The Real Pangs of Librarian 2.0

Michelle Boule recently responded to my Librarian 2.0 / Library 2.0 post with a response of her own. In it she writes:

“I thought the post was going to be about how we have produced a larger number of 2.0 Librarians, but sadly, very few 2.0 Libraries.”

I was surprised, because what she wrote there was pretty much what I thought I wrote, except maybe take out the “sadly” part. I took a look at 3 basic indicators of a 2.0 library — comments and tags in the catalogue, gaming permitted and the use of social softwares and commented on how we are doing with the three, but concluded that, ultimately, the change has happened in librarians more than it has in libraries. Perhaps I was too kind on libraries for not making change happen quickly enough.

Michelle believes that 2.0 librarians in 1.0 libraries are frustrated at the rate of change in libraries. She thinks, ultimately, that 2.0 librarians will move elsewhere to places where innovation is encouraged more. I think there is some merit in what she says. I do think librarians will move to where the good libraries are.  In general.  Sort of.

In specific, where I see 1.0-ness in MPOW as almost solely my own responsibility. Somehow,  I didn’t work hard enough, plan well enough or speak convincingly enough to make the change happen.

I cannot make a 2.0 library without each and every last staff person coming along with me — and that includes the very ludditest of luddite 1.0 librarians. Whereas some are calling for radical change, I am willing to work with steady forward progress. Why? Well here are some good reasons:

I could be bored to death waiting for a Second Life patron to visit our Second Life Library

I have been on Second Life three times recently at different times of the day and all three times, no one was there. Not librarians. Not anyone. Right now, the supply of Second Life libraries far exceeds the demand. In fact, I see the area as totally confusing right now with libraries from just about everywhere crowding a space where one library would suffice.

I have never done any creation on SL, nor do I fully understand how the process works, but what I am really looking for — librarians & library-interested patrons — are just not there.   I am really happy not have to choose between staffing a service that is bringing little value to my users, or worse, worrying that a my MPOW’s name is out there in a ghostland.

So, the truth is, maybe people ought to lay off the Second Life thing and let the libraries that are there currently gather a patron base.   That could happen — I see the potential of Second Life — but I’m more than happy to have gone slow in this instance.

I could have a totally RSS’d up website that users hate

I love RSS.   I think the model of library service that RSS enables is great too — get the library news where you get your local news.    I have seen examples of websites that are high on RSS and very very low on usability.   In order to use an RSS feed, people need to find the RSS feed.   Finding the RSS feed takes architecture and architecture takes time.

Although unscientific, here is some data I have that might suggest the predominance of RSS with librarians.   And, frankly, I bet this data is amplified for the rest of the world.

When a popular blog like, LISNews, Information Wants to be Free, Library Stuff or Librarian in Black links to me, I can see my stats go from an average of 50-100 hits per day (might be more now) to about 250-350 for the duration that the post is interesting.     My guess is that these are folks who are subscribed to these blogs’ RSS feeds and find their way to me.

Last week, the ALA e-Newsletter put a link to my blog for the “Under the Hood” post.   My stats had a full two days of 800+ posts and I’m still ranging in the 400+ range.   In short, email is still the major mode of information access — for librarians and regular public.   RSS will grow, but for now, it is absolutely on the margins of information access points.

I could put out big promises in an arena where we cannot meet expectations.

Our customers expect us to know everything about technology.    We do not.   If we put out a service, people will expect us to be able to help them get at it.   If they cannot, they will ask us for help.   If, when they ask us for help, and staff go “Flickr, who?” we look absolutely dumb.   That is why I keep on harping on the training benefits of something like Learning 2.0.

I could be evil.

More than one person pointed this out, but Web 2.0 doesn’t really address the digital divide in specific terms.   Putting out services that benefit a few, high-tech oriented users at the cost (however minimal) of services that may directly resolve serious community needs is evil.  We can’t call ourselves professionals unless we put time and thought into ethics of a new service.

Process Matters.

In the end, I guess librarian 2.0 has to ask his or herself “is this resistance to change flat-out stubbornness or due process?”   If its the former, than I think Michelle is right — we are going to see people moving away from the laggard libraries and fighting for jobs in the innovative (and probably resource rich) libraries.

If it’s the latter, I think librarian 2.0 needs to hold on for a moment and look at how to move forward.    Some people feel as if they hit a brick wall when the bureaucracy gets heavy.   But sometimes the wall is there for good reason.    The good news is that the wall does not always have to come down to make change happen.  Scaling the wall is sometimes just as good.  The important thing is to think your way through the problem and focus less on a “golden age” of library 2.0 and more on the next positive step in that direction.

Sometimes gradual is better; sometimes gradual is faster.


I agree that it is frustrating that Librarian 2.0 is happening faster than Library 2.0.   Sometimes lack of change happens because of stubborn staff, lack of leadership, or literal suppression by the environment (ie. resistance happening external to the library).  This is where librarian 2.0 needs to consider looking elsewhere to be the librarian she/he always wanted to be.

Other times, lack of change is just imminent but slow change.   This is where librarian 2.0 needs to look even deeper into the culture of his/her POW and see where, precisely, the change can take root.  Here are some suggested questions:

  • Who are the people that make things happen in the organization?   Focus on these people first.   Hint:  It’s not always the person with the highest salary.
  • What are the basic assumptions that people make when they think of service?  Try to translate the current change in terms of those assumptions if it is possible to do so.
  • What are the benefits of what you are proposing?   What’s the best way to illustrate these benefits?
  • Stay focussed on the problem and illustrate your Library 2.0 idea as one alternative solution to the problem.    If your resistor kindly agrees that “yes, we really need a way to access non-users,” than it will get harder and harder to say “no” as you repeatedly illustrate how (say) RSS can do the job with little-to-know cost.   It will be particularly hard when the resistor has no ideas flowing his/herself.
  • Keep moving forward and be persistent.
  • Sometimes the smallest opportunity opens alot of doors to new thinking.  Be on the lookout.

