Advocacy etc

I must be mad, but I thought I’d give my perspective on the whole advocacy discussion that blew up today. I should be chilling but the discussion was fascinating on so many levels I couldn’t help myself. This will, no doubt, be less eloquent than other blog posts on the topic but, of course, I ain’t gonna let that stop me!

To be honest, I was a bit surprised by how things blew up. As far as I could see, most of the people who were upset about the discussion do advocate. For me, advocacy can mean going out and telling your users what a great service you provide (marketing) or it can be simply providing the best service your users could ask for (which requires a certain amount of activity on your part – in the sense of seeking to find out what your user wants). In terms of the latter, the old maxim often used in retail applies: a dissatisfied customer will tell 8-10 people of their bad experience (that’s a drum that is pounded loud and clear in retail). It therefore follows that, should you provide good service, those customers will act as proxy advocates for you – telling other people about the great service you provided. So, you may not have engaged in advocacy per se, but you have sewn a very powerful seed.

Let’s face it, corporations gave up a long time ago in simply shouting slogans at people and thinking that was enough to ‘advocate’ their products. Things have become much more sophisticated. Top companies know that the peer groups are the most powerful advocates you can have. It is one reason why a lot of current business thinking has moved away from top-down authoritarian structures and developed nice cosy environments that keep the employees happy and, subsequently, speak positively about their employer when they are with family and friends. The change in management culture is not due to a sense of entitlement towards employees, it is one part of a carefully constructed marketing strategy.

In the age of social media, this ‘casual’ advocacy has become more important. People tweet about products and things they are doing and that has a much bigger impact on people than an advert on the TV. Of course, this doesn’t work for everyone in your peer group, but you can be assured that your message will influence someone. Essentially, almost every public act is an act of advocacy (because you are doing it ‘publicly’ and we are simple creatures, easily influenced!). One might argue that buying a certain brand in the supermarket counts as ‘advocacy’ (the act of buying being, after all, an endorsement or support for a particular brand). Therefore the creation of proxy advocates is, in my view, very much central to any marketing strategy.

And I guess this is where I find difficulty with those who are up in arms about the recent discussions. As far as I can see, if you are committed to excellent standards of service in your library, you are an advocate (creating proxies). If you have ‘librarian’ on your Twitter bio and have ever tweeted about libraries, librarians or related issues, you are an advocate. If you tell your friend with an e-reader “hey, did you know you can get free ebooks at the library?”, you are an advocate. If you work in a private library and make your colleagues’ jobs easier by providing an effectively (and efficiently – it is the private sector after all!) run library, you are an advocate for that service (you are justifying its existence by making the company more efficient). Essentially, pretty much everyone on Twitter who works in a library is an advocate.

Activism is something I engage in (in a rather lazy fashion to be fair). It means writing to the council, chucking in FoI’s, writing about the problems facing libraries, trying to drum up support in the local community by highlighting the cuts and the impact they will have. Now, that is not for everyone and only a fool would suggest that everyone should engage in it. It’s hard work and saps away your free time. I wish everyone was an activist (that is the nature of my own political views) but hey, we live in the UK and us Brits aren’t known for it! But much as I would like everyone to do it, I know some can’t or unable to. I don’t hold it against them (I hold it against our society in general…kidding!). We make our own choices in this life and it is not for me to tell people whether they should act or not. If you feel you cannot be an activist, fine. If you don’t want to give up your spare time fighting councillors and local politicians, fine. But advocacy? Well, keep on doing what you are doing!

