26 oktober 2006
Our users, can we leave somebody behind?
It was a Dutch report on the ILI 2006, that triggered this post. BeatBiepManifesto reported on the session by Stephens and Coers in Dutch. He reported on the session of the Tech trainers (M. Stephens and R. Coers) as follows:
The figure of 70% to focus our attention on is indicated in the slides of Stephens and Coers as well (slide 7-12). The problem I am facing, when pointing to these stark naked figures is that I can't really find out for sure what group they are discussing. In one of the titles of their slides they state that it concerns "Organizations, libraries, colleagues, society" (slide 12). So implicitely I assume that they discuss in their preseantation about a group of library users (society) as well. Those people who are our patrons, our customers, those that can be trained, and should be educated, to use new ways of handeling information. There is another 10 percent of library users that is apperently way ahead of whatever we imagine, or develop. And, rather unfortunately, some 20% of our users for which we can't do anything. Not even keeping things as they are, or adapting to their needs for information. Not, according to Mr. Stephens and Rob Coers. I am not the only who interpreted it this way.
It sounds a bit harsh, but I can image that you accept at some point that not everybody is with you. Ok fair enough. But on the other hand, there is that elite 10%. Should we invest more time in these 10% than the 20% that we have decided to leave behind?
It struck me as a bit odd.
It reminded me on a recap of IM reference in liraries that Crawford (2006) reported:
Can we rhyme the 20% of our users that we are willingly and blatantly leaving behind with the efforts we put into those 2% IM clients. Those that are part of the 10% users who are far ahead in internet skills and adoption of the newest tools from the average users (and librarians alike).
Don't get me wrong. I think the whole movement of Library 2.0 important beacause it appears a bottom up movement. Although some tech trainers seem to highjack the concepts and the directions of the movement as such. But I see some use in Evidence Based Librarianshio as well. To date I have come across too many opions, too ideas and too many untested hypotheses in the LIS world alogether that I have a sincere need for facts. And Abhore speculation. When a figure of 1% to 2% usage for IM reference is reported, than we can hype IM to whatever height. Yes it will increase in the near future, but the hype is not based on facts. And we should really consider if this kind of usage justifies investment in new references systems.
That is the a samll point I want to raise.
Technorati tags: library2.0; evidence based librarianship; IM reference; Library users; Library patrons
"Je werd er vooral enthousiast gemaakt om nieuwe dingen uit te proberen en je daarna te focussen om de 70% die best bereidt is om mee te gaan in de nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Laat de 20% nu maar eens gewoon links liggen. Dit is de groep waarop we ons meestal focussen omdat zij het meest duidelijk maken het allemaal niks te vinden. Omdat ze dat hoe dan ook blijven vinden, is aandacht voor deze groep zonde van de tijd."
"You became enthused to try new things and focus on the 70% that is open to new developments and willing to adopt some of the changes. Leave the other 20% just behind. This is normally the group on which we focus most of our attention because they indicate most clearly that they don't agree with the new developments. Since they don't agree whatever, our attentention or efforts for this group, it is a waste of time anyway."
My translation
The figure of 70% to focus our attention on is indicated in the slides of Stephens and Coers as well (slide 7-12). The problem I am facing, when pointing to these stark naked figures is that I can't really find out for sure what group they are discussing. In one of the titles of their slides they state that it concerns "Organizations, libraries, colleagues, society" (slide 12). So implicitely I assume that they discuss in their preseantation about a group of library users (society) as well. Those people who are our patrons, our customers, those that can be trained, and should be educated, to use new ways of handeling information. There is another 10 percent of library users that is apperently way ahead of whatever we imagine, or develop. And, rather unfortunately, some 20% of our users for which we can't do anything. Not even keeping things as they are, or adapting to their needs for information. Not, according to Mr. Stephens and Rob Coers. I am not the only who interpreted it this way.
It sounds a bit harsh, but I can image that you accept at some point that not everybody is with you. Ok fair enough. But on the other hand, there is that elite 10%. Should we invest more time in these 10% than the 20% that we have decided to leave behind?
It struck me as a bit odd.
