Reflection on the course

Just like all the rest of you, this course was a game-changer.  I felt like I really learned something here, and that has to do with both the class structure and class content.

Structure: The assignments were very much interest-driven, and were presented clearly with lots of input and support the @michael and @kyle.  There was plenty of guidance, quick responses to questions, and lots of chatter.  Linking to sources outside of class was encouraged, which made me wander down many internet roads and make lots of connections to other classes.

Content: The content of the course was open to lots of interpretation and dreaming.  I appreciated a class that was about what could happen and how we could make that happen.  So many other courses are a review of the material and then a summary of that material, but this course was about reviewing some materials and then trying to take that learning into the future.

My only regret is being so busy this semester that sometimes I didn’t feel like I could engage with the class (or any of my classes) as much as I wanted to.  Getting married was fun though!

In the future, I’m going to keep a close on Tame The Web and the journals and the blogs and authors we learned about in the course.  I’m going to think of ways to use my heart and connections to make the world (and my library a more supportive and dreamy (inspiring of big dreams, I mean) place.

Virtual symposium

For my virtual symposium, I wanted to try to mix something hand-drawn with something hyperlinked and online, so I decided to illustrate some main points and have them be hyperlinks to my blog posts or other articles.  I thought it would be a good exercise to write out use my hands to connect to all of the great things we learned this semester.  I chose to link to things or posts from my blog that I felt showed what I learned this semester, was the most interested in, or really connected with. I definitely had some formatting issues (I even switched Themes to make it look better), I hope it’s clear what a good time I had this semester and what I learned.

The Hyperlinked Library is

We can create hyperlinked communities, and must ask ourselves

Are libraries containers? What about books and other materials – what do they contain?

Should libraries promote content creation?

There are multiple literacies!

In the end, the Hyperlinked Library is one

Solutions?

While I clearly think technology is an important aspect of librarianship and even of life in general, there are a lot of important voices to hear in terms of criticizing technology’s reach into our lives.  However, technology is not an isolated thing that can be criticized on its own.  “Technology has played a key role in this perception of change, but it is by no means the only factor. Shifting population centers, changing demographics, and the cyclical ups and downs of the economic roller coaster all contribute to the change with which libraries must deal” (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007).  There are a myriad of ways that technology supports or forces these changes, and another myriad of ways that outside forces shape technology.  I have in particular appreciated these criticisms as ways for us to think about our own political (or internet, or technology, or advertising, or media) literacy as librarians, and evaluate the power dynamics at play in the tech world.

One such way is thinking about who these technological revolutions are benefiting. “Keen forced me look critically at the digital trends of 2006, 2007, 2008 and see them for what they were: mostly fluff, often destructive and purely for the benefit of a few rich moguls who cloaked their control in the rhetoric of empowerment” (Holiday, 2012).   If we have an understanding of the reasoning behind the creation of these tools, we will be better to wield them better.  In a capitalist society, that means that many of these developments are created to make a profit and serve shareholders.

Morozov (2013), for instance, is quite critical of Google’s move to personalize Google Maps, as it makes internet users easier to advertise to. “As long as advertising is the mainstay of its business, the company is not really interested in systematically introducing radical novelty into our lives. To succeed with advertisers, it needs to convince them that its view of us customers is accurate and that it can generate predictions about where we are likely to go (or, for that matter, what we are likely to click). The best way to do that is to actually turn us into highly predictable creatures by artificially limiting our choices.” As librarians, we work to open people’s choices and let users define their needs, which directly goes against Google’s goals.  When I wrote about taxis for my free choice post, I was thinking about what Morozov calls “solutionism” but without his poetic power.  When the technology is seen as a means to an end, and problems seen as only something to fix in the cheapest, fastest, and most profitable way, the roots of those problems are cut away, and with it our citizen’s power to make deep and structural change.

As librarians, I think that we have a really important role in the way technology shapes people’s lives.  Understanding multiple literacies as including media literacy and tech literacy, empowering our users and enhancing their experiences, and giving people access to an understanding of ways to solve their problems, I think we can truly be providing a service.  This is not to mention helping people navigate privacy issues.  This also relates to the library as a public space.  As public spaces disappear (or are not included in your personalized Google Map because they are difficult to rate), we have to be able to resist the commercialization of our information and spaces to stay true to our mission as librarians.  As a librarian, I think it is definitely our job to be as literate as possible, especially in the goals and tactics of those that manage and organize information.

I always love bell hooks’ view on media literacy, here is a nice tidbit from her:

 

Sources cited

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2007). Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service. Medford, N.J: Information Today.

Holiday, R. (2012, May 23). Andrew Keen: Why 1984 is upon us. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/05/23/andrew-keen-why-1984-is-upon-us-digital-vertigo/

Morozov, E. (2013, May).  My map or yours?  Slate.  Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/05/google_maps_personalization_will_hurt_public_space_and_engagement.html

The Economist. (2013, May 2). Evgeny Morozov on technology: The folly of solutionism. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOvaNzIxz54

Director’s Brief – 3D Printers

Background

3D printers have been used for decades for rapid prototyping.  “Essentially, a 3D printer is a machine that can turn a blueprint into a physical object” (Weinberg, 2010).  They do so through additive manufacturing, another name for 3D printing (Freedman, 2012), in which layers of fast-hardening materials such as plastic, resin, or even chocolate are deposited precisely using a digital file to direct the form it takes.

