Libraries and the value of free

One of the distinctive aspects of American public libraries is that they are free. In other countries, and during the times of the Founding Fathers, subscription libraries were the rule. However, both philanthropists and local governments soon realized the importance of access to information. The foundations of democracy depend upon an informed citizenry, so free libraries became one of the civilizing aspects of a community.

But now, there are many sources of information and entertainment that are approaching the "free" price point. Chris Anderson suggests that every industry that becomes digital becomes free. Google and the internet provide free news, information and entertainment. And, very low cost subscriptions such as Netflix or Hulu are within the reach of all but the very poorest as long as they have an internet device. In addition, e-books have significantly reduced the price of the novel. At the same time, public libraries, looking for new sources of revenue, may be charging for some items or jacking up their fines and fees. This does not appear to be a good strategy, in what Anderson calls an economy of abundance.

At my library, it is usually the poorest who end up with fines--often in the tens or even hundreds of dollars. So, at what point does a library cease to be free? How does this affect the library's value proposition? At what point is it cheaper for a patron to get a Netflix subscription rather than to check out movies from a library?

Total fines per day may be an excellent quality indicator--not how much we generate, but how little. I suggest that fines are a proxy for customer dissatisfaction. Their expectation when they come to the library is that they can check out items for free. Fines, although probably necessary, indicates a failure to make it easy for the customer to return their items on time. And, fines make it easier for our competitors to compete with us.

Chris Anderson's talk on "free" is available here: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815813330?bctid=1813637601

Skills of the New Librarian

I have been reading about the Standards for the 21st century learner that children will need by the time they get through school and the impact that will have on librarianship. If we are demanding that our school children be able to not only use word processing, spreadsheets, publishing and presentation software but also blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 social media, it seems to me that all librarians should also be expected to use the same tools. (Standards in Action Draft, 2008) Further, how will we be poised to meet the information needs of these technologically proficient children when they enter adulthood.. What tools will we need to "organize and effectively display" information to meet their needs (RUSA Behavioral Guidelines, 2004)? Will this be through chat, RSS feeds, podcasts, v-casts and twitter? I hope we will at least be more successful understanding downloads to e-book readers than we have been with mp3 players.

And what of the skills of the digital librarian? A recent study(Choi & Rasmussen, 2006) came up with the following list of training gaps that current digital librarians felt that they had.

• Overall understanding of complex interplay of software
• Lack of vocabulary to communicate with technical staff
• Knowledge of web-related languages and technologies
• Web design
• Digital imaging and formatting
• Digital technology
• Programming and scripting languages
• XML standards and technologies, and
• Basic systems administration.

These are all major skill sets that will need to be adopted by the average librarian. A number of our leaders have acknowledged this challenge and in my library we implemented Helen Blowers Library 2.0 initiative, where we used and blogged about 23 technology related things such as wikis, RSS feeds, social networking pages and the like. My observations during this process were that a few people dove right in and excitedly embraced the new social technologies. Most went through the process with distaste (or not at all) and often did not see the use of any of these new approaches.

My experience mirrors a study by Rabina (Rabina & Walczyk, 2007) who assessed the attitudes of librarians about adopting technology. They used an analysis of the diffusion of innovation in societies developed by E. M. Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003). Rogers found that people fall into five categories in their approach to adopting innovation:

• Innovators (2.5%)
• Early adopters (13.5%)
• Early majority (34%)
• Late majority (34%)
• Laggards (16%)

This, like most things in a population, approximates a bell curve. But when Rabina applied this to librarians, she found the following percentages:

• Innovators (3.6%)
• Early adopters (24.6%)
• Early majority (17.2%)
• Late majority (37%)
• Laggards (17.7%)

The large number of early adopters and drop off in early majority population has several effects:

• The preponderance of early adopters confuse the early majority by running off in different directions adopting different things.
• The small number of early majority librarians are not enough to mentor the late majority into adopting new technologies causing a drop off in momentum.
• The momentum loss may cause the adoption of technology in unproductive ways.

So, what does this mean for the profession? I suggest the following:

1. Current leaders must at least develop at least intermediate level expertise (i.e., able to troubleshoot and coach) in all librarians in word processing, spreadsheets publishing and presentation software ( things that current high schoolers are expected to know). This will require more effort and time than usual due to the large numbers of late adopters and laggards.
2. All librarians should understand RSS feeds, chat, twitter and any other Web 2.0 information flow that develops, since information flow is fundamental to the profession. Again, this will take time and resources.
3. All librarians should have intermediate proficiency in hardware such as mp3 players, digital cameras and cell phones.
4. All librarians should be developing at least basic proficiency in (be able to readily use) collaborative software such as chat, blogs, wikis and social networking. Organizations should adopt one or more of these technologies now and incorporate them into normal operations so that librarians can get experience using them.
5. There should be a growing segment of the librarian population that can manipulate advanced forms of information communication and presentation: podcasts, website design, web languages etc.
6. There should be a growing segment of the librarian population with an understanding of information systems. Perhaps joint degrees would be desirable.
7. There should be a specific recruitment of librarian candidates who have a preference for technology, since we cannot afford to have a greater percentage of late adopters and laggards.

