This piece brings together some commentaries about technology and your library's connections with your community. You'll find much more in the Related Articles at the end of this piece.

Technology Isolates and Brings Us Together

By Jamie LaRue, originally published in July 2006.

I was talking with a friend last night about the social effects of technology. He was saying that people today, mainly because of technology, live incredibly accelerated lives. And we're overstimulated.

We rush from one place to another, never really having the time to focus, to pay attention. Along the way we have radios, CDs, DVD players--and that's just in the car.

Not to mention cell phones. How often, he said, do you see people driving down the highway, one to an automobile, paying only partial attention to the road, jabbering away on a phone?

We are a society with attention deficit disorder, he said.

We were having this discussion in a coffeehouse, surely one of the positive signs of the time. Coffeehouses are places where people go just to hang out, to talk with each other face to face.

Of course, over in the corner was a teenager, plugged into an iPod, surfing on his little iBook. Alone.

My argument was that things aren't that simple.

On the one hand, technology isolates us. Think of all those people, boxed up all by themselves, on the daily commute. In an earlier time, they might have ridden a bus, or a trolley, or a stagecoach, or a wagon. The very freedom of the automobile makes us little atoms, whizzing around space by ourselves, colliding only occasionally.

But the cell phone works against that. Maybe you're not talking to a real live person right there with you. But you're talking to somebody!

Or if not, you're listening to talk radio. You're in the middle of somebody else's conversation.

Or take that teenager. If we had peered over his shoulder, what would we have found?

He would have been participating in some kind of online community--a multiplayer game, a chat room, a forum devoted to a favorite movie or a band. He would be listening to a podcast made by a couple of kids just like him, one living in a basement in Vancouver, the other in an apartment complex in Pittsburgh.

The technology isolated him from us. But he was using technology to get connected to people elsewhere. And the odds are, he had found people more likely to share his interests than anyone he could have found in the coffeehouse.

I wish we had better library statistics on this phenomenon. We know that our public computers are in great demand, in every one of our branches. There is a host of resources we have developed for people: the marvelous asset of our catalog, the depth of our website, the wealth of in-depth information of our subscription databases.

But I suspect that the biggest use of the computers is just to talk to people. Our patrons send and receive email. They hang out with their buddies online--and their buddies are all over the world.

Certainly, there's irony. They come to a public place, then ignore all the people around them, to talk to people somewhere else.

But you know, that's always been true in libraries. When you open the longstanding technology of a book and immerse yourself in it, you're sitting in a roomful of people that suddenly cease to exist.

You enter a world of imagination, not quite physical but still real. It's kind of like cyberspace.

I believe that people everywhere, of any age or time, seek the same thing. They are trying to find meaning, to make sense of their lives. They want to have real contact with others who share a vision of the world.

Sometimes, that contact is physical. We still have a need for that.

But other times, we reach out even in the middle of our incredibly overscheduled lives for just a touch of that human contact, even if the touch, strictly speaking, is only in our minds.

Face Time or Facebook?

By Jeff Scott. Originally appeared in somewhat different form as "Face time versus Facebook", posted November 24, 2007 on Gather No Dust. Used by permission.

I am beginning to see a backlash towards technology. It isn't unusual. Many of the web 2.0 ideas have run their course. Many are being readily adopted into businesses and libraries. It is common to see online video, podcasts, and blogs on the average website. What I am beginning to see is a growing discontent with technology.

The Technology Genius

Librarians and library directors can look like geniuses when they begin to implement some new technology. "It makes things faster." "It's automated and available 24/7." Technology can bolster a library quickly because the library shows up in places one would not expect. It increases library usage by changing the public perception of libraries, but then what? What really makes a library successful?

We can provide technology wizardry and marketing to get our public into our library, but it cannot stop there. There must be something of quality for the public to come to. It is the human interface that can solve problems, provide a smile and fix something that is broken. The analytical mind and friendliness of human contact certainly far outweigh a self-check automated world.

