One thing I have loved about the whole Library 2.0 movement is the push to stamp out the “but we’ve always done it this way” attitude. I am a strong believer in questioning the common wisdom. So often we do things because of tradition, not because it’s the best way to do it. I think it’s great that we’re pushing libraries to question everything and to frequently assess the effectiveness of their services in light of current patron needs.
While we are doing this more and more in libraries, one place I do not see this questioning going on enough is in library associations. In my rather ranty post last week, I asked people what the logic was behind state library associations compensating out-of-state speakers but not in-state speakers (in most cases, regardless of whether the talk was invited or not). And people keep saying “well, we’d go broke if we didn’t do things this way.” Ok, I get that, but I still don’t understand why an in-state person’s time is worth nothing and what sort of an incentive that is for quality in-state speakers? My state library association did pay me to speak, and if they didn’t, I would be more likely to speak at an out-of-state conference than my own because I feel that the amount of time I spend preparing and giving a talk should be worth something (unless I am planning on going to a conference already). Even if it’s a small amount of compensation (at least comped registration for the whole conference!), it’s something.
But it’s not just about compensation in state library associations. It’s also about ways to participate. The model in most state organizations is all about committees, and individual contributions outside of that structure are often not supported. How much innovation can happen in a committee setting? How quickly can change occur? Imagine how long it may have taken the ALA to get on-board with wikis if I hadn’t created the first two myself (the second with their seal of approval)? I think they probably would have moved in that direction eventually, but by the time they started creating their own, they had a nice little successful model to look to.
A few weeks ago, an e-mail showed up on the Vermont Libraries listserv about the VLA Newsletter. They mentioned that it was now available online in PDF format. What’s kind of annoying about that is that you still have to print it out to read it comfortably since it’s in a column format. Jessamyn stepped up and offered to volunteer her time to turn the PDF content into HTML and even to use something that would generate an RSS feed so people could subscribe. I was surprised to see that her offer was basically blown off. The response she got was that most people seem to prefer the print version and they probably won’t be able to make everyone happy with their choices. Gosh, if you offer the newsletter in multiple formats, I think you can make everyone happy, and that’s what I said in my response:
I think a newsletter is not just about telling members what is going on, but is also about attracting new members. And if that is the case, it may be wise to think about what formats might attract new, tech-savvy members who are accustomed to reading content online, and perhaps through an RSS reader.
A large number of state library associations are using blogs now to disseminate information. Just a few examples include California http://www.cla-net.org/weblog/mt/archives/cat_californialibrarynews.php, Wisconsin http://wlaweb.blogspot.com/, New Jersey http://blog.njla.org/, and New Hampshire http://www.nhlibrarians.org/. Also, many of the national ALA divisions have blogs now. It’s a great way for pushing timely news to interested individuals. Even if you didn’t want to use a blog to post timely news, you could still use it for your newsletter content. Reference and User Services Quarterly is published in print, in PDF format, and as a blog http://www.rusq.org/ with an RSS feed people can subscribe to. What’s really great is that they allow people to comment on the articles, which creates much more of a timely dialogue than a traditional journal (or newsletter). Obviously, you don’t need to leave comments open if that’s not what you want to do with the blog. You don’t even need to know HTML to copy and paste content into a blog and they are very easy to maintain (certainly easier than static HTML pages). And having a blog will automatically give you an RSS feed for your content. The beauty of having an RSS feed is that people can subscribe to your feed and will not have to remember to visit your site periodically to see if new content has been posted. People can also subscribe to RSS content via e-mail, so they will receive the content in their mailbox as soon as it is posted. This would give people multiple methods of receiving news content from the Vermont Library Association, and I think it would really position the organization as user-centered and tech-savvy (which may be a draw to some librarians who have chosen not to get involved in VLA).
Just my 2 cents (which is about all it’s worth). If I were on the committee and Jessamyn was offering to help with this, I would jump at the opportunity to benefit from her technology skills and her enthusiasm. I think you can, in fact, make everyone happy.
The response to my post and Jessamyn’s was that the person who is involved in creating the newsletter is busy and that she alone will not be able to make everyone happy. I get that and would never ask anything of this person. But the whole point was that Jessamyn was offering to donate her time to put the newsletter into a more online-readable format, so that the newsletter person would not need to do it. We were also told that we should propose to create a technology committee to investigate options, costs, alternatives, and then develop a plan. I understand that this is how things are done, but my gosh, all this for something so minor? All we were talking about was publishing the contents of the newsletter to a blog or a static HTML page. This isn’t some huge endeavor that requires months and months of planning; it’s something Jessamyn could probably accomplish in a day or so.
