In previous posts in this series I have asked whether the vision for The Library of the Future will be based on A Privatised Future or the provision of Services for the Self-Motivated Middle Classes. In a post entitled Because We’re Right! I also argued that there was a need to consider the assumptions which may be made when planning development of a hyperlinked library.
The aim of this series of posts is to encourage debate on alternative visions of the future of libraries which go beyond a technical deterministic utopian vision. Such considerations were addressed last year in ‘eLearning and Digital Cultures’ MOOC organised by the University of Edinburgh (which will be repeated later this year).
A Dystopian Future?
David Hopkins took part on the MOOC and provided a useful summary of his experiences on his blog. The post on “Reflection on the ‘eLearning and Digital Cultures’ MOOC, Wk.1 #edcmooc” described the terms ‘utopian’ and dystopian’: “in relation to education and technology: ‘utopian’ (creating highly desirable social, educational, or cultural effects) or ‘dystopian’ (creating extremely negative effects for society, education or culture)” and summarised utopian and dystopian claims as show below.
The MOOC provided a number of video clips which illustrated how popular films show how the dreams of a utopian future can founder.
David described how “One film I felt could be used to highlight the technology/natural divide is Bruce Willis’ ‘Surrogates‘, where “humans live in isolation and interact through surrogate robots”. A trailer for this film is shown below.
Will Librarians Help to Build This Dystopian Future?
The ‘eLearning and Digital Cultures’ MOOC was aimed at the e-learning community and appeared to be particularly popular in the higher education elearning community in the UK. It was interesting, I felt, that this MOOC, one of the first MOOCs organised in the UK, began with such a challenging view of technological developments, This contrasted strongly with the resources which have been used so far in the Hyperlinked Library MOOC, which have typically provided an optimistic vision based on pioneering work of early adopters of networked technologies in libraries.
Are these contrasting approaches based on differing perspectives of the learning and library communities or does it reflect positive US attitudes versus UK cynicism and doubt? Such cultural differences were highlighted in an article entitled “The stoic, the upbeat and les misérables” republished last weekend in “FT Weekend: The Best of 2013”:
There was an aspect of American culture, the relentless desire to make things whole and happy, that crucially overwhelmed its attempts to say something lasting and serious. If the French have a tendency to problematise, the Americans do the opposite, cheerfully skirting over pain, ambiguity, nuance.
Do Americans skirt over the pain and ambiguities of the implications of pervasive social networks? Or do the Brits, along with the French. problematise? As a Brit I would warn of the dangers of a failure of those involved in developing visions for the library of the future to consider the dystopian implications of cheerfully embracing technological determinism!
The approach taken in the Hyperlinked Library MOOC is to stimulate discussion and debate as learning can arise as a result of such discussions. The MOOC provides a series of lectures from guest speakers and recommended readings but it is not envisaged that the learning will arise purely as a result of passive consumption of these resources, but in engaging in discussion on the issues raised in these resources – and also, I would argue – in the gaps in the resources and the assumptions they make.
In my first post in this series, The Library of the Future (Part 1): A Privatised Future?, I raised concerns that the library of the future would be based on privatisation of the library infrastructure and a deterioration in the working conditions for those working in libraries. The second post, The Library of the Future (Part 2): Services for the Self-Motivated Middle Classes?, suggested that the moves from the physical environment and face-to-face interactions t use of networked technologies and engagement in virtual spaces could result in a devalued experiences for those unable or unwilling to make use of such networked technologies, with the benefits being gained by sectors who least need such external support.
This post considers the implicit assumptions which this MOOC makes, that the hyperlinked library unquestionably provides a model for the future and the need is to learn from the early adopters of hyperlinked libraries and share best practices.
Fake Certainties
Being overly confident in a position can lead to you to overcommit to a position
At the IWMW 2013 event which I organised, Neil Denny gave an inspiring talk on “The Delicious Discomfort Of Not Knowing: How to Lead Effectively Through Uncertainty“. As described in the Storify summary of the talk “Neil Denny explored the experience of living through uncertainty and the communicative challenges that can arise out of our belief in our own knowing. Denny argued that we should embrace living on the edge of our comfort zone and get used to existing in that uncertain space to help develop coping mechanisms“.
In a post entitled Fake Certainty published yesterday Neil revisited these ideas.The post described the hot air balloon peril: as “a result of over-commitment, where we resolve to pursue a particular route and, having made that choice, we then find it is becomes increasingly impossible to deviate from it“.
Is the hyperlinked libary of the future based on ‘faked certainties’, I wonder? I’d therefore like to explore some of the certainties which advoicates of greater use of networked technologies in libraries seem to tend not to question.