References

Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E. (2006). What is needed to educate future digital librarians. D-Lib Magazine, 12(9) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september06/choi/09choi.html

Rabina, D. L., & Walczyk, D. J. (2007). Information professionals' attitude toward the adoption of innovation in everyday life. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science--"Featuring the Future", , 12(4) papercolis12. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis12.html

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

RUSA Behavioral Guidelines. (2004). Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(1), 14-17. Retrieved from Full Text HTMLFull Text PDF HTML: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315af44ead79cfd5574583beed98dc22ac760596b6777653ce2e&fmt=H PDF: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1916ca00094d315af44ead79cfd5574583beed98dc22ac760596b6777653ce2e&fmt=P

Standards in Action Draft. (2008). Standards for the 21st century learner in action (draft 2) (American Association of School Libraries StandardsAmerican Library Association. (Standards in Action) Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslproftools/standardsinaction/standardsinaction.cfm

The library as a great good place

I'm probably a little late on the uptake here but I just discovered Ray Oldenburg's 1999 book The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Oldenburg talks about the three places in a community: the first place is home, the second place is work, and the "third place" is the community hangout(s). Unfortunately, with the rise of the suburb, and the dominance of the automobile, these local hangouts--whether bars, barbershops, town squares, or cafes, are almost gone.

These third places are the bastions of informal public life; a place where you can meet neighbors from all walks of life, have discussions, blow off steam, escape family or work life and then return home. It is Oldenburg's hypothesis that communities without third places are impoverished. Third places are the places that create a sense of community; where

...people develop a fondness for each other and meet regularly...they will give each other things; loan tools, books and other objects, give of their time and labor on occasion and tell one another about useful sources of goods and services.

Lives without access to third places are not as happy as they could be because they are denied acess to an important source of support groups.

However, not all public meeting places are third places or "great good places". They must have the following attributes:

1. They are neutral ground. Individuals can come and go as they please and none are required to play host. But it is a place where people feel comfortable and at home.

2. Good conversation is at the core. Regulars keep the conversation flowing, but even the stranger may engage in the banter.

3. Regulars are crucial. Regulars set the whole tone, feeling and conviviality of the place. The regulars are more important than staff.

As Oldenburg says It is the regulars whose mood and manner provide the infectious and contagious style of interaction and whose acceptance of new faces is crucial. The host's welcome, though important, is not what really matters. p34

In fact, regulars are so important they may be extended privileges denied to other customers.

4. Plainness is important. That is to say that the decor of the place should discourage pretension and encourage a homelike environment.

5. The mood is playful.

6. All types of people are welcome. Although some traditional third places have excluded women, the whole point of a third place is one of inclusion, leveling and lack of pretension. The Midwestern German beer gardens of the early 1900, for example, included women and children!

So what does all this have to do with libraries???? Libraries may be the one local establishment left in suburbia where people can congregate. It is a place that has the potential to be a great good place if we allow it to be. If we

• encourage people to linger and converse.
• make things homey and not too pretentious
• take care of our regulars
• encourage a variety of people (including kids and teens)
• keep it playful!

2007 is one of the warmest years on record

Another warm one.

clipped from www.sciencedaily.com ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2007) — The year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to preliminary data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year was marked by exceptional drought in the U.S. Southeast and the West, which helped fuel another extremely active wildfire season. The year also brought outbreaks of cold air, and killer heat waves and floods. Meanwhile, the global surface temperature for 2007 is expected to be fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Preliminary data will be updated in early January to reflect the final three weeks of December and is not considered final until a full analysis is complete next spring.

Changing my mind about Wikipedia

I have been reading David Weinberger's new book Everything is Miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder an he has changed my thinking about Wikipedia. It has been common knowledge among librarians that the information in Wikipedia is suspect and should not be used in a reference search. But, Weinberger brings up a number of things that I was unaware of.

First, although it seems that Wikipedia articles are produced by individuals without specific qualifications, most are, in fact, produced by a community of interested individuals. If there is enough interest in the topic, the article is reviewed by many eyes and is reviewed in real time in response to new research and changing circumstances.

