![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ever wonder why?
Apr. 30th, 2006 10:34 pmI'm doing research on "customer service" in public libraries. This is amusing because a) many librarians feel that calling library users "customers" is offensive and runs counter to the mission of the library, b) I have actually read real published articles which say "let's not give them services, we do too much already", c) when librarians suggest that the library should give its users what they want, other librarians actually get mad about this.
It's c) that always blows my mind. If you're a private library with a fat endowment sitting in mutual funds, ok, then what you do can be based purely on some theoretical thing. But if you receive public money, why shouldn't you be doing what the public wants you to do with the money? So many librarians who write articles I've read for my research basically say "well, the public WANTS us to answer their reference questions, but what we SHOULD do is tell them how THEY can answer their reference questions" OR "well, the public WANTS many copies of bestsellers, and each copy may circulate 20 times, but what we SHOULD do is use that money to buy nonfiction books that may circulate once or twice a year but are important in their areas, so that we can have a balanced collection" OR "well, the public WANTS the library to be open in the evening and on Sundays (when they actually have work off and can use the library) but what we SHOULD do is keep the library open 9-5 M-F because that shows that we are PROFESSIONALS who work a PROFESSIONAL work week."
And all I can think is "And you wonder why your particular library has trouble getting their funding measures passed?"
Libraries are public institutions that serve the public good. They have noble purposes, they contribute to social capital, they allow for lifelong learning. Those are worthy goals. They're even excellent goals. But a library that tells people what they should read, when they should want to read it, and how they should want to find it is a library that is going to alienate people. There were a lot of really high-minded leaders in political history who had great ideas and goals, but failed because they had no people skills. Making you feel really happy and excited that you entered the library is something the library has to do to succeed with their other missions. If you don't have people coming into the library, you can't offer them civic engagement or lifelong learning. You can't offer them anything, because they're not there.
And on the other end of my permanent rant: please please hire people at libraries who won't sneer at me at the circulation desk because I'm checking our romance novels and comic books. Yes, I can read. I can read literature, classics, philosophy, technical science and social science non-fiction. But I'm entitled to read all sorts of things, not just stuff that contributes to what Mark Twain would have called "edification". A lot of the time I'm happier shopping at Borders than visiting the library because no one stares at my pile of vampire and time travel romances as if they were proof that I had nothing more than cotton candy between my ears. *sigh*
It's c) that always blows my mind. If you're a private library with a fat endowment sitting in mutual funds, ok, then what you do can be based purely on some theoretical thing. But if you receive public money, why shouldn't you be doing what the public wants you to do with the money? So many librarians who write articles I've read for my research basically say "well, the public WANTS us to answer their reference questions, but what we SHOULD do is tell them how THEY can answer their reference questions" OR "well, the public WANTS many copies of bestsellers, and each copy may circulate 20 times, but what we SHOULD do is use that money to buy nonfiction books that may circulate once or twice a year but are important in their areas, so that we can have a balanced collection" OR "well, the public WANTS the library to be open in the evening and on Sundays (when they actually have work off and can use the library) but what we SHOULD do is keep the library open 9-5 M-F because that shows that we are PROFESSIONALS who work a PROFESSIONAL work week."
And all I can think is "And you wonder why your particular library has trouble getting their funding measures passed?"
Libraries are public institutions that serve the public good. They have noble purposes, they contribute to social capital, they allow for lifelong learning. Those are worthy goals. They're even excellent goals. But a library that tells people what they should read, when they should want to read it, and how they should want to find it is a library that is going to alienate people. There were a lot of really high-minded leaders in political history who had great ideas and goals, but failed because they had no people skills. Making you feel really happy and excited that you entered the library is something the library has to do to succeed with their other missions. If you don't have people coming into the library, you can't offer them civic engagement or lifelong learning. You can't offer them anything, because they're not there.
And on the other end of my permanent rant: please please hire people at libraries who won't sneer at me at the circulation desk because I'm checking our romance novels and comic books. Yes, I can read. I can read literature, classics, philosophy, technical science and social science non-fiction. But I'm entitled to read all sorts of things, not just stuff that contributes to what Mark Twain would have called "edification". A lot of the time I'm happier shopping at Borders than visiting the library because no one stares at my pile of vampire and time travel romances as if they were proof that I had nothing more than cotton candy between my ears. *sigh*
