Automated but human

A convergence of forces, including budget cuts and reduced staffing, automation, and patrons “browsing” online when the library is actually closed, means that readers’ advisory can’t always be a face to face conversation. Some libraries are using forms to create “personal shopper” style recommendations for readers. Others are blogging or posting reviews in local media and on their websites, casting a wide net with recommendations.

My public library tested NoveList Select for our catalog and I found that it worked pretty well. It connects Ebscohost’s NoveList tool, which recommends books when you input a title, author, or series, to the library’s catalog so that when a patron searches for a book, other recommended titles from your collection appear at the bottom of the page. NoveList says “The recommendations are created by professional librarians who understand readers’ advisory.” So it’s automated from the patron’s point of view, but a human being decides what to suggest.

Chelmsford Public Library in Massachusetts is in the middle of a very cool project linking their children’s staff’s readers’ advisory to their catalog and even to their physical collection with QR codes. You should read Brian Herzog’s post at Swiss Army Librarian for the technical details.  But the executive summary is that their read-alike lists, which are something most libraries create for their patrons, are integrated into the library’s website and catalog, and the staff are linking them all to QR codes. They’re printing stickers and putting them in the books themselves so when a reader gets to the end of a book, they can immediately find recommendations for their next read.

Do you know of another example of best-of-both-worlds readers’ advisory that combines human brainpower (rather than computer algorithms) to make reading recommendations but harnesses technology to get these suggestions into readers’ hands? Comment below and share your thoughts.

Leave a comment

Talking about the MLS

Library Journal editor Michael Kelley stirred the proverbial hornet’s nest last week with his editorial “Can We Talk About the MLS? A Profession Based More on Apprenticeship Might Work Better.” Ambiguity and style aside (E. B. White would have a field day with that subtitle), the substance of the piece addresses a longstanding complaint in the library world: why should librarians have a professional degree (MLS means master of library science)?

Kelley based his apprenticeship argument on his own experience as a reporter and editor. While he may have had no problem breaking into journalism twenty-five years ago, it’s doubtful a newspaper today would hire someone without a degree, and there is no real equivalent professional degree in journalism that compares to the MLS. The apprenticeship he alludes to was really a paying of his dues, doing the work until he earned the respect of his journalism colleagues.  So I had a bit of trouble accepting his argument straight away, as it seemed to be standing on faulty ground.

The division in pay and status between MLS librarians and the staff who do similar if not equal work for lower pay is a problem. I am not sure why this is the case. Teachers may earn higher pay or rating and perhaps compete for administrative positions by completing a master’s degree, but I don’t think teachers with entry level degrees are treated any differently or expected to do any substantially different work in the classroom.  Why should library staff be any different? If there are hard feelings among staff over professional versus paraprofessional distinctions, the real challenge is to make none. A good library director should make all the staff feel valued and valuable, and a healthy workplace is one in which everyone feels they are heard and compensated fairly.

As to whether an MLS actually provides professional mastery, that is a separate issue, parallel to the current debate about what law schools should be teaching. Whether the MLS course of study is adequate preparation for being a librarian, whether it should include a practicum as teaching does, or a licensing system, like the bar, are questions worth exploring. To say that MLS programs don’t cover enough practical aspects of librarianship and therefore the degree is obsolete and an apprenticeship would suffice is a little like  saying we should eliminate medical school and let doctors go straight to residency.  Both theory and practice are important.

Kelley argues that “This is about greater inclusion. There is unlicensed talent up to the job.” Online MLS programs make it easier and cheaper than ever to obtain the “license” to which Kelley alludes; I know a talented and capable library staffer who recently enrolled in such a program. Why shouldn’t those who take the time and trouble to complete a professional degree be afforded greater responsibility and pay?

As to the question of rural libraries facing shortages of MLS librarians, other professions face such shortages and deal with them in a variety of ways.Kelley is correct that city systems replacing MLS librarians in order to save money ”does raise an awkward question about qualifications if service is not severely ­hampered.” How is that measured? It’s fortune telling to assume that the MLS librarians wouldn’t have made an impact if they’d stayed in their jobs. And why does either situation mean we should eliminate the professional credential in librarianship?

One problem Kelley didn’t address is that with or without an MLS, library staff are performing more non-library tasks, like technical troubleshooting and community policing. These things take time away from professional library work they might be able to do instead and the situation can lead to questions about what skills are really needed for their positions. It’s not that they are overqualified to be librarians, it’s that they are being asked instead to be guards and help-desk staff and babysitters.

1 Comment

Buy it now?

Yesterday I listened to a Library Journal webinar, “Are Books Your Brand? How Libraries Can Stay Relevant to Readers,”on readers’ advisory. I heard a number of good ideas to share with my boss and coworkers.  But one topic I found a little disturbing: “buy it now buttons” in library catalogs, so patrons can purchase rather than wait for a book.

