« Public Library Standards are finished | Main | The end of books »
June 15, 2007
"Update"
The CILIP magazine "Update" is one of the main fora for discussion among professional librarians.
I have often felt that it really doesn't matter what the library profession think their "strategy for the future" should be. There is a job to be done for the public, they are well paid and they should get on with it. If they don't want to do it or haven't got the nous to find out what the public wants, then they are in the wrong job and should leave - or be made to.
Whatever their qualities as individuals which are normally excellent, I'm sure, ,as a collective (either as CILIP, SCILIP, CYMAL or the SCL) - by and large they are clearly obstructive, destructive and a pain in the neck. And the result of their negative behaviour has been the needless destruction of the public library service. The senior members of these bodies have been promoted into senior government and civil service positions (the MLA and DCMS) and have infected the mechanisms of government, which should work for the public good, with the same trough of misery
However, there have been many very sensible people who have argued that the whole process of putting libraries right would be much better if the so-called professional bodies could be turned round and could see a more productive route forward. One of these honourable people is Frances Hendrix and she has written very sensibly to "Update" about the matter of the articles in the professional press which were reported here a few weeks ago.
I have reprinted her letter below
Froud and Gent accuse Tim Coates of having a limited vision of the public library service (Gazette 4th May 2007) BUT at least he has a vision, and is publicising it as much as he can.You may not agree with everything Tim says, but he is at least getting huge publicity and putting public libraries on the agenda.
What vision do Froud and Gent have for the sector? What is the brave new world for public libraries where all around us is changing at break neck speed? The statistics, research, evidence and common sense indicate that younger people are not reading., they are switched on to other means of communication and entertainment., book sales are up., there is competition for all a library offers., the internet is being increasingly used for commerce, entertainment, communication etc.The sense of place the library offered is not now paramount and more people are using the new internet groupings for socialising.
So What is the ten year plan for libraries? Is there one? The Blue Print seems more like an out of date grey print, lacking in so much, very short on real vision.
Froud and Gent say 'libraries offer everyone access to books and reading, and to the information they need to make sense of the world', and how patronising is that last statement! But come off it, try ringing your public library for information and compare it to the speed, convenience and accuracy of using the internet for information (where ever you are in the world!). And you can offer all you like but if the offer isn't what the punter wants you are dead. Look at how even the mightiest of commercial giants had to face up to that, Marks and Spencer. They tackled it but a huge and expensive task. How are public libraries tackling their problems and desperate need for change and development? Where is the leadership, the high profile., the support the long term and national strategic plan etc? Other organisations, including the British Library have cogent, costed and publicly available strategic plans, which are continually under review. The OCLC Environmental scan for libraries some years ago had pointers to all the changes the sector had to address, the changing habits of users and those needing information, the rise of the Goggle society etc. have the public library sector looked at and taken on board any of this?
Yes some wonderful good practice around, but it hasn't jelled, there aren't the national offers, and the publicity of reading groups go to the big and popular players like Richard and Judy!
Gent and Froud seem out of date with the march of time and the huge uptake in use of broadband., and now even in the remotest regions of Cornwall! And what are the Development plans for the old and hackneyed People's network? How is this going to be funded and is it now the right tool for todays' communities? It is after all more than 10 years old in concept design and functionality.Older users of the internet amaze me, on a recent trip the oldies were so up to date and confident it was incredible., they are switched on, so don't underestimate them. If you have facts about any of this let us see them!
One thing Coates does have that Gent and Froud don't and cant have, is freedom to say what he thinks about public libraries, without the constraints of local authorities employment restrictions. It is good to have some one raising these things so that little by little , bit by bit, the wider world will realise public libraries are in crisis.
Again Gent and Froud mention some interesting, but limited and short term partnerships., all good stuff, but no real long termism, and of course dealing with 149 public libraries is a very big pain in the rear to any potential partner.We missed the opportunity of partnering with post offices, another service in crisis, and one I suggested we do business with some 10 years ago!
This isn't just me spouting off, commissioned reports, independent research by other than just Tim are saying it and have been so doing for years! Can we be in denial for ever?
Re leadership, I wish I could see what Gent and Froud claim. Clore has given opportunities to 4 librarians now, all excellent candidates and all different BUT are they yet at the point they can demonstrate leadership, no not yet., will they get those opportunities, the jury is out.( and why do so few apply for the scholarship anyway)? it may be they have to move out of the sector for real success, we shall see. There has been published criticism of the review of the leadership initiatives offered from within the sector, and comparing the current library leaders ( and who are they by the way),with leaders from other sectors would be an interesting experiment. How many library leaders are active in other sectors, move into other sectors, are nationally known, are 'names'?
Finally why not get round the table with Tim? I am sure he would be willing to speak without a megaphone
Frances Hendrix
Posted by Perkins at June 15, 2007 9:25 AM
Comments
Well and indeed. I would hope for some reform of CILIP. One possibility is that CILIP should be slimmed down into a CPD focused body, and sector specific associations take over the advocacy and planning roles.
Nice to see you think we are individually excellent, some times ;) I think the same could be said of 'the public' :D
The issue for me is always, is it so simple what 'the public' want? Is there just one 'public' we serve? No, there are many, and as librarians we need not to focus on just one (which sometimes happens.)