It reminded me on a recap of IM reference in liraries that Crawford (2006) reported:
Read the April 17, 2006 Tame the web post “Selfmonitoring questions: A report on IM reference”— and the April 18, 2006 Librarianinblack post “Practical side of IM reference.” In the first, Stephens provides figures for IM reference transactions at one mediumsized public library and as a percentage of total reference transactions. That percentage, as reported by month from April 2005 through March 2006, peaked at 1.62% in December 2005, then settled down in a range from 1.18% to 1.28% in early 2006. The next day, Sarah Houghton provided similar figures for usage at her former library—and the percentage (1 to 2%) was similar. Amanda Etches-Johnson did a talk “IM @ Mac: where we’ve been” about her institution’s experience with IM reference. Except for December (which clearly had much lower than usual overall reference use), IM reference ran right around 1.5% of all reference service. Etches-Johnson notes that IM reference takes about three times as long as face-to-face reference, but that’s another issue.
All three regard IM reference as a success; I’ll take their word for it.
(Crawford, 2006. p.3)
Can we rhyme the 20% of our users that we are willingly and blatantly leaving behind with the efforts we put into those 2% IM clients. Those that are part of the 10% users who are far ahead in internet skills and adoption of the newest tools from the average users (and librarians alike).
Don't get me wrong. I think the whole movement of Library 2.0 important beacause it appears a bottom up movement. Although some tech trainers seem to highjack the concepts and the directions of the movement as such. But I see some use in Evidence Based Librarianshio as well. To date I have come across too many opions, too ideas and too many untested hypotheses in the LIS world alogether that I have a sincere need for facts. And Abhore speculation. When a figure of 1% to 2% usage for IM reference is reported, than we can hype IM to whatever height. Yes it will increase in the near future, but the hype is not based on facts. And we should really consider if this kind of usage justifies investment in new references systems.
That is the a samll point I want to raise.
Technorati tags: library2.0; evidence based librarianship; IM reference; Library users; Library patrons
Labels: English
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
My third-hand sense is that he was talking about librarians, not users: That 30% of librarians just don't want to be trained in new technologies. But I could be wrong: I wasn't there, and am relying on many sets of blog posts.
Some very good questions. I wasn't there, either, and just was interpreting from the slides. I could well have gotten it wrong. I suggest we ask Coer and Stephens directly.
Leaving behind the 30% who don't want to learn (whether they are librarians or clients/users/patrons) is a provocative idea.
On the other hand, I do think one needs to take great care in marketing to the 2% or 10% who are "early adopters"; you have to be careful that the changes you are putting into place are right for your organization. We have to be careful not to get too carried away on the 2.0 bandwagon just because we are early adopters ourselves. Not all technology is right for all organizations.
Leaving behind the 30% who don't want to learn (whether they are librarians or clients/users/patrons) is a provocative idea.
On the other hand, I do think one needs to take great care in marketing to the 2% or 10% who are "early adopters"; you have to be careful that the changes you are putting into place are right for your organization. We have to be careful not to get too carried away on the 2.0 bandwagon just because we are early adopters ourselves. Not all technology is right for all organizations.
I am very unclear about why providing Reference via IM would in any way "leave behind" any users. Unless you're stopping one service (e.g. phone reference) to start offering IM reference, all you're doing is expanding the venues through which your users can contact you. You're not leaving anyone behind, you're just opening your doors wider.
@all three, thanks for your comments at the the other side of the pool ;)
@ Waltc, I thought about that too, but my concern was raised by the "society" bit that followed on colleagues.
@ Connie, I hope to meet Rob Coers to meet next week. We will have the yearly library conference in the Netherlands. Than we can clarify his stance on this issue.
@ Sara Houghthon Jan,
Using IM as such leaves nobody behind. You're right. I am more concerned about the current energy that is devoted to ways of information dissemination, that account for such little following. Whereas there are some established ways, perhaps old fashioned, with a larger clientele that are perhaps neglected a wee little. In the end of the day we can't let all flowers blossom. We have to make decisions about the subjects which we pay our attention on.
Een reactie plaatsen
@ Waltc, I thought about that too, but my concern was raised by the "society" bit that followed on colleagues.
@ Connie, I hope to meet Rob Coers to meet next week. We will have the yearly library conference in the Netherlands. Than we can clarify his stance on this issue.
@ Sara Houghthon Jan,
Using IM as such leaves nobody behind. You're right. I am more concerned about the current energy that is devoted to ways of information dissemination, that account for such little following. Whereas there are some established ways, perhaps old fashioned, with a larger clientele that are perhaps neglected a wee little. In the end of the day we can't let all flowers blossom. We have to make decisions about the subjects which we pay our attention on.
Links to this post:
<< Home
