Idea I hope will become trends: ask for what you want

In the final installment of my ALA Annual faux-cap, I want to talk about asking for what you want.

The previous installments: user stories, communication, and assessment.

The last session I went to in Anaheim was a panel discussion about how ILS vendors were planning on dealing with the challenges and changes that RDA's implementation would inevitably cause.

When the moderator opened the floor for Q&A, a very different discussion erupted. Basically, the audience called the vendors out on their shenanigans.

Because, while the vendors had, indeed, made provisions for new MARC tags, it didn't seems as if they had really given much consideration to what a post-MARC world might look like. And that's a problem.

The discussion was...lively. Catalogers want tools and mock-ups of what a RDA-driven, post-MARC catalog might look like. ILS vendors don't seem to want to create even a beta version of such a catalog until the landscape is more stable.

What seemed most shocking to the catalogers in the room was that vendors seemed surprised that catalogers were even interested in such mock-ups. And their defense seemed to be that until and unless catalogers make their wishes known, vendors can't create the tools that catalogers want.

It seems to me like ILS vendors and libraries are having a stand-off. It's like they're playing chicken about how metadata will be represented in this post-AACR2, post-MARC world. Libraries are waiting on vendors who are waiting on libraries.

My observation about this stand-off is that if you want to affect real and lasting change when it comes to vendors, convince the people in your organization who sign-off on paying the bills that what you value is worthwhile.

So, my last and final takeaway is to ask for what you want.

At your own institution, talk to your Systems staff and UL about what you want users to be able to do with the metadata you're creating. Find products or dream up solutions to make these dreams a reality. Talk about what makes this metadata so important for users--for searching and retrieving items and for serendipitous discovery--and what would be so devastating for your users about outsourcing cataloging or accepting sub-par vendor-generated MARC records.

At conferences, visit the vendors your library works with. Ask them tough questions about what they're doing to move toward a post-AACR2, post-MARC world. Tell them what you want your users to be able to do with the metadata you're creating and ask them how they plan to make that happen. Talk to them about task forces and committees you know exist where libraries and vendors intersect and ask them what they're contributing to them.

Find your tribe and get involved. Join your state's library association or ALA. Or both. Join a committee or an interest group that's tackling these issues and get to work. Start learning to code and come up with your own solutions to these problems. Use social media to find like-minded folks and start learning about the issues.

To quote Rage Against The Machine:
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start sometime
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"

Be visible. Be proactive. Be awesome.

Ideas I hope will become trends: assessment

This series is, at its core, a recap of my trip to ALA's Annual Conference in Anaheim. But I prefer talking about the practical applications of what I learned to simply recapping programs.

The first installment was about user stories and the second was about communication.

The third installment is about assessment.

I was not planning on attending LITA's Top Tech Trends panel. But, I returned back from an off-campus lunch too late to attend the session I'd hoped to catch and too early for the next round of programs.Having found myself with a few minutes on my hand, I decided to catch a few minutes of the program.

Meredith Farkas was one of the panelists and I found myself nodding in agreement when she talked about how academic libraries can't really stand on the assertion that the library is the center of the academic community anymore. Instead, academic libraries are being asked to justify their impact on those they serve.

Farkas suggested that assessment tracking tools were a good way of managing data that would help libraries build stories of user impact.

But this isn't so much about what Farkas had to say as it is about what people had to say about what she had to say.

It seemed like the Twitter backchannel was musing about how difficult it was to cultivate the kind of organizational culture that breeds an interest in assessment. Basically--nobody teaches this kind of stuff in library school.

The thing is, I couldn't agree more with the notion that academic libraries are being asked to justify their impact on those they serve. It's no longer enough for them to say that they're the center of the academic community. Researchers, both novice and expert, are finding other sources for information than traditional library resources. And many academic libraries grapple with how to stay at the center of the campus community--a completely different challenge.

And I also couldn't agree more with the idea that data helps libraries build stories about their impact on the lives of users.

And, while we're at it, I also couldn't agree more with the idea that creating that kind of organizational culture is really, really hard.

But it's not impossible.

So, how do we do it? How do we create organizational cultures in our libraries that embrace assessment and the data it generates?

I think we start by shifting our focus toward things that are measurable. Which means that every project or program needs to have outcomes built into it during the design phase. How else will we know if the project is successful? And, in the case of programs, how will we know if the audience has learned what we'd like for them to learn?

