional life.

When it comes to libraryland, we should use SNS to showcase the Library’s services and resources, and provide a communication forum for interacting with our clientele. From a marketing perspective, it makes sense to put the Library out where our users are. It’s also useful to add our professional contact information on these sites - they are called “Social Networking Sites” for a reason. An institutional presence is fine, but a personal touch would always be appreciated by visitors to the site. Like any webpage, the SNS site should be full of useful content and invite feedback and participation from visitors in order to be fully in line with the goals and functions of the SNS world.

While I’m all for the Library and my professional presence on Facebook et. al, I am having a harder time adding my own personal profile and information online. To be honest, I’m just not that interested in promoting my own activities and interests for all the world to see. I’m also a bit nervous about the scary “Big Brother” privacy implications. (Just Google Facebook AND privacy …scary.)

Maybe I’m showing a generational gap here. But for the moment, I’m content focusing on how these tools can help promote the Library, and help me be a better researcher, educator, and librarian. Everything else is lagniappe.

In library circles, when we think you’re not listening, a topic of conversation that has been talked to death is the idea that people don’t appreciate what they get for free.  Library services and resources, while definitely not free, at least appear that way to some extent. Except for photocopies or printing, Library’s typically do not charge back for any of their services, at least not to the primary clientele. We buy print materials, lease digital resources, and provide expert advice and consultation, all for “free.” This issue is more relevant now in the digital realm where so many resources are available from the desktop and it’s hard to know how they ended up there.  Quick answer: you didn’t get it from Google.

I was reminded of this issue with the “Calculate the retail value of your library’s resources and services” post on the User Education Resources for Librarians blog. In the post, Teresa Hartman informs Librarians of a neat Retail Value Calculator that Librarians can utilize to demonstrate their ROI - return on investment - to the institution.

These types of calculations are vital for Library staff to utilize since we all have to compete for resources and funding within our institutions. “Academic libraries are being challenged increasingly to demonstrate their value to their institution in compelling quantitative terms. There is a growing need to provide a response based on sound methodology to questions about the value of the university’s investment in the library.” Regrettably, the library is still viewed by some as a place where money is spent but nothing tangible is generated in return.  I won’t argue the point in depth here, but as a librarian, I am of the biased opinion that this view is flat out wrong.  I will state that the Library is vital part of the research and development engine of the University.

Every department has materials and personnel costs.  The Library does not have control over the cost of information resources, and we try our best to get the best value for the money.  If I may state the obvious, research materials are really expensive. I have not sat in on digital resource license negotiations, but I think you and I both would fall out of our collective chairs if we knew what certain resources really cost the Library. But I don’t think Librarians are allowed to share this information with you.  Even though I could drop a few hints based on what I do know, contracts to acquire digital resources generally have some kind of “no talking to your friends” clause.  Sorry.

Perhaps you would find it enlightening to look at some of the summary data available on the average cost of doing business for the academic research library.  If you think these numbers are too high, please feel free to write to your local librarian and submit an outline of materials you can’t live without, alongside with a list of your recommended cancellations.  We would love to hear from you.

• ARL STATISTICS 2005‐06: A COMPILATION OF STATISTICS FROM THE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY‐THREE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
• Association of College and Research Libraries: 2006 Statistical Summaries
• ARL Academic Health Sciences Library Statistics, 2005-06

Has anyone else noticed the concept of the  “Self Service Economy“ in the business and technology news sections lately?

In my personal life there are times I do appreciate being able to do things myself. The ATM is convenient.  I like using Expedia. And not having experienced a full service gas station in my life, I can say that it would feel a bit odd to have someone pump the gas for me at this point.  I’m not really keen on self checkout at the grocery store. And how many times have you screamed “I just want to talk to a real person!” when lost in some endless loop on an automated phone tree?

So, while the vernacular is new to me, self service is not a new concept for me as it relates to library service.  With two general exceptions,  library patrons are expected to conduct their own affairs in the real and virtual library space. Typically there two main service points in a Library – Circulation and Reference.  Self check out is probably still a rare occurrence in the former arena, and Reference Librarians are always willing to communicate in person, by phone, email, or chat when you have a question. 

