“Blow up the reference desk”, the Empathy Economy

KLA/MPLA 2009 (Kansas Library Association Conference, Wichita, KS)

Session from April 2:

May I Please Blow Up This Reference Desk? The Ten Social Trends that Can and SHOULD Change the Way that Libraries Do Business –Tracie Hall, Good Seed Consulting

This was a very interesting presentation because it was about rethinking the services we provide and the manner in which we provide them, but technology was barely mentioned, and the phrases “Web 2.0” and “Library 2.0” were conspicuously absent (two-point-phobia?).  Two slide headings from the presentation put Hall’s argument in a nutshell:

· Libraries Worldwide are Being Compelled to Reevaluate their Services…And Modes of Delivery.

· Static, Inflexible, Fixed Models of LIS Service No Longer Fit Our Needs, Wants, and Expectations of Value-Added Service…To Remain Relevant Libraries Must Play an Expanding Role.

There were some examples given of real libraries doing things differently, but there were as many if not more from the business world. The most important social trend in Tracie Hall’s list actually comes from the world of business: “the rise of the empathy economy.” Starbucks transformed coffee from “from $.03 commodity to $3.60 experience.” This was done by offering a “safe third space” for its customers which was neither work nor home, but one in which they could feel comfortable and relax. Such comfort was enforced by having baristas learn the names of regulars. (In Hall’s view, Panera “trumped” Starbucks by taking this approach a step further by including a measure of table service.) As a business concept, the empathy economy is about designing and fine-tuning the consumer experience and Hall clearly sees the traditional library patron’s experience in drastic need of a makeover.

Some of the social trends Hall identifies are negative – problems to be solved. The most significant of these is what she calls “the platform nine and three-quarters effect,” after the train platform in the Harry Potter books which could only be entered by walking into what appeared to be a brick wall. She also calls this “the return of the mighty gatekeeper.” This gatekeeper effect is something that is well known in traditional libraries and an integral part of an archetype many contemporary librarians have long wished to dispel. For Hall, the effect is both exemplified and perpetuated by the reference desk. This bulwark of traditional library services projects in her view the attitude of an “omniscient Me and uniformed You,” implying a position of privilege behind the desk. While it would be easy to debate the extent to which this is true regarding the literal, physical reference desk, Hall’s argument uses this icon of the library as a metaphor for our traditional and habitual mode of ‘doing business’ as librarians.

Though not mentioned explicitly two of the social trends described in this session have some bearing on “Web 2.0”: The infallibility of the informal peer review, and the new generation Hall refers to as “the New Sensualists.” The “informal peer review” refers to ratings systems and comments on web sites such as Amazon and YouTube. Though not couched in the language of 2.0, this trend is made significant and practical by 2.0 tools. “New Sensualists” is Hall’s name for the new generation also called Generation Y or the Google or MySpace Generation, called “New Sensualists” because of their tactile relation to their computer games, cell phones, iPods, even YouTube and MySpace (audio, video). For this generation, leaving comments on an electronic posting such as a link, a photo, a video, or a blog or e-journal entry has become second nature.  These are the adults of tomorrow.  During the election last year, I found myself thinking:  Someday before too long we will have Presidential candidates who grew up on MySpace, who may have to worry about what they and their friends posting on their MySpace accounts when they were 13 years old — or will they?  What will that world look like?  Libraries have a chance to be on the forefront of these societal transformations.  Many if not most of us  — public libaries I’m thinking of — are still playing catch-up.

Hall’s presentation style lent an urgency and excitement to what she presented as a drastic need for change. In her introduction, she encouraged us to “lean into discomfort,” pointing out that on an air conditioner, the “comfort zone” is also known as the “dead zone.” “There is no lack of ideas in libraries….We have the technology accelerators!” We can rebuild him.

KLA/MPLA Conference SLK ‘Unsession’ [SLK=State Lib of KS]

After a intro to the State Library’s excellent Website, we got into the topics brought up:

-Give up print subs — and then the [online, State-provided] product goes away
-Open Source Library Automation – KOHA
-Can we access Ebsco Host thru SKL?
-Web 2.0 Apps? Balancing personal and professional.*

*What I learned and am excited about:
WebJunction is a social network!

More to come.