Additional

I should add that the Code of Professional Practice for Library and Information Professionals states the following:

C: Responsibilities to Colleagues and the Information Community

The personal conduct of information professionals at work should promote the profession in the best possible manner at all times. Members should therefore:

1. Act in ways that promote the profession positively, both to their colleagues and to the public at large.

When less is most definitely more…

Keep it clear and simple! Image c/o Kaptain Kobold on Flickr

One of my pet hates is overly complex language.  The use of jargon really infuriates me.  I see it as the author’s way of creating an elite – those that understand what is being communicated distinct from those that do not.  It’s particularly a problem with academic writing – written, as it is, by academics for academics.  Of course, not all academics are guilty of this, but there is no denying that a fair few slip into it with noticeable ease.  Personally, I can do without it.  It’s not about ‘dumbing down’, it’s simply about communicating ideas in a way that everyone can understand, not just a closed circle of like-minded individuals.

Jargon has never really been my bag.

Now, I do not consider myself to be too thick to understand some of the complex terminology employed by some writers.  Having graduated in English Literature, I’d like to think that I have a fairly broad vocabulary and an ability to decipher at least some of the most impenetrable jargon.  Nonetheless, I do find it irritating in the extreme and it is something that I have always consciously tried to avoid.  Throughout school and university (on both my undergraduate and postgraduate courses) I have been fortunate to receive recognition for my clear structure and writing style.  I always remember on my undergrad being told by a lecturer that he liked the ‘old-fashioned’ way I analysed the Romantics – taking the poems apart piece by piece and explaining their meaning clearly and in uncomplicated language (I did love studying the Romantics it has to be said).  Jargon has never really been my bag.  If, when re-drafting an assignment, I come across a wordy passage, I re-write it to ensure it is clear and easy to follow.  If there is even a hint that it has become unnecessarily complex, it demands editing.

I think this determination stems from my admiration for two figures in particular.  I remember briefly covering Freud in my undergrad and remember our lecturer informing us that Freud used to like delivering his lectures in clear, simple language so that everyone could understand his complex ideas.  What was the point in trying to communicate his theories in a manner in which only a minority could understand them?  Surely it is better for as many people to understand his analytical works?  I was full of admiration for Freud’s methods (admittedly I may have been a bit of a Marxist at university so this would have made a big impression on me at the time!).

The other figure I greatly admire, and one that has influenced my political thought immensely is Noam Chomsky.  It is only within the past ten years that I have developed an obsession with reading his political works (I’ve not read any of his linguistic studies).  I find them fascinating both in the things they reveal (everyone should read at least one Chomsky in my view) but also in the way the ideas are communicated.  Chomsky avoids jargon and over complicated language, keeping his message simple and highly readable.  I find, without exaggeration, that I can sit and read one of his books from cover to cover in one sitting.  Of course, this may be because his works are mainly derived from his talks but, nonetheless, his is the standard that all factual writers should aspire to.

I always try to consider what a non-librarian would make of my writing.

Obviously, I could not possible put myself in the same category of either of these figures, but I always have their writing style in the back of mind, whether I am writing for this blog or an assignment for my course.  Particularly in terms of this blog, I always try to consider what a non-librarian, non-academic would make of my writing.  Would it engage them or leave them cold? Would it make them want to come back and read more, or will they dismiss it as just another librarian blog clogging up the internet? I aim, always, to ensure that the non-librarian/non-academic would engage with my blog.  I doubt I succeed, but that is the aim. That said, I don’t have many comments from non-librarians so maybe I do fail at this and need to try harder.

Furthermore, I do think that this is important in terms of how the profession is perceived.  Much is made of branding, reaching out to users, challenging the media narrative etc in order to re-position librarians and library workers in the eyes of the wider public.  For me, absolutely crucial to this is how we communicate on our blogs.  If the message is filled with jargon and corporate speak, there is a risk of ensuring that the only people who listen are other librarians or academics.  If there is a will for the public to have a clear understanding of the role of librarians then communications must be clear and effective*.

* It is at this point I realised I wrote something similar back in 2009 (it obviously annoys me more than I thought).  Apologies if you read that and thought this adds nothing.  I will try harder next time.

What’s going on with CILIP?

