Introduction

Since Occupy Wall Street finally started getting mainstream media coverage, the idea of consensus decision-making seems to have permeated our American psyche. For me, it was waking up to a story on NPR’s Morning Edition that I couldn’t shake. The story featured a discussion of the group meetings and decision-making process occurring in Zuccotti Park, where protesters deliberated their need for sleeping bags (Chace, 2011)⁠. Despite the somewhat flip tone of the piece, it stuck with me.

The Occupy Librarianship trope hit the blogs a few weeks later, and we at Lead Pipe chimed in with our group post Occupy Librarianship: 5 Variations on a Theme (Bonfield, Frierson, Ford, Leeder, & Vrabel, 2011)⁠. Consensus was also on my mind at work. We had recently begun a search for a new University Librarian, so discussions about our visions for the library and qualities desired for incoming administrators had been abundant. (I even found myself wondering if we needed a human microphone in our Public Services Meetings.)

I began questioning what I thought I knew about consensus: In professional organizations and in the work places are we understanding and engaging in consensus decision-making in a way that is wholly democratic? Do we understand consensus decision-making theory? What does it look like in praxis? What potential does this decision-making process—which, in contemporary society, has been left to be practiced mostly by community action and social action groups—have for libraries?

In this piece I will discuss what I have learned about the praxis and theory of consensus decision-making; its benefits and pitfalls; and point to some examples. Then I will discuss what I think libraries can use and apply from consensus decision-making models.

What is Consensus Decision-Making?

Consensus decision-making is not a new concept or practice. In fact, it has been used for hundreds of years by Native American/First Nation groups and Quakers (Hare, 1973; InfoShop, n.d.; Rifkin, M., 2005).⁠ More recently, it has been used by anarchists; housing and food cooperatives; and other social action groups. Several publications have documented these group consensus processes, such as Martha’s Rules; Building United Judgment: A handbook for consensus decision making; On Conflict and Consensus: A handbook on formal consensus decisionmaking, and Consensus Decision Making. While each of these resources points to slightly different versions of the group decision-making process, they all follow a common thread of democratic decision-making practices. Peter Kakol (1995) designates “Equal access to political decision making for all” (para. 6) as the first of his Ten Anarchist Principles. He continues, “All those who are affected by a particular decision should be able to participate in the making of that decision” (para. 6). This sounds like what we commonly practice and understand as democracy, but it isn’t exactly what we practice.

Sager and Gastil (2006) point out that “democratic” majority rules decision-making is “…the most commonly used group decision rule in the United States” (p.2). Yet, majority-rules democracy enforces hierarchical relationships, pits sides against each other, and imposes a “pressure to conform” (Moscovici, & Doise. 1992; trans. Halls, 1994, p. 66). It creates winners and losers in each decision. Moreover, discussions preceding voting and majority-rules decisions can be greatly influenced by individuals’ social capital and authority in a group, and are tied to individuals present to participate in the decision-making process. In other words, what we have been understanding as democratic, is subject to disenfranchising individuals and re-enforcing power structures. Consensus decision-making attempts to rectify these problems.

I contend that the most common misconception regarding consensus decision-making assumes that decisions are reached unanimously. In fact, Sager and Gastil (2006) point to a difference between “consensus outcome” which implies unanimous agreement, and the “consensus decision rule,” which refers to a consensus decision-making process.

Decisions reached via consensus decision-making are rarely unanimous. Instead, consensus means that a group works toward a common goal that supports a group’s collective vision and mission. “Of course, full consent does not mean that everyone must be completely satisfied with the final outcome—in fact, total satisfaction is rare. The decision must be acceptable enough, however, that all will agree to support the group in choosing it” (Avery, Auvine, Streibel, & Weiss, 1981, p. 1). ⁠Similarly, in his book Empowerment and Democracy in the Workplace, John Dew (1997) posits “…at any time, every group member is at least 70% comfortable with each decision the group has made” (p. 118). The difference between unanimity and consensus is that unanimity supposes all individuals agree fully on the action taken, whereas consensus stresses an individual’s support of a collective mission or vision. Even though and individual may not fully agree with the tactics taken to get there, she can support the decision.

One of the dangers of group decision-making–as addressed in numerous scholarly publications from social psychology and communications—is the concept of groupthink. Groupthink occurs when groups sacrifice dialog. Individuals potentially suppress concerns and differences in order to avoid conflict and achieve harmonious consensus. This results in group decisions that are potentially contentious and not those that best support the group’s end goal or desired outcome (Dew, 1997; Mohammed, 2001; Mok & Morris, 2010; Moscovici & Doise, 1992/1994; Solomon, 2006)⁠. Consensus decision-making processes attempt to avoid negative consequences from groupthink, social capital, authority, and social hierarchies. To accomplish this, groups must work to build respect and trust. In a trusting and respectful environment, discussion and conflict can occur and groupthink can be avoided.

In fact, consensus cannot exist nor can it be achieved without conflict. In Conflict & Consensus, Moscovici and Doise (1992/1994) point to numerous studies showing that the stronger the conflict and disagreement in a consensus decision-making process, the more sticking-power resulting decisions have. Additionally, scholars have shown that the greater the conflict involved in problem-solving and decision-making, the more creative the solutions and decisions (Mohammed, 2001; Moscovici et al., 1992/1994; Murrell, Stewart, & Engel, 1993; Troyer & Youngreen, 2009)⁠. Those decisions made via consensus achieve more buy-in, and in the end result in greater success due to the collective support for decisions.

There are two interrelated aspects of consensus decision-making that must exist and function well in order for the process to be successful. First, individual participation in the decision-making process must occur. Second, conflict must arise and be resolved. Without participation and its proportional resulting conflict, consensus decision-making would not be a successful form of decision-making; the process is key to its success.

In consensus decision-making, like other decision-making processes, conflict is managed in the form of open discourse. Participants are expected to engage in active listening and respect each individual’s contribution to discussion. Moreover, consensus decision-making should center on solving problems faced by the collective, not the individual.

“Consensus decision making works best when the participants believe they belong to the group, and the group belongs to them. This group solidarity develops out of mutual trust and respect. As trust and respect grow within the group, members will feel free to express opinions and feelings, and to disagree without fear of consequences.” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 85)⁠

If members of a consensus group are not working toward the same goal, or they do not feel ownership and accountability for the success and well-being of the group, consensus decision-making will not work.

So what does a consensus decision-making process look like in praxis?

As mentioned earlier, there are many different forms consensus decision-making can take. In my research I found the process outlined in Building United Judgment, (Avery et al., 1981)⁠ to be the most thorough and appealing. The second chapter, “A Step-by-Step Process for Consensus” thoroughly outlines the process from preparation to final decision.

Like many group decision-making processes, it begins with agenda setting and identifying a facilitator for the process. Agenda items should be clearly defined and should state decisions that need to be made. After agenda items are introduced, discussion occurs. Discussion consists of individuals presenting ideas as a response to the issue at hand, concerns and opinions about the issue/proposal, and responses to what has already been said.

It is the facilitator’s responsibility to keep discussion on topic, provide clarification and rephrasing of discussion, summarize points, and ensure that all voices are heard and understood by the group. After discussion, the facilitator will test for consensus, making sure to summarize what has been most positively discussed as a solution or action. At this point more concerns can be raised and discussed, and consensus may be met, even though it may not fully appease everyone at the table. However, “…it must be one that all group members are willing to live with” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 13).⁠

In addition to the discussion process, any group member may choose to block an action or decision. “Blocking is a statement of the great seriousness of someone’s objections to a decision. In practical terms, it is a strong indication that the group requires more time to reach consensus” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 29). (For more on blocking, read Laird Schaub’s (2003) short piece: Blocking Made Easy (or at Least Easier): Taking a look at the dynamics of dissent and Mary Ann Renz’s (2006) The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups.)

My explanation of the process is certainly an oversimplification.There are many other aspects built into consensus groups, including group building, problem solving, and even evaluation or assessment of a group’s decision-making process.

Martha’s Rules, which can be used as an alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order, is another consensus-based process. It outlines a five-step process for decision-making featuring separate steps for a “sense vote” and a “vote vote.”  “The point of the sense vote is to discover how the group feels about a proposal” (Minahan, 1986, p. 54)⁠. The sense vote asks: who likes the proposal, who can live with the proposal, and who is uncomfortable with the proposal. In contrast, a “vote vote” is to:

“…find out what those who are “uncomfortable” are uncomfortable about and then find out whether the group as a whole wishe(s) to decide by majority rule. The facilitator asks those who (are) uncomfortable to state the reasons for their discomfort….After hearing the objections of those who are uncomfortable, a vote is taken. The question is, ‘Should we implement this decision over the stated objections of the minority, when a majority of us feel it is workable?’” (p. 55)

There are numerous other variations for consensus decision-making, from the Quaker and Native American traditions to processes developed and used by small social action groups for governing meetings and decisions. Generally, consensus decision-making takes into account the reasons individuals may disagree, and embraces conflict resolution in discussions. It is more democratic and group-oriented than a majority rules process. Groups using consensus decision-making have stronger collective ties and accountability for the success of their organizations.

It can’t all be coming up roses, can it?

Photo used with permission of the artist, Faulkner Short

Chances are your work groups and teams already use some form of consensus to make decisions and govern the work of your library. Consensus decision-making is a fantastic process when it works, but it certainly has its drawbacks.

First, consensus decision-making takes a long time. For each individual in a group to voice her concerns and for group members to respond can be a lengthy process in small groups, and even lengthier for large groups. For small groups, such as Lead Pipe’s Editorial Board, consensus can work extremely well. The larger a group, however, the more likely the process is to break down into groupthink.

What’s more, sometimes decisions need to happen quickly and simply cannot wait for a consensus process. Who will make decisions that need to occur quickly? In this situation, one hopes that a decision-maker remains true to the group’s collective vision, and can respond on behalf of the group.

Another issue is that of participation and social dynamics. Group members should feel safe to talk openly about their concerns, and each individual should actively participate by speaking and listening during the decision-making process. When individuals dominate meetings or do not engage in active listening, the consensus process breaks down. Implicit in social dynamics are hierarchies, power, elitism, and privilege that can contribute to dysfunction and invisible power dynamics in consensus decision-making (Freeman, J., n.d.). Therefore, individuals need to be aware of these pitfalls, and be dedicated to creating an environment that enables consensus decision-making processes, even at times when decisions do not need to be made.

What’s more, library culture is stereotypically conflict averse. Being a service-oriented profession, library workers aim to help people, not disagree with them; so it makes sense that our culture might feel uncomfortable with conflict. Individuals may be hesitant to participate in discussions, and in doing so, open up meetings and discussions to be dominated by those who are more vocal. Due to this aversion, library groups attempting to engage in consensus decision-making are at great risk of running into groupthink.

Group composition can also hinder consensus decision-making. Groups may be comprised of a mix of administrators and workers, which, for some individuals may stymie participation and feelings of safety. What’s more, consensus may break down if all individuals who will be affected by decisions are not involved in the decision-making process. Libraries are not immune to this dilemma. How frequently do teams of administrators or professionals make decisions that impact classified staff, student workers, and others who weren’t part of the discussion or decision-making process?

External factors challenging consensus decision-making in libraries are those organizational structure imposed on libraries by their governing bodies. Cities, counties, corporations and universities—those bodies to which most libraries report—are typically structured hierarchically, with departments and committees reporting up the chain of command. Frequently libraries in these organizations mirror this structure. This does not mean that consensus decision-making cannot occur, however, the process must co-exist and function within a larger structure that may not fully support the consensus decision-making process.

It may be that your working group uses consensus to make decisions while the entire organization does not. It may happen that your team makes a decision, which is then reported up to administration. Administration may either support, modify, or rescind the decision. This might feel disempowering and you might see it as an abrogation of your group’s value within the library. In this case, it would make sense to open dialog with administration to discuss this outcome. Perhaps administration’s reasoning is strong enough, that if it were presented via a consensus process, your group’s decision may not have had the same outcome.

Despite these challenges, consensus decision-making seems to be a promising possibility for libraries.

Moving Toward a Consensus Model

Libraries are institutions that have historically been dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas. In their current form, they work collaboratively with their communities, establishing and maintaining consortial relationships, and providing a supportive space for dissent and discourse. It is only intuitive that libraries could operate with the same machinations of open discourse and decision-making processes, much like the collective in Zuccotti Park. For libraries consensus decision-making can create strong organizations that will encounter great future successes.

In 2005 Barbara Fister and Kathie Martin presented their paper Embracing the Challenge of Change through Collegial Decision-Making (Fister & Martin, 2005)⁠ at ACRL, which offers a different model for libraries. In it, they describe their library’s reorganization into a flat organizational structure. “Rather than have a director we would elect a chair every three years as other departments did. The chair, as ‘first among equals,’ would add the tasks for coordinating the library’s efforts and liaison with the administration to his or her portfolio” (p. 4). Fister & Martin present a model in which their library is governed by consensus not only in faculty groups, but by classified staff as well. Of their organizational chart they say, “This new chart, two overlapping circles of responsibilities…erased the old vestiges of hierarchy lodged in nominal supervisory roles given to librarians over paraprofessionals and showed the collegial conversation extended to the entire library staff” (p. 4). Gustavus Adolphus College’s library is certainly a creative example of how librarians and library workers have engaged in a consensus model.

Despite the challenges of implementing consensus decision-making in libraries, it should be well worth it. There are a number of things you could do to try to work toward improving consensus decision-making in your library:

• Talk to your library director, your supervisor, your mentor, your colleagues about the idea of consensus decision-making and see what they think.
• Evaluate your current decision-making model. Does it work for your group? Would group members be open a more consensus-based model?
• Get training in good meeting facilitation practices for group members. You and your colleagues could learn active listening and other communication skills that contribute to successful consensus decision-making.
• Try to work on embracing conflict and productive discussions in meetings. Work toward creating a safe and respectful environment where each individual feels safe discussing her concerns in a group.
• Try using Martha’s Rules next time you hold a meeting.

Libraries can be very siloed organizations. How often are public services staff involved in cataloging, acquisitions, and electronic resources management decisions, and vice versa? What will happen when catalogers are alongside instruction librarians thinking of new approaches to resource discovery? Consensus can open opportunities by deconstructing silos and starting to create new models for library decision-making.

Libraries that successfully engage in consensus decision-making will see improvement in making decisions that best serve their patrons; more cohesion in staff and accountability; and are likely to experience more creativity in problem solving. Individuals in these libraries will most likely become more dedicated to serving the organization and working towards its shared vision and mission. The reason these changes may occur, is that the decision-making and visioning is shared—individuals all contribute to the definition of and accomplishment of goals. Individuals would begin creating and environment of respect and trust, enabling them to participate in a democratic decision-making process.

What has been your experience with consensus?

Many thanks to Barbara Fister, Robert Schroeder, Gretta Siegel, and Sarah Ford for providing perspective and thoughtful comments on this piece. Additional thanks to Erin Dorney, Hilary Davis and Brett Bonfield from In the Library with the Lead Pipe for copyedits and even more thoughts. And finally, a shout out to Faulkner Short for letting me use his image in this post. He takes stunningly beautiful photographs.

Bibliography

Thanks to Flickr user marfis75 for use of this image.

The Authors Guild won’t give up. Their settlement agreement with Google Books was rejected by Judge Chin on March 22nd and will now be going to trial. But that’s not enough for the Authors Guild. The organization seems bound and determined for copyright legislation to occur, and for that legislation to change copyright law to be much more conservative and restrictive for libraries. In concert with their Australian and Quebecois counterparts – the Australian Society of Authors and the Québec Union of Writers – the Authors Guild has filed a legal complaint against HathiTrust, an organization of partner libraries that is collaboratively sharing and archiving millions of digitized works.

The filed complaint cites HathiTrust as making the “largest copyright infringements in history” (Rosenthal, E. H. & Goldman, J. S., 2011).   Furthermore, the complaint argues: “Rather than heeding the Court’s words, and allowing Congress, acting in the interest of all communities, to determine the requirements and safeguards that will govern the use of digital libraries and orphan works, Defendants have instead proceeded on their own authority, ignoring the interests of copyright holders” (Rosenthal, E. H. & Goldman, J. S., 2011). It further claims that HathiTrust has exploited works by surpassing the rights allowed of them in Sections 107 and 108 of copyright law– Fair Use and preservation, respectively.

James Grimmelmann offers a nice, succinct explanation of the claims on his blog.

“The complaint alleges that the universities and HathiTrust are violating copyright owners’ rights by scanning, duplicating, and distributing their books. It doesn’t ask for damages, but it does request a declaration that what the defendants are doing violates the law. It also seeks an injunction to stop them from further scanning or displaying the books, and to “impound” the digital copies — i.e. have them held in escrow where the defendants can’t get at them.” (Grimmelmann, 2011)⁠

Essentially, the Authors Guild complaint is bringing to the fore the very aspects of copyright law that permit libraries to perform their day to day functions.

I cannot claim to fully understand the nuances of copyright law, nor can I suppose that I understand everything about this case (I am not a lawyer).What I can claim to know is that events such as this shake up our profession and challenge how we think about the work we do in libraries everyday. It renders to the forefront of our minds questions such as: How we will be able to provide unfettered access to information that has yet to be created? Will legal issues halt our work and at what cost to our patrons? At what cost to society as a whole?

In light of this case and in the current copyright climate– which seems rife with tension between creators, content providers and libraries– the library community needs to be thoughtful about how to grow into an unknown copyright future.

Before I continue I’ll provide some brief background regarding the parties involved in the case.

The Parties

HathiTrust & Universities

HathiTrust was born out of libraries’ collaboration with Google to digitize books. Those libraries who loaned Google books received digital scan and metadata files from Google. Some of the libraries working with Google had an agreement with the company that they could create a digital archive accessible to their communities. From this, HathiTrust was created.

