I was struck by the three underlying assumptions of Redesigning Library Services (Buckland, 1997). In particular, number one: “There has been insufficient attention to strategic planning, that is, the making of decisions relative to a three to ten year time frame.” As someone who has worked with small businesses and non-profits, two other sectors which also struggle with underpaid staff (and a lack of even those), shifting donor ecologies, and new technologies, I see the importance of this long-term visioning and planning work that helps shape what we do. If we think about library’s reputations for service, we are known to be obsolete almost before we start, on our way out, although quite beloved. We therefore have to shift how we operate. Buckland’s introduction seems to follow the current shift within marketing and branding, and how social justice organizations mobilize: away from just thinking about services and towards why we offer them and how to improve them. The importance of starting with a goal in mind rings true in every aspect of library science. The shift towards user-based and collaborative in what brought me to libraries. Libraries have the exciting possibility to be both incredibly flexible and open, and an institution. We can walk the line between being steady and dynamic by starting with the goal of serving patrons and moving on from there.
In the same vein, I enjoyed the measured tone that all three of these articles had. There was no panic about the end of books, the end of libraries, the end of the world, nor was there a stodgy buckling down of reference service-defending. Technology wasn’t seen as the mighty savior, nor was it seen as an evil spirit out to destroy libraries. For instance, Casey and Stavastinuk (2007) say, “…technology is just a tool that we can use to reach our users” (p. 6); he acknowledges that the ultimate goal is to serve our users and patrons. Often in discussions about technology and the internet, technology is not seen as a tool but instead a decision. Similarly, Lankes, Silverstein, and Nicholson (2012), point at the origins of participatory networks as not being technology, but our goal as librarians. “The opportunities inherent in participatory networks have not emerged because of current Internet developments such as Web 2.0, but, rather, these technologies make it easier to meet an identified and long-standing role of libraries” (p. 4). I am excited to explore how we can walk the line together!
These articles and their measured views reminds me of this April 17, 2011 article: “5 Myths About the ‘Information Age’ by Robert Darnton. He dives into the exciting conversations around content creation: “The Internet certainly has stimulated self-publishing, but why should that be deplored? Many writers with important things to say had not been able to break into print, and anyone who finds little value in their work can ignore it.” This is certainly part of the Web 2.0 phenomenon that I am excited about. I know many Zine Libraries exist and I am excited to think of ways to include them in a public library.
Hyperlinked Lisa Librarian 
Thanks for linking to that awesome article.
It was strange reading Buckland’s “Redesigning Library Service”, because it was written way back in the early 90’s and was speculating about things that are actually happening today.
Sources cited:
Buckland, M. (1992). Redesigning library services: A manifesto. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Accessed at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Library/Redesigning/html.html
Casey, M.E. & Savastinuk, L. (2007). Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service. Medford, NJ. Information Today.
Lankes, R.D., Silverstien, J., & Nicholson, S. (2012). Participatory networks: The library as conversation. American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy.
Thanks for sharing the Darnton article. 🙂
The quote you share and point you make about participation being a goal long before technology resonates with me. The tech has amplified the possibilities though on a global scale, so I’d argue the shift was radical.
The more I read about participatory librarianship and encounter its concepts that resound throughout the literature, I tend to relate this thinking to a period of awakening.
It seems as if we’ve been in a deep sleep. We’ve known these concepts to be true and representative of what we do–at times. But, now we’re seeing this participation as a driving, always guiding principle; the spine on which we can support nearly all endeavors of the library.
This, to me, gets back to the idea that technology is just a tool, a tool for accomplishing simple means to the ends that we’ve been awakened to.