Posted on

“The library is like…” Exploring metaphors and the language of libraries

I’ve been thinking a bit about language recently and the role language has in shaping our perceptions of reality. In summary, I’d like to catalog and analysis some frequently used metaphors and images for libraries, unpacking them to see what they mean and – ultimately – to make recommendations about what language is most appropriate or beneficial. Some quick notes with my own questions and ideas:

What are libraries like? What should they be like?

  • Cathedrals/Sanctuaries
  • Starbucks
  • Home
  • Portals
  • Purchase agents for communities
  • Warehouses
  • Google
  • Netflix
  • Amazon
  • Wikipedia
  • Community centers
  • Publishers

Who are the people that use libraries?

  • Users
  • Patrons
  • Community
  • Customers
  • “future generations”

What are librarians?

  • Tour guides
  • Instructors
  • Organizers
  • “better googlers”
  • Metadata experts
  • Community leaders
  • Creators

A few notes after making this list. First, some of the language isn’t exactly metaphoric, per se, but I’m still somewhat interested in how differences in language impact perceptions or library collections and services. Second, I’m also perfectly aware that there isn’t one “best” answer or word for these questions. For example, librarians sometimes acts as an instructor and other times act as a metadata expert for an institution. So my question is not to settle the debate by saying “libraries should be instructors and not googlers” but merely explore what difference the linguistic framing makes.

For example, popular culture often juxtaposes libraries and Google. The nature of this justaposition changes based on the context – are these competing forces? complimentary? has one superceded the other? – but that is the language of the conversation. Students want a “google like experience” – but what does that mean? Librarians want their collections to be searchable by google…but some are reluctant to embrace and endorse google as a good searching tool.

Additional Thoughts/Questions

Is there a relationship between the language people use to describe libraries (cathedral, starbucks, etc.) be related to library architecture and design? Those two examples seem clearly connected – but I’d like to explore that relationship in more detail. Or perhaps someone has already.

It seems like other fields have done similar research. A few come to mind immediately but my frame of reference is currently the church and the way language is used in that context. Is it a “congregation” or an “audience” – does it matter? What is a pastor: a leader? A shepard? A servant? Again – my contest is limited but I would imagine that other fields have studied how language shifts with role and culture.

Would there be cultural/national differences in the framing metaphors people use? Thinking just about the English language – what is the cultural element to this and how does it impact people’s thoughts or feelings?

How could I begin to answer/address the question? Through a literature review? Interviews? Testing? Seems almost like an ethnographic research project.

So that’s a sketch of a research project I’d like to tackle some day. At core, I think it would be an exploration of what libraries are on a very basic and philosophical level and that it would be impossible for me to “catalog” the metaphors and languages while remaining neutral.

Posted on

Review/Notes – “Advancement of Discovery through Openness and Interoperability”

Marshall Breeding presenting on Advancement of Discovery through Openness and Interoperability.

The history of discovery as an introduction. Library website offered a menu of unconnected silos and services (ILS catalogs, articles, open URL link resolvers, etc.). Very fragmented and confusing. There has been a movement toward web-scale or centrally indexed content. These services combine data from a wide range of subscription sources and combine them all in a consolidated index that takes advantage of usage generated data and customer profiles. Putting all of that information into a central index creates problems because of the differences in metadata (article level vs. title level metadata, full text, etc.). There are also technical challenges – there must be some relevancy rating to help the user filter the results.

Breeding expanded the view the include publishers, aggregators, libraries, the library community, and (finally) the discovery service providers. It seems like most views of discovery portray only the library, discovery services, and the content when discussing this ecosystem.

NISO Open Discovery Initiative – an attempt to work through the details to make sure it’s a healthy ecosystem. More information is posted here: http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi.

How do you extend these services to other areas (Learning Management Systems, Google, etc.) to meet users where they are? Linked data is the larger horizon in the information ecosystem. Move away from library-specific schemes to open systems. [We can ask that of discovery services…but what about our own MARC records?] How will the open access movement change the way resources are discovered in (closed, commercial) systems? Right now, there are no open access discovery indexes…and there are lots of hurdles to building one. There are really no open source alternatives to discovery services.

What is the relationship between discovery services and resource management systems?

Posted on

Review/Notes – “How Discovery Services Tie into University Missions”

Dana Belcher from East Central University presenting on “How Discovery Services Tie into University Missions.”