Begun and spearheaded by University of Michigan Libraries, HathiTrust began with member libraries coming from Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) institutions, University of California, and the University of Virginia. Since its inception in 2008,  HathiTrust has grown to include over 50 library members. Member libraries can contribute content to the digital library.  Some collection highlights of HathiTrust  include a collection of 19th century Cookbooks and Hebrew and Yiddish Public Domain book titles held by Stanford University. Moreover HathiTrust has recently come to agreements with discovery service vendors EBSCO, Serials Solutions, and OCLC to make full-text searching a part of these respective discovery service tools.

Works contained in the HathiTrust Digital Library include orphan works, those in the public domain, and works still under copyright protection. HathiTrust has measures in place for users from different institutions to authenticate and have permissions to view in copyright titles. Guests or users from institutions that do not own a physical copy of a copyright protected title, do not have permission to view full text of those works.

HathiTrust had scheduled to make several hundred orphan works available to users on October 13th. University of Michigan Library has postponed their release of orphan works (which were to only be available to users whose home libraries own the physical item) due to flaws in their system of determining what works are orphans. For example:

“In a post on its blog this week, Authors Guild representatives noted that author J.R. Salamanca’s 1958 novel The Lost Country was on the list. Librarians did not elaborate on how the book made the orphan list. A record search shows that the book was copyrighted in October, 1958, and was renewed in December 1986—seemingly a month late to keep the book’s 28-year copyright from lapsing. But, in one of many quirks in the complex copyright laws, books copyrighted between 1950 and 1963 have more time to renew, until December 31of the 28th year. The book has been long out of print.” (Albanese, 2011)

There have been other cases on the list of orphan works for which individuals were able to readily find copyright holders. One would surmise, however, that should HathiTrust be notified that a copyrighted work had been made public, HathiTrust would have processes in place to disable public access to that content. (HathiTrust does have a take-down policy.)

In addition to naming HathiTrust as a defendant in the case, the lawsuit names five universities. They are: University of Michigan, University of California, University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell University. Grimmelmann points out in his blog post that “All of the named universities except for Indiana have announced their plans to participate in HathiTrust’s Orphan Works Project. The other members of HathiTrust, including Universities that are participating in the Project (e.g. Johns Hopkins and Florida) but are not Google Books Library Partners, are not named as defendants” (Grimmelmann, 2011)⁠.

The Authors Guild

The Authors Guild is an organization of writers whose mission is to provide copyright advocacy work on behalf of its members. In addition to suing Google for the Google Books Search, it has been a party in lawsuits against Dialog, Gale, and others.

Current Authors Guild President Scott Turow is featured as a library advocate on a poster produced and sold by ALA. Moreover, his editorial of February 15th this year decries budgets cuts to libraries. It is ironic that he is such an avid library supporter, and yet his organization is asking for HathiTrust to cease its operations.

In a letter to Authors Guild members, Turow addresses the guild’s stance on copyright. His language borders on hysterical.

“The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” for online service providers has turned out to be an exploitable gold mine for unscrupulous online enterprises. That safe harbor allows these rogue enterprises to profit from services that encourage and conceal the trafficking in stolen books, music and movies, while disclaiming responsibility for that illegal traffic. The DMCA safe harbor has turned copyright’s incentives inside out, encouraging massive, global investment in piracy technologies and services.” (Turow, 2011)

What Turow seems to be implying is that, in addition to allowing easier copyright infringement, the HathiTrust system is encouraging online providers to take advantage and to make a profit, and then claim that they are not responsible.

Although in his letter he cites libraries as positive examples of how copyright can function. “Our great research libraries, holding the carefully crafted thoughts, composed over billions of hours by many of our nation’s finest minds, are ample proof that copyright has succeeded brilliantly” (Turow, 2011).  Although Turow is a self-professed library advocate, he does not seem to understand that, in practice, libraries and librarians make all attempts to respect and protect copyright. The lawsuit against HathiTrust appears to lump libraries into this category that Turow repeatedly refers to as “pirates.”

HathiTrust already has measures in place to protect copyrighted works via authentication. In general, libraries and librarians work hard to respect copyright law. Usually authors and libraries are on the same side, wanting to ensure access to works, but also respecting copyright law. So where is the breakdown between the two?

The Authors

In addition to the Authors Guild and other author associations, eight individual authors are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against HathiTrust. They are: Pat Cummings, a children’s book author; novelists Angelo Loukakis, Roxana Robinson, Danièle Simpson, and Fay Weldon; André Roy, a poet; James Shapiro, Columbia University professor and scholar; and  biographer T.J. Stiles.” Each of these authors except for Fay Weldon, are executive board members or are governmental representatives in their respective organizations. But there are two of these authors whose other associations are compelling to me when thinking about this particular lawsuit.

James Shapiro

James Shapiro is a professor at Columbia who is a prominent scholar on Shakespeare. He is a member of the Authors Guild Board of Directors and he is the only academic author named in the case. Columbia is also home to Dr. Kenneth Crews, Columbia’s Copyright Advisory Office Director, and the Columbia University Library, which is a HathiTrust member.

Columbia University Libraries were one of the first institutions to join the HathiTrust (aside from founding institutions University of California and CIC institutions) in 2009. Columbia’s Copyright Advisory Office’s “central function is to address in an innovative, creative, and pragmatic manner the relationship between copyright law and the work of the university community” (Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office, 2011). Shapiro has one work cited in this suit, Oberammergau. In fact, the imprint of the book as seen in Google Books, shows him as copyright holder.

The relationship between copyright law and university professionals is a complicated matter. Many institutions have policies that indicate the university is sole copyright holder for many works created under the auspices of teaching and university related work. This is called “work for hire.” For other works, such as scholarly writing and contributions, most universities consider authors the copyright holders of those works. Columbia is not an exception. “By longstanding custom, faculty members hold copyright for books, monographs, articles, and similar works as delineated in the policy statement, whether distributed in print or electronically. This pattern will not change. This copyright policy retains and reasserts those rights” (Columbia University, 2000).

It will be interesting to see how this tension between one of Columbia’s prized faculty members and a HathiTrust member institution plays out. Has Shapiro put himself at odds with his academic community via his ties to the Authors Guild and this lawsuit?

This situation at Columbia is a great opportunity for library outreach to authors, and to provide copyright education programming. It would be interesting to hear a panel debate regarding academic authors’ understanding of copyright, their views on the HathiTrust lawsuit and the book publishing industry. Since Shapiro is a named author in the case, he is surely not able to engage in programming in this way. At the same time, other faculty may be open to participating and engaging, in consort with the library, the Scholarly Communication Program and the Copyright Advisory Office.

Other libraries may want to seize this opportunity to engage with academic authors and their communities. Hosting a public debate between an academic author who sides with the Authors Guild and one who does not, might be of interest to a community.

Angelo Loukakis

Angelo Loukakis is the Executive Director of the Australian Society of Authors, another of the plaintiffs in the suit. Loukakis is also represented by HarperCollins Publishers in Australia. Yes, the same HarperCollins that has instituted a 26 loan cap on ebook licenses. While Loukakis probably has nothing to do with his publisher’s restriction of ebooks, I am speculating that in the publishing realm, the publishers’ and now the authors’ attitudes subscribe to the rhetoric of  pirates and piracy, as we saw in Turow’s letter.

Bullying?

I can’t help it but this whole thing is making me think of the It Gets Better campaign. The big dogs are bullying the little guys, and the little guys are just trying to be who they are and do what they do.
I usually cheer on authors and other creators who actively pursue protecting their copyrights. It’s how we librarians work with academic authors, advising them to keep their copyrights when publishing in academic journals and negotiating with publishers for more favorable license agreements. (Favorable license agreements allow authors to keep their copyrights, instead of transferring all copyrights to a publisher.) It’s what libraries do when they take on the publishing role as academic journal publishers or repository managers. A good example of this is Pacific University, where several open access journals are hosted on the library’s repository infrastructure. It is in these ways that libraries work with authors to show respect for and assist in copyright issues. One of the main differences that I see between this kind of work and the lawsuit, however, is the distinct lack of academic or scholarly authors represented by the Authors Guild.

Here’s an example from outside the library world that makes me cheer on the creator. Bijijoo (not everything on this site is safe for work), an artist and a friend of mine, is pursuing NBC for their repeated infringement of his copyrights. Bijijoo is not in consort with a guild or an interest group. He is a humble artist attempting to pursue his rights. He just wants the recognition, and as his first letter states, he just wants to give Tina Fey a painting that depicts her holding a ham. Oh, and he wants NBC to acknowledge their copyright infringement. Bijijoo is a little dog who’s not afraid to stand up to the pack.

In the HathiTrust case, the Authors Guild is coming across as as a bully. An organization that represents authors’ monetary interests and an almost hysterical fear of piracy, is going after university libraries. To me this smells of a case of the big dogs going after the runts.

This case is exemplary of a mindset regarding copyright that is becoming more widespread. Publishers like HarperCollins have locked down ebooks; Amazon hasn’t yet published their ebooks in epub format (Perlow, 2010); orchestras can’t perform Shostakovich; and groups like the Authors Guild, the American Association of Publishers, and numerous others point to a fearful climate surrounding copyright. To this end, I wonder to what extent the Authors Guild (or any other representative organization) actually supports individual authors’ interests. Siva Vaidhyananathan commented on Grimmelmann’s post:
“James, Thanks for this. But please don’t call the Authors’ Guild “the authors.” We authors have never and will never be represented by the Authors’ Guild. Siva”

It is unclear whether the Authors Guild as an organization, considers itself a big dog. Certainly, as the preceding quote by Vaidhyananathan indicates, authors alone do not. As with any large membership organization, the Authors Guild operates under the guidance of a board, executive director, and legal counsel. Certainly within our own profession, our organizations have taken action or made statements with which we, as individuals, disagree. The question remains, to what extent does the Authors Guild represent members’ interests? Have they gone too far and will there be a movement from membership to leave the organization?

What actually happens in the HathiTrust Digital Library?

I wanted to see exactly what happened when a user of the HathiTrust Digital Library looked at a record for a copyrighted book. I used an example by Pat Cummings (one of the plaintiffs and the Author Guild’s Secretary).

Search Results for Pat Cummings Books in HathiTrust

Record View of C.L.O.U.D.S. in HathiTrust by Pat Cummings

Text Search of C.L.O.U.D.S. by Pat Cummings in HathiTrust

As you can see from the screenshot above, a search of the text of C.L.O.U.D.S. does not show snippets of the book. See the snapshot from Google as a comparison.

C.L.O.U.D.S. in Google Books

Another example of HathiTrust content is that of something in the public domain. Just this week I helped a patron find a digital copy for The Seven Golden Odes of Pagan Arabia in HathiTrust Digital Library. The patron wanted to download and print the book, but we discovered that we did not have sufficient rights to download the entire digital copy, although we could view the entire text.

These restrictions mirror what happens in physical libraries and with their borrowing policies. A patron unaffiliated with my institution is welcome to read through a book in the library building, but unless she pays to become a public patron of the library, she may not borrow materials.

Some Discrepancies

Several of those who have already written about this new lawsuit, have pointed to a discrepancy in what the Authors Guild sees as the purpose of copyright law. In her editorial Francine Fialkoff points to this discrepancy. “It’s also a subversion of copyright law, which protects library fair use. Despite the extensions of copyright protection over the past couple of decades, copyright was never meant to protect authors or inventors indefinitely. Instead, as Fister reminds us, it aims to promote the public good, “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” “What is more troubling to me,” she says, “is…that copyright is being read as a one-sided right: for authors…as a moral right, not as a balance of interests recognized by law”” (Fialkoff, 2011).

Part of what is so frustrating about this lawsuit is that libraries and library collaboratives would not exist without the creative works produced by authors, musicians, and other creators. And likewise, many authors advocate for libraries.  Just look at the Authors for Libraries partnership via ALA.   Librarians and the Authors Guild agree that copyright law does not address the multitude of uses or technologies prevalent in our societies. Take, for example, the now classic ebook problem. A library purchases an ebook, but it has a limited number of loans. Similarly, print books are loaned until they become too damaged by dog teeth, coffee spills, loss, or disasters. While physical books are by no means permanent, their tangible nature instill in us a comfort of the illusion of perpetuity. So, is buying an ebook and loaning it to patrons until irreparably damaged or lost (not via DRM, mind you) a violation of copyright law?

Copyright law is, by its nature, subject to multiple and layered interpretations. The minute we legislate and create more distinct copyright rules, libraries will potentially be more restricted in how they are able to provide their services. Does the Authors Guild really want to restrict libraries’ ability to provide good service and access to authors’ works? Do authors want to engage their readers and create rich intellectual experiences? When will the bullying stop?

The phrasing used by Turow in his letter to members represents fears driven by money. It points to the effect of digital content on the market and authors’ purported monetary losses.

“One is tempted to call it a vast underground economy, but there’s nothing underground about it: It operates in plain sight, as I will describe. Money suffuses the system, paying for countless servers, vast amounts of online bandwidth, and specialized services that speed and cloak the transmission of stolen creative work. Excluded from this flow of cash are the authors, musicians, songwriters and the publishers who invest in them.” (Turow, 2011)⁠

Turow’s letter concentrates on the evils of file sharing and the networked nature of information in a global age. In light of the HathiTrust lawsuit, is the Authors Guild equating the libraries with BitTorrent?

So what are we to do?

Because of the nature of their work, libraries are those institutions that push copyright to its limit. The HathiTrust lawsuit presents us with the opportunity to re-examine copyright in our daily work lives. What DO you know about copyright? What is your institution’s policy? Are you making use of Fair Use? Individual librarians may feel ill-prepared to answer these questions, so it’s a perfect time to seek out your local Scholarly Communication Librarian and Access Services Librarian to refresh our memories.
Last year a copyright slider showed up in my inbox and every other librarian where I work received one as well. This seems to be an affordable way to show your employees that you expect them to be able to practice their craft.

Now is a good time for library schools to respond to libraries and the current copyright climate. Library school students who learn about copyright law as applicable in library work, will be better prepared to address issues facing them in their professional lives. I’d be willing to bet that no ALA accredited library school requires students to learn and show proficiency in understanding copyright in libraries. Our profession would be better off if they were.

When I was a student I took a  1.5 credit workshop on copyright– and it was a small class. You may not be passionate about understanding copyright, just like some are not passionate about cataloging, but anyone who wants to work in a library who claims to not want to know about copyright will be ill-prepared for her career in libraries. It’s like wanting to work in a library because you don’t want to work with computers and you want to work with books instead. Understanding and teaching about copyright is part of what we do, and, on the whole, we do it poorly. Usually there’s only one or two people in a library who feel comfortable answering questions in regards to copyright. In academic libraries those who work with course reserves usually know, but does anyone else? Sometimes the extent of copyright education in libraries is the sign by the photocopier asking patrons to respect copyright. Guess what? Our patrons probably don’t even know what that really means. Should we not be empowered to teach them?

The Library Copyright Alliance has stated that “The case has no merit, and completely disregards the rights of libraries and their users under the law, especially fair use” (Band, 2011). This will be a long legal procedure, especially if the Google Book Search suit is any indication. But that probably doesn’t ease the feeling of vulnerability and helplessness that you may be feeling in response to this suit. What if my library gets sued? What if it doesn’t? What if, ultimately, HathiTrust prevails and large scale digitization projects become ubiquitous?

We need to continue our good work with passion and vigor. We can continue to use Fair Use to its full extent to provide access to materials to our library patrons. We can continue to make copies of copyrighted works for preservation purposes. We can continue to improve our patrons’ access to works online.

I am certain that the current copyright climate and the tension between authors, publishers, and libraries will change. I remain optimistic that the original intent of copyright, the public good, will prevail.

Many thanks to Jill Emery for her thoughtful questions. Thanks also to Lead Pipers Hilary Davis, Leigh Anne Vrabel, and Eric Frierson for edits, comments, and thought provoking questions. And thanks to Jake Shivery, who, despite not understanding librarian-ese, provided final copy edits.

References and Further Readings

Thanks to Flickr User library_mistress for use of this image!

Introduction

If you work in a library, chances are you’ve seen or heard calls for you to become a library legislative advocate. You may have seen e-mails asking you to fill out a web form asking legislators to continue funding LSTA, or you may have recently seen e-mails about USA PATRIOT Act reforms. But why should librarians and library workers engage in legislative advocacy efforts? While I am by no means an expert on the topic of legislative advocacy, I have been moderately involved in advocacy work at the state and national level and it seems that I have some experience to impart to the library community. Many library colleagues have told me that they think advocacy work is difficult, or that they are intimidated by getting involved. I am also commonly asked whether advocacy efforts really make a difference.

The combination of the political climate after 9/11, librarians’ bold public actions to defend privacy and intellectual freedom rights, and some thoughtful mentoring from a colleague convinced me to become a librarian.

In 2002, my public library system, Multnomah County Library, filed a lawsuit against the United States of America on the basis that CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) “…induces public libraries to violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights…and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions” (p. 407).

A year later an FBI agent blamed “radical militant librarians” for his/her inability to use the USA PATRIOT Act to its full potential, which was big news in 2005 when this e-mail was released to the public.

Ross and Ciada (2005) describe library organizations’ reactions to the post 9/11 political climate: “To deal with the new informational and political landscapes, these organizations need both to inform their members and the community at large, as well as become more involved in the political and legislative processes that are responsible for enacting laws that could affect library services in the name of national security” (p. 108). They continue: “It is important, nevertheless, that the members of the library community in these difficult times have some sense of leadership and solidarity. In becoming active and involved, organizations such as the ALA are at the very least helping themselves to define and solidify their place and role in society” (p. 108).

Today’s libraries are founded on tenets of equity, freedom of information, and defending and advocating for the public’s rights and the public good. The library workers that uphold these everyday are my heroes.