The Discontent

Several librarian bloggers have noted this discontent:

Laura Crosset at lis.dom: "Doing what we can do"

Defrag was, I am sure, a fascinating conference (if I had had a spare $1,300 lying around somewhere, I would have gone–there was even a $140 round trip ticket from Billings). But I would guess that the people there were not trying to decide what books to read for story time, or how to do better outreach to the Spanish-speaking population, or how to teach people to use e-mail, or how to fit thorough bibliographic instruction into a one hour slot. That’s in no way meant as a criticism of defrag. It is meant to remind us (myself most emphatically included) that not every problem we have in libraries is a technology problem, that not everything we do can be done with technology, and that sometimes paper and markers work just fine.

Laura's comments speak to the fact that not every problem and solution in a library is a technology solution. The library certainly provides more than just technology. In a way, overreliance upon that technology can lead to diminished customer service. Putting robots in the way of people doesn't provide good results.

Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran at Impromptu librarian: "Shiny things!"

This is not too far from the current hoo-ha in the library world over all things 2.0. Granted, a lot of the technological toys associated with 2.0 are cool and may give your library an edge with your patrons. But the reality is that good old-fashioned library customer service and a terrific collection go a lot farther to endear your patrons than IM reference.

Let’s all take a deep breath and focus on why we’re here an what we’re doing….and try not to get so sidetracked by the shiny things.

Again, it is really people interaction and good customer service that create the most impact. In a technology world, a conversation with a person is very, very welcome. I would assert that 80% of a library's good press comes from good customer service and it is spread via word of mouth. If you are good, everyone knows it. If you are just sticking a piece of technology out there for attention, that's fine, but poor service will come back to haunt you. You will only expose the library's shortcomings.

Peter Bromberg at Library garden: "The human touch"

Yesterday morning I renewed my contact with Kris. She was still there, picking up the phone after one ring with a friendly greeting, helping me figure out the forms and understand the ramifications of my choices. She even made a few phone calls to assure that I'd get the early-bird rate even though I was a few days past the deadline ("Oh, since this is your first time exhibiting...")

How many times does a patron log into their account online, only to have a technical glitch prevent them from renewing a book or reviewing a database? A quick phone call can have it resolved during operating hours. This type of automation is great as it empower the user to do things on their own. This is always the problem, "It isn't working the way it is supposed to, can you fix it, and quickly?"

Peter Bromberg at Library garden:  "Convenience"

I'm not suggesting that every library needs to be doing virtual reference (although I do think every library should at least be available through IM.) I am suggesting that if libraries are to thrive, it's imperative that we audit our staff and services with a critical eye toward ramping up convenience and bringing a human touch to all of our services and all primary points of contact with our customers (our front doors, our phone systems, and our websites.)

In this case, instant messaging provides that human touch. I would bet that most virtual reference interactions are based on patrons having issues with their library accounts or with something specific to the library. I bet it would be frustrating to have a consortium virtual reference without the ability to do anything about that kind of problem. In general, how to we provide all of our services with a human touch, even when using technology? It is very difficult to convey.

Aaron Schmidt at Walking Paper: "'yet it is such an easy sell, if only people knew'"

I still can’t get over what Steve said about a public library. Not the interwebs, not amazon.com, not school, not a club. The public library: "i feel like i just discovered the greatest place in the world to satisfy my interests and it has been there all along"

Most library marketing is to get someone in the door. Once you have done that, they are sold. (Unless of course, you have rude staff.) The public can realize all the resources that are there and how helpful everyone is. It's not the technology, it's what the library does. A library's main objective is to serve its public in the way they desire. It is great to have all the new technology, but if you are not covering your basic services well, you are wasting your time.

Joshua M. Neff at The goblin in the library:  "Conferences here, there and everywhere"

What can’t I get online? What do I need to physically attend conferences for? I need face-to-face interaction and conversation. I need spontaneous gatherings. I need occurrences of random escapades and shenanigans. I can get some of that online (the LSW Meebo room is great for that), but nothing really replaces in-person socialization.

