The New “Hip” Profession
Although librarians are now associated with technology and digital information, many (very many) people think of librarians as glorified secretaries or teacher’s assistants who are obsessed with citations, references and call numbers, and whose great goal in life is to work in dusty places and “shush” people. But, according to the New York Times, a hipper crowd of “shushers” is quietly emerging.
A Hipper Crowd of Shushers
Michael Nagle for The New York Times
EAT, DRINK, BE LITERARY From left, Jessica Pigza, Maria Falgoust, Jeff Buckley and Sarah Murphy at a social event for librarians where the author Robert Sullivan, far right, spoke.
ON a Sunday night last month at Daddy’s, a bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, more than a dozen people in their 20s and 30s gathered at a professional soiree, drinking frozen margaritas and nibbling store-bought cookies. With their thrift-store inspired clothes and abundant tattoos, they looked as if they could be filmmakers, Web designers, coffee shop purveyors or artists.
Michael Temchine for The New York Times
A NEW SPIN
An interest in social activism and music led Pete Welsch, a D.J., to library school.
When talk turned to a dance party the group had recently given at a nearby restaurant, their profession became clearer.
“Did you try the special drinks?” Sarah Gentile, 29, asked Jennifer Yao, 31, referring to the colorfully named cocktails.
“I got the Joy of Sex,” Ms. Yao replied. “I thought for sure it was French Women Don’t Get Fat.”
Ms. Yao could be forgiven for being confused: the drink was numbered and the guests had to guess the name. “613.96 C,” said Ms. Yao, cryptically, then apologized: “Sorry if I talk in Dewey.”
That would be the Dewey Decimal System. The groups’ members were librarians. Or, in some cases, guybrarians.
“He hates being called that,” said Sarah Murphy, one of the evening’s organizers and a founder of the Desk Set, a social group for librarians and library students.
Ms. Murphy was speaking of Jeff Buckley, a reference librarian at a law firm, who had a tattoo of the logo from the Federal Depository Library Program peeking out of his black T-shirt sleeve.
Librarians? Aren’t they supposed to be bespectacled women with a love of classic books and a perpetual annoyance with talkative patrons — the ultimate humorless shushers?
Not any more. With so much of the job involving technology and with a focus now on finding and sharing information beyond just what is available in books, a new type of librarian is emerging — the kind that, according to the Web site Librarian Avengers, is “looking to put the ‘hep cat’ in cataloguing.”
When the cult film “Party Girl” appeared in 1995, with Parker Posey as a night life impresario who finds happiness in the stacks, the idea that a librarian could be cool was a joke.
Now, there is a public librarian who writes dispatches for McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, a favored magazine of the young literati. “Unshelved,” a comic about librarians — yes, there is a comic about librarians — features a hipster librarian character. And, in real life, there are an increasing number of librarians who are notable not just for their pink-streaked hair but also for their passion for pop culture, activism and technology.
“We’re not the typical librarians anymore,” said Rick Block, an adjunct professor at the Long Island University Palmer School and at the Pratt Institute School of Information and Library Science, both graduate schools for librarians, in New York City.
“When I was in library school in the early ’80s, the students weren’t as interesting,” Mr. Block said.
Since then, however, library organizations have been trying to recruit a more diverse group of students and to mentor younger members of the profession.
“I think we’re getting more progressive and hipper,” said Carrie Ansell, a 28-year-old law librarian in Washington.
In the last few years, articles have decried the graying of the profession, noting a large percentage of librarians that would soon be retiring and a seemingly insurmountable demand for replacements. But worries about a mass exodus appear to have been unfounded.
Michele Besant, the librarian at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the Association of Library and Information Science statistics show a steady increase in library information science enrollments over the last 10 years. Further, at hers and other schools there is a trend for students to be entering masters programs at a younger age.
The myth prevails that librarians are becoming obsolete. “There’s Google, no one needs us,” Ms. Gentile said, mockingly, over a drink at Daddy’s.
Still, these are high-tech times. Why are people getting into this profession when libraries seem as retro as the granny glasses so many of the members of the Desk Set wear?
“Because it’s cool,” said Ms. Gentile, who works at the Brooklyn Museum.
Ms. Murphy, 29, thinks so, too. An actress who had long considered library school, Ms. Murphy finally decided to sign up after meeting several librarians — in bars.
“People I, going in, would never have expected were from the library field,” she said. “Smart, well-read, interesting, funny people, who seemed to be happy with their jobs.”
Maria Falgoust, 31, is also a founder of Desk Set, which took its name from the 1957 Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy romantic comedy. A student who works part time at the library at Saint Ann’s School, she was inspired to become a librarian by a friend, a public librarian who works with teenagers and goes to rock shows regularly.
Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
SOCIAL BOOKWORMS
Maria Falgoust helped start Desk Set to meet like-minded librarians.
Since matriculating to Palmer, Ms. Falgoust has met plenty of other like-minded librarians at places such as Brooklyn Label, a restaurant, and at Punk Rope, an exercise class. “They’re everywhere you go,” she said.
Especially in Greenpoint, where Ms. Murphy and Ms. Falgoust live about 10 blocks from each other and where there are, Ms. Falgoust said, about 13 other librarians in the neighborhood.
How did such a nerdy profession become cool — aside from the fact that a certain amount of nerdiness is now cool? Many young librarians and library professors said that the work is no longer just about books but also about organizing and connecting people with information, including music and movies.
And though many librarians say that they, like nurses or priests, are called to the profession, they also say the job is stable, intellectually stimulating and can have reasonable hours — perfect for creative types who want to pursue their passions outside of work and don’t want to finance their pursuits by waiting tables. (The median salary for librarians was about $51,000 in 2006, according to the American Library Association-Allied Professional Organization.)
