I can't help but wonder sometimes how many different incarnations of ourselves do we need to offer? That is not a popular question, but it deserves some attention. This is not to suggest that we revert to the, "old days," when librarians were sequestered behind an intimidating Reference Desk and the attitude was, "if they need help they can come to me, and if they don't like that, too bad." I realize we need to keep up with technology and offer the best service possible, but are there limits to what we can or should be doing?
This is very true. Although I'm certainly guilty of doing things because I think they're cool, planning and using technology in the most beneficial ways possible for our users is very important. The reality of the situation is that many of our users are younger "millenial" students who are more used to looking up stuff online than coming to a library. So we're going to have to meet them on their turf if we want to remain relevant. That doesn't mean someone sits in the Student Center w/ a laptop 24/7 waiting for questions. But I do think that timely experimentation w/ providing services outside the traditional library setting is very important. Maybe do a test of wireless remote reference services at term paper time when more people might be likely to use it. Make sure people know about it. Keep stats. And if there isn't a demand for the service, don't do it again. Or revisit it in the future. Have library hours in the ISS lab during busy research times. Etc etc.
Michael Stephens (no, he doesn't pay me for these plugs) wrote a good article called "Technoplans vs. Technolust" for Library Journal that covers some of these planning issues in relation to technology.
I think we need to provide as many different "incarnations" or outlets as possible and practical. This can be done with a minimal investment and certainly just a few interested librarians can provide adequate services in these areas. Not doing so risks cutting off a growing portion of our user base.
3 comments:
I’ve been meaning to comment on this for days and finally have a few minutes to do so. I see instant messaging simply as a communication medium, and one that people 25 and under take it for granted (and many people over 25, as well). I don’t see instant messaging with students as overextending our services or ourselves. Libraries advertise their phone numbers and email addresses; why not their IM buddy/user names as just another communication option?
Using technology for the sake of using technology isn’t a good reason to adopt a new technology. But, if the technology meets the needs of your user population (and it’s free!), I don’t see a reason not to use it. Consider how many librarians said in 1994, “we don’t need a website,” and how mistaken they were.
I appreciate David and Jennifer's comments, and I basically agree with them. My original thought, however, wasn't so much about overextending ourselves. And, while I certainly agree that we need to do whatever we can to remain relevant to a new generation of students, I do think we also need to keep in touch with our roots. There is a somewhat analogous debate in libraries - and the Humanities - which I think can help shed some light on my point. It is the long-running debate over whether or not to continue offering (or teaching) the classics of literature when more and more of our students seem only interested in contemporary fiction. As libraries, we need to make the works of Grisham and Rowling available, but not at the cost of removing all of Shakespeare and Poe from our shelves. And, in the classroom, professors certainly need to present the classics in new, dynamic ways making the themes relevant to current students, but that doesn't mean abandoning them and only teaching units on Harry Potter. I think it's similar with our "incarnations" question. Yes, we do need to take advantage of every new technology that helps us communicate with Net Gen or millenial students, but that should complement our traditional service rather than replacing it.
Right, I don't think either Jen or I would argue that any sort of digital initiatives should replace services we're already providing. We definitely need to continue providing "traditional" library services - collections, reference desk etc - but augment those services (or provide them in additional ways) as user needs and patterns change. And as far as reference services go, I don't see a difference between providing assistance in a face to face manner or through technology, whether that technology is chat or email or even the telephone! In all of our discussions of new services and technologies here I've never heard anyone mention replacing the reference desk with a chat service (or something similair to that). And I would be the first person to argue against it!
I also think the roots of our profession are tied in with assisting people, providing access to a body of knowledge. The desire to be a guide for people as they find information and learn. Those roots or core values have been there as long as there have been "librarians". Through technological changes that were at least equally radical as the move to the online environment. That value of service and committment to learning is our traditional service, no matter what format it comes in.
Post a Comment