The Brewin' Librarian http://matthewdhamilton.com Always an Idea Fermenting... Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:38:20 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.4 Harper Collins and some more numbers http://matthewdhamilton.com/2011/03/09/harper-collins-and-some-more-numbers/ Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:20:31 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?p=4211

Numbers...

In response to some of the criticisms I’ve seen leveled in Teleread comments and quite inaccurate blog posts from those more sympathetic to the publisher side, I have been interested in the numbers but hadn’t made time to pull stats because that just isn’t something I work with normally– my libraries’ fantastic Collection Development team has that thoroughly under control.

However, I got motivated very quickly after seeing Jason Griffey’s post on the subject which left me unsettled for two reasons:

1. I feel like it could be misrepresented as undermining the library case.

2. It samples from an institution that is in no way representative of the institutions most affected by the Harper Collins decision. Public libraries serve those who can’t afford to go to college period and those who are no longer in school. It is the effect on these populations that drive us to be concerned about this recent attack on a necessary public good. And while I am not the best at keeping up with publishers, it appears to me that Harper Collins’ target market isn’t primarily academic.

I also think Jason is absolutely right that treating the digital like the physical is insanity of the highest order though. We need new models and perhaps by pulling together data we can have some better conversations on what the future could and should look like.

So, thanks to the help of our Collection Development Librarian and Horizon master extraordinaire, Logan Macdonald, I have some numbers to compare.

My public library system has 7 branches and a bookmobile and serves a large county in a mixed urban and rural setting. We have a pretty good mix of demographics in nearly every category you could think of. Because of funding and philosophy changes in the last 3-5 years, much of our collection is new and so these numbers don’t typically represent materials that have been in circulation for 20-50 years. These are almost exclusively materials purchased since 2007.

Logan has this to add, “As a percentage, our numbers are probably low compared to other libraries due to our ‘popular browsing’ collection development policy.  We usually weed things before they get old enough to have more than 26 circs.”

Once I subtracted the CDs and DVDs from the circ numbers he gave me, I found 7566 items in our collection that had circulated 27 or more times. Just for kicks and giggles, I also identified that 942 items had circulated 53 times or more (we would have had to buy them twice).

Jason ends up with a number of $12.99 average for an item, and although I agree with one of the comments on the post that $25 is probably a more accurate number, for argument’s sake I’ll use 12.99.

If we were to have to replace these materials under a 26 use policy, this would cost our library system $110,518.92. A number Logan tells me is very close to our total adult nonfiction budget for 2011.

That’s why public libraries are concerned. To give you an idea of how large of an impact this is– our collections budget was $1,135,664 in 2009, according to the statistics from Colorado’s Library Research Service. Throughout the state of Colorado for 2009, materials budgets ranged from $4,577,200 for the Denver Public Library system to a mere $232 for one small rural library. (Yes, you read that number right– TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO).

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe that despite some assertions that we don’t matter economically to publishers– it’s clear by their actions that we do. It’s easy for librarians to say, “3 or 4% doesn’t matter”, but to a business person 3 or 4% is important, especially when you’re talking about a number in the millions of dollars. (And others agree).

So let’s compare numbers– what does this look like in your library?

 

ADDENDUM: I was asked to add some information to this post, so here’s what else I’ve got: Our total number of items is 383,353 (288,793 excluding CDs and DVDs) and our total number of circs in 2010 was 1,715,538 (1,111,850 excluding CDs and DVDs). As far as age for our circ data– it goes back to when we automated in 1969, but as I mentioned almost all of our materials are less than 3-4 years old. An additional problem with dates for us is that Horizon does not store statistics per item on an annual basis unless the period is set up ahead of time, and right now the only periods are pre-Horizon and post-Horizon.

]]>
Solidarity is powerful. And Libraries don’t have it. http://matthewdhamilton.com/2011/03/06/solidarity-is-powerful-and-libraries-dont-have-it/ Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:21:31 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?p=4213

Protesting Scott Walker

By now we’ve had time for the various responses to the Harper Collins proposed licensing changes to sink in. There are many different camps within the library and publisher worlds, some are still in favor of a boycott, whether explicit or implicit.

We can debate whether a boycott would work or not from many different perspectives. Sarah Glassmeyer does a fair job of arguing that it doesn’t make economic sense. Admittedly,  I disagree for two reasons:

1. She doesn’t account for the free advertising that libraries provide publishers as supporters of book culture. I don’t know how or if you could measure that impact, but I’d wager it’s not insignificant enough to be ignored as part of the equation if we really are trying to do the math.

2. If publishers didn’t feel that the library market was not economically significant, then why would they have taken this step? Anyone who doesn’t think that publishers are concerned about the money they stand to lose (or gain) from libraries need only ask um, Harper Collins. That’s why they are making these changes, remember?

But I don’t want to belabor that. As I mentioned in my first post on the issue– my concern isn’t with Harper Collins specifically, it’s with the chipping away of our limited bargaining power as consortia. To me, this is the greater issue– we are already so fractured and I want to see us pull together. I am not in favor of a boycott so much as I am in favor of only bargaining in groups or as an industry as a whole. This is a role I’d like to see Library Renewal take.

So, it’s with great disappointment that I don’t see anyone taking a leadership role in this regard, instead there is too much talk in libraryland on the subject of our reactions. And so we stand divided just as we did before Harper Collins made their move.

