A few discussion questions

I have to say that reading Buildings, Books, and Bytes makes me sober and The Impact of the Internet makes me drowsy. There are some issues that I am aware while reading.

About BBB
1. The Youth issue & Bowling alone
Issues concerning the younger generation is really sounding the warning bell because they are soon to be our main patrons! The young people are the least supportive group - they would rather spend $20 on their own computer than contribute to the libraries. Are they the selfish generation or they just like to "bowling alone"? However, we also read about that they are most willing to pay charges for the library services. How do we reconcile the two points? In addition, the study kindly suggests that when they grow up and have children, they may become more supportive. However, it's also noted that people with computers tend to be less supportive. Obviously more and more people own computers and youth are growing up, what will happen?

2. Public culture and Public Sphere
Another issue that can be related to "Bowling Alone", as well as "Dismantling", is that the author broadens the issue to the notion of public culture. The suggestion of community-based alliances among all public institutions is very attractive. The alliance seems to be able to work to revive the community and public sphere. Are there such alliances? And what's the library's role in the alliances?

3. Library roles and public opinions
I think the greatest contribution of this study is that it provides us with the public's view about the future of the library. They are equivocal toward libraries' future because even librarians are not totally sure about the future or they failed to convey their images and messages to the patrons clearly. This study was conducted almost 10 years ago. And the ten years sees a lot of changes. How are things going now? Is the "navigator" image accepted by the public? What kind of roles are libraries playing in their communities?

4. Concerns about being marginalized & being relevant
Some library leaders feared that libraries would be marginalized and lose political support if they primarily serve the underserved people. However, the study shows that libraries get a lot of support from the disadvantage groups. What do you think of this issue? Do libraries have to gain support from middle-class taxpayer to be relevant? What's more, from the data shown in the article, I don't see that the patrons are really enthusiastic toward the libraries' role in the community. For example, providing meeting rooms for the community groups is almost the least important service for the survey participants. Do libraries have a place at the table?

5. Does anyone have any information about the public policy issues discussed in the article? Maybe we can also discuss about them.

The Impact of the Internet

1. How do you feel about the terms "market", "consumers", "products"…? Under the influence of the "Dismantling", these terms are really annoying to me. In addition, the way that they see public libraries and the Internet completely opposing to each other seems to be oversimplifying this issue. To me, the Internet is a medium, and the library is a public institution, how can they simply be compared with two competing products?

2. I believe that the study has a lot of value because the "competition" between libraries and Internet is a big concern, and it is useful to see the numbers which show that what is happening to our users and nonusers on a national level. However, does the analysis of the numbers tell us anything new? The authors claim that "evolving relationship between the Internet and the library" suggest the need for changes. Well, the librarians have been well aware of this and discussing and making efforts to change for a long time, haven't they?

What Do We Do Now?

Ok, so now I've read these articles and looked at all of these numbers, stats, etc. What am I suppose to do with them? Or, what should a librarian so with them?

How much should we focus on individual community groups/issues and how much should we focus on nation-wide trends?

And what are we going to do about that oh-so-important (well, at least as far as polls and ratings go) group of young men who aren't as excited about the idea of the library? Do we care if they aren't interested?

k'8

Hmmmmm............

"Libraries are civic integrators. They are community nerve centers." ~Buildings, Books, and Bytes


Are they? Are they really?

Presentations and Final Exams

Hi!

I checked and we don't have an assigned exam date/time. Could we perhaps just extend classtime that last Friday? Would that work out?

And, as far as the whole 'spread the library history love' idea goes, can we discuss that this coming Friday? It would be a great way to 1) possibly get more feedback, and 2) demonstrate the variety of ways to approach ideas about libraries, communities, and history.

k'8

Campus religion revives

An article from the Star Tribune points to today's college students being more religious than their parents (and showing increased participation in religious activities on campus). Quite ironic to read right after Bowling Alone! Especially interesting was the following: "Just as an earlier generation turned away from the 1950s conservatism of their parents, the millennial generation -- those currently in college -- may see a strong faith in God as a rebellion against their parents' religious apathy." Full article at http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/5721773.html

bowlingalone.com

OMG! it actually exists!! can u believe it!

ttyl

k'8

One more thing

I keep thinking, that what Putnum really wants is Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best.

He wants groups of what Artistotle would refer to as "the good man, speaking well."

I'm not against this at all, but in his study, his focus is very much concentrated on middle-class suburban/small town white value structures. Perhaps he is looking in the wrong places. Perhaps he is looking at the wrong populations, or the wrong data.

Even with all of those graphs, tables, and charts (which were, by the way, very drab and boring), he didn't convince me. I felt that something was missing.

Maybe I'm wrong - tell me if I've missed something here.

the causes

It seems to me that analysis of the causes of civic disengagement should be the most powerful part of this book, however, I find it very insufficient and unsatisfactory. Putman does analyze a lot of candidate factors, from TV to race, from money to marriage; however, the factors that are counted as causal factors, especially the weight of each factors seem more like guesses than valid conclusions. For example, of course the generation change is a powerful factor, but why is there such dramatic change between generations? The change itself does not reveal the underlying reasons to the question of civil disengagement.

Granted, I Have The Attention Span of a Gnat...

...and I am cynical, to boot, but I don't feel as if Putnum has given me a reason to care. He longs for this idea of 'involvement,' but he hasn't engaged me. Part of me wants to say that things change - the world changes - why is that such a bad thing?

And why spend time longing for the type(s) of communities that once were when we can focus on the commuity/ies we have?

See, I really am an optimist at heart.

k'8

Text/Style and Putnum

I guess I wouldn't be me if I didn't have something whiny or cranky to say about the reading.

Does anyone else feel like they are reading a textbook? After each section and chapter, I half-expect to see workbook questions.

k8

supplemental read to Bowling Alone?

I came across a relevant article not too long ago when I first heard we would be reading Bowling Alone, though I have not been able to read it yet. It is "Where Are Libraries in Bowling Alone?" by Jean Preer in Amerian Libraries, September 2001 (p. 60-62).

Presentations

What would y'all think of opening our project presentations to a wider audience - perhaps arranging a colloquium of Library-History-Community Love for the rest of SLIS???

I should probably first ask our instructor, though...

;-)

k'8

Blogging

Blogging is a kinesthetic activity. It involves movement (although, I find that writing 'longhand' is more so) and it involves engagement with others - not as direct though, as, say, an IM session.

One thing that I commonly do, though, is work/read/use several web browsers or applications at a time. I am constantly flipping between them, working/reading/etc., radically different things. I imagine that this would drive a lot of people batty, but it works for me.

Back to Habermas

One of the things that bother me with Buschman's approach is that he doesn't read Habermas critically. As the Habermas summary we read notes, "the public sphere is not a given for every type of society; nor does it possess a fixed status." I don't see Buschman addressing this issue/problem. Why should this notion of the public sphere, coming out of the development of the german salons (a fairly elite enterprise), actually work for public libraries in the US in the 21st century? And why should we fall back into (what I consider) the over-glorification on Enlightenment Ideals?

k'8

Leckie/Hopkins - a question of methodology

I have two questions.

1. On page 336, the authors note that interviewees were picked by chance, alternating genders. If there is a gender discrepancy regarding who uses a library, could this approach skew their results?

2. On page 346, they mention percentages of patrons engaging in 'studious behavior.' They never really define what 'studious behavior' is. Is simply reading a book 'studious'? Is 'writing' or 'computer use'? How are they defining this??? I feel as if this is a really fuzzy category and I'm not sure if I trust this part of their study - even though they have all of those great tables!

Did this bother anyone else? Or am I just being crabby?

Irene's comment about our class dynamic

I totally agree! And it also brings up issues such as learning behaviors, learning styles, personality traits, educational background, etc. - all of those things we bring to a class as individuals (and the same goes for the public space/use of libraries - everyone brings something different).

And this leads to issues of what is considered acceptable in particular spaces/circumstances. How do people perceive what should and should not be done in a library? Why do some view the 'quiet' library as a place of study and the 'noisy' library as a place of recreation or debate? Why isn't the noisy library a place of study? What does this say about our notions of learning and education?

Part of the reason this is, for me, an important issue is that my learning style is very interactive, kinesthetic, and verbal/spoken. This is largely a consequence of my ADD - even medicated, I need active interaction. The traditionally quiet library and/or classroom hasn't been a particularly welcoming space. It doesn't serve my needs, but then, the type(s) of spaces and practices that work for me induce others with a lot of tension!

So my question becomes: Is there really a space for everyone? Is this possible?

Right there with ya!

To further build on this, I've been wondering if this isn't rooted in the debate about whether the library is a public forum or an educational institution.

Leckie & Hopkins VS. Buschman

Bridge's questions are also on my mind. When reading Leckie & Hopkins' article, I was comparing it with Buschman's Dismantling book, and it's very interesting to see their common points and discrepancies. Both talking about public place (though "public sphere" has much more implications than "public space"), and criticizing "new economy", some of Leckie & Hopkins ideas seem to be in line with the "new public philosophy" and much less critical, for example, their comments on the modernist buildings and their accounting of "foot traffic", and that "public monies spent on the … central libraries are a sound investment."

Back to "public sphere" and "public space", I think Leckie & Hopkins explain "library as a public space" much more clearly than Buschman does with "library as a public sphere". I wonder whether it is due to the complexity of the concept of "public sphere" itself or because Buschman confound "public sphere" and "new public philosophy" as we discussed in class.

And a small issue about Leckie & Hopkins: they emphasize the diversity of the clientele of the central libraries. However, almost of all these people are "well-educated". To me, this greatly weakens their argument of diversity.

Readings

Leckie’s and Hopkin’s article reminded me of what has been going on in Minneapolis concerning the building of a new central library. Earlier this week, library officials said the $15 million private fundraising goal had been reached, supplementing the $110 million voters had approved in 2000. The new library plans on an art gallery and adding a planetarium at a later time. The notion of a central library still appears to be at work here, although I don’t know what that means in terms of public sphere since it will be a new meeting place perhaps drawing in one-time visitors or frequent library users.

Pettigrew, Durrance, and Unruh provided a sort of ah-ha moment for me as I realized how immersed I’ve become in the digital CI systems - from listservs, blogging, reading the online newspaper, searching WebMD to understand a family member’s health issues, and finding out about local governmental offices. One thought I had was what happens when individuals at a library terminal are faced with barriers to information (i.e. poor retrieval, nonanticipatory systems, etc.) whether they seek librarians’ assistance or if they plow through on their own? When people appeared lost in the stacks, many librarians would ask if the patron needed assistance. This is not the case when a patron is on the internet...?