LIS 9763

This week’s readings point to several important ways that social software has changed the web landscape, and thus the best practices we must incorporate into library services. To me, Shirky's (2008) video in which he discusses society’s current form of “cognitive surplus” is all about potential. We’ve definitely moved beyond an era of strict media consumption into one that also allows everyday people to produce and share, which we are seeing more and more as increasing numbers of people use blogs, wikis, photo hosting accounts and other such tools. So what can library and information professionals learn from this new era? I think Shirky says it best in suggesting that we “look at every place that a user, or a reader, or a listener, or a viewer has been locked out, has been served up a passive, or a fixed, or a canned experience and ask ourselves: if we carved out a little bit of the cognitive surplus we now recognize we can deploy, could we make a good thing happen?” He bets the answer is yes, and I fully agree. And while this will require an extended experimentation phase with social software tools in order to figure out how to create an interactive library environment which optimizes not only user consumption but production and sharing, it will be worth it. The most important thing is to understand that success doesn’t always happen overnight and keep trying new tools as a library 2.0 best practice. As Shirky reminds us, “The normal case of social software is still failure. Most experiments don’t pan out. But those that do are quite incredible.
 
I think Sierra’s (2006) piece does a great job of addressing how difficult it can be to maintain the motivation and momentum throughout this experimentation phase. Indeed, there is often a significant level of disconnect between those with the power to create ideas (employees) and those with the potential to create change (manager). But again, there is SO MUCH POTENTIAL! And in terms of social software, this exists in both library staff and users. Looking specifically at users, I was really pleased to see when researching a paper last term that many Ottawa residents were blogging about public library issues – and it occurred to me that there was way more public discussion within the web landscape about these concerns than I’d ever noticed within the print media. So how do we make sure new public discussions like these become part of library board, city council and other such agendas? Because after all, our ability to run future projects rests with the budget decisions that are made at these levels. I really like Sierra’s idea of working toward overcoming aversions to risk and becoming Managers with a Clue. By formulating and adopting open yet logical approaches to social software technologies (i.e. being willing to take risks when success would mean meeting an identified user need) as a best practice, we can do some incredible things. Making sure we recognize the important use of these tools for public discussion, and the long tail effect this can have on public and library policies, is essential. I remember being told in our library management course that most of us would at some point in our careers undertake a manager position, something that many in the class had not really sat back and pictured – even if in our minds we knew it was likely. I think one crucial step in creating more interactive libraries is for new graduates to begin seriously considering this future role early on in their library careers. We need to observe and learn from problems associated with risk aversion, and commit now to becoming managers who will support innovation by taking risks and encouraging forward thinking in our library staff.
 
One more idea really hit home for me this week – that our professional language, and our general demeanour, needs to become more informal (i.e. more human) or we will have a much harder time getting library users to listen to us in the future. The Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger (2001) reading really touches on this idea in point #15 of the 95 theses: “In just a few more years, the current homogenized ‘voice’ of business – the sound of mission statements and brochures – will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court.” I don’t think everyone will immediately agree with a change in professional tone from our public institutions. I suggest this because this article reminded me of the first time I flew with WestJet and the slight shock I felt at how the flight attendants spoke to passengers in such a casual and entertaining manner. Of course, this was many years ago now when major transitions in professional language were probably just beginning to take place so I wonder if I’d have the same degree of reaction flying this airline for the first time today. Of course, no other airline I’ve flown since has taken this new approach…but I digress…back to my example! At first, I felt this informality was a little over the top, like maybe the company was too transparent in its efforts to capture more business. I also must admit to flash worries about this more relaxed flying environment translating negatively into the pilot’s (lack of) skills! How could such a laid-back company still provide a safe and professional service? Yet, they made me chuckle! This felt good, and I found myself appreciating their efforts.
 
I think libraries can learn a lot from companies like this, even if we don't go quite as far as WestJet (publicly funded libraries will especially need to tread the fine line between being more approachable versus losing credibility). A change in overall tone may initially seem weird to users, and may take much longer for some to accept than my 5 minutes on a plane. It's nonetheless essential that we recognize how the language of the web landscape is changing the general manner in which people are communicating, making conversations everywhere, including public service settings, more open and casual. This does not mean that people still don’t have very important things to say about serious societal issues. It does mean, however, that we need to incorporate a change in language into our library best practices if we are to remain a relevant service that users continue to take seriously. As Casey and Stephens (2007) note, “No matter the dimensions of the institution, the building blocks of transparency allow a more honest, open flow of ideas, where staff and users are valued.” The more we break down language barriers, the greater transparency we'll offer. It's especially impressive to see members of upper management beginning to use social software tools such as blogs and online social networking sites to communicate with staff and users, helping to soften some of the negative effects of organizational hierarchy. Admittedly, this transparency takes a little getting used to - it's definitely a bit odd at first to see profiles of people in positions of power on Facebook, or to read about some of their personal interests on a professional blog. However, we most definitely need to work together to ensure the future interactivity, and thus viability, of libraries. The more managers and other authority figures that decide to climb on board in using the social technologies required to effectively create this type of environment, the better.