If librarians had invented Google…

Earlier this term, I co-presented sessions for our MBA students on ‘Information sources for market analysis’ to support them in the projects they were undertaking with businesses in Cambridgeshire.

While prepping for this lecture I started to think about the eternal problem of how I could impress upon the audience the importance of going beyond Google to our premium databases (i.e. the ones we pay for).  I also wanted to spell out the differences between free and fee and the pros and cons of each option, with the ultimate goal of  proving that our resources win hands down.  This content got me to thinking about how different the information world would be if librarians had come up with Google themselves. How would it look? Would it have been as successful? Would anyone use it?

It seemed a natural next step to take the question out to the Twittersphere, mainly because I felt sure I could gather some humorous quotes to use in my Powerpoint. And so it proved. A selection of the best responses I received - from non-librarians as well as librarians – follows:

If librarians had invented Google…

• the logo would have been beige rather than multi-coloured
• it would be more precise but far less friendly ;o)
• it would be phenomenally difficult to log in to
• those prudes would have blocked all the porn
• the web page you actually want would never be available when you wanted it
• it would not only point you to resources but teach you how to use them too
• it would also be able to lend you a pencil and fix the printer
• it wouldn’t have such a strong brand but the information would be organised well
• it would be less than half its present size
• would it even be in the vocabulary?
• there would be a ranking system to show the authority level of a source
• you’d have to scroll through an interminable list of instructions before you got to the search box
• no-one would know about it
• you’d have to click at least three times before you got to the search screen
• our professional future would look much rosier
• the layperson would understand about indexing
• the world would be a better place
• you could fine people for not coming back!
• it would have a cluttered interface
• its name would be an acronym
• another less organised search engine would be the world’s favourite
• the web would be properly indexed and as a result you’d get more focused and relevant results

The last one was the main point I wanted to make to the audience and judging from the numerous follow-up requests for help using the databases they seemed to take it on board. Many of the negative, if funny, ones beg interesting questions about why we librarians do things the way we do and whether we can do anything about these constraints. Surely we can do more than we’re doing at the moment?

Any more, for any more? If you want to add to the list please do comment below…

Every way that we can

It’s probably the most difficult problem that librarians around the world are currently facing : how to get the instiutions in which we are based to understand what it is we actually do and moreover to recognise our value and relevance. I realise I’m not saying anything new or groundbreaking here, but I honestly believe that if we don’t start addressing this issue of issues more comprehensively and conclusively, and soon, then in this leaner and less forgiving age, we may genuinely run out of time to get this message across. Earlier this month, this fact zoomed even more inexorably into focus for me, after hearing about sweeping staff cuts to a library service that I’d always regarded to be as safe as houses.

So where are we going wrong? Well for one thing I’m convinced we’re still not being bold enough about communicating the value we bring to our organisations, and for another that we’re still assuming that stakeholders have a better understanding of the myriad complexities of librarianship than they do. Yes we all have our champions and supporters, but they are far outnumbered by those who, if pushed for a description of what it is we do, would inexplicably trot out the old ‘stamp, shelve and shush’ cliches. We can no longer afford to be complacent or assume that our services will be eternally funded. Going back to an earlier post, like Bertrand Russell’s Christmas turkey, sooner or later we may stop being fed and suddenly find that we have no future.

So what can we do about it? Plenty. Its no accident that I spend so much of my time marketing my own library service through newsletters, plasma screen adverts, boomarks, online and printed guides, Youtube videos, consultation exercises, focus groups, teaching and training, our portal, emails, Twitter, surveys, Facebook, inductions, social bookmarking and internal committees. Rather it’s in recognition of the fact that I’m more convinced than ever that the services we offer need to be communicated and promoted in every way that we can, and that all the avenues that are open to us must be fully explored and utilised. I see accountability and statistics as equally key, so that we can incontrovertibly prove that our services and resources are sufficiently used, that our staffing levels are appropriate, and that our contribution to teaching and research is both tangible and vital. Of course, statistics do not constitute a cast-iron guarantee, but they’re incredibly useful safeguards against uninformed assumption.

Can we market ourselves too much? Can we spend too much time seeking to prove our worth? I don’t think we can. In a world where the activity of an information search has been popularly distilled into sticking a word a Google and hitting return, we cannot assume that our incalulably more complex raft of services will be understood, never mind embraced. And I suggest that this should be our other primary objective going forward: to simplify our services and to explain ourselves in as straightforward a manner as possible. This should lead to better  understanding of, and more importantly, sufficient buy-in to, our services and in turn to some much-needed professional security.

10 challenges for the library profession

Over the next week or so I’ll be posting summaries and reviews of the many excellent sessions presented at the recent EBSLG conference at Ashridge Management College (5-8 May 2009), The first session was led by Tony Sheehan, Ashridge’s Learning Services Director.

Tony identified 10 challenges that currently face the library profession and which were also intended to answer the increasingly asked question: “Do we need libraries at all?”

Tony’s 10 Challenges:
1. Business
Librarians should be integrating with all parts of their organisation and avoid their library becoming a silo. Collaboration and connectivity are therefore key.
2. Workload
Information has grown exponentially but our capacity to absorb it has not. There is an ever widening zone of ignorance.
3. Search
Librarians are now answering more complex research questions than ever. This shift is important and will help us to erode the zone of ignorance (see above). 
4. Attention
We are now driven  by info-lust and distracted by content and therefore hyperlinking off in our own minds all the time. Mistakes arise from our ‘emotional tagging’ of information and recognising misleading patterns. After Bazerman and Chugh, we need to bring the right information into our conscious awareness at the right time.
5. Complexity
Librarians are now facing brand new problems and the answers are frequently to be found in different disciplines.
6. Connections
The Internet now offers us connections. Shirky: “Each URL is a latent community” – the trigger for richand engaging conversations – the launch point for creativity”. Technology is providing us with connections that should be fully utilised. e.g. the lizard spit that may provide the answers to diabetes.
7. Communities
Networks of knowledge (such as EBSLG) are now more important than ever for librarians. See book: The Wisdom of Crowds and e.g. of checking out TripAdvisor before choosing a hotel.
8. Technology
What we all now experience at home, technology-wise, is setting the standard for our experience at work. We can do almost everything electronically now. e.g. of use of World of Warcraft by CISCO for job selection process!
9. Personalisation
Eagleton refers to the human situation of ”hasty, random choices with little thought and evaluation”, which we’ve arrived at through Google and the search engine revolution. Critical information skills have been lost and librarians have to ensure that they are still on the agenda by providing the best of both worlds (Google and information portals/services).
10. Reflection
We should be spending more time reflecting, thinking and learning and less time doing. Space is important. We need this in order to keep up with the latest trends.
Conclusion:
Libraries and librarians can still be valuable if they can keep up-to-date and respond to organisational, individual and environmental needs. The problem is that many library services are currently invisible.

Although there was nothing particularly groundbreaking about Tony’s presentation, I found it to be both affirming and relevant.
His call for librarians to spend more time relecting and learning in order to keep up-to-date was actually the final catalyst for me to start blogging. As for the invisbility factor – promoting my own library service to make it as visible as possible is easily my number one priority on a day-to-day basis.

Andy