Talk of the Nation is talking libraries on February 21. So many of us have written and said so much about the 21st century library that it’s hard to be fresh on this topic, so I’ll start with someone else’s view.
This weekend, Book TV replayed Andrei Codrescu’s recent keynote address to the American Library Association. It struck me, as I watched him address thousands of librarians, that Codrescu, a very traditional writer in many respects, agrees that books, libraries, and the very nature of information are changing rapidly. However, Codrescu sees opportunities for libraries where some in my own profession see danger or loss.
Condrescu sees libraries in the role of community digital repositories and producers of culture, and he called librarians to embrace the role of libraries as cultural centers. “Take away the library and what you have is the mindless shopping mall,” he insisted, and offered fresh ideas and insights about sustaining relevance for libraries even after the book becomes an artifact.
Codrescu said bookmobiles should be as big and as architecturally interesting as possible, and offered a vision of “low-flying Hindenbergs.” He sees libraries centered around writing, literacy, and the celebration of reading in all its forms. He urged us to make libraries friendlier for events such as poetry readings. He says librarians will need to reinvent themselves along with libraries.
Codrescu offered this riddle:
How is a librarian better than a mouseclick?
A machine doesn’t get tired and doesn’t waste time worrying about the quality of the information.
That bit of humor encapsulates the role librarians can play in the 21st century–and often do already play, in more enlightened libraries. Many libraries offer old services in new forms, such as using instant messaging and email to answer reference questions. A very fine library recently took the time to send me a several-hundred-word email answer to my emailed question, what kind of trees were common to the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the Revolutionary War? Not only that, the librarians went above and beyond, recommending good books and commenting that one of their librarians was a Revolutionary War reenactor. This human engagement is priceless, and we will miss it if it goes away.
The 21st-century library is convenient, attractive, and comfortable, and it offers the services I expect in a modern information society. I get daily use out of the many excellent databases brokered by the Gleeson Library of the University of San Francisco, where I am a graduate student. I consider Gleeson Library one of “my libraries” even though I have only been in the library two or three times and experience this library largely through its website. When I do stop in to the Gleeson Library–because not everything is digital, and never will be, and we need repositories to hold and share the materials that are difficult to digitize–there, I take time to watch the students studying, reading, or simply daydreaming in the beautiful library atrium, where they can bring their water-bottles and enjoy free wi-fi.
But the 21st-century library offers services that the 20th-century library did well, too. I love Google, and I use it all day, but Google doesn’t know how to read a picture book to a toddler or wipe the tears of a crying child, it doesn’t know how to steer a teenager to a good homework topic, and Google can’t provide a place where I can sit and read among other members of my community–that “third place” some have written about, the alternative to Codrescu’s dystopic reference to the “mindless shopping mall.”
The most daunting problems libraries face today is twofold. First, the profession is divided between those who see the new information age as a threat to old ways, and who stay focused on old formats and old methods of delivering them, with grudging lip service to new technologies, versus those who see the new information society as a great opportunity–one that might liberate us from our role as curators of dead-tree collections and move us toward the more dynamic, vital, and timeless role of cultural leaders.
The balance shifts with every new batch of graduates from library school and every new roster of retirements, but it’s questionable that it’s shifting fast enough. Which leads into our second challenge: the slow, reactive quality of most librarians. We have repeatedly allowed private entities to coopt our turf, and we have only ourselves to blame. Too many librarians aren’t asking why a private company is digitizing the great libraries, and why this wasn’t a national priority for us, the profession that brought you the libraries of Alexandria, Melvil Dewey, and the card catalog. I don’t begrudge Google what it’s doing with Google Scholar, but I do begrudge the leaders in our profession for their failure of imagination and at times almost superstitious fear of change.
It is now obvious to writers such as Andrei Codrescu, and even to the current president of the American Library Association (who in his comments after Codrescu’s keynote address remarked that we seemed to be rolling back to the chaos of the Manuscript Age, so it was not an optimistic view on his part), and even to the hosts of radio shows, that the paper-based book will soon be an anachronism. Books are now born as digital objects; it’s only a matter of time before we stop felling trees and keep those digital objects in their own forms. The question in my profession is almost one of allegiance: are we about books, or are we about information in its myriad evolving forms, and the people who use it?
For those alert enough to be paying attention, the action plan for libraries in the 21st century is simple: change or die. The ironic part is that it’s very clear in the broadest sense how we should change and where we should take the lead, but it’s like my favorite lightbulb joke: How many therapy patients does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to really want to change. If we don’t want to change, then it doesn’t really matter what we’re like in this century, because it will be our last.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Tout Alors! The French Get Wound Up over Google Print - 2005
- Librarians talk about Wikipedia on NPR - 2005
- The Bells are Ringing - 2004
May I just add: what you said.
I agree with Karen. Most libraries and librarians are usually reactive.
The culture of libraries took a long time to create, and it will take more time to
remake.
The changes we experience are radical and transformational and libraries
do not have the luxury of time.
As long as our profession is focused inwardly, dealing with change will be reactive and slow.
As long as many librarians continue to think that our way of thinking and doing is better (but misunderstood), and that libraries will survive forever (and Googles will come and go) we will continue to be in trouble..
I do not see libraries and librarians changing without a fundamental shift in our own
professional culture. That process is painful. We need a different set of leaders who are willing to take some real risks to affect real change.
