Category: Beyond the Bullet Points

A few weeks back Lane Wilkinson put together a nice thoughtful piece on the Little Free Libraries. While he and I don’t see eye to eye on everything he always makes me think and I have great respect for his point of view. This time he got me thinking about fiction, and the role of recreational reading in libraries.
The following is not really a response to Lane; it doesn’t really need a response. I agree with most of what he says. Also, I’m not hitting every point he makes about stories and shared literary experience (still thinking on that). His noting that my work has “(literally) nothing to say about the aesthetic and cultural value of literature or fiction in libraries” is true. Other than broad strokes that I don’t separate out what we learn from fiction or while we are having fun from non-fiction and when we are doing serious study – I haven’t been explicit. Let me be explicit and ask for your thoughts and reactions. I’ll start with the mission of librarians:

“The mission of librarians is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities”

Take a look at the mission again: improving society through facilitating knowledge creation. What ever happened to promoting a love of reading and/or books? Does this adopting this mission mean abandoning reading and literature, fiction and prose? No. The reason reading isn’t in this larger mission is that not all libraries are centrally focused on reading. Where school libraries and public libraries see one of their core goals the promotion and expansion of reading skills (and therefore should include these in their missions); corporate and academic libraries assume the folks they serve already have these skills. What’s more, while reading is a crucial skill to creating knowledge, it is not the exclusive route to “enlightenment.” Some learn through reading, some through video, others through doing (and the vast majority through combining these). We should expect our libraries to support all of these modalities of learning.

When folks ask me about libraries, reading, and my proposed mission they are normally asking “can’t I just use the library to read a good novel or borrow a DVD without worrying about saving the world? Isn’t there value in just reading for recreation?” My answer is yes and that fiction is as important to learning and building knowledge as non-fiction. Stories are how we dream and how we test our ethical bounds. A good novel can often reveal fundamental truth in ways no academic tome of philosophy ever can. What’s more, the ideas and inspirations for great action often come when we least expect it.
Much of library literature focuses on concepts of information and empowerment often ignoring or silently assuming that libraries can still support recreation and reading development. To be sure my work is focused on libraries as places of social engagement and learning. The question isn’t “should libraries support recreational reading.” The answer to that question is dependent on the community — like supporting the arts or parks. The real question revolves around folks who want to turn recreational reading into something social, or geared towards some larger goal.

So I read and love a book. That may be enough for me. But what if a beautiful piece of fiction inspires me to write my own novel, or invent some new device, or form a group of others who love the book and seek to act. It is not the role of the library to predetermine the outcomes of reading (or inventing, or movie making) – that edges too close to telling people what to read and why. Rather it is the place of the library to be a platform for the community member to turn their love and passion into something for the good of the community and/or themselves.

The more we do of something the better we get. So we need to support reading of all kinds where appropriate (in the library, in school, on the playground, on vacation, in the laboratory, in video games). When you read the words “knowledge” and “learning” throughout my work, don’t think I am limiting that to just to the ideas found in textbooks and research articles. Poetry, novels, a good science fiction story all carry equal weight to me in knowledge creation. However, I believe that we should also expect our libraries of all kinds to be ready to support the outcomes of that reading.

Here is the tweet that led to this post:

“Bad Libraries build collections. Good libraries build services (of which a collection is only one). Great libraries build Communities”

Due to character limits it was often re-tweeted without the parenthetical:

“Bad Libraries build collections. Good libraries build services. Great libraries build Communities”

Let’s face it, this is snappier, but it is also apparently more controversial. There were a number of responses along the line that good and great libraries must build collections too. I thought it was worth more than 140 characters to add some nuance and depth to the tweet, so here we are.

Before I jump all the way in here…if you are an auditory or visual type, I made a lot fo these points in this screencast:

https://davidlankes.org/rdlankes/blog/?p=1406

Now, back to the tweet.

First, there is nothing that says that good and great libraries don’t or can’t build collections. It is a matter of focus. If librarians focus solely or disproportionately on the collection, that is bad. This shows up in a couple of ways. The first is obvious: acquisitions with little or no input from members of the community. Are you adding to a collection because of what is on the New York Times bestsellers, or that’s what the jobber sends? Bad. If you aren’t looking at circulations data, having conversations with the community, or looking at ILL data: bad. 

I am reminded of this in the current debate around ebooks. There is a lot of talk about whether libraries should be buying ebooks at all. Someone asked me what I thought and I said that tactically librarians should build their own ebook platform that brings a lot of value to authors, and; two, ask your community. If you are planning on boycotting or simply staying out of ebooks, have you had that conversation with the communities? Does the community think it is a bad deal what the publishers are proposing? Are they ok with not having that as a library service? Note this is not simply asking meekly, but truly having a conversation where you are presenting an argument and showing the community the big picture and then listening.

