I’m starting to feel like I’m witnessing the blogospheric version of the Tower of Babel story. There are a lot of people talking about Library 2.0 and I think there is also a lot of misunderstanding about what anyone is really saying. Bad girl that I am, I actually really enjoyed the Annoyed Librarian’s take on the 2.0 dogma:
This has all the hallmarks of the convert and the ideologue, political or religious. The converts and ideologues all like to set up these false dichotomies: Agree with me or you’re evil (or perhaps just stupid). Accept without criticism whatever gobbledygook my fellow convert and ideologue says, or you’re a bad person. Do things my way or you aren’t “user-centered.”
I don’t read AL literally, but I often enjoy the spirit of what she is saying. And in this case, I agree with the spirit of what she is saying. I think there has been a lot of “you’re either with us or you’re not user-centered” rhetoric, but less in the past year than prior to that. Back then I read plenty of blog posts that said people who are against the Library 2.0 are afraid of change or clearly just don’t understand the dire situation that libraries are in. I don’t hear it so much now, but I still do hear a lot of rhetoric that I think would alienate a lot of people who don’t share their fervor.
Not to pick on David King, who is someone I think of as being a very pragmatic and level-headed person when it comes to technology, but I think he missed several key things that the Annoyed Librarian wrote when he wrote his response to her. Namely:
Note: I should state for the record that not everyone who advocates “user-centered” services or the use of social software is a twopointopian. Twopointopians are those folks who have the fervor of converts or ideologues, who want a “movement” and a “manifesto,” who want to preach their gospel and ignore criticism, who claim all their critics are just selfish and not sufficiently “user-centered,” who believe there’s only one good way, their faddish new way.
and
I, like a lot of librarians, am perfectly comfortable with using technology to connect with library users and teaching other people about it.
I don’t know her personally, but I get the sense that the Annoyed Librarian doesn’t hate her users, does use technology in her library, and is interested in user-centered services. I just think she doesn’t buy into a lot of the hype and has a really funny way of expressing her dislike of what she refers to as “cults” (definitely not a term I’d use). Would that I were so funny…
I’m more concerned, though, about those at other parts of the 2.0 idea adoption spectrum (which is more of about personal philosophy than what is going on at their library). Here’s my totally lame attempt at showing this spectrum, which is obviously more complex than this, but for the purposes of my post it needn’t be. Thanks to my new colleague and officemate, Josh Petrusa (who will soon be blogging if I have anything to say about it), for helping me process these ideas on our white-board. He’s a brand-new MLS with a very level-headed view of technology and user services. Wonderful to have someone like that to bounce ideas around with.
I have dealt with a lot of people who are like kids in a candy store when it comes to these technologies. Like someone who told me the other day that Flickr is the logical next thing libraries should have after a blog (never mind whether there’s a need for either of them or not, I suppose). I used to be one of those kids in a candy store. I remember when I came to Norwich over two years ago, eager to implement blogs, wikis, etc. And a lot of the initial things I tried to implement failed. Why? Because I put the tool before the need, I didn’t consider the fact that my colleagues may not want to use these tools, and I didn’t really consider the maintenance burden these tools have. My first successful “2.0” project was IM reference and that was successful because I came to my colleagues with a detailed proposal documenting the need for it and how we would make it happen. Once they were on-board, I did plenty of trainings and made sure that they were comfortable using what was for them a new tool. And we’ve been successfully providing IM reference now since January 2006. But it’s mainly because it was done right, putting the need before the tool.
I love the Learning 2.0 program and I think it’s amazing how many people it has taught about social technologies. But I think in its pure PLCMC state it is missing an element critical to learning about any of this: how to successfully implement these tools. And that involves thinking about what your population needs, what your library/staff can support, how to sell ideas to staff and administrators, how to train people to use this stuff and more. I think some people (and not just those who went through the Learning 2.0 program — I don’t blame the program in the least) have bought into the technology without really learning about the user-centered part. They’re like Phaethon, where they hold the powerful reigns, but don’t know how to successfully make the sun rise. That practical piece is critical to learning about this stuff.
I think most people who are into this stuff, me included, fall into the “Pragmatists” category. We are big technology fans, but we understand that these tools should only be used in libraries to fill needs. We realize that not all of our patrons are tech-savvy and that many of them have needs that can’t be filled by 2.0 technologies. We know that any time we focus on a 2.0 technology, we take time and resources away from something else, so we must carefully prioritize our technology use at work. Pragmatists manage to be both excited and skeptical. I know Jessamyn commented on the Annoyed Librarian’s post, but I don’t think anyone would accuse Jessamyn of not being level-headed about technology and not cognizant of the have-nots. She, in fact, exemplifies the pragmatists. There is a great middle out there between some of the folks who comment on the Annoyed Librarian’s blog (I’ll get to them soon) and the Twopointopians (for lack of a better word).
The grazers I see as being more skeptical of some of the social technologies than the pragmatists. They are the folks who bristle at the idea of a library in MySpace, even if the library profile has a legitimate purpose. They often feel like libraries are mainly implementing these tools to be cool (and in some cases, they are, but certainly not always). However, they want to use technology to meet user needs and they especially like the idea of using blogs, wikis and similar tools internally in the library. However, they often question the time spent on social technologies in libraries (especially the more time-consuming things like videos), since there are so many other important things they should be focusing on in their library.
Next we have the people who are hearing about all this stuff on blogs and are totally overwhelmed by it all. They feel pressured to have a blog, a flickr account, a wiki, rss feeds in the catalog, etc. and they have no idea where to start. They’re paralyzed. Often they do nothing or maybe make some halfway attempt to have a blog that fails because they don’t really want to devote time to it nor do they really see a need for it. And when it fails, they see that as a confirmation that this stuff isn’t for their library. They don’t realize that what they really need to do is to survey their population (both those who use the library and those who don’t) and find out how to best meet their needs. If it’s with social software, great! If it’s with more Spanish-language books, great! If it’s classes on starting a home-based business, swell! We don’t all need to do what the Ann Arbor District Library does because we don’t all have that same population. The key is to focus on your changing user population and what they need.
Then there isthe alienated mass, who can be seen in all their glory as they comment on any posts the Annoyed Librarian has written on Library 2.0. Like the Twopointopians that the Annoyed Librarian has described, these folks paint everyone who is into 2.0 technologies (or talks about user-centered services) with the same brush. I’m not really sure what to make of these people or how to reach them. It’s often hard to find common ground with people on the extreme sides of things. I usually try to focus on the middle, because it’s in the middle that real dialog and change can occur.
Those the Annoyed Librarian called Twopointopians are all about teaching others about Library 2.0, right? Well, obviously, some of their rhetoric is alienating some people and is not really giving some all of the information they need to make informed decisions about technology. So how do we fix that?
How do we talk to those who are overwhelmed by these new technologies? How do we speak to those who are so excited to implement these technologies that they’re going to do it whether their patrons want it or not? How do we speak to the people who grok blogs for sharing information with patrons but think librarians in MySpace and Second Life is a joke? How do we speak to people who hate all the dogma so much that they have completely shut out anyone who talks about social software and whatnot — even in a pragmatic way? How do we speak to the ones who are too afraid of getting into a fight to publicly disagree with Library 2.0 stuff, but who are so disgusted with the dogma that they shut out even level-headed ideas for improving their libraries? Yes, there are people who are against change. Yes, there are people who think their patrons are stupid. But I don’t think a lot of the people who don’t buy into this stuff feel that way. And I wonder how we can better impart knowledge and get people excited about social technologies without alienating some and being misunderstood by others.
I think the key is to try to understand the people who don’t agree with us as being as complicated and three-dimensional as we are. Let’s never dismiss anyone’s arguments by saying that they must be against technology or change or whatever. Let’s start with everyone from a point where we assume that they want their library to be good and user-centered. Let’s try to really understand what their objections are or what we might be saying that is either giving them a false impression or turning them off entirely. How can we make our message work for them? How do we speak to their skepticism?
There will always be people for whom there is no meeting in the middle; where there is no “give” no matter how good/logical your argument is. But I think there are a lot of people out there feeling skeptical, overwhelmed and alienated who might be willing to listen to what they would consider level-headed talk about user-centered change and social technologies. I’m constantly learning from the objections of people who listen to my talks or take my classes. Most of the objections are good ones, and it helps me to better convey my own message next time. We need to take all of it to heart, I think; by dismissing critics or simplifying their arguments, we only make our own arguments less convincing.
As usual, a sound and clear-headed discussion of the issues. I think your characterizations of the different groups along the spectrum are dead-on.
I think where some of us (well, me, at least) part ways with the twopointopians is when they don’t seem to understand that the spectrum could be plunked down at anytime in history and would be just as sound. Twenty years ago, I participated in a study funded by NLM to experiment with placing CD-ROM versions of MEDLINE in libraries and letting people do their own searching! It was a truly radical notion at the time. And you could’ve distributed contemporary librarians along your spectrum just as accurately then as now. Some of us were wildly enthusiastic about the potentials of this new technology and some were appalled, but most were in the middle, trying to figure out how it might best be used in their settings. It was the same a few years later when email started coming into libraries, along with Gopher and Veronica and Usenet, and it was the same earlier when integrated library systems began to replace card-based library management tools. I imagine it was the same when the first card catalog appeared.