The first 3D printer

The first 3D printer was designed by Charles Hull of 3D Systems Corporation, and used a stereolithography technique, which hardens layers of thermoplastic with a laser (Knowles, 2012).  Other methods include using powder and lasers in a selective layer sintering method.

The term “3D printing” was invented by grad students Tim Anderson and Jim Bredt, who reconfigured an inkjet printer to “print” binding solution onto powder in 1995 (Knowles).  This was the beginning of the “hobbyist” versions of the printer.  Today, there are many companies which create “desktop” versions of 3D printers, such as , MakerBot (Brooklyn, NY based), Shapeways (based in the Netherlands), and FormLabs.   Prices range from $700 – $20,000, with prices dropping and innovations increasing all the time.

MakerBot’s Replicator 2

Most of the desktop versions print in Polylactic Acid (PLA) or Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) filament, which are thermoplastics – they melt at high heat (Wyoming State University, 2013).   They print from digital files called CADs, for computer assisted design, which can be created in a variety of software.  Popular ones include Google’s open-source SketchUp program, which is fairly user friendly.  Here is an example of a CAD drawing or model from Thingiverse.

CAD drawing of a Christmas Tree

Filament

The companies that make the hobbyist printers often also have forums where users can upload models, comment, and download models for free such as this from Shapeways or  Thingiverse from MakerBot.

 

Understanding the issues

3D printers are a quickly emerging technology, with more and more libraries purchasing them.  In an article by Knowles (2012), Maxim Lobovsky, who co-founded for FormLabs, sees the printer as revolutionary.  “Our desktop printer encourages a more grass roots movement. … Just like the PC revolution spawned an increase in all sorts of software development and new uses for computers.”   Their rise has been compared to early PC development days, they are seen as the start of new manufacturing system and style, as well as a creative boon.  Weinberg (2013) says “The ability to reproduce physical objects in small workshops and at home is potentially just as revolutionary as the ability to summon information from any source onto a computer screen” (2013). In this section, this brief will explore negative issues and affordances of this emerging technology.

Negative issues

Technolust and mission creep

One of the main issues with 3D printers is determining if they are truly tools that a library should have, or if they are simply a fad and unnecessary purchase.  Rundle (2013) wrote a scathing article against libraries purchasing them, saying that their use in a public library constitutes mission creep deviation from mission statement):  “The harsh truth is that there is no business case for public libraries to provide 3D printing. What this is really about is technolust and the fear of being left behind.”  They are quite expensive, and also require dedicated staff to manage them.

In Stephens (2004), technolust and mission creep are clearly defined:

We may know that technology is not an end in itself but a tool to help us meet our libraries’ service goals, but that’s easy to forget. After all, technology often sucks up huge amounts of attention, money, and staff resources. Our users, also technology consumers, have evolving expectations of what the library should provide. Yet new technologies can be disruptive to both staff and public. Added to all this, some of us remain technophobes while others are consumed by technolust – an irrational love for new technology combined with unrealistic expectations for the solutions it brings.

Without realistic expectations of  how 3D printers support the library’s mission, they can lead to mission creep.

Cost and staffing

3D printers are quite expensive, with costs ranging from $700-$2200 or more.  They also require design skills, software, and staffing to maintain.  Because 3D printers are an emerging technology, cost analyses, guidebooks, and models are also emerging.  Another element of cost or return on investment is how much a community will use them:“If a public library does not have a tech-savvy community that will be responsive to a Maker Space, then creating one will likely be a waste of money. Even at its lowest prices, 3D printing is an expensive technology and 3D printers are definitely a purchase that needs to be justified” (Groenendyk, n.d.).

Legal issues

Legal barriers to printing in 3D are just beginning to be explored.  For instance, when a man printed a few figurines in the style of the game Warhammer, he was forced to take down his model from the Thingiverse websites, Makerbot’s 3D model website (Thomson, 2012).  Just like using information that is copyrighted must be properly understood, so does printing physical objects based on copyrighted material.  Currently, manufacturers laws are not powerful enough to control 3D printing, though some experts say that laws as heavy-handed as the Stop Online Piracy Act may be on their way if not controlled.  (Weinberg, 2013).

Health issues

Table from the 2013 study.

In a recent study from the Illinois Institute of Technology, results showed that “… caution should be used when operating some commercially available 3D printers in unvented or inadequately filtered indoor environments. Additionally, more controlled experiments should be conducted to more fundamentally evaluate aerosol emissions from a wider range of desktop 3D printers and feedstocks” (Stephens, Azimi,, El Orch, & Ramos, 2013, p. 339).  The researchers were concerned with the lack of data on the health hazards of 3D printers, in context of the hazards demonstrated by industrial 3D printers.  Monitoring research and recommendations for the health hazards of 3D printers must continue.

 

Affordances

Mission statement support

The idea that 3D printers constitute mission creep is very controversial. Rundle’s 2012 article, which posited that 3D printers have no place in the library, created many responses, most of which disagreed with him.  Gass (2013) believed that 3D printers are here to stay, and that libraries need to participate in their emergence in order to stay relevant to our communities.  Lankes (2013) absolutely disagrees with Rundle.

The point is not for folks to come in and print out existing things, but to create their own things (and ideas, and new products, and pieces of whimsy). Why in a library? Because that is the core of the library – not the collection – idea creation and knowledge generation. Those books and stacks, and printers, and bathrooms, and study rooms, and tape players, and microfiche readers are just tools to get at what librarians are really supposed to be doing…helping the community create knowledge and know itself.

He does agree with Rundle in that getting a 3D printer for no reasons other than it’s tech appeal is technolust.

By supplying 3D printers, libraries help people have access to a technology that is rapidly emerging as an important one.  “One of the most important mandates for public libraries has been to provide equal access to information and knowledge. 3D printing, 3D scanning and other Maker Space technologies have the potential to drastically change the world, yet it is very difficult for most people to gain access to these technologies” (Groenendyk, n.d.).   Groenendyk also sees 3D printers as a way to reach a segment of the community that may otherwise not be visiting the library: the tech community and maker community.

Content creation

The debate about mission creep comes down to whether or not libraries should support content creation, or stick to content preservation and dissemination.  Library trends show that content creation is an important part of offering 21^st century services.   “[3D Printer] technology fits in about as neatly as book discussions, resume workshops, technology instruction, and children’s crafts- all standard practice in many public libraries. These types of services are not about content or information dissemination; they are about what you do with it. They involve some form of digesting, synthesizing, and creating, all within a community context” (Gass, 2013).  3D printers often appear in libraries’ Maker Spaces, which are collaborative spaces for creation, and can electrify a community’s ability to make art, news, or other media.

The Maker movement also meets other aspects of many library mission statements, which is to be connected to 21^st century skills and media literacies.  “Making in the 21st century has moved out of the individual workshop and gone networked. Today’s tinkerer work in vast, distributed communities where information sharing is the norm, where the ethics and practices of the free/open source software movement has gone physical” (Doctorow, 2013).  When a library can support the Maker movement, it can access and learn from these communities.

 

Use

3D printers are still most often used as rapid prototyping devices industrially.  In the manufacturing world, are also used to create prostheses, bones, and stem cells, or other consumer products like shoes and guitars (Boboltz, 2013).  However, in a library, a 3D printer more often functions as a tool for hobbyists or individuals, and the uses vary further.

A bone created with a 3D printer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XEKns8T7yUA

Maker spaces are the main homes of 3D printers in libraries.  Gutsche (2002), defines maker spaces:

Making is about participatory learning, about learning and exploring the creative process collaboratively and physically aligns with a global progression from the Information Age to the Imagination Age, to a culture that, as John Seely Brown posits, is receptive to learning anywhere, anytime through playing, tinkering, making, and doing. Makerspaces embody this transformation, and libraries are positioned to be at its hub.

Maker spaces are cropping up across the country, and many have 3D printers as well as media labs for video production, art and craft areas, computer software for digital arts, and more.   Libraries are part of this movement, and will only continue to do so – Maker spaces have the support of the American Library Association and the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

3D printers in libraries have been used to create replacement parts for machinery or equipment (such as a lawn mower wingnut), as well as fun toys and art pieces.  The most popular models to download on Thingiverse include a carabineer, luggage tag, pencil pot, and model of a seaturtle (Thingiverse, n.d.).

Carabiner model

 

Background research and studies

To address legal issues, the white paper “It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology” by Weinberg gives an excellent overview of the technology’s legal future.  It attempts to “prepare the 3D printing community, and the public at large, before incumbents try to cripple 3D printing with restrictive intellectual property laws. By understanding how intellectual property law relates to 3D printing, and how changes might impact 3D printing’s future, this time we will be ready when incumbents come calling to Congress.”  Public Knowledge’s interest in the subject will surely create more research.

The 4th Floor is building a new 3D printer to keep up with demand

There are many famous Maker Spaces which use 3D printers that can be used as models.  Examples include the Fayetteville Library’s Fab Lab, Chattanooga’s 4^th Floor, Tech Central at the Cleveland Public Library, Westport Public Library, and many more.  These spaces are the vanguard of the 3D printer in library trend, and should be watched.

Make Magazine features research, ideas, and articles on Maker spaces and creations.  They partner with libraries as well.   Another source is the American Library Association funded Make It at Your Library website, which features ideas for makerspace projects.

A project from the Make it at Your Library: DIY Smartphone Film Scanner

The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has an excellent list of talking points about Maker spaces as well, with a focus on science, math, engineering, and technology.  As a granting institution, they publish lists of innovative learning labs and Maker spaces that they have funded.  They also publish white papers on 21^st Century Learning, which is research that can be used to support the creation of a maker space or purchase of 3D printer.  The American Library Association hosts a Maker Monday at their annual conference,  which can be a source for ideas and models.

 

Yoda heads from Maker Monday

Successful implementation of 3D printers

3D printers are an emerging technology.  Like all emerging technologies, care must be taken to implement them prudently and intentionally to avoid unnecessary risks and costs, and to preserve the integrity of the library.

To access funding, IMLS grants, including the Sparks! Ignition Grants for Libraries and Museums, have funded many Maker spaces.  In 2013 awarded $496,978 to “test and evaluate innovations in the ways they operate and the services they provide” (Institute for Museum and Library Services, n.d.).  Libraries also charge users to use the printer: for instance, at Dalhousie Libraries, they charge $1/minute (American Library Association, n.d.)

