The Atlas of New Librarianship to be Published by MIT Press and ACRL

I’ve made a few allusions to my next book in my presentations, and even posted a picture of the draft here. Now that it is official I’d like to be a bit more specific.

The Atlas of New Librarianship will be published in Spring 2011 by MIT Press and is co-published by ACRL. The Atlas is a thorough discussion of librarianship developed around the concept of “participatory librarianship.” The central concepts of participatory librarianship have not changed – that conversation and knowledge are core to all that librarians do. However, while you will read a great deal about participation, you will not see many specific references to “participatory librarianship.” This is intentional.

While modifiers and titles are useful in gaining attention, the ultimate success of any idea is the loss of a modifier. “Virtual reference” becomes simply “reference” when the ideas put forth are widely incorporated throughout practice. “Digital libraries” are quickly becoming simply “libraries” as they become integrated into the larger organizations and collections of a library. So too must participatory librarianship, if it is to be successful, become part of the overall concept of librarianship.

The library field is searching for solid footing in an increasingly fragmented information environment. As technology changes, budgets shrink, and use demographics fluctuate what can help guide librarians to continued relevancy and success? The answer must go beyond Web 2.0, or technological landmarks and provide a fundamental and durable foundation for the field. What is the role of a librarian in a space with no collections – or walls? How do we prepare the next generation of librarians? The Atlas seeks to answer these questions.

The Atlas represents a new understanding of librarianship based on work with organizations such as the American Library Association, OCLC, The U.S. Department of Justice Law Libraries, the Free Library of Philadelphia, and the State Library of Illinois. It is founded on the basic concept that knowledge is created through conversation; libraries being in the knowledge business are therefore in the conversation business. This concept, grounded in theory, leads to a new mission for librarians:

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

This implications, foundations, and application of this mission is discussed and detailed in the Atlas.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain the Atlas is by showing how it can be applied, as I have done in some recent presentations:

Excerpt from Charleston Conference 2009:

Excerpt from Pennsylvania District Library Keynote:

In addition to a full-color 10″x10″ print version of the book, we are creating an online companion site to foster ongoing conversations around the foundations of librarianship. More details on that to come.

A special thanks to all of those instrumental in writing this including Buffy Hamilton, Megan Oakleaf, Scott Nicholson, Jill Hurst-Wahl, Michael Luther, Todd Marshall, Angela Usha Ramnarine-Rieks, Heather Margaret Highfield, Jessica R. O’Toole, and Xiaoou Cheng and so many many more. Also thanks to all my early reviewers who gave me great feedback.

Bullet Point: Senator Joke

A state senator was driving home late one night when he realized he forgot to pick up a book his wife had needed the next day for an event. Having already passed several closed book stores he spied an open public library.

He was nervous entering the library because he had gained some fame in proposing library budget cuts, and had once called for the outright elimination of public libraries. He was quickly put at ease when the library director greeted him warmly and asked how she could be of assistance. The senator told her the name of the book he needed, and the director looked up the call number, ushered him to the book, and then checked it out and sent him on his to his wife with a smile.

Afterwards a librarian approached the director and asked “do you know who that was?”

“Yes” said the director.

“Then how could you be so nice and help him?” asked the librarian.

“I didn’t help him.” said the director.

“Of course you did, you found the book and helped him check it out.”

“If I really was helping him,” said the director “I would have told him about the lipstick on his collar.”

Beyond the Bullet Point: Information Organization and Non-Linearity

OK, so I want you to watch this cool video from Pandora. But before you do, a bit about why.

I talk a lot about how how people organize things is unique. How i would put ten books on the shelf, or songs into my play lists, or CD’s in my car, are not necessarily the same way you would. That’s because the way things are related is not prescribed by the things being organized, but by my way of thinking, which is influenced by how I know things. It’s why organizational schema like DDC and LC just aren’t universal. You have to learn them, and even then, it can be VERY confusing.

Furthermore it is the relationship between items that is as if not more important than the way we describe things themselves. So the fact that Mt. Everest is 29,029 feet tall only takes on real meaning when related to the fact that the plane I am using to fly over it only goes up to 29,000 feet. This is why keywords and tags are so problematic…they lack connective tissue.

These ideas are behind things like Scapes and Reference Extract and play a big role in the whole New Librarianship thing. It is also why I say we should scrap catalogs and start fresh not with inventory systems, but with knowledge discovery and building systems.

Anyway, the video. I’m always looking for good examples of this sort of organziationa nd discovery by relation. I think Pandora has done a brilliant job:

By the way, this is also an excellent example of why cataloging is not the ony way to organize information. These are the kind of tools and connections that librarians should be making…or at the very least aware of. Imagine how your music collection might look using these kind of tools. Take all your music, plug it into Pandora and see what kind of recommendations it pops out for your next acquisition.

Bullet Point: Dear Google, you too need to talk to librarians

So the Buzz on Google Buzz is decidedly not so good. I’m not going to spend any time on features, or impact, or the idea of integrating social networks with email. This has all been nicely covered elsewhere. Instead, what caught my eye was a decidedly and deservedly profane piece I read on Gizmodo titled “F*ck You, Google.” Be warned, the * is not used throughout the piece, but read it anyway.

The gist of the piece is a mid-twenties woman who has worked hard to protect her identity as she blogs about issues she cares deeply about, and can draw some very unwanted attention from the wrong people. Buzz is thrust upon her and her first friend, automatically now seeing her other friends, and RSS annotations through Google Reader. Worse still she now is friends with commentors on her “anonymous” blog because she routed mail to her blog to her GMail account.

OK, so this would seem like a straight line that Google needs to talk about librarians because we care about privacy. But the real thing I’d like you to think about is that librarians need to talk about privacy to our members in a much more forceful and complex way. How many workshops and discussions do you have with members about Facebook’s privacy filters (probably a bunch), and how many do you have with them about the potential dangers of this kind of information in the hand of third parties and the long term implications of cloud computing (probably fewer)? Do you ever help members do a privacy audit where you walk them through their online life and point out potential issues and problems? Are you ready to do that?

I have met too many librarians who take a myopic approach to privacy. That is, privacy is so important to our members that we don’t even let them decide what information to keep or share. We just wipe all our records after some time so they don’t get caught up in the Patriot Act web. What’s worse, we feel that by creating an environment that protects privacy (by eliminating choice) we are protecting the members, when in fact the information they would expose to us is so inconsequential compared to their other activities it almost doesn’t matter.

Does it matter that we delete any identifying information on our systems when every keystroke they send to our sites can be captured by their Internet service providers? In fact we may be creating an illusion of privacy that does our members a disservice. We must not have a black and white approach to privacy – either you have it or you don’t. Instead we need to learn from Google Buzz that the best of intensions, without a matched deep understanding of the complexities of interconnected systems, can lead to disaster.

This also means that you need to have a pretty sophisticated technical understanding of cloud computing and interconnected systems…not to be a techy, but to implement your values.

Rather than waiting for Google to provide object lessons, we need to see our environments (physical spaces, online services, etc.) as a place that protects privacy by exposing complexities and education, not by creating an air of anonymity. By being active and activists in the area of privacy (not removing the choice) we do our members more good. We also have a stronger position to knock on the door of Google and say we are nervous and here to help.

So while I’m on the Buzz subject I have some more unrelated questions:

1. As a librarian when you heard about Buzz did you first ask yourself how can I use it to promote the library instead of, what are the implications of this tool for my members?

2. When you look at Buzz do you ask yourself how can Google make this better, or how can librarians do it better?

Just some thoughts for a winter day.