Many kinds of public action articulate the value of libraries. Advocacy is defined as: “Public support for a course of action or way of doing things.” (Longman Dictionary). Due to its loose definition, library advocacy is therefore interpreted and practiced in a variety of ways. Numerous initiatives in the library world use the word advocacy to describe what they are doing and trying to accomplish. At our recently convened ALA Annual Conference, I saw a poster session by Emerging Leader groups that focused on teen services advocacy with local communities and Libraries Build Communities. Another example includes ALA President Molly Raphael’s advocacy initiative focused on empowering communities, and the list goes on. Legislative advocacy demonstrates our library/librarian values to lawmakers. This kind of advocacy usually includes communicating with elected officials via phone calls, in person visits, e-mails, and online action forms.

Here I aim to outline how to do it, why you should, and discuss some personal stories that I hope will help those who haven’t yet engaged in legislative advocacy. After you read this post I hope that you will include legislative advocacy in your professional routine.

How to do it? A Dummy’s Guide to Library Legislative Advocacy

Picture this: You receive an e-mail from one of your subscribed listservs asking you to TAKE ACTION NOW! to save the Statistical Compendia Branch of the US Census Bureau. You want to help, but you don’t know how, or you feel like you don’t know enough about the issue, or you don’t feel like you have time, or you might feel like TAKING ACTION NOW! might not really amount to anything. Well guess what? It’s a lot easier and than you think and your action can be meaningful. You don’t have to be an expert in an issue, and you don’t even have to know who your representatives and legislators are to make a difference

The first step is to read the e-mail or announcement and see what it says. If it’s an e-mail crafted by the ALA Washington Office it usually contains a concise summary of the issue, easy to read talking points that highlight library interest in the issue, and a link. You may not feel like this is not enough information to get involved and take that action. But it is enough. If you work in libraries you already know more about libraries than legislators. Similarly, legislators will know more about legislature than you will.

Next, you want to click on the link. It will take you to a web page with more information about the issue, and a space for your zip code. Read through the information given on this page, which usually provides another summary of the issue.

You’ll see on that page a place for you to enter your zip code. Click on Go! and the system will automatically forward your message to your representative. You’ll see in the screenshot below that your state representative’s name is filled in based on your zip code, as is a message about the Statistical Compendia Branch. You are free to modify the message, but you are also free to trust that the ALA Washington Office is representing library interests based on the information you read in your e-mail.

Next you’ll need to fill in your name and address information and click Send. That’s all there is to it. You have just advocated for libraries.

Of course there are some variations on this practice. Sometimes your action alert will ask you to call your legislators. Usually this is because action is needed in a very timely manner in Congress. E-mails take a while to filter through the system and make it to a congress person’s legislative aide. Calls are more effective on issues that are happening that day. Calls can be more intimidating if you’ve never done conducted an advocacy phone call before. But you are prepared. You have read your action alert and the web page should provide you instructions on what to say.

But what if I call and they ask a question I can’t answer? Simple. Say you don’t know, offer to find out, and ask what is the best way to follow-up with a response.

When you call you will talk to an intern at the reception desk of the legislator’s office. They will usually just make a tick mark on a sheet that tracks consitutents’ calls and legislative issues. You may ask to speak to the staff person in charge of education or telecommunications or whatever your issue concerns. Usually you will get their voice mail. You may also choose to call after 3 pm Pacific Time and you will usually just get the voicemail – a simple way to make that call but not have to worry about feeling intimidated.

There are also other ways to participate in legislative advocacy for libraries. You can participate in organized days where you visit your local legislators or participate in National Library Legislative Day (NLLD). Organized events are a great way to get your feet wet advocating for libraries. Typically these days have briefing sessions that help prepare you for conversations with your representatives. Moreover, you can visit with a legislator or a legislative aide with more than one person. For these situations it is good for representatives to see more than one face, and having your friends beside you might ease any anxiety that you might be feeling. It is also perfectly okay for you to tell a representative or an aide that you have never made an office visit before; they will most likely understand and help you with the process.

One thing that may help you feel more comfortable is that universally nobody hates libraries. During National Library Legislative Day 2011 briefings, this was stressed not only by ALA Washington Office staff, but also by panelists who have previously worked as congressional staff. To read a bit more about the information in the briefings and my office visits at this year’s NLLD, check out the blog post I wrote for the Oregon chapter of ACRL.

Does legislative advocacy work?

A question I’ve heard numerous times when I’ve been asked about legislative advocacy is: How do I know that my efforts work? Is it worth my time and effort? In my experience, yes.

As part of the Oregon delegation for NLLD, we met with our representatives, senators, and/or their staffers. During our meeting with Representative Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OR, District 3) Legislative Aide, we asked that Representative Blumenauer sign onto a dear colleague letter showing his support for LSTA funding. A few days later we received an e-mail from his legislative aide indicating that he had signed the letter. Signing a dear colleague letter is an official proclamation of a representative’s intention to support and vote a certain way when it comes to Congress. These letters are official documentation, and are part of the congressional record. In addition to the letters formalizing a person’s support of a piece of legislation, they are also used as peer pressure tools. (If your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you do it too?)

But what about those web forms? In my experience, each time I’ve used a web form from an Action Alert or contacted a legislator online, I have received an e-mail response a few weeks later. Take, for instance, the following letter I received from Ron Wyden, an Oregon Senator:

Another recent experience was at Oregon’s Library Legislative Day at the state capitol in Salem, OR. I met with my Senator, who indicated to me that he was “happy to be meeting with a constituent.” He mentioned that he rarely meets people in his office from his district and that he had spent the past few days speaking only with lobbyists. He was glad I was there. To me this was an eye-opening experience. Representatives in our state and federal legislatures want to hear from us, but how often do they really get a chance to hear from us? This one passing comment will stick with me for the rest of my life as I work as a library legislative advocate. I know that by showing my face, using my one voice (or my e-mail), I can impact and work to improve support for libraries and legislation at the state and federal level that effect libraries. One of the issues we were discussing with Oregon legislators this year, was to retain Oregon libraries as exempt from mandatory sharing of certain public records (such as patron records). This law went under review as SB 41 (.doc), and this same legislator was on the committee that was hearing the bill! Because he was on this committee, he asked if he could contact me if he needed more information in a timely manner to make a case for libraries. Fortunately, libraries had a lot of support around the issue, and he did not need to find out more information to make a strong argument to his colleagues. This situation made me feel like I did have expertise to share with my senator, and that he was willing to listen to my perspective and what was important to me as a professional and as an individual.

There are so many issue bombarding our legislative representatives, that it is really easy to miss issues that impact libraries. We can’t assume that even though our representatives might be library friendly, that they will know what is important to us. We have to tell them. More than once.

Advocacy Hacks

A large part of being a successful advocate is being informed. Be informed about what is hot on Capitol Hill, and what is happening in your state. You are already a library expert because you work in one. But how do you keep track all of knowing when to call? who to call? There’s an app for that. The Sunlight Foundation has developed iPhone and Android apps that help you track the activity in congress. These apps let you look up representatives and clearly list that representative’s committee appointments. These apps will also let you know what public hearings are scheduled and what committee will be hearing them. Moreover, the Sunlight Foundation has numerous projects and labs that may help you with legislative advocacy work.

There are also numerous other tools. The ALA Washington Office publishes the District Dispatch blog, which, with timely posts and e-mails, lets us know when the time is right. The Washington Office also recently announced a Twitter feed that will help broadcast issues as they are happening. You might also consider following web sites such ask GovTrack.us or the National Conference of State Legislatures to help you find out what is happening legislatively.

In addition to information about what is happening and when, you need something else. You need a good story backed with solid evidence. When it comes to advocacy your expert library knowledge–combined with good, relevant stories– is power. For example, in Oregon we are dealing with an abysmal number of school librarians. They are quite rare. But I’m an academic librarian. What is my story when I talk to legislators about how important it is to have school librarians in K-12 education? I talk about the transliteracy skills I see in students when I teach and when I help them at the reference desk. It is always apparent to me when new university students have had a librarian in their schooling and when they haven’t. According to the School Library Data compiled by the Oregon State Library, of the over 1300 public schools in Oregon, the state only has 304 FTE school librarians. This is inadequate and it is dooming students to struggle when they reach college. Everyday I encounter students who don’t have basic library and research skills. I can talk about these basic skills, such as using an index and creating citations, and the message really hits home with legislators.

If you’re running advocacy for a group, you can use Capwiz, a piece of software that makes embedding an advocacy widget easy. You can customize the widget with a message that you want your group to send to representatives, and it enables individuals to target their own state representatives. The Oregon Library Association’s Library Legislative and Development Committee uses this tool.

Advocacy Toolkits are another source that will help you run advocacy initiatives in your community, and/or will provide information about how to be a successful legislative advocate. The Advocating in a Tough Economy Toolkit includes a section on working with legislators, and the ALA Washington Office offers free webcasts and trainings on advocacy a few times a year.

What’s in it for me?

First and foremost, if you advocate for libraries to be better funded, you will have better chances of keeping your job, your program, your building, your office, an increase in salary, etc. If you show the good work you can accomplish, you’ll get to do more of it. In fact, ALA Executive Director, Keith Michael Fiels, referred to the Capwiz advocacy tool as a major accomplishment for ALA. During an ALA Executive Board meeting last Friday (6/24/2011), he lauded Capwiz for being the tool that has saved libraries so much money (in that Congress hears us and keeps us funded) that we have saved 15,000 jobs. That is, library advocates using the Capwiz tool via Action Alerts, have saved 15,000 jobs. How? By using advocacy techniques the library community was able to continue funding libraries through LSTA.

Congress and the public fund services that they feel are valuable. If you can work to articulate the value of libraries in a meaningful way to Congress, your city or county government officials, and your service community, you will have more support. I should also note that advocacy is an iterative process. A continual advocacy dialog is needed in order to fertilize and grow support for libraries in your community.

Advocacy is the ultimate big picture work

These days we get so inundated with the day-to-day practicalities of our jobs, that we are in danger of losing the big picture. Everyday librarians and library workers create and implement programs, write book reviews, teach library instruction sessions, provide reference services and access points, etc. Engaging in advocacy is a way to step back from these practicalities and to think about the larger role that libraries play in our communities and our society.

For me it is very fulfilling to know that I’m part of the bigger picture, that I’m part of the system that continues to provide equity in society, that my work contributes to the public good, and that my job and my position as a librarian is still relevant to why I entered the profession.

A Plug for Representative Government

A representative government does not and will not work without public input. As my experience at the state legislature in Oregon shows, not enough people participate. It is BIG LOUD AND VISIBLE PUBLIC ACTION that gets things done. It is what librarians like fellow Lead Piper Brett is trying to achieve by boycotting Harper Collins. It is what happened when there was a bus strike in the South during Rosa Parks’ and Marin Luther King Junior’s time. Without collective public action, without the many tens of thousands of voices our chances of being heard are small. ALA alone has over 60,000 members, and that is not every librarian or library worker out there. What could over 60,000 people accomplish for libraries if everyone participated? That is why you should do it. If you don’t, it’s like saying you don’t believe in representative democracy.

So really, what can you do?

As I’ve discussed in this post, legislative advocacy for libraries by library workers is important, and doesn’t happen enough. However, there are numerous things that you can do to get involved in legislative advocacy for libraries.

Start reading advocacy messages you receive via e-mail, or Facebook, or Twitter and contact your legislators. If you’re a member of state or regional organization that performs advocacy work, get involved with your local committee. See if your organization can make use of Capwiz by partnering with ALA. Download an app to your smart phone, or visit a web site that tracks legislative issues to educate yourself about what’s happening that might affect libraries. And finally, encourage all of your colleagues to join us in advocating in libraries. The more advocates we have, the more successful our libraries and profession becomes.

A big thank you to Kim Leeder who sat with me to brainstorm this post during a bout of writer’s block at ALA Annual, to Hilary Davis and Leigh Anne Vrabel for contributing editorial remarks, and to Janet Webster, Oregon’s number one library advocate, for feedback on this post.

Citations and Resources for Legislative Advocacy

Thanks to Flickr user stuant63 for use of this image.

Several of my In the Library with the Lead Pipe posts have centered around work/life balance, or being happy and healthy in a job. When I wrote about losing my mojo I also mentioned that a big thing for me was my transition from working full-time to half-time.

After that post I enjoyed a summer of half-time work in which I was able to pay rent, eat, go on day trips to the Oregon Coast and Columbia River Gorge for hikes, and generally re-infuse myself with energy. I needed the break. It was great, but I knew it wouldn’t last. I wasn’t saving any money and my position was temporary, with a one-year contract. I knew I would eventually need to pick up another part-time job to get my student loans paid more quickly, save money in case my temporary part-time job was not refunded in the next fiscal year, and, of course, to indulge occasionally at an out-of-my-price-range restaurant. I also knew that I wanted to accept the right part-time job. And I eventually did. In late September I accepted a part-time hourly wage contract position to fill in as a reference and instruction librarian at a local state university.

Of the six jobs I’ve held over the past three and a half years since I’ve had my MLS, only one of my positions was permanent (and it had its issues, which is why I left) and only three have been full-time. Currently I’m working two part-time temporary jobs. One is as a Scholarly Communication Librarian at a medical school and the other as a Reference and Instruction Librarian at a large, urban state university. Don’t get me wrong; I am lucky. Despite its part-time temporary nature one of my jobs offers me health insurance, professional development funding, faculty status, and the ability to work on engaging projects. But my current experience is taking me back to the right-out-of-library-school piecemealing together of part-time work to pay the rent. It’s an experience all too common these days and it can be difficult to professionally balance more than one job, let alone balance life and work.

With this post I’d like to examine a bit more in depth some of the professional issues facing many librarians today who are working not one, but maybe 2 or 3 or 4 part-time library jobs.  The Library Journal Placement and Salaries Survey 2010 indicates that while full-time placement is up, so are part-time, temporary and non-professional placements of LIS grads. While some people work part-time jobs as a choice, others work part-time jobs because these are the only employment opportunities afforded them. The trend to work numerous part-time temporary jobs is growing, and there seems to be no end in sight. Balancing work and life is one challenge in and of itself, but what of the challenge of balancing numerous positions and a life?

Being curious I did a pretty extensive search of the professional literature to find discussions surrounding part-time work. I found articles that fell into one of several categories:

• Articles that discuss part-time employment and job sharing as good ways to maintain work/life balance. These articles (to be referenced later) focus on those individuals who choose to work part-time.
• Criticisms of employers and institutions regarding part-time work in the form of letters to the editor.
• The employer’s perspective of how cost-efficient part-time work can be at the administrative level.
• Articles discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of part-time work.

One of the things that stuck me about my literature searching is that few of these articles are recent. In fact, several of the longer substantive articles date from the 1980s. The nature of libraries has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years, and we have yet to get a handle on what it means to have a growing part-time temporary work force. For perspective, many newer librarians, such as myself, were still in elementary school at time these articles were written. There is much debate about the use of adjunct or part-time instructors in higher education in general. Longmate & Cosco (2002) cite the growing trend for community colleges to have an instructor workforce comprised of 60% part-time instructors; compared to 20% in 1970. Given discussions in academe regarding part-time work and the growing numbers of part-time temporary library workers, it is again time to have national dialog about part-time temporary librarianship.

The Benefits

The benefits of having a part-time job or a job share situation are, indeed, rich and plentiful. Lori Wamsley, (2008) like many of her predecessors from the 1980s and 1990s, points to the advantages of flexibility, networking, gaining experience, and staying in a local area. Others point to the advantages for people who have children and families (Library Personnel News, 1993; Notowitz, 1983; Dinerman, 1988; Laynor, 1987). Indeed, when I worked part-time I enjoyed my hobbies more and was able to spend more time with loved ones.

Working two positions enables me to have diverse work experiences. I have different job descriptions that concentrate in differing library work. In one position I am deeply engaged in scholarly communication, providing education and support to a community about the NIH Public Access Policy, and supporting publishing issues such as author rights. In the other position I serve as a subject librarian, providing reference services to a diverse audience of students, graduate students, and faculty. About 40% of my time in this position is at a busy reference desk–a kind of work I find quite satisfying. I also deeply enjoy the classroom teaching, collection development, and other aspects of this position. This diversity of day-to-day duties brings me great satisfaction.

Additionally, working in more than one library enables me to develop professional relationships with an abundance of coworkers. Where one library does not employ subject specialists, the other has many with specialized research and publications interests. Where one library employs those who are expert searchers and work in rigorous research support, the other excels in instruction development for undergraduate students. Working at two different institutions affords me the opportunity to engage with a wealth of individuals who have a diversity of expertise. From my coworkers at both institutions I have amassed a great deal of knowledge and experience.

To this end I am able to bring what I have learned from one institution and use it at the other. For example, during a reference shift at the large university library I received a phone call from a faculty member concerned about copyright and fair use for her coming term’s course-pack. Using my knowledge of copyright and publishing as a Scholarly Communication librarian, I was able to assist her by explaining fair use, even though at the time I was serving as a Reference and Instruction Librarian. Similarly, I am able to use my knowledge of resources offered by both libraries to refer students and faculty from each school to the other when the respective institution’s resources aren’t what a patron needs.

For some individuals not being tied down to one job is a benefit. Temporary part-time contracts mean that you can work when you need to work. Conversely, if you want a day off you can simply request it. Contract work allows for the flexibility of choosing which contracts to take. If you are working a part-time temporary position and you are offered a contract extension or a contract renewal, you don’t have to take it. For some, this is quite a benefit to be able to choose when and how much one works.

Finally, I am able to live in the city I love. When I finished library school I knew that I didn’t want to live anywhere other than my home city so I made the choice to move home without a job. I knew in my heart that I would be happier in my chosen surroundings than by choosing a job over a city. Luckily I have been able to remain employed over the past three and a half years, which is a feat in and of itself.