This morning I stumbled across this blog post on the CILIP website about volunteers in libraries. The most interesting (slash disturbing) statement being:

“The Policy Department at CILIP is currently drawing together a position statement about community managed libraries. For us it seems essential that, when set up, they should fall within the statutory provision and be considered an integral part of the public library network – for this they will rely on the continued existence of a professionally led, quality statutory service.”

Hardly the stirring attack on coalition policy that many advocates would have hoped for. Let’s hope that as well as campaigning for libraries, CILIP also leads the way in the fight against privatisation and the coalition’s destructive ideology.

UPDATE

Annie Mauger has subsequently added this statement to the aforementioned blog post:

“The Blog below was written with the intent of contributing to the debate on the use of volunteers and community managed libraries and pointing out some dilemmas that the profession is facing. CILIP’s standpoint remains that only a professionally run library service can fully meet community needs and comply with the statutory requirements.

We sincerely apologise to anybody who thinks otherwise from this blog. I made a speech with the Minister present at the Future of Public libraries event on 20th June reinforcing the value of professional services and why we need them. CILIP will continue to advocate the importance of professionally run services and experienced staff and the contribution they make to communities, families and society.”

The media love libraries – let’s make the most of it!

Don't let the opportunity go to waste! Image c/o Robbt on Flickr

One of the fascinating aspects of my involvement in Voices for the Library has been working with Lauren and the rest of the team in developing strong links with the media (both local and national).  As time has passed, I think we have all realised that there are a lot of media types who have a great deal of affection for libraries.  Certainly, my interactions with various journalists have been very positive.  Every single one has been supportive and keen to find out more about the situation facing public libraries across the country.  Ok, sometimes these interactions do not always necessarily lead to stories in the national press or on the TV, but it isn’t always about getting a story out there (much as we would like it to be so), sometimes it is simply about building a relationship – the importance of this for the campaign cannot be underestimated.

I have been lucky so far in that a few things I have brought to the attention of various media outlets have been picked up (like my financial analysis of the libraries vs internet debate – picked up by The Guardian).  However, most stuff tends to go nowhere – again, whilst this can be frustrating, it is worth remembering that not everything can be published (space is finite after all) and the creation of relationships will lead to greater benefits in the long run.  That said, sometimes you push something, a story about a particularly authority or campaign, and it can pay off in spectacular fashion.

Let me give you an example a little while ago I was invited to a lunch hosted by a certain satirical magazine.  The lunch provides an opportunity for politicians, newspaper columnists and journalists to network and share stories.  I have already witnessed how one news story seemed to grow and flourish in the days and weeks after the lunch (the so-called ‘super injunctions’).  I perhaps didn’t truly appreciate it at the time, but they are great opportunities to develop relationships and plant seeds.

One of the people I got talking to was (I later discovered) an important figure in national broadcast news.  We talked extensively about the situation facing public libraries, the closures and their potential impact on local communities.  Again, as mentioned above, there was a great deal of sympathy in terms of the plight of public libraries, not least in terms of the impact on those that use them.

After a long and engaging conversation, I was handed their business card and told to get in touch if anything of interest crops up in the future.  Realising the importance of gaining such a key contact in the media, I resolved to make use of this new avenue wisely and sparingly.  There was no point sending them every story that came along.  It was important to choose a story that would be significant and highly newsworthy.  And then a story emerged that fitted the bill perfectly.

Johanna Anderson and the Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries have been fighting a long and difficult battle with their local council over the future of public libraries.  Despite garnering widespread local support, the campaign was continuing to face an uphill struggle in convincing the local council that their proposed cuts to libraries should be rolled back.  The disregard shown by the council leader for his electorate was breathtaking.  Contempt for both library campaigners and library users seemed to be his default position.  In such circumstances it is hard to imagine how Jo and FoGL had the strength to continue to take on the council.  Many would have conceded defeat and walked away.

