Review – Publisher of the Community: We’re All Doomed

I just watched R. David Lankes’s recent keynote and wanted to post a short review of the material he covered.

Information

“Publisher of the Community: We’re All Doomed” Closing keynote for the NISO Workshop on “Using the Web as an E-Content Distribution Platform: Challenges and Opportunities.” http://quartz.syr.edu/blog/?p=6265

Abstract: We need to build platforms for scholarship and knowledge development, not information and content delivery. These platforms are not about APIs and eContent, but about people and content. We need to strive not for discovery, but epiphanies.

[vimeo id=”109836897″]

Reflection/Response

I really enjoyed this presentation and will take a few new ideas from it. Beyond new ideas, it was refreshing and inspiring and perhaps a bit challenging to hear his thoughts about collections and technology.

Lankes began by talking about the “death of documents” in that the definitions of documents are changing in rapid and new ways. Digital stuff is different at a fundamental level and the editorial process is radically different because digital information resources are living, changing things. There is continuity in this change but, overall, the change has been a massive paradigm shift. The words “ebooks” and “ejournals” are really just metaphors – we are trying to fit new information into old information formats.

This section flooded my mind with thoughts.

In my work moving the Covenant Quarterly online, how can I respect both the “old format” while embracing the new opportunities of a digital environment?
I asked a very similar question about my work with the Northfield Historical society – how do I work with that community and not just their collection? Great questions that are constantly reframing my approach.

Lankes also argues for a “sea change” in the history of library and library services – we need to stop thinking about content. There have been massive shifts in the last 40 years:

Collection focus. Our primary role was collecting and preserving documents. This worked…but only worked with a functional infrastructure of knowledge producers (academics and publishers) and libraries. Technical revolutions changed that – things like cheap paper and ink – and libraries had to change and evolve. The modern conception of a “book palace” – a building full of books – is a product of this period of time. This model is breaking – and totally broken by the digital revolution and the internet. Creating MARC records for webpages is crazy.
Service focus. Cataloging is a service – that has both internal and external audiences. Question – are we really applying our services to the external audience? From library orientation to information literacy – that’s a sign of the shift from collections to service focused libraries. This is a big change…but it’s not enough. It’s still operating in the “consumption” model of information. This model creates an artificial line between the knowledge consumption process and the knowledge creation process.
Conversation focus. It’s not about putting content online – it’s about making libraries as centers for conversations as mediators and participants. Conversations create revolutions. Move beyond collecting and organizing metadata toward capturing scholarship itself.

A Netflix for education doesn’t work because education isn’t based on consumption – it’s based on learning and learning is based on conversation and participation.

However, I do take issue with some of these claims. First, this presentation created vocational confusion. Lankes argues – persuasively, I might add – that libraries must move beyond a focus on collections to a focus on service and even beyond that to community conversations. However, my library and my position in the library are organized around the first two areas – collections and services – and my job is focused squarely on maintaining access to our collections and a few of our services. So while I’m inspired by the claims that we need to focus beyond those things I wondered what those new services and platforms for community conversations could actually look like and – as importantly – how do we move in that direction without the required skills? Lankes said that “People create restrictions that technology has removed” but that gives me pause for several reasons. First – the technical challenges to what Lankes proposed are not trivial. The technical infrastructure takes time and energy and expertise that many libraries and community groups simply lack. Second, how do we manage this change?

These – of course – are criticisms as much as they are struggling to think through the ramifications of his argument in my local context and in the context of my future.

CC image from Flickr - https://flic.kr/p/hKQMcN — CC image from Flickr – https://flic.kr/p/hKQMcN

Looking forward, I’d like to think more about the following things and perhaps explore them in library school:

The history of the book and the history of libraries. It seems like many librarians take this background and context for granted but I think it deserves intentional study.
Focus on building conversations. I think this means a focus on reference and instruction but – beyond that – how can I work with the communities I’m a member of?
How can I embody that belief – that the real goal of learning isn’t the consumption of knowledge or the production of knowledge but mediating and participating in that conversation? I try and do that here on my blog – but my attempts have been mixed. I will renew that effort!

Okay. I think that’s enough in the way of reflections. That’s plenty to think about and plenty to wrestle with for now.

2014-12-01

“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.

2014-11-182017-02-11

Review/Notes – “Behind the Point-and-Click Discovery Tool: Integrating Critical Thinking in Finding Resources”

Rob Hallis presenting on Behind the Point-and-Click Discovery Tool: Integrating Critical Thinking in Finding Resources

History of discovery: silos of databases to federated searching to “pushed suggestions”. Pulled data = what you “pull” from a system; Pushed data = what a system (like Amazon) “pushes” at you. Is critical thinking an “autonomous activity?” I don’t think so! Move from a bibliographic paradigm to a constructive process where there is uncertainty and confusion. He is using “Seeking Meaning: A process approach to Library and Information Science” by Kuhthau. (http://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/all/vf-npu/Record/2557683).

Questions/Thoughts unrelated to the main presentation:

Do we really know enough about how students think/learn through online searching in any form (OPAC, database, discovery)?
He uses this metaphor for searching for information resources: online shopping. You know what you want and where to look – but you don’t click the first thing. You shop around. Is this a good metaphor? What’s a better metaphor/image to use?
These presentations are really demonstrating the huge range of what falls under library “instruction” – from simple multiple choice tutorials to walking through a very complicated search processes. I wonder if that’s even a meaningful term at some point. How involved in the thesis creation process are libraries/librarians? It seems like this presenter portrays libraries as very active in the thesis/research process from the very beginning…but is that the case at our institutions? That seems like the role of the classroom professor.
Many presenters use the passive voice or at least speak passively when talking about Discovery Services. For example, “the resources that the discovery services provide” instead of “discovery services provide resources.” I wonder what this reflects – a mistrust of discovery? A lack of understanding of what discovery layers do or how they actually work? Or is this verbiage trying to focus on the actions of the user over the actions of the discovery service?