“I wanted to do something different, something maybe more meaningful,” said Carrie Klein, 36, who used to be a publicist for a record label and for bands such as Radiohead and the Foo Fighters, but is now starting a new job in the library at Entertainment Weekly.
Michelle Campbell, 26, a librarian in Washington, said that librarianship is a haven for left-wing social engagement, which is particularly appealing to the young librarians she knows. “Especially those of us who graduated around the same time as the Patriot Act,” Ms. Campbell said. “We see what happens when information is restricted.”
Ms. Campbell added that she became a librarian because it “combined a geeky intellectualism” with information technology skills and social activism.
Jessamyn West, 38, an editor of “Revolting Librarians Redux: Radical Librarians Speak Out” a book that promotes social responsibility in librarianship, and the librarian behind the Web site librarian.net (its tagline is “putting the rarin’ back in librarian since 1999”) agreed that many new librarians are attracted to what they call the “Library 2.0” phenomenon. “It’s become a techie profession,” she said.
In a typical day, Ms. West might send instant and e-mail messages to patrons, many of who do their research online rather than in the library. She might also check Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites, post to her various blogs and keep current through MetaFilter and RSS feeds. Some librarians also create Wikis or podcasts.
At the American Librarian Association’s annual conference last month in Washington, there were display tables of graphic novels, manga and comic books. In addition to a panel called “No Shushing Required,” there were sessions on social networking and zines and one called “Future Friends: Marketing Reference and User Services to Generation X.”
On a Saturday, after a day of panels, a group of librarians relaxed and danced at Selam Restaurant. Sarah Mercure nursed a blueberry vodka and cranberry juice and talked about deciding on her career after hearing a librarian who curated a zine collection speak. Pete Welsch, a D.J., spun records and talked about how his interest in social activism, film and music led him to library school.
But some librarians have found the job can be at odds with their outside cultural interests.
“I went to see a band a few weeks ago with old co-workers and turned to one and said ‘Is it just me or is this really, really loud?’ ” said Ms. Klein, the former publicist. Her friend, she said, “laughed and said, ‘You have librarian ears now.’ ”
a HIP librarian. And another one… 
Reference Desk
Those of you who subscribe to COLLIB-L might be familiar with this thread. Just in case you’re not, I’ve cut and pasted the posts that get to the point.
A.K.
_______________________________________
MJ Snyder wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about getting rid of reference desks on various listservs. However, we are a small college that has a heavy focus on attention to the individual student, so getting rid of the desk is not an option for us. We did a number of surveys this past semester and I am frustrated with the number of students saying they couldn’t find something or were lost in our library (which is not terribly large), yet we have so few questions at the reference desk.
Has anyone successfully improved their reference desk statistics? How was it done? Marketing the desk, sinage, participating in extra-curricular activities, or something else? This is one of my biggest goals for the next school year and I will appreciate any help you might offer. Please reply off-list to snyderm@lycoming.edu. Thank you very much!
Mary Snyder
Instructional Services Librarian
Lycoming College
Williamsport, PA
Here at P.I.T. we are all very focused on our students and meeting their individual needs. Even though this is a small library, I really don’t want to eliminate our reference desk (unless space restrictions forced it as happened at my last position). Our reference desk is located at the opposite end of the library from my office. As you enter the library, the reference desk is directly in front of you. Since I haven’t been able to figure out a better arrangement for the area, I’ve tried to make it as friendly as possible.
Like others I do put out hard candy (that sometimes disappears less than 2 minutes after I put it out. Several of our students will actually bring the empty bowl to me!) When my reference librarian isn’t here (he’s only part time) I actually place a sign on the desk to remind people that I’m available in my office – with arrows pointing in the direction of my office. Of course, when I choose to work at that desk, I take the sign away and put out my name plate. Because of various “rebuilding/rejuvenating” projects, I do need to work in my office a lot. I also make a point of walking around the library to check for people having problems or just to make sure that everything is okay. Whenever I can, I’ll sit at the study tables that overlook the rest of the library which are just outside my office. It lets me see what’s going on and lets the students see me while I still get paperwork finished. We also moved our photocopier to a location immediately outside my office – one of those we had to move it and this is the only place, but look how well it worked out changes.
As numerous others have commented, I make every effort to get myself or my reference librarian into as many classes as I can to meet the students, help them discover what the library has for them to use, and to work with the faculty. Because we are so small, we actually have to close the library to other students when we hold our Information Literacy workshops. I always point out to the students that for that class period, library is all their’s and that I am focusing only on them. I also encourage them to ask me for assistance when they need it after the class is over and that includes pointing out where my office is so that they can find me. If takes very little time for them to feel comfortable approaching me in my office. I also made a point of arranging my office so that a student approaches me from the side of my desk, not the front.
Additionally, I pay attention to how long students are in the library each day. I ask them about how classes are going and even try to get to know some of their schedules. Yes, sometimes I’m even telling an individual student “Its 11:00 and I know you have class. Get yourself there! NOW!” I talk to them in the halls. I drag them into the business office to carry boxes for me (yes they do it willingly). I fuss at them for destroying their hearing by playing music too loud – BUT I also invested in headphones for every computer. Students, faculty and staff all eat in the same cafeteria – standing in line together really helps them to see you as normal person that they can relate to and who can relate to them. We do whatever we can to help them realize that we want them to succeed and we’re willing to assist them in that process.
Yes, our students do come to us at the reference desk and I don’t want to lose that common location, but we also work each semester to teach them that they can approach us for assistance anywhere.
Lynea Anderman
Director of the Library
Pennsylvania Institute of Technology
800 Manchester Avenue
Media , PA 19063-4098
Mary:
I do like Walt’s suggestion – give ‘em food.