First of all, why the concern with “how we look”? Do you really think that makes a difference in negotiations? Because. It. Doesn’t. It’s all about business, baby. People blow up on each other all the time but the mighty dollar marches on. But if we *are* concerned with how we look, then we should show a bit more solidarity with our fellows– whether we agree or not. Because how we look is a an unorganized mob who are just as quick to jump on each other as we are on those who threaten our institutions. I think it makes us look bad when we stand up in a public forum and refer to our colleagues as “hysterical”.

As Kate did a wonderful job of articulating, a call for boycott isn’t necessarily a hysterical reaction at all. It’s one reaction of many. And as someone who wants to see the profession become stronger– to pull together– to be able to negotiate as an industry and not a scattered collection of tiny players– then I don’t want to diss any of my fellows for their response. We can have that conversation another time in another forum.

Solidarity is powerful. Only by supporting each other will we get anywhere. To draw an analogy, don’t you think that most union members think those protesting at the Wisconsin capital were over the top? Would most of them occupy the state house? No…. but they understand the power of standing together and have the thoughtfulness to appreciate their contribution. Everyone has a different contribution to make– some us like stirring up emotion as incitement towards action, some of us are better at a bargaining table, but a healthy group needs to be a big tent that includes acceptance of all types.

So libraryland, here’s what I’d like to see. How about instead of a post shushing your colleagues, why not a statement like this?

“We recognize that there are many responses to the issue of Harper Collins changing their licensing practices and we agree that this issue is urgent and important to libraries everywhere. While we don’t necessarily choose to endorse a boycott at this time, we support our colleagues whose moral compass leads them to this conclusion. As a vital part of a functioning democracy, libraries must continue to have a place at the negotiating table in all matters of content licensing and the public good of equal access to information must be preserved. We hope that as content and copyright realities change for consumers and publishers, that libraries will not be forced to make choices in the future that include limiting of access based on economic realities– whether driven by publisher choice or by lack of sufficient funding for collections”.

There. Now is that really so hard?

]]>
The eBook User’s Bill of Rights http://matthewdhamilton.com/2011/02/28/the-ebook-users-bill-of-rights/ Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:22:43 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?p=4216  

I am reposting this document, drawn up by Sarah Hougton-Jan and Andy Woodworth because I support this effort and I hope to see it expanded.

What do *you* think? Are there parts you would change? Is there something forgotten? I’ve seen at least two other related efforts– one claims to be an “eBook Buyer’s Bill of Rights” which makes some very good points as well, and an earlier effort by other librarians, “The Readers’ Bill of Rights for Digital Books”.

I am excited to see the energy around this issue, and I just hope it will be sustained. In the meantime, one way to keep track of the action is a website put up by Brett Bonfield and Gabriel Farrell, which will document the status of whether librarians should be boycotting Harper Collins or not: http://boycottharpercollins.com/.

Some aren’t sure that a boycott is the right response at this point– but I don’t think anyone engaged in any negotiation or argument knows exactly what the right tactic is at any given point. It’s important that we begin to do something– something serious enough to convey to the other players that we’re not going to be left out of the conversation without a fight.

To those who afraid we’re short-changing our patrons if we boycott Harper Collins, I say that’s exactly how we got into this powerless position in the first place. I’m sorry, but trading short-term mediocrity for longer term solutions does not serve our patrons. It just makes us look like fumbling idiots who can’t deliver a quality product to their fancy new eReader they got for Christmas.

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights is a statement of the basic freedoms that should be granted to all eBook users.

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights

 

Every eBook user should have the following rights:

  • the right to use eBooks under guidelines that favor access over proprietary limitations
  • the right to access eBooks on any technological platform, including the hardware and software the user chooses
  • the right to annotate, quote passages, print, and share eBook content within the spirit of fair use and copyright
  • the right of the first-sale doctrine extended to digital content, allowing the eBook owner the right to retain, archive, share, and re-sell purchased eBooks

I believe in the free market of information and ideas.

I believe that authors, writers, and publishers can flourish when their works are readily available on the widest range of media. I believe that authors, writers, and publishers can thrive when readers are given the maximum amount of freedom to access, annotate, and share with other readers, helping this content find new audiences and markets. I believe that eBook purchasers should enjoy the rights of the first-sale doctrine because eBooks are part of the greater cultural cornerstone of literacy, education, and information access.

Digital Rights Management (DRM), like a tariff, acts as a mechanism to inhibit this free exchange of ideas, literature, and information. Likewise, the current licensing arrangements mean that readers never possess ultimate control over their own personal reading material. These are not acceptable conditions for eBooks.

I am a reader. As a customer, I am entitled to be treated with respect and not as a potential criminal. As a consumer, I am entitled to make my own decisions about the eBooks that I buy or borrow.

I am concerned about the future of access to literature and information in eBooks.  I ask readers, authors, publishers, retailers, librarians, software developers, and device manufacturers to support these eBook users’ rights.

These rights are yours.  Now it is your turn to take a stand.  To help spread the word, copy this entire post, add your own comments, remix it, and distribute it to others.  Blog it, Tweet it (#ebookrights), Facebook it, email it, and post it on a telephone pole.