The Disadvantages

Part-time temporary work has numerous disadvantages that must be considered. For many people working more than one part-time temporary position is the only employment choice afforded them. It can feel like being between a rock and a hard place, especially if you want to work full-time in the library profession but don’t have the opportunity to do so. What some of the family-friendly articles I read fail to mention is that the income of part-time positions is not enough to support a family. Some people might choose to work full-time in another profession for health benefits and to support their families, while others decide to take numerous part-time temporary library jobs (to end up working full-time or more than full-time) so that they might use their coveted MLS in the library field. Sometimes individuals accept positions that do not require an MLS, often remaining in paraprofessional positions.

For many, accepting part-time temporary work is the decision to be a librarian. I fear that many individuals feel they don’t have a choice but to accept and be grateful for any library-related job opportunity that comes their way. As a result, individuals work several part-time temporary positions, struggling to balance numerous jobs and life. Ultimately, individuals will need to make a choice that best suits their life needs.

Working less than full-time  is simply not economically viable for most people these days. Librarians, in particular, who frequently have student loan debt from undergraduate and graduate careers, feel the pressure to repay their loans. I personally don’t know anyone who went into librarianship for the money, so we can assume that the full-time pay, much less the part-time pay, is not enough. The fact that I was able to work half-time for three months was a definite luxury, but after that time I needed to find additional work.

As discussed by almost all of the articles I read, part-time temporary jobs do not pay health, retirement, vacation or sick time benefits. The hourly wages for these positions fall below those of an institution’s full-time counterparts, and employees have no guarantee that they will continue to have a position from contract to contract. “Nearly 64 percent of part-time librarians are paid at the low end of the wage scale” argues Gover (1994) citing Hogue & Sisson (1993).   For many the inequity in pay is a big frustration.

Another disadvantage that has been discussed in the literature is exclusion from the work environment (Wamsley, 2008; Maxwell, 1997; Gover, 1994; Pontau & Rothschild, 1986; Anderson, 1995; Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986). As a part-time temporary worker one might not be well trained to know  library policies. Moreover, individuals may feel disconnected from coworkers by not being invited to participate in meetings, institutional and department decision-making (Anderson, 1995) and by being the individuals who work the undesirable shifts (Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986).  Barbara Mettler (1988) points out that sometimes being a substitute leads to “Some staff view subs as ‘fair game’ and will do ‘creative’ things with their schedules.” (p. 9) She discusses a situation where a coworker left the substitute alone while the coworker took extended lunch breaks. While I’d like to think this is not a normal practice, it shows how inequity in the work place can grow between part-time temporary staff and regular employees.

One of the disadvantages that I have not seen discussed in any articles is commuting. While I personally have the luck of working jobs situated only a mile and a half apart, many of my librarian colleagues work far away from their homes. I would find it much more difficult to hold two part-time professional positions if such proximity between institutions did not exist. My colleagues’ several jobs are far from one another and can result in the stress of rushing from one job to the next. Additionally the time and money individuals spend commuting in cars, paying for gas, parking, and daycare just so they can work numerous jobs adds up to be quite an expense. As an example, when I began looking for part-time work, I turned down a part-time temporary substitute librarian position 21 miles from my home, and 20 miles from my half-time job. I was sad to do this because the library environment seemed energetic, but I knew that I could not balance such a long commute between two positions, home, and an uncertain work schedule. For some, part of this equation is also how long they are asked to work. Will they be driving a long ways to fill in for only a 2 hour shift?

This leads us to yet another disadvantage: scheduling. Scheduling between multiple part-time jobs can be onerous and difficult. Just keeping track of what days and what shifts you work can be a chore; especially if your shifts vary week to week. In my case I have caught myself, in the middle of an instruction session, referring to the wrong library!

Another scheduling dilemma is that many substitute librarians might not feel that they are able to say no when they are asked to fill in for a shift. If they say no once, they might not be called in the future to cover for a shift. “But it is a fine balance between being available and unavailable for work; you don’t want to be too unavailable to work, because then you likely won’t get any scheduled hours,” (p. 7, Wamsley, 2008).  Sometimes this can result in forgoing the luxury of a weekend so that you can keep working in the future, pay the rent, etc.

Many part-timers also struggle with a work/life balance on top of the work/work balance. Part-time librarians typically work more undesirable hours than their full-time permanent counterparts. Evening and weekend shifts are typically covered by part-time employees (Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986; Wamsley, 2008). Substitutes or on-call workers have unpredictable hours. You might receive a call only one hour before a shift to see if you can cover for someone who is out sick. For some librarians this can be a difficulty. Friends and family may have regular 8-5 jobs, so connecting with loved ones can be a hardship.

One of the most troubling disadvantages is that part-time workers often have little to no support to engage in professional development and service. Having been a professional for over three years I am a member of various committees locally and nationally. With a full-time position I was supported to participate in librarianship in this manner and I continue to do so. Again, I am lucky that one of my positions supports my professional service and scholarship in the form of travel to conferences, committee participation, and writing. However, when I am gone from my hourly position for committee work or am attending a conference, I receive no pay for that time. This has resulted in me facing the difficult choice to sacrifice either money, in the form of pay, or sacrifice my professional development in missing committee meetings and conferences. The other choice I face is whether to make up missed work hours when I do participate in a conference. Will I work Saturday and Sunday for the paycheck?

Most individuals who work part-time temporary positions are not supported in their endeavors to participate in professional development opportunities. By this I mean they are not supported financially to attend conferences, nor are they given the release time to work on committee obligations or attend conferences and workshops. And yet, in the future when they apply for full-time permanent jobs employers might favor a librarian who has engaged in service and professional development over one who has not.

Chan and Auster (2003) point to the need to address professional development and training for part-time library workers, stating that “part-time status reduces opportunities for updating; because libraries have come to rely on part-time librarians, the updating needs of these part-time employees should be addressed” (p. 282-283). Part-timers typically must attend conferences on their own time and on their own dime. For many part-timers the decision becomes “learn or get paid” and that is not an easy decision to make. Some might choose to make up lost pay by working weekends or extending work hours, so as not to lose too much pay for attending a conference or workshop.

Thanks to Digitalnative at Flickr for use of this image.

Balancing more than one job

Part of my decision to work two jobs was financial; I needed to be able to save money and pay off my student loans. The other issue at hand is that the job market in my city is tight, and there are few full-time permanent jobs to be had in any field, let alone in libraries. I am not alone in this employment situation. As I mentioned in the introduction, the part-time nature of academic work is growing. With this growing population of part-timers, we are all facing the conundrum of how to find good balance between two jobs.

One of the reasons I wanted to write this post was to discuss the challenges I’ve faced, but also look at the positive aspects and growth that I experience working two fulfilling library positions. I have enough money coming in between both positions, and my ability to retain the perks of a regular employee at one institution has assisted me professionally. Both positions are part-time temporary and I enjoy both of them greatly. However, I find that on any given day one job will get my better self and the other will get the worse. Just like work/life balance, work/work balance demands a person to choose one thing over another. (Remember the cycle of rotating neglect I talked about in How do You Say No?) To this end I don’t feel that on any day either job gets my best. Ideally, I would be able to have one job and concentrate my energies on providing the best service to patrons and making the best decisions for my library. Being in more than one place can spread energies thin, and can result in confusion, disconnectedness, and exhaustion.

I’ve found some techniques that are helpful for balancing two professional positions. One, I try to be present within my communities. When I walk in the door of the medical school library I consciously put on my Scholarly Communication and Medical Librarian hat. Likewise, when I enter the door at the state university library, take off my Medical Librarian hat and I put on my Reference and Instruction hat. I try to NOT check my other work’s e-mail when I’m at either institution, but sometimes I fail at this.

Changing hats is just one way that I try to be fully engaged at either institution when I arrive. It helps me to keep up by regarding daily announcements and news from either institution, so that I feel like I’m in the loop with each place. I read staff blogs, weekly e-mail announcements, meeting minutes and other work related materials. These make me feel more connected to what is happening at each work place. It alleviates some of the disconnection that can result from only being around part of the time.

Sometimes changing hats and perspectives in the middle of the day can be tough. I’ll find myself going through selection slips at one institution and think, “I should buy this for my other library!” And sometimes I do forward myself book titles to purchase, e-mail tidbits on resources, etc that will benefit my other job at the other library. Frequently I’m still thinking about presentations I gave at my other place of work, or an instruction session I gave the previous evening.

The different nature of my part-time temporary positions has created some inequities in how I view and treat each workplace. Since the medical school does support my service activities and some conference travel, I try to pack in all of my professional development and committee work while I’m on their dollar. Since I also have a job to do, a lot of these commitments will bleed into my weekends, which I’ve long valued as sacred, non-working times. Conversely, my other employer is unable to support my committee service. As with my professional commitments, I use the benefits from my salaried, faculty position to visit the doctor, or make necessary car mechanic appointments. As a result I sometimes feel frustrated by trying to be a professional and do a professional job without the institutional support that would make it easier and my job more fulfilling.

Likewise my differing employee classification between the two institutions can be a strain. I am faculty at one institution and not at the other. As a faculty member I participate actively within the library and work on library-wide projects rather than my singular job duties. As an hourly wage employee, I do not participate in long-term projects, nor do I participate at the same level as my full-time permanent counterparts. My situation is quite unique in this regard. The divergent nature of my employee status at the institutions stems from my 3-year work history at the medical school and my newness at the state university. Because of my experience as a faculty member at the medical school figuring out how to be a professional in an hourly-wage position is complicated. I would like to be involved at the larger level for library decision-making, but I don’t have the institutional knowledge, nor do I feel comfortable within the organization’s culture to participate as fully as I would like.

When I took on a second temporary part-time position my partner warned me that I was going to be exhausted and that it was going to be arduous. He was right. Yet I deeply enjoy both of my positions and while I feel certain frustrations, I am comforted in knowing that I’m gaining rich experiences and that this situation will not last forever.

The employer’s perspective

Certainly the use of part-time temporary employees stems from economic need. There is no doubt that library budgets are suffering and as a result personal budgets are, too. Chervinko (1986) points out that:

“Using temporary workers is an excellent means of solving some staffing problems in the library. The business world has long recognized the value of these workers and is using them in greater numbers for specialized jobs. Libraries can use them efficiently and economically for staffing major in-house projects. To achieve the maximum benefits from their service, it is necessary that they be carefully selected and thoroughly trained and motivated to produce high quality work. Moreover, they must be treated as equal members of the library staff.” (p. 220)

One of the aspects that I value from this business and administrative perspective is the need to treat part-time employees as equal members of the library staff. From the numerous articles I’ve read and from personal experience, part-time employees do not feel they are treated as equal to their full-time permanent counterparts. Again, in this regard I have been very lucky to be in positions that respect my experience and ideas.

Bette Anderson also addresses this issue in her 1995 article Trends in the Workplace: Part-time librarians. “My personal assessment is that the practice of relying on part-timers may save money for employers, but without enlightened management it can result in hidden costs in terms of employee morale and quality of public service” (p. 264). She continues, pointing out that “As outsiders, they are not invited to become part of the decision-making process” (p. 265).

These two quotes point to the need for management and administration to be sensitive to implementing part-time temporary work. Part-time temporary jobs are cheap for libraries, but at what cost? Is turnover for part-time temporary work high? What are the training costs? Before implementing part-time temporary positions library administrations should put plans in place that address the needs for part-time workers to be treated professionally. For example, where will these employees be able to hang their coats? What are best practices for hiring part-time temporary workers? Professional treatment might include providing some contract hours to engage in professional development activities, or allow paid sick leave. Not all of these suggestions will be feasible for every institution, but they are points for managers and administrators to consider.

What can employees do?

As a new librarian, an underemployed librarian, or someone who only wants to work part-time, what can you do when it comes to the tension of piecemealing together part-time jobs? I would encourage you to ask about professional development possibilities before signing any contracts. Engage in a dialogue with your potential employer and potential supervisor to see if there can be an agreement that will make working several part-time jobs more enjoyable and avoid some of the common disadvantages of working part-time temporary positions. Try to ask for a few hours of your contract work to serve on a committee, or ask if you may attend a conference and receive some financial support to attend.

It is pivotal that we, as professionals, have a clear, constructive dialogue about both the benefits and the disadvantages of part-time temporary work. Harsh letters to the editor regarding poor treatment by an employer will not help part-time temporary employees anywhere. Instead, consider entering into dialogue with your supervisor about how to balance your time. Part-time temporary employees should remain sensitive to the budgetary and political obstructions facing institutions and library administrators. Likewise, institutions and administrators should seriously evaluate how to make and use part-time employees in a responsible and respectful manner. It would be interesting if part-time employees might draft a set of best practices or points for consideration for their libraries. In the future, the library’s administrators might use these points when hiring more part-time and/or part-time temporary employees.

Conclusion

If part-time work with benefits were the norm in libraries, then libraries, patrons, and employees would benefit. For many libraries and institutions this kind of solution is not feasible with their tiny, and continually shrinking budgets. Since part-time temporary workers are becoming the new norm in libraries, I think it’s time for us to engage in healthy discussion about these issues. This post is my call to have individuals, institutions, and organizations once again examine the issues of part-time temporary labor. Let’s talk about creative solutions and ideas that will benefit institutions AND individuals.

As Gover pointed out in 1994, it’s time for further study. Where is the study? Who’s going to do it? (It’s probably not going to be the part-timers, because they have enough on their plates.) But it is time for us to have a greater national dialogue and come up with some techniques to improve working environments for librarians in the trenches. You can contribute by adding your voice. Share your story, your concerns, your triumphs. What have you experienced as advantages to part time work? What about disadvantages?

I’d like to hear from the administrative perspective answers to the following: Have you supervised part-time employees? What challenges did you face? What were your successes? What went in to the decisions to create the positions? What would you look for from a part-time temporary employee in the future?

From the non-administrative side I’d like to hear answers to: What is your experience with part-time temporary work/workers? What would best practices look like to you?  Do you have any other benefits or disadvantages to mention? What might lead you to a decision to work part-time temporary jobs?

References and Further Reading

Anderson, B. (1995). Trends in the workplace: Part-time librarians. Public Libraries, 34, 264-265.

Braudy, J., & Tuckerman, S. (1986). The part-time academic librarian: Current status, future directions. Library Journal (1976), 111, 38-41.

Brustman, M. J., & Via, B. J. (1988). Employment and status of part-time librarians in U.S. academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14, 87-91.

Temporary librarians in California academic libraries: results of a statewide survey of library directors. (1989). Library Personnel News, 3, 57-58.

Chan, D. C., & Auster, E. (2003). Factors contributing to the professional development of reference librarians. Library & Information Science Research (07408188), 25(3), 265.

Chervinko, J. S. (1986). Temporary employees in academic and research libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 12, 217-220.

DelGuidice, M., Luna, R., & Zorn, M. G. (2010). Public librarian. Knowledge Quest, 38(5), 26-29.

Dinerman, G. (1988). Temp in a teapot. New Jersey Libraries, 21, 14+.

Falk, P.K. (2001). Grant-funded temporary employees in libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 18(3), 35-46.

Gover, H. R. (1994). Whose bargain? the use of part-time employees in libraries: A call for further study. Alki, 10(3), 17, 20.

Hogue, E. M. & Sisson, L. (1993). Bargains of the Century: Part-time librarians. The Bottom Line, 7(2), 18-22.

Laynor, B. (1987). Librarianship and motherhood: A part-time solution. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 6, 15-25.

Longmate, J. & Cosco, F. (2002). Part-time Instructors Deserve Equal Pay for Equal Work. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2002. Retrieved 2/6/2011 from http://chronicle.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/article/Part-Time-Instructors-Deserve/23489/

Maatta, S. L. (2010). Placement & Salaries Survey 2010: Stagnant salaries, rising unemployment. Library Journal  October 15, 2010. Access 1/25/2011 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/careers/salaries/887218-305/placements__salaries_survey_2010.html.csp

Maxwell, N. K. (1997). Part-timer’s plea: Where am I now? American Libraries, 28(11), 58.

Mettler, B. (1988). Send in the subs. Alki, 4(1), 9-10.

Notowitz, C. (1982). Job Sharing for the 80′s. School Library Journal, 28(6), 33.

Pontau, D. Z., & Rothschild, M. C. (1986). T is for temporary. College & Research Libraries, 47, 150-155.

Reid, J. R. (2008). Community college dilemma: Adjunct faculty. Community & Junior College Libraries, 14(4), 295-298.

Reinhold, N. (1996). The part-time academic librarian: Reflections and visions. The Georgia Librarian, 33, 28-30.

Study of part timers finds patterns. (1993). Library Personnel News, 7, 2-3.

Wamsley, L. H. (2008). The adventures of a part-time librarian. OLA Quarterly, 14(3), 5-7, 34.

Thanks to Heather B. of [!!!]Sweet Peas Photography[!!!] on Flickr for this image

A Little Background

Here at In the Library with the Lead Pipe we’ve had several potential guest authors ask us if we would publish their work under pseudonyms or anonymously. Usually the requests we receive to post anonymously are those that are steeped in controversial situations that might have ramifications for the author in her or his work place or career. So far we have turned down all of these requests.

The problem with anonymous and pseudonymous publishing (let’s combine these terms and call them undisclosed publications) is that with this form it is easy for pieces to be unproductive and inappropriate. We at Lead Pipe maintain this blog as a place to think critically about our professional lives and to provide proactive creative solutions to problems and issues in our profession. This goal is posted on our about page: ”Our goal is to explore new ideas and start conversations; to document our concerns and argue for solutions.” We thought that the tone of the proposed undisclosed pieces don’t fit with this goal, seeming like complaint pieces with little background supporting evidence, and with little or no creative and critical solutions posed.