But otherwise it sounds like you are intent on hammering a round peg nto a square hole.
Things are broken in the library and on our systems – so they can’t
find things or are lost? So rather than identify the systemic nature of the problems in order to resolve them, let’s figure out how to get more people to ask questions that they should be able to answer intuitively if things worked correctly in the first place. That’s not intended as a criticism of your library – it’s a problem many of us share.
You say:
we are a small college that has a heavy focus on
attention to the individual student, so getting rid of the desk is not
an option for us.
But if you are small and focus on personal attention – why is the desk the solution – which is largely impersonal (two strangers).
Rather than trying to boost ref stats, I’d be trying to increase the
number of personal research consultations between students and
librarians. Where does this start? By having an instruction program in place that gets librarians into classrooms so that students begin to
learn there are people (librarians) that can give them personal
attention when they need research help. And if faculty know who the librarians are and tell students to go talk to them – that really helps.
That seems like a better model for a small institution that places a
premium on personalized service.
************************
Steven Bell
bells@temple.edu
Steven makes a good point. We’ve worked hard to get faculty to work with us and book instruction sessions. This past year saw some good growth in the number of adjuncts using our services, thanks to the partnership we’ve developed with the new chair of the Humanities Division. We’re now working on a similar program with our Nursing & Allied Health Division.
But I do think it’s worth trying to get students who come into the
library to remember that the staff is there to help them. If we are
sufficiently visible, available, and proactive, the students are less
likely to simply allow frustration to drive them out of the library with their needs unmet.
Lots of people like to talk about going where the users are. Well, some of ‘em are actually in the library!
James Feagin, Director
Library, Learning Technologies & Theater
Hagerstown Community College
11400 Robinwood Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21742
(301) 790-2800 x230 voice
(301) 393-3681 fax
feaginj@hagerstowncc.edu
A Rebuttal
A friend e-mailed me an article by Will Sherman that responds to the grim future predictor from LISNews in a more optimistic way. I’m with this guy.
Are Librarians Totally Obsolete?
Published on Tuesday January 30th , 2007
33 Reasons Why Libraries and Librarians are Still Extremely Important
by: Will Sherman
Many predict that the digital age will wipe public bookshelves clean, and permanently end the centuries-old era of libraries. Technology’s baffling prowess and progress even has one librarian predicting the institution’s demise.
He could be right.
But if he is, then the loss will be irreplaceable. As libraries’ relevance comes into question, they face an existential crisis at a time they are perhaps needed the most. Despite their perceived obsoleteness in the digital age both libraries – and librarians – are irreplaceable for many reasons. 33, in fact. We’ve listed them here:
1. Not everything is available on the internet
The amazing amount of useful information on the web has, for some, engendered the false assumption everything can be found online. It’s simply not true.
Google Book Search recognizes this. That’s why they’re taking on the monolith task of digitizing millions of books from the World’s largest libraries. But even if Google does successfully digitize the sum of human knowledge, it is unlikely that the sum of contemporary authors and publishers will not allow their works to be freely accessible over the internet. It is already prohibited by law to make copyrighted books fully accessible through Google Book Search; only snippets. And it’ll be a long time before that must-read New York Times bestseller gets put up for free on the internet: current copyright law protects works for 70 years beyond the death of the author.
Even some public domain works are off limits. If an out-of-copyright copy includes prefaces, introductions, or appendices that are still in copyright, the whole work falls under copyrighted status.
2. Digital libraries are not the internet
A fundamental understanding of what the internet is – and what it isn’t – can help more clearly define what a library is, and why libraries are still extremely important.
The Elmer E. Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks clearly spells out the difference between “Online Collections” and the “Internet or Web Sources”. The internet, this site explains, is a mass of largely unpublished materials produced by organizations, businesses, individuals, experimental projects, entrepreneurial webmasters, etc.
“Online Collections”, however, are different. They are typically provided by libraries and include materials that have been published via rigorous editorial processes. Works selected for inclusion in a library catalogue undergo vetting from qualified staff. Types of materials include books, journals, documents, newspapers, magazines and reports which are digitized, stored and indexed through a limited-access database.
While one might use the internet or a search engine to find these databases, deeper access to them requires registration. You are still online, but you are no longer on the internet. You are in a library.
3. The internet isn’t free
While Project Gutenberg boasts 20,000 free, downloadable eBooks on its homepage, we are promptly reminded that these books are only accessible because they are no longer in copyright.
And books are just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous academic research papers, journals and other important materials are virtually inaccessible to someone seeking to pull them off the web for free. Rather, access is restricted to expensive subscription accounts, which are typically paid for by libraries. Visiting the library in person, or logging in to the library through your member account, is therefore the only way to affordably access necessary archived resources.
4. The internet complements libraries, but it doesn’t replace them
To guide people in finding information, the Long Island University provides a helpful explanation of what types of resources can be accessed through the library. These include news, journals, books and other resources.
Interestingly, the World Wide web is among these resources as yet another approach to finding information. But it’s not a replacement. The page goes on to differentiate and explain the advantages of libraries over the internet for research. It does cite the benefits of the internet, including “sampling public opinion”, gathering “quick facts” and “a wide range of ideas”. Overall, the point is well made: libraries are completely different institutions from the web. In this light, to talk about one replacing the other begins to seem absurd.
5. School Libraries and Librarians Improve Student Test Scores
A 2005 study of the Illinois School Libraries shows that students who frequently visit well-stocked and well-staffed school libraries end up with higher ACT scores and perform better on reading and writing exams.
Interestingly, the study points out that access digital technology plays a strong role in test results, noting that “high schools with computers that connect to library catalogs and databases average 6.2% improvement on ACT scores”.
6. Digitization Doesn’t Mean Destruction
The eagerness with which libraries have jumped into partnership with Google Book Search is not the work of a lemming mentality. Libraries including Oxford University, University of Michigan, Harvard, the Complutense University in Madrid, the New York Public Library, the University of Texas, the University of California and many others have teamed up with the Google’s project, not eschewed it.
In return for opening up their stacks, these libraries will have all their books electronically available for their own members. While it can be expected that fully out-of-copyright books will, on many occasions, be made fully accessible to the public, copyrighted materials – including subscription journals – will still be kept under restricted access.
The reason for this is in part because Google Book Search’s indemnity clauses don’t reach that far; Google Book Search won’t shield libraries from any liability that they might incur for overstepping the bounds of copyright. And there’s a real cause for caution – Google Book Search is currently facing two major lawsuits from authors and publishers.
7. In fact, digitization means survival
Daniel Greenstein of the University of California cites a very practical reason for digitizing books: in electronic form, books aren’t vulnerable to natural disasters or pulverization that comes with age. He even cites the libraries destroyed by Hurricane Katrina as an important reminder of the vulnerability of “cultural memory”.
8. Digitization is going to take a while. A long while.
While book search has developed the air of an unstoppable movement rapidly breaking down library walls and exposing untouched treasure troves, it is breathtakingly far from reaching its goal. With an estimated 100 million books in print since the invention of movable type , the process has hardly made headway. Digitizing is expensive and complicated, and so far Google’s million books digitized is just a drop in the bucket. “The majority of Information”, said Jens Redmer, Google Book Search’s European director, “lies outside the internet”.
But how long will it take to index the world’s knowledge? In 2002, Larry Page boasted that Google could digitize approximately seven million books in six years. Since 2004 Google Book Search has been plugging along through a series of fits and starts. By 2007, they have managed to index a million books. So, at the rate of approximately half a million books per year, digitizing 100 million books would take about…200 years. Assuming Google could shake off the legal and logistical challenges and crank out 7 million books every 6 years, the earliest possible completion date would still be 2092.
In the meantime, a larger user base will rely on local libraries, or online collections of what have been digitized. Dumping physical libraries before digitization is complete would leave library patrons in the lurch.
9. Libraries aren’t just books
Technology is integrating itself into the library system, not bulldozing it. Pushing this trend to its logical extreme (although it’s likely not to happen), we could eventually see libraries’ entire stacks relegated to databases, and have books only accessible digitally. So where does that leave librarians? Are they being overtaken by technology, the timeless enemy of labor?
Technology is integrating itself into the library system, not bulldozing it. Pushing this trend to its logical extreme (although it’s likely not go this far), we could eventually see libraries’ entire stacks relegated to databases, and only be able to access books digitally.
So where does that leave librarians? Are they being overtaken by technology, the timeless enemy of labor?
Not this time. In fact, technology is revealing that the real work of librarians is not just placing books on bookshelves. Rather, their work involves guiding and educating visitors on how to find information, regardless of whether it is in book or digital form. Technology provides better access to information, but it is a more complex tool, often requiring specialized know-how. This is a librarian’s specialty, as they dedicate themselves to learning the most advanced techniques to help visitors access information effectively. It’s in their job description.
10. Mobile devices aren’t the end of books, or libraries
Predictions of the End of the Book are a predictable response to digitization and other technologies, and the crystal ball of some in the pro-paper crowd seems to also reveal a concomitant crumbling of civilization.
One of the latest dark threats to paper (and society) seems to be Google’s plan to make e-books downloadable to mobile devices. The iPod version of the novel is here. Google has already scanned a million books. Japanese train commuters are reading entire bestsellers on their cell phones. The end is near.
But if the mobile e-book is a hit and a lasting phenomenon, it’s unlikely that they will be an all-consuming transition for readers. Radio lives on despite TV, film is still in high demand despite video, people still talk on the telephone despite email. People who like paper books will continue to read paper books…even if mobile downloads prompt the majority of publishers to release e-books instead of paper. After all, an immense backlog of printed books will still be accessible to readers.
Where do libraries fit in supposing that mobile e-books actually do completely overtake printed books, the presence of the digital library will continue to be extremely important, whether it’s paper or electronically based.
11. The hype might really just be hype
Paper books aren’t exactly doomed, even years after the invention of the e-book. In fact, by contrasting the merits of the e-book to those of the paper book, one could argue that paper books are actually a better product.
It would be premature to write off libraries and their freely accessible books amidst predictions of e-books’ impending prominence. Society could lose valuable access to a trusted medium – even if e-books do take off.
12. Library attendance isn’t falling – it’s just more virtual now
With approximately 50,000 visitors a year, attendance at the American History Archives at Wisconsin Historical Society has dropped 40% since 1987. This statistic, when set alone, may prove sufficient for anybody casually predicting the Collapse of the Library. But it is only half the story. The archives have also been digitized and placed online. Every year the library receives 85,000 unique online visitors. The number of online schools offering online degrees is constantly on the rise as well. Many of these schools are improving their virtual libraries by the day.
13. Like businesses, digital libraries still need human staffing
Even online businesses rely on quality support for better sales and customer satisfaction. The availability of email, phone and live chat services improve the experience of people seeking goods and services. The same goes for people seeking information.
In return for paying taxes or library fees packaged with University tuition, library members should expect reliable “customer support” in exchange for their dues.
Librarians are indeed very important in servicing their visitors. And still today there is no equivalent replacement to the library, which provides access to mountains of content that is not available through search engines or even Google Books Search, which only provides snippets and links to retailers where books can be bought.
14. We just can’t count on physical libraries disappearing
Physical libraries won’t ever go away. Even as Google Book Search picks up the pace and libraries finance their own digitization projects, the future of physical library space continues to be necessary.
This is because many libraries aren’t digitizing yet and many may never digitize. There’s a good reason: it’s expensive. At a low estimate of $10 per book (and probably much more for older, more delicate works), digitizing an entire library of, say, more than 10,000 books – well, it adds up. And for many library users, they still depend on this traditional, effective approach to pinpointing information with onsite computers or librarians available to assist them.
15. Google Book Search “don’t work”
If a Google-style indexing of all the world’s books were to mirror the company’s well-known search service, one might have that much more fodder for the argument against keeping libraries around. After all, Google has great technology for searching the web, right? Couldn’t we just bypass libraries?
But experts point out that Google Book Search is far off from such user-friendliness as experienced with the company’s internet search service. The lofty ideals of information-for-everybody are hindered not only by copyright lawsuits, but by the Google’s own desire to be top dog. They’re not about to hand over their index to other competitors, like Microsoft, Yahoo!, Amazon and other non-partnered digitizing projects. The user loses out by not being able to access everything through his or her preferred book search service.
By not giving up digital archives to their competitors, companies that take this competitive, corporate approach to digitization risk veering off the map, away from the philosophy of the public library. In the meantime, libraries should remain in tact and available to the general public.
16. Physical libraries can adapt to cultural change
The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) is just one among countless groups that study and debate the evolving role of the physical library in the digital age. In a 2006 symposium the NCLIS created a report that calls for a refining of what physical library space is. Less like “warehouses”, was one of the conclusions, and more like “intellectual crossroads for working, learning, teaching, and new types of programs.”
17. Physical libraries are adapting to cultural change
Anyone subscribing to the theories of 20th century thinker Marshal McLuhan might say that along with changed life patterns brought on by electronic technology, knowledge that was once encased in books and compartmentalized by subject area is now being liberally disseminated in an explosion of democracy, rendering obsolete the austerity of the lonely, echoing corridors of the Library. Interestingly McLuhan, who died in 1980, once even said: “the future of the book is the blurb”.
Indeed, this cultural change predates widespread use of the internet, as well as Google Book Search. For decades society has been seeking a more holistic understanding of the world, and increased access to information. The search for new methods of organizing educational structures (including libraries) has long been active. And while libraries might not be on many peoples’ “Top Ten Cutting Edge List”, they have been adapting.
Washington State University director of libraries Virginia Steel, for example, is a proponent of maximizing the social and interactive nature of physical library space. Group study, art exhibits, food and coffee – talking, not whispering; this is the new library. It’s not obsolete, it’s just changing.
18. Eliminating libraries would cut short an important process of cultural evolution
The library that we are most familiar with today – a public or academic institution that lends out books for free – is a product of the democratization of knowledge. In the old days, books weren’t always so affordable, and private libraries, or book clubs, were a privilege of the rich. This started changing during the 1800’s, with more public libraries popping up and the invention of the Dewey Decimal Classification system to standardize the catalogues and indexes.
Libraries began blossoming under the watch of President Franklin Roosevelt, in part as a tool to differentiate the United States from book-burning Nazis. This increased interest in building a more perfect, liberal society culminated in 1956 with the Library Services Act, which introduced federal funding for the first time. Today there are tens of thousands public libraries in the United States. (More info on the history of libraries here).
19. The internet isn’t DIY
It could be said that the internet has endowed society with a giddy sense of independence. Access to all the world’s information – and free search engines to browse it with – calls into question the need for a librarians, moderators or other such middlemen; the web, it might seem, is a do-it-yourself medium.
But a quick look at the driving forces of today’s internet shows us something different. The internet is intensely social and interactive, and has created communities of users that are often remarkably as tight-knit as they are large. The internet is serving as a tool for humans to fulfill their natural community building instincts – sharing, interacting and doing business.
The online economy is driven in large part by the web 2.0 philosophy of human interaction, peer review and the democratization of knowledge and analysis. Search engines rank web pages based on their popularity, social networking platforms pull in millions of visitors daily and the internet’s most popular encyclopedia is written by the same people who read it.
Like Wikipedia, the most popular online meeting grounds are often the best moderated. Since riff-raff and spammers are an inevitable part of any society (whether physical or virtual), quality control helps contribute to the best online experiences. Good citizenship among online communities (intelligently contributing to the discussion, not spamming) is a surefire way to bolster your reputation as a helpful member of the group. In order to be fostered, this type of environment must be moderated.
Interestingly, the role of the moderator very much parallels the role of the librarian: to safeguard an environment in which knowledge can be accessed and ideas can be shared.
The notion that libraries are a thing of the past and that humankind has sprouted wings and flown into a new era of self-guided Truth is nothing short of farcical. Unfortunately, it’s this same notion that could lead to the dismemberment of libraries as stuffy and out-of-date. In reality, the quality of the web depends on guidance from the academic, library model. While moderators do have brush to clear in the new and savage cyber-scape, librarians have trail blazed significant parts of the journey.
20. Wisdom of crowds is untrustworthy, because of the tipping point
The high visibility of certain viewpoints, analysis and even facts found online through social networking sites and wikis is engineered – ideally – to be the result of objective group consensus. Google’s algorithm also hinges on this collective principle: rather than an in-house “expert” arbitrarily deciding what resource is the most authoritative, let the web decide. Sites with higher link popularity tend to rank higher in the search engines. The algorithm is based on the principle that group consensus reveals a better, more accurate analysis of reality than a single expert ever could. Writer James Surowiecki calls this phenomenon “the wisdom of crowds.”