Library 2.0 will happen (though it may not be called Library 2.0 by the time we get there), so long as librarians 2.0 continue moving forward, however slowly.   Frustration is fine so long as it remains an emotion and does not fester into a way of life.   No one will benefit from an upgrade to frustration 1.0.

10 thoughts on “The Real Pangs of Librarian 2.0

  1. I felt you had a more positive spin on the idea, which you have elaborated on here. Yes, we can move ahead and win allies, but not always. I just wanted to be a little grumpier about it is all.

    We have to admit to ourselves that sometimes, things will not change, there is not a good reason for it, and we should move on. I think knowing when to change gears is just as important as moving forward.


  2. “I took a look at 3 basic indicators of a 2.0 library — comments and tags in the catalogue, gaming permitted and the use of social softwares and commented on how we are doing with the three, but concluded that, ultimately, the change has happened in librarians more than it has in libraries.”

    Is that it? I just thought library 2.0 is much, much more than that. I think we need to develop a path on how to get there and have an idea of an end result. There is no way to gauge a library in this way without some idea of what it will look like. I am working on something that I think will explain where we need to go with this concept. It goes beyond the web 2.0 tools. Just my opinion.


  3. Nope. I don’t think that’s it. They are just 3 fairly basic indicators of a library 2.0. I’m sure there are more thing library 2.0-ish that people can do.

    I don’t think there needs to be an entirely coherent vision of library 2.0 to make it happen. It’s more a mindset or a strategy in my view than it is an end-point.


  4. Hi Ryan. I love the questions at the end and think you make a pertinent point about RSS – it’s one of those techs that seem so sensible, but isn’t adopted as quickly as you’d predict. (As opposed to twitter, which seems so dumb but turned out to be surprisingly useful).

    I think Second Life libraries have the most use for librarians who want to experiment with learning a new interface and the best way to place their information there. It’s like when some of us at the start of the web were creating klunky little HTML pages in our back sheds – few of our patrons had home access to the internet and fewer to the web…but the skills learned stood us in good stead to serve our patrons well in the future.

    Lecture theatres at my uni look like ghostland when there is no-one there. The reference desk at Info Island has a list of events which have good attendance – including a whole swag of ALA organised ones for Banned Books Week. SL libraries tend to be a bit more like a “neighbourhood house” or local adult learning centre (not sure what they are called outside Australia).

    The point of SL libraries is that they don’t mirror real libraries, and the last year or so has involved librarians working to find out how they are different. Anyone who is in there now thinking they can provide a direct service to most of their patrons is just wrong. But – they are gaining skills in a 3D social environment which will be transferable and able to serve patrons better as the web evolves.


  5. Aargh … my comment included “Soapbox on” and “Soapbox off” brackets at the start and finish of my little SL rant, but your formatting stripped them out. I KNOW I’m ranting in the comment above ; )


  6. Just a suggestion; how about building teams to move libraries forward in excelling in customer service. Teams that are built on respect for the strengths that everyone brings to the organization – not just teams built on an adoption of Web 2.0 tools which are often discussed as silver bullets for whatever ails the library.

    Yes, continue to share the possibilities that these tools can bring about, but don’t assume that tagging in the catalogue is going to make the library a better community place. We can use these tools to challenge ourselves to think about patron wants and needs differently, but we can also do the same by challenging our attitudes over fines, the homeless snoozing in the chairs, and young families having a noisy time with the picture books.

    In the end I agree with your post, slow and easy will win the day. I just want to add that there is so much more that we can be doing to improve how we work in our organizations with the strengths of the people we work with, Web 2.0 enthusiasts or not.

    And I really like reading your blog 🙂


  7. Thanks for all the comments, y’all.

    Barb and Jeff: (I had replied earlier, but appear to have lost it).

    Regarding Library 2.0 and the focus on tech. I agree that Library 2.0 doesn’t always mean having to provide a technology solution. That said, I’m going to be more familiar with technology-related ideas, because that’s my job. Sorry for that. I try to keep adding that “it’s not all about tech” caveat, but its hard when your day-to-day is all about technology.


  8. Librarian 2.0’s frustrations highlight the challenge caused by the growing digital generation gap. The older people in the organisation, let’s call them ‘Professional 1.0’, continue to enjoy the marvels of Microsoft Office and Blackberries while their younger web 2.0 savvy colleagues introduce all manner of new technologies into the organisation under the IT radar. These mavericks are the future of the business yet with no budget and little influence in the boardroom, how can they help Librarian 2.0, and perhaps more importantly, avoid causing an IT clampdown and stifle this tech innovation? It’s simple. Librarian 2.0 needs to identify these mavericks and use them to deploy pester power on their bosses, the digital dinosaurs. These are the front line foot soldiers who can best demonstrate Librarian 2.0’s business case for web 2.0 investment. All Librarian 2.0 needs to do is convince them that it’s in their own best interests to persuade the decision makers of the wonders of tools like RSS and sit back and wait for the web 2.0 enquiries from the Board. Naturally, references to compliance, productivity gains and more billable time will of course help get Board members to prick their ears up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s