If we are talking focus, what is the difference between bad libraries and good ones? Good libraries focus on users. That is they evaluate the utility of the collection is relation to user needs. What do people want and need in terms of the collection, and how does that balance with all the other things the library does (reference, programming, digital resources, instruction, etc.). Here not only do we look at user data such as circulation and such, but the whole user experience.

There was once a debate among the faculty here at Syracuse about where we should teach collection development. It was (and is) part of a class title “Library Planning, Marketing, and Assessment.” The instructor at the time didn’t like it there. How do weeding and marketing go together? Well, it turns out the questions you ask about the collection are like any other service: what are the objectives? How is it used? Is it easy to access (and assess)? The collection is a service like any other – it needs budgeting, planning, and a reason to exist. 

Good libraries understand that any time you add value to a user experience you are proving a service. Shelving? Service. Cataloging? Service. Weeding? Service (to save the user time and eliminate rapid access to out of date information). I know all of these things are wrapped up as “collection,” but by breaking them apart you can better evaluate them, and better accomplish them.

I pick the term “user” carefully in this part of the discussion, because I believe it is what separates good from great. You see a good library sees the collection as a service and therefore monitors and plans for its use. A great library sees the collection as only a tool to push a community forward, and more than that, they see the library itself as a platform for the community to produce as well as consume. The library member co-owns the collection and all the other services offered by the librarians. The library services are part of a larger knowledge “eco-system” where members are consuming information yes (a user), but also producing, working, dreaming, and playing. That is the focus of a great library. They understand that the materials a library houses and acquires is not the true collection of a library – the community is.

So, do good, bad, great, and ugly libraries have collections? Yes. But great libraries realize that the collection is not what sits on the stacks, but the members and their worlds. The focus is on connection development, not collection development. Will there be collections developed? Probably, but that collection may be of links, digital scans, books, building materials, video production equipment, performance time on a stage, and/or experts. 

This is clear in the discussion around school libraries. As districts around the country are eliminating school librarians they often cite that the hours of the library won’t go down. “We can keep the doors open with library aids, or existing staff in the building.” They ignore the data that shows that it is certified school librarians, not open hours, or the collection, that improves test scores and student retention. Librarians not libraries make the difference.

Once again, does the school librarian use a collection? Certainly, but great school librarians have a collections of lessons they teach, student teams that assist teachers with technology, and collections of good pedagogy. Want to save money in a school? Close the library and hire more school librarians. 

This tweet is not a call to throw out collections of materials – there is great value there – but to change focus and realize that that value comes not from the artifacts, but the community’s ability to improve. That value may come from licensed databases in academia. It may come from shipping containers full of paper books in rural Africa. It may come from genealogy materials in the public library, or special collections in the Ivy League. But for some communities it may come from the rich array of open resources accessible via any smartphone, or, increasingly, artifacts, ideas, and services created by the community itself.

Great libraries can have great buildings, or lousy buildings, or no buildings at all. Great libraries can have millions of volumes, or none. But great libraries always have great librarians who engage the community and seek to identify and help fulfill the aspirations of that community.

Some folks have recently commented that in my presentations and writings I have a political agenda. They are right, but it is not what they think it is.

I believe that librarians must be political. That is they must be aware of politics, aid their members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political process. Now directors of libraries will see this as nothing new, but I believe that all librarians must be politically savvy. Why? Well, let’s start with my definition of politics: politics is the process by which a community allocates power and resources.

Now the obvious link would be thinking about politics related directly to the library. That is funding, staffing, intellectual property, and the policies that shape how the library works. However, the political nature of librarians extends far beyond the library as an institution.

If you seek to empower people, you are talking about how power is distributed throughout a community (the “power” has to come from somewhere). Take reading as an example: why do libraries care about reading? Is it because it entertains and distracts community members from how the community makes decision (i.e., reading is for consumption), or is it to enable the reader to participate within the community (i.e., reading as empowerment)? If you buy into the concept that libraries are enmeshed into the larger concept of democracy, then we are preparing people for democratic participation. That is preparing people to join the conversation of how they are governed…that is political. The same could be said of academic libraries educating students (we are preparing students to be part of a market, but also part of a society). While special libraries tend to focus on helping members participate in markets (industry), they are also preparing the corporation, or non-profit, or government to participate in governance (from lobbying, to shaping regulation).