On the radar

• Jessamyn has posted (librarian.net) a link to a video that came out of a “Smithsonian 2.0” 2-day conference which is intentionally provocative.  It depicts a certain  pattern of administrative reaction to suggestions of institutional change of the Web 2.0 variety:

“Web tech guy and Angry Staff Person: An Exaggerated Tale”

Jessamyn also refers to the Metafilter discussion about it (FlickTubeFaceSpacecom), which I admit I didn’t have the patience to read much of.  But I think I may understand her mixed feelings about it:

There are valid points on both sides.  Portraying your partner in dialog as an adversary doesn’t help the conversation or get us any closer to a “2.0-friendly” world.   In a sense both sides are caricatured here, as some of the Metafilter comments show.  The video is a reasonable approximation of what often happens apparently, but it does not do justice to the actual perspective of either side.

Designed to “be provocative,” the video is hoped to spark more constructive dialog about these issues.  Because, of course, what’s needed is more articulate dialog about the actual policy/legal/pragmatic/financial issues involved with this kind of change.  What, precisely, are those concerns, and what, exactly, are the specific benefits to be gained?

• The actual discussions about these things in real places (not on MyFlicTubeFaceSpace) might benefit from the perspective of the field of information architecture (IA), to which Elyssa Kroski (ilibrarian)has pointed us to an  informative and user-friendly guide:

complete-beginners-guide-to-information-architecture.

A snippet:

To understand how an IA affects a project, you might imagine assigning a traditional architect to a building after it’s constructed. It’s a laughable proposition, and yet it happens to this day. Even after the most well-engineered buildings are constructed they are still prone to change. Stewart Brand details this fascinating aspect in his book, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. Again, as preposterous as it sounds, we typically place today’s Information Architects in a similar position—assigning them to web sites after some other self-imposed IA has prototyped the site.

Topeka Library Controversy

Jessamyn is right, I think.   The Topeka Library is making headlines, which tell the story better than I could:

Library Journal:  “Topeka Library Board Restricts Access to Four Books on Sex”

The Topeka Capital-Journal:  “Library peers dismayed by board’s decision”

(I commented on Jessamyn’s post at Librarian.net, and realized I said enough to adapt it for a post of my own. Here it is.)

Jessamyn suggested that we hadn’t heard the last of this.  In the Capital-Journal article, an ACLU lawyer is quoted as recommending they file suit.  Another lawyer quoted in the article says that he hopes they don’t have to, since

the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library should be using their resources for something worthwhile, not fighting a lawsuit they cannot possibly win.

Which suggests that the case for unconstitutionality is a strong one.  I’m not sure I understand why given that the books will still be available — i.e., they won’t be removed from the collection. Perhaps it is a matter of the stigma created when an adult has to ask a staff member to get one of these books for her — ‘Can I get the Joy of Gay Sex please?’  It becomes a matter of privacy.  The case could be made that an atmosphere of religious condemnation of such materials would be created by such restrictions, in effect infringing on the religious freedom of those who wish to check them out(?).  I’m not making that case — but it could be made.

What is much clearer to me is the case for impracticality:  the impossible situation the library staff is put in by the begged question of what other books rightfully belong in this newly created category of “dangerously sexual” books.  The example of anatomy texts may be a case of hyperbole, but that doesn’t invalidate the slippery slope argument. According to the director of the Topeka Library (as the LJ piece states),

the library has 600-plus books with subject headings relating to sex, sex instruction, sexual behavior, and fertility.

How is one to know what is harmful to minors and what is not? It sounds as though most of them should go behind the counter according to their standards. But who should decide? Librarians get stuck with the dirty work.

The board left the decision on how to restrict access to the books to the library staff.

…and to wonder why no one is worried about the romance novels!  (some of which are more explicitly prurient than R-rated movies).  Maybe they don’t have that kind of romance novel at the Topeka Library?

It is clearly a different matter (and simpler) when access is restricted due to the likelihood of theft, such as the LJ article says is often done with titles such as Playboy and Consumer Reports.  (It states that Playboy is kept behind the desk at Topeka, implying that it is for this reason.)  My public library does this with Rolling Stone.  (I’m pretty sure –but not completely– it’s not due to complaints about that Britney Spears cover.)  This decision is easier to make, since it can be based purely on experience.  “This title has been stolen in the past, therefore we will keep it behind the desk.”  There is no stigma attached to asking to see Rolling Stone or Consumer Reports, though there may be for Playboy.  But the library’s reason for keeping it behind the desk is what is at issue, and makes all the difference apparently.