However, where you have been mostly left to your own devices is in the area of expert database searching, or more specifically, searching the literature for journal articles, book references, conference proceedings, data, statistics, etc. (Note to self: be careful about the term “database” here, since everything is a database)

To be fair, librarians never did claim to be personal research assistants in either the print or digital world.  Library users were and are expected to do their own legwork, though if the search gets sticky, we’re here to help. But at least in the print world, most materials, by and large, were similarly arranged and utilized.  Significant orientation or intervention by Library staff was not typically required to understand the layout of a book or journal index.

In the digital world, many aspects of the research process are easier and faster and better. I couldn’t live without the electronic tools and toys I am accustomed to using on a daily basis. However, the research process still takes time.  Just because it is faster to search, doesn’t mean the results are inherently easier to find or inherently better. Between the breadth of options available to search and the depth of data that can be retrieved, we can all be overwhelmed sometimes.

But the digital research world does create a few complications. In the Library, instead of teaching students how a journal index works, I have to explain what a journal index is all about first, because everything is just a “database” these days.  Then I need to introduce each search tool individually, because each interface is different.  I would also like to point out that learning the idiosyncrasies of a search interface is different from learning the art and science of actually searching. And I may not have time to teach you both during a chat at the reference desk, or even in the 60 minute class time allotted for a training session.  “Here’s what you need to use and in what order. Good luck!”

This leads me to the question I have about the self service economy in libraryland. I wonder if the Library should offer more professional search services to our clientele? 

Maybe we should reconsider the self service position and try showcasing our expertise a bit more?  I’m not suggesting that we offer to be a retrieval gopher. I’m simply pondering what meaningful, high level services we should provide to the community?

The self service economy implies that anyone can be an expert. Is this really the impression Librarians want to give to the world?  That anyone can do our job just as well as we do it? Professional searches and experienced librarians know that research is a hard gig that requires patience, experience, expertise, and time.  Is it necessary for everyone  to be an expert?

I know what the Librarians are probably thinking, because I have had these thoughts myself: 

1. We don’t have the budget, staffing, or time to offer a research service  
2. Its not my job. Literature searching and research is the responsibility of the faculty or  student
3. Teaching others how to search is part of the educational  mission of the Library and University. If we do the work for them, how will they learn to search on their own?  

Of course, if we did offer an expert research service, would anyone take us up on  professional assistance at this point? Or is everyone convinced that they are doing a fine job of searching on their own, regardless of whether or not this may be true? 

I will continue to wrestle with the Self Service Economy model as it relates to Library services.  Just because someone can do something on their own, doesn’t mean they want to.  All I know is that we have a lot of competition out there. How can we think differently about the ways in which the Library interacts and serves our colleagues and students?  

I leave you with the following quote which left an impression on me while writing this blog posting.

“You have to impress upon your people the importance of treating customers right. To keep customers today, you can’t be content to merely satisfy them; you have to give them legendary service and create ‘raving fans’ - customers who are so excited about the way you treat them that they tell stories about you. In essence, they become part of your sales force….You’re going to beat the competition on Moments of Truth…..[which is] anytime a customer comes in contact with anybody in your organization in a way they can get an impression.”

Postscript:
There are varieties of different library environments and cultures, so I realize my ADD thoughts on this issue will apply differently, or not at all in different settings. Those of you working solo are probably up to your ears in work and my idea might seem laughable.  Perhaps my corporate librarian colleagues offer this type of service all the time? My thoughts on this issue are based on my experience in academic settings, where we do offer help with searches on an ad hoc, unofficial basis, especially at the request of faculty, or when helping someone at the reference desk.  Also, some academic libraries do offer search services, but this service is typically provided on a cost recovery basis. 

I have made a few references in my blog postings comparing the print versus the digital world. Let me be clear. I do not wish to go back in time. So, before you dismiss me as a technophobe, comfort shoe wearing type in a tweed skirt, I will argue that I do love technology. I am one of those Librarians who think it’s interesting to read database manuals.  I think its big fun to search PubMed all day long. Really.  Librarians are probably the only ones who share these interests.