To the extent possible under law, the person who associated CC0 with this work has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work

]]>
Silence = Death http://matthewdhamilton.com/2011/02/25/silence-death/ Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:23:46 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?p=4218

One night, you’re walking home alone and you are jumped in an alley and cornered. You can smell the alcohol on the attacker’s breath and see the desperation in his eyes, this isn’t someone you can reason with. Your first instinct should be to avoid conflict, losing a wallet and a couple of credit cards isn’t worth losing your life. Most of us aren’t that stupid. Or stubborn.

But your attacker isn’t rational. He knocks the wallet out of your hand, now is brandishing a knife. He doesn’t just want your wallet, he wants more. As you try to explain that you don’t have anything else, the conversation becomes even uglier– his words less coherent, his gestures more menacing, you’re shoved a couple of times and then finally– the knife comes at you.

You duck. At least I hope like hell you do. And I hope the next thing you do is punch the guy as hard as you fucking can. Ok, maybe you’re not like this usually, but I think there comes a time and a place when you’ve got to straight up defend your own life. Get away from that knife.

I can’t help but feel that if it isn’t time for libraries to duck the knife and start swinging that we are but seconds away.

By now, most people reading this will be aware of the situation that drives me to this conclusion. HarperCollins (note: I’m not providing a link here) has decided to change the terms of their library ebook licensing in such a way that hurts consumer choice, limits access for those without sufficient means, and generally just slaps the face of the people who love to read and want to be their customers. This has me upset enough but there has been tremendous groundswell on the net and people much smarter and more articulate than me have written about it. See: Sarah’s post for one of my favorites. Bobbi does a great job of laying out the full situation and providing links to many other posts as well.

Some folks are echoing Cory Doctorow‘s sentiment, “libraries should just stop buying DRM media for their collections. Period. It’s unsafe at any speed.” And he may be right, but right now we just don’t have the power to make a stand that makes a difference. If we tried to resist individually, we’d be picked off, one at a time. Our patrons would flock to neighboring communities (or away from us completely), and then one by one we’d lose funding. The community isn’t going to understand it’s not librarians who make these decisions. Which leads me to what I see is a much bigger issue.

Overshadowed in all this is another announcement that Overdrive made that disturbs me much more. They say, “Another area of publisher concern that OverDrive is responding to is the size and makeup of large consortia and shared collections.”

Ok, that’s it. Game over. The only possible way that our institutions of public good– our libraries– can afford to bridge the content divide between those who have and those who have not, is by banding together and buying as a group. If the publishers are attacking this model, then they are attacking libraries themselves.

So, I say, let’s duck the knife. I know it’s going to be tough but let’s have some strength of character and start to get serious about preserving ourselves. I say rather than even let this begin, that we flat out refuse to buy electronic content for distribution except as consortia. Don’t let these folks divide and conquer– let’s hold on to our areas of strength and push back.

And let’s drop the barriers to collaboration. Let’s bring our consortia together and insist that we negotiate only as an industry. Perhaps this is the role Library Renewal can play? Will they? If not, who? Who will answer the call? It’s going to take more than just libraries and librarians, but if we don’t have a cohesive banner to rally around– how will they know how to help?

]]>
I needed some inspiration today… http://matthewdhamilton.com/2009/02/28/i-needed-some-inspiration-today-2/ Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:29:09 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?p=4223

And thanks to my friend, James Ascher, an amazing librarian, I found this blog post I’d overlooked last week, Virtual Dave’s “Bullet Point: “We live in Shakespearian Times.”

Dave discusses the challenges we face in the field and ponders how he (and anyone) can stay optimistic. He writes,

As I go around the country I encounter too many librarians who see the vision, who embrace change, but have grown too tired and discouraged to hope again. They are quieted by the scars of past optimism.

A little further down he says,

Between the Annoyed Librarians of the world and the perceived resistance to change in the field, isn’t it all just a lost cause? How can we overcome? How can we continue to step over the ruble of past initiatives, and broken momentum, and ignore the anticipation of disappointment while once again stepping into the firing line of positive change?

His answer is encouragement. I hope you’re right, Dave. And, here’s what I’d like to share with you– your post gave me (and James, and many others) encouragement. Thank you. I hope that in some small way I can return the favor some day.

I was inspired to read someone remind us that,

As I have said before, we too often undersell the importance and raw power of what we do. We are a nobel[sic] profession. We don’t shelve books, and change toner cartridges – we maintain an infrastructure for social action. We don’t reference resources, and catalog artifacts – we teach and inspire.

Right now our city is undergoing a budget cutting process that I feel does not take into account what place the library holds in the community. We also have other departments who are trying to assert increasing influence over service provision and even website content. Too often I’ve heard us referred to as “a city department”. Yes– we are a city department, but more imporantly we’re also a part of something much larger. I’ve found it hard to resist despair over this even while biting my tongue about it publically.

I want us to advocate, I want us to not take it lying down. These words confirmed for me that my instincts are probably right. Why should we be quiet about what happens to us? Why should we wait on other department’s decisions? Why don’t we feel that we have the right to be as outspoken for ourselves as the rest of the city? This is Boulder, and this is the Wild West– our culture here is to not take things lying down. Our meetings go on forever because we have a history of vibrant citizen advocacy. We should embrace that history and acknowledge that we are a part of it.