Firstly, the community must be interested in technology, or have programs that can get the community interested, such as youth programs or training.   When the community needs have been evaluated, and users have been surveyed and found to be interested in a 3D printer, that is the time to be part of the 3D printer emergence.  Next, libraries must have a tech-savvy staff and administration to be able to implement 3D printers well.  At least one dedicated staff should manage the implementation and use of the printer, and conduct innovative training to energize staff.  When the technology feels like part of a larger movement within the library, it will be successful.  The 3D printer’s contribution to the library’s mission statement must be demonstrated.  The library must believe in its mission statement, and its mission statement and brand must be more than just warehousing books – there should be a focus on supporting multiple literacies and being open to the needs of the community.  With staff buy-in and participation, and community energy, a 3D printer could be part of a vibrant library.

To download the annotated bibliography click here.

Sources cited

American Library Assocition (n.d.).  3D Printing.  Transforming Libraries.  http://www.ala.org/transforminglibraries/3d-printing-dalhousie-libraries

Boboltz, S. (2013, November 15).  11 amazing ways people are using 3D printers for good, not guns.  The Huffington Post.  Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/3d-printer-inventions_n_4262091.html

Britton, L. (2012). A Fabulous Laboratory. Public Libraries, 52(4), 30-33.

Doctorow, C. (2013, February 24). Libraries, hackspaces and e-waste: how libraries can be the hub of a young maker revolution [Web log post]. Raincoast Books. Retrieved from http://www.raincoast.com/blog/details/guest-post-cory-doctorow-for-freedom-to-read-week/

Freedman, D. H. (2012). Layer by Layer. Technology Review, 115(1), 50-53.

Gass, Nate (2013, January 30).  Do 3D Printers belong in libraries?  [Web log post].  Nate’s Broadcast.  Retrieved from  http://www.natesbroadcast.com/journal/do-3d-printers-belong-in-libraries-a-defense

Gutsche, B. (2002).    Makerspaces in Libraries: Patron’s Delight, Staff’s Dread?  Alki.29(1), 28-30.

Institute for Library and Museum Services (2012).  Talking Points: Museums, Libraries, and Makerspaces.  Institute for Library and Museum Services.  Retrieved from http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/Makerspaces.pdf

Institute for Library and Museum Services (n.d.).  Fast Facts: Sparks Ignition Grants.  Institute for Library and Museum Services.  Retrieved from http://www.imls.gov/recipients/fast_facts_sparks_ignition_grants.aspx

Knowles, J. (2012).  Behind the Rise of the 3D Printing Revolution.  The Next Web. Retrieved from http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/08/behind-the-rise-of-the-3d-printing-revolution/

Lankes , D. (2013, January 3).  Beyond the bullet points: Missing the point and 3D printing [Web log post].  Virtual Dave…Real Blog.  Retrieved from http://quartz.syr.edu/blog/?p=2538

Rundle, H. (2013, January 2). Mission creep – a 3D printer will not save your library [Web log post]. It’s not about the books: libraries, technology, information, stories. Retrieved from http://hughrundle.net/2013/01/02/mission-creep-a-3d-printer-will-not-save-your-library/

Stephens, B., Azimi, P., El Orch, Z., & Ramos, T. (2013). Ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D printers. Atmospheric Environment, 79334-339. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050

Stephens, M. (2004). Technoplans vs. technolust. Library Journal, 129(18), 36-37.

Thingiverse (n.d.).  Explore: popular.  Thingiverse.  Retrieved November 20, 2013 from http://www.thingiverse.com/explore/popular

Thompson, C. (2012, May 30). Clive Thompson on 3-D printing’s legal morass [Web log post]. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/design/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Weinberg, M. (2013).  It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology [White paper].  Public Knowledge.  Retrieved from http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up

Wyoming State Library [wyomingstatelibrary]. (2013, October 13). 3D printing and libraries [Video file]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/FtoZVqTXp_4

Creation culture aad;slIUO*4598%OI%:O#IP9w43er’:Lgw4’35!!!!

Oh man, I am so excited about creation culture.

Just really, really excited.  That’s what I was trying to express with the title up there.

I came to librarianship from an arts background because I thought libraries had the power to connect people with information and each other for social good, just like the art I always wanted to do.  And creation culture is a very exciting way that libraries can do this.

I understand the criticisms.  “It leads you to the tangible – that’s not your job. It is the concept of the intangible that connects all the objects librarians have traditionally dealt with- books, records, photographs, magnetic tape and compact discs. It is this tradition of dealing with the intangible that makes librarianship such an exciting profession right now” (Rundle, 2013).  However, the intangible is also about connection and belonging and skills, all things a library can create though maker spaces and other creative incubators.

Beyond philosophical reasons for creation culture in libraries, it’s clear that if we are not dipping our space and staff into that world, the world will pass us by.  “More recently, the exploding popularity of YouTube shows that people are interested in small, personal productions” (Jacobsen & Anthony, 2011).    The general culture is moving towards more production on an individual or community-based level, equipped with tools both new and old, emerging and well-worn.  And none to soon, what with the consolidation of corporations and media conglomerates.  Citizen-based information creation is as important as ever.