As an educator, I am still thinking about what metaphors, visual aids, and terminology is best to employ when communicating how to conduct research in the digital world. I try to provide a framework, or context in my teaching. I want you to know the big picture; how any specific resource fits into the research process before launching into the specifics of how to utilize the digital product in question.

For those of us who were around pre-WWW, I think it’s sometimes easier to have a mental construct of what these digital resources are all about.  At some point we walked the floor of a library and used different resources for different purposes.

In the digital realm, information and traditional formats are all decontextualized.  The context for the complex world of information creation, publication, storage, and retrieval is too easily lost in the hypertext world.

I find it challenging to provide a mental road map to the web 2.0 generation.  The visualization process is different for this generation of students.  Without a physical or geographic space to rely upon, research and information resources are just links on page and product names to be memorized.

How can we do a better job of meeting these new challenges? How can Librarians provide meaning and context for this de-contextualized research world?

I have created numerous list type of research guides in the past on how to use the scholarly literature. Maybe a graphical approach would be better in representing the universe of information?   Has anyone created a discipline specific “world map” of the research process? Something that demonstrates how an idea travels from the lab/ meeting/research phase to eventual publication/press release/meeting abstract/website? A map that highlights what tools to utilized to find information at each stage?

Many libraries have virtual tours of the library as place. Has anyone created a virtual tour of the research landscape?  Cruise ships have visual tours, why not us?

Disclaimer: I am a big fan of the Dummies series for their use of simple everyday language to describe complex tasks and principles.  I am not implying that you, the reader, are a big dummy.  Or at least, you are not any more of a dummy than I am.

For those of you who have not had the opportunity to chat with a librarian in a while about how they acquire all those neat electronic materials you use from your office, allow me to explain how it all works.

Step One: Library approaches publisher/vendor to inquire how much it costs to lease the information product in question.
Notice the word lease. Libraries, do not buy anything anymore.  In the digital realm, access to a resource is a contractual agreement for an agreed upon period of time.  Once the contract is up, then access to the resource you are accustomed to utilizing will cease.

Step 2: Publisher/Vendor wants to know a lot of information about your institution. 

Like how many people work there, how many users may or may not use the resource on and off the campus, the number of vending machines, how often the bathrooms are cleaned, your personal salary for the last fiscal year, and the blood type of all immediate family members. These numbers are factored into a complicated equation. The equation will generally produce a number that is above what the Library hoped to pay and will equal the gross national product for a small third world country.  However, the resource is needed for research and teaching, so it doesn’t really matter what number is written on the piece of paper slid across the table. The amount is agreed to if you want this material. This journal or database is the only like it.  There may not be any other option to get the book, journal, or database.  If you don’t lease the material, faculty will likely key your car in the staff parking lot.

Step 3: Library signs contract. 

Promotional materials are posted on the Library website and flurries of emails are written to announce the arrival of the Next Big Thing at the Library.  Library staff will wait for the access switch to be thrown.  Days, weeks, or in the worst case scenario, months will roll by on the calendar while Library staff check the links on the Library website.

Step 4: Library staff will contact the information provider to double check the date of access.

Upon contacting the Publisher/Vendor they will claim that you A.) Do not have a license for the product B.) You do have a license but their accounting office shows no record of payment. C.) You do have a license and have paid for the product.  Everything looks fine on their end so the problem must be with you.  End of conversation.

Step 5: Library contacts Campus IT department.

IT information you that they have changed all the IP addresses but didn’t tell the Library of this change as it was not a Library issue.  With this new information Library will call Publisher/Vendor with updated IP ranges for the institution.

Step 6: A Miracle Occurs

After numerous phone calls back and forth to Campus IT and to the Publisher, the Library waits for the electronic product to work.  One day it works. No one will know why.  Faculty have already keyed your car twice.

Step 7: Living in Bliss

Intermittedly throughout the year the produt will cease to work. No one will know why. IP addresses will be checked. At least eight different calls to 3 different people will be necessary to figure out the problem.  Numerous phone calls will be made back and forth between Campus IT and the Publisher/Vendor.   One day the resource will suddenly work. No one will know why.

Step 8.  Its contract time again!

Take whatever figure you paid last year to subscribe to the electronic resource and add 10% if you want to maintain your subscription.