All the panelists thought this was a good idea, worth promoting heavily so patrons would know a portion of  purchases benefited the library. What I found ominous was that one panelist suggested, based on his conversations with a group of library professionals, most libraries would incorporate “buy it now” in their catalogs without hesitation especially if publishers made it a condition of lending their books.

I don’t know whether publishers are considering that. But I’m especially wary because I know NoveList Select, a popular discovery tool for integrating readers’ advisory in catalogs, links to Goodreads reviews, and Amazon just bought Goodreads. I’d really hate to see Amazon be the sole “buy it now” option in any library catalog, especially ours, since we have an independent bookstore in town as well.

It appears that library “buy it now” buttons are already available through OverDrive. I know there are long wait times for popular e-books because of the restrictions publishers place on library e-lending. I was relieved to see OverDrive allows patrons to select from several stores, including IndieBound. I still don’t like it.

Yes, the mission of libraries is to promote reading and provide access to reading materials. But libraries are also free and our resources are freely available to all. It’s already possible for someone who doesn’t want to wait for a book to go buy it. Why should we alter our mission to provide e-commerce?  A better alternative would be to educate library patrons about why there is such a wait for popular e-books (thanks to Brian Herzog at Swiss Army Librarian for noting that link on his blog).

Libraries could also do more to provide readers’ services to those on long waiting lists. Sometimes the print version of a popular e-book is sitting on the shelf  – wouldn’t it be nice if patrons could see that when they place an e-book hold, or get a message to that effect? A good suggestion I heard on the webinar was to make a “read alike” handout for books with long waiting lists to give people at the service desk — why not email it to those placing e-book holds? Or, email patrons who get on the list for a book with 5 or more holds, inviting them to reply with likes and dislikes (or even use a nifty reader’s advisory form like this one, mentioned in the webinar) and receive personalized reading recommendations from a librarian?

I would think that gaining support by providing excellent professional service is the key to a library’s long term well being, to a far greater extent than the bit of money possibly on the table with “buy it now.” I hope libraries stay out of e-commerce and instead focus on being an indispensable resource for readers in our communities.

Leave a comment

Reading is not a crime

Ray Bradbury is one of my heroes, and my husband and I are handing out Fahrenheit 451 during World Book Night next week. So I was very intrigued by Toronto Public Library’s plans to promote reading via Fahrenheit 451, Toronto’s 2013 “One Book:”

I love several things about this image. How cool to promote a community-wide read as a month-long festival. And what a great integration of theme, artwork, and slogan for a promotion.

But, the coolest thing about Keep Toronto Reading is not that poster. It’s this one:

TorontoARGposter 425x550 Toronto Public Library Enters Alternate Reality (Gaming)

And it’s not really the poster that’s cool (although it is) so much as the thing it is asking Toronto’s residents to do: play KTR 451, an alternate reality game science fiction writer and video game developer Jim Munroe created for the festival. Before you protest that Fahrenheit 451 is all about the dangers a technology-dominated society poses to books and reading, keep in mind that an ARG is not a video game, nor is it conducted entirely online. Munroe explains that an ARG is: “an experience that spans different kinds of media and often involves real world actions. For instance, you might be told via an email to meet your fellow players at Union Station or to watch a video that has clues as to how to solve a mystery.”

Over at BoingBoing, Munroe explains there will be one mission a week for three weeks leading up to a live event. Library Journal notes “players must visit both a physical library branch and the library website, as well as interact with the library on social media. (They can do so from the library computers, ensuring that the digital divide does not prevent some Torontonians from joining the fun.)” The LJ piece goes on to outline the three missions in detail.

Ray Bradbury loved libraries. I imagine he’d love being part of an effort to draw today’s digital natives into their branch libraries. And since one of the missions involves participants gathering evidence of “a time when people loved books unabashedly” — the present — I hope he’d be honored by KTR 451.

1 Comment

Helping the homeless in libraries

The New Hampshire Library Association posted this story about San Francisco Public Library’s homeless outreach team on their Facebook page today. I find it intriguing that libraries are hiring outreach staff, some of them formerly homeless themselves, who are working with homeless patrons to help them meet their physical and even psychiatric needs. I immediately recalled an article in Harper’s last fall about Seattle Public Library and its much more punitive approach. Instead of social workers they hire guards.

Our library has rules that impact the homeless particularly (like no sleeping), but no guards.  We have a good relationship both with our homeless patrons and with area outreach organizations. We have a handout at the reference desk about local social services, food pantries, shelters, and other resources. I think most of the staff are very respectful and kind to all the patrons, regardless of whether they’re homeless.

I think it’s great that libraries are stepping in to offer information — a core part of our mission after all — but I wondered about going so far as having “a full-time psychiatric social worker” as San Francisco has. Then I read that the ALA’s “Library Services to the Poor” policy, implemented in the 1980′s. As a part of promoting “equal access to information for all persons” the policy notes “it is crucial that libraries recognize their role in enabling poor people to participate fully in a democratic society.” A social worker who can refer someone to the help he or she needs is doing just that. And quite possibly making library guards a little less busy.

I felt pretty proud to be a librarian when I read the ALA policy, and I’ll be keeping it in mind when I’m working tonight. What’s your library doing to help the poor, and particularly the homeless?

1 Comment

A prescription for books

I’d heard about Britain’s National Health Service planning to prescribe library books to people diagnosed with what The Guardian calls “mild to moderate mental health concerns.” But until I saw an article about the scheme on Library Journal‘s website, I didn’t realize it’s also a program designed to bring another patient back to full health: the UK library system, which has been wounded by recession austerity measures.

According to The Independent, “200 libraries closed last year with reports of a further 300 facing closure or to become run by volunteers this year.”  So it’s a program covered by the health budget that keep librarians working and will boost both public and government awareness of the benefits of libraries. Brilliant!

Two organizations are behind this: The Reading Agency, “a charity with a  mission is to inspire more people to read more” and the  Society of Chief Librarians, “a local government association” of UK library directors. The Reading Agency notes the “backing” of organizations of British doctors and nurses, including psychological and psychiatric societies, on its website. Surely patients appreciate taking a prescription to the library and receiving the book they need at no cost.

As the media have pointed out, there is science behind the program, although the study most referenced, from the journal PLOS ONE, appears to focus on self-help books and the prescription list includes novels, poetry, and nonfiction as well (some titles are listed in The Independent‘s article). I have no medical or scientific expertise, but I’ve certainly “self-medicated” with favorite or uplifting books when I’m feeling blue, and my grandmother, who was quite healthy for most of her 96 years, swore by mysteries as the cure for feeling down.  So I suspect there’s something to this, and I will be very interested to see how it works. I’ve always believed reading good literature is healing — it feeds the soul, filling basic human needs to think about something greater than ourselves, to explore big ideas, and to experience beauty.

That said, I can’t imagine a formal “book prescription” program in America. Even at the local level our health care system is so fragmented, it seems unlikely a coordinated national effort could take off. I also wonder if doctors here would fear lawsuits if reading didn’t benefit the patient as hoped. But individual doctors already recommend books, and sometimes libraries. A patron recently asked me for help finding books about her mental health diagnosis, and said money is tight so her doctor sent her to the library. I’m glad libraries are there for everyone who needs them.

Leave a comment

Coexist

A friend forwarded this infographic about e-books and print books complementing each other. Perhaps despite all the impassioned arguments for and against e-reading, and the debate about how libraries should respond, the dust will settle and we’ll find ourselves in a world not so different than the one we know, with both print and digital books.

At least since library school (twenty(!) years ago) I’ve been hearing both media and anecdotal reports about how few kids and teens read, and yet studies keep showing they are reading. The LA Times/USC poll cited in the infographic found that 84% of people 18-29 like to read. And according to the Pew report “The Rise of E-reading,” 58% of 18-24 year olds and 54% of 25-29 year olds use the library, and the average for all age groups over 18 was nearly 58%.

A Gallup poll in 2007 determined than only 45% of Americans are baseball fans. Libraries beat baseball by 13 percentage points? Maybe reading should be the national pastime? By the way, baseball games are great places to read.

But I digress. The point is, e-books are here to stay, but it’s pretty likely that instead of making print books go away, the two will coexist. And perhaps more people will have the experience someone I know has had: her Kindle was fine for awhile, but she missed regular books, and going to the library. She hasn’t used her Kindle in awhile. It’s not that she didn’t like it, just that the novelty wore off and she went back to “real” books.

I wonder if anyone has studied how long people use their e-readers before they get put in a drawer? Tablets change the dynamic a bit, but I know I’ve had an unopened e-book on my Ipad for a few months now. Out of sight, out of mind, unlike the piles of books beside my chair, sofa, and bed, which beckon to me nightly.

Leave a comment

Libraries in mixed use buildings?

Last Sunday, deep in an article about possible market-rate apartments in a redevelopment project here, the Concord Monitor broke the news that city leaders have expressed interest in renting space in the new building if the winning proposal includes a 40,000 square foot library. A library in a mixed use building with apartments and possibly retail, restaurants, etc.? My first thought was “I want to live there!”

But it does pose a quandary: what would people think of our main library being in another building, rather than in its own stand-alone building? Either way it would be a purpose-built main library for the city. Not that an existing building — like this former Walmart — can’t be converted into a gorgeous and very usable library.

