On Bridges, 2.0 and Other Thoughts About Being Caught in the Middle

A few days ago, I read Rachel Singer Gordon's column from Library Journal "The 'Bridge' Generation". I found it from reading Meredith Farkas's blog under the cool things she found this week. Meredith also wrote about the Web 2.0 backlash. Initially when I read about the 2.0 backlash I was tempted to stay away from the whole thing. I tend to stay away from things I know the experts will pick up, but given the back and forth between the 2.0 gurus and those who have not quite caught up, let's go with the 1.0 label for now, I finally caved in because I need to work some of this out for myself. So here goes.

I don't think the whole issue is so much that the Web 2.0 advocates don't defend the concept. I think they actually defend it very well. In fact, they do so a bit too well. That may be part of the problem. At times, the advocates seem to say you are with us or against us. They say you should be doing X or Y and wonder why the rest of us don't see it as self-evident. The ones who think it is hype only seem to get their suspicions that it is all hype confirmed. The nature of the conversation has been confrontational from the start. I am sure the 2.0 advocates did not intend it that way, but by taking an attitude of "this is best, here is why, and you will fall behind if you don't adopt (or adapt)," it just makes others question and say "oh, really?"

I have mixed feelings about the whole Library 2.0 thing. Like Meredith, I have read the many wonderful reports about technology folks and libraries. What concerns me is when the attitude of join us or be square seems to seep into some of the conversations. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it is a tool, and it has to work. I think what happens very often is someone reports something great, a whole lot of other people pick up on it, and they all proclaim that we should all be doing this. As I sit here typing, I realize we never hear of the ones who tried X or Y and fell flat when it did not work for them. I am sure they are out there. Again, I don't think the confrontational tone is intentional, but it can often come across that way. In part it is because many of these authors may not recognize that not all libraries have great funding or techno-adventurous staff. Now, I will grant that a lot of the tools mentioned around Library 2.0 are Web-based and free, so the cost in that sense is not an issue; possible costs in terms of staff time is a separate deal. Michael Stephens, of Tame the Web, recently made 5 Suggestions for Upgrading to Library 2.0. My initial reaction was "that seems nice, but it leaves things out." For instance, his suggestion of sending folks to places like the Gaming Symposium, while idealistic, may not be very practical in terms of funding. My case is a perfect example. If I told my library director that I wanted to form a "think tank" for technology issues and send three other people and me to a few symposia and conferences like Michael suggests, my director would probably flash me a very nice smile and diplomatically tell me that there's no money for that. Pure and simple. That's just one example.

Then there is the element of buy-in, which I think is where much of the issue comes in. The advocates in their rush to have the latest don't convince or educate others very well. The HigherEd BlogCon that Meredith highlights will likely address some of this, though I wonder how much of it will be preaching to the choir. What I would really be interested in is what the participants will bring back to their institutions. How exactly will they move to educate others to show that, in spite of the hype, there are some very useful things libraries should at least consider? This is a question I learned to ask as a teacher consultant for the National Writing Project. In that program, a large part of the thrust was on what would we take back to our schools or institutions and how we would implement what we learned. As for the question, notice I used the word "consider." While I am all for collaborative spaces, better service and access, and more openness, I don't assume (or try not to assume) every library has to have every new 2.0 toy or gadget. What may work for you may not work for me. That's all I would ask, that those in the vanguard don't disregard those still in 1.0 or below.

And this takes me back to Rachel's article, for you see, I am Generation X. When I was an udergraduate, my library had a card catalog I learned to use. They were gradually phasing it out. I am caught in the middle and because of that, I feel for those in Library 1.0 because they helped to shape a part of how I am today. I also feel for the 2.0 crowd because I love new challenges and ideas; I do like trying out new toys, but I am by no means an early adopted. I will get there when I get there, thank you very much. In the end, we all share one thing in common: our desire to serve others to the best of our ability. That should be the principle that guides us. Rachel notess that the boomers need to share their knowledge with the rest of us. I will go on to say that the 2.0 folks need to do the same as well, in a wise way. It has to be a true conversation. As long as the tone, or undertone, remains confrontational, you can't have dialogue. It's time both sides reached across the aisle and across other zones. Stephen Cohen studying the wisdom of crowds and going outside the comfort zones. While he is arguing from a 2.0 point of view, advocating that we should be present at the places other professionals and experts outside of LIS are, he asked this question: "We are talking to each other and not anyone else beyond our "comfort" zone. Why aren't we bringing our ideas and tools to non-librarians?" I think some are talking to each other, and a few are just either listening, or trying to make sense of the talk. Reaching out will involve getting out of the comfort zone.

Maybe for me anyways, writing about this is my small way to try to open a bridge. Being in the middle as an educator is not a bad place to be if I can learn from both ends as well as teach what little I may know. If I can truly accomplish this, I may be getting somewhere.

As I was about to wrap up, it seems the whole 2.0 thing exploded over the weekend if my Bloglines feeds were any indication. I found at least three different posts on the topic here, here, and here. It may get interesting yet.

Update note (at 11:54a): I came across this post on Updating your buzzwords from Creating Passionate Users. The humor is good, but I think it catches some of what I was thinking about. At any rate, worth reading. I found it through the ACRLog. I went ahead and subscribed to Passionate, at least to try it out.