But there then emerged a glimmer of hope for library users in Gloucestershire.  The High Court had issued an injunction (pending a hearing earlier this month) against Gloucestershire County Council calling a halt to their proposals for the future of the library service in the county.  This was unprecedented.  It was also just the story I had been waiting for.  Not only was this about library closures, but the legal aspect made for an added dimension to the story, one that may have implications for other such battles against both central and local government cuts.  This story had scope for expansion and, therefore, had the potential for coverage by a national broadcaster.  So, I tipped them off and, with the help of Jo, put them in touch with someone involved in the local campaign.  This was the result:

I was chuffed to bits that this kind of coverage had been secured.  It demonstrated to me, once again, that there is a willingness to engage on the library closure issue and, furthermore, that if a particular story can be shown to have wider implications, it is more than likely to gain exposure.  It is no good just trying to engage with the media simply about libraries, if you can link it into something bigger you have more chance for success.

I guess this is the biggest lesson I have learnt since getting involved in Voices for the Library.  It has taken just under a year to learn it, but I have come to realise that it is important to think strategically about all interactions with the media.  It is easy (and very tempting) to just go ahead and send everything that crops up, no matter their significance.  It is, however, far more sensible to wait for that significant story to crop up and, when the time is right, hit ‘send’.  It’s a lesson I am still learning (there are still more ‘misses’ than ‘hits’) but it is without doubt the most important lesson I have learnt from my involvement in Voices for the Library.  Well, that and learning what can be achieved when you work with a bunch of passionate, talented people who give everything to keep this campaign running.  I really am very lucky indeed.

* Incidentally, permission was granted for a High Court judicial review of GCC’s library cuts.  Hopefully this will lead to bigger and better good news for the dedicated and hard-working campaigners in Gloucestershire.

Library advocacy toons

I was watching Click on the BBC this morning and was particularly interested in a cartoon strip creator called ToonDoo.  Always looking for a new avenue to promote libraries (really must get out more…or at least work on my dissertation), I thought I’d knock something up. This is what I came up with (yeah, I know, it’s not exactly funny):

By ijclark | View this Toon at ToonDoo | Create your own Toon

So here’s my challenge to you…have a crack at putting something together (the site is really easy to use), something that promotes libraries.  Maybe even something funny.  The strip I came up with took no more than half an hour (yeah, it shows), so there’s no reason why you can’t do better.  In fact, knowing what I know, everyone is bound to do better.

If you do have a crack (I’m sure one of you will), post a link in the comments and (depending on the content) I’ll make sure it gets posted via the various Voices for the Library channels to reach a wide (and very discerning) audience.  Go on, have a go.

A Trendy Day

Well. Yesterday something truly wonderful happened. Twitter was filled with library love.  People all over the UK (and, latterly, beyond) sent tweets out expressing how much they value libraries. It was really amazing to see all the different reasons people gave for loving their local library. So many tweets were there, that by around midday, only a couple of short hours after it started, it was a top trending topic in the UK. A fantastic thing to behold. By 3pm it was trending worldwide! Really quite mind-blowing. It all started with a tweet from star library advocate Mardixon on Twitter who simplyasked:

Libraries areimportant because [fill in your answer & RT] #savelibraries 

Mardixon also sent it to us at VftL as an @ reply and we retweeted it and all the subsequent tweets with the #savelibraries hashtag. Before we knew it the tweets were multiplying at a spectacular rate. Tweets from across the UK, from a wide variety of people, came flooding in. Reading the feed as the tweets came in was quite overwhelming. Reminding me once again (as if I needed reminding) of why I got involved in VftL
- perhaps the only library campaign in the UK that truly makes library users an integral part of the campaign. It was an amazing day and thanks to everyone who participated and shared why they think libraries are so important. One word of warning however. If you are
attempting to get a topic trending, be prepared to be exhausted by the end of the day!

