Inner circles in library blogland

Posted on by

At the risk of sounding rather negative, even petty (or worse), I’ve noticed an awful lot of the inner circle syndrome in library blogland lately. It seems to be getting more and more obvious, but perhaps not to those who might be deemed part of that inner circle. Some time ago I commented about Walt Crawford’s (of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large and Walt at Random fame, among others) use of the phrase, “the great echo chamber.” My comments here are pretty much in the same vein.

My main beef or criticism is that there seems to be — or there is at least the appearance of — an elite clique of library bloggers out there, all of whom know each other, give presentations at a bazillion different conferences together (how on earth they have the time or money, either personally or from their organization of employment, to go to so many so often, I don’t know), constantly make reference to each other’s postings, often echo what each other is saying, and on and on. One current focus of their attention is something referred to as “Library 2.0.” What the heck that means is still up for debate, although I gather it is in some sense a response to the whole “Web 2.0″ mantra that is currently being discussed in the broader info. tech. environment. The way in which this term or phrase is discussed is what bothers me, more than what I can understand of the meaning of it. In other words, I am all for the so-called “two-way communication” evolution in the broader web environment that is being fostered by blogs, wikis, tagging, and other technologies. But I am cautious about the way Library 2.0 is pitched or hailed as a “movement” or “rallying cry” as many seem to do, seemingly without critical evaluation or assessment. There is also an inherent meaning to the term that anything pre-Library 2.0 is passe, old, even perhaps retrograde, and I object to that. Unlike some who have commented on this phenomenon, I am a relatively young librarian. Also, unlike many who espouse this new approach or philosophy, I have spent a considerable amount of time in both worlds, the traditional library, and the information science/technology realm.

There is an air about this discussion that bothers me that somewhat encapsulated by Roy Tennant in his most recent Digital Libraries column in Library Journal, where he writes about lessons learned in his career thus far. One of those lessons is “Don’t let the past be your guide.” He wasn’t writing about Library 2.0 at all but this lesson is one that I think too many proponents of Library 2.0 are practicing. Forget what we did before, because that landed us in the mess we are now in. Embrace the new stuff wholeheartedly. These words are my interpretation of what Roy wrote. (I really like most of his article and also I am in general agreement on his perspectives about the state of libraries.) I am concerned about the idea of forgetting what is past. Why? Here are some reasons:

  • With my academic background in the study of history, I happen to agree with the old adage that says something to the effect that forgetting the past leads to repeating it. I wonder, e.g., if all the flurry and hype about tagging and folksonomies and the like will lead us to reinventing or covering the same ground that we have covered for over 100 years in developing a code of cataloging standards and practice.
  • I vehemently disagree that there is nothing to learn from the past because as the book of Ecclesiastes famously says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The terms, the technologies, the attitudes may change, but there are, I believe, several overarching principles and theories of librarianship that we need to remember now more than ever. There may be new principles to develop or flesh out, I don’t deny that. But they must co-exist with longer term principles. Articulating what I think those longer-term or historical principles are is something I’ll try to get to in a future post.
  • The “past” is still present and will continue to be with us for a long time. If we don’t understand past practices, we are being shortsighted and ineffective. Just one example of this is in cataloging, where most catalogs still have older records in them that were created under earlier codes. Also, the “past” in terms of print or traditional library material will coexist with the supposedly all digital future for a very long time. I am excited about, actively engaged in, and fairly proficient with the new digital library stuff, but I think it is silly (and detrimental) to ditch the traditional library stuff from our minds and considerations as if it was a millstone around our neck. (Granted, it sometimes feels that way.)

I’ve rambled on quite a ways from my original complaint, which is that there is too much in breeding of ideas and thought among some library bloggers. I think this tendency, whether real or perceived, may tend to freeze out or exclude disparate voices. I hope not. What I advocate is balance, if that’s possible. Sure, blogging is great but beware of the tone used, beware of always using first names when referring to others (I have been guilty of this, too), beware of only paying attention to those who are popular or controversial. Beware of overhyping anything new (guilty).

I sat for a minute before posting this and suddenly realized that this post is somewhat ironic since I have often been accused of being an overly eager purveyor of new things, new technologies, new ways of doing things. Maybe it’s a sign of old age. Maybe I’m finally growing up. Maybe it’s just late on a Friday afternoon.

  • http://walt.lishost.org <![CDATA[walt]]>

    I’ll print this post out as part of my folder for “thinking about library 2.0.” I hear what you’re saying (and I’m really surprised if Roy said that–guess I have to go read the article). All three of your bullets make sense.

    As for the echo chamber and inbreeding among the Hot Bloggers, I continue to believe there’s less of it in the library sphere than in true “A-list blogging,” although I could be wrong. I find most of the younger and more prominent bloggers to be open to different views and ready to engage in discussion. I note that some of the Library 2.0 advocates are explicitly asking me to join in the discussion, now that I’ve noted that I’ve been holding off (and why).

    There are certainly bandwagon people (but in my experience very few and not really the young turks), and there is certainly some possibly-overenthusiastic rhetoric. I’m actively looking for a middle ground (nothing new there), and so far I’m seeing a distinction between intent and rhetoric: Most of the intent is non-confrontational.

    Your penultimate paragraph is distinctly on the money, and I’m as guilty as anyone. First-naming is a time saver (and quite a few bloggers don’t use their whole names on the home page), but it can have the effect of seeming to exclude. (I too am astonished at the sheer amount of time some of these people spend on the road; not only would my work never have been willing to have me gone that often, but I wouldn’t have been willing to spend that much time away from home. Fortunately, I’ve never been such a hot property that the issue arose.)