In my opinion it is more harmful to create the atmosphere of moral condemnation of all things sexual that is a likely result of their action, than it is to allow minors (unadvertised!) access to well-reviewed, popular books about safe and loving sex in today’s world. (And I can’t help thinking that what they really objected to was the one on gay sex, and just threw the others in to be appear more consistent.)

The last line of the Topeka Capital-Journal article is, I think, not without relevance here (spoken in reference to the books in question):

“They are all checked out right now,” he said. “There are waiting lists on all of them. At this point in time, we just need to wait for them to be returned.”

If they even come back!

The Public Library of the 21st Century: What Will Wichita Do?

The Wichita Public Library will be getting a new home for its central branch in a couple years, and the architects are about to get involved.  I was reminded of this photo essay at Slate.com (found via Slashdot via Maisson Bisson back in March), which offers a sort of slide show with commentary of several contemporary library structures.  It raises more questions than it answers, primarily:

What sort of public library does the “digital world” of Google, Wikipedia, and Kindle require?

Here are some items on remaking the library’s image from the UK I had bookmarked in September (via Library Stuff) which push the envelope of what a 21st Century library could be, and how we think of it:

“Public libraries open way for drinks, snacks and mobiles” (The Times)

“Katy Guest: Who ever heard of a librarian who didn’t say ‘Sssshhh’?“  (The Independent) – This is more about the changing atmosphere within libraries (rather than the physical space), which seems to be changing more in other parts of the world, I gather, than it is here.

Canadian Library workers on strike / locked out

Here is an interesting story about a library union strike and lockout:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080218.BCLIBRARY18/TPStory/National

“The union has engaged in a series of tactics to bring its cry for equity to the public, including not working over the lunch hour and waiving overdue fines. [emphasis mine]

But while that garnered some public support, it raised the ire of the library system’s governing board. It issued the lockout notice midweek, closing down the nine libraries in the Capital Region yesterday at 5:01 p.m.”We have a responsibility to protect the assets of the library,” said Chris Graham, chair of the Greater Victoria Public Library Board, in a news release. “The strike activities by the union are having a severe fiscal impact and the library is losing important streams of revenue, while employees are continuing to be paid.”

Mr. Graham said the loss of more than $40,000 in uncollected fines has hurt the library system.”

via Jessamyn West @

http://www.librarian.net/stax/2251/library-lockout-in-victoria/

2.0 Ambivalence

I have a confession to make. For all the interest I take in Web 2.0 technologies (especially for their importance in the future of library and information science as well also society in general), I am not a big user of them. This is not so much of a secret, since links to my Delicious or Flickr accounts, for example, are conspicuous by their absence; but as a self-proclaimed ‘Librarian With an Avid Interest in Library 2.0′ in search of a job, I feel a need to put it out there that this is the case — and more, importantly, why.

In a word, I am not comfortable with the degree of transparency that is possible with these technologies — for myself. I’m not comfortable giving people a window into my world to the degree of placing my book and music collections on display to anyone who happens upon my profile, blog, or website. But of course I have control over this, and I don’t display such information– while still using Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook (though admittedly, not much). Blogging and RSS feed readers I do use. I consult wikis — though not as often as I might (except Wikipedia, which I use pretty often). I suppose trusting Wikipedia at all is rather “2.0″ in itself, if you will.

Another 2.0 app I use is iGoogle. I have about 5 tabs with various news widgets and a main page with fish, an analog clock, and a color chooser. I have mixed feelings about this — about Google, that is — and am slightly embarrassed by the admission. I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the universality of Google’s aims. But their apps are so easy to use! and fun… Still, my enthusiasm is waning.

Some thoughts on ‘2.0 living’ by Jessamyn West at Librarian.net (Dec 20, 2007) seem apropos to this issue of embracing web 2.0. She speaks of the inefficiency of the supply-ordering process at her place of work. Here’s the crux, from her personal experience in buying printer cartridges:

The ink I need at Staples is $20. At my local office supply store it is $27. My angle is a price comparison site called dealink.com which lets me search competing ink prices. They told me I could get it for $18.50 shipped, HP brand ink, no knock-offs. That was pretty good. Then I headed over to my favorite coupon site, RetailMeNot to see if they had any online coupons for DataBazaar which had the lowest ink prices. They did. I hope you are noticing that I can link to all these things. I can’t link to the ink page at Staples.com. So, I got an extra $5 off if I bought three (I needed a few anyhow) making my total $48.85, delivered to my door, for three ink cartridges for my photo printer.

