James Neal, vice president for information services and university librarian at Columbia University, addresses what academic libraries should be doing in a changing environment. According to him, regardless of the type of library in which the person functions, librarians “must pursue strategic thinking and action, fiscal agility, and creative approaches to the development of collections and services and to the expansion of  markets.”¹ It may be that the directors of some public libraries, as some academic library directors have done, are exploring new ways of generating revenue streams. One way of doing this is by engaging in entrepreneurial activities in which a library expands its “interest in the organization of business operations to create new income streams for the organization.”² Yet, no study has investigated whether public library directors engage in entrepreneurial leadership as a means of generating revenue in new ways.

The purpose of this study is to examine library directors’ views of such leadership, the types of entrepreneurial opportunities they are pursuing, and whether they are planning additional endeavors.

It aims to illustrate the benefits and challenges of entrepreneurial leadership, further the understanding of entrepreneurial leadership in public library settings, and offer insight into the types of entrepreneurial activities occurring in public libraries. The directors who are already engaged in entrepreneurial leadership will want to see what others are doing. This information may also be of interest to Friends of the Library groups and library trustees so that they can get a better sense of their supporting roles to libraries pursuing entrepreneurial activities. In addition, leadership institutes and professional associations will benefit from an understanding of how entrepreneurial leadership in public libraries is viewed. They can develop leadership education and training in the area of entrepreneurial leadership. Finally, this study will also be of interest to those offering continuing education since it may be beneficial for library managers to take classes or workshops in entrepreneurship.

Literature Review

The field of entrepreneurship is a relatively new area of interdisciplinary study.³ Busenitz et al.,⁴ who examined journals that cover entrepreneurship, see it as an emerging field of study within management. The traditional view of an entrepreneur is associated with business, and often entrepreneurs are defined as individuals who start their own small business.⁵ However, “entrepreneurship can involve nonprofit organizations.”⁶

A component found in some definitions of entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurs create something new and add value.⁷ Another component is innovation.⁸ Several theorists and researchers mention the pursuit or exploitation of opportunities in their work on entrepreneurship,⁹ and Darling and Beebe describe entrepreneurship as “essentially about breaking new ground, going beyond the known, and creating a new future within an organizational setting.”¹⁰ Vecchio argues that “studies of entrepreneurs have not yet offered a convincing profile of factors that clearly make entrepreneurs different from others.”¹¹ As a result, he believes entrepreneurship is part of the study of leadership.

Thoughts on Entrepreneurial Leadership

According to Powell, “Entrepreneurial leadership stems from the concepts of leadership and entrepreneurship.”¹² Like with entrepreneurship, there is no clearly established and agreed upon definition of such leadership. It is very much a concept still in the nascent stages.¹³ Some research finds an overlap between entrepreneurship and leadership.¹⁴ For Cogliser and Bingham, vision, influence (both of followers and of a larger constituency), planning, and “leading innovative/creative people” are relevant to entrepreneurial leadership.¹⁵

Eggers and Leahy found thirty-four leadership skills as critical to entrepreneurial leaders. The top five are: (1) financial management, (2) communication, (3) motivation of others, (4) vision, and (5) self-motivation.¹⁶ Vision is often mentioned in entrepreneurial leadership research. Gupta, MacMillan, and Surie add vision as a component in their definition of entrepreneurial leadership:

Leadership that creates visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize a “supporting cast” of participants who become committed by the vision to the discovery and exploitation of strategic value creation. This definition emphasizes the challenge of mobilizing the resources and gaining the commitment required for value creation that the entrepreneurial leader faces, which involves creating a vision and a cast of supporters capable of enacting that vision.¹⁷

The research of Darling, Keeffe, and Ross focuses on what it takes to be a successful entrepreneurial leader, namely “leading through direct involvement, a process that creates value for organizational stakeholders by bringing together a unique innovation and package of resources to respond to a recognized opportunity.”¹⁸ Being a successful entrepreneurial leader involves promoting new activities, being creative, innovative, and constantly adapting to change. In addition, it is having the ability to take advantage effectively of opportunities and to motivate people to be involved in taking advantage of those opportunities.¹⁹

Entrepreneurial Leadership and Libraries

There is minimal research on entrepreneurial leadership in libraries. Most writings on entrepreneurship in library and information science are either informative or opinion essays; they do not comprise research. However, there are a couple of examples such as Kilgour’s²⁰ examination of entrepreneurial librarians between 1880 and 1970, and Nijboer’s²¹ presentation of how libraries can engage in cultural entrepreneurship. Some writings provide examples of revenue-generating areas in libraries such as cafés.²² Another example is by Neal, who discusses the need for academic libraries to embrace the entrepreneurial spirit and to “create new income streams for the organization.”²³ DeVries points out that, while librarians engage in discovering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities to create new services, these activities are not labeled as entrepreneurship.²⁴

More Focus on the Definition

Shane and Venkataraman define entrepreneurship as the process of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to create goods or services,²⁵ and Darling, Keeffe, and Ross view entrepreneurial leadership as “leading, through direct involvement, a process that creates value for organizational stakeholders by bringing together a unique innovation and package of resources to respond to a recognized opportunity.”²⁶ Neal identifies three objectives of entrepreneurial business initiatives: “to produce new income to benefit library collections and services, to learn through these activities, and to apply these lessons to library programs.”²⁷ He also identifies several characteristics that “reflect an entrepreneurial culture and an innovative spirit.” These characteristics portray his typology for entrepreneurial activity in an academic library setting. The characteristics are: “active faculty participation, a research and development focus, innovative applications of technology, academic and corporate partnerships, foundation and federal funding, and a potential for capitalization and marketing.”²⁸ These characteristics can be adapted to fit a public library setting (see table 1). Shane and Venkataraman’s definition (paired with Darling, Keeffe, and Ross’ definition as well as Neal’s idea of generating new revenue streams for libraries) serves as a framework for investigating entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial activities in public libraries.

Research Questions

This study focuses on investigating whether public library directors engage in entrepreneurial leadership as a means of generating revenue in new ways. The following questions are probed:

1. How do public library directors define entrepreneurial leadership? Do they share the same definition or certain common characteristics in the definitions?
2. How well does Neal’s general typology of entrepreneurial activity (see table 1) apply to public libraries?
3. What types of entrepreneurial activities are they engaging in and for how long? What is the focus of such activities?
4. To what extent do they view entrepreneurial activities as a way to generate revenue streams?
5. Do they have future plans for engaging in additional entrepreneurial activities? What are they?