In a vacuum, crowds probably are very wise. But all too often we see the caveat to James Surowiecki’s crowd wisdom in Malcom Gladwell’s “tipping point”, which, in this context, explains that groups are easily influenced by their vanguard – those who are the first to do something and who automatically have extra influence, even if what they are doing is not necessarily the best idea.
The highly social nature of the web therefore makes it highly susceptible to, for example, sensationalized, low-quality information with the sole merit of being popular. Libraries, in contrast, provide quality control in the form of a stopgap. Only information that is carefully vetted is allowed in. Libraries are likely to stay separate from the internet, even if they can be found online. Therefore, it is extremely important that libraries remain alive and well, as a counterpoint to the fragile populism of the web.
21. Librarians are the irreplaceable counterparts to web moderators
Individuals who voluntarily devote their time to moderating online forums and wikis are playing a similar role to librarians who oversee the stacks – and those who visit the stacks.
The chief difference between librarians and moderators is that while the former guides users through a collection of highly authoritative, published works, the moderator is responsible for taking the helm as consensus is created. While the roles are distinct, each is evolving along with the fast paced growth of the internet and the evolving nature of libraries. Both moderators and librarians will have a lot to learn from each other, so it is important that they both stick around.
22. Unlike moderators, librarians must straddle the line between libraries and the internet
Admittedly, libraries are no longer both the beginning and ending point of all scholarly research. The internet is effectively pulling students away from the stacks and revealing a wealth of information, especially to one who is equipped with the tools to find it. Indeed, the dream of cutting out the middleman is possible to attain. But at what price?
Media literacy, although an extremely important asset for scholars and researchers, is far from universal. Who is going to teach media literacy? Many argue that librarians are the best fit to educate people about the web.
After all, web moderators are concerned primarily with the environment which they oversee and less so with teaching web skills to strangers. Teachers and professors are busy with their subjects and specializations. Librarians, therefore, must be the ones who cross over into the internet to make information more easily accessible. Instead of eliminating the need for librarians, technology is reinforcing their validity.
23. The internet is a mess
As one pro-librarian website puts it, “The internet in very few ways resembles a library. A library provides a clear, standardized set of easily retrievable resources”.
Despite the slightly combative nature of this one-liner, its premise is essentially correct. Despite improvements in search technology and the creation of amazingly comprehensive sites like Wikipedia, the internet is still, in many ways, a free-for-all. Flooded with sites from all sorts of sources that inexplicably languish about or jockey for top positions in the rankings, the web is like an overpopulated Wild West. Many have taken confronted this chaos with grass-roots social networking sites or large, complex and highly successful efforts to organized information (Google, Wikipedia, et al). But despite these efforts, a morass of questionable pages still tends to be served up in many search results, and the credibility of each source accessed must inherently come into question.
Not that that’s a bad thing. The oceans of information, uncertainty and spontaneity on the web can provide an exciting, enriching experience. But if you need to limit your search to logically indexed resources that have been published and then vetted by a professional staff, then the library is still your best bet.
24. The internet is subject to manipulation
As long as the bright minds behind Google are coming up with a better search algorithm, the bright minds of search engine optimizers will continue to crack it. This could involve conforming to Google’s quality standards or, in many cases, skirting around them. It is important for the user to keep in mind the limitations of Google. In many cases the search giant succeeds in serving up good information. But in many cases it still falls short.
In contrast, it is extremely hard to enter into libraries’ indexes. Books, journals and other resources must be nothing less than high caliber, published material. If they’re not, they simply don’t get in.
Furthermore, the economic incentive to manipulate library collections is much less fierce than on the internet. It is estimated that only 4% of book titles are being monetized.
Meanwhile, Google alone is experiencing incredible earnings through online advertising, not to mention everyone else positioning for a piece of the Internet pie.
But libraries simply aren’t facing this kind of pressure. Their way of providing information, therefore, will inherently be less influenced by corporate interests.
25. Libraries’ collections employ a well-formulated system of citation
Books and journals found in libraries will have been published under rigorous guidelines of citation and accuracy and are thereby allowed into libraries’ collections.
These standards are simply not imposed on websites. They can show up in search results whether or not they provide citation. With enough research, the accuracy of web resources often can be determined. But it’s very time consuming. Libraries make research much more efficient.
26. It can be hard to isolate concise information on the internet
Certain subject areas like medical conditions or financial advice are very well mapped on the web. Quality sites for more marginal subject areas, however, are less easy to find through web search. One would have to know which site to go to, and Google isn’t necessarily going to serve you exactly what you are looking for.
Wikipedia, which ranks well for a wide variety of specialized subject areas, is improving web concision. But Wikepedia is just one site, that anyone can edit, and its veracity is not guaranteed. Libraries retain a much more comprehensive and concisely indexed collection off research materials.
27. Libraries can preserve the book experience
Consuming 900 pages on the intellectual history of Russia is an experience unique to the book. In general, the book provides a focused, yet comprehensive study that summarizes years of research by an author – or team of authors – who have devoted their academic to a particular subject area.
Through Google Book Search, the internet can be a tool to find where to buy a book. Normal search results also reveal a variety of book resellers, academic courses or upcoming web projects.
But even when the internet does provide actual content (as in a search for the history of Russia) the information is often snack-sized or the overall experience cursory – a sort of quick-reference browsing. Knowledge can be found, but the experience of delving into a book for hundreds of pages just doesn’t happen online. The preservation of stacks, therefore, will help preserve access to this approach to learning and the more traditional form of scholarship can continue alongside the new.
28. Libraries are stable while the web is transient
In an effort to improve their service and shake out the spammers, search engines are constantly updating their algorithms. Often, however, collateral damage will knock out innocent sites including, perhaps, authoritative resources.