I appreciated Zeke Leonard, assistant professor at Syracuse School of Design’s quote in Britton’s (2012) article.

“Making anything for yourself is a political act,” says Zeke Leonard, assistant professor, Syracuse University School of Design. “The further we get from the creation of an object, the less we have a connection with the people, resources, and process. This limits how we assign value to objects. If we can all start to make more and consume less, then we can be more thoughtful about the resources used to create the objects and food and garments that we fill our lives with,” Leonard says.

When people are creating objects, ideas, and information in their own communities, it can draw a community closer together to create resiliency and power.  And librarians are very well positioned to do so.  Maxine Bleiweis, director at the Westport Public Library, was quoted in Britton: “Bleiweis says the library is there to provide the framework, not to be in charge. She says there is a shift from a librarian being the person who had all of the answers to the person who has questions and the ability to find the answers.”  However, I disagree.  I think librarians were always the people who had questions and the ability to find answers – it’s always been about other people’s content, there’s just been a flattening of who’s content.  There has been a shift away from the ways that libraries work institutionally towards user-based and participatory, but librarians have always been framework creators for others to use.   I agree with Doctorow (2013) when he says, “Public libraries have always been places where skilled information professionals assisted the general public with the eternal quest to understand the world.”  Sometimes you have to create in order to understand.

To end my blog post for today, I’d like to share some awesome art about libraries.  Check out Alice Walsh, Lost Memory by Theresa Moerman, and  the Reading Nest by Mark Riegalman.  These are lot more formal than say, the magic coming out of Oak Park’s IdeaBox, but I love them all!  They all came from the excellent Library as Incubator project, who I am interning with next semester hooray hooray!

Alice Walsh

 

Sources cited

Britton, L. (2012, October 1). The makings of maker spaces, part 1: Space for creation, not just consumption [Web log post]. The Digital Shift. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/10/public-services/the-makings-of-maker-spaces-part-1-space-for-creation-not-just-consumption/

Doctorow, C. (2013, February 25). Libraries and makerspaces: a match made in heaven [Web log post]. boingboing. Retrieved from http://boingboing.net/2013/02/25/libraries-and-makerspaces-a-m.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Jacobsen, M., & Anthony, C. (2011, November 8). Build your own digital media lab [Web log post]. The Digital Shift. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2011/11/media/build-your-own-digital-media-lab/

Rundle, H. (2013, January 2). Mission creep – a 3D printer will not save your library [Web log post]. It’s not about the books: libraries, technology, information, stories. Retrieved from http://hughrundle.net/2013/01/02/mission-creep-a-3d-printer-will-not-save-your-library/

Community Engagement – Community Guide

Context:

I was recently elected as the California Library Association (CLA) board’s student representative.  California students these days have a lot of options of which school to attend, many of which are online (see the ALA accredited schools here), and may even be attending a school out-of-state while living in California.  These students have only one unifying group (beyond the million groups that they can belong to that are geography-based or interest-based), and that is the CLA Student Interest Group.

CLA’s membership is comprised of almost 50% of students, but a lot of those students came to CLA through SJSU SLIS’s offer of one-year paid membership to ALA/CLA, not because students are interested in being involved.  I don’t think they know the value of CLA.  However, “Transparency and access can lead to demonstrating the value of our institutions to the public” (Stephens, 2012). As the student representative, I want to find ways to advocate for students and connect them to resources and each other.  I think that the online context is perfect for that.

1. Identify Nascent User Communities

Users currently interact with CLA through the Student Interest Group, which meets on Facebook, has a mailing list, puts on events for CLA’s Spring Fling, and meets at the CLA conference every year.

Some groups of users that could benefit are:

• Students who are attending online schools and want to network in person and virtually
• Students in rural areas who feel isolated
• Students who want to know what’s happening California-wide
• Students who need help advocating for themselves as students
• Students who want a voice in CLA
• Students who don’t know what CLA does

What’s interesting about these groups is they are scattered.  There is no physical group that needs a translation into a virtual world – it’s a lot of disparate communities that may or may not already be connected through other virtual communities who should be connected as students.

The reason I think students in particular need to be unified is because we face similar issues.  We don’t already have jobs, we are probably doing way too many things, we are probably struggling financially, we are looking for mentors and advice on school and after-school, some of us are recent transplants into the field, we are junior librarians.   I think students want connections and places that they can make real contacts with students across the state as we navigate budget cuts, online schools, and librarianship in general.

Currently, I think communication between students across the state happens very little – students meet through their school cohorts (online or in-person), with a variety of other organizations (both online on social media or list-servs or in person), or at the CLA conference.  They are not communicating much on the Interest Group list-serv, or on the Facebook page.

The communities would benefit from a virtual community space that connected California students because it would be a way of connecting students with each other and resources, something that many students have expressed a need for.  “What is explicit in any idea of a network is its connections. And in every case, the more connections there are, the more useful a network becomes” (Havens, 2013).  Creating a network of all California students will only help support California students.  Instead of offering a service (such as just a list of resources, or a scholarship, or a class), this online community would operate from the platform model, as described by Phil Simon.  “By making resources and tools widely available, these companies encourage users to create their own networks, connecting communities around the processes, data and people that make the most sense for them. The genius of this strategy is that it recognizes and leverages the chief difference of the Internet when compared to earlier technological innovations—that there is no center of the network. Or, rather, there are as many centers as there are users willing to define new hubs around which to aggregate the resources and relationships most important to them” (Havens).  Students are powerful – they are energetic, interested in a variety of things, bring diverse experiences together, and have access to new ideas.  If they have a platform to use, they could be even ore powerful.

Online students are particularly lonely.  They want to find ways to each other and to people they can ask questions to.  Having a student organization of all California students could help students aggregate communication and resources, and be a way to participate in a community.

2. Select One Community of Interest and Analyze It

I want to create a community for students who need help advocating for themselves as students in California.  These students are already using:

• Student chapters of Society of American Archivists, ASIS&T, ALA, and other large organizations.  These resources are managed by students themselves, with assistance from faculty and institutions.
• Other student organizations, such as SLISConnect and UCLA’s student governing board, or University of North Texas’ Greater LA Cohort, which are supported by their schools.
• Informal student organizations – Bay Area SLIS people, SJSU SLIS Inland Empire, SJSU SLIS Los Angeles, etc.
• Locally-based library organizations (not student specific) such as Urban Libraries Unite, Information Amateurs Social Club, San Diego Liberated Librarians for Libations, etc.
• Library (though not library student-specific) listservs that are not geographically specific such as CALIX, ALA Thinktank, and more.

In a custom virtual space, I think there would need to be an aggregate of things.  There needs to be some kind of unifying space for interaction for general questions, and a space to find all the different California groups and opportunities available.  It would need to be show both local groups and issue groups, and offer ways to interact digitally and in-person.

In an amazing world, I’m imagining an RSS-style feed of posts that you could put on a map and find local communities, or an issue map that you could use to answer your questions, of all of these different groups and posts.  I don’t necessarily see the need for a new Facebook group list-serv, as so many already exist.  However, there is no unifying digital community that is a “one-stop shop” for students.  Students should be able to create a discussion group for interests that are not being met.

A classic blog of posts could be aggregated from other sites, as well as written by California students, with a folksonomy and robust tagging function.

Static information would also be available, in the form of links, scholarships, career preparation, student advocacy information, and more.

I do think that membership and branding is an interesting question.  I would want membership to be open, not simply to CLA members, though if it were to be hosted by CLA it would need to be pushing students to join.  Membership would be required to post to the blog, and to create a new discussion forum, or to post in the discussion forum, although not for viewing the aggregation of group feeds or static information.  I’m not sure if it should be branded as a CLA effort or not; it depends on if CLA is supporting the page.

Technologies I would need would be a site to host RSS feeds, maps, and static information.  This could be a WordPress site, as they offer a plugin for RSS aggregation.  I would also need a map function, possibly through Google Maps, a blog, and discussion group function, which could happen through Google Groups.  I have some familiarity with RSS feeds, Google programs, and WordPress.

This site would require management, something that I may not be able to provide well, or in the long-term.  In order to make something sustainable, the site would need to be backed by an institution: CLA could offer a scholarship to a student to manage it, and schools could offer financial help to pay for labor or hosting.

Here is a mockup of what it could look like.

 

3. Write an Engagement Plan

The first step is to have a list of current student groups so that I can reach all California students.  The next step would be to ask them for their lists and other student communities so that I could build a list of students to contact.  I would contact them in order of preference:

• In person
• On the phone
• Over email
• Over social media contact (ie Twitter handle, LinkedIn)

I would introduce myself both as the CLA board member and a student.  I may need to create a profile or page for the student rep that people can access.

I would want to be on the look-out for change-makers, decision makers, and emerging student leaders who would be interested in building something like this, as well as people with web skills.  I would also want to have a contact list of people in charge of currently existing student groups.

I would then want to propose my general idea, as well as be open for other ideas.  I’m interested in offering “open office hours” – possibly with other students or CLA members who are interested in mentoring or answering questions.  My email or pitch would sound something like this (though customized for different groups):

“Hello! My name is Lisa and this year I am the California Library Association board student representative.  I am also a second-year student at San Jose State University getting my MLIS, with a focus on youth librarianship.

In my year’s tenure, I want to advocate for students to CLA as well as find ways to connect them with resources and each other.  There are so many different groups for students spread out across the state, as well as so many needs that students have that these groups are not meeting. I want to create an online community that aggregates posts from these groups sorted by issue and location in one place that students can access, as well as set up a hub for participation and resources to be posted.

What I would love to hear from you is:

• Does this sound like something of interest to your organization?
• What do you want to see from your student representative?
• What issues do you want an online community of students to address?  Which needs?
• What other ideas do you have for how CLA can serve students?
• Can I put you on a contact list of student rep leaders?

I can provide you with more information about what this model would look like if you are interested.  Thanks so much!”

Once I heard that there was interest in it and that student groups would be interested in sharing their feeds, I would move forward with development.  I would delegate and make sure that it was a statewide student initiative with input from all students.

I would want to make sure that students understand what a large part of the CLA membership they are, and encourage them to get involved.  The site would have a CLA presence on it, with a heavy focus on the conference and membership, so that students could understand what resources they can gain as CLA members and conference attendees.  Some student-specific promotional CLA materials could be used or created.  I would also emphasize that the platform is an alternate space for interaction for those that couldn’t make it to the conference, or for those looking for year-round resources instead of a one-time event.

Because I’m a volunteer, and would probably be relying on other volunteers, the timeline would be quite long – it may take my whole first year’s tenure to make something like this even be a formal proposal.

 

Sources cited

Havens, A. (2013). From community to technology..and back again: Part 1.  NextSpace. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/publications/nextspace/articles/issue20/fromcommunitytotechnologyandbackagain.en.html

Stephens, M. (2012, February 17). The age of participation [Web log post]. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/02/opinion/michael-stephens/the-age-of-participation-office-hours/

Understanding by User Experience

In the spring, I took a course on Instructional Design.  We explored Understanding by Design, a framework developed by Wiggins and McTighe (2005).  In the readings and discussions, I found the distinctions between understanding, knowing, and applying to be incredibly useful, especially as I reflect upon my own experiences as a student – what did I use solely to succeed in my classes, and what was of use to me in my life later?  Why did I spend time learning it, and why were my teachers teaching it?  Too often, my learning was temporary and rewarded me for the correct answer, not for understanding the material.  As Wiggins and McTigue (2004) showed, “[A student’s error] signifies an attempted and plausible but unsuccessful transfer” (p. 51), while a correct answer that simply repeats what information was given in class, despite not being able to apply that knowledge anywhere else, was rewarded.  Learning, therefore, is only as good as its context.  “To understand is to make connections and bind together our knowledge into something that makes sense of things (whereas without understanding we might only see unclear, isolated, or unhelpful facts)” (p. 7).    What this taught me was ways that I could make learning user-based and useful, as well as the importance of creating a context for a positive learning experience.

This has many connections to User Experience, or UX.  The importance of feedback and testing show the library’s willingness to understand user’s experiences, as well as to make sure the users were having a useful experience and deep connection with the library.  UX is not about correct answers, it is about “creating positive emotional interactions with various services” (Schmidt & Stephens, 2011).  It’s not about data, it’s about understanding users: “Libraries need to go deeper, meet real community needs, and deliver amazing experiences. The key to all of this is empathy, and user interviews are a great first step” (Hadro, 2010).  UX is an exciting new venue for transforming how we build and use our libraries, as well as connecting to current revolutions in education.

There are lots of intersecting ways to create a context for UX, and I believe it’s both an attitude shift and an action.  It has to be both internal and active to truly take root and not be a flimsy initiative that passes.

Sources cited

Hadro, J. (2010, March 1). Learn by asking [Web log post]. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2010/03/opinion/aaron-schmidt/learn-by-asking-the-user-experience/

 

Schmidt, A., & Stephens, M. (2011, July 15). Putting the UX in education [Web log post]. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2011/07/library-education/putting-the-ux-in-education-the-user-experience-office-hours/

 

Wiggins, G., & McTigue, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Making privacy human

Today’s post starts with a quote from Casey and Stephens (2005):  “Midsized and large libraries must take measures to insure that the culture of “no” does not become entrenched. How many libraries still ban cell phones and portable devices, refusing to acknowledge their varied uses? How many libraries like to think that only true “research” represents a valid use of the library computer? How in this day of content creation, social networking, gaming as learning, and a return to the idea of learning as play can we ever decide what’s research and what’s not?”

This reminded me a of a great tool from a 2005 article in American Libraries.  MacMillan describes the “No Logs” implemented in Carroll County (Md.) Public Library’s Eldersburg branch by its head Jacqueline Sollers.  Sollers describes starting to take a mental “no” log after hearing staff members say no to a request that would have simply required some creative thinking and flexibility with the rules.  The No Logs had both internal and external benefits, including:

• Meeting the needs of patrons (elders, children, and more) – for instance a disabled patron was able to get books delivered to his car
• Improving technology – for instance improving computer troubleshooting procedures
• Improving human relations and staff management – for instance equalizing standards for how staff found substitutes

I thought they were particularly inspiring in the way that they empowered people to be able to ask for what they wanted and get what they needed, which empowered librarians to do better work.   They inspired improvement, and changed behaviors without punishment or criticism. “By opening up a dialogue, they allow staff members to see their assumptions and actions in the big-picture context of customer service, and so encourage systems thinking. […] By encouraging everyone to take part in this change and to take ownership of the organization’s customer service mission, No Logs build shared vision. The dialogic aspects of No Logs, which bring staff together to challenge each other’s assumptions, result in true team learning” (49).  It’s incredible how such a simple procedure could drastically change people’s attitudes.

It seems like transparency and privacy are both about saying no or yes.  We have to say yes to transparency, though not always – I am not willing to turn over patron information to the NSA in the name of the Patriot Act, for instance.  Some no is a good balance in transparency.  And similarly, no is important in privacy too, and very much context-based.   I really appreciated the boyd (2010) speech, particularly this passage:

Sure, it’s great to say that everyone SHOULD be comfortable being in public, but that’s not the world in which we live. Many people are just trying to get by. We cannot expect marginalized folks to always be fighting for their right to speak and we shouldn’t accept the marginalization of folks just because of the roles that they play. The “public by default” environment that we are so proudly creating isn’t always the great democratizer; for many, it’s exactly the opposite. Just because technology allows us to speak up in public doesn’t mean that everyone is comfortable doing so or, for that matter, will be heard.

I think her whole talk really showed that no matter how institutions like the NSA or FBI (Cointelpro, anyone?) try to flatten privacy, it is a rich and messy human affair.  As librarians, I think we have an interesting role in keeping privacy human.

 

Sources cited:

boyd, d. (2010). SXSW 2010: Privacy and Publicity. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html

Casey, M., &  Stephens, M. (2007, December). A road map to transparency. Library Journal, 132(20), 37. Retrieved from http://tametheweb.com/2007/12/15/a-road-map-to-transparency/

MacMillan, K. (2005). Generating goodwill: turning no into yes. American Libraries, 36(10), 48-49.

Being a taxi

In the San Francisco Bay Area, there’s been a lot of talk about taxis vs “rideshare” services like Uber or Lyft.  Uber and Lyft allow members to download the app, call up a driver, and pay on a donation-based fee structure.  The drivers are anyone with a car who work on a contract basis.

I think it relates quite closely to the intriguing conversations we’re having about library services, hyperlinked communities, and our future.  In particular, I’m talking about the Module 5 article “From community to technology…and back again” by Dave Grey.  Grey’s article speaks of the present and future, when “Rather than waiting for a centralized technology to come along—think of railroads, highways, radio and TV—groups can reach out and take advantage of services and resources that allow them more freedom, more flexibility, more connections, more ways to configure their networks.”  In the Uber sense, it’s people being able to both work for and use this service with low barriers.

There are benefits to this system – it’s more affordable, anyone with a car can access the work, and meeting people’s needs for a quick ride.  It’s described as being under the net of sharing and networked communities, and is touted as such.  In an article on Grist, Susie Cagle says “And the techies and “sharing” boosters point out that ridesharing allows us to “leverage excess idle capacity” — that is, fill empty seats — and therefore operate more efficiently.  But let’s be honest about this “excess idle capacity” thing. Ridesharing may be a peer-to-peer economy — moderated by middlemen — but this is not really sharing.'”  Cagle goes on to show that these companies are offering a job, in an economy, with a fee-based service: “…so far, this part of the “sharing economy” looks less like an altruistic act, and more like a shadow service industry with few consumer or worker protections” (Susie Cagle, Grist).  Unlike cabbies, who are required to be properly trained, insured, and meet environmental regulations, Uber and Lyft drivers just don’t.  And what does this debate say about public transit?

This relates to the library as well.  As we seek to be tech savvy, on-trend, and participatory, are we falling into the games of the uneven playing field of information professionals?  Gray says “Companies will have to be more responsive to customer needs and demands if they want to survive.”  And being competitive means cutting costs – perhaps less unions, less full time, more temporary part-time on-call?  As we seek to be improve our services – which I have no devil’s advocate position to take against – I think it’s important to be watchful for mindsets which are destructive to uninvited idea guests that tag along with the good ones.

There are parallels to the world of journalism as well.  While it’s wonderful that more and more people have access to publishing, it’s coming at the expense of deep investigative reporting, steady employment for journalists, and a variety of news sources (as they all merge).  So then how do we see our roles as librarians?  We can enable people to help them find what they need – but how can we keep our jobs?  Are institutions dead, or how can we keep our employers – or do we all have to be freelance interns? How can we keep the participatory and open spirit alive without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I don’t have answers.  But as a Bay Area native, who worked for a hot second in a Silicon Valley library, I’ve watched the tech sector with concern for a while now.

 

PS.  By the way – cab companies are adapting as well…

PPS. Eli Neiburger believes that libraries just need to position themselves to be valuable in the new digital world.

“Anticipating a day when the app-storification of the entire content industry is complete, the library might be the only place left willing to pay real money for content, provided it’s on our terms. When most basic content is distributed at prices below the impulse threshold, library licenses might be the only up-front money available once the speculative advance business finishes flaming out.”

“Libraries can diversify their value to their communities, continue to develop circulating collections of physical items that bring unique value to their communities, and aggregate the buying power of the community to keep independent artists producing good stuff for a real, paying audience”

Is a Little Free Library a library?

@kyle posed a great question in response to my Context Book Assignment: Is a Little Free Library a library?  Little Free Library, in their words, is “…a “take a book, return a book” gathering place where neighbors share their favorite literature and stories. In its most basic form, a Little Free Library is a box full of books where anyone may stop by and pick up a book (or two) and bring back another book to share.  You can, too!”

I believe it is a library.  That may be my more anarcho roots – but but this is a collection of books managed for the use of a group.  I’d say it’s very open, transparent, and grounded in its community – as it is maintained by their community. It needs no librarian to manage it, and may be full of low-brow books, but it is an effort to bring books into people’s lives.

Beyond being a tiny warehouse of books, I feel that it is a place of connection as well.  It’s a bit open-source, of course – there are ways to be make this more of a community gathering place (ie building benches, having events, making people write reviews or messages about who has read the book) – but at it’s base, it’s about sharing a resource in public.  It’s on the street, it is a conversation point.  It is definitely lacking in feedback, data, etc, of course, but it is an attempt to make public space public, which is an important library tenet.

I’ve been on runs and come across one of these.  It made me pull up short and laugh for joy.  I love people taking the library into their own hands.  It reminds me of the new trend for passive programming – this is passive librarying.