Procedures

Peter Hernon, professor of the Simmons College PhD Managerial Leadership in the Information Professions (MLIP) program, asked Luis Herrera, city librarian for the City and County of San Francisco, and Jan Sanders, director of libraries and information services for the City of Pasadena, to identify public library directors engaged in entrepreneurial activities other than the library cafés. While operating a café is one type of entrepreneurial activity, it is too common as a sole basis for selection of participants. Herrera and Sanders provided some suggestions. To this list, Professor Hernon added one public library director. To further expand this list, the investigator shared it with Maureen Sullivan and Camilla Alire, also professors of practice in the MLIP program, and asked them for additional names. The investigator used the snowball technique; she asked each director interviewed to suggest potential participants. In order to preserve confidentiality, she asked them to contact those individuals and inquire whether or not they would be willing to participate. In addition to this, the investigator asked the aforementioned individuals to review Neal’s altered table (see table 1) and comment on it. The investigator made changes as requested by the panel of five national leaders.

Between November 2011 and July 2012, telephone interviews were conducted with study participants. The investigator contacted them by email, letting them know about the study and encouraging them to participate. The email contained a letter explaining the study and why their participation matters. The directors were assured of confidentiality, and, for the purposes of the study and reporting findings, they were identified by a letter from the alphabet to conceal their identity. The names of their institutions also remained confidential so that they would not be identified by association with their institutions. Those that agreed to participate received a list of open-ended questions that the investigator asked during the telephone interview. The participants had approximately one week to review the questions and prepare any notes before the telephone interview.

The interview form was reviewed by Hernon (as well as by Herrera and Sanders) in the fall of 2011 for clarity (reliability) and the capture of research questions and the theoretical framework (internal validity). Before the interview questions were finalized, the Simmons MLIP 2011 Cohort pre-tested them. During the pre-test, the wording of the questions was examined for clarity and some questions were rewritten based on the comments.

Participants

Of the twelve directors initially identified as entrepreneurial leaders, nine participated in the study. By utilizing the snowballing technique, the investigator came across thirteen additional names. It is worth noting that some names came up several times. Out of those thirteen, there was a director identified that had since retired and could not be contacted as well as another director who had moved from a public library to an academic library, and was thus no longer qualified to participate in the study. Following study procedures, the investigator was only able to contact six directors from the list of thirteen names acquired by utilizing the snowball technique, and only three consented to participate. The study had a total of twelve participants out of eighteen directors contacted for a participation rate of 66.7 percent.

Definition

The participants were provided with a definition of entrepreneurial leadership: “creating a vision and leading the organization through the process of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to generate revenue streams that reinforce existing services or lead to new services and/or funding models.” Four participants were satisfied with it. One director added that “Entrepreneurial leaders also work on maximizing the investment that exists already.” The other participants wanted to change part of the definition. Two participants were concerned about the word exploitation and thought it was harsh. They preferred realization or implementation. Another participant thought the definition strongly focused on revenue streams, but should move beyond just a financial focus. One director preferred a focus on working with and leading people, and another found the definition to be “overly reductive” pointing out that there are “smaller opportunities which can be called entrepreneurial [such as] discovering things about human beings and their needs.” It was noted that any mention of partnerships was missing from the definition and that new or additional revenue streams could not completely replace tax funding for libraries; the majority of library funding will always come from taxpayers. Six participants agreed that entrepreneurial leadership was about constantly evaluating how the library is doing and looking for new opportunities and partnerships.

Neal’s Typology

After reviewing table 1, four participants agreed that it was fine as is. The other eight participants suggested additions (see table 2). For the category “active community participation, active library board participation, and active staff engagement and support,” one director pointed out that there is a difference between active and focused participation and that having an active library board does not equal having an entrepreneurial organization. This director also mentioned that it is important to value innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit in an organization and recognize it when it happens in order to preserve it. For the category “focus on community needs and relevance” a director felt that this was the most important activity, adding that an entrepreneurial library setting is one that demonstrates return on investment.

When discussing the category of “innovative applications of technology,” a director mentioned that library users come in with varying knowledge and comfort levels with technology, which makes it necessary for the public library to innovate at a level consistent with the skills and comfort levels of the general public. This could limit or slow the extent to which a library is involved in entrepreneurial activities. Another director recommended using lean principles of process to promote efficiency and effectiveness for various applications of technology. The idea behind this is that libraries are more reflective of an entrepreneurial environment if they have efficient and streamlined processes. A different director stated that public libraries have to be “very cognizant about bridging the digital divide” and that “the public library offers the opportunity for a large number of residents to get free computer training and free online connectivity.” This comment served as a way for this director to clarify the meaning of the category.

For the category of “community and corporate collaboration” a director emphasized the importance of defining partnerships in such a way that moves the organization forward and in a way that aligns with the library’s strategic plan. This director advised library leadership not to do something that does not fit with the direction the library is going and that does not make sense for that library. There were no additions to the category of “foundation and federal funding,” which lists types of funding, and none to the category of “potential for capitalization and marketing.” It was noted that, “Public libraries are always seeking opportunities to use the strength of numbers to negotiate a better value for products and services.”

Types, Focus, and Length of Entrepreneurial Activities

The participants engaged in a variety of activities they consider entrepreneurial (see table 3 below). The focus of the activities can be grouped into four categories: (1) traditional library services funded by outside support, (2) activities that directly generate revenue, (3) activities that do not generate revenue but provide a new product or service, and (4) activities that are non-revenue generating but add value. The length of time that participants have been engaged in entrepreneurial activities varies. The longest amount of time is thirty years and that is for membership in a library consortium. The shortest amount of time engaged in an activity is two years, and the activities for that time frame are: planning for a library branch in a children’s museum, revenue from a tobacco tax, and the e-book platform.

Revenue Streams

Seven activities were mentioned as revenue generating, with some producing more revenue than others. The activities identified as revenue generating are:

1. building rentals for various events,
2. cafés,
3. consulting service for other libraries,
4. passport service,
5. revenues from tobacco tax,
6. endowment for library foundation, and
7. Friends of the Library fundraising activities.

Three other activities generated revenue indirectly. The first activity is summer reading programs, which libraries received funding for, from entities such as sports teams or local newspapers. The second is a community reference project which did not generate revenue itself. However, the business community made donations for a campaign to pass a library ballot issue because they were impressed with the project. Lastly, a community history project was not revenue-generating but the library gained private support from the exposure through activities such as the television interviews. Some directors mentioned activities as entrepreneurial though they did not generate revenue. They preferred sharing the ideas with other libraries to benefit the greater library community and library users, rather than charging for them.

Future Entrepreneurial Activities

All of the library directors plan to pursue entrepreneurial activities in the future. Some already have specific plans for types of activities they wish to pursue while others are not exactly sure what those activities will be. Those that did not have specific activities planned believe libraries have to constantly look for ways to improve daily operations and for new opportunities and partnerships that may generate revenue. One director stated that new activities for the library should be based on the library staying relevant and meeting the specific needs of the library’s community. This was reflected by other directors who stated that any entrepreneurial activities that a library is engaged in must make sense for that library and for that community. One director commented that libraries should diversify revenue streams in order to offset library vulnerability when difficult economic times arise.