    In short (hah!), I think most prominent library bloggers are open to other ideas (there are probably exceptions) and I think new/alternative voices can be/are heard. As to Library 2.0…well, some day I may have something useful to say.

  • http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com <![CDATA[Norma]]>

    Well said. I’ve seen this “inner blogdom” attitude forming among many bloggers as they aggregate, or go commercial.

    I liked Tennet’s article, and didn’t have the sense that he was saying ignore the past rather if the 2.0 people don’t heed his words, they will repeat his experiences.

  • http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/ <![CDATA[Paul Miller]]>

    Steve (Oberg, so I don’t get into trouble for first-naming!)

    An interesting set of comments, and surely a perfect example of both the way in which anyone (with a blog and some time) can play as full a part in the debate as anyone else, and of the tools’ ability to let those interested in the subject locate, consume, and consider the views of others, whether you agree with them or not.

    As I commented on Walt’s post, I personally want to see and understand as wide a spectrum of Library 2.0 views as I can, and to feed those back into my understanding of where we are, and where we might head.

    From within Talis, we are of the belief that Library 2.0 is a useful label for a whole host of possible benefits to the library domain. Some are small, simple, and already deployed in patches across library-land (listen to my conversation with OCLC’s George Needham over on http://talk.talis.com/, where one of the topics we discuss is the way in which innovations spread), some are larger and more disruptive, and one or two might actually quite drastically change the ways in which our systems interact with our patrons (librarians continue to be librarians, and continue to engage as one human to another with those who make it inside the building).

    Library 2.0 is being talked about by more people than just those in Talis. I can speak for us in a way that I can’t for others, though. We want, encourage, and welcome an open debate. We are building demonstrations and real systems that encapsulate aspects of what Library 2.0 means for us. We are writing (and revising!) white papers, articles and presentations to share those ideas. We want to hear where we might be onto something. We equally want to hear where, perhaps, we’re barking up the wrong tree (does that phrase translate across the Atlantic?).

    In the weeks since we submitted our first version of the Do Libraries Matter paper into this discussion, I have shared ideas publicly and privately with a great number of people. Checking back through my mailbox and feedreader, I can with all certainty say that more were strangers to me than people I’d met or conversed with before, and more were non-”A list” (yeuch) than A-list.

    I may not respond to everything that’s written, but I can assure everybody that I am using every tool at my disposal to ensure that I receive and read as close to everything currently being written on the topic as I can achieve.

    And the world pre-Library 2.0 (if it really is some yawning chasm that you are one side of or the other) is most definitely not passe, old, or retrograde. Doesn’t mean it can’t improve. And no, not all those improvements need “Library 2.0″. Speaking for my local public library, the biggest improvement it could offer my children and I would be to open a bit more often.

    The biblioblogosphere, although growing, remains a small segment of the library world and, as with other small groups ‘blessed’ with rapid communications tools, it can tend to “hot house” ideas at a remove from the rest of the world. That’s both good (ideas can be generated, disseminated, and evolved remarkably rapidly) and bad (it needs to step back and ground itself, now and then), but it can be managed. At Talis, for example (not advertising, just talking about what I know), we’re going out on the road to a selected number of events such as Computers in Libraries, where we’ll be sharing our take on some of these ideas in March. We’re also disseminating via our print newsletter, Panlibus Magazine, and lining up pieces for the more relevant journals.

    Please keep pushing back, and please keep on saying what you think. I’m listening, and I’m learning.

  • <![CDATA[Steve]]>

    First, I apologize to Walt, Norma, and Paul (yes, see, I’m using first names only) for not responding to your thoughtful comments on this post before now. I have been rather preoccupied at work and at home for a while and also, I just wanted to let this discussion, and the various points being made, percolate in my mind a little longer.

    Second, thank you all for commenting. It is great to read your thoughts or reactions to what I wrote.

    Third, re the inbreeding that I see in library blogland…I guess what disturbs me the most about what I see happening is that blogs are supposed to be, or can be, community builders, and yet I sense sometimes that the community being built is exclusive, probably without the community members even realizing it. This is nothing new, however. It really is the online equivalent to what I’ve often noticed happening in professional library associations or in individual libraries or groups of libraries. I am probably too quick to criticize on this, I admit it. And the tendency toward inner circles may not be as bad in library land as elsewhere, as Walt says. By the way, part of what prompted me to make this criticism was receipt of the preliminary program for the upcoming Computers in Libraries conference. I noticed that much of the program seems dominated by the same small group of bloggers, many of whom are giving not just one, not even just two, but sometimes three or more workshops. Surely there are more people out there who could be called upon to present, who are just as qualified? There just didn’t seem to be much diversity there.

    Fourth, I also may be misinterpreting Roy Tennant’s statement, “Don’t let the past be your guide.” That point resonated with me in a particular way, though, so that is why I wrote about it as I did. I tend to get irritated when someone gets excited about a new technology or approach, thinking it is a real breakthrough, when it really isn’t so new or revolutionary after all. Tagging is a particular example of this. It is my impression that many of the librarians who are so excited about it have very little in depth understanding about or experience with library cataloging. Of course it could be argued that this is in fact a positive thing, but I for one do not agree.

    Again, thanks for the comments. I will continue to think about these points further and if I have something more to add, I will write a new post.

  • <![CDATA[Steve]]>

    I was interested to read this comment by Seth Finkelstein on Walt Crawford’s blog that seems to validate my concern about inner circles existing in library blogland. Or at least, I know that another person shares this concern.

  • Pingback: