Nat’s Weblog

At the mid-point of the semester, I reflected about how the technological exposure involved in this class had helped me out/ was helping me out.  All of that remains true.  For this final class post, I guess I’ll go in a slightly different direction…

First, I want to say that I feel this class has brought together a number of the issues I have found most interesting in my education here at Dominican.  As described in my previous post about my paper, I am interested in L2 as a cultural movement.  I’ve been thinking about organizational culture ever since 701 and I have returned to the topic in papers three times now, trying out new approaches with each paper.  I’m interested now in trying to go a little bit further and I am considering two more papers involving organizational culture, but these will probably have to be written on my own time.

Ever since 701, I have also appreciated classes that allow for in-class labs with instructor feedback.  I’m glad Michael Stephens took the time to get to know each of us and for the fact that he was generous with his time and his interest.

In fact, I just want to say that I feel I learned as much from watching Prof Stephens’s personality in action as I learned from the class.  He seems like a generous, good-hearted person whose patience and curiosity could serve as a model to each of us.  The ‘controversy’ over the annoyed librarian’s attacks gave us a chance to see what it looks like when a person chooses to take the high road by avoiding pettiness.

Finally, I guess I’ll weigh in on the assignments, since there was some back and forth on this subject at the final class.  I have to say that I feel a research paper is about the most important assignment any class can have.  Papers give students a chance to explore their own interests within the framework of a class and to exercise their own initiative.  If pursued seriously, they provide excellent learning opportunities and they can lead to independent projects.

Thanks for the class!

I have excerpted my introduction below. Actually, I’m hoping to come back to some of the topics in this paper. As mentioned in the body of the paper, I am intrigued by the thought of L2 as a homegrown (or library native) cultural movement, mixing elements of the adhocracy, clan, and market-oriented cultures described by the Competing Values Framework. I would like to spend more time thinking about L2 as a cultural movement and about how technology plans can be used to move culture. I have been pretty skeptical of culture change programs, given the weight of anecdotal evidence, and I tend to agree with Lynn Meeks (quoted in the full paper) when she says that culture is not something a manager can manipulate at will. On the other hand, I do think that culture can change and that culture is especially ‘malleable’ (if you will) when organizational structure is changed (as when departments are merged or staffing changes dramatically) or when tools change. A further consideration is the fact that I’m a little less skeptical of organizational development programs now, because I visited the Des Plaines library recently (which underwent a Learning Organization development plan), than I was when I started this paper.

Introduction
In the past several years, many library professionals have argued that libraries must change if they are going to remain relevant to new generations of patrons. One such argument, stated in a variety of forms, asserts that the organizational culture of libraries, whether public or academic, is too rigidly bureaucratic and risk-averse to survive in a rapidly changing environment. Some have urged organizational development (OD), or culture change, programs for whole libraries, but there are few examples of successful top-down, institution-wide change programs and much evidence that such programs are likely to fail. Other arguments have been more specific, urging adoption of new tools or espousing new (or re-stated) values. Such arguments imply culture change efforts, insofar as a culture can be identified according to its artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions (Schein 1992, 17-26), but these change efforts are less grandiose, more pragmatic, and, perhaps, more likely to succeed.

The “Library 2.0” approach to change offers new tools, new values, and new assumptions to libraries. The strong emphasis on technological adaptation among Library 2.0 (L2) advocates is particularly interesting since changing patterns of tool-use both drive and indicate culture change. In the current historical moment, there are a number of technological opportunities available to libraries, some of which have not been discussed as widely in the L2 literature as others. These opportunities include migration from proprietary to open source Integrated Library Systems (ILSs), merging of library and information technology (IT) departments (within universities), and the development and support of new venues for scholarly communication (within university libraries). Each of these opportunities, if grasped, could be expected to drive culture change in directions promoted by the advocates of more idealized, whole library culture change programs.

Sharon, Andrew, and I worked on the social tagging/ folksonomies/ delicious project together. It was my impression that we all chose the project because we didn’t know anything about this topic and we figured it would be a good way to learn.

We set up a wiki for communication and we used it fairly well, to post resources and to communicate, but we also used email for communication. I think we would have explored the wiki options a little bit more if our project had required more multimedia materials. I have introduced wikis to my wife because of this class and she has been using a wiki to set up a collaboration with an artist friend. They have been posting images, text, and videos, but I think they are running into the ceiling on free storage at PBWiki… I’m interested in exploring the wiki options a little bit more, as my schedule opens up, because I really liked what our class wiki project team accomplished with their wiki.

Since Sharon, Andrew, and I weren’t very sure where to start, we talked to Prof Stephens and he suggested that we look at the Dublin Delicious acct/ pathfinder as a model. Following that model, we decided to make a simplified (incomplete) version for Chicago, by concentrating on things to do in Chicago. I volunteered to work on visual arts. Sharon took sports, museums, neighborhoods, etc.. And Andrew took restaurants, as well as good places to buy food supplies. We also started reading up on some of the issues involved in social tagging and I’m pretty sure we hit most or all of the academic sources.

As we progressed with our bookmarks, we discussed methods to optimize it for use in our fictional library, as well as ways make it as useful as possible in the library setting. These discussions contributed to our final presentation. Or, at least, I drew on these talks for my discussion of hierarchy in our presentation. Sharon found the instructions to set up a feed from the delicious account to a web-page and we decided that I would set up a fictional web-page pathfinder. Although I experimented with the instructions she found, I never got it functioning quite right, so I ended up using the simple utility provided by delicious. Actually, I was quite happy with how this turned out, since I thought the tag cloud worked well in the framework of a traditional HTML pathfinder.

As the time to present the project neared, Sharon drew up a list of her concerns about our project and her thoughts about social tagging, folksonomies, etc. in general. This list turned out to provide a great overview for the project, so we decided she would open the presentation with a modified version of her list. Andrew was drawn to the cataloging issues. I decided to talk about the implementation process and to present our prototype.

We did decide to use a 1.0 technology (ppt) for the presentation, simply out of habit, instead of a web platform presentation tool, but I thought it turned out pretty nicely anyway…

I have posted my group’s presentation on the topic of bookmarking/ tagging (below). My own delicious account is accessible through the links on the right side of this blog (under the RSS feeds and the Flickr feed), or here.

I have found Delicious to be very useful for the purpose of gathering research sources for this class, my Internet Publishing class, and my Metadata class, although I haven’t yet organized my personal bookmarks well enough. I’m looking forward to the end of this semester when I can follow-up on many of the issues raised in classes this semester, or just to clean up the messes I’ve made this semester in my rush to complete projects and papers.

Also, I just want to mention that I had the opportunity to talk to two librarians at my new favorite public library in our area (Des Plaines). This place impressed the heck out of me. The physical space was pleasant, airy, and well-lit. The collection layout was inviting. The library policies were tolerant and trusting. Management seemed to be flexible and communicative, and decision-making was transparent. The librarians I spoke with were forward-thinking and well-informed, aware of all of the technologies I brought up in the course of our conversation. I should mention, though, that they didn’t seem to know (yet) how to integrate delicious accounts with subject pathfinders, as discussed in my group’s presentation, so it felt great to be able to share some knowledge with such ‘advanced’ librarians…

Delicious tagging and pathfinders presentation

I have to admit that I posted about the annoyed librarian three times just to see what impact it would have on my traffic. I saw huge spikes when I did my part to out Ms. Farkas, but since then, my traffic has settled down to the very pedestrian levels I probably should expect from an infrequent blog on student issues. Of course, I haven’t posted for awhile, so I could assuage my burgeoning blogger’s ego with the thought that there’s been nothing new to read, but really, I was just riding on the annoyed librarian’s wave — just as, I suppose, she rides the Library 2.0 wave, in her own way.

That said, I’ve got to say that I’m not all that interested in gossip blogs or editorial blogs. I suppose some personal interest blogs are pretty cool because people who learn a lot out of love for what they learn are pretty cool. I’m finding subject blogs to be very useful, whether they have been constructed by library or corporate professionals, or academic blogs. I’d like to contribute along those lines eventually, as I’ve mentioned, if I think the information will be useful.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to spend some time touring the information commons of the main library for one of the midwest’s most prestigious universities. I have to say it was impressive. The hardware was unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else, with new, powerful desktops at the workstations, big flatscreen monitors, special conferencing centers with touchscreen project tools, and, of course, the latest possible design for the whole layout. They had even developed a bit of code to allow images to be displayed on multiple, stacked monitors in order to show magnified digital images, although they weren’t real clear on how they were going to make use of that technology.

In fact, they weren’t real clear on their direction at all. The reference librarian in charge of the information commons expressed an interest in social networking technologies and talked, generally, about wanting to encourage new venues for scholarly communication (or, at least, studently communication), but he seemed a bit lost about where to start and what to do. The guy who ran the day to day operation of the info commons wasn’t even an MLIS. He seemed happy to deal with printer problems and to leave ‘technical’ problems to an IT department that was distinct from the library (???). He did not spend any time thinking about how to bring new technologies or software into the library. In fact, I’m not sure how easily the librarians could have accomplished this, abject as they were at the feet of a separately managed team of IT folks who were not trained to think about librarian concerns. The info commons didn’t even use IM for reference. Each desktop was loaded up with the usual suite of office tools and that was it.

Looking back, now, I can say that they very definitely could have used some exposure to “Library 2.0.” The fact is that Library 2.0 offers a package of tools and a vision for how to implement them. In addition, L2 gives librarians a package concept for communicating with administration. An abundant literature on the subject and the stir inspired by prominent representatives of the L2 “movement” give librarians something to show administration in any effort to bring in change or change-making tools.

In my own view, L2 should be a launching point to further enable librarians to take on yet ‘bigger’ issues. I’m really excited about the kinds of opportunities librarians have right now — like implementing open source integrated library systems (and developing new add-ons) or setting up open access publishing venues. I plan to spend more time talking about this stuff later, but the issue now is that L2 (as a category of ideas and discussions and proof-of-concept implementations) would seem to allow librarians to take some control over their destinies.

On the other hand, some librarians might already be well past L2. I think the annoyed librarian mentioned how she’s already at work on five oh. That’s an interesting thought. I’d imagine that an L5 library publishes several peer reviewed journals, offers subject and institutional repositories with high usage rates, supports several scholarly social networks, and is in no way dependent on a corporation for the ILS, as a start. I’d love to hear more about it, because frankly, that’s how change will be effected in other libraries, by sharing ideas and using umbrella concepts to improve the efficiency of communication.

I embedded this video here as an exercise, but it is definitely worth watching through to the end, regardless of what kind of music you might like…

There are over 1.7 million blogs on wordpress, not to mention any of the other blog hosts. I can’t guess how many of these accounts are actually active, but it seems safe to say that there must be at least a couple of million of blogs active today. I’m sure many of those blogs include thoughtful, intelligent, insightful posts, but it seems as if the “top blogs,” the ones that attract the most traffic or comments, must be the most partisan, provocative sites. The obvious examples are those lowest common denominator type political blogs which speak to the rabid elements in either party. I think “The Annoyed Librarian” is an example of this kind of blog because it makes one-sided attacks (verging on personal attacks) and uses time-honored low-political techniques, like sarcasm, instead of argument or reason.

Well, duh, you might say, but I think some use could actually be made of the annoyed librarian. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been struck by how many articles discuss the “hierarchical,” “bureaucratic,” “stuck,” and “static” culture of the library. Organizational development efforts have been attempted to push the cultures of individual libraries toward something more reflective of the learning organization, of clan-like and adhocracy-like cultures. While culture assessment tools exist to measure the areas of greatest need for development efforts in-house at individual libraries, I’ve never seen a study which has attempted to determine the extent of inertia in the library field. Are 50% of all librarians resistant to innovation … 25% … 90%? It would be interesting to have an idea of how many librarians would actually set out to sabotage efforts to bring change into the library, either passively or actively. How many librarians would stomp around, pout, act annoyed, or make sarcastic comments to the patrons about new programs and outreach efforts?

Would it be possible to design an exploratory, somewhat subjective study based on the annoyed librarian’s blog and her readership? The study would need to depend on a subjective analysis of language-use and a survey of, say, the twenty or so most prominent library blogs, but I think something useful could be learned. Imagine comparing the annoyed librarian’s blog to something constructive like “Library 2.0 - An Academic’s Perspective,” for example. On the other hand, it might turn out that the combative style of the annoyed librarian’s blog leads to high numbers of comments, but not to high loyalty, per se. Consider, for example, that 196 people have tagged “Library 2.0 - An Academic’s Perspective” in delicious, while “only” 165 people have tagged the annoyed librarian.

It’s just a thought … but I wouldn’t mind getting a better idea about whether the annoyed librarian is representative of a majority of librarians or whether the high comment numbers on her blog just represent the raucous shoving match of a loud, but relatively small mob.

Also, I should mention that while I was writing this, Elizabeth81 commented on my previous post and to point out that the annoyed librarian is actually funny. I don’t think I disagree necessarily with that point, but I do think that humor can be used hurtfully and negatively, so I am wary about embracing something simply for the fact that it is funny. I guess I could go ultra-serious and talk about how humor has been used to support all kinds of bigotry and hate, but I think I’ll leave that alone. I’m sure Margaret Farkas, or whoever the annoyed librarian might be, is a good person with a wicked sense of humor and some good points to make, at times, about libraries and library schools, but I think it’s important to pay attention to the big picture, to think about how libraries can grow using constructive input, and to set negativity aside insofar as it is possible when disagreement occurs in order to enable dialogue and to try to build consensus.  I’ve played the devil’s advocate often enough myself, so I know there is value in it, but I’m not so sure that dripping sarcasm qualifies.