Why discovery? Lots of reasons! Foster a learning environment, educate students, keep up with changes in society. These resources are tied to the University’s missions statement. Moved the library webpages totally to LibGuides; a positive change. Selected EBSCO discovery because they already had a lot of EBSCO products and the price is right. Make sure you understand 100% of the products/services offered! They created a profile for each major/area to customize a database list. After that, they worked with EBSCO to better define the limiters and facets – especially making changes to better meet user needs. Instruction is focused on limiting/faceting a search instead of “choose this database” type instruction.

Advice:

  • Communicate with vendor – make sure you understand 100% of services, make sure your catalog loading is correct.
  • Communicate with library staff – make sure the terminology is shared, have a way to report problems.
  • It’s more work for you – be prepared.

Focus on meeting the needs of the University and the needs of students. Everything is tied to the strategic plan for the library.

Posted on

Review: “The Community Is Your Collection”

This is a quick review/reflection of the Closing Address of ILEAD USA by R. David Lankes, Professor and Dean’s Scholar for the New Librarianship, Syracuse University School of Information Studies. The talk was titled “The Community Is Your Collection” and it was absolutely wonderful.

[vimeo id=”90151815″]

 

Posted on

Review – “Librarianship in the Great Age of Experimentation” with Steven Bell

I watched this webinar as part of the I LEAD USA program sponsered by the Illinois State Library Association. Here is a quick review to document the experience and reflect a little bit.

Librarianship in the Great Age of Experimentation

The presentation addressed the question “How do we create a culture of experimentation?” and started with a thought experience involve a student interview set in the year 2018 that praises a program call “Library that learns you.” This program – sort of like an embedded librarian/google information/netflix recommendation engine is praised. And then the speaker asked two questions: “Is this a  good idea” and “What do we need to learn/develop for this to work”

[youtube id=”rtWrnuHt9RQ”]

I think this exercise encouraged people to think creatively about long term goals. There was some limited discussion about the limits of library services (especially related to privacy and big data) and whether this “service” is an extension of traditional library services like embedded librarianship. People also talked about the need for cross-campus connection and the technology learning curve.

What is experimentation?

The presenter then asked simply “what is experimentation?” and gave some examples for science and engineering. In general, these examples stressed the need for trial and error and the combination of serendipity and hard work. He then offered these principles.

  1. Has to do with discovery. Starts with a question or quest.
  2. It makes things better. Improvement – easier, faster, more accessible.
  3. We should have an end goal that moves us forward into the future.

He then framed the rest of the presentation in three parts (I’ve used them as heading below)

There is an accelerated pace of innovation and experimentation in education

  • Lots happening – but most of it is happening outside of the traditional world of academia.
  • Where is the next Khan Academy?
  • Not much change in the last few hundred years (majors, etc.)
  • Jeff Salingo (http://www.jeffselingo.com/)
  • Move away from majors – more toward experiences.
  • No one wants to be first to change. No one wants to leave the “prestige” race.
  • Is that the fear of failure? Yes, absolutely.
  • Much more alt-ed now. Traditional education (4 years of linear study etc.) is waning.
  • Where do the alt-ed people connect with the library?
  • Sebastin Thrun Vision for Disruptive Higher Ed
  • We are in an evolutionary period.

2. Practical examples from libraries. (physical space and learning space)

  • Physical environment
    • SCALEUP room at Virgina Tech.
    • Also Purdue and Penn State?
    • Library leads experimentation.
    • NCSU Hunt library Creativity Studio.
    • What can space do we need to call it a “Creative space?”
    • “one button studio” very popular and gets people in the library.
    • Temple University: Think Tank and Flex-Study Space
    • Remind 101
  • Learning environment
    • Combining research and writing.
  • Publishing
    • Library Publishing Coalition
    • There is a crisis in scholarly publishing.
    • SUNY open textbooks
    • Publishing is a big movement.

3. Things we can do to create a better culture of experimenting

  • There is something good about experimentation.
  • Chip and Dan Heath – “”Switch”
  • Start small – keep it simple.
  • Think like a scientist – think like a designer. Question to experiment. Understand the problem.
  • Support staff re-skilling.
  • Create cross-departmental projects. Get out of silos.
  • Kill off the HiPPOs (Higher Paid Person’s Opinion)
  • Fail frequently and fail quickly.
  • Even in failure – what was learned?

