A response to "This Librarian Is Not Impressed With Your Digital, No-Books Library"

I've seen a few people link to a recent article entitled "This Librarian Is Not Impressed With Your Digital, No-Books Library" by Adam Feldman and it's an interesting read - I'd encourage you to take the time to go through it line by line. Particularly if you're going to read this post, which is my response to what Adam is saying. I will however quote appropriately throughout to try and give you the flavour.

Adam starts by saying that books  "are an essential and invaluable architecture of human discovery and understanding." Books are great - I have no issue with that comment as far as it goes; a book can be a very useful container of information, but equally they can be filled with bias, they can contain inaccurate information and they can get out of date frighteningly quickly. Books can be all those things; they can be invaluable and also worthless - sometimes both at the same time depending on who is reading them. It's not the format that's important surely, it's the words and images contained within them. It's the role of the information professional to decide which books are appropriate for which community and to weed them on a regular basis. The value of 'a book' lies not in the artifact, but in the content and its presentation. When we try and view 'the book' as some sort of magical item that's when we run into problems.

Adam goes on to make the point "In dense Philadelphia, where I work, our book-filled libraries are busy from open to close." That's excellent to hear - that's exactly what a library should be, which is filled with busy members/users/patrons (take your pick) reading for knowledge, entertainment, enlightment and so on. But are they there because of the books, or because of the activity that they wish to engage in? There is of course a bit of both - I'm certainly not going to say that the books themselves have no value, because that's nonsense - people do like to read physical books (as do I), but a lot of what people want to do is gain something from the experience; information, a better understanding of something, factual information. A fact in a book is the same as the fact on the screen - a fact is a fact. Surely we need to look closely at what the community wants and needs; you could argue that you have a vibrant community of young musicians, and they're all keen on reading about music or taking out CDs (less likely these days, but you get my point), so that makes for a busy library. However, might not those same young musicians come into the library if they know that they have somewhere to practice, that they can be taught by the librarian ways to save their music, to record videos, to get their music out into their wider community? Simply saying that a library is busy isn't really in and of itself a particularly important thing - surely we need to look wider than that, to what the community actually wants the library for? And more than that - what we, as information professionals can do for them, which is often introducing them to something completely new. We have to be beacons, to be experimenters and to be able to communicate what we have learned to those members of the library.

I will disagree with Adam when he says "Some comfortable folks among us are coming to believe that everything we need to know about the world can be skimmed in a compulsively reloaded feed, algorithmed and tailored to all our narrow biases" because I have never seen this, either in libraries that I have visited in the UK or abroad, or more importantly in the hundreds of librarians that I work with each year. Rather what I see are information professionals who want to see how they can best harness different technologies to improve the lot of their members, and to make their activities better and more effective.

I really disagree with the point "Honestly, sometimes very little of gravity is happening on those computer terminals in urban libraries anyway. It’s often a lot of socializing on Facebook. It’s also cell phone videos of fights on Youtube." I don't believe that it's the right, or indeed the responsibility of the librarian to make assumptions based on what they see people doing. I think that it's an arrogant and patronising librarian who says  that socializing on Facebook is of little gravity. That 'socializing' might be two people on separate sides of the world conversing about the death of a loved one. It might be two teenagers working out where to go on a date, it might be... it actually doesn't matter what it might be. We are not here to tell users what they can do, we're not here to judge them either. Surely we are here to ensure that whatever people in our library community want to do, they can do quicker, better and more effectively?

I think Adam is exactly right when he says "The potentially uplifting electronic resources that we do have — the expensive subscription databases — remain unknown to most computer users." But whose fault is that? It's not the fault of the library user if they don't know something exists and what it can be used for - it's the fault of the librarian for not making it crystal clear and promoting the resource correctly. He goes on to say "the complex webs of intellectual property law and vendor contracts guarantee that this “e-branch” is a pale shadow of the spectrum of human publishing represented by a real-life library curated by librarians who know their communities". A 'real life' library? I don't agree that something that is digital is somehow 'less' than something physical, and we're on very dangerous ground if we try and distinguish between the two in that manner. A librarian who knows their community should be in the best place to decide what's helpful for the community, and that surely should be based on the activity of the user first, and then followed up by the best way to assist. Furthermore, are we always going to see ebooks being used, paid for and downloaded in the same way into the future? That's a very brave person who says that it is. We cannot interpret the future by looking at what we have today - we need imagination and vision, and yes, we need to be prepared to take risks, to try things out and to learn from our mistakes. By regarding what we have as a 'pale shadow' we run the risk of then ignoring it, not seeing the potential of future development, and not properly working on behalf of our communities.

I absolutely agree with the statement "The meaningful life-changing core of the neighborhood branch is and remains the radical, flexible, dynamic education model that librarians build using every electronic, physical, and human resource at hand" We need to use the appropriate tool or resource at the best time for the user who requires it. Ranganathan put it best with his third law "every book its reader", but that can I think be equally applied to any other resource that we have at our disposal as well. We therefore, surely - need to use these tools, to experiment with them, to understand how they work and to interpret the best way they can be used to assist our communities. But then, we have the contradictory statement "Sure, there are virtual versions, but the analog experience fills our programming rooms in a spectacle that has to be seen to be believed." Yes, children need to learn how to read books, but they also need to learn how to survive and thrive in the modern and future world, and that's going to be by utilising both books AND other tools and resources. I'm not saying books are better, or worse, just that they are increasingly 1 approach, and we need to teach our young the wide variety of approaches.

Moving onto another element of teaching Adam says "Browsing shelves with us as guides accomplishes this in a far more satisfying way than browsing hyperlinks alone" No really, it doesn't. A friend of mine was once asked by a small child for the 'section in the library on the use of pigeons in World War One'. Not the books even, but the section. Browsing shelves that don't have the content the child needs is dispiriting at best, leading to a negative view of the library at worst. No library can ever have everything that a member wants or needs. Granted, it may be a good starting point, but as a beacon for excellence, the information professional needs to be the one curating good content, teaching the value of the resources found  and providing a fully rounded set of resources. Trying to denegrate those online resources as 'hyperlinks' is really rather pointless - a hyperlink is nothing, it's the content on the page that the link takes you to which is important. I don't see the value in saying that one container of knowledge is better than another; they are just what they are, and one person may get what they need from the printed word, another may get a better understanding from viewing the video that the hyperlink points them to.

In his final paragraph Adam goes on to say "The digital-only library is far from a utopian information commons, where the voices weighing in on every conceivable topic may be heard" Actually, that's exactly what it is. You can quickly and easily jump from one point of view to another, quickly and almost effortlessly. As long as the reader understands that there are biases to information, that they will come across a lot of incorrect data, that material can be used for lots of different purposes, they are going to be in a far, far better position to appreciate what's available than a user who has much more limited access to information, however good the library's collection of physical artifacts is. He then goes on to say "Rather, that utopian commons is the traditional, albeit well-resourced, urban library with several generations worth of collection expertise and strong bargaining power against the electronic vendors." No. Absolutely not. A physical library is at the mercy of the publisher, the editor, the price of the book, the currency of the book and the abilities of the author to actually find a publisher in the first place! In a published world, not all voices are equal. Neither are they on the internet of course, but I have a far better chance to view the range of views by reading blogs, Facebook status updates and websites.

I completely agree with the final point that Adam makes whichi is "Librarians, whether public employees or private academics, are as a profession collectively fighting to make sure that when someone wants to know, there are no barriers to satisfying that emergent curiosity" However, that's not what he article is actually saying. There is a constant criticism of the value of the digital as opposed to the 'real world', of container over content and a limited view of what's appropriate or best for a community. It's an odd statement that Adam makes here, which is so contradictory to everything else in the article that it puzzles me.

It doesn't matter if we like it or not - the provision and availability of information is changing faster than we are able to comprehend. We need to embrace that change, not to fight against it. Yes, of course we'll have books for a long while to come, but if we're to work with our communities, and particularly our children and students, we need to embrace digital as a tool and effective resource, not to decry it as a pale shadow. We need to concentrate on the community and the activities of that community and by having a wide understanding of all the tools assist them in the most appropriate way. And that's increasingly going to be digital.

 

Comments

[Kate Stephenson]

Reminds me of a guest on Room 101 who wanted to put eBooks and eReaders in the room. Frank Skinner refused, saying it's the content that counts not the format.

[Lady Librarian]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Phil! Thank you for this thoughtful response. The following quote hits the nail on the head: "I don't believe that it's the right, or indeed the responsibility of the librarian to make assumptions based on what they see people doing. I think that it's an arrogant and patronising librarian who says that socializing on Facebook is of little gravity."

Digital and traditional libraries each have their place. The most successful public libraries are a marriage of both. Why can't we all just get along?

[Chris Torrero]

I'm afraid this CILIP member is on Adam's side.

Call me old fashioned, but for straightforward reading, I prefer books. They are easier to navigate around (I find readers "clunky", especially those that try to emulate books with pages that "turn"). Unlike paper, Kindles have an appallingly low operating life and get "fried" by airport x rays.
The problem I now have is that as my reading tastes are somewhat esoteric, with the reduction in bookstock the library books I want to read are now in the skip. Where I live and where I used to work, the local libraries were "revamped". In both cases, this meant the introduction of lower shelving and a consequent drastic reduction in the bookstock. Worse, the old library shelves acted as a sound barrier, I now find that even if there was something I wanted to read in my local library, I can't hear myself think in there.
There's nothing wrong with electronic information sources. I work for a well known publisher of business information. Let's embrace new technologies, let's teach people how to use them (and how to assess the provenance of what they find!). But let's not throw away what we have.

[John Kirriemuir]

Yes, a thousand times. The grocer that sells only apples, even the finest quality apples, is soon a bankrupt grocer.

