Poster: Curtin, Shane
Söderholm, J. j., & Nolin, J. j. (2015). Collections Redux: The Public Library as a Place of Community Borrowing. Library Quarterly, 85(3), 244-260.
Summary:
This article discuss the social history of libraries, from the castellated hideouts of Enlightenment academics to the front lines of social reform movements, to the post-Ford commercial world and the digital age. IT analysis how the idea of a self regulating information sphere (aka the internet) and capitalist ideas regarding unfair competition have led to the downscaling of library services as a whole. There are numerous interesting ideas here- like the idea of the anti-collection (the things the library “has” even though they aren’t actually part of its collection, and place oriented research (the library as a social space). It discusses how much of current library talk seems to demote the physical collection and play up digital, but questions wether this idea is genuine, or merely a strategy to be perceived as cutting edge. They advocate a more tempered approach to development, with emphasis on both print and digital resources. They define a library as “ place built around a collection and a collection built around a place”, and their conclusion, though not explicit, seems to be that libraries need to make collection development decisions re: print versus digital based on local patron needs, not according to the philosophical ideals held by those in change of collection development.
I found this quote particularly poignant:
“For more than a century the public library has engaged in developing its (supposed) field of expertise, from a literacy of literature aimed at supporting social welfare through knowledge, as ultimately embodied in books, to a literacy of information aimed at supporting equitable access, not clearly embodied in anything. “
Analysis:
I appreciate this article for not being the cookie cutter “Rah Rah Digital collections” fare.
The notion of digital collections as the end all and be all of libraries really grinds my gears. First of all, digital is only eh way of the future because people insist upon it. Consumers insist upon it because hey are easily suggestible, because they like toys, and because pundits tell them it’s progress. Markets insist upon it because it is profitable. While it has many advantages, it has no supremacy of form to hard copy. Digital life comes with its own sets of problems, like file decay (any preservationist will tell you that digital materials are not invulnerable or immortal)sever failure, hackers (a growing epidemic), and screens that disrupt our brain waves (to name a few). We are working on solutions to these issues, reverting the old way might be much less trouble. But it seems that print versus digital has become like Democrats versus Republicans; it is perceived as a zero sum game where coexistence is deemed neither desirable nor possible.
Furthermore we are always talking about access- but equal access in a digital world requires the elimination of all economic disparity. A disenfranchised person with no computer experience is still probably best served by walking into the library and being handed a book on their subject of interest. Yet, librarians by-and-large seem to buy into the “tehno-hubris” that digital is always better. Perhaps they will be purchasing drones for their loved ones this Christmas…?
All this talk of the “digital divide” is rather insipid, because it does not merely seek to raise awareness of a disparity of access, but implies that there is something wrong with not being plugged in. The only reason it is becoming impossible to survive without being online is because people are arbitrarily choosing to convert to digital services that worked much better the way they were before… I recently tried to park in a lot that charged by the hour. It turned out there was no kiosk at which to pay. The only way to pay was to download an app and use a credit card over the phone. This is about 100 times less convenient that the standard procedure, but wait… It must be better, because it involves technology! False. It not only marginalizing everyone without a cell phone (and arbitrarily making a phone necessary in a situation when there was no logical reason one should need a cell phone) it also incapacitates people who lost their phones, who are out of batteries, or who don’t have the data to download yet another pointless app. How is this supposed to work in the long term? Will every parking lot have its own app? How convenient. What colossal morons orchestrate these things, I wonder? Or are these things just the by-products of a society caught up in a technophilic zeitgeist.
As librarians we should be embracing technology that actually improves access for patrons in need, but we should not abandon print material because most patrons, in my experience at least, still prefer it. There were some recent studies that found out people don’t read the majority of the ebooks they purchase, and another on how children still prefer physical books to screens. Who knows how it will all play out...
In abandoning out own loyalty to the classic image of the library, and in eshewing print materials for the exclusively digital, we betray a significant portion of our patrons, and betray ourselves, accelerating the demise of our own profession, and giving more credence to the arguments of those who say libraries are not necessary. The news media and the pundits tell us digital is what people want, but instead of listing to talking heads, why don’t we ask patrons? As the article points out, every community is different. Every person is different. The library should be accountable to its patrons, not to external notions of what a library should be- notions handed down from the media and would-be futurists gabbing into the blogosphere. The library should be what the patron’s want it to be. If it can adapt to their needs, it will always remain and prosper. If, on the other hand, we become nothing more than a physical directory to digital resources, then we WILL be unnecessary. I’ve no wish to fight progress, but let's be certain first that the conversion to an all- digital world is actually an improvement.
