Memorandum submitted by Mr J Webster
Over the past decade I, like most librarians,
have followed with interest the flurry of reports produced by
both private and public sector bodies concerning the "declining"
state of our public libraries.
Whilst most of what I am about to say will no
doubt be echoed and expressed far more eloquently by my more senior
colleagues I still feel I should take the opportunity presented
by this latest inquiry to make comment.
Public libraries suffer from two perennial weaknesses
often highlighted by the aforementioned reports. Firstly what
might be termed profile and understanding. Whilst numerous surveys
always show them to be an extremely popular and valued public
service and indeed there is no difficulty in getting local people
to protest at any threatened closures, their full remit is often
misunderstood and they are less prominent in spheres where a high
profile matters. How often have we found civic re-developments
that have omitted the public library or seen community information
initiatives formulated by local authority colleagues who have
forgotten to consult their local information experts—the
library service? Indeed whenever libraries are debated by celebrities
or even members of Parliament, perhaps inevitably, an air of nostalgia
pervades the discussion and, to be frank, the listener is left
with a rather simplistic vision of libraries. My Service was one
of the first in the authority to participate in a corporate call
centre initiative but the resources and training allocated were
insufficient due largely to the lack of awareness on the part
of senior officers as to the nature of library work. Indeed I
recall a radio interview with Jacqueline Wilson which was typical.
Whilst she trotted out the usual homilies, she also lamented how
children no longer did their homework in the library as the books
were often old and besides many had access to the Internet anyway.
There was no mention of the People's Network or how libraries
assist in navigating the "net"! One can even imagine
some enterprising politician advocating the establishment of a
network of "Public Information Points" (perhaps located
in recently vacated post offices) and indeed his scheme progressing
some way before someone kindly reminding him that the country
already had such a network in our public library services. Remember
Al Gore advocating the US Post Office becoming the home for public
internet access until sharply reminded of libraries by the American
Library Association?
If we accept therefore that lack of "profile"
is a key factor, then misconceptions flow directly as a consequence.
Hampered for whatever reason by poor promotion and marketing (cited
ad nauseum in numerous documents), the general public,
including many journalists, are left with the images formulated
by childhood and the popular media. Often therefore libraries
are seen as static buildings from which one borrows books—and
little else, much to the chagrin of librarians who know so much
more goes on! Indeed a chief criticism levelled at Mr Coates'
recent report is that his work concentrates almost exclusively
upon book-lending services. This is compounded by official measures
such as the Public Library Standards, PLUS surveys and other initiatives
which have declared their interest in the whole range of library
activities but in reality pay scant attention to them. How much
concern is there really, at national level, with the quality of
information provided in response to enquiries, for instance? A
senior colleague, in response to the criticisms of "Who's
in charge", listed all the recent achievements of my library
service. Ironically very little had any direct bearing on the
lending of books! Whilst such a declaration would no doubt hearten
Mr Coates as it would confirm his worst fears about libraries
and librarians, to me, it encapsulates the very misunderstandings
his, and other reports, reveal. However, as I have already indicated,
I fear this phenomenon highlights the critical mismatch between
the understanding of what libraries are about held by librarians
and the opinions of the general public. Thus it would seem decades
of work to broaden the service to include all manner of literary/informational
roles has perhaps resulted in nothing more than a declaration
by a high-profile bookseller that "libraries are out of touch".
What is blindingly obvious, therefore, is the desperate need for
a "national conversation" providing real engagement
with the general public resulting in an agreed, declared redefinition
of the role and purpose of public libraries!
The second major impediment to public libraries
is that they are locked into 149 local authorities' administration,
and within that they are but very small beer. To have a service
which is primarily concerned with the flow of ideas constrained
by these limitations is to seriously impede its development, to
have it further hampered by falling under the divided control
of several government departments means that implementation of
any national strategy is pretty much doomed to failure—as
recognised in "Framework for the Future". However being
located within local government is not necessarily an insurmountable
impediment as recent progress within the education field has witnessed.
Surely it has more to do with the rigorous application of agreed
policies on the part of an actively engaged government.
Libraries presently have far too large a remit
for the resources they can access so to achieve all that they
aspire to would require a massive infusion of "core"
funding equal again to the People's Network investment—and
some. This does not necessarily reflect an old-fashioned socialist
yearning but rather the need to radically re-evaluate and enhance
the place of libraries as beacons of free expression within a
democratic, liberal society. To take perhaps a simple but arresting
statistic—consider how many full-time librarians there are
per head of population compared to teachers and then ask yourself
why literary knowledge and information retrieval skills are so
poor!