Academic libraries need to think critically about how adopting this kind of culture could affect them for the better. What would it look like to have data supporting your assertions about how bibliographic instruction sessions have prepared student researchers for upper-level research? It's one thing to consider gate count (which is valuable data, indeed), but it's another to show how you've created good consumers and stewards of information.

I think it's equally important for user-centered back room folks to generate, synthesize, and store data as well. If it's true that academic libraries are being asked to justify their impact on the academic community, it's equally as true that many units performing back-room functions are being asked to do the same. And, when the day comes that you have to advocate for your job, it's much easier to do so using data.

So, try gathering some usage statistics after you finish a cataloging project. Did usage of a hidden collection go up after you added it to the catalog? Did analyzing that serial prompt more people to use it? This kind of data collection can help justify some of the most important work you're doing.

Alternately, though, data of this kind can help you decide what to let go of when budgets are tight and time is fleeting. You can see what your users value most and what they can live without and make decisions about resource allocation accordingly.

So...start with an outcome and measure your success accordingly. And let the data do the talking.

Be visible. Be proactive. Be awesome.

Fixing the PR problem

I tweeted this yesterday:
I've come to the conclusion that libraries, generally speaking, have a PR problem. We do a crap job of explaining to users the how and why.

The problem with our inability to explain the how and way leads to feedback from users that makes us feel especially uncomfortable. We react defensively or want to dismiss it and often our response is more ham-fisted than anything else.

There seem to be two kinds of feedback that we get that speak to this PR problem:
1. Users ask us to develop services we've already developed but haven't done a good job of marketing. Or, users ask us to better market something that we've been trying really hard (but failing) to connect with users on.

2. Users balk at a reality (usually a policy) that can't be changed because of the way we've negotiated a contract or a law that exists.

I think there are two ways to solve this problem.
1. Be transparent in all things--even the unpleasant ones.
Sometimes the response to the requests that your users make is not the one they want to hear. But, as a general rule, people want to be heard and they want to feel like their voice matters. Explain your policies clearly and without jargon. And when you have to say no, explain why in an empathetic way. Log the suggestions and complaints your users give you and respond to them in a public way. Don't make people feel ashamed to ask for what they want, even if you can't give it to them.

2. Be where your users are...not where you think they are.
If you're trying to promote a service, put up fliers in your students' dorms. If you're trying to get more people through the doors of your library, step outside your library and find out why more people aren't there. Or, even better, take your services on the road to where people do spend their time.

It's hard to get out of the echo chamber and learn to tell the stories of your users and their experiences. But part of fixing the PR problem is seeing your users face-to-face, listening to their feedback, and responding to it swiftly. Sometimes that response is a tweak to your services to make them easier to use, but sometimes the response is to explain those services (and their limitations) in language that your users can understand.

Be visible. Be proactive. Be awesome.

Patron-Driven Acquisition, MARC records, and you

I'm going to be all Ranty McRanty-Pants for just a minute. But I've got a point, so stay with me.

You know how Patron-Driven Acquisition is the Big Thing now in libraries? If you don't, check out this post from June 2010 at Go To Hellman's blog for a thorough, yet entertaining explanation of the situation.

Here's the thing:
In order for a Patron-Driven Acquisition program to be successful, the books have to be found in your catalog. If the MARC records aren't good, they become a barrier to findability.

Here's the other thing:
As far as I can tell, Vendors aren't invested in giving us good MARC records. For them, the records are like one of those gift-with-purchase makeup bags you get when you buy $50 worth of cosmetics at a department store. You pay for access to the e-books and get the records with them. And since the records themselves aren't worth a lot to the vendor, the quality of those records is sometimes sketchy.

The idea that we can put sketchy MARC records in our catalog and expect people to find the books in our Patron-Driven Acquisition program seems misguided at best and seriously problematic at worst. And as libraries are considering implementing Patron-Driven Acquisition programs as part of their collection development budget, it seems like this issue is coming to the proverbial tipping point.

Before you accuse me of wanting "perfect" records, let me be clear. I'm not advocating that vendors give us lovely, hand-crafted records. I'm merely advocating for things like correct titles, correctly formatted authority records for authors, and reasonable subject access.

I know that, in many people's eyes, days are numbered for our friend the OPAC. But for many users, the online catalog is an important tool for finding known items and discovering new resources. To rest an acquisitions model on the shoulders of records that aren't the main concern of the vendor selling them to you does your users a great disservice.

So what can you do? Two ideas:

1.) If your library has a team or committee overseeing the Patron-Driven Acquisition project, volunteer to be on it. Educate your colleagues (in a nice way, of course) about the importance of MARC records as an aid in findability.