Next steps:

  • Talk about it at your library. What is our tolerance for failure?
  • Connect with experimental projects.
  • Resolve to explore more mysteries.
  • These are important!
  • Mystery boxes are everywhere. (https://www.ted.com/talks/j_j_abrams_mystery_box)

 

Posted on

I LEAD U – Awesome Librarians

This is a quick review/reflection of the Opening Keynote Address (given Tuesday, March 26, 2013) by R. David Lankes, Professor and Dean’s Scholar for the New Librarianship, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

The talk is titled “Awesome Librarians” here is a link to the video.

Librarians must build more than a collection: they must build communities and conversations.

This address seems directed at the I LEAD U community and he exhorts the audience to take advantage of the opportunity and to learn to enjoy ambiguity. Throughout the opening of this talk, he is focused on building awesome librarians and not just awesome projects. The projects are important but are one part of the bigger picture. He shifts the focus from products and services (websites, videos, collections) to the fundamental mission of librarians, which he defines like this:

Our mission: to improve society. How do we do it? By facilitating knowledge creation in our communities.

I was quite refreshing hearing Professor Lankes repeat the actions of libraries – improve, learn, teach, engage – because it painted such a wonderful and broad perspective of what libraries are and what librarians do.

We are here to make our communities better.

Libraries build tools to allow this happen. This personally convicted me in a number of ways; I often think that my job is to make our electronic resources more accessible, or a user interface slightly better, or hidden collections more accessible. I think Lankes would say this is fine…so long as the most important goal is guiding these efforts.

Avoid talking about “the user” – only computer scientists and drug dealers have users. Don’t call them “consumers” or “customers” either. Don’t “use” the library but “join” the library in terms of shared activity. Measure the success of the library in terms of success of the community – not in spite of the community! He claims we approach too many problems with the mindset “my community doesn’t read enough” and then try and solve the problem like that. Don’t promote collections – ask “what do you want?” and “what do you want to be?” instead. Our communities have problems – but they also have dreams and aspirations and goals; the job of libraries is not to fix the problems – it is help people achieve their dreams and aspirations and goals.

To be an “awesome librarian” or an “epic librarian” don’t just do your job – understand why you do your job! This will help you determine when something different is needed. We are about human to human connection, conversation, and learning. What does learning require? Answers to this question will vary but are the most important parts of library service.

Help the community. The is the goal. The community is the collection.

My goals for I LEAD U: one, become awesome and, two, do awesome things.

Posted on

More on “More Product, Less Process”

As promised in an earlier entry, I would seek out different perspectives and responses to the paradigm shifting article “More Product, Less Process” and offer my reflections.

More Product, Less Process: Why It Matters to Archivists, Librarians, and Researchers a video from the ALCTS webinar series.

[youtube id=”YqftrBsHAl8″ align=”center”]

A presentation by Dennis Meissner, one of the authors of the original paper, largely duplicates the methodology and findings of the paper but is still and engaging and interesting example. It is less formal and less technical, but just as compelling in an audiovisual format. Meissner uses this quote from Winston Churchill to again set the tone of this presentation and mode:

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results

Again, Meissner largely covers the same ground as the article, especially in the first half of the recording. However, one topic – that of digitization – is new to this recording and makes this resource quite valuable. Meissner sees digitization as a huge opportunity and advocates that it be done to an “adequate” level in line with the general MPLP approach. People want the content much more than they want the metadata and practices must be aligned to user needs. He runs through many examples where the MPLP approach is applied to digital scans, collections of images, and born-digital material and frequently uses the words “adequate” and “sufficient” to describe this work. By far my favorite moment of this, and perhaps any library related webinar is when he says (around 41:45)

This PDF based solution is, from a more tradition digitization point of view, crude as hell.

But, he continues, this “crude as hell” approach works perfectly in some contexts and facilitates large scan digitization at a very low cost. According to MPLP, this is not cutting corners, just an appropriate treatment of an archival collection.

What’s Your Product? Assessing the suitability of a More Product, Less Process methodology for processing audiovisual collections. By Joshua Ranger, senior consultant for audiovisual preservation solutions.