What ‘Fake Certainities’ Might the Hyperlinked Library Be Based On?
What are the assumptions of the vision for the hyperlinked library of the future be based on which will need challenging in order to ensure that the significant investments to be made in implementing a vision for the library of the future will be based on strong foundations whose validity is based on evidence, rather than current fashions? Some key dependencies om which hyperlinked libraries would appear to require which will need to be validated include:
The relevance of learning through connections: Will the benefits of learning through one’s rich set of connections which are provided by use of social media be relevant in all contexts, for all people, in all areas, at all times? If not, when are alternative approaches needed?
To what extend can we trust our networks: How do we address the dangers of errors, lies and misinformation being disseminated on network tools such as Twitter? Might significant misuse lead to a backlash and a return to a preference for traditional trusted sources of information?
To what extent will users continue to trust librarians? As I described in February 2007 a blog post which provided a brief summary of and OCLC report on ‘Sharing, Privacy and Trust In Our Networked World‘:
“…general users “do not rate most library services as very private” even though “the majority do not read library privacy policies.” Most users do, however, “feel commercial sites keep their personal information secure” but only “about half think library Web sites keep their personal information secure“. The nature of trust of commercial social network services is also increasing with use.
Will users continue to be prepared to make use of Google, Twitter Facebook, etc.?: Although concerns over privacy, content ownership, terms and conditions, etc. are well-known and do not seem to be a significant barrier to continued use of these services, what would be the implications for a hyperlinked library organisation which was dependent on use of these services if users decided to stop using the services to a significant extent?
Changes to the technological infrastructure: As Tony Hirst has recently described in a post entitled “Remembering a Time When the Web Was More Open…?” on his OUseful blog “Twitter gave up on RSS/Atom, opting for JSON instead; … Authentication also killed off a whole range of Amazon related mashups“. Might continued changes to the technological infrastructure used by large-scale providers of the services used to provide hyperlinked libraries lead to significant problems in use of the services?
Legal issues provide significant barriers to use of networked services in a library context: Pressures on libraries to ensure that their services do not infringe on copyright owners rights and to provide a safe and trusted environment for library patrons results in a move away from open social web services and greater use of managed ‘walled gardens’.
Perhaps these issues are somebody else’s problem? But if there is a belief that the future for libraries is dependent on a transformation to ‘hyperlinked libraries’ surely these and similar issues will need to be addressed?
The first module on the Hyperlinked Library MOOC provided a series of resources on The Hyperlinked Library Model & Participatory Service. Although I’ve not read all of the resources, skimming through a number of them I’ve noticed they tend to provide a very optimistic view of the future for the library in a heavily networked and connected environment. To give an example the concluding remarks from a number of the resources are given below:
“These characteristics are just some of the facets of what I believe will make libraries truly innovative, useful and needed in the 21st century” – the final sentence on the article onThe hyperlinked library.
“The direction academic libraries take is up to us. It’s ours to figure out. So let’s not be satisfied by adding small features, but instead, let’s use our imaginations to dream big and create amazing experiences that transform our users.” – final paragraph in the article on “Facing The Future: Think Like A Startup” (PDF format).
“can make your imagination stir to life and water the garden where hope for something more might take root” – from the penultimate paragraph of the blog post on Finding the Future.
I also watched a video on “Library of the Future in Plain English”. As described in my first post in this series which seek to critique these seemingly uncritical views of the future for libraries in a highly connected digital environment role this video depicts a future which, from a UK perspective, seems to run counter to the ethos of public service and the trusted and neutral values which librarians have. Perhaps such values are no longer relevant or can be provided by for-profit companies which can stimulate innovation by exploiting new business models. But if this is the case, there needs to be an open and public debate about the nature of the changes which embracing technologies, and in particular social media technologies which are typically owned by global companies based in the US.
Library Services For The Self-Motivated Individuals and the Middle Classes?
But in addition to the issues related to the ownership of the social media services and the terms and conditions governing use of such services there is also a need to consider whether the emphasis of networked technologies will undermine the services libraries have traditionally provided for a broad set of communities.
Recent years have seen a drive towards higher participation rates in both the UK and US … but above 40% participation rates problems occur. Issues around massification, cost shifting (where governments push the costs onto students), and student loans are all at play. There is also the influence of Baumol’s disease, where disciplines like the performing arts, are unable to make efficiency savings by reducing teacher to student ratios.