But this is the model for participation and it sadly does not encourage me to contribute. In spite of the fact that I am not a member of any committee, I have contributed to the ALA, and I have worked hard for the ALA. Maybe it doesn’t look as good on my resume to say that I created the first two ALA Wikis versus having served on committees, but I think I did some good. Maybe I’m just not a committee and meeting kind of person (not to say that there’s anything at all wrong with committees) and that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m not willing to contribute. Unfortunately, Vermont is not not unique in it’s strict definition of how one can contribute to the organization. Maybe one day I’ll find my niche in a committee at the state or national level, but until then, change aversion in organizations will not stop me from contributing to the profession. It might stop me from contributing to the organization though.
Perhaps I’m unique in my attitude and state library associations will never have trouble finding people to serve without changing (or being more flexible in) their model for participation. But perhaps more and more young librarians do want to find new ways to contribute and I do believe that library organizations should question the way they do things in light of the changing needs and interests of their members (or potential members). We should be just as 2.0 in our organizations as we are in our libraries and I applaud the American Library Association for really making an effort to move in that direction (obviously things won’t change in a day, but I see things starting to change). Like Jessamyn, if any Vermont library organization wants my help with technology stuff, I’d be glad to contribute. Sadly, it looks like there probably won’t be an HTML version of the newsletter any time soon, and not for lack of interest or lack of volunteers.
My theory about [anything] 2.0 is that you know it’s working when you no longer think of it in the specific context of “2.0.” In other words, it will just fit, and make sense. It’s the simple things we want, and the simple things we have to offer. Even the approach can be simple. Sometimes, all one has to do is raise one’s hand, and speak up. Maybe all it takes is showing up. That’s how I might, in part, define Library Association 2.0 today. It has worked for Meredith many times over. It seems to be working for me so far taking the “committee and meeting” route from the start, and I’m a (relative) nobody in this field. If you don’t speak up, you will never know the true potential value of your contributions. If you build it…. scratch that. Build it… use it… share it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the biggest problems are always people problems. And I have a brother-in-law who corrected me on this: “actually, Ryan” he says, “just about all problems are people problems.”
Keep at it, Meredith. My bet is that a few months from now that skeptical person will come up with a “great idea” — hey! let’s do our newsletter as a blog!
Myself, I can’t stand pdfs, except for large journal articles with lots of graphs and charts. Even if the newsletter is picture heavy, it would be better handled by a blog for sure.
>>How much innovation can happen in a committee setting?
None. People who join committees don’t join to move quick. The people who are actually innovating are too busy to join committees. “Meetlings” join committees because they love meetings and talking about doing things. People who get excited about associations are usually not the same people who are out making things happen.
Formal groups have a hard time been nimble — both in business and in library associations. All we can do is be nimble around them and hope we can loosen them up a bit.
Your story is funny and sad and, unfortunately, all too common. It’s like these people stop listening after the first sentence- so they don’t hear that someone is volunteering their time. They effectively put their hands over their ears and scream “no! no! no!” before they even hear the proposition.
I especially like the idea to form a committee to talk about adding an RSS feed. That’s just funny.
I’m going to be the contrarian on this issue….
While it’s true that an individual can often move faster than a committee at first, sustaining the innovation can usually only be done by a group.
So Jessamyn volunteers to convert the PDF newsletter to a blog. Great! And she does it, and people read it, and all is good in the world.
Except 2 or 3 years down the road, when Jessamyn, say, takes a job in another state. (Just as a theoretical example.) Now what? If she’s been doing it by herself, outside of the VLA committee structure, odds are relatively high that the project will be abandoned. Yes, she might be able to talk someone else in to taking the project over for her, but it will be up to her to do so, and if she can’t find a volunteer in the limited period of time and with the limited effort that she’d likely be able to devote to that in the process of moving and starting a new job, well….
Whereas, if the project has been a group project from the beginning, where there are a group of people (a.k.a. a committee) who take responsibility for the project, then one person moving on isn’t a crisis. Responsibility for the project has been spread out–there are other people on the committee; there are likely past committee members who have experience with the project and who could help out in a pinch; there is a VLA Nominating Committee (at least, I assume there is; most big organizations have one) who will help ensure that new people are brought onto the committee when necessary to make sure that the committee continues to exist. The project has been institutionalized, and institutions are more stable than individuals.
I know it’s frustrating, when you’re young and energetic and have a great new idea and just want to run with it, and it feels like the old folks are holding you back just because they’re sticks-in-the-mud. And sometimes they probably are just being sticks-in-the-mud . . . but sometimes they understand that it’s often better, in the long run, to do things slowly and sustainably.
So please, don’t give up! Take them up on the offer to create a technology committee, and get VLA to institutionalize your ideas so they’ll outlast you.
Meredith,
I think you are spot on, with this – all associations rely on volunteers, and we MUST recognise that with limited time and competing priorities we have to be flexible about the way in which they contribute. Serving on a Committee is only one way to help a professional association, and its likely to be a less significant one in the future.
And we really must be more web 2.0 about things – no sub-committees, just get in there try it out, and change it if it doesn’t work.