In addition, websites commonly go offline or their addresses change. Other sites that point to these resources (which were once good) could easily and unwittingly house a number of “broken links”. These sites can remain unedited for years.
Libraries, on the other hand, have a well-accounted-for stock of available resources and a standard indexing system that will deliver stable, reliable results consistently.
29. Libraries can be surprisingly helpful for news collections and archives
In many ways, libraries fall short of the internet when it comes to aggregating news content. Online TV, radio and newspaper sources – not to mention an abundance of blogs referencing and commenting on daily events around the world – can often satiate anyone from the casual headline browser to the news junkie.
Meanwhile, libraries continue to subscribe and stock a certain list of newspapers, and archive the back issues. This effort may seem humble alongside the lengthy lists of online news aggregators and instantaneous access to articles published within the minute.
Nevertheless, a library’s news cataloguing can provide a number of advantages. For starters, many publications continue to exist offline. For someone seeking a specific article by a specific journalist, a library could yield better results – even if the publication had to be tracked down through inter-library loan.
Libraries often provide freely accessible issues of major periodicals that would otherwise require online subscription, like many sections of the New York Times
In addition, archives often disappear offline, or become increasingly expensive online. (Try Google’s news archive search). This can leave libraries with the only accessible copies.
30. Not everyone has access to the internet
In less developed nations or even poorer parts of the United States, library access is often the only clear-cut way for an individual to conduct serious research. There are at least two major reasons that the internet may not provide even an illusory alternative to libraries.
Firstly, online access may be much more difficult to attain than library access. A public library may have but one computer console, while other internet access points may charge someone who simply doesn’t have the means to pay.
Secondly, even if internet access is obtained, the lack of technological education in poorer areas of the world will render the technology much less useful than it would be for the person who has more experience navigating the web.
31. Not everyone can afford books
Outside of developed nations, books are more rare and often more expensive than their first-world counterparts. Compounding the problem is an incredibly low minimum wage making the real cost of books astronomical. The public library, wherever it exists, therefore becomes much more crucial to democratizing information.
Since the United States tends to be a trend leader, especially technologically, it must underscore the importance of libraries even as technology moves forward. Touting a culture of BlackBerry devices over books may jeopardize the existence of traditional libraries, leaving poor people without books or BlackBerrys.
32. Libraries are a stopgap to anti-intellectualism
It’s not that the internet is anti-intellectual; its academic roots and the immense quantity of scholarly sites certainly attest to it being a smart medium.
It’s not that the internet is anti-intellectual; its academic roots http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/far/ch7.html and the immense quantity of scholarly sites certainly attest to it being a smart medium.
But for some, the alluring immediacy of the internet can lead to the false impression that only immediate, interactive and on-the-spot online discussion is of value. Dusty books on tall shelves then seem to represent stagnant knowledge, and their curators (librarians), behind the times. Books and reading easily gets regarded as elitist and inactive, while blogging becomes the here-and-now.
But, as mentioned earlier, not everything is on the internet. Access to books and theories from hundreds of years of cultural history is essential to progress. Without this, technology could become the ironic tool of the sensational and retrograde cultural tendencies. Preserving libraries to store knowledge and teach the limitations of technology can help prevent the hubris and narcissism of technological novelty.
33. Old books are valuable
The idea of a library becoming a “book museum” in the age of digitization is sometimes tossed about as an apocalyptic figure of speech. It’s a real scare for librarians. The term insinuates that, rather than become contemporary and useful, libraries could turn into historical fetishes like vinyl records or typewriters. And instead of continuing on as research professionals, librarians would be forced to become like museum curators – or, more likely, they would just lose their jobs.
But if the evolution of libraries grows to become an interactive meeting place for cultural events and the exchange of ideas, the preservation and exhibition of archival literary relics could be yet another facet to their importance (and, yes, intrigue). Indeed, old books are not only monetarily valuable, but they are part of cultural, historical memory that mustn’t be lost to digitization.
Conclusion
Society is not ready to abandon the library, and it probably won’t ever be. Libraries can adapt to social and technological changes, but they can’t be replaced. While libraries are distinct from the internet, librarians are the most suited professionals to guide scholars and citizens toward a better understanding of how to find valuable information online. Indeed, a lot of information is online. But a lot is still on paper. Instead of regarding libraries as obsolete, state and federal governments should increase funding for improved staffing and technology. Rather than lope blindly through the digital age, guided only by the corporate interests of web economics, society should foster a culture of guides and guideposts. Today, more than ever, libraries and librarians are extremely important for the preservation and improvement of our culture.
Future for librarians?
I found this depressing post on LIS News and would like to share it with you.
Libraries and Librarians In A Digital Future: Where Do We Fit?
posted by Blake on 08:39 PM October 7th, 2005
from the The-Illiterate-Monks dept.
I have recently become convinced our future is digital. After following the Google and The Illiterate Monks thread, and reading “How Transistor Radios and Web (and Newspapers and Hi-Fi radio) are Alike” I believe I can see a small bit of the future, and it’s not paper based. I’m not even sure I can see a place for libraries. It’s not that I want the future to be like this, I believe, as the old saying goes, there is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to a digital future.For years I’ve been on the fence when it comes to our digital future. I’ve always bought into the assumption that books are here to stay. That libraries will always have a place. That 100 years from now we’ll still want to browse the stacks to see what’s related. I think I’ve fallen off that fence, and landed on the side with the digitalists. I’ve chosen sides based on things I’ve read from both the curmudgeons like Gorman, and the many techno-freaks on the other side. I don’t know what this means for the millions of books we hold currently. I don’t know what this means for the future of libraries & librarians, nor do I know what, if anything, we can do to ensure we’re still around in 20 years, but below I’ll share with you why I’ve moved from fence sitter, to digitalist.