Audacious action has worked for libraries before. I think of the Seattle Public Library closings as just one example.

So I end with the paragraphs the inspired me to write this post. Inspired to me to face the next week with optimism. Because I don’t think I can say it any better than Dave did:

So too can librarians overcome the crushing forces of mediocrity and cynicism – but we must believe that we can.

Faced with the enormities of these tasks – terrorism, economic disaster, apathy – standing up at a meeting and speaking truth to power? Simple. Faced with the real issues we must face – I can take on the added committee assignment, or backhand comment. How do I stay optimistic? I realize first the issues I face are miniscule to the good I can do. How do I get inspired to face intransigence, or laziness, or ineptitude? I look right past them at the real goal, and those who really need me.

Block me, and I will go around you. Build a wall, and I will build a door. Lock the door and I will break a window. And if I don’t have have a leader to inspire me, I will lead. If I don’t have a team that will support me, I will recruit a team from beyond the organizational boundaries – every policy has a loophole, every system has a hidden reward.

I’m gathering up my saw, screwdriver, hinges, and some wood-screws. Let’s build some doors together!

]]>
What I’m finding as an Information Professional http://matthewdhamilton.com/2009/02/22/what-im-finding-as-an-information-professional/ Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:46:28 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?page_id=2451 I’ve been working on the portfolio project for the end of my MLS program and it’s gotten me thinking. Yes, this is stuff I think about anyway, but it’s given me occasion to pause and reflect.

The library field is weird. No, really. I mean it.

It’s a field where some MLS programs think they should still exclusively teach theory, and some programs think that you need little more than practical applications, including computer programming.

It’s a field where you can still be the “Head of Technology” in your organization because 15 years ago you were the one person who knew how to change a printer cartridge, and a field where people like Blyberg are writing the next generation catalog after coming from the business world.

We have “librarians” who do little more than check out books to elementary school kids. And some who maybe if they’re good, (and their school understands their value), are also collaborating in developing the curriculum, in advancing info literacy, and in introducing digital literacy to their students.

We have “librarians” who do little more than copy-catalog all day, or who point to where the bathroom is. And we have “librarians” who spend their days answering fantastically challenging reference questions and their nights developing Web 2.0 learning programs for their library. We have “librarians” who run a network, some who do little more than maintain an ILS, some who develop cultural programming, and some who do ALL of these things.

We have “librarians” who are getting tenure by writing “I done good” articles and “librarians” who are creating new knowledge by drawing the on theories of other fields and pushing the envelope of what it means to be a “library” (whether they need to get tenure or not).

We have “librarians” who love their users and are fantastic at customer service and who give us a good name. And we have “librarians” (some of whom are highly esteemed in the field), who are openly contemptuous of their users.

The field is not in good shape. I don’t think adding “information” to the MLS is the answer, either. I don’t think that by further genericizing the profession by calling ourselves “Information Professionals” is any kind of an answer either.

I’m afraid we just might be making a mockery of ourselves. And we don’t have another 15 years to fix it. In 15 years the information landscape will have changed just as drastically as the web has changed us and if we don’t get serious we might just fall off the map completely.

It’s time to stop making our field generic in the I-schools, and to let our students get the specialized skill-set they need. And I don’t mean that you take a “track” that consists of three classes providing a shallow introduction to your area of specialization. I mean we need real, exceptional, challenging programs tailored to the specific specialties within our field. (Note: I don’t mean to suggest we should dispense entirely with theory, either. The theory is tremendously useful and important, it’s just not enough.)

I don’t agree with Karin (although I have tremendous respect and admiration for her work) that all librarians should learn programming. I think we need to go just the other direction. We need to get really good at what we’re responsible for, so that our organizations start cranking out the quality of service and innovation that rivals the commercial sector. I don’t want to go into business. I don’t think that the corporate model is perfect– but I do think we have to have the integrity as a field to admit that right now, they do innovation better. And for that matter, they do information better.

We better get moving, and we better get moving fast.

]]>
Back to the topic of leadership…. http://matthewdhamilton.com/2008/11/03/back-to-the-topic-of-leadership/ Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:46:22 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?page_id=2387 It is with great pride I have to announce that I have just been chosen for the Colorado Association of Libraries’ very first Leadership Institute. There were 25 of us chosen from around the state, and this will involve a year’s worth of workshops and mentoring—followed by two years of service within CAL.

Since I am not particularly motivated to participate in the ALA at large—for reasons Emily at “In the Library with the Lead Pipelaid out much more eloquently than I could—I am *very* happy to be involved on a local level. I love this state, I am immensely impressed by the personalities and organizations here, and I think there is a *lot* to get behind.

So, before I write up my thoughts on Internet Librarian, I’d like to take a moment to discuss my concepts of leadership and what I hope to do with my future leadership opportunities.

Recently, I read a blog post at “The Medium is a Message” which stated that “Consensus Building Cripples Library Innovation”. As those of you who know me well know, I come from a background of radical political activism—and this includes methods of non-hierarchical organization and inclusive decision-making such as decision-making by consensus. However, activist tradition know that decisions by consensus are part of a long tradition stemming from practices of the Quakers and other egalitarian groups and have worked hard over the years to create ways of making decisions by consensus, but NOT stifling every good new idea that comes around. For one thing, because activist groups explicitly try not to encourage a hierarchy, we don’t allow certain “leaders” to develop such positions of authority that no one wishes to challenge them when they try to stifle a new idea.