Following along these lines we employ a comment policy on the blog, but take no stance as to the identity of the commenter. “We appreciate and invite your comments and discussion about posts on In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Constructive criticism is one of our primary goals, and we applaud it in our readers. Comments that do not maintain a civil tone or that disregard the post’s topic will be deleted. We do not edit comments except by request of the poster.”

Since the idea of undisclosed publication is not new and seems to come to us with some regularity, we thought it deserved a bit of thought, some writing, and frankly a bit more navel gazing or rumination– despite the fact that this is already well-covered (and controversial) territory in our profession. Please note that this piece is written from my viewpoint even though it was sparked by conversations at Lead Pipe. It does not reflect the ideas of my Lead Pipe colleagues.

I deviate from my Lead Pipe colleagues in that I feel there is no reason for critical thinking and creative solutions to be masked. Anonymity should be a last resort, and there’s very little room for last resorts in published professional discourse.

When I started thinking about this post I recalled my readings for Susan Herring’s Gender and Computerization class that I took in graduate school. The advent of Internet technology enabled people to reinvent themselves. It enabled women to adopt male personas and vice versa. Think about Second Life and the avatars that we are able to create for ourselves in virtual worlds. In a virtual world one can be most anything.

But this kind of liberation started before the graphical interface of the Internet appeared in the 1990s. Think about the Telnet era, even then people were presenting themselves via different personas online compared to real life. One of the most liberating things that the Internet offers for many people is the ability to assume a different physicality, identity, and personality. Amy Bruckman discussed this in her 1993 paper, Gender Swapping on the Internet (pdf).

Since the Telnet era undisclosed publication and Internet use has boomed. Blogs and blog comments can be published anonymously; characters in online games provide alternate personalities to the ones we bring to our day jobs. In short, technology allows us to do and say things that we never would do in person. As liberating as this is, it is much easier for us to not be accountable for our actions. It allows us to break social contracts and norms in the manner of rude comments and offering arguments unsupported by any evidence or logical reasoning.

An Argument Against Undisclosed Discourse

Hiding our identities allows us to break accepted social practice and  there is nothing inherently unethical or wrong with creating a character in Second Life or engaging in gender swapping or other identity experiments online. However, the realm of library professional discourse, i.e. writing critical essays or peer reviewed articles that contribute to the discourse of our profession, is not where this kind of experimentation or use of nondisclosure should occur. Undisclosed publishing can be used to insult, act violently, and lash out in a way that defies our understanding of social contract and accepted norms of professional behavior. It can easily lead down the path of snarky and negative venting that are wholly unproductive.

What happens if you want to retroactively take credit for your previously undisclosed ideas? Walt Crawford tackled this issue in a 2007 piece in eContent.

“I have seen more than one case, though, where a pseudonym has gone bad. I’ve seen the retroactive addition of a real-world signature to every post in a blog, including those that might never have been written were they signed originally. Identity revelation can happen because a blogger has a book or article published and is proud of it, referring to it in a manner that makes the blogger’s name obvious. It can happen because the blogger triangulates his identity too narrowly over time.”

Any previously published undisclosed writings may find an author backpedaling when her identity is revealed.

Librarianship has the perfect example of an unproductive undisclosed blogger: The Annoyed Librarian. This undisclosed blogger is currently hosted by Library Journal, a publication that provides news, reviews, and information related to librarianship. The Annoyed Librarian can be snarky and she can be mean. (Try her post about Anarchist Librarians and Library Porn, wherein she calls anarchists simpletons and idiotic.) Personally I think there is a difference between outright calling someone an idiot and having a well thought out argument that leads your readers to their own conclusions. While she does have some good critical ideas they tend to be masked by a breaking of accepted professional social contract.

When an undisclosed writer attacks and contributes unproductively to professional discourse she suffers no consequences. On the flip side, when this same undisclosed author makes compelling and productive arguments the gravity of those arguments are undermined by the author’s previous work. Those who choose to publish under a pseudonym, particularly a pseudonym that becomes known for bullying and counter-productive arguments, are not giving their valid, well considered, well argued, and productive ideas a chance.

Buschman et al, published an editorial in Progressive Librarian on this topic, “The inauthenticity of online interactions is a continuum, stretching from routine use of “handles” instead of names, to elaborate cultivation of false online persona, to abusive anonymity in malicious exchanges.” (p. 6) While Buschman and his colleagues focus their editorial on attacks made by political right-wing library bloggers against those with opposing views, Buschman and his co-authors’ argument is sound. They discuss the long and hard won intellectual freedom that academicians practice and for which librarians and academics continue to fight. “Intellectual freedom is a variant also meant to protect open, public exchange in the interests of an open society and democracy.” (p.4) Hiding one’s identity is not an action that points to open and public exchange.

Will Manley has also taken up the issue of undisclosed discourse in American Libraries. He makes some very interesting points in his editorial column from January 2010. “In a bygone era of accountability, newspapers would not publish a letter without identifying the writer. But today readers are permitted to post anonymous responses to each and every article.” (p. 112 American Libraries, and online.) While Manley points toward the anonymous comments on news web site blogs and political propaganda on the Internet, his point is well taken—the accountability and reliability of a source used to matter. In libraries and for librarians, it still should.

Contrary to Manley’s viewpoint there have been recent articles and blog posts discussing nondisclosure from the journalist’s point of view. Matt Zoller Seitz wrote a nice piece over on Salon.com that, wittily defends anonymous speech online and points to some of the ugliness it can create. “The protective force field of anonymity — or pseudonymity — brings out the worst in some people.”

Seitz satirically writes that he is pro-anonymity for its sheer ugliness: “And yet anonymous comments — all of them, even the written equivalent of high-speed drive-by shootings — serve a useful function. They show us what the species is really like: the full spectrum of human behavior, not just the part that we find reassuring and enlightening.” Do any of us want the comparative equivalent of “high-speed drive-by shootings” in professional library discourse? We are librarians and library workers, not drive-by shooters.

I personally don’t think that American librarianship is ever going to be so controversial that we need to hide our professional identities from one another. (I am aware that this is not the case in all countries, and even professional opinions may have such political ramifications where one’s life might be in danger.) In this point I agree with Joseph S. Fulda, who in The Journal of Information Ethics argues that:

I am in grave doubt as to whether the the rules announced in the third and fourth points [using a pseudonym to argue something verifiable and using impeccable reasoning] can be merged…whether it would be ethical to publish—under the veil of pseudonymity—such an argument…More bluntly, I can see no constructive purpose for such publication, let alone under the veil of pseudonymity…” (p. 82)

Fulda essentially argues that if your argument is sound why would you need to mask yourself from your intended audience? It seems less productive than making a productive argument under the auspices of oneself. When one presents a productive, insightful, and well-reasoned argument it is easier to be given credit and to laud the merits of the author.

Undisclosed publications lack credibility and are prone to counter-productivity. As a teacher and librarian I always encourage my students to consider their source. What authority does that source have to make that argument and those claims? Without knowledge of an author’s expertise, experience, and general knowledge of the subject, how are we to even consider this kind of discourse as valid?

A Brief Tangent on Peer Review

A nuance of professional discourse lies within the traditional model of peer review. Here we have an example of an accepted practice that relies on undisclosed identities. Traditionally peer review occurs in a blind environment where reviewers do not know the identity of the author and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. From the lens of traditional peer review it seems that a piece of writing or discourse, no matter the source or author, is judged solely on the value and productivity of its content. If we judge works based on the traditional peer review process it should follow that authorship of these articles is moot and that undisclosed publishing would be accepted practice. But it’s not. (The anonymous peer review argument is possibly how the Journal of Access Services got away with publishing an entire issue dedicated to the Annoyed Librarian’s writings.)

We do not use the traditional peer review model for In the Library with the Lead Pipe. We use a form of open peer review wherein the identity of the author and the identity of the reviewers are known to both parties. This open peer review process means that authors are able to engage in conversations with her reviewers beyond one reading or review of a piece. She might bounce ideas off of a reviewer in the revision process. Moreover, it allows an author publishing at Lead Pipe to find reviewers who have close knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

For example when I wrote about the Google Book Search Settlement, I sought to have a reviewer with intricate legal and library knowledge. To this end one of the reviewers for that piece held an MLS and a JD. To me getting feedback from a reviewer that had intricate legal knowledge was paramount. In blind peer review I would not have had this option. I would not have known if my reviewers had any prior knowledge to the issues relating to the Google Book Search settlement, copyright, or law.  For me using the open peer review process has improved my writing tenfold. The conversations I’m able to carry with my reviewers, and the substantive feedback I’ve received have far surpassed my albeit limited experience with the traditional peer review process.

The Last Resorts

We (arguably) do not live in a country where we can be arrested for well-reasoned arguments and where bloggers aren’t regularly sent to prison. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences for what we say and do publicly, be it in regard to politics or in the workplace. This is where the “last resort” idea comes into play. I think there IS a place for last resort and only last resort author nondisclosure in professional discourse. That place is very small and should be used only when situations are dire. Moreover, political discourse is another arena in which I feel strongly that there is a vast amount of room for undisclosed writing and discourse.

In an ideal world, substantive comments and civil discussion online would not lead to negative consequences in the workplace or professionally. However there are many professionals who do not feel they cannot speak their mind freely. Within their own organizations they might fear recourse if they discuss politics or professional ideas.

Miriam Cook of The Guardian writes in In Defence of Anonymity Online that “Anonymity online sets us free. The facility to create our own content and comment on websites would be far less valuable to us were it restricted to posting under “real” names.” Her argument is based in the political. When people use their real names online to discuss politics, they might suffer repercussions in their place of employ, hence the need for the veil of pseudonymity and anonymity when commenting on news blogs. Consider, for instance, what recently happened to Juan Williams. He was fired from NPR after making comments regarding Muslim people.While I do not agree with the remarks Mr. Williams made, I can see where if he felt the need to express them, his employment would have been protected. Moreover, sometimes remarks can be taken out of context, as has been argued in the case of with Mr. Williams. Ramifications can result in either case.

Thanks to Photo Phiend on Flickr for use of this image

Undisclosed publication in the United States goes back all the way to the Federalist Papers, which were all published with the same moniker–Publius. The authorship of these 85 publications is still disputed today. For perhaps the most theoretical argument about political anonymity, I’d like to to turn to anarchist and revolutionary political discourse.

Much but not all of anarchist and revolutionary writing occurs anonymously. The theory follows that by focusing on political actions or events and not on the author, the event takes on more meaning. Rather, the event is not subsumed by the individual identity of the person with the thought or taking the action, or by historical record.

“The most successful poisoning of class oppressors, for example, are those never known as such. Just like the perfect crime, the subversive act seeks to escape all detection, cover its tracks and avoid appearance in the archives; for the perpetrators to strike (anonymously) again. Only those who wish to be martyrs, self-publicists or media personalities would wish to wait around to offer their names and have their picture taken.” Without a Trace. By Anonymous

But not all anarchists have written anonymously, as Alex Gorrion points out. The ability for political discourse and thought to be penned anonymously still remains of huge import to the anarchist (non)community and other revolutionary groups.

Like I mentioned earlier, many people work in environments where it is hard to engage in discourse, even productive and well reasoned discourse, with our fear of recourse. This is probably the case for all of the submissions that have been sent to In the Library with the Lead Pipe requesting undisclosed publication. For me this kind of environment bleeds into professional discourse practices in our individual workplaces; and sometimes that can mean using anonymity as a tool.

Michael Stephens and Michael Casey made this point in the Transparent Library: Six Signposts on the Way.

“Be Willing to Accept Anonymity. Anonymity can encourage people to share observations or ask questions that might otherwise never emerge. Be willing to look past nonconstructive critical statements gathered from staff or the public via surveys, comments, or feedback forms. There may be substance behind the snark to be addressed and used.

What about bad or “not so useful” statements or suggestions made by staff? Name-calling, for instance, may not merit an open reply, but it’s best to address even slightly feasible ideas, if only to acknowledge the input and encourage more feedback. Explain why a particular idea might not work at this time, and direct focus to other areas. Or involve staffers in exploring the costs and benefits of particular ideas that might demonstrate their feasibility to all.”

Because of internal politics making anonymous suggestions regarding workflow and organizational changes can be the most productive tactic. Without the political weight of an identity attached those ideas may be more seriously considered when faced only as an idea, not as the person who is the mouthpiece for the idea. Take for example the suggestions of combining the circulation and reference desks into one service desk. An idea such as this might have far-reaching implications for library workflow and management; it can be very controversial. What if it were the reference manager making this suggestion? Or what if it were an hourly student worker? Who we are in the workplace can help and/or hinder change. If we are to think seriously about ideas then sometimes it is best if ideas are just ideas and not attached to identities.

So Where’s the Line?

I’d like to think that most writing and discourse in librarianship is reliable, credible, and contributes to professional discourse. It is via writing and conversation that we are able to propose new ideas, troubleshoot, engage with our professional peers, and create new and exciting work. In an ideal world libraries and librarianship would be havens of open and transparent discourse where we would all be able to contribute productively to improve our communities and workplaces. But it’s not an ideal world so we must accept that undisclosed publication happens.

Contributing to discourse in an undisclosed manner is tricky. It is typically counter-productive. It invites an author to accept no accountability for her words. It can enable her to attack and bully. Or pieces with undisclosed authorship could just become avenues for venting. And although venting can feel good it might be that venting is actually bad for our morale.

Sadly many of us work in organizations where there might be real consequences for making our ideas public–no matter how well reasoned they are. For these people writing publications with undisclosed attribution might be the only way to offer their ideas to the discussions happening about libraries and librarianship. Publishing productive commentary in this way should be a last resort. Will you get fired for writing this? Will your career not advance because of what you wrote? Will your idea not be heard if your name (or job status) is attached to the idea? If so, then a last resort might be for you.

References and Citations:

Anonymous. (2003). Without a Trace. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Anonymous__Without_a_Trace.html

Bruckman, A. (1993). Gender Swapping on the Internet. Proceedings from the Internet Society, 1993. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/gender-swapping- bruckman.pdf

Buschman, J, Rosenzweig, M, & McCook, K. (2007). On Anonymity in Libraryland Blogging. Progressive Librarian, 29, 3-7.

Casey, M. & Stephens, M. (2008). The Transparent Library: Six Signposts On the Way. Library Journal. November 15, 2008. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6611609.html

Cook, M. (2010). In Defence of Anonymity Online. The Guardian. March 17, 2010. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/17/protecting-online-anonymity

Crawford, W. (2007). Security, Na’ivete, and the Limits of Pseudonymity. eContent 30(6), 60.

Dachis, A. (2010). Venting Frustration Will Only Make Your Anger Worse. LifeHacker. Retrieved 11/9/2010 from http://lifehacker.com/5614548/venting-frustration-will-only-make-your-anger-worse

Fulda, J.S. (2007). The Ethics of Pseudonymous Publication, The Journal of Information Ethics 16(2), 75-89.

Gaus. G. (2008). Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/

Gorrion, A. (2010). Anonymous: That Most Prolific of Anarchist Writers. The Anvil. April 1, 2010. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://theanvilreview.org/print/anonymous_that_most_prolific_of_anarchist_writers/

Jardin, X. (2007). Egypt: blogger Kareem Amer gets 4 years for insulting Islam. BoingBoing.net. Retrieved 11/8/2010 from http://boingboing.net/2007/02/24/egypt_blogger_kareem.html

Journal of Access Services, 5(4). 2008.

Manley, W. (2010). That’s News to Me. American Libraries. January/February 2010. P. 112.

On the Media. Transcript of “The Firing of Juan Williams.” October 22, 2010. Retrieved 11/8/2010 from http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/10/22/02

Seitz, M.Z. (2010). Why I like Vicious, Anonymous Online Comments. Salon.com, August 3, 2010. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/08/03/in_defense_of_anonymous_commenting

Stelter, B. (2010). NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims. The New York Times. October 20, 2010. Retrieved 10/30/2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/media/21npr.html

The Federalist Papers. Accessed 11/8/2010 from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/abt_fedpapers.html

Open Peer Review. (n.d.) Retrieved 11/9/2010 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

Muddy Waters, can you help me get my mojo working?

I have a problem. Several months ago I realized I’d lost my librarian mojo and since that time I’ve been struggling to reclaim it. Being the person that I am, I have been hyper-analyzing my mojo loss. I have been disenchanted at work, feeling weary and dissatisfied, and yet, it feels like it’s all out of my control. This (perhaps self-indulgent) post is a reflection on my personal struggle to understand what IS my librarian mojo, and what can I do to keep it going and get it back when it appears to have gone missing.

First, let me take a moment to describe what I mean by librarian mojo. Mojo is pretty, clear, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary online as:

“Magical power, voodoo, the art of casting spells; a charm or talisman used in casting such spells. More generally, esp. in recent use: a power, force, or influence of any kind (often with sexual connotations). Freq. attrib. and in to have (also get) one’s mojo working (chiefly fig. and allusive).” (accessed 6/21/10. Thanks, Multnomah County Library!)

Thanks to popular culture we might immediately think of Austin Powers when we think of mojo, or maybe the book by Marshall Goldsmith that was published last year. (I heard it was decent, though haven’t had a chance to read it yet.) And of course there is an entry in the Urban Dictionary for mojo.

But what does mojo have to do with being a librarian? Think about it. Librarians have bags of tricks or spells that we cast about. A trick might be our ability to find that book, in the way we are able to perform a reference interview, in the charm of checking out books to people and sharing information. We have the power to arm people with information and do so easily and quickly. We know how to think critically. We know how to teach, we are expert searchers, we have resilience and passion. So what happened that made me feel like I didn’t have my mojo, any more? I still had the same skills the same training, education and experience, but what had happened? There had been a course of events, some of which were beyond my control, that led to my dissatisfaction, frustration, and burnout at work. This loss of mojo was pretty startling for me. I am 30 years old and I have only held my MLS for 3 years.