The biggest threat we’re facing isn’t one of content, certainly we have the goods, but rather it’s the package. Or, like Chrystie Wrote, these new tools are replacing the library for people’s daily information needs. Society in general, and younger people in particular, are moving away from the printed word, our bread and butter for a century or two now, and away from libraries, for a number of reasons. Why should they care about or use print? They can’t put it on their iPod. They can’t put it on their laptop. And they can’t view it on a screen. They get most of the answers they need from Google. This is the essence of my argument. If most people are able to “get served” elsewhere, why do they need a book, a library, or a librarian? It doesn’t matter if you think digital isn’t as stable as print. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s impossible to read for extended periods of time on electronic media. It doesn’t matter if you think Google isn’t meeting their needs. And it certainly doesn’t matter if you think books are more convenient. Some of those things may be true today, but none of them will be true in 10 years.
You can’t search on printed book. If the index missed what you’re looking for, you’ll need to do some digging. You can’t hyperlink from a printed page. And you’ll never fit more than one printed book into, well, a printed book. All those things you think are so great about print are the same things millions of kids think is completely wrong. The technology exists now to realistically begin moving away from print, not because it’s just the latest gizmo fad, but because it’s going to be cheaper, faster, easier, AND just as stable as, and just as good, if not better than, print. We’ll have the ability to make connections between writings that have never been seen before. We’ll be able to search and research across millions of “books” to find information in ways that will change how we learn. We’ll be able to carry around more than one book in a single reader.
The flexibility afforded by digital devices is the biggest selling point for me. I can carry around 1,000 books on a single device. If the print is too small, I can make it bigger. If the print is too large, I can make it smaller. And of course, you can’t grep a dead tree. I can search through one or 100 books at once to find a word of phrase. If I’m tired I can have my reader read to me, and if the book is written in Spanish, it will translate for me.
And what of the fragile nature of digital media? LOCKSS! Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe. Digital archives are now measured in PETAbytes. We reached the point of no return years ago. With backups on tapes, optical media, flash media, and hard drives, our bytes are as safe as or more safe than paper ever was. Digital records are now as permanent as paper.
So will we really need to have buildings filled with paper copies of knowledge? If everything produced in the future is available electronically, will we print and store copies? In 10 years will libraries stop adding new print items and become archives of printed works from “the good old days?” If I had all the answers I might be able to make myself rich and famous. My guess is our roles as librarians will change very little. We’ll still provide access to paid databases (assuming the still exist). We’ll teach and educate. And we’ll store and provide access to information. I now think that will be largely stored electronically. But what of Google, et. al, will they replace even our role as teachers because they’ll be so easy to use?
Gorman apparently spent his LITA keynote comparing real cataloging with web indexing. This seems to me, a futile pursuit, like comparing apples and organs. Surely he must understand the different between pre and post coordinate indexing. Each system in it’s current form has strengths and weaknesses. Our job is to teach people how to use each tool, and to guide them to the best sources for their search. But while precoordinated indexing won’t change much in the future, post is growing by leaps and bounds each year. Picking apart the problems with Google is easy. Looking at how far Google has come in just a few years should be shocking, and thinking about where they will be in 5 or ten years should be frightening. No doubt they have dozens of brilliant minds finding solutions to each and every problem libraries love to waggle their fingers at. While we wrestle with our budgets, they hire 10 new genius level employees a day.
Google and all the other technologies out there are in their “TR-1″ stage right now. Spreading FUD about beta level technologies in their infancy doesn’t elevate libraries or librarians, it makes us look even more antiquated than we’re all ready perceived (Go ahead, ask any teenager). Like the radio manufacturers from the article, we’ve “built our fortunes” and many of us don’t see the value in many new technologies because they are currently inferior. Our goals should be to elevate our position without trying to denigrate our “competition.” We must show the world what we can do, and how we work with technology. All these technologies are here to stay, and if we want the same to be said for libraries, we need to work harder to move our selves up, without putting others down.
The common perception that newer/faster/cheaper is always better is what will drive the move to a digital world. Storing knowledge in traditional printed books will probably still have a place, but I am convinced within a decade we will have the tools that will allow the majority of people that can afford it, and the desire, the ability to buy, read, and store all the books they want, without paper. Librarians are terrible marketers, and we’ve failed miserably trying to maintain an image of relevance. It may be print really is a superior format for many things, but we’ll never be able to convince enough people to make a lasting impression. How can we if the new devices out perform print for most peoples needs?
Imagine a book sized device that allows you to store 1,000 books. You can flip pages easily, the screen is crisp, well lit, and fully adjustable. It will read out loud to you. You can click on any word and be brought to a Wikipedia entry. If you want, it will let you check your email, and browse the web.
So now is your chance to poke holes in my dream. First, think about where you think we’ll be in 10 years, and then tell me I’m wrong. Think about where computers, Google and Ebooks will be. Tell me people will always prefer print. Tell me it’s more stable, easier to store, lasts for centuries and is easier to handle. Tell me DRM and copyright issues will kill many new devices usefulness. Tell me people don’t learn as well from electronics as they do from print. On second thought, don’t tell me all that, I’ve been hearing it for years.
Tell me what you’re going to do that will change not just my mind, but the minds of the people we are trying to serve. Tell me how you’ll convince the people that we’ll need to support libraries in 10 years that we’re worth it. Tell me how I can convince my 13 year old nieces that when they’re in college they’ll need librarians to help them learn. Convince me all these new tools are not replacing the library for many people’s daily information needs.