Braving the trolls……

Beware the trolls! (Flickr image: kevindooley)

I’ve often banged on about getting out there, getting engaged and arguing the case for libraries, no matter how volatile the audience is (in some ways, the more volatile the better!).  Problem is, this is sometimes harder than it sounds.  You have to be made of pretty stern stuff at times to plough through some of the verbal garbage that is thrown in your direction dare you pop your head above the parapet.  Sometimes even I find it hard to commit myself to the moment.  Not because I am fearful of the response, but because I begin to wonder what the point is – these people don’t listen.  So sure are they of their own beliefs (no matter how illogical), nothing could possibly persuade them they are wrong.  Facts won’t work, in fact the only thing that will is quite possibly first-hand experience.  But when so hostile, what is the chances that they will ‘dip their toes in the water’? Probably zero.

But then, this isn’t really about persuading ‘them’ anyway.  I never seriously believe that I am going to change the mind of the individual I am arguing with.  What I aim to do is to try to show how weak their arguments are so that when an open-minded individual comes to read the thread (they do exist you know!), they see how illogical some of these people are.  Stick to facts and logic (avoid name calling at all costs) and you are on to a winner.  Stray far from that and you are in trouble.  Never, ever resort to name calling.  Once you do that, the argument is lost.  Besides, in my experience, nothing annoys them more than your sheer reasonableness (and I do love to be reasonable).

However, as well as trying to expose the weakness of their arguments, it is also about providing a voice for those that are unable to speak up in their defence.  As I have said repeatedly in the past, both on this blog and elsewhere, 9 million people in the UK have no experience of using the Internet at all.  It is self-evident that this sizeable minority (15% of the population) cannot engage in such debates.  It is those that have Internet connections that engage in these discussions.  Not only those with Internet connections, but those that seek to hijack these forums to promote their own particular political viewpoint (this is especially the case on Comment is Free which tends to attract, shall we say, ‘non-typical’ Guardian readers).

I was trying to think of a suitable analogy for these types of forums and discussions.  The best I could come up with was that it was rather like discussing a woman’s right to vote in a gentleman’s club at the turn of the century.  The people who are truly affected by the discussion are totally excluded from it.  Instead, it is left to those who only see things through a particular prism.  Sure, there is bound to be someone who speaks out, but they will undoubtedly be drowned out by all the others in the room.  Still, isn’t it a good thing that person did speak out?  There is always the potential that one person in that room will leave thinking that the crazy outspoken dude may have had a valid point.  And if one person can be converted………

Part of the problem, I feel, is that too many people suffer from a kind of social myopia.  There is an utter failure to appreciate and comprehend the bigger picture.  Too often it is about what is relevant to the individual rather than what is relevant, or beneficial, for society as a whole.  Or even just a basic failure to see things from more than one perspective – to take a more balanced view.  You see this in many aspects of our society.   Many people only see certain events from their own perspective, they fail to appreciate how those same events are interpreted by ‘the other’.  That’s why, to take a recent example, we see certain people attacking the recent student demonstrations against the rise in tuition fees.  They’re not at university anymore, they are not affected by the rise in tuition fees, so why should they see things from the students’ perspective?  Of course, this avoids the point that maybe their children may be put off going to university by the introduction of higher tuition fees, or indeed the point that many of the students protesting will not be directly affected as they would have left by the time the new regime is introduced.

This myopia also affects the library debate.  Too many of those involved in the various debates fail to see how the proposed cuts and closures affect other people.  The people who do use the library regularly.  The people who rely on libraries to access the Internet and take advantage of a service that they take for granted.  The people who are unable to leave their homes and rely on their library service to deliver books to their door and relieve their feeling of isolation. The children who rely on libraries to support their learning and give them their best hope of reaching their potential and prospering at school.  The people who simply rely on libraries as a safe, secure and non-judgemental public space.

So where does that leave us with the trolls?  To be honest, I don’t know what the answer is.  I’m torn between my need to correct falsehoods and my understanding that it is virtually pointless.  What do you think?  Engage or ignore?