Often too much emphasis is given to process
and means—buildings, opening hours, staff etc rather than
looking at the core objective ie provision of ideas and information
free at the point of delivery and thinking how best this can be
achieved. That is not to say that governments have not tried to
be all-embracing, much of what I have said is acknowledged within
"Framework for the Future"—itself merely the latest
manifestation of concern. However all such initiatives, including
"Who's in charge", essentially, if unconsciously, promote
the belief that libraries should continue to provide, with a few
new developments, the same building/book-based service they have
always done. This thesis I believe is outmoded and should be seriously
challenged. Perhaps the time has come for some radical thinking,
rather than pedalling the same prescription however embellished
it has become!
Consider the essential problems libraries face:
— Acknowledge that libraries in
their present form cannot compete with the forces that have created
a market for cheaper books and internet access.
— Break out of the "bunker
mentality" that apparently refuses to recognise the plethora
of private sector competitors eg Google is a global library providing
sophisticated search mechanisms, information and, perhaps soon,
all manner of digitised data!
— Recognise and embrace the fact
that people have far greater opportunities to spend their leisure
time in a myriad of ways than previously. Equally working people
claim they have less and less time available—thus providing
opportunities for the remote library!
— Appreciate for many people libraries
are seen as irrelevant to their lives. If this is due to their
satisfying their needs from elsewhere, then fine. However, if
it is because, even with an awareness of services, these are felt
to be inappropriate or if, worse still, general ignorance pervades
then these factors need to be addressed at a national level.
Possible ways forward
There is a desperate need to engage with the
public to achieve a consensus as to the role and function of libraries
in the 21st century, perhaps based on some of these ideas:
— Accept the battle is lost and
rather than preside over an inevitable decline into oblivion (as
foreseen by Libri), consider whether it would be preferable if
the constituent parts of library services were absorbed into better
resourced agencies eg local studies to record offices, children's
to schools, reference to business and lending left to booksellers
or perhaps becoming some sort of fee-based, premium service (as
advocated some years ago). Perhaps models from overseas should
be studied more closely even if this means abandoning the principle
of free access and recognising we live in a global market-place!
— National reorganisation of libraries
re-branding them perhaps as the National Information and Literacy
Service (an "NHS" for ideas in effect), taking them
out of local authority control if necessary and elevating them
in the public consciousness to be as important as hospitals and
schools! In essence I suggest there needs to be a far greater
effort to associate the service with literacy, research and information
provision in the public consciousness. Too often, although acknowledged,
these aspects are overwhelmed by the general wringing of hands
over the decline in book lending and physical visits. Thus the
change cannot be just cosmetic but rather a demonstration of the
nation's commitment to the value of free, unbiased, comprehensive
access to ideas and information in an ever growing commercial
environment. It may involve a complete re-packaging of the concept—the
Idea Stores are a good first step—perhaps reflecting that
even the term library/librarian have such negative connotations
that they should be discarded? This clearly involves legislative
change, money and will power but it is not impossible—witness
the success of the People's Network!
— Emphasise the unique value the
service offers. To take one topic as an example, some have decried
the increased library visitor figures saying they are due to the
ICT facilities provided and therefore, by inference, are of little
consequence! Whilst I do not subscribe to this reaction, I am
more concerned about what the ICT is being used for. ICT developments
have to some extent been promulgated as an end in themselves rather
than embraced, and promoted to the public, as an opportunity to
deliver better library services particularly information resources.
What little statistical analysis exists tends to show enquirers
accessing specific websites or using search engines rather than
utilising the tailored, evaluated resources including library
subscriptions provided by many library authorities. Also some
anecdotal evidence indicates libraries are sometimes retaining
out-of-date reference books as heavy (non-reference type?) demand
for PC access means staff/enquirers cannot retrieve more appropriate
material electronically! The National Reference Desk concept may
offset this. Of course the whole ethos of providing free, authoritative
information at the point of delivery will become a mockery if
any form of charging is introduced for accessing the People's
Network. Essentially libraries need to be appreciated as providing
some unique content value, as they always have, only the medium
has changed, otherwise people will migrate to other more comfortable
venues! The case for libraries as primary sources of unbiased
information in a commercial global environment cannot be overemphasised!
— Promote the "remote library"
concept. Whilst we continue to be wedded to a building-based lending
service, many of the long-standing problems (opening hours, declining
book lending, staffing levels, poor infrastructure) will persist.
We cannot be like, nor should try to emulate bookshops. The continued
controversy over "virtual visits" in the PLS reflects
partially this out-moded thinking? In the absence of any realistic
large public investment would it not be prudent to concentrate
on maintaining only library buildings of a particular capability
and developing the electronic library emphasising the inter-library
loan and online enquiry and information potential. Whilst this
idea gels well with the e-gov agenda it downgrades perhaps the
social exclusion aspect but how effective have we really been
in addressing this over many decades?
— Conduct a national marketing
campaign. This aspect has been recognised in virtually every report
written in the last decade and is now acknowledged as long over-due.
I am convinced that many of those that say libraries are irrelevant
to them do so from a position of ignorance. To paraphrase a typical
reaction: "What an excellent service. I have been stumbling
around the Internet and posting messages on message boards trying
to find an answer—and got pointed in the right direction
really quickly". The issue here is not so much the service
as why the enquirer did not think of the library in the first
place! Fundamentally we have to bring about cultural change so
that the majority of citizens actively engage with libraries rather
than regarding them as rather quaint, out-dated institutions from
which ones borrows books or occasionally seeks information! Librarians
know they provide an excellent service to those who are aware,
the difficulty is getting citizens to think of libraries first
and to tackle that, 149 little promotional campaigns are not going
to work! The People's Network had virtually no national promotion
and the fact that the "grand scheme" is not ready yet
is a poor defence. Our friends at the BBC are obvious helpers
but even here there is a need to put their own house in order
first. I've lost count of the number of items and quizzes I've
heard on the radio where there is a clear opportunity to plug
libraries or even worse an out-dated view goes unchallenged. I'm
sure bringing messrs. Humphrys, Campbell etc up to speed so they
could interject at the appropriate moment, or perhaps have an
occasional resident librarian, would pay enormous dividends!
— Re-assess and celebrate library
staff abilities. Jiscmail's "lib-pub-libs" has witnessed
unprecedented debates over both the image of librarians and the
role of CILIP in recent years thus revealing the depth of public
librarians malaise. Equally non-professional staff in most cases
have virtually no career path to follow. Both sectors are sitting
on a "age time bomb" not unique to the UK as our American
colleagues can testify. Whatever the reasons this phenomenon is
a sad reflection that in the so-called information age the one
profession that should be prospering, that of information professional,
is floundering! However these internal matters are secondary compared
to convincing the wider world that staff are often skilled professionals.
Unfortunately, to be blunt, many people believe libraries are
staffed by "second-income housewives" and that anyone
of average intelligence can retrieve quality information (the
"Now we have the internet, why do we need libraries"
syndrome!). This is not to say that the library profession may
need to address some entrenched practices eg providing information,
but not advice, when recent research indicates older people want
both provided at the point of delivery.
Naturally there is much more to discuss here
eg cross-sector working, funding, assessing impact etc etc but
what I have sought to express is my earnest believe that we must
consider developing very different library and information services
from those struggling today if they are to survive at all in the
21st century. "Framework for the Future" offers an ideal
vision that many of us would wish to subscribe to, but in my heart
I feel it suffers from two critical failings. Firstly there will
never be the financial resources available, witness CPA weighting,
to fully sustain the aspirations set down. Secondly, at core,
it is based on the false assumption that libraries can have their
place in the civic fabric preserved albeit updated without taking
onboard fully the seismic nature of the changes in our society.
In that sense it is yet another example of our desire to recapture
the past as with many public transport initiatives and "Dixon
of Dock Green" policemen.
It is over 10 years since Comedia's "Borrowed
Time" report shook the library establishment, "Building
Better Libraries" is already gathering dust and whilst I
acknowledge the MLA has all manner of schemes planned, I feel
time is desperately short. Publishing report after report in the
pious hope that the 149 library authorities can actually enable
fundamental change is frankly naïve. Maybe I have advocated
too radical an alternative future but perhaps there are only two
decades left to save public libraries! Genuine leadership and
input at a national level are long overdue.
17 November 2004
|