Anya argued that the combination of cost, access and quality made a compelling “case for radical innovation” in higher education. Shifting towards open content, socialisation and accreditation could result in that radical innovation, and Anya expanded on the benefits of Open Educational Resources, Personal Learning Networks and open accreditation approaches. Citing developments like Mozilla drumbeat’s P2PU – School of Webcraft, Anya described how “professional networks can bypass the need for diplomas”. She concluded with the prediction that new business models for HE would emerge, as mp3 players and digital music had transformed the business model of the music industry.
These sentiments echo the sentiments expressed in the readings provided in first module of the HyperlInked Library MOOC. In my previous post I described how the Library of the Future video expects library staff to “have much more fluid and adaptable roles … working flexible hours who may not be in the library building at all“. This begs the question of whether the flexible terms and conditions will include reductions in pay, volunteer labour and zero-hours contracts. But rather than revisiting the implications for library staff, in this post I’m concerned with the implications for users of library services. In particular I would like to ask “Will the emphasis of the hyperlinked library of the future provide most benefits to self-motivated individuals and the middle classes who will be best positioned to exploit networked services, to the detriment of the wider community?”
In particular what about the information requirements for those who:
Don’t have access to networked technologies, smart phones, etc.?
Don’t have the skills or confidence to use networked technologies?
Are not prepared to use services which require the user to allow commercial exploitation of their content or who do not want their preferences and network details to be mined for commercial exploitation?
Feel that use of such services contravenes legislation in their country or who cannot access such services as their host environment does not provide access due to legislative concerns (e.g. EU data protection legislation)?
Are concerned that their personal content hosted by US companies will be accessed by US authorities?
It’s far from the end for public libraries. It’s easy, in these tough times, to only listen to the naysayers and prognosticators of doom, to only hear those in our community calling for the elimination of libraries. But limited tax revenues, the Internet, and eBooks are not burying the public library. Limited tax revenues will force us to become more efficient, the Internet is part of our future, and eBooks are simply another delivery vehicle. We control this future, and we can make it a successful one by making full use of the tools at hand.
But does addressing the economic challenges require that we fail to acknowledge other concerns I have listed above?
I am co-facilitating a day’s workshop on “Future Technologies and Their Applications” at the ILI (Internet Library International) conference in London next month. This MOOC is providing an ideal opportunity for me to think about issues which myself and Tony Hirst, my workshop co-facilitator, should address at the event. In particular the MOOC is enabling me to reflect on the role of the library in the future, going beyond the technologies which will be the main focus of the workshop.
Highlights of The Library of the Future in Plain English Video
One of the recommended readings (viewings?) for the MOOC is the YouTube video entitled “Library of the Future in Plain English” by Mal Booth, Sophie McDonald and Belinda Tiffen of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Library.
The video begins by announcing “The Library of the Future will be very different to the way we do business now“. But how will they be different? It seems that the current library environment has little to offer to the modern environment:
“Libraries can be fun places to work, but they are also part of large organizations and therefore can be bureaucratic, with a very hierarchical organization structure. Often, the task we have to perform will be carried out in different departments. This can lead to silos where there is little communication between staff in different areas. Decision making is top down. That’s old way, boo!”
However in the future:
… we’ll need to rethink our work conditions. Library staff work regular hours. We’re not quite 9 to 5 because libraries are often open long hours. But we will all come to work and spend most of our day at our desk in a back room probably with some rusted time at a service desk in the public spaces. This old way of doing things isn’t going to fit with the new library.
As well as changes to working hours, the work environment will change:
The new library will be available 24/7 and online will be just as important as the physical building. We’ll have to have staff working flexible hours who may not be in the library building at all. They might work from home and use mobile technology to provide information services from almost any location, from a cafe, to a classroom. Librarians will be both online and in the physical library and that means a whole new service model.
and librarians will have to move out of their offices:
Librarians love to help people and connect them to information and ideas. But sometimes, it could be hard for people to approach us when we’re behind desks or hidden away in offices. We can see more authoritative and anonymous to our clients or like we are there to enforce rules rather than help. We all know and hate the stereotype of the pearl-wearing librarian who goes around shushing people, boo! A new service model will let us show that librarians are creative experimental and open. We could become part of research teams embedded in faculties, coaching facilitating and offering new services in ways which are proactive providing advice in the information before our clients even know they need it. We can borrow ideas from other sectors like retail.Think of the Apple store where there are always geniuses to help you and the service feels personal. We can go in further by letting our personality show, especially online where we can use services like Facebook to create profiles and connect with the people who would most benefit from our expertise in ways which are collaborative.
