blog.ecorrado.us

Library 2.0: Shooting the messenger 2008 January 26

I read with interest Meredith Farkas post about “The essence of Library 2.0?” last night. When I read it I couldn’t pick up what was bothering me about it, but something was. I agreed pretty strongly with most of what she was saying, and I didn’t particular disagree with anything, but still something just didn’t sit right with me about it. Than, about 4:00 AM I think I figured it out. The post, while not really what she was doing, made me think of the phrase “shooting the messenger.” Or maybe treating the symptom and not the problem. I think the problem Meredith is focusing on in this blog post is really not a Library 2.0 problem at all. Abandoned library MySpace accounts are more likely a symptom of a bigger issue, but libraries, and librarians, investigating how Web 2.0 applications can be used in libraries (which seems to be the definition of Library 2.0 she is mostly commenting on) is not a problem. The problem is constant evaluation of what the library is doing with regard to it’s mission, goals, and user needs. More accurately, the problem is a lack of this happening.

Meredith says:

Not every library needs a public-facing blog. Not everyone has a population that wants to read news about the library or book reviews. Not everyone has a population that wants to have a dialog with the library. Unless you see a real need that could be filled by a blog, your library does not need a blog.

This is probably quite true. However, how do we know if there is a need if we don’t actively, and constantly, engage in outcomes based assessment? How do we know what we want to do if we don’t have a defined mission and goals that we aim to follow and meet? The answer is we don’t. While there are many good libraries that don’t do this kind of stuff, it is probably more luck then anything else. Sure, good librarians and staff help, but if libraries are going to compete for mind-share in the long term, we will need more than luck and good people.

Libraries need to do more assessment to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. What that is can very greatly between library and the type of institution they are aligned with, but the fact is all to many libraries take it as it goes, and are not actively pursing strategic goals.

The technology (and to some extent the philosophy) behind Library 2.0 offers great possibilities to reach users in different ways, and to reach users we haven’t been able to reach. However, libraries need to define goals, and they need to be in a constant state of evaluation (which I think is a core fundamental of the idea of Web 2.0 which is sometime ignored when one just talks about tools and not ideas.

Sure, some librarians maybe went hog-wild over Library 2.0 without thinking it through, but also many librarians kept their head in the sand. Neither of these is the right approach. But they are not the right approach whether we are talking about Library 2.0, converting from DDC to LCCN, starting a book club, renting videos, or anything else.

I believe the key for libraries to survive in the information space with the ever increasing competition is to decide what the library ought to be doing
and continuously evaluating to see if they are doing it and if they are still doing the right thing. Not implement something, evaluate it once, and keep it as is. What was right 3 years ago is not always the right thing now.

Librarians, as with all organizations, will need to be nimble to thrive. They will also need to take risks. They will also need not to be afraid to fail. Not everything we implement will be a huge success. Not everything will reach all of out users/patrons. But if it reaches some, and wasn’t a great deal of investment it terms of human resources, it is worth it.

One of the things Meredith and others have commented on is the feeling that most students don’t want to contact us in Facebook or MySpace, but a University of Michigan study showed that 34% of undergrads said “yes” or “maybe” to a question asking if they “would be interested in contacting a librarian” via MySpace or Facebook. Considering the number of students who go to Michigan, and the low barrier to enter the Facebook or MySpace social spaces, on the surface it would be a huge return on investment. If these numbers are indicative of the response of undergraduates everywhere, I think it shows a majority of academic libraries need to have a Social Networking Web site strategy, or at the very least need to evaluate if they should have a strategy.

One thing I did disagree with Meredith about (or at least my interpretation of what she said is when she mentioned “But the focus should always be on the users we have…” While I agree we need to have a focus on the users we have, we also need to focus on the users we don’t have. Why aren’t a huge percentage of undergraduates going to the library or using library resources? Why doesn’t everyone use the public library? We need to focus on the users we don’t have as well. This is where reading and learning (and imitating) abouts successes (technological or otherwise) in Educause or Wired is important. Blindly implementing things with no plans is a problem, but so is not implementing things without thinking about where the library is, and where it should be.

Another thing I disagree with her on is when she says:

“I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think the Library 2.0 movement itself is to blame for a lot of the not-so-well-thought-out technology implementations we’ve seen out there.”

This is not a problem of the Library 2.0 movement. It is a problem of the Library.

In closing, the one thing I think we both strongly agree on is the need for assessment. However, blaming the Library 2.0 movement on any of this is not really fair. The issues run much deeper than the latest technology trend or fad.