Second, the real power of Wikipedia is on the discussion page of the article. In traditional encyclopedias, you never get to see the workings of the editorial board playing out. I looked at the article "Biofuel", since controversy is raging over the topic. On the discussion page, the biofuel wikipedia community is debating various aspects of the article and how best to present the information. The debates are completely transparent. And, you can really get more information about a subject from the debates that are going on around it.

Finally, Weinberger reports on a study by the journal Nature (Nature 438 (7070) p900-901) concerning the accuracy of Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica. The study found the accuracy to be roughly equivalent (although Britannica was found to be better written.) Although more studies will need to be done to prove or refute this point, initial results are encouraging. They also point out that even the venerable Britannica has inaccuracies.

Ultimately, the individual seeking the information is the final arbiter of what is true. Weinberger says

Deciding what to believe is now our burden. It alwasy was, but in the paper-order world where publishing was so expensive that we needed people to be filterers, it was easier to think our passivity was an inevitable part of learning; we thought that knowledge just worked that way.

Before the internet, we assumed (to our detriment) that whatever is in print is true. This was never a safe assumption and now with the plethora of information available to us, we can no longer act in this manner. This is a call to get off our duffs and take responsibility for finding out what is true. And, it seems to me that one of the best indications of truth is the debates on the discussion page of Wikipedia articles--can the information hold up to community scrutiny.

How to help people frightened by new technology

Here is an interesting article in Science Daily about people who are afraid of new technology. The study, performed by Economic and Social Research Council in the UK found that people afraid of new technology tended to be poorer and less educated. They are frightened by media reports of virus and the hazards of computer use and tend to be hampered by their ability to spell.

The study found that most computer courses that were available are concerned with work related subjects (how to use spreadsheets and wordprocessing) but did not address what people needed to do in their personal lives (email, shopping and finding information online).

I believe that this provides a huge opportunity for libraries to become more relevant to their communities. We could make an impact on computer technophobia by developing classes, courses and tutorials that specifically address these fears and needs. Wouldn't it be great if we could produce an online tutorial, perhaps using podcast or videocasting technology that would address these problems!!! Then, when folks drop in the library, we could hook them up to the tutorial and we could address their needs in real time instead of directing them to a class.

More on Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur

Andrew Keen's book the Cult of the Amateur has started me thinking about news organizations. He says:

Newspapers and news magazines, one of the most reliable sources of information about the world we live in, are failing thanks to the proliferation of free blogs and sites like Craiglist that offer free classifieds, undermining paid add placement pg 8.

While it is true that newspapers and magazines are failing, it does not necessarily follow that this is due to blogs and Craigslist. Circulation is certainly declining, but is because of blogs? A study by the Pew Research Center as reported in the State of the Media Report 2007 suggests the following reasons:

Why People Are Not Reading the Newspaper

"What is it that you like less about newspapers compared with TV, radio or the Internet?"	%
Don't have time	23
Inconvenient	10
Biased/opinionated	8
Don't like to read	7
Inconvenient to get/don't subscribe	6
Not interesting/nothing there	6
Cost/not free	5
Layout (small print/big pages)	5
Just pile up/clutter	5

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership,” July 30, 2006

I can think of several other reasons that Americans might be abandoning newspapers.

1. The consolidation of newspaper ownership reducing the points of view expressed in an area.
2. Americans increasingly distrust newspaper journalism (see below)
   
3. Corporate ownership of newspapers driving profitability goals. Since state and national reporting is a big expense, many newspapers have reduced their news staff and have focused more intensively on local (and less expensive to report issues)

The State of the News Media Report 2007 indicates that local newspaper credibility is at an all time low.

Overall, local daily newspapers sat on the lower end of the scale among media on believability, lower than CNN, Fox News, NPR and local television, and above only the Associated Press. In 2006 19% of people said they believed all or most of what they read in their daily paper, down 10 points in eight years. (Another 40% believed a good deal of what they read in the paper, though less than “most”).

Looking in today's Baltimore Sun, I found one small paragraph on page 7 about the crisis in Burma/Myanmar, nothing on Darfur, and barely anything about Iraq or Afghanistan. Is it a wonder that we have no clue about what the world thinks about us.

I believe that newspapers lost their audience log before Web 2.0 and blogs came along. Many newsrooms abandoned international coverage, professionalism and integrity for profitability. This is reflected in the drop in circulation and subsequently, advertising. Many people are turning to blogs or major newspapers online coverage to get the news that the local papers cannot or will not cover.

Keen does bring up a good point about the demise of news staff and professional journalists. I hope that the public will always support good journalism wherever it can be found. It is worth its weight in gold. But I maintain that newspapers abandoned us long before we abandoned them.