First as professional librarians we must all conclude that information is changing on all platforms. Librarians must accept this and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead for this profession. As long as we bicker about the old ways we will not let in the new. This is holding our profession back.
Rodney Rich
Assistant Director
Weslaco Public Library
As an almost graduated librarian (3 more weeks!), I agree with you about the need for change, and how the field is changing by new blood, not by the old dogs learning new tricks. I recently finished a job at a digital library that was based in a brick and morter library. I saw the new school librarians and the old school librarians, and I am so sick of the attitudes of the old school librarians that I’ve decided to go back to the business field I was in before grad school.
Better money, and most essentially, no resistance to technology, progress and change. In the business world, change is embraced as inevitable and necessary. In the library world, its something to be feared. Perhaps in another 10 years attitudes will have changed and I’ll be back in the library field.
Marion:
was that ‘new school’ librarians, or new ‘school librarians’ ?
Big difference! (although there are still some old school minds in some of the new school librarians…)
I’m glad Karen took the time to watch Andrei’s speech. I’ll admit that I got caught up in the “Cuba Crap” part of it, and have not spent the time reflecting on the other part, which is what we all should think about. Now, I’ll have to go find it on the web and read it (I haven’t hear that it was posted yet….but I have a library to run, also.)
Michael Golrick, ALA Executive Board Member and City Librarian, Bridgeport CT
Alice,
It was “new school” librarians, as in those of the new school of thought in reference to change and technology.
I do worry about where my career path can go at this point, because I’ve been spoiled by over five years in a nontraditional library setting. How you gonna keep them down at the farm…
I graduated from U of I in ’93 and I have been working hard to keep my eyes, ears and mind open to new ways of doing things in the public library. I am at a point in my career where I am finally becoming able to make changes in the institutions in which I work. I’ve been itching for this possibility. Its exciting and scary at the same time.
What needs to be done in my opinion is to win over those “old ways” people to new ways, bring them into the conversation and not just complain about them. Share information, share ideas, share new technologies…oh yes and don’t get discouraged!!!
I just don’t see this as an either/or situation. There are tons of really good things happening in our libraries every day. There are lots of new things and lots of old things. As always, some of us are good at doing some things, some are good at doing other things and some of this overlaps.
On a conference bus at the ALA Conference in New York City, 1996, I sat with a reporter. He said something about libraries being a thing of the past within 10 years. I said that I would have agreed with him a few years earlier but now (1996) I could see the evolution in libraries and think they will be around well into the future and well beyond the time of print on paper.
I still think I am right, 10 years later.
Many of us do embrace the new. Some of us don’t think embracing the new necessarily means throwing out the old.
(Yes, you can probably tell that I am really tired of phrases like “Most libraries and librarians …” and other generalizations.
I also think that the concept of “First, the profession is divided between those who see the new information age as a threat to old ways, and who stay focused on old formats and old methods of delivering them, with grudging lip service to new technologies, versus those who see the new information society as a great opportunity–one that might liberate us from our role as curators of dead-tree collections and move us toward the more dynamic, vital, and timeless role of cultural leaders…” is very limiting. There are many places between, and maybe beyond, these two views of the library world. That is where I think many of us are.
Also, I think that digitalization is just now becoming possible for the small library to look at as the costs have come down and ease of digitalizing has increased. I see the local libraries being leaders in their local communities with the digitalization of local public and historical records. The small, local public library is in a position to make this a very real possibility but will probably never be in the position to do the digitalization of works published by major publishing houses, nor should they be.
And, once again, I could go on and on but I now have to go check on the copier that is copying stuff onto paper that I will be sending out to the local school and public libraries because it is the easiest and still the best form for communication with this particular item. And I am saying this because we have most of it available through at least 3 websites and still they want the paper, and, to be honest, so do I.
While I like Diedre’s point about the continuum, and appreciate Sandra’s optimism, I do not feel our profession is moving forward fast enough as a whole, and I’ve also not encountered enough sense of urgency, joy in change, or willingness to embrace new technology. Yes, some, but not enough, and not fast enough. We need more of it, and we need leaders to take us there. I’m very pleased that Leslie Burger is mentoring Council and ALA in new technologies–we need more like her.
I also think it’s telling when someone says, “Look–I’m using paper!” I use paper too, a lot of it, all day, but Andrei Codrescu’s point is that the world is changing rapidly, the paper-based book will be an anachronism within our lifetime, and libraries are about much more than books. That was my original point. It’s not lost on me that someone outside of our profession had to say it; the curmudgeon outside the gates has the clear-eyed view (that comment cheerfully stolen from one of my profs).
I work for the City of Rochester at Rochester Public Library, and there will be 800 library people throughout New York State this Tuesday, March 14th for Library Lobby Day in Albany, NY as we library clerks, library supporters, librarians and directors ask for more funding instead of our present 1992 budget! We have reduced our staff in half and had to cut so many library services as well as the inevitability of closing some branch libraries. Please write to the New York State Legislature (to Governor George Pataki, especially) as well as to Senator Joseph Bruno and other Conservatives who tend to side with the Governor’s cutbacks…The more they hear from you, the better are the chances to get more funding for other libraries in New York State and in other states as well. Thanks for your efforts as this is a critical time for libraries. We need more publicity with the media as well, so write some editorials supporting the educational value of libraries. Libraries equal education for all the people from all walks of life.