Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in a September 2011 statement that he saw the future of technology as mobile, local and social. I think these could also be seen as important issues for the future of libraries. So, I've put together some of my thoughts on mobile, local and social and how they might pertain to libraries. I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments.
Libraries of the past could have easily been viewed as static. The focus was on the building with collections and staff that pretty much stayed put. Anyone who wanted to make use of their resources had to come to them. And then, you could only have access to that book or article for a limited time. It really needed to stay in the building. Collections started getting more mobile with the increasing use of ILLs. But now that materials are actually staying in borrowing libraries until they're demanded someplace else, they are truly becoming mobile. Library staff are getting out from behind desks and circulating around the library to find and help people at their point of need. Some libraries are placing books and magazines for checkout and return at subway stations, grocery stores, etc. In short, they're taking them to where people are instead of expecting people to come to them. And let's not forget the increasing availability and use of downloadable audio and e-books. While DRM and publisher concerns make the current implementation challenging, it really does help solve the problem of how to move resources from place to place.
So, I think that librarians have come a long way in making their resources and services more mobile. But there's another side of mobile that seems to be more difficult for us, and that's making our resources and services more accessible to people using mobile devices. Smart phone usage has increased dramatically over the past several years yet many libraries don't offer mobile web sites. Mobile users are forced to try to navigate through complicated drop down menu structures to find simple information like location and contact info. And heaven help anyone who actually wants to search our databases from a mobile device. These are essentially desktop solutions for an increasingly mobile world. Even when there are database apps, they're rarely intuitive and our innate librarian desire to give complete results is not appreciated when you're trying to weed through results on a 4 inch touch screen. And few libraries offer what should be a rather obvious service such as text reference. In short, we seem to have a long way to go to make and keep ourselves relevant to mobile patrons.
Local may be something that we've lost sight of in our rush to find digital solutions. Of course, it makes sense to form consortia for purchasing and maintaining ILS. It also makes sense to pool resources for database and other electronic resource purchases. But as a recent OCLC report From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America points out, most public library funding is local. Librarians really need to be able to make their case locally for why their libraries are essential to their communities. While I think these tools are valuable to our overall mission of providing information resources, we might want to ask ourselves whether they are going to help make the case for the essential role of libraries in most locales. Do people associate them with their local library or are they just seen as part of the amorphous Internet?
So what does make the difference? The OCLC report states that a librarian who's seen as a passionate advocate for his/her library makes a great deal of difference in local receptiveness to funding. We also know that a library that's seen as receptive to the needs of the community is viewed as a more important resource. I've done a lot of strategic planning over the past ten years with public libraries. We know what community members want from these libraries. But we haven't always given it to them. What we've given them are the elaborate ILS and database tools they have to learn to use to get at what they want. I think we've often deluded ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is build it and they'll come. But what we've missed is that most people don't want to learn how to use our tools, they just want the results. So, why not give them the results they want? Why not focus on our people resources and make sure that local librarians can do the searches and highlight the books and articles of interest to their community? In this way, they can both satisfy local needs and add local value and branding to the tools. It's just a matter of changing the focus from tools to needs, from technology to personal. We'll never beat Google at the search game but we can provide a human alternative who can tailor results to our interests.
Libraries have been serving social functions for quite some time. They frequently host programs, book groups, classes, etc. And many librarians have tried to get their libraries involved in social media like Twitter and Facebook. I think that's all good but I wonder how we're doing with fostering the kind of conversations that create knowledge and improve society. These are threads from R. David Lankes' The Atlas of New Librarianship. Conversations require openness while libraries have often been seen as promoting the more closed veil of privacy. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the library profession's protection of privacy rights is important. I just feel that we've backed ourselves into a corner where the privacy concerns of the few may be imposed on many who would prefer a more open and sharing environment. Consequently, it's very difficult for us to allow those who may choose to to opt out of some of that privacy to do so in the interest of fostering conversation. Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Kobo all have features where you can share highlights and notes about books you're reading on their devices. While some of these highlights and notes can be shared via common social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, the majority of the conversations will be limited to other Amazon, B&N or Kobo customers. This is a place where libraries would be useful to bridge the gap between vendors. Besides I'm much more interested in having a conversation about the book I'm reading with someone I know or might come to know locally than with a stranger. And wouldn't it be nice to get reviews and recommendations from people in your community about books/articles you might find interesting? It's a way of building community ties that's currently closed to us because we're not even allowed to opt in to such a social option. I think that's a disservice to our users and our communities. We need to start looking at ways to balance privacy and social discourse.