If you do any research on the topic you will find a plethora of work written on burnout in libraries and job satisfaction. There’s also a wealth of work written about failure, mistakes, and job satisfaction outside our small world of libraries. I can’t tackle all the knowledge out there, but you’ll find some some articles listed below as further reading. Just know that they’re only the tip of the iceberg.

Systems Failure and Mojo

We are dependent on systems. We depend on systems as simple as work schedules to those as complicated as databases and other high-tech implementations. As technologies evolve our subsequent dependence on those technologies grows. Our dependence on systems makes us more vulnerable to systems failure that is beyond our control and a potential subsequent loss of mojo.

When I first started working at my current place of employ I was hired to work on a project called Oregon Health Go Local. I’d spent two years working on this project when the project sponsor, the National Library of Medicine, announced it would be phasing out all Go Local projects. (You may recall that part of this work inspired a previous post of mine about Outreach.) This is a great example of a systems or tool failure. The fact that Go Local databases would no longer exist is the loss of a countless hours of work by libraries and librarians all over the United States. It was not that the NLM made a bad decision. In fact, the NLM made the right decision based on their extensive analysis of Go Local projects (IMHO), but it was a decision that affected me and numerous other individuals. A project to which I had dedicated a lot of work and energy failed. But projects end and I was surprisingly okay with the discontinuation of Oregon Health Go Local. Even though I was okay with the end of the project, it still called into question my librarian mojo.

Power outages are another good example of a systems failure. Without power you have no online tools, no lights to even read the red books (LCSH Subject Headings in print) or your call number cheat sheet, and maybe, as Guy Robertson (2004) points out in his article “Lights Out! Dealing with Power Outages in Your Library,” the library emergency flashlight might have been misplaced. What librarian mojo do we have when we rely on technologies, even if it is the lights?

Think about this in a different context. Who are librarians and what power do librarians have to help a patron find print material without the catalog? Say I had a patron who was looking for a book about diabetic foot problems. Without walking through the stacks, one aisle at a time, I would be at a loss to find this kind of item. Why? Because I rely on the electronic catalog to help me navigate subject headings. I rely on the tools of our profession to practice my librarian mojo. My charm is that I understand how to find out that books on diabetes are shelved with the other WK835 books, not that I KNOW that books on diabetes are shelved there. I rely on tools that operate beyond my immediate control, to practice that librarian mojo. A lot of my mojo relies on the tools I use every day. (And what does this say about our librarian identities?) While a power outage or catalog downtime is certainly not the be all end all problem, I think it points to technology and tool dependence that can negatively effect librarian mojo.

The fact is, my librarian mojo has come to be dependent on the tools I use, not the skills I have. It’s a lot harder to wield my mighty skills set without the tools. And when these tools fail, I feel like I’ve failed, and, my librarian mojo suffers. It’s not that every time a little problem occurs I experience a complete loss of mojo. Librarians, by nature, are great problem solvers and find great work-arounds. It’s that all of the little failures and mistakes can build up, and after a time it can start affecting us negatively, if we let it.

Library and librarian tools that enable me to use my mojo are mostly proprietary. At work I rely on commercial software developers and commercial vendor products. I find it incredibly frustrating, that using proprietary tools like an ILS, a collection development tool, or a research database can put my mojo out of my hands. Try contacting a database vendor to ask why something is broken and to get it fixed? When it’s not working I can’t wield my mighty mojo to help patrons find that article or do that search, and my librarian mojo doesn’t allow me to fix the database myself or have a colleague do it. I think it would help if we were able to be some of these providers ourselves. We need to have library programmers on library staff to assist in being less dependent on commercial products that can hinder our librarian mojo. (Brett wrote about this a while back.)

We see this commercial dependence even more in collection development, purchasing and licensing. What happens to the mojo of librarians when libraries can no longer pay the rising costs of journal subscriptions and are possibly falling victim to unethical library vendors? For example, the University of California  is having trouble with the pricing of Nature Publishing Group publications. Due to these issues the university may conduct a boycott of the publisher, thereby not providing access to highly used titles. What’s going to happen to librarian mojo when libraries no longer have the money to buy the tools that enable us to do our jobs?

Meredith Farkas makes the distinction that via consortia we might be able to fight for more ethical practices from our vendors. But I wonder if relying on vendors is really the end solution. Can we not be tool creators and providers at the same time? Certainly not with budgets that allocate for collections and tools over personnel. We need programmers and technologies that we don’t have.

What excites me about librarianship is to advocate for people and groups who need advocates. I want to provide and make accessible as much information as possible, and commercial and tool dependence hinder me from doing as much as I want. Because of libraries’ commercial dependence and shrinking budgets I can’t do as much I would like. I feel frustrated and disheartened by the behemoth issues that face libraries and that hinder me from doing my best. I didn’t become a librarian to overcome seemingly insurmountable barriers, I became a librarian to help people.

Despite all of these possible systems failures, personal frustrations, and mojo-loss inducing situations, failure isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Andy Burkhardt thinks we’re experts at it. From failure we can learn to improve. In his recent article Being Wrong and Learning from “Partial Success” Walt Crawford (2010) discusses failure. He points out that we hate to talk about them and admit to our failures. But talking about and studying failure is necessary.

Lisa German (2009) suggests in her piece about project management No One Plans to Fail, They Fail to Plan, that if you fail it’s because you didn’t plan well enough. I disagree. Mostly. (BP’s recent gulf oil dilemma certainly points to a failure to plan.) I agree more with Daniel Chudnov (2008), who, in his article Failure is Always an Option, argues that failure is normal and should be embraced. Moreover, he stresses that we should PLAN on failing. For example, I could keep a call number cheat sheet at the reference desk for those times when the catalog is down or the power is out. I could download a flashlight app or WorldCat app to my phone. I could also work on recognizing when my mojo is being affected and try to reign it back to the positive side.

At some point we will make mistakes and we will fail at something. But when do we need to have contingency plans? That’s the whole concept behind disaster planning. But do we do it as much for our tools as we do for our buildings and physical materials? Where I work we have a group that’s looking at contingency planning for access to e-resources in the event of a disaster. Another example of small systems failure is when an e-book isn’t accessible. Just this morning I assisted a patron in requesting a print copy of an e-book that wasn’t working via our library consortium. If this had failed I would have helped the patron fill out an interlibrary loan request. Small failures like this are easy to work around. When we can problem solve and when we can have contingency plans in place we can diminish the blow of the failure. Still, when added up small everyday systems failures can have great impact on our librarian mojo.

That Inner Mojo and Getting it Back (Or, a lot of it is in your head.)

Most of the time systems failure is out of our control, but how we react to those failures and our general inner mojo is not. A while back Ellie wrote a terrific review of the book How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. In it she provides examples about Lehrer’s insights regarding the balance between emotion and rationality. Essentially, how we think about failure can have a lot to do with our mojo.

In my case it wasn’t just the end of one project or one system failure that resulted in my mojo loss. As is often the case it was a number of things happening all at once. Things at work were frustrating. I wasn’t liking my day to day work, I didn’t feel that any of my idealism about libraries and librarianship were being tapped or utilized. I didn’t feel like I was learning or affecting my community positively, the major project on which I had spent close to 2 years of my professional life had ended in failure, and this all culminated into a ball of the work blahs. I had lost my mojo.

Part of my blahs had to do with the disillusionment about libraries and professional work life in general. When I started working I was ready, fresh-faced, young, naive, excited, and full of ideas. After a few years of too many meetings, too much university bureaucracy, budget cuts, unstable temporary employment, and Oregon Health Go Local’s phase out I felt burned out and mojo-less. Basically, I let it get to me. And come to find out Anitra Steele (2009) mentions that “New librarians are perhaps at a higher risk of burnout than veteran coworkers. One article states this is because idealistic expectations and practice do not often coincide.”

But I love being a librarian and I don’t want to stop being one. I love that I have the education and skills that I mentioned at the beginning of this post (critical thinking, etc.). I just want my mojo back. And no one’s going to give it to me, so I’ve got to take ownership of my librarian mojo. I’ve got to start thinking differently. I’ve got to find pro-active solutions.

So what have I done to attempt to reclaim it? First, I went on ALA Connect’s Mentor Connect (a portal within ALA Connect that lets mentors and mentees find each other) and requested some mentorship and advice. My mentor helped me think about what I want from librarianship, what kind of librarian I want to be, and helped me think about what actions I could take to work toward that goal. When I expressed an interest to pursue academic library work at a more general university or at a community college rather than at a health sciences institution, my mentor encouraged me to seek out professional development opportunities that would fulfill my professional needs in this area and make me an attractive job candidate for future opportunities. In this vein I decided to remain active in ALA and cut back on my involvement in health sciences by not renewing memberships in health sciences library organizations when they are due.

I’ve also been going through a subconscious ritual of daily affirmations at work. (I’m being serious.) I have taped to my computer monitor at work a note from a co-worker (written to me in a meeting when she knew I was losing my mojo). It says,

“Don’t worry–it’s not just you. We know how good you are!”

I went on vacation during which I read books for pleasure, spent time with friends and my partner, and was even out of cell phone and e-mail range.

I went to ALA Annual where I got inspired about librarianship by talking to inspiring people and gaining a more whole library perspective than my niche in a medical school setting. I was able to chat with librarians who work in public libraries, community college libraries, small private college libraries, and this year’s class of Emerging Leaders. I attended programs that were of interest to me such as the Google Book Search Settlement Panel, and the Open Access Debate. I attended Library Advocacy Day and met with my state representatives to talk about issues facing libraries. These experiences re-energized me and reminded me why I became a librarian.

And the biggest thing of all is that just the other day, (July 1st), I started a new job description and dropped my work hours to half-time. Instead of working as a Reference Librarian, I am now Scholarly Communication Librarian. I’ll be working with the research faculty and students to provide education about the NIH Public Access Policy, issues in open access, publishing, and author rights. These new duties will enable me to be more involved with why I wanted to be a librarian in the first place: to advocate for something about which I’m passionate– equitable and open access to information.

I am lucky to have this luxury– to be able to afford to work half-time– and the leadership in my library supports this change. Working half-time will enable me to re-discover hobbies like riding my bike, gardening, cooking, and learning book arts. It will enable me to come to work refreshed and be able to HAVE that mojo that I need to do a good job. Feeling like a whole person has a lot to do with my librarian mojo and this is going to be the best solution for me to get my mojo working again.

My mojo’s not all the way back, but what I’m going to do from here on out is really celebrate my accomplishments like Robert Moran (2009) suggests in What a Great Place to Work!. I will find the things that I find fulfilling about library work and concentrate on them. I’m going to frame my degrees and hang in them in my office at work to remind myself why I’m a librarian, and aim to work towards being what I want to be. I’m going to read books like How We Decide, and Mindset: The New Psychology of Success and learn about Peter Drucker’s work (whom Kim mentioned a while back) to try to learn how to keep failures from affecting my mojo. Finally, I’m going to concentrate on that feeling described by one of my pals as “the moment when you remember what it’s like to be you when you’re happy again.”

So, dear readers. Have you ever lost your librarian mojo? Have you experienced burnout? What caused it and how did you handle it?

Extra special thanks to Laura Zeigen, Ellie Collier, and Miriam Rigby for providing thoughtful feedback on this post.

Citations and Further Readings:

Chudnov, D. (2008). Failure is Always an Option. Computers in Libraries 28(10), 20-22.

Crawford, W. (2010). Being Wrong and Learning from “Partial Success.” Online 34(3), 57-59.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

German, L. (2009). No One Plans to Fail, They Fail to Plan: The importance of structured project planning. Technicalities 29(3), 6-9.

Lehrer, J. (2009). How we decide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Leysen, J. & Boydston, J. (2009). Job Satisfaction among Academic Cataloger Librarians. College & Research Libraries 70(3), 273-97.

Moran, R. (2009). What a Great Place to Work! Library Leadership and Management 23(1), 47-48.

Reiter, M., & Goldsmith, M. (2009). Mojo: How to get it, how to keep it, how to get it back if you lose it. New York: Hyperion.

Robertson. G. (2004). Lights out! Dealing with Power Outages in Your Library. Feliciter 50(4), 156-158.

Steele, A. (2009). Flying with the Phoenixes: Avoiding job burnout as a librarian and manager. Children’s Librarianship 7(3), 51-52.

Image from the National Archives and Records Administration Archival Research Catalog

Have you ever found yourself thinking: “I know I said yes to this, but now I wish I’d said no. That’s what I wanted to say in the first place”? Chances are you said yes because you were afraid to say no or you didn’t know how, or you don’t like saying no. If you were afraid to say no maybe you felt that you would be looked on as being difficult to work with, or that you would receive a poor job performance review. Maybe you feel that if you say no now, you won’t be asked again. Maybe you even feel guilty because if you can’t do a project then your co-worker will have to do it; or the project doesn’t get done at all. How do you say no? How can we frame “no” in a way that avoids negative consequences and enables us to be effective and healthy librarians?

Maintaining the right work/life balance can be tricky. For example, if your partner or child has an important event that conflicts with a meeting, what will you choose to attend? Some people might go to their meeting or show up late to her child’s piano recital or her partner’s awards ceremony. I have heard the phrase “rotating neglect” to describe these kinds of conflicts within work and personal lives. Essentially, we make choices to either neglect work or neglect ourselves and family. One of the ways we can counteract this is to begin by saying no to opportunities for service or projects that will upset the work/life balance we have.

The ability to say no to taking on a new project at work or another committee appointment is directly related to mental wellness and a healthy work/life balance. Many of us have a hard time saying no and can accumulate too much work and responsibility. The quandary remains that if you’re good at what you do you’ll be asked to take on projects and commitments. As a result the quality of our work and personal lives can suffer. In order to remain happy at work and in our personal lives, it is crucial that we find balance between them so that we feel mentally able to handle the tasks handed us at work, as well as the extracurricular activities in which we choose to engage. Service on national or local committees can be demanding and time intensive; frequently on time that is your own, and not our employer’s. In order to maintain balance, we need to learn how to say no. Say no when we cannot take on another commitment because our wellness is at stake. And that takes a tremendous amount of emotional intelligence, leadership, and let’s face it, guts.

William Ury’s The Power of a Positive No argues that a positive “no” is one that first affirms your values, then clearly says “no” to the current request, but ends with a possible yes to future positive work together. The construct Ury uses for this positive no is: “Yes! No. Yes?” For example, if you’re saying no to a colleague who asked if you would switch your late night reference shift, chances are you are saying “yes!” to spending time with your family, keeping your tickets to the big game, or your valued personal time. Following the “yes!” you must clearly communicate “no.” “No, John, I cannot take your shift.” The final “yes?” is a yes that is a proposition to an alternative to which you can both agree. An example of this might be, “I am spending tonight with my family. No, I cannot take your shift. Maybe in the future I’ll be able to.” While my example certainly does not do Ury’s book justice, it shows the construction of a positive no. A positive no is one that is intentional and thoughtful, and in the end, carries more meaning and demands more respect than a reactive “no” or a meek “yes.” Sometimes we just say yes because we fear the consequences, but if we can frame our “nos” positively as Ury suggests, we will find many of these fears ill-founded, and we will say no without feelings of guilt. Saying no in this positive way will feel good.

I recently remembered an act of self-advocacy displayed at a former job. When I was working as an elementary school library assistant, the principal asked if I would be interested in planning and hosting an after school book discussion group with students. My response is paraphrased as follows. “What a great idea. I think the kids could really benefit from something like this. I would not be able to do this on my free time. Can we work it out so that I may work more hours and be paid to do this?” You can see that my response follows the positive no construction. First, I say “yes!” affirming that I think the kids at the school could benefit from the program and I would enjoy doing it. Then I say “no” to doing the work as a volunteer. Finally, I say “yes?” to working on the project provided I get financially compensated. The principal and I were able to come to agreement and I started an after school book club for 4th and 5th graders.

“’There are moments when people have to say No…and that No needs to be said with the same sincerity, the same honesty, and in the same tone of voice that people say Yes.”” Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as quoted by Ury, p. 132

Just as the quote above indicates, “nos” and “yeses” that are communicated without thought will be ineffective. Before you can effectively say no you have to know yourself. You have to know your values and strengths, and you have to know your professional and personal goals. You have to be a leader. How? Discover your values first. Try using Elizabeth Burnette’s outline that answers “How can you tap into your full leadership potential?” from a workshop she conducted at the NCSU libraries called Personal Leadership & Balancing Competing Priorities.

Personal Leadership & Balancing Competing Priorities
by Elizabeth S. Burnette

How can you tap into your full leadership potential?

1. Determine your values, personal vision, and leadership vision:

• Identify your values,
• Determine what’s incongruent between what you believe, what you say, and what you do,
• Accommodate changes to your values over time – they do change, and
• Address conflicts between values, career, and life.

2. Understand your leadership ability.

• This is the sum of your skills, energy, time, and focus at a point in time.
• Influence can impact your ability to lead well in the present.
• Present roles can impact your ability to lead in future roles.

3. Consider how leadership fits into your world:

• Periodically assess your goals and aspirations,
• Review your personal and professional agendas, and
• Analyze past leadership roles for lessons learned.

4. Strive for balance between leadership and the other parts of your life.

• Balance is not about perfection.
• Changing demands can create imbalances in your life.
• Be fluid and look to minimize clashes between life and leadership.

Mary Pergander discussed another technique last October in American Libraries. Take a mini-retreat to reflect on your priorities and values. (October 2008). Make an outline and while on your retreat reflect on what is important to you.

Some examples from the field

Because I was so curious about this topic I decided to informally ask my colleagues and peers how they approach saying no. I e-mailed librarians who I know and posed the following questions:

• How do you decide to say “yes” to a project/committee appointment, etc when you are asked to take on a task?
• Have you ever said “no” to taking on a project at work? If so, how did you decide to say no, and what were the key components of that decision?
• When you have said no at work, how have you communicated the “no”?
• Have you ever felt that saying “no” at work has resulted in negative outcomes? Please explain the nature of those outcomes (as you are comfortable).
• Have you ever wanted to say no but didn’t feel that you were able due to its ramifications? If so, please explain the situation (as you are comfortable) and its outcomes.