Replyz – a useful advocacy tool

I’m always looking out for new tools that can be used to engage with people and promote libraries and librarians (maybe I should get out more……). The many social networks have certainly provided ample opportunity to do so – particularly Twitter with the ability to search tweets and see what people are saying about libraries and librarians. This is particularly useful if you want to set up a library account and want to engage with people in your area who mention your library in their tweets. Nothing like a bit of proactive engagement, not least because of the benefits that can accrue for both yourself and the user. Replyz is a new tool which can help to take this a little step further.

Essentially, Replyz enables you to search tweets and see what people are saying. So far, so familiar. What makes it interesting for me, however, is its ability to display conversations rather than isolated tweets. This is particularly useful as sometimes these tweets can be missed when completing a normal search. As a result, it presents a great opportunity to engage with people interested in libraries and librarians (or even those that aren’t!) and demonstrate the value of the service and the profession.

As it is a Twitter based tool, you don’t need to set up an account, just log-in with your Twitter account, authorise access and away you go.  Once signed in you can start searching and viewing conversations.  To view a conversation you simply conduct a search for your chosen topic and, when presented with the results, look for the green speech bubble at the right-hand side of the screen.  The number in the speech bubble indicates the number of tweets involved in the conversation so far.  Simply click on the speech bubble and you are presented with all the tweets within the conversation (presumably this relies on people replying appropriately on Twitter).  So, for example, a search for ‘library’ found the following conversation:

Conversation thread on Replyz

 

Bizarrely, Replyz currently displays one of my older profile pictures and not my current one (which I have been using for several weeks now).  Not sure why this is.  Anyway, if you want to contribute to the thread, all you need do is fill in the reply box – there is no need to visit Twitter and tweet from there.

As well as simply responding to conversation, you have a number of other options too.  You can follow particular topics and add a feed to this topic to your RSS reader.  For example, search for ‘library’ and you are presented with a ‘Follow this topic’ button.  Click on that, head to your dashboard on Replyz, click on the ‘Topics I follow’ link and you will be presented with an RSS feed to follow your chosen topics.  You can also choose to follow a particular conversation if it is of interest and any conversations that you have taken part in are also stored on the dashboard – useful if other contributors don’t @reply to you on Twitter.

Overall, it looks like quite a handy tool.  As well as the features already mentioned you can post anonymously and use up to 500 characters in any message (presumably it only displays 140 on Twitter and then sends you to a link for the other 360).  Of course, it is of fairly limited use if your tweets are protected as any attempts to join in the conversation will not be picked up by those that are engaged in it (unless they both follow you of course!).  But if your tweets are public, Replyz provides an interesting opportunity to engage in conversation with those curious about libraries (or any other topic to be fair!), interested in the profession or have a general query that an information professional can help with (or a library service if the conversation is about their local library).

Why Do I Do It?

There’s a question to ponder!  The reason this question raises its head is because I sometimes question why I advocate libraries (I like to question my beliefs from time to time – believe it or not!).  Not because I don’t believe in them (I do obviously….have you not read my blog before?!) but because I wonder about my motives in sharing my passion for them.  Is it because I think I know what is best for individuals, or is it because I think that people don’t know enough about the service to make an informed judgement about whether it meets their needs?

I have a real aversion to the old fashioned Victorian idea of knowing what is best for them (although not in the same way as the modern Conservative party I hasten to add), and I am loath to let anyone think that I am sharing my belief in libraries because I think I know what is best for them.  I think that not only is it patronising, but it is also highly likely to turn people off the very thing that I am advocating.  So where does simply sharing the services on offer at public libraries with non-users end and patronising them begin?  I’m not sure (perhaps I should though!?).  But I do think a delicate line has to be trod between the two.  Some people just simply aren’t interested in using libraries not matter what is on offer.  Sometimes I guess you have to accept that (although it is hard) and not try to batter them into believing that using the library is ‘good for them’.