2.) Going to a conference? Make time to talk to vendors about MARC records and make quality MARC records a must-have item in any Patron-Driven Acquisition project you pilot.

Be proactive. Be visible. Be awesome.

Listen. Just listen.

There is this meme that is currently circling the part of the Internet that is ruled by librarians: librarians get no respect.

People far and wide have linked to Molly Kleinman's blog post as evidence for their Dangerfield-ian cry.

It stings to read that the perception of librarians in academia is that they are risk averse.

If you're a cataloger, you feel this pain even more acutely when you read the part in Kleinman's piece where the computer science professor called author, title, and date information "useless metadata."

It feels really grim when you put these two arguments together, right?

Risk averse catalogers who are obsessed with metadata.

*shudder*

There has been a call-to-arms that catalogers will get street cred by being more outspoken among their colleagues about what they do. The logic seems (to me, anyway) to be that if we tell people why what we do is important, they'll value the services.

I heartily agree with the idea of getting out of our echo chambers. In fact, I advocate regularly for catalogers to get as much face time with public services staff and end users as possible. How else are you going to learn about the needs of the user?

I think that the best way for us to advocate is to join in the conversations that our front-line staffs are already having.

Maybe it's hard to see how user experience or assessment or information literacy affect you as a cataloger. But think about how much you can bring to these conversations. Who knows the catalog better than you? Who uses it more than you?

I would suggest starting by figuring out what is important to your front-line staffs right now. Maybe it's patron-driven acquisition or scholarly communication. Start by attending a meeting that you've never attended before and listen. Just listen.

Then, educate yourself on these topics so that you can speak intelligently about them with the staff you hope to connect with. You don't have to become an expert on the topic, but at least learn what the core issues are. Even if learning about instructional design won't make you a better cataloger, it will help you make in-roads with the reference librarian you've been hoping to work with.

We, as catalogers, own the perception that people have of us. And we have the tools to change it.

Be proactive. Be visible. Be awesome.

Becoming more visible: a 3-step plan

I just finished reading Bradford Lee Eden's article entitled The New User Environment: The End of Technical Services?

You can read it here (you need a username and password): http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/ital/292010/2902jun/toc.cfm

This isn't actually a post about Eden's article, though. What really resonated with me was a quote that he used that came from a 2007 article by Sheila Intner.

She wrote:
Part of the trouble is that the rest of our colleagues don't really know what technical services librarians do. They only know that we do it behind closed door and talk about it in language that no one else understands. If it can't be seen, can't be understood, and can't be discussed, maybe it's all smoke and mirrors, lacking real substance.

I think that Intner points out a real weakness for people in Technical Services. We often end up sequestered in back rooms, removed from both library users and our colleagues. When we do get face time with our front-line colleagues, the burden is on us to show them the impact of our work. It's hard to do if, when we have the chance, we bore our colleagues to death with jargon.

For better or worse, I think it's the job of Technical Services Librarians to make their work seem relevant and important. We need to take away the smoke and mirrors and show the substance of what we do in a way that anyone can understand.

To that end, I offer you a three-point-plan:
1. Be more visible
Attend as many meetings as your schedule allows without neglecting your primary job duties. Does you library have an all-staff meeting? Go! A brown bag lunch series? Go! Use the opportunities to network with your colleagues, especially if your back-room office is at a remote part of the library where no one ever sees you.

Being more visible means that people know your name when you call or email them with a question. It also helps you seem more well-rounded, especially if you attend meetings on topics that don't seem to immediately connect with your work in Technical Services.

2. Create an 'elevator speech' about what you do
Say you sit down next to a Reference Librarian at one of those meetings and you have a few minutes before the meeting starts. If you've taken the time to craft a short explanation of what you do and how you can help that person, the time before that meeting will be more productive than any all-staff email or presentation you might give.

When you're coming up with your elevator speech, lose the jargon. Don't assume that the person you're talking to knows--or cares about--the acronyms that are second nature to you. Your elevator speech should be easy to understand and should focus on how you can make a difference in the life of the person you're talking to.

3. Find an front-line ally who is willing to help you raise your visibility with front-line staff.
In my experience, making a difference in the life of a front-life staff person is the easiest way to forge the kind of alliances that I'm talking about. If you can work a miracle for someone, they'll likely sing your praises to their colleagues.

I think that if you are willing to be visible and to forge relationships with front-line staff, the smoke and mirrors will dissipate and your true value to your organization will shine through.

Be proactive. Be visible. Be awesome.