A total of 16 people responded. My favorite response is quoted below in its entirety.

“I apologize for not replying sooner. These past few weeks have been very busy for me both at work and at home. I’ve given your request some thought and I am sorry to say that I cannot participate in your informal information gathering. I know that lots of other librarians will be happy to share their experiences with you, and I hope you will think of me the next time something like this comes up.”

In addition to making my day, this is a thoughtful and well executed no. In the style of Ury’s positive “no” it affirms the “yes!” that his time is precious. It clearly states that the answer is no, and it opens the “yes?” to working together in the future.

Perhaps the most telling result of asking for this feedback was that of the 16 respondents, two (12.5%) pointed to their mental health having been compromised as a result of having said yes, when they really should have said no. Two people (12.5%) also point to having a career or job changed based on their decisions to say no. One said “no” to overwork and stress by deciding to change jobs. The other person’s no (to working on a new project) resulted in a poor performance review and later a hostile work environment when the person who originally asked for help became her boss! This eventually led to her finding a new job and in the long run, ended positively.

Another theme that appears in respondents’ answers is that saying yes or no depends on who is doing the asking. Several people noted that they can’t say no to their boss or the library director. Others noted that if the person who asks is someone they respect and admire they are more likely to say yes, noting that personal requests garner more attention. Sometimes you just aren’t able to say no without jeopardizing your job or your performance review.

What was surprising to me, although it shouldn’t be, is that several people mentioned difficulty with saying no in their first “librarian” job. “I learned through my experience at that first librarian job that you have to start saying no early on because once you’ve shown you can do the work, no one is going to take work away from you…When I came to my new job, I immediately started setting boundaries.”

Saying no can be political. For professionals who are in a position where they must attempt to get tenure, it can mean hindering their ability to either continue employment or attain tenure status. In these instances we are trapped in “not having a choice” to say no. It’s not a “yes” because you can’t resist the opportunity, but you fear the consequences of a “no.”

In his book Ury similarly discusses tough situations and advises you that you must always have a Plan B. A Plan B is not a compromise, rather it is a plan with which you feel comfortable and are able to execute if your “no” is not accepted. If your Plan B is to find a new job or even quit your current one, you must be prepared to take that step.

The final theme I noted is that there are major differences between saying no at work and saying no to joining another ALA committee (or something similar). One of my colleagues said precisely because ALA commitments are not part of her job expectations, she is very picky about what she does do. In order to say yes to an appointment she must feel passionately about that particular service or task.

Let’s talk praxis. How do you do it?

“Saying No is essential in life. Every living cell has a membrane that allows certain needed nutrients to pass through and repels others. Every living organism needs such boundaries to protect itself. To survive and thrive, every human being and every organization need to be able to say No to anything that threatens their safety, dignity, and integrity.” The Power of a Positive No p. 125

So what are some tactics that we can use to decide if we’re going to give a yes or no answer? The following are synthesized suggestions by respondents; and even some of their direct suggestions.

• Review your workload with your supervisor and come upon mutual agreement to whether your answer will be a “yes” or “no” can be helpful both in the way you frame your response, but also in alleviating any political ramifications or consequences your “no” may cause.
• Think about whether the project is of value to you, your job, or your patrons. Also consider whether it’s a task about which you are passionate, something that will be a lot of fun to do, or add to your skills set.
• Consider who is doing the asking. Think about whether the person asking is asking for a favor or a personal request.
• Always weigh whether or not you have the time. One respondent offered a calculation you could use to figure your time commitment at work. “…keeping a calculation of your standard work week responsibilities in time-consumption (i.e. weeding=2hours/per/week, desk time=15 hours/per/week, etc.) Once you have that worked out, you’ll know if you can afford another X-amount of hours to dedicate to the project.”
• Decide whether you think you will have something to contribute to the project/committee.
• Weigh the consequences. If you are going to say “yes” to this project you might have to say “no” to something else. Figure out which is more important to you.
• Discuss the issue with your friends, partner and family. If your commitments will affect them you should consult them. Chances are you will get some good advice.
• If saying no, always recommend someone else who might be good at that position or would have interest in serving. (Share the love!)

Let’s face it, sometimes even after answering all of these questions we have to say no. But if we’ve thoughtfully examined our values and the situation at hand, chances are we can communicate our “no” positively, intentionally, and with respect. Several respondents forwarded examples of how to say no. See the one quoted below (names have been changed to protect the innocent).

Hi Sue,

Seeing that you have a nice group of interested people and feeling like I’ve jumped on a few too many projects for this spring, I’d like to respectfully bow out of the Second Life group. You’re welcome to keep me on the email list for input, but I’d rather not commit to regular meetings and additional training.

Thanks,
Sam

It’s not just a positive “no,” it’s also an intentional and thoughtful “yes.”

Image from the National Archives and Records Admin­is­tra­tion Archival Research Catalog

As I end this article I want to stress that while I have concentrated on the “no,” by learning to frame and understand our “nos,” we are also learning how to understand and frame our “yes.” We should approach situations, opportunities and the whole of our work with thoughtfulness and intent. Thoughtful yeses and thoughtful nos will be more respected by your colleagues and carry more meaning. Moreover, you will feel better in your work and personal life when you can strike the balance, and say your “nos” without fear and guilt, but with a positive affirmation of your values.

If we can start balancing our work and personal lives and integrate positive “nos” when we need them, we’ll be healthier and happier librarians

Now it’s time to hear from readers. How do decide on your yes and on your no? How do you say it? Have you had to say no to preserve your wellness?

Further Reading

• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
• Hernon, P., & Rossiter, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Which traits are most prized? College & Research Libraries, 67(3), 260-275.
• Kreitz, P. (2009). Leadership and emotional intelligence: A study of university library directors and their senior management teams. College & Research Libraries, 70(6), 531-554.
• MacMillan, K. (2005). Generating goodwill: Turning no into yes. American Libraries, 36(10), 48-49.
• Pergander, M. (2008). Retreat! retreat! American Libraries, 39(9), 69.
• Promis, P. (2008). Are employers asking for the right competencies? A case for emotional intelligence. Library Administration & Management, 22(1), 24-30.
• Richter, L. (2006). Emotional intelligence at work: An interview with Daniel Goleman.(1), 24-28.
• Schachter, D. (2005). Work and personal life balance. Information Outlook, 9(10), 10-11.
• Schachter, D. (2009). Developing and applying emotional intelligence. Information Outlook, 13(5), 49-50.
• Ury, W. (2007). The power of a positive no: How to say no and still get to yes. New York: Bantam Books.

Thank Yous

A heartfelt thank you to Elizabeth Burnette and Katherine O’Clair for providing thoughtful feedback on this post. Additional thanks to my colleague Laura Zeigen and Lead Pipers Ellie Collier, Derik Badman, Brett Bonfield, and Hilary Davis for their editorial comments.

Outreach is dead. It’s time we put its body in a coffin, say our collective prayers and move on.
You see, for most of the summer I undertook a long series of “outreach” trips to promote and educate the public at large about a grant-funded project I’d been working on for the past year. I drove all over the state of Oregon, to the desert in the East, the rolling mountains in the South, up and down the rocky coast, and through the farm and ranch land in Western and Central Oregon. During these long trips (imagine expanses of high desert for 200 miles before you hit a rest stop or gas station) I had a lingering feeling that what I was doing was definitely NOT outreach. Instead, I was promoting and marketing a service and tool that, for the past year, I had been helping to build at my place of employ.

What IS outreach in libraries today? It became my mission to discover a succinct working definition of what we do that so many of us consider outreach, yet my conclusion remained embedded in that same violent phrase: outreach is dead. When this thought first occurred to me my brain immediately began singing the lyrics to Bauhaus’s hit Goth Rock song Bela Lugosi’s Dead. (“…Bela Lugosi’s dead/ undead undead undead/Oh, Bela/Bela’s undead…)

We need to lay rest to outreach’s physical body–that separate entity that comprises library departments and ancillary programs. As well we need to lay to rest the word “outreach,” whose separate existence inhibits and deters us from doing what we as libraries, librarians, and information professionals should be doing. Instead of integrating library promotion, advocacy, and community-specific targeted services, we have left “outreach” outside of the inclusive library whole to be an afterthought, a department more likely to get cut, or work function of only a few, such as your subject librarians. If we kill this notion, if we consider the word and the separate entity of outreach as dead, we are more likely to be able to embrace and participate in activities formerly known as outreach and incorporate this essential part of our jobs into our daily work routine.

Definitions

Before I came to the conclusion that outreach is dead, I attempted to re-define outreach as such: Outreach is marketing. If the people who you’re attempting to reach seek services from you (rather than you reaching them) it is not outreach. The agenda behind library outreach should be to offer services without monetary gain, and to identify and fill service voids for people who are not looking for them. Unsatisfied with my definition I asked my dad. His response was “I let the NSF [National Science Foundation] define that for me.” (My dad is an organic chemistry professor.) I was not convinced that a funding agency should have the ultimate say in what “outreach” activities should be or include; particularly in libraries. It was then that I decided to turn to my colleagues and professional literature to seek a good definition.

Scott Pointon (Public Libraries, 2009) refers to the following definition: “Draw a circle around the central or main library building–every library service, program, or library-related endeavor taking place outside that circle is outreach.” (5-6).  Likewise, in her introduction to the Extraordinary Outreach section of Public Libraries last winter, Nann Hilyard points to the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary definition of outreach, “noun: the act of extending community services to a wider section of the population. Transitive Verb: to reach beyond, exceed” (20). Unsatisfied with both of these definitions I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online (thanks, Multnomah County Library, for my remote access to this!) I found:

Outreach. Noun.  b. spec. The activity of an organization in making contact and fostering relations with people unconnected with it, esp. for the purpose of support or education and for increasing awareness of the organization’s aims or message; the fact or extent of this activity.

None of these definitions are satisfactory to me. And none of us define outreach in the same way. Pointon’s definition is great, but it pulls into play the struggle libraries are having with “library as place,” an issue recently addressed in The Journal of Academic Librarianship by Sennyey et al., 2009. Current library services transcend the physical boundaries of a library building. Many collections and services offered by public and academic libraries are used remotely. Users access library services from home, in their offices, and even via mobile devices. “…the bond between users and the physical library will change and if poorly managed the “library as place” will become just another campus building” (Sennyey, et al., 2009). In this way, defining outreach by physical boundaries (a body) does not reflect the wealth of services that libraries provide and undermine our community-centered work.

The OED definition is great, but to me this definition gets back to my first instinct: this is marketing, not outreach. In fact, I looked at the OED definition of marketing, and felt that the two, for our intent, are almost interchangeable.

Marketing  b. The action or business of bringing or sending a product or commodity to market; (now chiefly, Business) the action, business, or process of promoting and selling a product, etc., including market research, advertising, and distribution.

Our product is our service. To many librarians marketing can be a dirty word and outreach almost saintly. But in so many articles about outreach authors seem to refer to library service promotion as marketing anyway.  (see  Dawn Bussey’s Getting the Word Out, Eugene Jeffers’s Electronic Outreach and Our Internet Patrons, and Rebecca Donnelly’s The Misguided Relationship.) I think we should embrace marketing for what it is, and let outreach diffuse into our daily routine. Moreover, the first use of the word outreach in this way was over 100 years ago, in 1899 according to the OED. Since libraries have changed so much over the past 100 years isn’t it time we find a new way to express and incorporate community-centered work? The OED definition reminds me of a picture I snapped while on my outreach excursions.

The paint is peeling. Obviously its current physical manifestation could use some help. Likewise, when we use the term “outreach” we typically refer to an older and more traditional notion of what the word means. For us to move beyond this idea, we just might have to start using different words and detach current assumptions about “outreach” to discuss our “outreach” activities.

Differences Between Academic and Public Libraries

In academic libraries outreach seems to mean one of a few things. First, you have to reach your constituents. Some libraries have a Facebook page and some libraries tweet. You might also provide orientations to new student cohorts or you might offer satellite library services in a different building such as a dorm or a student center. Other examples could be creating relationships with faculty to provide services that support teaching as well as to their students to support course-specific learning. These examples seem to encompass much of what academic “outreach” focused activities include. To me, all of these services should not be contained within a separate body, department, or undertaken by just the “Outreach Librarian.” Instead, they are part in parcel what we do. As professionals we should all be talking about the library in our communities and fostering relationships. We should be offering satellite services and, yes, we should all have down pat our 30 second “why the library is important” elevator speech. These are essential aspects of a library and of any librarian’s job. They are not separate nor should they be contained in a different or a sole unit or entity.

Unlike academic libraries, Public library outreach programs seem much more identified by space and place. Bookmobile services, library services provided to those in jail, services at senior centers and in schools are all examples of what would fall under the “outreach” umbrella. Dawn Bussey discusses the various things that the Glen Ellyn Public Library has done in their community and outside the library’s walls (Public Libraries, 2009). But let’s face it, these services and the community-based nature of public libraries are essential to what today’s library is. It is not extra, it is mandatory and we should all be engaged and providing targeted, community-based services to our constituents.

Community Engagement and Marketing are Essential

The nature of libraries has changed enormously. The physical building is less important. Books are less important. Due to these changes libraries will become obsolete in today’s current market where information needs are created and fulfilled by (my favorite “frenemies”) Google and Facebook. People purchase books from Amazon, they read blogs, wikis and other online commercial (and non-commercial) information sources. But libraries have what they don’t and we need to let our users know this. We have the ability to be in our communities, to engage them and offer specific targeted services. Our engagement with our communities can be the defining aspect of what a library is to any given community—and that sounds a whole lot like what one “outreach librarian” was doing or one “outreach department” does in the old “outreach” paradigm. I am not trying to undermine the importance of marketing, advocacy, or library services. Traditional “outreach” services should be an integrated part of what we do, not an aside, a tacked on item.

Problems We Face in Death

Just because libraries need to change and have changed does not mean that the politics of our respective institutions and governing bodies have. Many institutions, such as my own, have “outreach” outlined in their missions. Institutions might use “outreach” to exemplify their worth for grant or other funding sources, which frequently require “outreach” activities be incorporated into funded projects. (Much like my dad’s example and my recent travel around the state of Oregon.)  We need for our city governments and our library and university administrations to advocate for libraries and library services in the manner I have described.  When crucial administrative decisions get made, for example to open a new campus, build a new building, or to add a new degree program at a college or university, libraries and their services need to be represented. If we have successfully advocated for our constituents by providing them with quality targeted, community-centered services, they will advocate for us. In the end, we might be able to provide those essential library services without being restricted by traditional “outreach” departments or initiatives.

Another issue facing libraries and library staff is training. How are we going to train library staff to provide those 30 second elevator speeches? Who will take the lead to ensure that circulation staff, reference staff, and others know how to engage in the services we’ve been calling outreach? If we expect everyone to engage in this work, staff need to have the skills and knowledge to be able to do so.

Finally, outreach is usually considered a separate department, when marketing and promotion of outreach activities within institutions get delegated to separate “marketing,” “communications,” or “public relations” departments. Wouldn’t it be best if the two were integrated? These departments often produce and distribute printed and written materials such as press releases, brochures and flyers, or craft an organizational mission statement. This kind of community engagement remains essential. We must learn to embrace marketing and collaborate with our marketing and communications departments for our community-centered services to achieve their potential.

The Undead

Kill your notion of outreach. We should demolish the body of outreach, but keep outreach activities alive. We should disallow outreach a separate body, but fold its spirit into our daily work and activities, for it is this spirit of work that is the very kernel of what makes a library. Let’s use different words to talk about what we do. (Please, if you have a suggestion on a new term to replace “outreach” leave a comment!) Let’s work to engage our administrators and our institutions in changing the attitude and political structure surrounding “outreach.” Let’s bridge the divide by collaborating with community and institutional partners to create and promote services. Let’s make sure library staff has the training to be able to give an elevator speech about why the library is important to community. Finally, let’s reshape our attitude and view community-based library services as essential; as the core of what keeps libraries strong and relevant to our communities.

Thanks to Gail Kouame for providing her thoughtful feedback to this post. Also thanks to Lead Pipe Colleagues Derik Badman, Ellie Collier, and Hilary Davis for their edits and feedback. Additionally, thanks to my office-mate, Andrew Hamilton, who is a great springboard for ideas.

References and Further Reading

Adams, T. M., & Sean Evans, R. (2004). Educating the educators: Outreach to the college of education distance faculty and native american students. Journal of Library Administration, 41(1), 3-18.

Aguilar, P., & Keating, K. (2009). Satellite outreach services program to under-represented students: Being in their space, not on MySpace. The Reference Librarian, 50(1), 14-28.

Bussey, D. (2009). Getting the word out. Public Libraries, 48(1), 20-21.

Connell, R. S. (2009). Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: A survey of student opinion. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 9(1), 25-36.

Donnelly, R. (2009). The misguided relationship: Learning from outreach experiences. Public Libraries, 48(1), 24-25.

Hilyard, N. B. (2009). Cultivating support for library advocacy. Public Libraries, 48(3), 16-19.

Jeffers, E. J. (2009). Electronic outreach and our internet patrons. Public Libraries, 48(1), 21-23.

Pointon, S. E. (2009). Library outreach is the future! Public Libraries, 48(2), 2-5, 24.

Sennyey, P., Ross, L., & Mills, C. (2009). Exploring the future of academic libraries: A definitional approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(3), 252-259.