So libraries are political entities, and librarians are political creatures. This brings us to the real concern people raise about new librarianship -that I am somehow calling for librarians to pick sides. That is that I am either calling for librarians to rally against the tea party and begin a massive campaign of wealth redistribution. Or that I am calling for librarians to take over city hall and shape a community to our vision and definitions of good. The implication is that I am calling for librarian to declare themselves as democrats, or republicans – progressives or conservatives, etc. This leads to a very real concern that in doing so libraries and librarians would lose their status as honest brokers, and so lose their support by their communities. I actually agree.
However, when I call for librarians to be political, I am not calling for them to partisan, that is picking winners and losers. If there is one thing that librarians understand, it is that the world is much more complex than that.

Librarians see many sides of one issue. They may believe strongly in a given idea, but they are open to all ideas, and at least seek the merit in them (realizing they may find none). If librarians were to become partisan, they not only threaten their ability to serve and the communities trust, they would collapse ideas down to simple black and whites and not stay true to their professional ethos.

Librarians need to engage in politics not to reinforce the divisions of us versus them and not to perpetuate all or nothing win or lose ideals. They must become engaged in politics to ease these divisions. Just as librarians facilitate knowledge creation with the individual, they must also facilitate conversations and knowledge across political ideology (I never said that would be easy). Just as we are trusted agents in the land of reading and job searches, so too must we be trusted agents in the land of power and political debate. Think of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service, State Law Libraries, and agency libraries.

Furthermore, rather than thinking of political involvement as some sort of debate at the national level, realize that political conversations occur at all levels of a community and society. From school boards, to governors, and from Wall Street to the kitchen table, librarians must bring their skills to democracy. Our job is not to win some partisan point, but to ensure the very conversation on how we govern ourselves (in the city, in the classroom, in the business) is fair, open, and informed. This conversation is the heart of democracy. Libraries need to be at the Occupy protests to ensure the power of the people, and the destruction of these libraries is either horrific ignorance, or the worst kind of cynical suppression.

I have heard a lot of talk about the “American Dream” recently. On the radio, on TV, and throughout the political discourse there are questions being raised about is the American Dream dead. Certainly this is in part a reaction to the economic times and a lack of economic mobility. It is definitely due in large part of gridlock in Washington, and an increased polarization of the political debate in the media. However, I have heard all too often that politicians are to blame – when they are there at our behest. Just as a library is product of people (community, librarians, staff), so too is our government. It is the role of librarians to first remind our communities that every citizen is responsible for the performance of our government and that the best elected government is one that is elected in the light of knowledge. This is the difference between citizen and consumer. A citizen is a participant who does not simply vote and forget.

The quest for dignity. the quest for prosperity, the quest for the American dream is neither kindled nor sustained in a mall. Freedom is not bought nor consumed. The quest for a better community and a better tomorrow requires the most fertile of grounds. Our dreams demand libraries and librarians. It is in the potent mix of ideas and reality – of the radical and the mundane – in the glow of both solitude and community – that we care take the dreams of a nation. Librarians are political because we all need to be political and join the debates of how power and resources are divided in this nation and indeed the world. Librarians, however, have a special responsibility to ensure that all participation is informed, nuanced, and ongoing.

Bullet Point: Why Publishers Need Librarians
I have been trying to write this blog post for a week. I want to say something useful in the disappearing ebook issue, but every time I start I turn myself into knots. I am a published author. I really do like the publishers that I have worked with, and think they still serve a purpose. However, what Harper Collins is doing is just – well – stupid.

So I want to publish a rant, but keep feeling like a hypocrite…my published book comes out in a few days – hell, I was a publisher when I ran an ERIC Clearinghouse. Then it hit me. Harper Collins’ move is not a stupid move, it is an unrecognized call for help (mostly unrecognized by Harper Collins). They have no idea how to work in this new open digital environment. They had a business model, skill set, and focus on books. Their customers are changing, the technology is changing, and the future is anything but clear In essence, today’s publishers are the librarians of 5 or 10 years ago.

Expiring ebooks is our equivalent of 300 item long lists of licensed databases, web links organized by Dewey, OPACs that are only open on the web from 9-5 (I’m looking at you Library of Congress). Kindle, Nooks, and iBooks are their Google – the trendy new cool kid that gets the attention, and frankly does one part of their jobs really well. The part the publishers (and librarians used to) see as central.

We shouldn’t be angry with publishers – we should help them see there is life in the digital frontier – that they can be more than their inventory. Just like us. And like us it doesn’t have to be for free (libraries are not free – members pay for them with tuition, taxes, budget lines and so on).

We need to show them that a model of cash for an item derived from artificial scarcity is a short-term business model. The long term is participation and services that helps everyone become a publisher. The value is not in the artifact, digital or analog, but in the knowledge creation process and facilitating it. The value is not in the fact that there is a book, but that that book engages a community. People will pay for the facilitation. Call it editing, production, graphic design, selection, it is all facilitation. The value isn’t in collections it is in memory. It is not in space, but in community gathering. The value isn’t in a website, it’s in what that web site allows you to do. The scarcity they need to be modeling is not in artifacts (titles), but in attention.

