public libraries
I listened to an interesting little piece on Radio 4 this morning about the purpose of public libraries. It's available on Listen Again here if anyone is interested.
I thought it was a pity that the presenter was of the "Harrumph, muttermutter, books muttermutter talking in libraries is evil muttermutter" variety because that's kind of what I'm like too; I'd hoped that it would provide some insight into what professional librarians all seem to feel which is that libraries should be information centres with their main focus being getting people online. An example of that view can be found here and I have a number of friends and acquaintances who have done librarianship MAs in the last few years and they have all come out with the same view - at least those I have talked to, anyway, feel free to step foward if you came out of a librarianship MA with a different view!
But I find that view really difficult to follow. I know from my work that almost all the research suggests that people who use libraries would prefer more books and fewer computers. I understand that the public's view isn't always the one to follow - otherwise, we'd be back to hangings and castrations and caning and all sort of other delights - but I don't really understand why not in this instance. The argument, so far as I can follow it, seems to be that the internet is crucially important and the public may not fully understand this but they should be brought to the internet for their own good.
I have two issues with this, the first being that I honestly don't understand why the internet is so crucial. I mean, I can see that it's crucial for particular sub groups of people (e.g. job seekers, homeless people) but these people are usually provided for in other ways (job centres, homeless centres). I can see that it's helpful for other groups - e.g. the elderly - but, again, there are community colleges and other resources for these people. I just don't see the argument for why the internet should be the number one priority for libraries. Other places can and do provide internet services, but nowhere else provides books.
The second issue that I have with it is that I think it's rather patronising. It is basically saying, "I know you think you want books but, actually, you want free internet access." Well, I don't - I have the internet at home, like 83% of households in the South East do. And the main reason why people say that they don't have the internet: because they don't need it.
The Radio 4 piece made me realise that the patronising element has always been there in libraries, they were founded by people who wanted to enlighten other people according to what they themselves thought best. Really, librarians who think that the internet is what people should want, regardless of what they do want,* are part of the tradition of libraries.
Although I harrumph a lot about computers in libraries, I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of public libraries ought to be - I don't know that it really is a great use of taxpayers' money for me to take out murder mysteries, as much as I enjoy them. At a time when it's hard to find the money to house people adequately and so on, I don't know that publically subsidised entertainment really has a role. Of course, librarians would say that it's not subsidised entertainment, that it's all about education/information but I'm not at all convinced that that's the case for public libraries at the moment - I don't think that the murder mysteries that I read, that the Mills&Boon collection, the people just checking their e-mail on their lunchbreak, the selectin of popular films and music that you can take out can sensibly be called "information" or "education". They're entertainment and I love the service and use it regularly but I just don't know that it has a clear purpose that can be justified against the background of more crucial service cuts. If we changed libraries to make them about information and education only, I'm not sure that enough people would use them to justify the number that we currently have; and we reduced the number, they'd be further away from people who did want to use them for information and education and then they wouldn't be able to get to them.
I think private libraries may be the future for people like me. I can see myself having read all the books in my local library that interest me in a year or two and I'd cheerfully pay for a service that did what I wanted: provided lots and lots of books. In fact, I had a quick google and this is only about 10 mins walk from where I will be working soon. I'm very tempted.
*I am not suggesting that internet services aren't, in some libraries, extremely beneficial to the population of the area, just that what I've seen of the research suggests that they are not so most of the time.
I thought it was a pity that the presenter was of the "Harrumph, muttermutter, books muttermutter talking in libraries is evil muttermutter" variety because that's kind of what I'm like too; I'd hoped that it would provide some insight into what professional librarians all seem to feel which is that libraries should be information centres with their main focus being getting people online. An example of that view can be found here and I have a number of friends and acquaintances who have done librarianship MAs in the last few years and they have all come out with the same view - at least those I have talked to, anyway, feel free to step foward if you came out of a librarianship MA with a different view!
But I find that view really difficult to follow. I know from my work that almost all the research suggests that people who use libraries would prefer more books and fewer computers. I understand that the public's view isn't always the one to follow - otherwise, we'd be back to hangings and castrations and caning and all sort of other delights - but I don't really understand why not in this instance. The argument, so far as I can follow it, seems to be that the internet is crucially important and the public may not fully understand this but they should be brought to the internet for their own good.
I have two issues with this, the first being that I honestly don't understand why the internet is so crucial. I mean, I can see that it's crucial for particular sub groups of people (e.g. job seekers, homeless people) but these people are usually provided for in other ways (job centres, homeless centres). I can see that it's helpful for other groups - e.g. the elderly - but, again, there are community colleges and other resources for these people. I just don't see the argument for why the internet should be the number one priority for libraries. Other places can and do provide internet services, but nowhere else provides books.
The second issue that I have with it is that I think it's rather patronising. It is basically saying, "I know you think you want books but, actually, you want free internet access." Well, I don't - I have the internet at home, like 83% of households in the South East do. And the main reason why people say that they don't have the internet: because they don't need it.
The Radio 4 piece made me realise that the patronising element has always been there in libraries, they were founded by people who wanted to enlighten other people according to what they themselves thought best. Really, librarians who think that the internet is what people should want, regardless of what they do want,* are part of the tradition of libraries.
Although I harrumph a lot about computers in libraries, I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of public libraries ought to be - I don't know that it really is a great use of taxpayers' money for me to take out murder mysteries, as much as I enjoy them. At a time when it's hard to find the money to house people adequately and so on, I don't know that publically subsidised entertainment really has a role. Of course, librarians would say that it's not subsidised entertainment, that it's all about education/information but I'm not at all convinced that that's the case for public libraries at the moment - I don't think that the murder mysteries that I read, that the Mills&Boon collection, the people just checking their e-mail on their lunchbreak, the selectin of popular films and music that you can take out can sensibly be called "information" or "education". They're entertainment and I love the service and use it regularly but I just don't know that it has a clear purpose that can be justified against the background of more crucial service cuts. If we changed libraries to make them about information and education only, I'm not sure that enough people would use them to justify the number that we currently have; and we reduced the number, they'd be further away from people who did want to use them for information and education and then they wouldn't be able to get to them.
I think private libraries may be the future for people like me. I can see myself having read all the books in my local library that interest me in a year or two and I'd cheerfully pay for a service that did what I wanted: provided lots and lots of books. In fact, I had a quick google and this is only about 10 mins walk from where I will be working soon. I'm very tempted.
*I am not suggesting that internet services aren't, in some libraries, extremely beneficial to the population of the area, just that what I've seen of the research suggests that they are not so most of the time.