However, most people use the library for many reasons other than to find factual information. My previous column (“Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?” RUSQ 47, no. 1: 8-9) addressed the role of the reference librarian. Reference librarians are not–nor were we ever–simple answering machines. While we do get the odd factual question, most of the time we are engaged with our users in much more complex interactions. Reference statistics are down not because we are doing less to assist our users, but because we historically measured that assistance based on what was the easiest to count. We need to develop new ways to measure our value that reflects the complexity of our roles.
Those roles continue to change and evolve. Frequently, there is a cry within the field of librarianship that libraries and librarians must take such-and-such an action in order to remain relevant and survive. Some of the more recent statements that I have seen say that we must get involved with Second Life, that that we must be in MySpace, that we must be more like Amazon.com, or that we need to be more like Starbucks. All of these are well-intentioned calls to be innovative and make change.
My gut reaction to these statements is often based on two emotions–resentment and fear. Resentment because I don’t like other people telling me what I have to do, and fear because they just might be right. The more impassioned the advocate for the must-do activity, the more emotional is my response. A few authors are talking about getting rid of the reference desk, which draws out my National Rifle Assocation-inspired reactionary answer: “when they pry my cold dead fingers off of it.” Obviously, this response does not lead to constructive and positive dialogue. We need to move past this and base our responses on the intellectual concepts rather than the emotional baggage.
The biggest problem with any of these must-do’s is that they imply that all libraries have to take the same approach to whichever problem is presented. Although libraries do have many similarities, each was established to serve a specific community. The success of any library is not measured by how it follows trends in the profession, but by how it serves the members of its parent community. To paraphrase Tip O’Neill, all librarianship is local. Each of us needs to evaluate these must-do’s in terms of how they would benefit our own communities. Some will and some will not. We need to step back, look at how each idea would work in our local community, and apply it or not. The bandwagon usually will keep rolling, but we do not all have to get on it.
One of the very positive must-do’s of recent times is the Web 2.0 movement. Although I do not attempt to understand the specifics of the technology behind Web 2.0 (Ajax and SOAP are still household cleaners in my life), I think that its social goals correlate directly with our profession. While there are as many definitions of Web 2.0 as there are practitioners, three common characteristics that are usually included in Web 2.0 are personalization, interactivity, and social networking. All of these concepts are relevant in libraries as well.
Personalization is the idea of giving the users what they want from the system. The user can define which features are used or not used, can set specific options on and off, and get personalized feedback. Amazon’s “if you bought this, you will like this” feature often is touted as a prime example of personalization. Libraries have been involved with personalization since, well, the invention of the library card. All library users have their own accounts, can use any or all parts of the library with that account, and can suggest additional materials for the collections. We have delivered materials to users for years, using technology ranging from the postal service to bookmobiles to fax machines to the Internet. Readers’ advisory is one of the oldest reference services in our profession. One librarian, Nancy Pearl, even became an action figure by doing in person what Web 2.0 is doing online. When our users recommend resources to us, we usually purchase them. Libraries have been personalizing their resources ever since the Boston Public Library opened its doors in 1854.