Publishers have a hard time ahead. Margins are shrinking, titles are proliferating, and venues to sell their wares are shrinking. eBooks as a concept are quickly disappearing in the face of “the app.” Publishers need to become developers, and community publishers, not gatekeepers, but curators (as we are learning from our museum brethren). To be sure, many publishers are already on this road. From those experimenting with open access, to those producing apps there are folks in publishers that get it. I, for one, hope they make it. I see value in the edited high-production artifact – along side the fan fiction. I see the value in an edited series where the value is in the editor and the contributing authors, not the paper – or digital file.

Librarians we need to help them out. We need to show them how to function in this new world. How libraries are an amazingly valuable physical community presence. After all, when they close the Borders down the street do you see picketers? The only signs I see are 20-30% off. When they close that Blockbusters on the corner do you get angry mobs at city council meetings? That kind of dedication doesn’t come with best sellers, it comes with dedicated professionals who are part of the community and working to improve it. As librarians need to show publishers of all stripes how openness of information helps them. How books are not information – they are tools to learning (about the world and oneself).

And if we can’t show them? Well then I ask librarians – how is tying our future, brand, and business model that has evolved and existed for over 3,000 years to one that is short term, in rapid transition, and ultimately short sighted a good idea? To read some of the blogs and articles you’d think that if the latest Dan Brown novel isn’t available through OverDrive we might as well shutter the doors. Why not go to Dan Brown and talk to him about a publishing platform where he gets 90% of book revenue and his work is guaranteed to be accessible in 100 years? Oh, and by the way marketing opportunities in every city, town, and hamlet in the country.

Of course to do this we will need to build our own publishing platform (OR PARTNER WITH PUBLISHERS WHO SEE THE LONG TERM). The hardware platforms already exists (iPad, iPhone, Android, etc). The distribution network is already there and subsidized by consumers (3G networks, WiFi). Even the standards are there (like Adobe’s ebook standards to make authors feel comfortable). We can even show, over the long term, how a new model of engagement with readers wins over DRM.

In the short term will we be low on Best Sellers? Yup. Will such a system allow for a wide range of quality in published materials? You bet. Will librarians need to work across geographical and organizational borders to get an economy of size? Absolutely.

Is there room in this world for publishers? Amazon? Apple? Barnes & Noble? Yes, but not if they see librarians as the enemy, or seek to protect an ever dwindling profit and market instead of advocating for a better future. You know what MIT Press said when I told them I wanted to co-publish with ACRL? “Great!” You know what they and ACRL said when I told them we’d give away half the book, or slim down the margins to get the cost of the book under $60? “Bring it on”. Know what they both said when I told them we were going to build an App? “How did you do that – we’d like to share?” I know there are more folks like MIT Press and ACRL out there. I see publishers of all stripes that once balked at sharing metadata, now offering full text indexing to vendors.

The next Dan Brown, or Ernest Hemingway, or Dr. Seuss might be in your library right now…what are you doing to help them find their voice in the future? What are doing to become the publisher of your community?

So what’s the action plan?

Stop talking (or forming a committee or doing an environmental scan) and start doing.

Prototype an ebook platform now. Can’t write an app? Do it in PowerPoint as screenshots. Think app, not book. Think social not bed time.

Develop a community centric acquisition policy. Do NOT do this without said community. Every library that is boycotting any publisher better have their community standing right with you. That community should be willing to forego those books in your library and their personal Kindles. Remember that authors are part of that community.

Invite the publishers to play. Know a great publisher? Give them a shout out. All my academic library brethren we need our academic presses on board.

Every dollar you don’t spend with a boycotted publisher ? Pool it together into a field wide innovation fund. $100k, and buy in by library consortia, and vendors and we have an amazing platform in three months. Project Gutenberg? Invited. HathiTrust? Invited. OCLC? Invited. Overdrive? Invited. SerialSolutions? Small Town America? State Library? MIT Press? Our Members? Invited.

Not invited? Annoyed librarians who think libraries have no power. “Publishers/Amazon/Apple/Whomever will never change” they’ll say. Just like Music companies will never get rid of DRM or movie studios will never agree to stream movies. Times change. But not on their own. WE MUST CHANGE THEM! YOU must change them.

One of the first times I presented the mission of librarians as improving society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities a publisher said that it could stand for his organization as well. I agree, but only if we truly share the same commitment to improve society. The same commitment to knowledge and most of all community. A community is not a set of customers. A community is a set of participants and members always learning and always creating, not mindlessly consuming – wallets with a face (or a borrower with a library card).

Librarians it is time for us to serve by innovating and leading!