A participant has plans for creating “co-creation” spaces at the main library for entrepreneurial people to come and meet with clients or brainstorm with other entrepreneurs. This director also mentioned piloting customized spaces within a library. The director of another library has a wealth of historical information and photographs, and wants to put together a coffee table book of historical photographs, have it published, and made available for sale at the library. This director is also interested in having posters, postcards, and other paraphernalia that speak to the history of the city available for sale. The library owns items that are locked away yet they could be used in a revenue-generating way. A sculpture (of a girl on a bench reading to a dog) was commissioned by a donor at the request of another library director. The sculpture was very popular in this library and the director is considering partnering with the sculptor to promote the sale of similar sculptures to other libraries. The library would get a commission fee for every sculpture purchased.

A director plans to expand on activities that the library is already doing with some variation and depth. This library partnered with the inner city hospital and healthcare foundation to deliver information through library branches. This director sees a need for the library to organize information and have it readily available before people come looking for it because people trust libraries in ways that they do not trust other institutions. A participant is planning to allow customers to pay fines online or via self-check stations with the option to round up fines to the nearest dollar. This extra money would go to the library endowment campaign and has the potential to generate $100,000 or more per year. One director labeled her future activities as “political entrepreneurship” explaining that in a few years the library will have to go back to voters and needs a two-thirds vote to continue the specialized tax dedicated to the library. The will be the third time that the library will be on the ballot and there are a lot of politics involved in getting the city council to put this on the ballot. The director of another library plans to take a lead in acquiring or developing a volunteer software matching process. In his community, public entities are looking for more public engagement.

General Comments

When asked if they had any additional comments, one participant stated that a library director “can’t be a good leader without being entrepreneurial.” Another participant thought that libraries have a lot of potential to engage in entrepreneurial activities. One director emphasized that what is entrepreneurial in one community may not be in another. This tied to the opinion stated by several directors that any entrepreneurial activities the library is engaged in have to be relevant to the community. The director of one library suggested that a library must be cognizant of the customer’s needs and that directors should determine if there is a way to create revenue for the library while also meeting a community need.

A lot of change is happening in libraries today and libraries have to adapt. According to a participant, “Just by adapting the principle of entrepreneurship, they [libraries] become more flexible and open and this is what we have to be.” Another participant mentioned that to be entrepreneurial in the kind of circumstances we are in today, libraries: “(1) must not forget the traditional library, (2) introduce people to the rare and finer pleasures of reading and civilization, and (3) not be afraid of change.”

One director thought that entrepreneurial leadership is something that needs to be pervasive within the organization. Another director echoed this by stating that if you want to have an entrepreneurial organization, you have to show that you value that. You have to define it for your staff and reward it when it happens. A different director’s comment on entrepreneurial leadership was “It doesn’t even seem to be something special anymore. It is a basic and general expectation of any director that wants to be in today’s world. The needs are too great for communities. Entrepreneurial leadership is almost a requirement.” However, another participant thought that getting library directors to think of entrepreneurial leadership as a concept and plan things based on being entrepreneurial is a challenge because, traditionally, library directors are not trained to think this way. Finally, another participant saw entrepreneurial leadership as an opportunity. He said, “Entrepreneurial leadership is both an incredible opportunity and a danger. If we are willing to try new things that get at our mission it is a fantastic time to be a librarian. A focus on civic engagement and community engagement deepens our connections. By chasing new things you can run yourself away from the purpose or mission of your organization.”

Discussion

Traditionally, when one thinks of revenue-generating organizations, one does not include libraries in that category. It was not surprising that the participants reacted most negatively to the phrasing “exploitation of opportunities” in the definition of entrepreneurial leadership provided for this study. That phrasing comes from definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership found in business-related research, although some agree that entrepreneurship can extend to nonprofit organizations.²⁹ The other portion of the definition that some participants had trouble with was “generate revenue streams,” because that has not traditionally been viewed as a major role for libraries and is something mostly associated with businesses. In describing the types of entrepreneurial activities that they were engaged in, the participants that did not generate direct revenue streams from their activities still fit the definition of entrepreneurial leadership because they created something new that adds value³⁰ and/or because their activities involve innovation.³¹

Entrepreneurial activities that participants engaged in were varied and the activities ranged from the fairly recent to those that have been going on for a number of years. Even with confidentiality guaranteed, several participants were not comfortable providing estimates of how much revenue is generated by the activities. This makes it difficult to determine a range or come up with an average. It was not unexpected that several directors were interested in entrepreneurial activities but not concerned with generating revenue. Rather, they were willing to share their achievements with other libraries. From the study findings, it is clear that with innovative projects like the integrated library system (ILS) and e-book platform,³² there was a focus on the greater good for libraries and library users rather than generating profits. This fits with the idea of libraries not being revenue generators and was partially reflected by participant comments on the definition of entrepreneurial leadership that was provided.

All participants were interested in pursuing entrepreneurial activities in the future, even the participants that did not have a clear idea of what those activities may be. The participants agreed that there was a need for libraries to be entrepreneurial, to pursue new and innovative activities, and to embrace change as a way to survive. None of the participants seemed satisfied with the status quo and that is, perhaps, why they were identified as entrepreneurial leaders.

Out of the entrepreneurial activities libraries are engaging in, some do stand out as more extreme than others. The three that stand out are the consulting service, the development of an ILS, and the development of the e-book platform. The consulting activity is revenue generating and provides a service that is typically not provided by libraries. In the case of the development of an ILS and the e-book platform, both directors were not satisfied with the products or models that dominate the library market and decided to explore options on their own that would better serve their needs. It will be interesting to see if similar activities will become more common for libraries in the future.

Further research on entrepreneurial leadership in public libraries should examine whether entrepreneurial activities are becoming more prevalent. Another topic to be addressed is leading change in an organization. How are directors that are engaged in entrepreneurial activities preparing their organization for those activities? Many of the activities mentioned in this study are large enough in scope to need organizational support and they are not activities that a director can accomplish alone. In this study entrepreneurial leadership was defined as: “creating a vision and leading the organization through the process of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to generate revenue streams that reinforce existing services or lead to new services and/or funding models.” This definition should be reexamined in the future.

Conclusion

Library entrepreneurial activities are diverse and many can be applied on a smaller or larger scale. As noted in the study, when exploring types of entrepreneurial activities, it is essential to find something that aligns with the library’s strategic plan and something that makes sense for the community the library is located in. All study participants have plans for engaging in further entrepreneurial activities. Some have a clear idea of what those activities will be while others are still exploring the possibilities. There is agreement that library directors need a more entrepreneurial mindset and that there needs to be more discussion of what it means to be an entrepreneurial leader. In the future, there will be a need for more entrepreneurial leaders that are forward thinking and that are constantly looking for ways to improve the library if libraries are to remain relevant and survive in this climate of constant change and uncertainty.

As change remains the only constant in public libraries and as they continue to operate in an economic downturn, it becomes necessary for libraries to reexamine how to stay relevant and explore innovation and the idea of diversifying revenue streams to decrease vulnerability. Still faced with an uncertain future, entrepreneurial leadership may become more of a necessity in the public library of the future.

Some types of entrepreneurial activities are revenue generating while others are innovative, yet do not generate revenue. One thing is clear: all the activities add value to their respective libraries whether it is through a product or service the library offers, direct revenue, or indirect funds that
find their way to the library based on the activities the library is engaged in.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. James G. Neal, “The Entrepreneurial Imperative: Advancing from Incremental to Radical Change in the Academic Library,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 1, no. 1 (Jan. 2001): 1.
2. Ibid., 10.
3. Claudia Cogliser and Keith Brigham, “The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurship: Mutual Lessons to be Learned,” Leadership Quarterly 14, no.6 (Dec. 2004): 771-779; Lloyd Fernald Jr., George Solomon, and Ayman Tarabishy, “A New Paradigm: Entrepreneurial Leadership,” Southern Business Review 30, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 1-10; Donald Kuratko, “Entrepreneurial Leadership in the 21st Century,” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13, no. 4 (2007): 1-11.
4. Lowell Busenitz et al., “Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions,” Journal of Management 29, no. 3 (June 2003): 285-308.
5. Satyabir Bhattacharyya, “Entrepreneurship and Innovation: How Leadership Style Makes the Difference?” Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers 31, no.1 (Jan. 2006): 107-115; Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles (New York: Harper & Row, 1985).
6. William Gartner, “What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship?” Journal of Business Venturing 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1990): 27.
7. Bhattacharyya, “Entrepreneurship and Innovation.”
8. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Howard Stevenson and J. Carlos Jarillo, “A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management,” Strategic Management Journal 11, no. 5 (Summer 1990): 17-27.
9. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Rita McGrath and Ian MacMillan, The Entrepreneurial Mindset (Boston: Harvard Business School Pr., 2000); Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1950); Stevenson and Jarillo, “A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship.”
10. John Darling and Steven Beebe, “Enhancing Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Focus on Key Communication Priorities,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 20, no. 2 (spring 2007): 152.
11. Robert Vecchio, “Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Common Trends and Common Threads.” Human Resource Management Review 13, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 322.
12. Freda Powell, The Impact of Mentoring and Social Networks On the Entrepreneurial Leadership Characteristics, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Overall Business Success of Women Who Own Small Government Contracting Businesses (Doctoral dissertation 2010). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (No. 3447891): 36.
13. Stephen Kempster and Jason Cope, “Learning to Lead in the Entrepreneurial Context,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 16, no. 1 (2010): 9.
14. Cogliser and Brigham, “The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurship”; Fernald Jr., Solomon, and Tarabishy, “A New Paradigm.”
15. Cogliser and Brigham, “The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurship,” 777.
16. John Eggers and Kim Leahy, “Entrepreneurial Leadership,” Business Quarterly 59, no. 4 (summer 1995): 71.
17. Vipin Gupta, Ian MacMillan, and Gita Surie, “Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developing and Measuring a Cross-Cultural Construct,” Journal of Business Venturing 19, no. 2 (Mar. 2004): 242.
18. John Darling, Michael Keeffe, and John Ross, “Entrepreneurial Leadership Strategies and Values: Keys to Operational Excellence,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 20, no. 1 (Jan. 2007): 42.
19. Ibid.
20. Frederick Kilgour, “Entrepreneurial Leadership,” Library Trends 40, no. 3 (Jan. 1992): 457-74.
21. Jelke Nijboer, “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Libraries,” New Library World 107, no. 9 (Sept. 2006): 434-43.
22. Beth Dempsey, “Cashing in on Service,” Library Journal 129, no. 18 (Nov. 2004): 38-41.
23. Neal, “The Entrepreneurial Imperative.”
24. JoAnn DeVries, “Entrepreneurial Librarians: Embracing Innovation and Motivation,” Science & Technology Libraries 24, no. 1 (Mar. 2003): 209-10.
25. Scott Shane and Sankaran Venkataraman, “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research,” The Academy of Management Review 25, no. 1 (Jan. 2000): 217-26.
26. Darling, Keeffe, and Ross, “Entrepreneurial Leadership Strategies and Values.”
27. Neal, “The Entrepreneurial Imperative,” 11.
28. Ibid., 8.
29. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Gartner, “What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship?”
30. Bhattacharyya, “Entrepreneurship and Innovation?”; Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
31. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Stevenson and Jarillo, “A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management.”
32. The library has collaborated directly with publishers to offer e-books to its patrons via the library catalog. The library purchases the titles directly from the publishers rather than an aggregator and manages its own content.

The post Entrepreneurial Leadership in Public Libraries first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

In recent decades, the Internet and changing information-seeking behaviors of the public have drastically altered the landscape in which the FDLP operates. E-government—the provision of government services and information via the Internet for businesses, citizens, and government itself—has changed and reduced the role of depository libraries in providing the public with government publications. There is no longer as great a need for the placement of physical collections in close proximity to where people live and work. Federal departments and agencies, as well as Congress, currently share assorted information directly with the public, businesses, and other communities through the Internet and engage in a dialogue with the governed via podcasts, blogs, and other means of communication. This communication is much broader than the delivery of information in the form of a government publication as strictly defined.

Today, the GPO distributes more than 95 percent of its information in digital form. With the emergence of e-government, the extensive distribution of digital documents, and the presence of historical collections of print material as well as microprint, microfiche, and CD-ROM holdings, public libraries are rethinking their collection priorities and their roles. This is true for other members of the FDLP as well. Since public library directors set the strategic directions for their institutions, their opinions about the participation of their libraries in the program are particularly relevant. Yet, to date, no study has asked these directors about continued membership in the program. We set out to address this gap, using a set of scenarios that suggest different futures in an attempt to determine the roles that these directors envision their libraries embracing.

The findings of our study have implications for public libraries as they cope with the aftermath of the economic downturn of 2008; reduced budgets; and the consequent impact on library services, collections, facilities, and staffing. As these libraries revisit their missions and planning processes, the scenarios we propose may enable them to review strategic initiatives and settle on the courses of action most appropriate for them as FDLP members.

What We Know

Hernon and Saunders provide an excellent review of the literature relevant to future scenarios for the FDLP, and they offer a set of scenarios applicable to member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).³ As they point out, the spring 2006 meeting of the Depository Library Council (DLC) included an exercise involving fictional scenarios rather than real-world ones.⁴ Scenarios put forth at the meeting concerned a terrorist attack, new legislation that was not under discussion at the time, and a dramatic increase in the number of libraries that participate in the CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program.

In their review of the FDLP, Schonfeld and Housewright report that depository libraries have little incentive to remain in the program, as collections are dramatically underused, newly released digital government information is not adequately preserved, and systems that promote “findability” on government websites are inadequate. They offer recommendations that apply solely to the depository program, but that ignore the role of e-government (or at least they do not connect their recommendations to e-government).⁵

An ARL white paper from 2009 recommends that the FDLP engage in the following activities:⁶

1. develop strategies to create a small but essential number of comprehensive, print legacy collections;
2. increase development of network-based collaborative efforts between the GPO and depository libraries, and among the libraries themselves;
3. create new knowledge-management tools and resources that enable users to have direct and independent access to content and the ability to work with the content effectively;
4. form a participatory and open environment to encourage and engage in new partnerships;
5. establish a new service model that is economically sustainable and provides sufficient flexibility for libraries and agencies to introduce new approaches to accessing and delivering government information; and
6. develop a service model that sustains multiple preservation points for both print and electronic government information.

Some of these recommendations require revision of title 44, chapter 19, of the United States Code. The scenarios that Hernon and Saunders offer carefully avoid the need for any new public law in the near future. Their rationale is that President Obama and Congress have other legislative priorities. Hernon and Saunders indicate that their participants do not share the same enthusiasm for the traditional role of government documents librarians as that expressed by Chapman and Shuler.7 Jacobs, in a critique of Hernon and Saunders, argues that “some [directors] were unable to place their institution fully in one of the provided scenarios. There were many reasons for this, but it makes it harder for us to interpret and understand the results.”⁸

Comments such as Jacobs’s indicate a misunderstanding of the distinction between study objectives and the purpose of scenarios. The use of scenarios as a planning technique has been common since the early 1970s; the technique uses stories to describe possible futures to help managers engage in planning. Managers should be involved in the development of scenarios’ content. An individual library can then take any one of the scenarios, recast content, and plan as appropriate. Study objectives, generally speaking, are merely to gain a general sense of which scenarios managers prefer.

The Study

Our study attempted to identify library directors’ perspectives about different scenarios, which scenarios the directors see as most viable for their libraries, and what role the directors see their institutions having with regard to FDLP in the future, if none of the scenarios is preferred.

The libraries we studied are participants in the FDLP and members of the Urban Libraries Council (ULC). ULC member libraries serve medium-to-large-sized suburban and urban areas, specifically those with populations of more than 100,000 residents. Focusing on ULC libraries allowed for a mix of regional and selective depository libraries. Based on the January 2010 ULC membership roster, sixty-four libraries hold depository collections; three of these are regional depositories and the remainder are selective. Selective depository libraries determine the percentage of items they want to offer from the GPO. Regional depository libraries are required to serve the selective depositories under their jurisdiction and develop comprehensive collections of government publications, a feat no longer possible (if it ever was).⁹

Building on the scenarios developed by Hernon and Saunders and the goals outlined in the FDLP Strategic Plan 2009–2014,¹⁰ we developed four scenarios that outline possible futures for public library involvement in the FDLP (see below). These scenarios meet criteria advanced by Mietzner and Reger: They are plausible, different from one another, produce multiple futures, challenge conventional wisdom about the future, and have decision-making utility.¹¹ When scenarios adhere to these criteria, they can assist organizations in numerous ways, including “planning for future events and ensuring that an important [service] area is not neglected.”¹²

The scenarios were pretested by Joan Giesecke, dean of libraries, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and Judy Russell, dean of university libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, both of whom are employed in FDLP libraries. The scenarios were revised based on their comments. Upon completion of the pretest, directors of twenty-five of the sixty-four ULC libraries were selected, using a nonprobability sample, to comment on the scenarios.These directors represent libraries in both urban and suburban systems across the United States.

Library directors were contacted via email in March 2010 to solicit their participation in the study. The four scenarios were emailed to those directors who agreed to contribute, and interviews were subsequently conducted by phone or in person in April 2010. The study proceeded in two phases.

In the first phase, two of us interviewed five directors each. These ten directors were asked to review the four FDLP scenarios. Then, during the interview, we asked the following questions:

• What comments or suggestions do you have for improving the set of scenarios?
• What suggestions do you have for titling the scenarios?
• Which scenario do you see as most viable for your library?
• If none of the scenarios seems particularly viable, what role do you see your organization having with regard to the FDLP in the future?

Following the first round of interviews, we revised the scenarios to reflect the comments and suggestions of the preliminary group of library directors.
In the second phase of interviews, fifteen public library directors were asked to consider the modified scenarios. They were given the same questions to consider as the participants in the first phase and asked to comment. After completing the interviews, we again revised the scenarios to develop a final set reflective of the input from the second group.

The Final Scenarios

The final scenarios are presented in the following sections. The nonitalicized content represents the scenarios following the completion of pretesting and phase 1 interviews. The italicized content represents the suggestions made in the phase 2 interviews.

Scenario 1: “Government Documents—I Think We Have Those Here”

The library is shifting its priorities. It no longer views the resources in the depository collection as critical to meeting its strategic needs, especially since there is low use of depository holdings. Over the next fifteen years, the library is likely either to withdraw from the program or to decrease involvement by selecting minimal print publications and relying more on electronic access from the GPO. There is a shift away from a separate documents collection, and a move toward greater reliance on reference librarians and paraprofessionals to direct customers to e-government websites and assist them in finding the information they need. If the information needed is not available through e-resources, customers will be referred elsewhere, possibly a regional depository collection. The few depository collection resources that are still used regularly will be incorporated into the library’s circulating or reference collections. Older documents will be weeded, and there will no longer be a historical print collection.

The primary motivation for pursuing this scenario is a strategic move toward smaller collections and more open space. As the library reduces the size of most of its physical collections, money and space are directed toward mobile computer stations in an open, multipurpose environment that customers can arrange how they wish. Large amounts of shelving holding rarely used government documents do not fit this strategic vision. Significantly reducing the relationship with the federal depository program also makes sense with regard to staffing, as the library will no longer need to allocate staff to the depository collection.

Scenario 2: “Portal to the Digital World”

The library has long struggled with the cost, both in money and in physical space, of maintaining a collection of print government documents. Even so, the importance of the library as an access point for government information remains paramount. In order to reasonably manage costs and still serve as an information source for the community, the library focuses its efforts on establishing and maintaining a digital depository of online government information by helping users access materials created by a variety of sources from a single portal. The library keeps its existing physical collections and continues to receive some print materials from the GPO. The library’s greater emphasis, however, is on providing access via the library’s website to e-government information aggregated by GPO Access (www.gpoaccess.gov).¹³ In order to further enhance the public’s ability to access e-government information, the library also includes the MARC records for electronic government documents in its OPAC.

The library finds that FDLP membership has advantages such as no-fee access to services like National Weather Service data. The library purchases indexing and search tools developed by the private sector to enhance the depository. The library also purchases collections on microfiche and electronic databases of material not previously owned or owned only in print. The library does not digitize its own collections.

The primary motivation for becoming a digital depository is to ensure that the library continue to play a critical role in the use of and access to government information by members of the public. Teaching, learning, and research in the community all benefit from this service role. As the GPO produces information predominantly in electronic formats, it is in the best interests of both the library and the community to focus on an information delivery method that will serve both well into the future.

Scenario 3: “Getting Government Information at Your Library”

Given budgetary and space constraints, the library does not want to emphasize print collections of underused resources; instead, it wants to expand its digital collections in order to offer improved access to government materials. The library retains its historical print collection, but no longer receives new print materials from the GPO. The focus is on promoting federal materials through a dynamic webpage for government resources with links to GPO Access. In addition, the library includes in its OPAC catalog records for government resources that contain links to online documents. The library also digitizes historical materials of local interest and actively collects state and local government materials in print and electronic formats, which it hosts and archives on its website. Furthermore, the library is making plans to move in a “Web 2.0” direction of enabling community members to contribute their own historical materials to the digital and print collections.

The primary motivation for this scenario is to increase the use of government materials by making them remotely accessible and highlighting items of relevance to the community. In addition, librarians vigorously emphasize the value of government resources and strengthen the library’s role as a repository of local information. Essentially, librarians work to compile federal e-government resources, digitize and archive state and local materials, and market them to patrons. This scenario provides a robust collection of government information, one that is accessible to more individuals through the web and closely tailored to community needs.

Scenario 4: “Pay to Play”

In this scenario, the library includes on its homepage a wider assortment of government information than can be simply characterized as English-only “government publications.” It provides access to and service for data sets, including geospatial ones, imagery (including satellite imagery) and other multimedia, digital maps, and games. These services represent an extension of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) capability and helping the public set up government “my sites.”

The primary motivation for this scenario is for the library to assume a number of different roles, including those of educator, source for referrals, digital creator, and marketer. The library engages in workshops and other services to instruct educators and others on how to search for, locate, evaluate, and use digital information. The library also provides workshops and online tutorials for other libraries, showing them how to provide this expanded digital content to their patrons. Financial support for this educator role would rely on collaborative membership fees as part of the state library or state association organization. Alternatively, a “pay to play” model designed for cost recovery related to the services provided may be imposed through the collective, so if a library wanted to access the “educator” services, they would add this to their membership. While an additional cost to overall membership, it may allow public libraries without government documents specialists to offer these services without staff onsite.

Results of the Study

Representatives from twenty libraries participated in the study, nine in phase 1 and eleven in phase 2. All twenty were from selective depositories; the three ULC regional depositories all declined to participate. Table 1 shows the number of directors who favored each scenario in each round of interviews.

In phase 1 of the interviews, the nine directors heavily favored scenario 3, with 56 percent identifying it as the most viable scenario for their library. In general, all nine directors found the scenarios well written and plausible, but would have preferred them to be less detailed and better differentiated from one another.

In phase 2, the eleven directors favored scenario 2 most strongly, with 36 percent selecting it, and another 18 percent selecting a combination of scenarios 2 and 3. One director expressed disappointment that the scenarios all have a negative focus with regard to the FDLP, but in general, all the directors found the scenarios plausible. Several expressed concern about the financial cost of digitizing collections, and many commented that allocating space to house the FDLP collection is not currently a problem.

In both phases of interviews, some similar comments emerged. All participants expressed a belief in the importance of government documents in a public library collection. Overwhelmingly, directors are not interested in withdrawing from the FDLP. Of the three directors favoring scenario 1, only one is engaged in withdrawal; the other two have no plans to withdraw and are more interested in reducing the relationship. Scenario 4 was viewed by several directors as being either beyond the scope of what a public library does, or cost prohibitive. Three, however, said they liked scenario 4, referring to it as “the dream” or “the future,” with one commenting that they “aspire to it.”

Although there were slight changes in wording to each of the scenarios between the first and second rounds of interviews, it is possible to compile totals for them. Three directors (15 percent) favored scenario 1 as most reflective of their future plans, and no one favored scenario 4. One (5 percent) favored a combination of scenarios 3 and 4, and another (5 percent) expressed interest in combining elements of all four scenarios. By far the most favored were scenario 2 (30 percent) and scenario 3 (30 percent), with another three directors (15 percent) favoring a combination of scenarios 2 and 3. A full 75 percent of respondents, therefore, found elements of scenarios 2 and 3 to be the most viable for their libraries.

Analysis of Director Commentaries

The commentaries that follow are grouped into the following categories, which emerged as the most common themes in the interviews: imprecision in deciding on a scenario; how much thought directors give to the FDLP; a desire to retain some amount of print; a desire for digital access; an interest in collaborative collections; an acknowledgment both of the FDLP and how difficult it is to opt out; and economic realities.

Imprecision in Deciding on a Scenario

Although the directors were asked to select a preferred scenario, several were unable to select only one. Some liked features in multiple scenarios; others saw their institutions as falling between two or more scenarios, or they saw the scenarios as unlikely either due to budgetary constraints or because they felt that the law would need to be rewritten to make the scenario possible. One did note that “all of these scenarios are negative: it’s sad that everyone assumes the program is ‘bad,’ making it difficult to select an appropriate choice.”

Recognizing that public libraries must serve diverse communities, one director noted that “every library will be different based on history and trends,” and another commented that they found themselves agreeing with one part of a scenario but not another. Another director challenged the premise of this research project by asking, “Why should I have to fit into these? This isn’t how libraries work; they self-define based on money, resources, and staff.” Similar comments reflected the desire to form a hybrid of two or more scenarios, an observation present in most of the interviews. Several directors found the scenarios too structured and limiting while others felt that they were too similar to choose just one. More than one participant acknowledged that all of them are viable alternatives to consider.

How Much Thought Directors Give to the FDLP

Public library directors in major urban systems are often not particularly interested in the FDLP. As one wrote in her refusal to participate in this study, “I know so little about our service with Gov Docs, and don’t have time nor interest in learning more. This is such a busy and challenging time for us (and for many others as well . . .).” In other cases, the director was familiar with the program because it had been central to human resources management issues in the past or because of their work in another library, where staff worked more closely with government documents.

Directors who participated in the survey often collaborated with government documents librarians prior to their interviews and conveyed information from them. In some cases the directors delegated the interview to a staff person felt to be more knowledgeable about FDLP. These delegated interviewees included such positions as central library manager, deputy director, director of public service, and information services director.

The directors most involved in and aware of the program had robust library access both in print and online, reiterating its overall value to the community. They felt that the focus should not be entirely on federal documents but also on state and local government access, and recognized that current economic realities might make it less likely that public libraries could continue to offer the same level of service as in the past, especially in terms of education and promotion.

Desire to Retain Some Amount of Print

All respondents wanted to keep a print collection and to continue receiving new print materials, no matter which scenario they favored. Some cited such reasons as continuity with existing documents and the ability (or lack thereof) for their community members to access documents digitally, especially outside the library building. Other directors commented that some documents are difficult to view in a digital format and that it might be better to keep them in print until the GPO streamlines the formats. Nearly every respondent did note that they have reduced the size of their print collections or altered their storage methods to accommodate other uses or in recognition of low circulation or use.

One director mentioned that the print collection supports those items that are “frequently requested, [e.g.,] environmental, health and health studies. Sometimes we get additional copies of items that are requested frequently.” Making the print items easily accessible is mentioned as having value. “Huge amount of government documents [in many public libraries] are not cataloged. At a past job, when neighboring libraries cataloged, usage skyrocketed,” acknowledged one respondent. But another observed, “How many libraries would be likely to re-catalog? There’s not enough money. We will dump what we have and buy what we wanted to retain with cataloging attached.” For many libraries, however, neither of these may be a financially viable option.

Desire for Digital Access

In spite of the desire to retain print documents, all the directors recognized the importance of having digital access to a variety of documents. As one director commented, “Our goal is for patrons to have access to the same resources in the smallest library branch and in the larger regional branches. Government documents are the best example: even if we had all the space and money we could imagine, we would still be doing the same thing, which is not having regional collections, but access in all libraries, digitally.” Others wanted more emphasis on e-resources and websites from the GPO itself, with links to some documents incorporated into the library catalog to increase access.

An alternative future not presented by the scenarios was noted by several participants. For example, one director proposed that “eventually not all government documents will be housed electronically. Print could be more scan-on-request, stored regionally around the country.” The variety of formats in which government documents are produced makes it difficult for the public library to respond and make documents available. Before everything is digital, several remarked, there needs to be some streamlining of the formats (which would be undertaken by the GPO, not the libraries). Those who did comment on in-house content creation focused primarily on access to local and state information rather than federal.

Interest in Collaborative Collections

Many respondents mentioned developing a relationship with their state library or nearby academic libraries or creating some regional reference service to share space, staffing, and budget. One director indicated that their library puts most documents in a reference services center where the staff, including a government specialist, answer emails and phone requests and serve library branches. The public can come in, but the service also delivers throughout the system in paper and electronically.

Several directors felt that their state libraries could serve in this regional role. One director commented: “The state universities depend on the state library for government documents and the state library is more appropriate as the depository for the state.” At least one public library “worked with state library personnel on what was most relevant and what we could deaccession,” noting the state library’s role in assisting with collection maintenance. While it is recognized that state libraries may not have the financial resources to take on this role completely, the availability of staff specialists who can guide local libraries in their decisions regarding FDLP collections is valued.

Acknowledgment of the Value of FDLP and Difficulty of Opting Out

Most participants were adamant that the FDLP is an important service at their library. Several libraries (especially the ones with older depository collections) are proud of their government documents and the service they offer to the public. That said, one director thinks that the importance of the library as an “access point for government information” is not paramount for their overall plan of service. Another commented that he is “not even really thinking about this because there are other priorities.”

One noted that they are near a university that is also a depository and will begin researching whether there is a need for two depositories in their area. Most believe that the program will continue fifteen years into the future, though certainly in an “evolved” manner, as one person characterized the situation. One director felt “that the federal government moves too slowly to implement changes,” so that the fifteen-year horizon was too short. The FDLP needs to change in order to make it easier for libraries to remain members. As one respondent noted, the “program needs to be evaluated and changed, but not eliminated.”

While they might concede to limiting their involvement, no one would admit that they were considering withdrawing from the program entirely. When discussing scenario 1, a participant noted that it “seems difficult because it’s hard to get out of FDLP. There’s lots of work involved. In the short term, this is the most difficult and expensive option.” Others recognized this as a factor that influenced their decisions regarding FDLP participation, even without a cost-benefit analysis of remaining in the program versus opting out.

Economic Realities

The difficult financial climate is making it hard for librarians at all levels to think about the future, and this factor influenced scenario selection the most. The financial meltdown of 2008 and its consequences made individuals hesitant to speak with confidence about the FDLP’s future in public libraries. One individual commented, “Due to the economic situation and projected changes in our library system, there are no guarantees of what services we will be offering in the future. I would be answering the questions based on my knowledge and understanding of the possible direction we would like to follow.”
Because there are limited resources, some libraries focus on what has the largest impact. Frequently, this is not FDLP. When digitizing government documents comes up against early literacy, for example, early literacy was noted as having “the best impact.”

Further Use of the Scenarios

Similar to the Hernon and Saunders study, “This study neither directly addresses whether the depository program itself will exist fifteen years hence nor offers a vision of what future will emerge” after 2025.14 This would require expanded scenarios, additional interviews, and discussion of the projected economic climate for public libraries, in addition to revision of the laws related to the FDLP.

Further exploration using scenarios would require a broader, more inclusive scope, considering such factors as multilingual communities, a digital divide affecting access, and access for the physically, visually, or hearing impaired. Some communities have their own legislation affecting such issues, which may require attention at the federal level or financial input at the local level. These factors may require incorporation into possible scenarios. Several participants in our study noted their unfamiliarity with scenarios as a planning tool or as a survey discussion method, though most noted they were “helpful; their value is in helping people concretely imagine what other futures or options are like.”

Future scenarios for public libraries might include libraries as a central clearinghouse for government documents, floating collections that move between libraries, more innovative uses of technology, and developing customized services for patrons. Another possibility recognizes a growing emphasis on e-government and providing an expanded variety of activities, such as practical support to library patrons in need of government assistance. Again, these scenarios require further development and consideration of the role of academic, state, and research libraries. Moreover, extensive scenarios that drastically
alter the FDLP’s mission must also consider any relevant legal ramifications.

Finally, by 2025, another future might be in order for the FDLP. Libraries might be separated from the FDLP network, but federal resources might be used to retain a centralized facility for government materials. Alternatively, libraries might rely entirely on digitized materials and web-based portals. Still another future might involve an as-yet unrealized choice, one which allows libraries to streamline all government information into a single access point.

Conclusion

The research described in this article is of strategic importance to public libraries as they seek to evaluate the role that the FDLP can and will play in their  future plans. The GPO, Congress, and private companies that index, digitize, and provide access to government documents should also find the results useful as they plan for an increasingly digital future. While it is clear that public libraries are at varying stages of participation in the FDLP and plan to pursue a variety of paths, library directors clearly value the importance of the library’s role as a source for government information, both federal and local. Although the paths of the libraries identified here are not yet firm, each institution is seeking to find a balance between digital access and maintenance of print collections.

