« Flickr + National Library of Australia = Happy Dance | Main | Users Flit Around--what to do? »
February 06, 2006
Trust in Libraries
Aaron Schmidt wrote a very thoughtful post about trust in libraries (or the lack thereof). From his post:
Non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop. “No Drinks in the Library” equals “We don’t trust you to keep our library clean.” “You must give us your name to use our computers” equals “We think there’s a chance that you’re going to do something wrong or bad and we want to know how to find you.” The same case could me made about the fines we charge or overdue items.. Do they exist because we don’t trust our users to bring items back? Is this justified?
Phrasing "Don't" and "No" signs in libraries a bit more positively is something simple we can all do.
I think that there may be other reasons to get people's names for computer use (e.g. tracking the max usage per person per day, to equitably distribute these high-demand resources--though there are ways to do this without a library card # or name).
And yes, we do charge fines as a deterrent--we absolutely don't trust people to bring the material back.
Aaron's points are well-taken. There still remains in many libraries (of all kinds, not just public) an atmosphere of unquestionable authority, a long "don't" list, and one-way information exchange. Users have to trust us to ask us some of the questions they ask us (divorce, illness, family issues, personal interests). And yet we fail to show that same trust in our users. Admittedly, some of our users don't deserve that trust (it's true), but most do.
More and more I'm seeing a smattering of discussion here and a question there about public libraries switching to a Netflix model of distribution. Max # of items (perhaps), bring some back and then you can have more. There are problems with that model, as have been discussed on this blog before, but perhaps if we all took a step back, assumed the best of our users and implicitly trusted them until they proved themselves untrustworthy, the library would be a more attractive place to be.
February 6, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5505208308833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Trust in Libraries:
Comments
And I think that's the right way to go Cory. In a corporate environment, though, you're working with a known group--a group that feels some culpability for the materials, if for no other reason than "someone's gonna find out I kept this book and it's going to get back to my boss." With a public library, it's pretty much anyone who wanders in off the street--not even necessarily a local resident, as in California most public libraries will let you get a card as long as you reside somewhere, anywhere, in the state. I think it's a bit riskier when we're discussing a public library--but perhaps that's the best place to do it then...shake things up a bit.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (LiB) | February 6, 2006
I fully realize that a corporate library has very different concerns than a public or academic library. When I began this corporate library job (I'm a solo at this site), it took me years to convince my boss and peers that I trusted employees to take and return library materials, and that I wouldn't spend my time tracking materials. If something goes missing, I replace it, and that cost is far less than my time to "guard" the materials. My colleagues' expectations as library users were based on their academic and public library experience. It sort of blows their mind that I wasn't hired to monitor them.
Posted by: Cory | February 6, 2006
I recall another angle i've seen discussed in the passed (but cannot recall where I saw the discussion). Instead of a 'fine' charge for the service of extending your due date. Much as you can pay an extra $2 at a video rental shop to keep the item out for a few more days.
Posted by: Kelly G | February 6, 2006