However, because our library organizations are still largely organized in hierarchical structures and explicitly encourage the development of “experts” through tenure, position, etc. we will continue to have trouble with this problem. What are some possible solutions? Well, perhaps it is time to look more closely at how our libraries are structured. Perhaps we should be looking a more of a network model rather than a tree.

Absent this drastic (although beneficial) move, we can still do more to allow for this phenomenon to not hinder our organization’s innovation. We can train our people on how to fight. I’ve been listening to “The No Asshole Rule” and it is a great book on management and organizational culture. One of the things he discusses is that great organizations don’t discourage conflict—they encourage it. They just try to make sure that it is done *right*. He talks about how at Intel, employees are taught how to argue their ideas and/or criticize them using logic and not allowing it to turn into personal attacks. Further, anyone is allowed to question anyone else in these meetings—without fear of retribution at a later time just because they might have stood up to someone higher up on the org chart. This trust makes for a very engaged and healthy organization. People are happy and feel motivated to contribute. Ask yourself—is this how it feels at your organization?

There are some other things we can learn from the way that horizontalist groups reach consensus. For one thing—not every question has to be an either/or.

Perhaps you don’t *like* an idea. But, in being asked to defend your position, you realize (or it becomes apparent) that the idea itself is *not* detrimental to the group. When a vote is cast, you may stand aside. You can simply say, “well, I don’t support the idea, but I don’t have any good reason to try and block it”. There are other possible courses of action as well.

However, there’s a big problem out in Library land with this idea. I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s called EGO.

It’s an ugly thing people. It’s nasty, and it doesn’t serve libraries or our patrons. This is one of those dirty little secrets about being user-centered that I don’t think many of us want to say.

It is not user-centric to be focused on your own power within the organization. It’s not user-centric to be more concerned with achieving status in the ALA or tenure on your campus than with listening to your users and giving them what they want. It’s time to put our money with our mouth is. We *claim* to be user-centric, but in reality, we often are not. We take in user’s ideas and then we decide for ourselves which of them and how to implement them. And we look down our noses at our users far too often.

This is not behavior worthy of status and respect. And this old paradigm has got to die.

Our users are wonderful, amazing, fantastic, fascinating human beings. Like Constructivism shows us, we are all in this together—as learning partners—and we can learn from them while offering our own knowledge and *that* is what makes us professionals. That is what earns us dignity. That is precisely how we should be earning our status– by how well we listen, how empathetic we are, and how responsive we are to the people who depend upon us for our expertise.

Those of you who know me personally know that I advocate learning a lot from the marketing world. And I know that this is hard to swallow for some in libraries. But here is something that marketers can teach us and that they do right. We don’t have to adopt all of the marketing field’s practices—and believe me I would never, never want that. But I’m willing to get out of my own way long enough to be open to what they do right. Good is good no matter where it comes from. If Google has taught us that making search easy serves our users better, well then we can stop being jealous and petty and do the same thing. There’s no reason why we can’t be working hard to make a federated search product and easy to use discovery tool work the way our patrons want it to. It’s the information we want to deliver—not a series of hoops to jump through. If there’s anything we should be observing from the rise of the Internet is that our users will become as savvy as they need to, when they need to. That may or may not happen with our assistance. It should be our job to lead the way in showing what available and being ready assist their journey of self-discovery. If our users are not savvy information consumers—then why are there so many participatory web sites out there that befuddle librarians (information “professionals”)?

We hate to admit that we’re not the only experts in town but it’s time we do so. Make our tools as easy as can be. Set up ways to listen to your users and to listen to people from all over your organization and be proud of the fact you do so.

If instead you’re wasting your time on petty process and procedure you’ve lost your way. Spending hours deciding on whether it’s okay to allow your staff to have a few flex hours is beneath a librarian. Don’t be that petty. Don’t tell your users they can’t talk to you because they might ask for things that you don’t want to deliver. Don’t pooh-pooh an idea because it didn’t go through channels. The time for this hierarchical, self-importance has passed.

So, in the end—like the man says, don’t be an asshole. Treat those under you with respect, listen to them with an open mind, encourage their hopes and dreams and that is how we should earn our dignity.

]]>
Great Leaders Listen, Do You? http://matthewdhamilton.com/2008/10/26/great-leaders-listen-do-you/ Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:46:22 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?page_id=2386 It is with great pride I have to announce that I have just been chosen for the Colorado Association of Libraries’ very first Leadership Institute. There were 25 of us chosen from around the state, and this will involve a year’s worth of workshops and mentoring—followed by two years of service within CAL.

Since I am not particularly motivated to participate in the ALA at large—for reasons Emily at “In the Library with the Lead Pipe” laid out much more eloquently than I could—I am very happy to be involved on a local level. I love this state, I am immensely impressed by the personalities and organizations here, and I think there is a lot to get behind.

So, before I write up my thoughts on Internet Librarian, I’d like to take a moment to discuss a few thoughts about leadership in the library world.

Recently, I read a post at “The Medium is a Message” which stated that “Consensus Building Cripples Library Innovation”. As those of you who know me well already know, I come from a background of radical political activism—and this includes methods of non-hierarchical organization and inclusive decision-making such as decision-making by consensus.

