losing ground

[Karen G. Schneider]

Two years ago I wrote a short piece for Library Journal, "The Old Guard and
the New Technology," which echoes bits and pieces of most of the posts on
this topic (LJ, 3/1/94).  It didn't suggest Sara's good idea of introducing
new technologies on a trial basis, but it emphasized a couple things my
experience has since corroborated: the importance of staff training and the
value of understanding how threatening rapid technological change can be.
As others have pointed out, plunking computers in front of librarians is
not a particularly effective means for introducing new technologies.
Additionally, it can be frightening to find out that the skill set you have
built your career on is of questionable applicability in the new
environment.  Quite a bit of the "challenges" you will get towards
technological change may be related to the natural defenses that kick in
when people feel devalued or worry that their careers are on the line.

I've learned a couple more things since that LJ column.  First, it can be
dangerous  when the librarians or other staff with high computer literacy
inform their peers that the new tools are "easy" and will make their jobs
better--particularly if there's no effort to get any real feedback. It's
like telling a new patron that the OPAC is simple to use and then walking
away--better to say, "this thing is clunky and has some odd quirks, and
some folks find it really difficult, but this is how to get what you need
out of it."  Same thing with staff.  Here's an example.  We have one new
tool, a Windows front end for some data. I personally find it the most
mystifying software package I have used in ten years, and I have yet to be
able to use it to answer a reference question, though when it was installed
I was informed by the installer (a Unix programmer) that it was "easy" and
"everyone" was using it.  By calling around and emailing other folks, I
know this is not the case, and I've spoken up on this.  Understandably, not
too many people are willing to say, "this is too hard"--though sometimes,
it IS too hard,and libraries need to listen when folks say this,
particularly if they aren't known for shying from new technologies.
Throwaway comments such as "this is easy," even when well-intended, can be
huge turn-offs to folks already feeling intimidated by our new
environments.

Another issue I'd address now, related to training, is whether the library
is really providing the tools needed to make this happen.  In one library,
some time ago, I did a computer survey prior to applying for a grant, and I
found that the ratio of computers to librarians was 1:7, while the ratio of
computers to admin wonks was 1:1 or even better.  Well, how are staff
supposed to learn these skills if they do not have computers to practice
on?  (How do you learn to drive?  In a car.)  In another survey I found out
that computers, when available, were located across the room from the
refernce desks or in some cases in other rooms or buildings.  It should
come as no surprise that when this was true it was also true that
librarians were less likely to use the Internet or other automated tools to
do their jobs.  In one library I'm familiar with, where the reference area
was not designed by librarians, the librarian has to make the choice to "do
without" electronic reference tools or to sit with her back to the
public--and the furniture is bolted to the floor.  The time to identify and
correct shortfalls and problems such as these, it should go without saying,
is BEFORE new technologies are introduced.  Yes, that's sometimes not
possible, but at least we should know what we need to correct.

One of the other things I had to learn through experience is that some
people are not going to learn, period, and in many cases there is no way we
can make them do so.   It's interesting that in our profession there are
many instances where librarians get to choose what they will and will not
learn--as if the bottom line were showing up and going through the motions,
not providing public service.  I liked the idea of identifying the top 15%,
who will be the trainers' trainers with lots of energy, dedication and
stamina, but given our profession, there will often be some people--maybe
we can think of them as the other 15%--who we must route around.  However,
given the 3 Ts and an A in sufficient quantities (Time, Training, Tools and
Attitude... something a colonel I admired taught me a long time ago),
somehow, one way or the other, most of us, I believe, will get there.  We
must, so we will.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen G. Schneider * kgs at bluehighways.com
Cybrarian * Columnist, American Libraries
Author, The Internet Access Cookbook (e-mail Neal-Schuman at icm.com)
These opinions strictly mine!