ALAConnect's Home Page © ALA

So ALA has joined the ranks of two point oh. Last month it rolled out ALAConnect, a service influenced by Ning, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google Docs, and other online networking platforms and shared work spaces. Despite the hoopla about the system I hadn’t even heard of it until one of my working groups was asked to use it. Being an online networking junkie I was intrigued and decided to log in and, consequently, to write this post. After my first look around the site I was a bit pessimistic, but after taking a deeper look, I have come to hope that ALAConnect will be able to reach individuals who haven’t been able to attend conferences and engage with their colleagues about ALA-centric issues. If ALAConnect can draw this constituency to use it, then the tool might mean some real changes for ALA.

Currently, ALAConnect, which aims “…to engage in ALA business and network with other members around issues and interests relevant to the profession” (ALA, 2009) is in Phase 1 of its launch. This means that not all functionality has been implemented and future enhancements are planned for the site by the end of 2009. These include an advanced search for members and a mentoring network. (Check out the ALAConnect Roadmap for more details.)

At first glance the system seems to have tools that we librarians have been using for a while from many different places and systems. It offers the ability to create and modify shared documents, host chats, and sponsor polls and votes all in one space! In many ways this fills a very real need for ALA committees that have been struggling to work virtually. Instead of chatting in a Meebo room, on Gchat in your Gmail, AIM, and using Google Docs or e-mailing documents back and forth, these groups now have the opportunity to conduct work in one community space.

Before I begin to discuss the social context and implications ALAConnect has on ALA politics and the organization’s evolution, I’d like to discuss some of the more apparent and concrete issues surrounding this technological implementation.

Usability

As with any system, some basic usability problems are apparent in ALAConnect. Most of the issues I point out have something to do with the structure of the system in place, in this case, Drupal. Some of these issues will be fixed in time with future Drupal releases, but right now they pose some usability issues.

One of the first things I attempted to do in ALAConnect was build my social network. I quickly discovered that it takes too many clicks to add a new friend. After you have found a friend to add and successfully add that friend, the system returns you to your profile instead of the “My Network” page.

Next, I tried to do some searches to find relevant communities to join. Being the librarian I am, I clicked on “advanced search” but was confused that this did not take me directly to the advanced search interface. Instead, I had to click a few more times to get there.

Another seemingly simple usability issue that I noticed is that in the left navigation toolbar, the drop-down arrow next to menu items isn’t functional. While it does tell you that there are more items to view under that navigational category, it does not work to drop down the structure. Instead, you have to physically click on the link and load a new page to see the sub-navigation levels.

Again, these problems will likely be addressed as ALA gets more feedback or as Drupal’s developers make further improvements to the software. Either way, these are basic usability issues that, in the future, might be improved.

Privacy

Privacy seems to be another issue with the system. In fact, Jessamyn West was one of the first to comment on it. (You’ll notice from the comments in that blog post that ALA staff was quick to respond and fix the issue!) I get the feeling that they are getting a lot of privacy based questions because of the existence of the Privacy FAQ page and the many posts in the forum related to privacy. There are some pretty robust features for privacy in ALAConnect, but it’s hard to figure out what’s what without doing your research. You can choose to keep your membership in communities private, but your official ALA work will display to members. You also have options to control your privacy for each community you join. See the FAQ for more information about these details.

The first thing I saw on my profile, shockingly, was my (personal) phone number. Why? Well, the answer is simple. First, my personal phone number is the phone number with which I joined ALA. (Being an unemployed librarian at that point it was the only number I could give and I haven’t yet updated my information with ALA.) Second, this piece of contact information was imported with other membership information when creating ALAConnect. (Why we need a phone number to display in an online social networking tool is beyond me.) Upon further investigation I discovered that phone numbers display only to people you call contacts, but this overlooks two simple questions: Who is going to call me when they could shoot me an email, and why was this piece of data even imported into ALAConnect?

ALAConnect's Online Now Box ©ALA

More disconcerting to me, however is that ALAConnect displays who recently logged in on its homepage, even to the public. At first I thought I had the ability to opt out of this, but it turns out I don’t.

Going into my profile I disabled the ability for people see my online status in my user preferences, but this status only relates to IM and chat gadgets embedded in your profile, not the entire portal.

While displaying whether I’m online might be inconsequential, it still gives me the heebie jeebies to know that anyone can find out that I’m at a computer logged in to ALAConnect. Furthermore, what utility does this function add? How will the information that I’m online be used by other members? There is no internal IM function (except for chats in member communities and groups) to which it can link. I’d be more forgiving if there were some utility to this part of the interface, but there doesn’t appear to be any.

ALAConnect Privacy Options for IM © ALA

Functionality

Unlike usability, functionality is one of those things that is harder to change after a system has been implemented. While I think the functionality of ALAConnect is quite rich, I did have some basic questions and frustrations about it. For instance, when creating my profile I wanted to include all of my schooling, not just one school.

ALAConnect Profile Education Display ©ALA

I would also like to be able to show that I have two master’s degrees, and I know there are many many people out there who are in the same boat. Moreover, I would like to be able to connect with people who are alums of my same college, which seems to be a logical way to network. For example, I belong to a group on Facebook called Reedie Librarians, which is a way for me to connect with Reed College graduates who are also in the library profession. (This functionality has been marked in the ALAConnect Roadmap as a future improvement.)

There are some additional items in ALAConnect that might prove to be useful. Using tagging and being able to “favorite” a post or group is really helpful, if you use this functionality. Though if you’re anything like me, you might never look at your favorites again. ALAConnect also boasts the ability to create RSS feeds to read content of interest. (I did not try to create an RSS feed so I cannot say if this is easy to do.) Additionally, the system embraces some other, but not all, social networking sites such as Flickr and Delicious. These sites will show up as gadgets on your profile if you include them. The following image is of Aaron Dobbs’s public profile.

User Profile on ALAConnect with Flickr and Delicious Gadgets ©ALA

Even though users can embed some gadgets in their profiles, some might want better interoperability between ALAConnect and their other networking tools. ItLwtLP blogger Derik says,

“My big issue is that I want interoperability with my other social networks. If ALA Connect would connect up with Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, etc., maybe I could see a use. That interoperability is where we get into OpenSocial, Facebook Connect, and Google Friend Connect, all different ongoing projects to make the social network portable.”

I have a feeling that many people agree with Derik. Why would I join another networking site if isn’t interoperable with the other things that I’ve been using for online networking and work? The problem here is that ALAConnect is not supposed to be a social networking site. Rather, it is intended to be a professional networking site. This is an important distinction to note, but I wonder if it is a distinction that users will make.

Finally, one of the best features and functional pieces of ALAConnect is its ability to host user-generated content. Users can create groups, join groups, post comments, etc. This kind of content is one that I feel has been lacking within the ALA structure, and creating this functionality may open the doors to increased organizational participation and meaningful online discourse about professional issues.

I’m sure there are other functional things within ALAConnect that I haven’t yet been able to explore. If you know of any, please comment on this blog post!

The Social Context

I’d like to move from the concrete portion of this review to looking at the social context of ALAConnect. As was ingrained in my brain in graduate school, no technological implementation exists in a vacuum. In fact, the social context surrounding a technological implementation will most likely determine how well the system is adopted and used. (See Kling, Rosenbaum, and Sawyer’s 2005 book, Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics for an easy to read summary.)

ALAConnect might be able to offer ALA members the networking and virtual space to engage in discourse and other community-based activity that has been taking place in other virtual spaces. There is no doubt that online networking and use of webapps are part of a computerization movement which is particularly useful for information professionals and librarians. (For more about computerization movements, read a piece by Susan Iacono and Rob Kling in Yates and Van Maanen’s 2001 book, Information Technology and Organizational Transformation.) The question is: for ALA members who feel disenfranchised and disenchanted, can ALAConnect be a democratizing factor? Can a social movement form in this virtual space to give ALA members what they need from the organization? I think it’s possible, but whether this happens will be determined by the system’s users.

Browsing ALAConnect ©ALA

There are a few things in the ALAConnect interface and system that show its surrounding social context. You will notice that ALAConnect’s structure is based on ALA’s scary, unwieldy, and seemingly unnavigable political structure. Notice in the following screenshot that to browse ALAConnect you immediately have to understand the structure of ALA. This is not all that helpful to those who don’t quite understand it. One the one hand, this system must reflect that structure. On the other hand, this could prevent many users from joining and using the system, simply based on its parent structure.

I tried to look at how to create a group (see the screenshot below), and was left wondering what the “ALAConnect” subject headings had to do with the group I was going to create. For instance, we are asked right away to place our user-generated content into an organizational hierarchy (ALA’s) that is hard to use. However, like any classification, this function will help to make groups more findable. You can also request to add a new subject heading, which is a great service.  (See the Member Chair FAQ for more details.) This model isn’t ideal, but it seems to address the issue of how different users might find the groups they’re looking for.

Creating a Group on ALAConnect ©ALA

It is impossible for a system like ALAConnect to be devoid of social context. The real issue here is the tension between the “networking” part of the system and the part that is tied to offcial ALA committees and structure.

The Verdict

Despite some of the criticisms I’ve discussed in this article, I think it is a tremendous resource with great potential. Content, including communities and discussions, can be user-generated. Structures and conversations can center around an issue, not around a division, something that ALA desperately needs in order to be able to involve a larger community, to make the ALA structure more open, and to make the association’s work more relevant to today’s librarians. The fact that the system is part of the ALA structure may dissuade some users, but there is a growing online community of non-ALA members who have created ALAConnect accounts and are using the resource.

ALAConnect offers everyone in libraryland (not just ALA members) a way to get involved in professional discourse, to engage in professional networking, and to create their own professional communities online. What we need to do is to join ALAConnect en masse, create groups, engage in communities, and make ALA what we need it to be. ALAConnect is just a starting point, but I honestly think that if we start there, the sky is the limit. It’s up to us to make sure we use the system in a way that is meaningful to us.

Thanks to Flickr user gynti_46 for use of the photo.

Since October something has been weighing on my professional mind: my abusive relationship with Google. I love Google, I don’t ever want to leave my Gmail, my Gchat, my GoogleDocs, my web searches, my Google Reader, but right now I wish I weren’t so dependent on it.

The weight to which I am referring is the proposed Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Google knows with whom I e-mail and chat, for what I search, what blogs I read, and on and on. With the proposed settlement Google will take a further step in controlling my (and libraries’) information use and seeking behavior. Google will know what books I read, what pages I read, how long I read them, what pages I print, and what passages I copy and paste. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about you should stop reading immediately and read the 2-Page Super Simple Summary on the Google Book Search settlement agreement produced by the ALA Office of Information Technology Policy (OITP). Then, and only then, continue here at ItLWtLP.)

For those of you who aren’t going to go read this document, here’s my simple recap: The American Association of Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild filed a class action lawsuit against Google Book Search for copyright infringement. Instead of going to trial, the parties have agreed to settle out-of-court. Google has agreed to fund a rightsholder database called the Book Rights Registry, which will be run by the rightsholders (authors and publishers). Google will sell books to individual consumers, but rightsholders will have financial stakes in the product. Libraries will be able to subscribe to gain full-text access to books via the Google Book Search Project, mimicking the same model as many other library products. The proposed settlement has far-reaching implications for use of digitized materials in libraries, the role of fair use, and the future digital market. Unfortunately, many of the agreement’s facets are antithetical to the mission and purpose of libraries. In fact, some libraries, such as  Harvard, immediately pulled out of participation with the Google Book Search Project.

I won’t provide you with a more in depth analysis of the suit in this blog post. As I mentioned in my first sentence, this abusive relationship has been eating at my brain for many months and it’s just now beginning to solidify. What I do want to share is what I think we in the library community can do about the settlement. The stakes of the settlement are enormous, and neither the rightholders or Google represent libraries in this process. But we, librarians and the library community at large, are an ornery bunch. Aren’t we the community that took to court over the PATRIOT Act? Aren’t we the community that instigated a public outcry when Michael Moore’s publisher pulled Stupid White Men for being too critical of former President Bush? Aren’t we “radical” and “militant?”

Because I don’t want libraries, information advocates, patrons, or anyone else to be trapped in an abusive relationship with Google I would like to offer the following suggestions for what individuals and the professional community can do to protect and salvage what remains of our relationship with “the big G.” (And maybe even make this Google Book Settlement Agreement a bit more reasonable.)

Individuals

Educate yourself.

Knowledge is empowerment. Read through blog posts, documents, and news articles about the proposed settlement agreement. The ALA Washington Office is tracking most everything that’s out there and has made a nice little portal web site for you to use. Particularly useful is also the Guide to the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement. This longer document provides a broader view than the 2-page document. You might even consider checking out what Google has to say about the “groundbreaking agreement.”

Because the settlement is so intrinsically tied to copyright law and fair use, this is an ideal time to refresh yourself on the basics. Re-read Kenny Crews’s Copyright Law for Librarians and Educators and Carrie Russell’s Complete Copyright. Subscribe to blogs that deal with copyright such as librarycopyright.net or Karen Coyle’s blog.

Ruminate.

Ask yourself and think about the tough questions. During the Google Book Settlement: What’s in it for Libraries? panel at ALA Midwinter, Karen Coyle posed the following questions: Does the product serve my users? What will the collection be? What is the quality of the product? Panelist Laura Quilter pushed the panel participants and audience to consider the privacy issues presented by the proposed model for accessing digital materials through Google Books. As librarians we have a responsibility to protect our users. Mold and define your personal and professional values for privacy. This will be incredibly useful if you are put in a place to consider purchasing and implementing this subscription product in your library.

Be an advocate in your community.

Let’s face it. There are so many issues to follow in our profession, that chances are many of your colleagues might not know anything about this proposed settlement agreement. Talk with your colleagues and share with them what you have learned. Push your administrators to find out if any pre-emptive discussions regarding this product have occurred. What is the institutional stance on the settlement agreement and Google Books in general? By asking the hard questions of our supervisors and administrators, we are often able to generate institutional discourse.

The Community

Ask and discuss.

ALA has very bright and informed people working to understand the Google Book Settlement Agreement. Librarians who specialize in information policy, entire offices and committees that deal with legislation and lobbying for ALA interests. But this 300+ page legal document that is the agreement is confusing and still not fully understood by the library community. At the aforementioned Midwinter panel discussion, many things came to light that we (or at least I) did not previously know about the settlement. For example, the settlement will not allow for a subscriber library’s users to login via remote access and access their library’s subscription to the Google Books database. Users who are community members of a subscribing institution will only be able to access the resource “on campus.” Another fine example is how Google will serve public libraries with this product. Google will allow public libraries one access station to the product. Only one.

We need more fora in which to engage to find out exactly what the settlement agreement means to us and our users. Professional organizations, ALA, SLA, PLA, ARL and others should consider hosting more web-hosted seminars for their members on the subject. Moreover, hosting other kinds of discussion fora to ask questions and commiserate within the library community such as BBS or wikis or even blogs will be helpful to those of use who struggle to understand the issues inherent with the settlement.

It is also of import to note that during the panel at Midwinter Dan Clancy, Engineering Director for the Google Book Search Project, said he would like to be able to be available to the library community for more discussion. State libraries, consortia, or other large groups should consider contacting Dan and schedule a telecon about concerns.

Educate Google.

I would like to give Google the benefit of the doubt. However, the fact remains that Google is a business and will not implement policy or procedure based upon it being “the right things to do.” Rather, Google will make policy, and change procedure, as it is beneficial to business and the deep Google pocketbook. That being said, I think Google would attempt to take more responsibility for “doing the right thing” if the company were to realize that the proposed settlement model is not one upon which libraries will willingly spend their money. Just because Google will have a monopoly on the digitized books, does not mean that we should lower our standards for offering resources to patrons that are easy to use and ethically implemented. We, as a community, need to share with Google the ethical principles and best practices that we have worked so hard to develop—of particular relevance, the Principles for Digital Content, and the Principles for a Networked World.

Develop position statements, draft and pass resolutions, or take other governmental action.

A unified voice of librarians can be a powerful thing. Moreover, if professional organizations such as ALA, whose membership is purported to be 65,000 (according to the ALA Annual Report), use their position as the good stewards of knowledge and information, we have the ability to put up a good fight that might yield some positive results. Currently the Washington Office is working to gather ALA membership input so that it can issue a position statement or take other action on the settlement. (I don’t even know the proper channels to let ALA where I stand on this issues. To this end, ALA should consider creating a system that enables soliciting and gaining membership comment when warranted.)

ALA Council should also consider passing a resolution regarding the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. It is not out of the question that this kind of political activity will help the organization to retain its integrity and ethics regarding privacy, information policy, and what best serves libraries and patrons.

ALA and other library organizations should consider future legal action. It seems to me that libraries would have a good case to bring forth their own class action lawsuit. This might be a last case resort, but I do not think we should not sit idly by if a large market-driven product were to threaten the library community’s ability to best serve the public.

Create support materials and documents for libraries to use.

Shortly after the court “okays” the Google Books Settlement agreement, libraries will face a “purchase or not to purchase” question for the Google Books subscription product. Navigating the ins and outs of the legalese in the settlement will be daunting for any library system, consortium, or lone library that chooses to buy the product. Having FAQs handy or even an ALA Toolkit on best implementation practices for Google Books would be a great service.

It doesn’t have to be a waiting game.

If we work now to understand what we can about the proposed settlement, if we start to evaluate the effect purchasing this product will have on our libraries and patrons, if we create a unified voice and foster discourse, then we will better be able to keep fires under control and perhaps keep our brains in our heads. Google is a powerful company, but powerful, too, is the voice of libraries and librarians. I firmly believe that if we continue to put our efforts toward understanding everything encompassed by the Google Book settlement issue, then we will better be able to serve our communities, and perhaps inform positive changes that will let us sit in better peace with our friend and enemy. This is my call to you, colleagues, to engage, think, debate, and defend library values. Take control and save yourself from this abusive relationship. Google can be a reference librarian’s best friend, but right now, with the proposed settlement, it is looking as if we are subject to continued abuse.