Users, members, clients, patrons, owners?

I was fortunate enough to attend Internet Librarian International today and listened to R D Lankes recorded talk on 'Stop Lending, Start Sharing'. One of the points that he made in this talk, and which he has made in others, is that the people who use the library are 'members' rather than 'patrons', 'clients', 'customers' or 'users'. He didn't mention 'owners' but I added that in myself for good measure. This provoked a lot of interesting discussion, with tweets flying around the room during the talk. Here's a selection:

@AlisonMcNab: #ili2012 Don't call our patrons: "customers, users or consumers" - they have more to contribute!

@xmacex here in #Finland we don't like "members", that sounds exclusive. "Users" instead. Maybe were more consumeristic here? #ili2012

chibbie Following feed from #ili2012. Can't believe still having discussions over users, members, customers etc in #libraries.

lukask @xmacex @Philbradley Surely, more people than 'members' are 'users' of the library? And academic libraries don't have 'members' #ili2012

RogerFarbey #ili2012 don't let them be users, let them be members. Participation is key. Library as community of knowledge facilitation.

Personally, I like the term 'member'. It implies that the library (of whatever brand or style) is something that can be joined, and that a commitment to it can be made. It says to me that someone views a library as something that they can be involved with, and can affect what it does, and how it does it. That they are able to have a conversation with the library staff in a collaborative mode. I don't view it as being exclusive or elitist, though I can see where people are coming from when they say that. However, some libraries are exclusive - you have to be a certain type of person (student, employee etc) before you can use it, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

How about 'user' then? Should we as librarians just be putting stuff out there for people to use? Isn't that what we do? Well yes, but equally, shouldn't the people we work with have some say in what that stuff is? Shouldn't they be working in conjunction with information staff to work out how the librarians/library can help them achieve stuff, and to promote and better the community? So yes, they do use materials, but that's only part of a much larger interaction. I don't find 'user' as inclusive as 'member'.

Patron then? It's an American term. I'm British. Enough said on that. :)

Client? I have clients - they're the people that I work for, and I pretty much do what they want, because they're paying me. So, if you take the view that you pay your taxes ultimately the library staff answer to you. However, the necessary element of shared interaction doesn't quite work in the same way that a 'member' does. It implies a very strong hierarchical approach, with the library staff running around doing exactly as they are told, pat on the head now go away again idea. 

Customer. I take my custom to a shop, purchase a product and leave. Moreover, with the new self service tills, I can do that without any real interaction with the shop. If I don't like the range of goods that are available, not much that I can do about it. Of course, the transaction doesn't have to be financial, but there is still that element of 'trade' which doesn't work for me. There shouldn't be a trade off, there should be collaboration.

Owner. This is an interesting one - if you have students at a university who are paying large sums of money, there is an entirely different dynamic going on there. Should it be acceptable that - for whatever reason - there's 30 in a class and only 4 text books available? Should they have specific rights based on the transaction of money? Are the students in some way owners of the library and indeed in part, of the university itself? However, as an owner, they should be also in a position to exert specific pressure, which in a library setting probably is entirely unrealistic. Also, we come back again to the interaction between the people who come into the library and the people who work in the library. Should this interaction be based on a power dynamic? I don't think it should - it should be based on a  dynamic of collaboration, each side helping the other. That isn't ownership in the way that I view it.

So - 'member' works for me. I accept that it doesn't for other people, and that's absolutely fine, if you're happy with it. So let me turn the tables a bit - what doesn't work for YOU about the term 'member' (presuming it doesn't - it may well do!) What works better, and what transaction is implied for you between the member/user/etc and the library staff that's dependent or defined by the term you prefer? 

Comments

[Simon Chamberlain]

Member works for me for public libraries (speaking as a member, rather than a librarian in this context).

Not sure it fits perfectly in academic libraries, and doesn't really fit special libraries at all. I'd think of "clients" in the context of my law firm (though maybe "colleague" would work better, and might get us more respect).

Someone on Twitter suggested "community", which I like for public libraries.

[Ian]

I tend to find the word "member" does imply a certain degree of exclusivity in my mind. To me it divides people up into "members" and "non-members". It leads to "I'm not a member of the library" which might imply that use of the library is therefore reliant on "membership" (which, of course, it isn't). Furthermore, "member" implies (for me anyway) that there is a membership process that individuals need to go through in order to become a "member". Obviously there is a process for joining the library, but "applying for membership" makes the process seem more cumbersome somehow (although maybe you wouldn't apply "member" terminology to this process?).

However, I do like the idea that libraries are at one with the individual that uses them. I'm not comfortable with the term "customer" (although I have used it from time to time - perhaps as a result of my background in retail...it's a hard habit to shake!), it implies a fairly limited degree of interaction. I personally believe that those that use the library should own the service as much as those providing the service. In broader terms I am quite interested in the idea of handing over certain levers of control of the service over to those that utilise the service, and customer doesn't really fit here. The closest I can think of is stakeholder but that doesn't really feel right either (and is too clunky in my view). "Owner" is interesting in this regard, but still implies there are those that don't 'own' the service (a tricky concept for public libraries and taxpayers!). "Partners" maybe?

My preferred option? 'Users'. I still don't like it, but it's the one I feel most comfortable with. But I'm certainly open to alternatives :)

[Sheila Thomas (@Speranda)]

Speaking here from a special library. We have people accessing our information services who are members, but they are members of the institute that owns and runs the library, not of the library itself. We help members, staff and, to a small degree, the general public. So we cannot apply the label "member" to designate any information service (including library) user. We do not have a collective term to cover our three user types, and I do not think we need one.

[David Kerry]

I prefer the term "reader" to over everyone who comes in to use the library's resources, including those who have no membership status. Students and staff of the college have borrowing and other rights through their student or staff status, we have various grades of fee-paying external members with borrowing rights, and others who are not members in any proper sense occasionally visit the library on a reference-only basis. They are all read, but the last group are not members. I find "user", "customer" and "client" all sound too ugly and clumsy, with the latter two a little inaccurate, and "patron" relies too much on the American meaning of the word.

[Diana Nutting]

Except for the dreadful patrons (I never wanted to be patronised at work), which I would ban if I ruled the library world, I don't think it's necessary to have a single catch all term for people who use libraries. Users seems to work best because users are people who use libraries. I worked mainly in commercial environments where I thought of and referred to people as colleagues, because that is what they were. It was best for me but wouldn't work in a public library for example. The library or information unit should be relevant first to the organisation it is part of in its terminology

[Jenny Jones]

For all of its shortfalls (we have what I can only describe as 'non-members' visiting my academic library all of the time) I do like the term 'members' because it represents the ideological shift that Lankes discusses in his work and helps me to remember this. It's a classic librarian pitfall to get lost arguing about semantics I fear (and I'm so guilty of it!) use the term 'members' or not if you like but what is important is that we start seeing the people who come into the library (and perhaps those who don't) as people who are in a dialogue with us, that we don't exist in a bubble.