The video clip goes on to describe address environmental issues:
Sustainability. The way we work now is very resource intensive, lots of paper consumption, lots of printing, energy-intensive buildings, wasteful procurement processes, but that’s the old way, boo! The new library buildings can be built to the highest grain specifications with features like rainwater collection, alternative energy use, waste water recycling and green furnishings.
and modes of transport:
But sustainability isn’t just about the building. It’s about new attitudes and new ways of working. Libraries can encourage their staff to take public transport or walk or bicycle to work by providing storage areas for bikes, shower rooms and staff reward programs. It also models behavior for our clients so there’s a ripple effect outwards.
Finally job titles, roles and responsibilities will change:
The people who work in libraries are generally classified by their position, the props of material they work with or by their role in the hierarchy as managers or workers. These kinds of roles are not going to suit the new way of doing things. We need to have much more fluid and adaptable roles. Would you rather be a cataloger, an IT technician or a media curator, a learning and gaming consultant. In the Library of the Future, we’ll need people who are creative, open to challenges and tolerant of mistakes. People who are team based and client focused, rather than hierarchical and rules focused. The new librarian is open to new possibilities and is constantly evolving.
Reflections From A Concerned UK Citizen
The video is one of a series of recommended readings for the first module of the Hyperlinked Library MOOC, which addresses The Hyperlinked Library Model & Participatory Service. The tone of the MOOC, the associated discussions and the resources is very up-beat and optimistic about the future of the “hyperlinked library”. But this optimism jars for someone who has been working in the UK and has been observing recent changes in the public sector, including higher education and public libraries.
In the UK we have been seeing a ‘perfect storm’. Others on this MOOC will be very aware of the changes which rapid technological developments continue to provide – and this MOOC is about how such changes can be implemented in a library context. The implications of the economic crisis will also be widely appreciated, although this will have affected the MOOC participants differently, in light of the geographical spread of the participants. However the implications of the political changes in the UK are likely to have had direct relevance to the six or so MOOC participants who have geo-located their institution as being in the UK.
In brief we have seen the coalition government introducing significant increases in tuition fees for students going to university and cuts in funding for public libraries which is leading to closures of public libraries. In addition to the changes in the political and economic environment CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals is currently looking to change its name, which has led to heated debate about the rebranding and the role of the professional body.
With this backdrop, the positivity of much of the discussions and the associated reading materials on The Hyperlinked Library MOOC seems to ignore the realities of the library environment in the UK. Voices For The Library, a campaigning organisation in the UK has published a manifesto which describes its vision for the role of public library services. I have annotated a number of the key points from the Library of the Future video, outlining how the library of the future could be implemented. This vision of the future is not necessarily one which the Voices For The Library would endorse!
What They Said
What They Might Mean
Libraries can be fun places to work, but they are also part of large organizations and therefore can be bureaucratic, with a very hierarchical organization structure. Often, the task we have to perform will be carried out in different departments. This can lead to silos where there is little communication between staff in different areas
Libraries reflect the welfare state environment which has been discredited. We are going to change things.
we’ll need to rethink our work conditions. Library staff work regular hours. We’re not quite 9 to 5 because libraries are often open long hours. But we will all come to work and spend most of our day at our desk in a back room probably with some rusted time at a service desk in the public spaces. This old way of doing things isn’t going to fit with the new library.
We’ll extend your working hours (but don’t expect to receive any more pay!)
We’ll have to have staff working flexible hours who may not be in the library building at all. They might work from home and use mobile technology to provide information services from almost any location, from a cafe, to a classroom
You’ll still be on duty at home or during your social hours!
But sometimes, it could be hard for people to approach us when we’re behind desks or hidden away in offices.
We’ll run a knocking campaign in the tabloid papers to gain public support for the changes.
We can see more authoritative and anonymous to our clients or like we are there to enforce rules rather than help. We all know and hate the stereotype of the pearl-wearing librarian who goes around shushing people, boo!
Tabloid editors, feel free to use those stereotypes. Why do you think we mentioned them!
We can borrow ideas from other sectors like retail. Think of the Apple store where there are always geniuses to help you and the service feels personal.
We don’t have to imitate the commercial sector – we can invite the commercial sector to run the libraries. Yes, we are talking about privatisation!
The way we work now is very resource intensive, lots of paper consumption, lots of printing, energy-intensive buildings, wasteful procurement processes, but that’s the old way, boo!
Forget the irrelevant comments about “rainwater collection”. Libraries are “very resource intensive” and we’re going to change that.
Libraries can encourage their staff to take public transport or walk or bicycle to work by providing storage areas for bikes, shower rooms and staff reward programs.