This short articles tries to apply the principles of MPLP to audiovisual collections but mainly argues its shortcomings by pointing out the differences between manuscript and audiovisual collections. One key contribution is that he redefines the “product” in terms of findability, access/usability, and sustainability. These concerns looks radically different for audiovisual collections and his points are well taken. Another point, not directly related to the MPLP model, was striking:
Without the ability to playback an original format or to move that content to a new format that is not at risk of poor condition and/or obsolescence issues, an audiovisual collection is effectively meaningless. (page 3)
Many other points – like that traditional metrics like cubic feet can’t apply, that stake holders expect item level metadata, and that collection level descriptions simply aren’t adequate – make this a worthy and intriguing read.
More Product, Less Process: A Flexible by Sasha Griffin
This short, 10 page article details the way different archives have implemented the general MPLP approach and how they have responded and it is a very interesting resource and invites furhter discovery. In short, Griffin covers articles published by the following institutions that in some way respond to the principles of MPLP
  • Yale University’s Christine Weideman published an article about their attempt to address a backlog and the MPLP approach played in challenging current practices.
  • Donna McCrea, at the University of Montana at Missoula, used MPLP to challenge convention and improve efficiency for their collection
  • The Penn State Special Collections found that item level description was necessary for the Kenneth Burke papers and therefore challenged a precept of the MPLP approach (more on this later).
  • A few other voices that questioned whether the MPLP approach could be applied to personal papers and/or whether this was the end of “traditional” archival practices.

In response to these responses, Griffin summarizes by pointing out again that the MPLP approach is intentionally flexible and meant to allow the needs of users guide the process. Item level description isn’t ruled out by the MPLP (nor is pulling staples, it would seem) but that level of processing should only be done to meet the needs firstly of the users and secondly of the collection. The MPLP doesn’t claim to be a one-size-fits-all approach and therefore is hard to reject outright.

Posted on

Review of “More Product, Less Process”

Greene, Mark A., and Dennis Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing.” American Archivist 68, no. 2 (2005): 208– 263. http://archivists.metapress.com/content/c741823776k65863/fulltext.pdf

Today is a staff professional development day at the Brandel Library where we are free to research a topic of our choice. I’m embracing the opportunity by reading the paradigm shifting work “More Product, Less Process” by Greene and Meissner as well as some reflections/responses to it.

A Paradigm Shift

Overall, this article was a well argued case for massive changes in the way archivists manage manuscript collections that relies on several major shifts thinking. What was perhaps most striking – especially at the beginning – was the raw data. Examples of the “shocking” raw data:

  • 34% of archives have more than half of their holdings as “unprocessed” and 60% have at least a third unprocessed.
  • The time and cost of current processing practices (in terms of cubic feet processed) was staggering – as was the variation between institutions. Between $200 and $500 a foot taking between and priocessing times ranging between 67 hours per cubic foot to a low of 1.5 hours per cubic foot.

To a relative outsider, that data is shocking and seemingly troubling high!

Another thing that impressed me as a “outside” was how many of the practices, especially in terms of arrangement and preservation, were not definitively shown to have any real effect on preservation or use. At one point the authors refer to conservation practices, ones that varied widely between institutions, as “a disjointed and rather haphazard dedication to certain rituals” and I think their point as well as religious language is wonderfully appropriate.

When writing about why archivists haven’t changed practice to address these dire problems, the authors reason that

As a profession we give higher priority, in practice, to serving the perceived needs of our collection than to serving the demonstrable needs of our constituents.” (p.2)

This feels like one of the major paradigm shifts that influences every part of the library – how will <blank> meet the needs of the patrons, users, or constituents –  where the <blank> could be MARC records, mobile websites, library facebook pages, number of outlets, etc. It actually seems almost comical (or sad) how often this question must be asked to change practice.

[Let me offer this aside as a parenthetical remark. As an information profession, it seems reasonable to assume that sometime librarians and archivists must dedicate time and resources to things that don’t have a direct impact on the immediate experience of patrons or users but that nevertheless must be pursued because it simply needs to be done. For example, I’m thinking about Archon and applying LC subject headings to the collection. I simply don’t know how many users would see this as essential, but I’m still considering it because I think it might ultimately be in the best interest of all users. But I’m still considering that question – which seems to be the point of it! Aside complete.]

 Another major paradigm shift was in the turn toward metrics and objective data. The article asked basic questions like  – “what is the cost of processing collections to certain standards? how does this compare between institutions?” – before asking the larger, meta-question – “are archives scared to ask this question or scared of the answer?” But, the article argues forcefully, in the era of shrinking (or at least not growing!) resources and massive backlogs, archives must start to ask themselves these hard questions.

The actual call to change was interesting and compelling and I hope to read responses and reactions to it this afternoon. However, while the conclusions don’t apply directly to me in technical services, the issues addresses as well as the paradigm shifting questions are very much applicable.