Web 2.0 is not a panacea of course. Community is not created just by typing in the box and clicking “publish” or “create wiki” or “start networking.” Building communities requires the same processes — connecting and communicating and sharing — only we have new means to accomplish these ends.

The societal conventions and safeguards of a Web 2.0 world (of the Google Generation) are not yet in place in this territory — the Digital Society is still nascent in many ways — and until it is less so, I can’t help holding back a bit — or a lot — putting myself out there for all to see, kinks and all. Privacy and security are the things that make much of our technology necessary. In rural communities people don’t always lock their doors. We’re all still figuring out when and – more importantly, how to lock our digital doors.

This is certainly a theme many people recognize. One of John Blyberg’s “Top Tech Trends” (Jan 18 post) truly resonated for me:

Privacy is Dead

Yep, no such thing if you’re a netizen. We basically have the choice to connect or live out our lives in quiet and total obscurity. This merits an entire write-up on its own, but needless to say, our approach to individual privacy needs to be dragged into the twenty-first century. Almost all of the trends I mentioned this time around have profound privacy implications.

As Blyberg suggests, there is much more to be said about this.  My point is that we do have control over how much we put out there explicitly using Web 2.0 tools.  “Explicitly” is the operative word.  The fact is that even without embracing these new tools/media, our privacy is not what it used to be, to say the least.  And I suppose it’s not just about Google by any means, but that’s what’s got my goat lately.  I really don’t think that Google employees are interested explicitly in what I’m emailing or looking at on iGoogle — but the fact that they have a private database in which my actions are catalogued is unnerving.

Information Literacy links

http://www.information-literacy.net/2008/02/teaching-with-wikipedia.html
via Steven Cohen @ http://www.librarystuff.net/ (Feb 15)

A creative Commons – licensed Handbook for Information Literacy:
http://stephenslighthouse.sirsidynix.com/archives/2008/02/handbook_for_in.html

2.0 Culture(s)

“Web 2.0″ may not be the best term for what we are experiencing as a society in the this age of Google and MySpace, but the fact that we are in it and that it is a new phenomenon which is developing its own culture is undeniable. Stephen Abram pointed out that “All these things we depend on are truly quite young,” in a post entitled It’s Not Very Old on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of TCP/IP this month. He goes on in another post to point out a new Pew Internet & American Life Project report: Teen Content Creators. (Find that report and others at http://pewinternet.org/.) I didn’t know that more girls blog than boys (30% of girls; 20% of boys). Also,

Content creation by teenagers continues to grow, with 64% of online teenagers ages 12 to 17 engaging in at least one type of content creation, up from 57% of online teens in 2004.

Meanwhile, in Understanding the culture of social networking technologies, Meredith Farkas quotes insights by other librarian bloggers about the need for us to be aware of these cultures: ie, we should be aware that how we want to use the these tools are not necessarily the way our patrons want to use them:

And it’s not only about understanding social networking. It’s also about understanding our own unique population…. We need to understand not only our users’ needs and wants, but also how they approach these tools, what sort of sense of privacy they have, and what sort of interactions they might want from the library.

Taking Abrams point about how young these technologies are, I would argue that the culture which surrounds the 2.0 phenomenon is still nascent. We don’t yet know what it will be; we only have the evidence of groups of individuals using it in their own ways.  There are pockets of 2.0 activity each of which is developing its own culture. 

A culture in the broadest sense is something that is established over long periods of time, and is referred to only after it has been established – like the culture of an ethnic group or nationality.  Then there is the more narrow sense of something established by a generation, or that defines a generation — something that the next generation grows up in and takes for granted — like TV culture.  But understood in this way, what does the term “teen culture” mean?  It’s a slippery concept, and that’s why I think it makes more sense to speak of it in the plural, as 2.0 cultures.

MySpace, as Abrams points out, is 8 years old.   When today’s 8-year-olds are turn 28 and start having kids of their own — what social networking site will they use, if any?  What will there kids grow up using?  Though we  cannot answer these questions, I suspect that there will be some established patterns by that time.  The extent to which these patterns are part of a culture or of separate cultures of 2.0, we have no way to know beforehand.

Latest notable posts in the Biblioblogosphere

Using Jott to save time
(from Librarian In Black)

30 Library Technology Predictions for 2008
(from Stephens Lighthouse)

Pew report on Information Searches That Solve Problems
(from Information Wants to Be Free)