No car parking (except for senior managers). We’ve sold the car parks to property developers. And with staff reward programs we can reduce wages.
We need to have much more fluid and adaptable roles
Which will enable us to reduce wages
The new librarian is open to new possibilities and is constantly evolving.
Our plans are still evolving. We wonder whether we can explore income generation deals with Facebook and Amazon – we deliver the customers’ eyeballs and the shareholders make the money.
The development of the hyperlinked library of the future goes beyond the technologies. But it also needs to address the political and economic context in which the library service operates. I’d therefore invite a discussion of these issues.
In Rebecca’s blog on this MOOC she recently posted a summary of Sarah Ludwig’s guest lecture on Hyperlinked Library Communities. In the post, entitled “Reinventing the Wheel“, Rebecca highlighted three key messages from the guest lecture:
Whenever possible, use tools that already exist.
Go to the users; don’t expect the users to come to you.
Be as present online as you are in the physical community
I very much agree with the second and third points (although the third point reflects a physical library environment – there are other environments in which the focus may, in any case, be based around online interactions).
But the initial point needs unpicking, I feel. I would agree with the dangers of developing new tools – which will require users to learn new interfaces and new ways of working – when existing tools are already available which can do the job.
The danger is that this will stifle innovation. What would be the point of Tim Berners-Lee developing the Web when Gopher already existing which provided a global information system based on the Internet?
Or, moving to today’s environment, are we suggesting that librarians should not consider social web environments beyond Facebook, Twitter and similar services?
Perhaps a more appropriate response would be to adopt the slogan “Developing new solutions is difficult and expensive and prone to failures. Make use of existing tools unless there are clear reasons not to and ensure that you articulate what those reasons are“. Would that be an approach which would be relevant in a library environment?
After I joined the Hyperlinked Library MOOC I familiarised myself with the online environment: I set up a blog, deleted the template post and page and published my first post. I joined a number of ‘tribes’ and befriended some of the people I’ve ‘met’ elsewhere, such as on Twitter.
Are these useful ways of publicly acknowledging active participation in a MOOC? Or do they undermine the learning process by rewarding trivial tasks? I have to admit that I felt the system was patronising me when I received a badge for deleting a blog post and updating my avatar, which was compounded with the badge for completing five other simple tasks.
I wrote about my initial reaction on my UK Web Focus blog.It seems that others agreed with my doubts. @CogDog commented that“I echo the cynicism of micro badging for every possible task; I would go beyond and find it revolting and demeaning“. John Paschoud reflected on the badges he received as a child but concluded that as an adult “I can manage the rest of my life entirely without any ‘badges’ that I get from websites – especially the ones focused on online democratic participation or IT ‘skills’. Your cynicism about them is entirely appropriate!” However Margaret (a fellow student on the Hyperlinked Library MOOC described how she is “the classmate who commented on basically being intrinsically motivated and ‘surprised’ (to say the least) at the little thrill of pleasure acquiring a badge gave me. I am not without my skepticism, but am currently enjoying it“. Margaret went on to add that “I know there is great controversy about badges, and I agree with CogDog and others that to really be worthy, badges should indicate that some significant learning has taken place“.
Further Thoughts
I felt it important to document my initial reaction when I received the MOOC badges as I was confident that I would not be alone in having such concerns. However I was also aware that others would appreciate receiving acknowledgements of their initial engagement with the MOOC environment.In addition one’s initial reaction may change in light of subsequent experiences and discussion with others. Since learning through interaction with others has a key role to play in the Hyperlinked Library MOOC I am providing some further thoughts on possible strengths and weakness of badges.
User benefits:Badges can provide motivation for learners, by providing tangible and public evidence of progress through a learning environment,
User concerns: Badges may be regarded as trivial and irrelevant to deeper learning.
Organiser benefits: Organisers of learning environments which make provide badges can have an overview of progress through tools which monitor awarding of badges.
Organiser concerns: Learners may regard badge awards as of intrinsic value in themselves, rather than as proxy display of progress.
Benefits and concerns for other interested parties: Potential employers may be able to use badges as an indication of the skills and expertise of applicants. However if this becomes widely accepted, employers will need to be wary of how badges can be ‘gamed’ or fake badge credentials used.
I welcome comments on these thoughts.
Further Information
Whilst writing this post I looked at a number of online resources. Whilst this isn’t intended to provide an authoritative bibliography of relevant resources, I thought it would be useful to others if I were to share the resources I found. I’d welcome suggestions of additional relevant resources.
Brian Kelly's Hyperlinked Library MOOC Blog 