Yesterday I had a very engaging conversation with two co-workers. One has been a librarian for 20+ years starting in reference; today she's directing the efforts of Preservation and Digital Programs. That trajectory of positions may not, on the surface, make much sense but, given the changing landscape of technology in libraries, it makes perfect sense. The other is the head of Digital Programs proper who has worked diligently over the last 8-10 years, sometimes as a one-man show, to build important, lasting content for the digital arena. So it was with great interest that I listened to these two very different people, who take very different approaches to both content creation and management, be a somewhat united front in the face of problems libraries face in how to better engage users and, perhaps more importantly, remain relevant in the face of the Googles of the information world.
This morning, I read a recent article in the Educause Review from Peter Brantley, Executive Director for the Digital Library Federation (DLF), wherein he said, verbatim, what one of my co-workers said--which just happened to be the thing that stuck in my mind from yesterday's conversation:
This morning, I read a recent article in the Educause Review from Peter Brantley, Executive Director for the Digital Library Federation (DLF), wherein he said, verbatim, what one of my co-workers said--which just happened to be the thing that stuck in my mind from yesterday's conversation:
"No one goes to libraries to find things anymore."
Sounds fatalistic, doesn't it? But it's true -- sad, but very true. The whole of Brantley's thought says (which is not quite as verbatim as the co-worker's single sentence but pretty darn close):
"Digital library collections are useless unless they’re seen. No one
goes to libraries to find things anymore. That is the rightful business
of search engines; it is what they do well. Libraries must work to make
their collections easily discovered by people—not just by sophisticated
librarians. They must be able to open up access to their collections
through many different doors. Libraries must be available everywhere."
goes to libraries to find things anymore. That is the rightful business
of search engines; it is what they do well. Libraries must work to make
their collections easily discovered by people—not just by sophisticated
librarians. They must be able to open up access to their collections
through many different doors. Libraries must be available everywhere."
Brantley says a lot of other interesting things - things that will surely piss off a lot of traditionalists. But part of our conversation yesterday not only involved where libraries need to go but why we haven't done it yet. Brantley doesn't answer this question quite as pointedly as yesterday's conversation --He sort of tiptoes around it-- but our talk shot straight to the heart. The most intriguing pontification I heard is that librarianship offers a home for certain personality types; those who are forward thinking, adaptable and welcoming of change; and those who hate change even at the expense of their own demise. The latter may be why Brantley says;
"Those of us in the library field have not done a good job of letting go
of the way that we have defined ourselves in the past. We have not done
a good job of redefining ourselves in the world today...And we have not
actively innovated in important areas that will help define our
existence and our own preservation in the years ahead."
The one thing Brantley says, and what I have believed from the start of my journey in digital libraries, is that the relationship with IT, whether it be campus IT or library IT, is the relationship to foster; besides funding, it is the single most important facet of library livelihood in existence today, though, sadly, it is the relationship that has lagged the furthest behind all others (probably because libraries have such a hard time changing from who we were to who we need to be).
I can't speak to other libraries and their IT situations but it has been my experience that IT is the single most detrimental force holding back the forward motion of library digital initiatives. I'm not talking about "digital libraries" as the textbooks define it but, rather, the library as an information entity in the modern world. You can have all the forward thinking, innovative, smart ideas you want but a lackluster, stubborn, unimaginative, understaffed IT department will bring forward momentum to a screeching halt with one fell swoop. I've seen it happen. People get mad, they get their feelings hurt, all the personal crap comes out and still nobody stands up and talks about the elephant in the room. You have to have an IT department that is innovative, properly staffed, and knowledgeable about today's library environment or you're gonna get run over, plain and simple. Libraries, on their own, can not make the technological changes they need to survive. It takes IT expertise to turn ideas into reality. Most librarians aren't programmers and, those rare few who are, don't have time to both shepherd their jobs and invent/create necessary technologies!
Finally, Brantley says:
"...these are not “library problems.” These problems are shared by IT
communities. They are shared by publishers. They are shared by search
engines...solutions to these problems will come about through the ability of
libraries to collaborate among themselves and also with IT communities,
publishers, search engines, for-profit content providers, and others.
These are collaborative problems, and they will be solved with
collaborative solutions."
But, as a librarian, I think they are library problems first and foremost. All these other entities Brantley mentions are commercial at their core and, as such, they work for profit. And profit fuels a LOT of innovative thinking. Libraries are primarily non-profit beasts with little or no monetary incentive to move forward. In fact, we usually face budget restrictions that make innovation hard to damn-near impossible. So we have little choice but to get it together; learn to play with everybody and each other or in 10 years time we'll all be looking for jobs at Google.
Now I sound fatalistic. Truth is, I have faith will pull our heads out of our behinds ane do great things. After all, librarians are some of the most ballsy, innovative people going -always have been - should always be! Maybe we ought to add that to our Code of Ethics:
communities. They are shared by publishers. They are shared by search
engines...solutions to these problems will come about through the ability of
libraries to collaborate among themselves and also with IT communities,
publishers, search engines, for-profit content providers, and others.
These are collaborative problems, and they will be solved with
collaborative solutions."
But, as a librarian, I think they are library problems first and foremost. All these other entities Brantley mentions are commercial at their core and, as such, they work for profit. And profit fuels a LOT of innovative thinking. Libraries are primarily non-profit beasts with little or no monetary incentive to move forward. In fact, we usually face budget restrictions that make innovation hard to damn-near impossible. So we have little choice but to get it together; learn to play with everybody and each other or in 10 years time we'll all be looking for jobs at Google.
Now I sound fatalistic. Truth is, I have faith will pull our heads out of our behinds ane do great things. After all, librarians are some of the most ballsy, innovative people going -always have been - should always be! Maybe we ought to add that to our Code of Ethics:
1. Equitable Service and Access
2. Intellectual Freedom
3. Right to Privacy
4. Respect of Intellectual Property Rights
5. Respect Colleagues and Co-workers
6. No advancement of private interests @ the libraries expense
7. Personal beliefs separate from professional duties
8. Continued professional development
9. Constant innovation and collaboration
2. Intellectual Freedom
3. Right to Privacy
4. Respect of Intellectual Property Rights
5. Respect Colleagues and Co-workers
6. No advancement of private interests @ the libraries expense
7. Personal beliefs separate from professional duties
8. Continued professional development
9. Constant innovation and collaboration
Just one girl's opinion :-D
Posts