However, activists know that decisions by consensus are part of a long tradition stemming from practices of the Quakers and other egalitarian groups, and have worked hard over the years to create ways of making decisions by consensus that don’t stifle every good new idea that comes around. For one thing, because most of these groups explicitly try not to encourage a hierarchy. We don’t allow certain “leaders” to develop such positions of authority that no one wishes to challenge them when they try to suppress new ideas or do little but champion their own.

However, because our library organizations are still largely organized in hierarchical structures and explicitly encourage the development of “experts” through tenure, position, etc. we will continue to have trouble with this problem. What are some possible solutions? Well, perhaps it is time to look more closely at how our libraries are structured. Perhaps we should be looking at more of a network model rather than a tree.

Absent this drastic (although potentially very beneficial) move, we can still do more to allow for this phenomenon to not hinder our organization’s innovation. We can train our people on how to fight. I’ve been listening to “The No Asshole Rule” and it is a great book on management and organizational culture. One of the things he discusses is that great organizations don’t discourage conflict—they encourage it. They just try to make sure that it is done right.

He talks about how at Intel, employees are taught how to argue their ideas and/or criticize them using logic and not allowing it to turn into personal attacks. Further, anyone is allowed to question anyone else in these meetings—without fear of retribution at a later time just because they might have stood up to someone higher up on the org chart. This trust makes for a very engaged and healthy organization. People are happy and feel motivated to contribute. Ask yourself—is this how it feels at your organization?

There are some other things we can learn from the way that horizontalist groups reach consensus. For one thing—not every question has to be an either/or. Perhaps you don’t like an idea. But, in being asked to defend your position, you realize (or it becomes apparent) that the idea itself is not detrimental to the group. When a vote is cast, you may stand aside. You can simply say, “well, I don’t support the idea, but I don’t have any good reason to try and block it”.

Created by grant horwood, aka frymaster, dual licensing was used GFDL and CC 2.5

However, there’s a big problem out in Library land with this idea. I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s called EGO.

It’s an ugly thing, people. It’s nasty, and it doesn’t serve libraries or our patrons. This is one of those dirty little secrets about being user-centered that I don’t think many of us want to say.

It is not user-centric to be focused on your own power within the organization. It’s not user-centric to be more concerned with achieving status in the ALA or tenure on your campus than with listening to your users and giving them what they want. It’s time to put our money with our mouth is. We claim to be user-centric, but in reality we often are not. We take in user’s ideas and then we decide for ourselves which of them and how to implement them. And we look down our noses at our users far too often. This is not behavior worthy of status and respect. And this old paradigm has got to die.

Those of you who know me personally know that I advocate learning a lot from the marketing world. And I know that this is hard to swallow for some in libraries. But here is something that marketers can teach us and that they do right. We don’t have to adopt all of the marketing field’s practices—and believe me I would never, never want that. But I’m willing to get out of my own way long enough to be open to what they do right. Good is good no matter where it comes from.

If Google has taught us that making search easy serves our users better, then we can stop being jealous and petty and do the same thing. There’s no reason why we can’t be working hard to make a federated search product and easy to use discovery tool work the way our patrons want it to. It’s the information we want to deliver—not a series of hoops to jump through. If there’s anything we should be observing from the rise of the Internet is that our users will become as savvy as they need to, when they need to. That may or may not happen with our assistance. It should be our job to lead the way in showing what available and being ready assist their journey of self-discovery. If our users are not savvy information consumers—then why are there so many participatory web sites out there that befuddle librarians (“information professionals”)?

We hate to admit that we’re not the only experts in town but it’s time we do so. Set up ways to listen to your users and to listen to people from all over your organization and be proud of the fact you do so. If instead you’re wasting your time on petty process and procedure you’ve lost your way. Spending hours deciding on whether it’s okay to allow your staff to have a few flex hours is beneath a librarian. Don’t be that petty. Don’t tell your users they can’t talk to you because they might ask for things that you don’t want to deliver. Don’t pooh-pooh an idea because it didn’t go through channels. The time for this hierarchical, self-importance has passed.

Our users are wonderful, amazing, fantastic, fascinating human beings. As Constructivism shows us, we are all in this together, as learning partners, and we can learn from them while offering our own knowledge and that is what makes us professionals. That is what earns us dignity. That is precisely how we should be earning our status—by how well we listen, how empathetic we are, and how responsive we are to the people who depend upon us for our expertise, whether it be our staff or our users.

]]>
Off to Internet Librarian http://matthewdhamilton.com/2008/10/20/off-to-internet-librarian/ Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:46:22 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?page_id=2378 Well, my latest investment in my MLS education is a trip to Internet Librarian this year. I was able to go because I took 5 instead of 7 credit hours this semester (our project management class is only 1 credit sadly enough) and I got some support from my workplace as well. I have to say, the academic world really does place a value on professional development and for that I am extremely grateful.

I’m disappointed that I won’t get a chance to hang out with Max Macias a bit more– but he’s busy with a much more important project right now. (I’m leaving my skateboard at home now, buddy). But I’m excited to spend some more time with my online friends in person and connect with more LSW members I haven’t yet met.