It’s when the twopointopians proclaim that there is something qualitatively, fundamentally different about the change that we’re going through now, that I think they get off track. It has always been the case that some librarians embraced change, loved using the latest technology and were deeply connected with and responsive to their user communities, involving them in decision making about programs and services. There have always been librarians like those who you characterize as alienated and I suppose they were as disgusted by the notion of telephone reference as they are now skeptical of facebook. But the majority have always been pragmatists, never moving fast enough to satisfy those on the bleeding edge, but still managing to absorb new ideas and new ways of delivering services. This period of radical change has been going on for at least half a century. And that’s one thing that I don’t expect to change.
I could be wrong… but I don’t think I “missed” anything. My post simply wasn’t focusing on that part. I was focusing pretty much on the part of her argument where she said twopointopians don’t like disagreement and criticism. And I disagreed with her.
Carry on! Your post has some good thoughtful stuff…
I guess on my scale, I just think of you as a pragmatist, David, which is why I felt any argument you made about your own openness to criticism was moot, because you don’t fit her vision of a Twopointopian at all. 🙂 You’re very open to criticism & discussion and are very focused on the realities in the profession. I see a difference between people who embrace 2.0 tools and ideals and people who see this false dichotomy between those who are 2.0 and those who aren’t (and that those who aren’t are anti-change).
Good discussion, Meredith–speaking as one who’s trying to find a middle ground and maybe help people find relevant examples for their own library.
Meredith – thanks! I’d probably agree with you!
Great job, Meredith!
This whole thing is really getting me down again. 🙁 I really like your Tower of Babel analogy; the only problem with it is that–at least for those at the far ends–it is a willful choice to not understand each other. I have no idea how to reach either of those groups, and I honestly don’t know who any of them are. I cannot point to any radical twopointopian and most of the alienated folks are either not commenting on blogs or doing so anonymously.
As for your scale, I think it is dead on. Again, except for one problem, and you did admit that it is clearly a simplification. So to complicate it a little, where do I fit? [rhetorically] Honestly, depending on the specific technology, program or idea, I think I fall somewhere along the entire spectrum!
Karen Schneider wrote a post yesterday about the ubiquitous “they”and how it is passive-aggressive. I do agree that it often is, and as many know I try not to use it. As I said above, I don’t know any specific rabid 2.0pians (sorry, easier to type) because if one were to directly engage one who might be labeled such in an actual discussion they would certainly and, I think, honestly disavow the views that are considered rabid.
Yes, in a case like this the “they” is really a strawman argument, to a point. There may not really be any truly living, breathing rabid 2.0pians.
BUT. And this is the point that many of the kids in the candy store, pragmatists, or wherever they might place themselves (I did not say all) need to realize. There is a definite perception out there that Annoyed Librarian and others NAILED! I, for one, have it. Even though I know I cannot really point at any particular person and say, “There’s one!”, I nonetheless fully feel that this level of rabidness exists as a palpable position with the “dialogue.” And even though I fall along the entire spectrum on individual topics, I am primarily in the middle. So, if I feel that this is a real position in the dialogue–even though I cannot point at a specific person who truly holds it–then consider those to the right of me on the diagram, folks.
I agree with Karen (and I am pretty sure she knows this) that “they” is an often dangerous and/or cowardly word. But in this case, I think it is fully justified. Who is AL and others (me?) supposed to point to? That does not in any way invalidate that we feel that this is an argued position in the “dialogue.”
[NOTE: I am not trying to defend AL here. I rarely read her. I am not subscribed to her blog. As Karen said–to which I fully agree 🙂 –I am cranky. I don’t really need the general tenor of AL in my daily life. I dipped in a few days ago when there were a lot less comments than now and while I enjoyed the post itself quite a bit because I think it is an honest perception, I found many of the comments unfathomable. I refuse to read any since then.]
Sorry to have gone on so long, Meredith. You did a great job and I thank you for it. I, too, have no answers. My point, though, is that there is a real palpable perception that 2.0pians and their “opposites” exist. I cannot point at a real world example, but neither can my (and others’) perceptions be dismissed so easily.
As a pragmatist, who tries to be balanced in most things, I found this a great post. You almost always bring “common sense” into a discussion.
Thanks for saying what I want to say.
Meredith, I so appreciate your contribution to the ongoing L2.0 discussion, and your willingness to engage with THE ANNOYED LIBRARIAN’s deliberately snarky points about the twopointopian cheerleading that goes on in some circles. What I like most about your essay is its lack of defensiveness. All serious librarians are interested in improving the profession — we have different views about how to accomplish that goal, (and tend to focus on different aspects of what it means to be professional librarians), but we all share that fundamental purpose. It’s the denigration and dismissive attitude towards dissenters that concerns me. Why does commenter MARK need to state that he doesn’t subscribe to THE ANNOYED LIBRARIAN’s blog? Why does he “refuse” to read comments that he finds “unfathomable”? Personally, I find MARK’s attitude unfathomable. Read everything. Listen to everyone. Make up your own mind, but don’t close yourself to ideas you dislike. In fact, I hope anyone who bristles at AL’s barbs and criticisms would definitely subscribe to her blog, if for no other reason than to get a “reality check” on their own world view. I personally enjoy AL’s satirical view of the excesses of libraryland, even though I disagree with her as often as not. But I’d rather laugh than get offended, and think rather than fight. Meredith, you nailed it when you said, “I think the key is to try to understand the people who don’t agree with us as being as complicated and three-dimensional as we are.” But please note the implied “we/us” dichotomy in that conciliatory statement. As Pogo cartoonist Walt Kelly observed decades ago, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” There is room for everyone under our library tent. Thank you for at least attempting to bridge the divide with some sweet reason and an admirable absence of defensiveness.
Thank you! Excellently put!
Mickey, perhaps my comments about whether or not I subscribe to AL’s blog were unneeded. But I think you misconstrued my purpose in doing so, which I admit was probably unclear.
I am much like the Annoyed Librarian myself and, in general, have nothing against her take and style. If I was even half as witty I might try more of that myself. The reason I don’t subscribe is that there is more than enough of her kind of dose of library reality in my everyday world. It does not mean that I begrudge her work or that I want it to go away. I am, in fact, quite happy that she writes what she does. I think libraryland needs that kind of voice, and more of them! What I do not desire to read more of is the folks shouting past each other and/or at AL herself.
I read, and quite enjoyed her post, when it had about 20 comments. Yesterday when I looked it had 50. The reason I choose to no longer read them is that it is highly unlikely that there is any actual discourse going on there.
I do try and engage in real dialogue on a regular basis, thank you very much. But some of us have found that it is next to impossible, and usually is impossible, to actually have much of a conversation–in this medium, anyway–with people who tend to either end of the spectrum.
I am sorry that my comments are unfathomable to you. 🙁 I will assume my lack of clarity is responsible because if you truly understand what I had tried to say (and sorry, I cannot spell out everything in a comment that I fully expect Meredith to be able to fathom for those without the same history of discourse) then I expect we pretty much fully agree. You said, “It’s the denigration and dismissive attitude towards dissenters that concerns me.” See the 2nd sentence of my 1st comment; it is shorthand for exactly that thought.
I also fully agree with the Walt Kelly sentiment here. There is room for everyone and I would like to help foster more dialogue between them all. But there are only so many battles on can join and so many hours in a day. “Read everything. Listen to everyone” is a wonderful attitude, but is also an impossibility in reality.
Mark, no offense intended, and I’m sincerely sorry for any unflattering characterization of your motives. I think you were just signaling where your sympathies are in this debate, and I probably made more of your comments than was necessary. But it does underscore my point about defensiveness in this L2.0 discussion overall. Nobody should care what blogs you do, or don’t, read. There is no “them,” just “us.” What matters is that we listen carefully to each other and engage in cordial and and intellectually honest debate. AL has made the same, or similar points in several of her posts, and like her or not, usually practices what she preaches. That’s why I do subscribe to her blog.
I think sometimes it’s easy to misconstrue people’s arguments in the online medium. Knowing Mark as I do, I didn’t read into his writing what you did, Mickey. Mark is definitely not the sort of person who doesn’t like a good discussion and divergent opinions. I don’t think he’d dismiss anyone, but we all find certain things unpleasant to read or listen to. I can’t watch Bill O’Reilly or that Nancy Grace lady; they drive me up the wall. Doesn’t mean I don’t want to engage in debate and doesn’t mean I totally dismiss conservatives. We all filter what we read (if it hasn’t already been filtered for us).
I think it’s great that you’ve learned “user centered” means not banging everyone over the head with new technologies before finding out if anyone will use it, but, please, it’s “rein” not “reign.” Reins are for horses; reigns are for queens.
Pingback: Ballad in Plain E » Blog Archive » Meredith Farkas’s “Library 2.0 idea adoption spectrum”
Pingback: Twopointopians? – The debate over Library 2.0 | Christchurch City Libraries Bibliofile
Pingback: The Juvenal of Librarianship | Academic Librarian