Hi Julia, I totally agree with you that it’s often easier to sustain a project within an organizational context. And I agree that the solution has to be sustainable, but I think it would be very easy for anyone to learn how to paste content into a blog and I’m sure Jessamyn was planning to teach other people how to do it so that people weren’t totally dependent on her — she’s all about tech-training. (Then again, I also know Jessmyn, and she probably would continue doing it regardless of where she lived if she’d made a commitment.) The hardest part of doing a blog is the initial set up. After that, it’s pretty easy. This isn’t something that is very complicated or time-consuming, so I do think it’s something that could have been done sustainably.
VLA is a very small organization relative to probably any other state library association, so the reality is that even when you do have committees, when someone doing something requiring a lot of time or special skills leaves, things often do fall through the cracks because there isn’t anyone able or willing to take their place. That’s the difficult thing about living in such a small state. We don’t have a newsletter committee; we have a person. The same goes for the Web. And we just got a brand-new newsletter editor, so it does seem an opportune time for Jessamyn to have brought this up.
I just wanted to clarify that the goal was not to replace the print newsletter with an online version (someone had asked me about that via e-mail), but to supplement it with an online version. I do think that the majority of VLA members would rather get the newsletter in their mailbox each month; however, I think an online newsletter gives potential members access to the newsletter so they can see what goes on in the organization (which I think has HUGE marketing value). And it also makes the tech-savvy members feel like their interests are being represented.
New Hampshire state library’s assocation has a blog? my new hampshire?? thanks for the head’s up – I’m a school librarian myself, and have just been trying to get our state school library association to get their website in -order- let along a blog, but maybe this will help push them along a bit. Huzzah!
You would have a warm home at ASIST, and certainly the New England chapter is very active in Web/Lib 2.0 affairs.
It’d be nice if some of these state organizations took on a few features from Web 1.0 — let alone Web 2.0.
How to tell if you’re neighborhood State Library Association is an open organization:
– Does it have a ListServ?
– Is the ListServ open to just anyone in the world — or closed except to “members”?
– Is it easy to become a member?
– Is it easy to find out about events and other news?
In my experience, one of the best examples of a regional library association is METRO in New York. I got spoiled when I lived there.
Linda took the words right out of my mouth. I know the NEASIS&T folks and they rock. 🙂
Julia:
I appreciate the sentiment of sustainability with respect to this issue, because I agree strongly that projects should be sustainable, but I do have to say that I have cognitive dissonance regarding what you said.
For some reason community groups have no problem embarking on a newsletter — a mammoth task, most frequently managed by one key individual, and, in more ways than I can remember, apt to be inactive and active depending on the commitment and/or interest of key volunteers.
But when a technie volunteers to do just a small tiny little thing like cut and paste the text of an already created document into a blog or website with an RSS feed it’s treated as if it is a mammoth task and requires deep planning and consideration.
Honestly, I can’t tell you how many extremely useful things got sidelined because volunteers were “too busy” doing newsletters, special events, community raffles etc. That’s not to say I have anything against these things, but the amount of effort and skill gets way overestimated for techie things and way underestimated for non-techie things.
It is probably this very reason that so many tech blogs exist today. I’m not even close to be a tech genius, and I am still absolutely shocked at how — even now — fairly simple-to-use technologies like Flickr, RSS, blogs and wikis are treated as if they were NASA-sanctioned missions to Mars. And I really wonder why my *real* techie friends think of this trend.
Um, couldn’t Jessamyn just turn into HTML anyway? I mean, the PDF exists, ergo HTML. Or something. Why does the official person have to approve of a goodhearted soul turning a publically available document into HTML? Just wondering…
(can you see why I have always got into trouble with rules and committees?)
Thanks for writing about this need for a shift of thinking not only in the ways we provide service to patrons, but also how we organize ourselves professionally. It’s a good point, and something to chew on….
Regarding the upkeep and sustainability of tasks, couldn’t a middle way be achieved? The innovator/starter can get the project or task up and running, then it could be handed over to a committee after the committee has been trained. Much as I dislike the structure of committees–I’d rather have just one person to go to for specific requests–they do have the benefit of multiple points of view and provide a cushion when a member leaves or dies so that the function of the committee can carry on.
In Response to Blake:
Some of us who like to move JOIN goups to try to give them an extra shove. I am involved in LITA and ALA, though it makes me insane at times, because I feel I can not gripe about a system I am not trying to fix.
That being said, I still think most committees are the places that good ideas go to die. And die a bloody death. Or a nice slow and painful one.
You’re not alone. Having “form a committee” be the automatic response to an offer of help, if a committee isn’t actually *needed* to do the work, is totally ridiculous. What do they lose, even if Jessamyn did abandon the project? Someone else might be inspired by her work and take it up again later. In general, I have no patience with library organizations, and I have no intention of wasting my time on committees when I don’t see much measurable output coming out of them. I’d rather *do* things, in the library and the outside world, that I can point to afterwards and say, “see? this changed because I was involved, and now it’s better.”