When I first came to library school, I was struck, actually amazed, by the sense of crisis in the field. I came from the private sector, having worked as a treasurer for a software company, and I can say, maybe immodestly, that I helped turn the company around, as it quintupled in revenue during my time with the company and unwanted terminations went from rates between 20% and 30% in my first few years to rates that remained below 5% in my last four years. I was lucky enough to work for a smallish firm without fixed notions about job responsibilities, perhaps because it was struggling when I started there due to changes in the business environment, so anybody with initiative could contribute to the effort of identifying opportunities and seizing them. I eventually decided to leave the field, though, because I felt like something was missing. I wanted to get into public service in a role I believed to be as valuable as any: helping people develop and explore life-long learning habits. I still believe it, but I have sometimes been discouraged by the sense of doom that creeps into the textbooks and the professional literature.

In the course of researching metadata topics, organizational culture, library management issues, collection development, online information systems, and so on, I’ve been consistently impressed by the high intelligence and motivation of many people working in the field, offering new adaptations to the core of librarianship, but I’ve also seen countless references to the ‘old librarian.’ Frankly, I thought this was a bugaboo, something to keep library students up at night, studying for new roles. The people I’ve met in the field are too energetic and they care too deeply about the mission of libraries to fit the description.

Well, I’ve finally gotten a glimpse of that old librarian, the stereotypical annoyed librarian. She calls herself just that, the annoyed librarian, although I’m still not sure that her posts are not just bad jokes. From what I’ve read so far, she just seems like a stereotype, something bitter and crabbed from a black and white movie, shushing the kids and trying to protect the books from the patrons. To be honest, I didn’t really waste that much time reading the annoyed librarian blog, because it seemed like a waste of time. I’ve known her type — actually I’ve fired her type — because that kind of mean-spirited politicking leads to nothing productive. I like to think people are largely rational and that most will do their best in the right context with the right motivation, but there do seem to be those few who take a strange delight in acting annoyed, in sharing their bitterness. I considered this to be poisonous in the corporate environment, where we needed to work together to bring in new ideas and find solutions.

I’m just a student now, but I’m hoping to work for a library and to contribute my own little bit to the next century of librarianship. I think there are some incredibly exciting ideas out there, new methods to bring in patrons, to push the library’s resources, to help people learn and grow. It’s obvious that ‘controversial’ ideas like gaming will help, regardless of what the annoyed librarian might have said. Actually, I can’t believe this is even controversial. There’s no argument that can be made to say that games don’t teach. I know some people might see gaming as sugar with the medicine, something to bring kids into the library, where they can learn an appreciation for the whole library, but I think it’s obvious that just gaming is enough. Folks like the annoyed librarian (are there a lot of them? is this really what librarians act like? seriously?) have obviously not observed kids playing, or thought about how kids learn … or adults, for that matter. It is very troubling.

BTW, my grandma always said: “Only boring people get bored.”

Instead of talking about Ning specifically, I just want to mention an interesting little article I read titled Credibility of Content and the Future of Research, Learning, and Publishing in the Digital Environment, by Kate Wittenberg. I was working on a paper about Open Access publications (”An Overview of the Case for More Active Library Involvement in the Open Access Movement”) and thinking about peer review, so I was particularly struck by these words: “As students continue to use and develop networked environments, it may be the case that the status of being admitted into a community by its members exceeds the credibility gained through ‘outside’ peer review.” (Wittenberg, Kate. 2007. Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10, no. 1 (Winter)).

This quotation rang a bell with me because I had just read about the Princeton-Stanford Working Papers in Classics collection (PSWPC). In the PSWPC, “Papers are not peer-reviewed. Instead, quality is monitored by limiting the number of scholars who are permitted to post research on the site to the faculty of the two universities, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scholars, as well as graduate students with faculty approval” (Ober et al. 2007. Toward open access in ancient studies: The Princeton-Stanford working papers in classics. Hesperia, 76, no. 1 (Jan/Mr)). This kind of collection seems like a stepping stone toward more fully-fledged scholarly social networks in the humanities fields. Of course, ArXiv is another sort of example, although it seems to be less “exclusive” in social networking terms (studies have shown that ArXiv has a “quality bias” over subscription journals, so despite the lack of “exclusivity,” the quality of the work would seem to be high … see Moed, H.F. 2007. The effect of ‘Open Access’ on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, (August 30): An online “Version 13” dated November, 2006 is available here).

I didn’t see any reference in the article about the PSWPC to library involvement. It seems like libraries should be jumping at the chance to host such subject repositories (and social networks), as well as to provide indexing and search engine optimization services. The point to my whole paper is that librarians now have or are getting the training to fulfill all of the functions in the publication value chain traditionally provided by publishers and that they have every reason to step into this role…