This post is about conferences, but it still conveys the same meaning. Maybe I just want to talk to someone face-to-face, ask them a question, really get into it. Some people may want the quick and easy. A library can provide that through technology, but a majority of my library users come and stay all day. There is a reason for that.

2.0 is Just for Show

It is easy to look impressive with some web2.0/library2.0 piece of technology. In a way, this demonstrates to the public that we are a modern library and understand the changing world. The content doesn't necessarily have to be impressive, just updated. That alone can bring people into the library--not necessarily how the technology is used, but the fact that the library uses it at all. The library surprises them and appears dynamic. I actually had a patron come into the library the other day and comment on my interview on Bryan Person's podcast. It was a very strange experience, but it taught me that the items I have out there have an impact. They don't have to have high usage rates to demonstrate it.

Library as a Place or a Cold Impersonal Space?

This post was inspired by something I read on PubLib posted by Joe Schallan. He always provides the best perspective on today's libraries (even better than the annoyed librarian...). He lamented the fact that we librarians run off to conferences and talk of "library as a place," then go about automating everything and installing self-check machines everywhere. Whenever possible, we automate services instead of having one-on-one interaction. We seem to be confused about what we are trying to do. This is usually for budgetary reasons. We state we want patrons to come into the library and interact with us, stay for a while. We then push them to machines, mail out their books and do whatever possible so that people don't come into our library. I understand the need for convenience, but who are our real customers and are we serving them with technology?

We talk about online and our digital customers quite a bit, but it is inside our libraries where the rubber hits the road. A majority of the library's services include physical objects, physical spaces and tools. The technology piece is cheap, flashy and less expensive than staff. Furthermore, the use of technology to solve problems can make one look like a genius. The request for additional staff to solve a problem is usually looked down upon. This is a difficult quandary around budget time as the technology becomes cheap and easy, but impersonal (and on the back-end requires almost as much work when it is broken). It can lead to an erosion of customer service and result in the library being viewed as cold. This can later affect support from the community.

We want the library to be perceived as warm and friendly and to provide the average patron access to a variety of resources. The top thing most people will say when they mention the library is that the books are new and they love X staff member. That in-person interaction goes farther than anything else. It is the person who is dedicated to the library patron, makes his or her best effort to help them no matter the question, and is willing to walk out from behind the desk to solve their problems immediately that patrons most remember. It is a model of customer service. Patrons will remember these experiences more than interaction with some technology. A human face with a happy smile is the best thing the library can do.

Should Libraries Host User Generated Content?

By Kathryn Greenhill. Excerpted and adapted from a December 3, 2007 post on Librarians Matter. Used by permission.

We know that the nature of the web is changing from read only to read/write. Traditionally libraries have been concerned about access to reading material. Is it time to look toward access to read/write material too--not just by cataloging or linking to it, but by creating a platform for our users?

It’s Disruptive

The novel--mainstay of many public library collections--only came into existence in English in 1740 with Richardson’s Pamela. A sustained fictional narrative was a new thing. I presume its success was partly due to rising literacy among those likely to consume it, but also a new mindset where fiction was accepted as content matter worth reading.

More than 150 years after the first novel, it was still a disruptive technology. American librarians were discussing what they called the “fiction problem”--which was that

people liked fiction, while many librarians regarded fiction-reading as little better than pool-playing. ("Readers’ advisory service: New directions." Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, RQ v30 n4 p503 - 18 Sum 19)

The read/write web is similarly disruptive. Just like the librarians of the 1900s didn’t want to become custodians and enablers of something they considered trivial and contrary to their “real purpose,” social networking software is viewed by many contemporary librarians in a similar way.

Our Skills Can Be Easily Adapted

Librarians actually have skills that would make us very good at providing social networking platforms for our users. We have skills at evaluating information resources. Many libraries have built complex matrices to assess potential online journal subscriptions--which include technical IT factors like platform independence, compatibility with existing systems--as well as user interface, ease of access, ease of use. We often liaise with technical services or IT to get our databases working well. We have a lot of expertise as the “middle layer” between databases and users--setting it up, integrating it into existing systems, writing and giving training.

Is Using Other Social Platforms “Privatizing Information by Stealth”?

A participant in the Victoria Public Libraries Learning 2.0 program expressed in their final post (on the deliciously named blog It’s the Queen of Darkness, pal) concerns about libraries using private internet conglomerates to store their data. I guess this covers services like Picture Australia using Flickr or subject guides created using a del.icio.us tag cloud. Quoting from that post:

Personally, my take on web 2.0 is that libraries need to get much more actively involved “from the inside” rather than whooping from the sidelines (if I can go back to my Oprah analogy, in case you missed it). I think that using all the technologies in the learning 2.0 program is a great idea, but really I think we need to move far beyond just using other companies gadgets and gizmos to and going “wow that’s pretty cool, what a nifty idea” to being the ones that are coming up with the ideas and actually inventing the gizmos.

I have said this before, but, for example, rather than encouraging everyone to use blogger, I think libraries, especially state and national libraries should be setting up their own blogging sites for their users. Where will Blogger be in 100 years? Who will be looking great grandmother Ethel’s blog from when she was a teenager? Rather than entrusting all our cultural data to corporate conglomerates, why not put it in the hands of our oldest, and most esteemed public institutions, our libraries?

Frankly, I think we need to start doing these things or we will become irrelevant and then disappear (yikes).

When Would It Make Sense?

Obviously libraries aren’t going to try out-wiki Wikipedia or out-blog blogger, but there are times when it makes sense for someone in an organization to provide social networking platforms on behalf of the organization--and I’d argue that our skills perfectly place us to be that someone. Let's take providing blogging software for an institution for example. Here are some instances where it makes sense for an organization to self-host:

1. If the DNS is important. If you want your users to be able to find you using the URL associated with your institution. Yes, you can associate a hosted site with your own URL, but often the network security department isn’t going to let you do that.
2. If your clients are not charged for traffic inside a local network. At my university, students are not charged for traffic on sites within the Western Australian university network, but are for those outside. Independent hosting would force students to pay to access those sites.
3. If it belongs on an intranet.
4. If the organization has an ethical or statutory duty to ensure data is 100% secure and archivable.
5. Staff are required to use a blog as part of their job--e.g., instead of a departmental newsletter. They should be able to use their existing staff authentication to author the blog and not be forced off-site.

It’s Already Happening

UThink: blogs at the University of Minnesota is a project where the University Libraries are using Movable Type to host and maintain blogs for their university community. I have heard on the grapevine that there are another couple of university libraries in North America planning to do the same thing.

The statistics for UThink are impressive:

• Blogs: 5366
• Entries: 78202
• Comments: 104272
• Authors: 12653

I applaud the reasons the librarians give in their answer to the FAQ Why are university libraries hosting blogs?

The Libraries have numerous goals with this project: to promote intellectual freedom, to help build communities of interest on campus, to investigate the connections between blogging and the traditional academic enterprise, and to retain the cultural memory of the institution.

Related Articles

• Engaging the Community: Conversations - Dealing with and encouraging online conversations with and among your patrons.
• Libraries and Social Networking--Symposia - Reports on sessions at ALA Midwinter 2007
• Should Libraries Host User generated Content? - A related social-media topic
• Blogs and Wikis, a Lightweight Publishing Overview - If you're planning to initiate social media, this article provides a starting point to other LLN articles. 
• Engaging the Community - Essays on community engagement through social media and a library's website. Portions of "Engaging the Community: Conversations" originally appeared here.
• Engaging the Community: Beyond the Website - Essays on community engagement beyond social media and the library's website.