Supporters have been lobbying for a new library for years, and if this is the best opportunity, I personally* think it sounds pretty forward thinking and appealing. The location of the site on South Main St. is not far from our indie theater, Red River Theatres, very near the Capitol Center for the Arts, the “Smile!” building, which houses the League of NH Craftsmen headquarters & gallery, and another new building opening this spring, anchored by New Hampshire’s oldest indie bookstore, Gibson’s. This would mean a library located right in the heart of a “creative corridor” in Concord’s South End, well within walking distance of the State House, the rest of Main Street, and residential neighborhoods.

As I said, when can I rent an apartment?

ALA’s professional wiki only lists four U.S. libraries in apartment buildings, two of which are in Seattle and all branches of systems with standalone central libraries. Does anyone know of a main library that’s in another building? How have people reacted to it? Do the other tenants of the building contribute in any way to the library’s mission — for example a cafe that hosts readings or book groups in partnership with the library? Have numbers of people visiting the library changed? I’d love to hear what your experience has been as a patron or staff member of a library in a mixed use building.

 

*My blog represents my own opinions and not that of my employer.

1 Comment

Shushing

Much has been made lately, including here at Nocturnal Librarian, about the future of library services. From internet access to unusual lending items to maker spaces and even bookless libraries, our profession is innovating to stay relevant.  But two articles recently caught my eye that made me wonder if a) we don’t have an image problem after all, we’ve just fallen off the radar of too many people and b) we should remember what we already do best before we go reinventing libraries.

First I saw Brian Kenney’s Publishers Weekly piece “Libraries: Good Value, Lousy Marketing,” about the Pew report Library Services in the Digital Age. His take is that libraries are doing fine with the people who are already using our multiplying services and programming, but that we aren’t marketing ourselves to the rest of America. If only they knew that we were offering snacks, classes, supervised after school activities, invention workshops, and places to hang out, they’d come, goes this line of thinking. Which on the surface, makes sense. If we’re in the midst of revolutionizing library services for the “digital age” then we have to tell people we’re not their grandmother’s library.

One of the first comments I read pointed out the chicken-and-egg problem this presents: funding and staffing is often contingent on demonstrated library use, and all those amazing programs and services require funds and staff. Libraries often have minuscule marketing budgets. In many cases even our websites are not entirely in our control, because city or county IT departments are managing them. But even assuming shoestring PR tools like public service announcements on TV and radio, community bulletins in newspapers, and social media tools, it takes staff to do marketing, and staff to create and provide all the whiz-bang new offerings. We might get budget increases if we prove people are coming, and they won’t come without our letting them know, so  . . . .

Then I read something which struck me as equally important, maybe even more so: at Salon.com, Laura Miller writes that what she noticed in the Pew study is that percentage wise, almost the same high number of respondents — 76% —  mentioned quiet spaces as an important library service, which is, as Miller notes: “only one percentage point less than the value given to computer and Internet access. A relatively silent place to read is almost exactly as valuable to these people as the Internet!” (emphasis Miller’s)

One of the first things people ask me if they haven’t been in the library for awhile is where to find a quiet spot. There’s almost nowhere else to go in most communities to have quiet space to read, write, imagine, think, in short, to be still.  Most librarians don’t actually “shush” anymore, but Miller is right, if we allow ourselves to be as busy and boisterous as any old Starbucks, we’ve lost one of the most unique things we have to offer.

4 Comments

Oh you beautiful doll

A few months ago I blogged about library service of the future and mentioned unusual lending collections. This morning I read a wonderful New York Times piece by Corey Kilgannon about a really cool example: a circulating American Girl doll at the Ottendorfer branch of the New York Public Library. Someone had donated the doll, the library thought it was too valuable to display, and it was sitting around on a shelf until a creative children’s librarian, Thea Taube, decided to let children borrow her.

Apparently there is no precedent or policy for cataloging or circulating a doll in her library system, so Taube “kept it unofficial,” allowing kids to take the doll home without asking for library cards or identification. That this would happen anywhere in contemporary America, let alone in our largest city, floored me. I can just hear the naysayers insisting the doll would never be seen again.

This unofficial doll-lending has gone on for years, and although the doll’s hair is now matted and her accessories have been lost (due to what Taube says is “a lot of love”) she has always been returned. The article explains she’s been a treat both for kids whose families couldn’t afford an American Girl doll and those whose parents opposed buying the toy on principle.

I can’t say what I love best about this story: the innovative thinking on the part of the librarian, the fact that her nontraditional idea worked so beautifully and for so long, the hand-written note (from a child who took the doll home) that ran with the story, the varied experiences of the children who borrowed her and the ways the doll touched so many lives? I love the whole thing.

Kilgannon writes that Taube feels the doll lending “exemplified the library as a community center” and closes by quoting Taube: “I tell the kids that the library belongs to them.” I am still smiling about this, just thinking of how those kids will feel about libraries for the rest of their lives.

What’s in your library’s storage room that could be a creative lending item?

1 Comment