Dancing with the...Web 2.0?

My last two semesters have been full of discussion of Web 2.0, crowdsourcing, and similar ideas -- due in part to my coursework, and in part to the LibGuide I've been building on Digital Humanities (and a related column which my supervisor and I will eventually be putting out. Stay tuned). A large part of the discussion has been about the role of user-generated content -- tagging, natural-language subject headings, reviews, etc.--especially as applied to resource description. There is, of course, a pretty serious debate about this. Many people feel that libraries will survive only if they sacrifice their traditional organization for a more user-focused system. Others acknowledge that the current system is flawed but believe that abandoning traditional practice will seriously devalue the services we provide and ultimately be harmful to users (whether they realize it or not).

For me, this struggle between traditional and user-oriented is a bit like watching Dancing with the Stars.  I spent a year on my undergraduate college's competitive ballroom dance team, and while I would hardly call myself an "expert," after a while of taking lessons, as well as attending competitions and watching more-experienced dancers perform, you start to get a sense for how everything works. For those with ballroom expertise, DWTS can be difficult to watch. Non-professional competitors can try to choreograph a routine, but they don't usually get any choice or notice on the music. Many of the crowd-pleasing moves on DWTS are less-than-true to the dance and wouldn't be allowed in some levels of competition. Then there's the scoring. The judges have some say, of course--but anything resembling actual critique, especially coming from the (very traditional) Len Goodman, is usually boo-ed. And when it comes down to choosing finalists and awarding the mirror ball trophy, time and again audience votes have trumped the judges' professional assessment, although they do agree on occasion.

Here's the thing: ABC could redo DWTS, give the judges' scores more weight, and make sure the highest-quality dancing wins. Do the judges have expertise the audience doesn't?  Absolutely. But would people keep watching if they couldn't participate? Nope. First of all, if you don't dance (or if you dance but not well or often), most of what happens on that stage looks impressive, professional, and correct, even if it's not. Second of all, the audience doesn't always choose its favorites based on expertise -- sometimes their choices are more personal or 'fuzzy.' And thirdly, people like to participate. We're all used to being able to contribute our voice, and most of us aren't content to be passively entertained anymore. Interacting with the show, seeing their tweets up on the TV screen, being a part of the experience -- that's what keeps the audience engaged. That's what will bring them back for a 13th season this fall.

As librarians, we do have certain expertise that our users don't: that's why they come to us for help. But if we keep a tight hold on the library's narrative, so that it's all about how professional and expert we are, we won't keep our users interested. We can give them all kinds of reasons why we must organize resources strictly by this very particular system. But if  users  see other systems that seem to work just as well, if they don't like our system, if we shut them out -- they won't come to us. They will go to other places where their voice is welcome. We have to find a way to open up the story so that it is also about them, to continue to provide our services in a way that encourages user engagement and, well, use. How we can accomplish that, of course--well, that's a question for another day.  The first step is simply to recognize what is needed.

The "Reference Interview," Outside of RIS

Well, the holidays are over, a new semester is in full swing, and I suppose it's finally time to embark on this experiment in independent blogging--hopefully this is a project I can remain on top of throughout the semester.

Today I'd like to tackle an interesting thought that struck me this morning about the nature of the work I do here at the library. It's a bit of a different area than I've explored in my previous posts, because today I have reference services on the brain -- mostly thanks to my new course on "Information Sources & Services" (or "the reference class" as I tend to call it) starting up tomorrow.

It's not that uncommon to talk about the intersection of LIS with other careers. Many of my classmates are making mid-career changes to join the field, and they all bring with them skills and experiences drawn from those other careers. We also talk about other careers post-MSLS; it seems as if I've read and heard quite a bit, lately, about other applications for LIS-related skills, and how we newbie librarians can market ourselves to career fields that are more available than LIS.

The thought that struck me this morning is that it's actually very interesting to draw a comparison between other customer service fields, such as retail work, and LIS, in particular the reference and instructional aspects of it. I'm not necessarily recommending retail as an ideal post-MSLS career choice; after at least two degrees and presumably some accompanying financial expense, I would imagine many of us will be looking in other directions.

That said, I worked a retail position on-and-off for 6 years before starting this degree, and it's an experience I would recommend for anyone. It's amazing how drastically it changes your perception of the retail/service industry and its challenges, and how completely it can alter your behavior as a customer (I, for one, had a bad habit of leaving unwanted items, well, wherever, for staff to pick up -- no more).  A retail job is also an excellent place to pick up some useful skills -- not just skills with a cash register, but, more importantly, people skills. For someone like me, for many years too painfully shy to pick up the phone, a retail job can help develop the kind of boldness you need to approach a new customer with an offer of help, strike up a friendly chat at the register, or answer phone inquiries.  Also, in many retail situations, no matter how incredibly hostile or rude a customer is, you can't return their attitude -- politeness is your job (to a point, anyway; there are, I think, occasional exceptions to this). So you learn how to swallow your own hostility, remain polite, choose your words carefully, and calmly find a resolution to the problem, if there is one. This is a great skill to have in any kind of situation, and it is most definitely a wonderful skill to have on the reference desk.

In many ways, my retail position was very similar to the work I do on the reference desk today. I worked in a small, family-owned arts-and-crafts store with a fairly-eclectic selection of products (and an eclectic system of organization). My training consisted of taking pre-written shopping lists around the store and learning where to find the items listed; and within a short time of my working there, I was expected to have a reasonable working knowledge of what we carried and where.  Customer interactions shared many similarities with reference transactions: Known Item ("Do you sell glue sticks?"). Directional ("Where are your scrapbooks?"). Ready Reference ("What type of clay can I use that will air dry?"). And then there were some questions which were more Complex: "I need to show a river on my diorama. What ideas do you have?" At which point, in reference librarian-like manner, I had to use my knowledge of our resources (products, really, but bear with the metaphor here) to present my patron (customer) with possibilities based on the requirements for their project, the materials they had already chosen, and other needs such as their budget limitations.

Many of the services I provided, by the way, relied on "reference interviews." If a customer requested paint, I needed to determine what material they were painting on, and the level of their project (craft project vs. professional/artistic) before I could direct them to the right products.  And if a customer came in asking for "wool," further questioning was necessary to find out whether they wanted "wool yarn" or were using "wool" as a synonym for "yarn, any kind." So when I first began working in RIS this past August, even though I did not necessarily recognize the term "reference interview," the concept was immediately familiar.

It's true, there may not be a direct connect between a retail position and an LIS career. There's a reason that many aspiring librarians choose or are required to pursue further education -- there are definitely some specific skills involved. But I think it is interesting, and important, to be aware of the ways that former jobs and other experiences can enhance our abilities as librarians. I know my time in other customer services positions has made me more confident in my ability to handle a variety of situations at the reference desk.  I also like to believe that it has helped me to cultivate a more-pleasant attitude towards my patrons, and overall to provide better service to them (this is, of course, difficult for me to state objectively).

How have your previous jobs/careers have contributed to your skills as a librarian/information professional?