Overall, I thought this was a wonderful article that seemed both revolutionary as well as perfectly natural. As a young person just beginning in the field of library and information science, I’m firmly convinced that the questions and standards this article considers are the crucial questions and that many of their conclusions are the right conclusions for this period.

More reactions to follow.

 

 

Posted on

“Focus on People, Not Tools”

I just read this great article posted by Library Journal: here is a link to the article.

Here are two highlights and my reflections on them:

Focusing on the technologies rather than the outcomes changes the way we talk about these topics and the way we learn about them. When we aim for the outcomes, we’re more likely to think deeply about the problems we’re trying to solve and consider multiple strategies that speed us to our goals.

Let me be clear: I’m not downplaying the importance of technology in libraries or setting up a false dichotomy. As a profession, librarianship has developed many mechanisms to learn about technology and the web. This is important, and we need to keep learning about the broader world of resources that can help us efficiently deliver our services. But let’s shift our collective eye to learning about people first, so everything we know about technology can be put in service of supporting meaningful goals.

Yes! Too often I fall into the habit of thinking about technology as the end itself rather as a means to a greater end. I really shouldn’t care how many people like a particular post or follow us on twitter – I really should care about the online community that has gathered around the library and meeting their needs.

Our collective focus on technology also prevents technology from being as deeply integrated into our libraries as it should be. When we fetishize technology, we can only look at it shallowly. When we depend on emerging technology librarians to be the ambassadors for relevant technologies, we take the rest of the organization off the hook.

In fact, if we put the emphasis on people, library technology will become even more important. Currently, it is all too easy to implement tech solutions halfheartedly, check the box that the project is complete, and more or less be done with it.

Yes. I think this article is such a basic reminder that my excitement about libraries and technology is best understood in the broader context of meeting user needs. At least for me, there is a tensions between measuring quantifiable outputs (numbers of followers, number of circulations, etc.) and measuring qualitative outcomes (how patrons engage with the library online, how patrons use library resources, etc.) but that in the best possible world the assessment practices should be tied to both objective standards and to the broader goals.

Posted on

Turning Tweets into Stories

I work in the technical services department of my library and I spend most of my time ordering and invoicing all the books for the Brandel Library at North Park University. It’s quite enjoyable (most of the time…) and most entries will be about my work and interest in the technical details of the library.

But, in addition to being the Acquisitions Coordinator, I’m also one of the library’s tweeters.

I (@ameyer24) began tweeting in 2008, but my library (@brandellibrary) started tweeting in March of 2012. I really love  tweeting for the library and am quite proud of the small following we’ve built and the conversations that we’ve entered into. In many ways, tweeting for the library is much easier than tweeting about my own life – mainly because I know the library can make big contributions to the conversations happening on twitter. It’s been great.

For this post, I wanted to share a tool I used that really encapsulated the value and importance of twitter. I used Storify to tell the story “Brandel Library, Finals Week, 2012“. Storify is a web service that “helps its users tell stories by curating social media.” I focused on just twitter, but Storify can also pull from facebook, youtube, flickr, instagram, google plus, and other websites. This flexibility and ease of use makes it an extremely valuable way to collect bits of social media and weave them into a compelling story.

I think this is especially important in an academic library setting. Storify can help libraries:

  1. Demonstrate the value of social media. I hear that many libraries have a difficult time demonstrating the value of social media. I think a carefully curated story shows (to a wary director, to the administration, to the wider campus community) the value and importance of entering those conversations. I think our story provides concrete examples about how twitter can benefit the community. Our story reveals how other patrons actively answered questions about the library. It tells us something about how people use the library space. It shows the pride some people have for the library. Twitter is no longer a ‘waste of time’ – it’s a new way we can demonstrate our value to the broader campus community.
  2. Thank their community. After creating and publishing the story, I sent out tweets thanking each person who contributed something to the story. Along with retweeting and responding, this was another way to show individuals how much their voices mattered to the library. Twitter is great because of the conversations it can create. I am careful not to use twitter as a place to post announcements – I want to use twitter as a way to engage patrons and communities in conversation. I want to have public conversations through twitter, not shout library announcements.

I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more academic libraries create and curate stories to Storify. It seems like a perfect way to weave discrete bits of media into a compelling story that demonstrates the value of social media and that rewards library patrons for sharing their experiences.

I’d love to hear or see how other libraries are using Storify to tell different stories. I’d also love to hear any one speak to whether/how Storify could be used to archive and preserve these digital conversations.