One of the things I’m doing for myself is a long, leisurely two-day trip down to Monterrey from San Jose. I am planning on going through Big Basin Redwood State Park and hiking and just sleeping amongst the trees. I haven’t done anything like that in a very long time and I could use a little time breathing in some pure air.

Posted by http://flickr.com/people/meghannfinn/ (Thanks!)

Posted by http://flickr.com/people/meghannfinn/ (Thanks!)

I may go down and check out Santa Cruz, which is a town I’ve never visited, but everyone tells me I’d love. I might visit my yoga lineage’s ashram, Mount Madonna. I really don’t have a plan– just get off the plane at 11am on Saturday in San Jose and arrive sometime late afternoon Sunday in Monterrey to check into my hotel.

I *love* not having a plan. Open to anything.

It is that spirit that I plan to take to Internet Librarian. I’m about to graduate in May and I get to move forward in my career as an information professional. I know I love libraries, I like Web 2.0 (but not just for its own sake), but what will come next? What will be the right fit?

I plan to spend plenty of time talking to people at IL about what their job entails, what their projects are, and try and discover what I can add to all this. At my current position, I’m mostly playing catch-up, “hey other libraries are doing this– let’s finally do this, too”.

But I don’t want to follow forever, I want to have something to contribute. I want to give and not just take.

I think a period of soul searching, a strenuous hike or walk on the beach. A step back from working all day and reading LIS all night might help clear my head enough to be back to “Zen Mind”.

Then it’s back to video games and gadgets!

However, it’s definitely not all about socialization and fun. I feel like I’ll learn more in this weekend than in most semesters of library school. (Although as an alumni, I plan to help change that).

My schedule, as always, is quite likely to change, but here is my tentative plan:

Sunday evening: I have to be online for a class but I plan to do my posting early and then head off to the “Gaming & Gadgets Petting Zoo”.

Monday, I’ll attend Howard Rheingold‘s keynote. Then I plan to go to:

“Giving Your Marketing and Advocacy a Second Life” with Nancy Dow

“Digital Marketing: Successful Plans/Organizations” with Sarah Houghton-Jan and Aaron Schmidt

“Web Site Assessment With Google Analytics” with Marshall Breeding

“Cool Tools for Library Webmasters” with Frank Cervone and Darlene Fichter

“Mashing Up and Remixing the Library Website” with Karen Coombs

“Facebook & Libraries: Ethnographic Evaluation” with David Bietila, Elizabeth Edwards, and Christopher Bloechl

(Then I plan to head out for Karaoke with the LSW folks!)

Tuesday, I plan to attend:

I may or may not go to the keynote with Danny Sullivan

“Innovation” with Helene Blowers

“2.0 Learning & 1.8 Users: Bridging the Gap” with Rudy Leon and Colleen Harris

“Microformats: Big Ideas in Small Packages” with Jeff Wisniewski

“Solving the OPAC Problem” with John Blyberg and Christopher Barr

“Using RSS, Podcasts, & XML to Deliver Rich-Media Content” with Jason Clark

“Solving the Interest Problem” with Kelly Czarnecki and Cliff Landis

“Solving the Buy-In Problem” OR “Ubiquitous Computing & Libraries” with Michael Porter and Chris Peters

That night I’ll also go to the “Good Internet Librarian Practices Worldwide” thing with the Shanachie Tour guys. WooHoo!

Wednesday:

I will DEFINITELY be going to the keynote, “Social Media & Networked Technologies: Research & Insights” with the freaking awesome danah boyd.

“Strategic Framework for Library Automation” with Marshall Breeding

“Twitter & How the “Twittest” Use It for Keeping Up” with Michael Sauers, Christa Burns, Cindi Trainor, and Jezmynne Westcott

“Creating Games & Services With Digital Natives” or the “Pecha Kucha – Conversation Face-Off!”

“Information Visualization Tools” with Darlene Fichter and Jeff Wisniewski

Then I plan to attend the final keynote, “Learning & Play in a Social & Mobile World” with Elizabeth Lane Lawley

After that I must RUN back to the San Jose airport to fly home. I get into Denver at 11:30pm, so I will be dead tired on Thursday (and my introvert will be screaming inside).

However, I think it’s all worth it. This should be a fantastic experience!

]]>
Libraries, Diversity, and Leadership http://matthewdhamilton.com/2008/10/12/libraries-diversity-and-leadership/ Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:46:22 +0000 http://matthewdhamilton.com/?page_id=2373 Yesterday, my LIS school, Emporia State University’s School of Library and Information Management, hosted a leadership institute for the students benefiting from their Emporia Diversity Initiative scholarship program. Some of the students in this program are the coolest cats I know, including my friend Paul Mascaranes from Adams State College and the well-known Max Macias up in Portland.

For those who are unfamiliar with the EDI program, it’s an IMLS funded program that pairs students with a mentor, provides money for their MLS, and provides for further professional development throughout the program and beyond (such as this weekend’s leadership institute).

So, what was I doing there? Aren’t I one of the OVER-represented populations? Yes… it’s true. SLIM was kind enough to open up the institute to all Colorado students since it was being held here, and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. Speakers included my own Dean of Libraries, James Williams, (one of the most amazing human beings I know–honestly, absolutely no a$$-kissing in saying that); Dr. Mark Winston of the John Cotton Dana Library at Rutgers; and a panel of local library folks.

One of my favorite talks of the day was from a school librarian, Janet Damon. She was one of the most forward-thinking professionals I’d heard speak at any library event I’d been to. She stressed the need for the profession to adopt ways of handling decisions in a much more responsive way or we will lose Millennials (not only in recruiting them to the workplace but as users of our services). She talked about applying techniques from software development, including RAD, to speed library’s response to changing user needs and expectations.

However, I don’t want to neglect the topics of the day– leadership and diversity. Dr. Winston stated clearly some of the problems with both of these subjects, and offered up real solutions for handling them.

Leadership– there are hundreds of definitions of leadership. He pointed out that this means that while many people aren’t clear on what it means, they are talking about it. It’s important. One of the best things he mentioned was the need for leaders to have PATIENCE. This is something I needed to hear. I have been learning patience since entering the library world, and the confirmation from someone who has been very successful was nice to hear. As he described it, (I’m paraphrasing) “you’ve already made the change– you’re past the scary part. But your ideas, your presence, represents a threat to the structures that people have built for their comfort. We have to have patience to allow for that.”

He also stressed that leaders lead– in any conditions, from whatever their position, and how those of us who are young or low on the organization chart can affect change through building spheres of influence, support networks, becoming experts, doing the research, and most of all– having patience.

He also described what we can do about diversity and why it is important. He first discussed the usual arguments such as “the demographics are changing” or “we must address past or current inequities”. He explained that these are emotional appeals that produce resistance, and are therefore ineffective. As someone who has put together a panel on Affirmative Action– I can attest to this. When the conversation centers around arguments like this, it just produces entrenchment and defensiveness that can also turn ugly far too quickly.

The real argument to make for diversity is that it increases the effectiveness of your organization. It makes you smarter, wiser, more efficient. That’s research that can be backed up with data. That’s why commercial entities encourage diversity– it helps their bottom line. That’s not to say that one can’t feel that it’s important for reasons of fairness and representation, it’s just not the basis of an effective argument for support.

So, what can we do to support diversity in our organizations?

1. First– listen. Ask people about themselves, their experience, their background, what’s important to them. This helps anyone realize that you actually have a real interest in them.

2. Don’t just listen–act. If a person from an under-represented group (or anyone new, of course) has joined your organization and has new ideas, new perspectives, new questions, new requests–then actually do something about it. For example, when I learn that one of my students has an interest in a particular subject, I will invite them to develop an exhibit on that subject. That’s a small example, but it can be applied more substantially throughout the organization.

I remember once being asked for some of the basic pages to be available in Spanish on our website because many of our students are international students and learning English while starting an academic career. This idea was rejected because “learning English is considered an important part of becoming an academic researcher.” Whether you agree with this or not, why maintain an additional hurdle for some students instead of providing tools to make that transition easier? The students who took the time to share their needs with our organization were happy that we cared enough to listen, but left more frustrated because they felt it was an empty gesture.

3. Recognize that when someone from an underrepresented group becomes part of your organization they are likely to be asked to handle a “hidden workload”. Everyone wants to be “inclusive” and so they will invite the one African-American on staff to join every committee. This is not fair. If you’re in a position to be a supervisor or manager, check in with the diverse members of your staff. Ask them if they really want the opportunities given (and the responsibility that comes with it). Make sure that in the quest to mean well, you don’t unfairly pile work on. Don’t necessarily put all the responsibility on them to have to say no.

4. Be available. Another part of being “the only one” means that they probably end up having some stupid things said to them. In fact, inadvertently I am probably saying some stupid things in this post. That’s the point, no matter how well-meaning people are, you can’t truly understand someone else’s experience or perspective, and this is that much more difficult when you add cultural differences. Sometimes people will say or do things that are hurtful, offensive, patronizing, whatever. Try to be the kind of person that your friend can come and talk to about this. Be willing to hear it when you’re guilty as well.

I can’t pretend to have any authority on this subject, but I’m glad to have attended this institute and to have had the chance to meet Dr. Winston and hear him speak. I’m also willing to step up inside and outside of my organization to try and do something about it. I hope more of us will, too.

If any of my 17 readers (you know who you are) see this and know of ways to contribute to the diversity of our profession or know of other resources, please leave a comment!

Some opportunities within the profession are:

ARL Diversity Initiatives

Spectrum Scholarships from ALA

Emporia Diversity Initiative

LEADers II Library School Scholarship Program (scholarship administered through Denver Public Library)

Diversity Web sources in higher education: Looking at our rich heritage (From: C&RL News, September 2000)

]]>
http://matthewdhamilton.com/feed/
matthewdhamilton.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-17
74453
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:O5N5MHBSQWLIA7K2LRVUSHXKFGK5XR3G
<urn:uuid:d71b02b1-6762-4835-a335-e470e8f318bf>
2017-04-29T19:17:56Z
198.54.114.209
sha1:MP56AZO3RJCTR4XNUVESQMT7H7DEQCME
<urn:uuid:8863e2bc-61b7-411d-9b33-071668f12007>
http://matthewdhamilton.com/feed/
length
response
<urn:uuid:e8815507-22b9-40ca-892b-e4698eeae870>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-145-167-34.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-17
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf