We need better (and more) R&D in our field.
While not many are the “call to action” that is the mantra of the book, one area where I fully agree a transformational change is needed is in the area of research and development. There are lots of ideas and issues in BiblioTech that I agree with. Setting up a funding battle among all the other critically important public services is something Bobbi Newman has called the “Public Services Hunger Games.” We diminish each other in the process. There is no recognition that funding public libraries means less funds for other public services. The funding of public services is fraught with political and ideological land mines, especially in the U.S. That’s the funding strategy: we deserve it. And based on the arguments made in this book, we will get it. Near the end of the book Palfrey acknowledges that library transformation he advocates can only occur with sufficient (and increased) public funding. The thesis of BiblioTech gets us to where we already are the thesis of David Lankes’ Expect More, as a counter example, is to set our sights on an even more profound role. So the danger here (and danger maybe too strong a word) is that politicians and citizens will in fact read this book and say “well, we already have that is that it?”). In my experience librarians and library workers are fully engaged in the transformational characteristics that Palfrey calls for. They are doing wonderful work they are true leaders. as beacons of hope (specifically Sarah Houghton, Jessamyn West, and Melissa Techman). Palfrey references a number of the leaders and innovators in the U.S. In both these cases libraries are profoundly changing their roles and their influence. What’s missing in Palfrey’s analysis? Two for example: 1) a more fulsome understanding of the community-led library and its role in community development, and 2) the role research libraries are playing in the transformation of scholarly communications. This vibrancy and innovation is something I see in many libraries. And, she is clearly also working on school work of some sort. She is taking calls on Skype, gathering info on the Internet, and providing purchasing advice to clients. The woman in the next cubical to me is running her business while at the library. Some people (like me) are getting their work done (whatever that might be). Around me are examples of Palfrey’s recommendations in action: public meetings, consultations with social workers, interviews with employment counselors, and, of course, people reading various things (online and in print) and children everywhere. I’m sitting in a public library as I write this (Richmond Public Library in B.C. This tepid approach is so 10 minutes ago. Seriously? If this milquetoast recommendation is the “strong message” that ensures our relevancy we have some big problems ahead.
I favour a hybrid of the virtual and the analog, the strong middle course that falls between ‘the if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ approach and the ‘let’s get on with the change more quickly’ argument.” “Digital innovation must happen, and it will, but too great a rush to change will break down too much in libraries that is of value, too quickly. So, what’s the way forward according to Palfrey? “Been there, done/doing that” will be much of the response. Palfrey’s call to “hack the library”, engage in “radical collaboration” and to position the library as “platform” will seem far too familiar to many. And apparently many of us aren’t going to like it (ditto the repeating). Or at least that’s what he says repeatedly. So, let’s assume the audience is really … us: librarians, library workers, and those directly connected to libraries. No politicians is going to read this (similar reasons to above), especially because of the naïve view of public funding espoused by Palfrey (more on this later). He says his audience is “all those who do not work in libraries and who should be taking a greater interest in the fate of these essential knowledge institutions on which we rely more than we seem to realize.” That said, the book repeatedly seems to speak directly to those involved with libraries.įrankly I wouldn’t give this to a member of the public the “inside-baseball” library stuff is too obscure and … boring. He was the head of the Harvard Law Library and is a recognized authority on the internet and emerging media.īut who is Palfrey writing this book for? Librarians? The general public? Politicians? Perhaps all of these and more? This matters because the core messages are different for different audiences. The subtitle of BiblioTech (Basic Book, 2015) is “Why Libraries Matter More Than Ever in the Age of Google.” At the outset let me be clear that Palfrey is a friend of libraries and passionately presents the case for their value. And that’s a shame. Books that effectively champion the continuing importance of libraries are few and far between.
0 kommentar(er)