The extremists on both wings of the information access spectrum are just that; extreme, and selfish, and lacking in empathy. The "book sniffer" who only reads print, fetishes paper, and looks down with false superiority on those who use the library computers as being of a lesser, less intellectual and intelligent mind. The "techno bore" who parrots the lie that "everything is online", ignores the many millions with no IT skills or experience, and looks down on those who read print as feeble, old-fashioned and just old (as we all will be).

There's snobbery on both wings, and both weaken the standing of libraries and librarians with their intolerant, narrow and narrow-minded "I find information this way, therefore everyone else should" agenda.

This is particularly pertinent this week. Everyone has heard of the death of Robin Williams. Depression, mental illness and suicide are being debated and commented in varying degrees of enlightenment across print and digital media. Many on social media, in real life, are choosing this time to declare past and previous problems, battles in the mind. These are not rare, and easily remedied, conditions; these are common, but complex and individual conditions.

But where does a person who wants, or needs, quality information on these issues go? And go to, now? Friends and relatives often give worse than useless opinions, masked as advice. "Pull yourself together", "You'll get over it", You have a job; count yourself lucky", "Get a job", "Go and have a drink". Does this advice work? If not, where else does someone go to?

The A and E hospital department? Overwhelmed with people and frightening. The CAB? Again, busy and overwhelmed, and it doesn't solve but sends the person elsewhere. The police station? Frightened of being sectioned or detained. Your council's social services? Overstretched, underfunded, and the paradox of requiring a tenacity to navigate that is often missing in those who need it. Your GP? Again, you need the tenacity to get an appointment, wait, get seen too, maybe get mysterious medications, maybe get put on a mental health waiting list. With a heavy emphasis on waiting - and what do you do while you wait?

Which leads to: what if you need that information now? The thoughts going through your mind aren't good ones, and aren't abated by hearing "The earliest initial appointment is in three weeks". Or you find it difficult, as many with mental health issues do, to deal with people and agencies, in appointment or on the telephone? People who want, or need, reassuring privacy to absorb information in their own way and at their own pace. What options are left? Often, only two come to mind.

The pub? Alcohol is cheap, oblivion soon comes, and pubs are inviting; they want your money. Go in a few at opening times and find the many who chose, or had to choose, this easiest but non-solving and worsening of options. The cheap, chain bar became the default 21st century "Care in the Community".

The public library? Possibly. No IT skills? There can be useful books there, which outline what you have, and how to deal with it, in words you understand. Able to use the net? There's computers to get you to websites, some with up to date information, more information, and contact details. A library that provides both the analog and the digital maximizes the chances of providing essential and accessible information to those who really need it.

So long as there is the third component: the skilled and experienced librarian, who respects privacy and does not have a bias towards a particular media; who knows how to help and nudge people with complex needs in the right direction and into the appropriate media. Not the volunteer, well-meaning but lacking information and media skills, who may be judgmental, or not respect privacy, or not have the experience of encountering people with complex needs. But the true librarian, who can encounter an inarticulate, possibly frightened, probably emotional person, figure out what information they need, and help them to get it using the array of media in that same building. Who knows where an appropriate book is, or how to get it on loan; who knows how to get to an appropriate website.

True librarians, with their many information skills and experiences, can and do help, improve, and even save, lives. But they need, in their libraries, the diversity of information media - print, digital, book, online - to do so. The elitism and snobbery, the favoritism of a pet media to the exclusion of others, helps neither librarians, nor the patrons and members of the community and society, they serve.

[Lina]

To Chris Torrero, I also prefer physical books. However that is my preference and my preference alone that I cannot pushed onto anyone else. The argument is the assumption that many make, albeit presumptuously, that libraries no longer have value because of technology. The Bexar library proves otherwise. It is one library out of many in that community. This library shows how libraries can continue to stay relevant. Libraries should constantly show our worth to our communities and in some ways we have to adapt. We do not have to empty libraries of the physical book, but we can reach a middle ground, no?

[Trevor Craig]

It's good debate, and although I'm personally on the side of the paper book (e-books have no soul). I understand that some do prefer e-books. While I agree the paper book will disappear from the library eventually, its the mad rush without the evidence base saying its what users want or its not implemented in a way to attract users to the ebook that worries me. There is a big study going on but its the cart before the horse as normal. Firstly the kindle cannot be used in the UK for ebooks, amazon aren't allowing it. Secondly the choice is still very limited, which I suspect is the publishers dragging their heels. Thirdly, the integration between existing systems like galaxy to the overdrive system (as used in Oxon where I live) means the user experience is pretty rubbish to be honest, needing a login for the library and a login for overdrive. I know overtime these issues will probably be overcome but for the UK at least I think we don't need all 151 library authorities doing their own thing, the whole point of digital is that location is meaningless so why is there a need for 151 implementations of e-books? Finally, the way things are going in the UK a library will have no staff as they've been sacked and if we get rid of the paper books as well, its a stretch to still call that building with some computers in it a library :-(