Strategy without philosophy
May 28, 2007
In Sacramento, librarians and their union are petitioning the library board with a vote of no-confidence in management for turning the focus of the library’s collection away from “items of lasting value” and toward popular music, DVDs, and Paris Hilton’s autobiography.
A lot of library bloggers have commented about this, nearly all to criticize or ridicule the librarians sending the petition. K.G. Schneider titled her response “I am *so* not in the same profession as these librarians,” and John Blyberg writes, in a post tagged with idiocy, “So we’re in the business of placing value on content, now. Great, I love the idea of telling our patrons what they want. That way, we don’t have to change at all.”
Aside from being an excellent example of what Steven J. Bell calls the “speech chill [of] the library blogosphere” (i.e., all library bloggers seem to be of the same opinion), the criticism of the Sacramento librarians reflects a thoughtlessness and disrespect that, far from promoting serious discourse, makes it all but impossible.
Not surprisingly, the Sacramento library’s official response has had a similar tone to that of the bloggers who have written about this issue. Administrators are trying to paint this as an “old vs. young” debate: the library board chairman has said, “Almost inevitably, when there’s significant change that occurs in an organization, there’s discontent with people who have been generally satisfied with what happened in the past… For the most part, that’s what’s happened here.” But a resistance to change does not necessarily have to be thought of as an annoying obstacle in the forward march to progress.
In fact, the real problem with what’s happening in Sacramento, and with the buzz on library blogs, seems to be something endemic to the library profession these days: a rush to change to meet every caprice of technology and pop culture, and a characterization of those who question this attitude as hopelessly out-of-touch. Change is good, sometimes, and librarians, like everyone, should be open to it. But change is something that should be embarked on critically and carefully. Much of the change I see happening in libraries seems to be coming from a place of fear, out of a belief that if libraries don’t “stay relevant” they will disappear. But if staying relevant means catering to the whims of users at the expense of libraries’ values, is it worth it? And what are libraries’ values? Simply giving users what they ask for, or using librarians’ knowledge, skills, and professional expertise to help them find things they might never have thought to ask for?
These are old questions in the library profession. Perhaps the most influential–and most controversial–person to address them was Charlie Robinson, who directed the Baltimore County Public Library in the 1990s. Robinson’s catchphrase for library service was “Give ‘Em What They Want!” According to Robinson, a successful library is “one that people use. Period.” And of course, a good way to get people to use a library is to stock it with bestsellers, or, in the case of the Sacramento Library, 10 copies of Jackass 2. Robinson went so far as to remove from BCPL all copies of any item that didn’t circulate.
But there’s something circular about the reasoning of this approach. Successful libraries are well-used libraries, therefore libraries should buy things that people will use. What’s missing is any philosophical justification for this definition of success. Why should libraries collect only materials that people ask for? Without reflection on this question, this strategy is bankrupt of any kind of principle. Robinson wasn’t really interested in principles, though: he wrote that the “desire to ‘do good’ associated with much public library priority-setting” is “looked on by BCPL with suspicion.”
The trustees of the Boston Public Library who wrote their famous Report to the City of Boston in 1852 were less suspicious of doing good. Like Robinson, they felt that public libraries should provide materials in line with public demands and popular taste (”unless,” they wrote, “it should ask for something unhealthy”). But they gave a sound justification of why this is an important endeavor: popular materials will nurture a love of reading, which will “induce” people “to read and understand questions going down to the very foundations of social order, which are constantly presenting themselves, and which we, as a people, are constantly required to decide, and do decide, either ignorantly or wisely.” In other words, a library’s fundamental occupation is to provide people with the information they need to be an educated citizenry, and providing popular materials is a way of leading them to this.
While the Boston trustee report now reads as being a little elitist–do we really want librarians refusing to give people materials that they find “unhealthy”?–the underlying idea is still worth considering. Public libraries have a philosophical foundation: promoting democracy by providing access, for ordinary people, to the information required to make wise political decisions. Robinson’s removal of books that don’t circulate, and Blyberg’s criticism of “placing value on content” are an abdication of this role. And in its place, what?
In a piece in Library Journal last July, John Berry wrote about striking a balance between the approach of the Boston trustees and that of Charlie Robinson:
What I regret and worry about is that public libraries have rarely delivered on that honorable mission set out in 1852. Public libraries have never really provided enough of the information on current issues to inform citizens fully, nor have they, alas, ever aggressively pushed that information to those citizens, or told them they need to attend to it. Public libraries have never “induced” people to learn in-depth about the questions on our public agenda, in the word the Boston trustees used. In contrast to its great success at “building a better Borders,” the public library, in its greatest failure, has neglected to inform democracy, to convince citizens to use its resources to become more knowledgeable in order to decide public issues. It is the problem that keeps me awake at night.
The worries of staying relevant, and a fear of making judgments of quality in the materials they collect, have distracted libraries like the Sacramento Library from their real purpose: promoting an informed citizenry. Libraries won’t stay vital by simply capitulating to demands. They will stay vital by serving a vital role in society. To do this, they must be run by philosophy, not merely strategy.
May 29, 2007 at 12:29 am
Cool blog, Bo. I applaud you for not thoughtlessly jumping on the usual bandwagon. This conversation reminds me of a poster my twelfth grade English teacher had in his classroom. It said “You can lead a student to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.” I mean, we can collect the informed citizenry stuff, but we can’t make people read it. But we can certainly try. Most people I know consider themselves informed citizens if they listen to NPR (including myself). Now John Berry has made me feel a little guilty. Should the library launch a public awareness campaign?
May 29, 2007 at 12:53 am
Bo,
A very nicely thought out and written response, taking up a side of the issue that has not been looked upon favorably by others. I really enjoyed your writing on the subject. But as you say, this debate has been painted as an “old versus young” argument. I feel that there is something else going on here. The library could be said to be charged with a number of activities, most of which are at odds with each other. They are: selection, access, preservation, and organization. Selection is somewhat at odds with access. We can’t buy everything, so we can’t really provide access to everything. Preservation is also at odds with access. If you use an item, you will slowly destroy the item. Organization is at odds with itself. Some things simply do not like to be categorized.
I bring this up, because it seems to me that the heart of this debate is about power. Collection development, or selection, is now usually centralized in larger library systems, taking power away from librarians to collect what they feel is important to their community. Weeding, the antithesis to preservation and access, but necessary for selection, is also being centralized, again taking power away from librarians to keep accessible those items they feel are important.
I really do not think the issue is old v. new, an old volume v. Paris Hilton’s new volume. It could be part of the issue, or how the issue is being manifested, but I think there is something else going on. It’s that when a librarian, who wants to buy something they feel is important, is forced to shelve instead a volume they care little about, then well, feathers get ruffled. When an old volume that may not be circulating is discarded and Hilton’s book comes in, again the same feathers are ruffled, but not really because a librarian dislikes pop culture, but because a librarian is frustrated that they have less and less say over the collection.
In a nutshell, the mission of the library encompasses many activities that are sometimes in conflict with each other. A librarian, traditionally, mediated this conflict themselves–this is what they were trained to do. They may not have been totally pleased with the outcome, but at least it was their decision. Now these decisions are being made for them, and through these decisions, they see trends that they disagree with but are powerless to affect.
A no-confidence vote is a big deal. It is, as a phenomenon, important enough to take at face value. These librarians are angry, and there are enough of them consolidating to show that they are not part of some fringe element. It shows, more than anything, the failure of the administration to communicate their intentions, their philosophy, as you put it, in a meaningful way. But, to reiterate, this is not about the old versus the new. This is about change and how change is communicated along power structures.
Nice post.
Commentingly,
Kreg
May 29, 2007 at 8:43 am
Good point, Kreg. The librarians in Sacramento are actually upset about a number of things, the quality of the collection being just one of them. They’re also unhappy with centralized selection, as well as corporate advertisement on the library walls. All of this comes down to a perceived lack of respect on the part of management, not just for the values of the library, but for the skills of the
librarians. And this is definitely an issue of power.
Charlie Robinson, the “give ‘em what they want” guy, also believed in
centralized selection, because if selection is based solely on popularity, well, you can find that out by reading book reviews (or book advertisements) and tracking circulation statistics. In other words, anyone can do it. Plus, it’s way cheaper.
Robinson actually went as far as to say that he didn’t see much of a need for professional librarians at all. In a 1996 interview in Library Journal, Nancy Pearl asked Robinson how he thought library schools should be training their students. His response was, “Who cares?” He said that he preferred to hire paraprofessionals, who were cheaper and just as trainable. And the philosophical and theoretical issues that good professional librarians should be versed in? Robinson didn’t see these as being relevant to their jobs.
It’s this denigrating attitude toward the professional skills of librarians in favor of cost effectiveness that underlies centralized selection, and I agree with you that it’s this, more than anything, that the Sacramento librarians should be–and are–upset about.
May 29, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The two public libraries I worked at in Utah represented–in my mind, at least–the two sides of this debate. Library A took the “Give ‘em what they want” approach, while Library B took the “Tell ‘em what they need” approach. I found both extremes annoying. The funny thing, I think, is that the same librarians who are mocking the Sacramento librarians for being old-fashioned would likely favor Library B in this situation. In Utah Valley, as it turns out, “Giving ‘em what they want” means NOT carrying R-rated movies, YA novels with gay characters, or music with explicit lyrics. Throw in a very conservative community, and suddenly the oversimplified “old vs. young” casting is flipped. I can’t speak for any of them, of course, but I suspect most of those librarians calling the Sacramento folks old fogies would not argue for collection development by popular demand when such becomes, essentially, censorship.
May 30, 2007 at 11:15 am
[...] Kinney responded to my Buzzkill post with an excellent post on collection development and I’m actually not in complete disagreement with it. Bo makes a [...]
May 30, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Bo. I’m not following your reasoning though, when you say, “Much of the change I see happening in libraries seems to be coming from a place of fear…” You seem to be implying that libraries are adopting technological tools that are detrimental to the service that they provide to their customers. Mostly, I see libraries adopting tools that their customers are already using and expect to be available. Did I misread you?
And thanks for quoting the Boston Public Library! Very astute of you to read both the revolutionary and elitist connotations behind the founding principles. Seeing as we now promote our institution as “the first public library in the country,” most of us are working toward that continued promise of open access. We certainly don’t promote ourselves as “the place that knows what’s good for you.” I hope we never will.
May 31, 2007 at 1:20 am
[...] About The Letter Z « Strategy without philosophy [...]
June 1, 2007 at 12:17 am
[...] on those angry librarians in Sacramento Published June 1st, 2007 Uncategorized When I first wrote about the librarians in Sacramento who are circulating a petition protesting, among other things, [...]
June 1, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Excellent points, Scot. I do think that fear of becoming irrelevant is a motivating factor for much of the change taking place in libraries. How could it not be, given, for example, the recent closings of multiple small libraries in Massachusetts, which have been labeled “non essential services”?
I don’t mean to suggest, though, that good change can’t come out of this. I agree with you that many changes taking place in the library world have improved on service. But it is still painful to me that it takes fear of irrelevance to make this happen.
One example of a recent change along these lines is the decision of the Maricopa County Public Library not to use the Dewey Decimal System in their new Perry branch. One of the architects of this change has characterized it as part of a “a fight for our own survival.” But I’m still excited about it.
What worries me is when libraries let their fear supersede their values. I suspect that might be part of what’s behind the struggle in Sacramento. Maybe you’re right that this doesn’t happen as often as I suggested. I hope you are.
July 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I know I’ve come a little be late to this party, but yesterday I was reading Blyberg’s blog and it led me to this topic of discussion. I’m glad to see that not everyone has drunk the Library 2.0 kool-aid. As I explained in my own post about this issue, I’m very much in favor of bringing technology into the library. I feel that I’m a very progressive librarian, but sometimes when it comes to the collection I’m not pleased to see the multiple-copy pounding of some of the pop culture media that can only be generously described as “light”. Should it be represented? Yes. Absolutely. But when we buy a dozen or more copies of what will ultimately turn out to be a “flash in the pan” item, it takes away from more meaty materials. Does that sound elitist? I don’t want it to. I think it would be more elitist for public libraries to decided that only academic libraries should contain quality research collections. That would be underestimating the general public. Maybe that makes me Library 1.5, but I prefer to think of myself as Library 2.0.1 (the service pack is important!)
July 12, 2007 at 11:28 am
Excellent point. The belief that (gasp!) some books are better than others and (gasp!) everyone ought to have access to the best of them is really the opposite of elitism, isn’t it?
November 30, 2007 at 3:00 pm
strategy
Full resources information.