From E-LIS (and, yes, they have an RSS feed):
Shaheen, Maqsood Ahmad (2004) "The library of the future." In SciTech World (Saturday, September 25), Daily Dawn.
This is a short, half-page article that, although written by a reference librarian, is as bad as any newspaper article.
The author does make a few decent points. "Instead of asking whether or not libraries will be around in 2101, we should be asking, "What will they be like? How will they function?"" "Physical libraries are collaborative spaces, not just print collections." Otherwise, this is a thinly veiled argument for digitization and digital libraries or, perhaps more accurately, virtual libraries.
The author’s biggest crime, in my opinion, is one that sems inherent in newspapers. Little to no references or sources for the claims made.
- "People conducting research go online first… …they are very satisfied with this arrangement."
- "The majority of information seekers begin…on the open Internet…."
- "The next most prevalent preference is…from their organization’s intranet."
- "…going to a phyiscal library is only the fifth most common preference."
Where is this data from? It seems to be from some study of the corporate environment based on the "their organization’s intranet" comment. It could be from an academic study I guess. But these claims need to be backed up, especially when made in regards to "librar[ies] at every centre of learning."
The next paragraph, and where he heads from it, is extremely interesting.
Most people say they prefer to seek and receive information in an electronic format (…) or by telephone. Very few say print is their preferred medium for seeking and receiving information. The shift to print preference comes when information seekers are asked how they prefer to use the information once they have found it.
This is the author’s last step in setting up the argument for shifting even more resources "from traditional library functions (including maintenance of the phyiscal library and print collection) to digital content deployment technologies, and supporting services."
I have seen the above dichotomy of information seeker’s preferences before. And as before, this massive disconnect is glossed over. What we really need is some research that addresses this fact of user preferences:
- Users prefer to seek ‘information’ electronically.
- Users prefer to receive ‘information’ electronically.
- Users prefer to use ‘information’ in the medium of paper.
These statements should immediately lead to many questions:
- Which users?
- What sorts of information?
- Are there differences in information that lead to different preferences?
- What are those differences?
- What is the difference between the reception and use of information that leads to different preferences?
- Does this mean the user is responsible for printing the information; no matter the size or length of the file.
- If information is not supplied in the format of use should it ‘cost’ less?
- And many others.
The author lists 6 "common attributes of the library of the future." The fifth of these is that, "The librarian is a gateway, not a gatekeeper." Clearly, this author has an extremeley limited understanding of metaphor and language. Other than a possibly very slight shift towards a more positive connotation, please, what is the difference between a gateway and a gatekeeper? They both involve the meanings of keeping in and keeping out. What does it matter if one is actually the person guarding the gate or the gate itself?
Besides, the term gatekeeper can have both a positive and/or negative connotation. Seeing as libraries, and ergo librarians, cannot collect and organize all information we are already down the road to one form of gatekeeping. If you do not like that metaphor, then fine with me. But you’ll also have to remove the gate itself from any alternative metaphor.
But, personally, I see no way to remove the ideas or functions of selection, censorship, and gatekeeping from librarianship. And while in practice, those can be negatives, they are not necessarily so in theory. Individual ibrarians through their practice of librarianship and the institution of libraries may make them either way.
[Some of my previous comments on selection vs. censorship, and on A-list librarian bloggers as gatekeepers. You may also want to see Christina Pika's comments on the more traditional view of librarians as gatekeepers.]
I have other questions for writers such as this:
- If we shift even more resources away from the physical maintenance of the library, how can it serve as a collaborative space?
- Where will the hardware for this digital utopia, and those who maintain it, reside?
- How can one have their cake and eat it too?