We can achieve balanced change in our libraries, by working with all of these publics. The public library system, of which I am a patron/user/choose your name, can be reformed so that it serves book lovers, e-fanatics and all points in between. WHat is needed is an openness to change married to a respect for what has always been.
'Without vision the people perish' ;)
Posted by: Pete Smith at June 15, 2007 10:24 AM
Pete; you can't be all things to all people. It never works. You end up being mediocre to everyone and that's a lot of the problem. The library service has to decide whom it is serving -- and it is helped in that by the Act of Parliament which says that councils should provide a library service to those who want to use it- which is by no means everyone.
All organisations that serve the public face the same question-- and most are perfectly able and professional at resolving it. They all serve "many publics" as you say- but they know perfectly well which they are and what those people want. They have to- otherwise they can't function, if they don't know the answers to those questions, they just waste money by scattering it
I think you have made my point by what you say. The public library service has no business trying to address the needs of e-fanatics - that is a speciality which is far beyond the realms of public service and we waste money attempting.
I know this is alien to public librarians - but that has to change, I think
Posted by: Tim Coates at June 15, 2007 9:43 PM
I think what I said makes my point, Tim ;)
And as for the public library service not having to serve e-fanatics, oh, but it does. It is a public library service after all; not a 'public that Tim Coates/Pete Smith approves of.'
“comprehensive
and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof” Like a lot of laws this is wonderfully useless. Does it mean only those at any one time? You stick only with those who want to use it? No change, no development? A rigid reading of this law would lead to a happy ignoring of all future 'the publics' because you were serving those who wanted to use it then.
Also it can happily be used as an argument *for* digital services. In this day and age, access to online information sources would seem to be part of a comprehensive service. How far libraries go with that is another argument, but I'd say that at the least it means access to good computer services with a well sourced package of databases.
You say you are for what people want; what if they do want a public library service which gives them access to the increasing amount of digital information alongside books? For that is what I mean by e-fanatics. Not people who are 24/7 wired, but those who might want to join online book review services; or get copies of public domain classics; access local history resources. People who might want to complement their use of books with online resources.
I feel there is every chance that a well managed, balanced library can do both. By sticking to books and the people who like them, libraries do what they should certainly, and I have argued in my blog for expanding bookstocks; but only sticking to that will in the end more surely lead to their destruction than any digitisation project. Because 'those who want to use it' will dwindle and in the end people won't see why they should subsidise those people. That's a *long* way off, but needs to be borne in mind.
Posted by: Pete Smith at June 18, 2007 9:19 AM
Why do you think -in the last sentence- that the number of those who want to use it would dwindle? That is the assumption that is widely made but I never understand.
Posted by: tim at June 18, 2007 8:24 PM
It is no less an assumption than the one that says libraries just need to be nice and full of nbooks to survuve :) But, point taken.
I feel that as those who use it now grow old, and the world moves on, and the service doesn't change at all; then fewer people will see the need for the library. As I say it's a long way off, but needs to be borne in mind.
I have been using libraries for some 28 years at least, and love them with a passion. I want to see them around when my son is grown up; if I have grandchildren I want them to be able to use them. And I want those libraries to be full of books. *But* I want those libraries to also be able to serve their story/information needs in ways relevant to them; ways which are hard to foresee right now. I think it is dangerous to assume that libraries are so intrinsically good that people will just turn up.
It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. I love books, but bibliolatry won't help us. COmputers are useful, but technophilia isn't the answer either. But if we don't manage the changes technology brings, we will lose relevance. And it is relevance that will keep people- and not just 'library people' (nod to Anne Fine amongst others) coming in and more crucially being happy to use their taxes for libraries.
Posted by: Pete at June 19, 2007 8:45 AM
My argument is that it is better to let authors and publishers work out how to serve the story/information needs of your grandchildren. The role of the librarian is not to guess what they will do, but to make their work available when they have done it. The appropriate medium is up to the creators- not the librarians.
If you want to see how well a library does and how useful it becomes if you fill one with books and information - just try it and you will see.
As a body, the library profession has become obsessed with its great -grandchildren and forgotten that it has a job to do for now - and as a consequence the audience who are paying for today's performance and receive nothing
Posted by: Tim at June 20, 2007 10:21 AM
Well the trouble is that doing a job for now is the great curse of Britain; it's why we fail because we're never ready for tomorrow.
As to who should be doing this, well, as budgets are limited then there must be *some* discernment on the part of public librarians (of which I am not one.)|We cannot buy everything, so there is a need to look at how best to meet needs. If you just accept the benevolent hand theory, you may find you sell the public short.
I am sorry if I do not make myself clear, but I am not saying that librarians should be saying what is available, much less dictate it, but they need to look at how those needs are being fufilled (technologically etc) and listening to their public, not just trusting to the producers.Any sensible business keeps an eye to the future as well as serving the present.
Speaking as one who pays for the public library service, I do not feel I get nothing, nor do I feel my son gets nothing, nor my niece. I can't claim to speak for 'the public' I guess, but as The Taxpayer I am happy enough. There are areas for improvement, but I don't think just getting in what we're given and hoping nothing much changes will help the service get better.
Similarly I'm not sure that authors and publishers are in any great position to fulfil "the publics'" needs, given the distorting power of major booksellers- but that is another argument :)
Posted by: Pete at June 20, 2007 1:10 PM