Comments on the scenarios generally reflected the need for libraries to tailor their level of participation in FDLP to their unique situations. The structured scenarios were useful to some participants, but constricting to others. It is likely that a hybrid of the proposed scenarios will be the result for the majority of participating libraries. It should be a comfort to Congress, the GPO, and nonparticipating libraries that the majority of public libraries surveyed intend to continue their participation in FDLP, in some form or another, for the foreseeable future.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Definition of Government Publication, U.S. Code 44, § 1901.
2. For a history of the program, see P. Hernon, C. R. McClure, and G. R. Purcell, GPO’s Depository Library Program: A Descriptive Analysis (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1985), 1–21.
3. P. Hernon and L. Saunders, “The Federal Depository Library Program in 2023: One Perspective on the Transition to the Future,” College and Research Libraries 70 (2009): 351–70.
4. Depository Library Council, “‘Knowledge Will Forever Govern’: A Vision Statement for Federal Depository Libraries in the 21st Century,” Sept. 29, 2006, accessed July 24, 2012.
5. R. C. Schonfeld and R. Housewright, “Documents for a Digital Democracy: A Model for the Federal Depository Library Program in the 21st Century,” Oct. 1, 2009, accessed June 17, 2012.
6. Association of Research Libraries, “White Paper: Strategic Directions for the Federal Depository Library Program,” Apr. 2009.
7. B. Chapman and J. A. Shuler, letter to the editor, College and Research Libraries 70 (2009): 419–20.
8. J. Jacobs, “Comment on article: Depository Library Program in 2023,” Aug. 31, 2009, accessed June 17, 2012.
9. U.S. Government Printing Office, “Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Preliminary Assessment,” Dec. 2008, accessed June 17, 2012.
10. Depository Library Council, “Federal Depository Library Program Strategic Plan, 2009–2014: Draft Discussion Document: 04/17/2009,” accessed June 17, 2012.
11. D. Mietzner and G. Reger, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Scenario Approaches for Strategic Foresight,” International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 1, no. 2 (2005): 233.
12. Hernon and Saunders, “The Federal Depository Library Program in 2023,” 356.
13. As of Mar. 16, 2012, FDsys officially replaced GPO Access as the GPO’s official system granting access to online information from all three branches of the federal government.
14. Hernon and Saunders, “The Federal Depository Library Program in 2023,” 366.

The post The Future of the FDLP in Public Libraries first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The experiment began when CCH Director of Programs Vanessa Whang contacted the RCLS librarian (at that time Nancy Johnson) in the late summer of 2009 to inquire whether RCLS would be interested in partnering with CCH to train a cohort of librarians to create and facilitate civic dialogue and reflection programs in their libraries. The answer was overwhelmingly yes. We wanted to participate. We were even more motivated to do so when we learned that RCLS would be CCH’s sole library partner for the first year of the pilot program.

Evolution of the Idea

Whang and CCH Senior Program Officer Felicia Kelley related that the project evolved from a number of discussions that had been taking place among CCH staff for some months, a “mosaic of ideas,” in Whang’s description. Part of the impetus arose from an earlier CCH library program for youth, created by Kelley, called “My Place”; part came from “Get Involved,” an initiative of California State Librarian Stacey Aldrich to promote skilled volunteerism in the library; and another part came from Whang’s past experience working in a community cultural center. “We were impressed by the creativity and engagement of the My Place librarians and we found the notion of libraries as ‘hubs for civic engagement’ particularly resonant,” said Whang.¹ She added that her work at the center, which served as a community gathering place for a wide variety of people, reinforced her belief in the continuing need for places that use cultural works and personal experience as catalysts for getting people to interact. Kelley went on to explain that “libraries are the only viable public institution that people have the chance to experience every day. Libraries are real crossroads where people can encounter other people with views different from their own, a place where people can come together and share views in a safe space.”² Whang added that “we wanted to test the idea that libraries could be more proactive in creating opportunities for interaction among those people and thereby create a greater sense of real community.”

The other catalytic element in planning the program was the role of the Project for Civic Reflection (PCR). This organization has been working for years to encourage people to come together and reflect on their values and the values that shape their communities. PCR pioneered the concept of using a text—a short written piece or other cultural artifact—to elicit a discussion under the guidance of a trained facilitator. CCH approached PCR because of its long track record of using this technique with many service-oriented groups such as AmeriCorps and Campus Compact, as well as many state humanities councils across the country. However, they primarily worked with groups of employees, members, or volunteers of an organization who had common goals. The idea of using the concept in a public library environment where anyone from the public could be involved was greatly intriguing to the staffs of both PCR and CCH.
CCH staff felt that PCR’s technique of using a text that presents a rich array of possible interpretations to stimulate discussion, held huge promise for the project. Using as a metaphor of how potters make a smooth cut in soft clay by easing in the point of a tool at an oblique angle instead of straight on, Whang explained that a story (or a film clip or a song) can create an easy point of entry into the discussion of a potentially difficult subject. Whereas heading straight into a controversial issue can immediately put people at odds with each other.

But why did CCH staff even want to bother? Why do they feel that it is so important to have community members come together and interact with each other? For one thing, it’s their mission, which states that, “The Council connects Californians to ideas and one another in order to understand our shared heritage and diverse cultures, inspire civic participation, and shape our future.”³ Kelley went on to explain: “It goes back to fragmentation and isolation and alienation. When people don’t talk to each other, they fear each other. People that are fearful are more easily manipulated and that becomes very dangerous.” Whang added: “It’s perhaps the irony of the information age that we are more connected than ever virtually, but so much more in need of connectedness in real time and space.”

We asked CCH what qualities they were looking for in a library partner and why they chose RCLS. Whang answered that initially they had been on a path of working only with branch libraries, as they had in the past, until Aldrich steered them in a different direction. Aldrich suggested they work at a jurisdictional, or system, level. Whang said she immediately saw the value of that idea, and that any hope for making civic dialogue in libraries an embedded and sustainable practice that could lead to systemic change would have to have buy-in from the top down as well as the bottom up.

Once they had made the choice to work at a system level, then they sought a library system that had certain characteristics. They wanted a system that would be large enough, and with enough demographic diversity, that it could offer branches that served different types of clienteles. In short, they sought a system that could be a microcosm of California. Riverside County encompasses a wide range of communities: modest and affluent; urban, rural, and suburban; and with mixes of ethnicities, ages, and levels of education. “We had heard good things about the Riverside County Library System,” said Whang. “We heard Riverside is a respected system with a reputation for being on the leading edge of practice; a place that would be willing to take a risk on something new; a place that would embrace the concept.”

Why Did RCLS Say Yes?

The RCLS management team jumped at the opportunity to partner with CCH to present these programs. In many ways, the project marked the culmination of a multi-year growth toward offering outstanding and different programs for adults in the county library. Like most libraries, RCLS had offered children’s programs for many years. But library management and staff came to recognize that a key service response lay in expanding its programming offerings in a variety of avenues. In 2004, RCLS launched an extensive outreach program to Latino residents called Leer Es Triunfar (Reading is Succeeding). In addition to extensive new programming to the adult and young adult Latino community (including computer classes, ESL classes, and author programs), the library began celebrating El día de los niños/El día de los libros (Children’s Day/Book Day)—Día for short. RCLS staff also took a lead in organizing a statewide committee to investigate the feasibility of promoting Día on a statewide level. That effort led to the California State Library adopting Día as an official program, thus becoming a so-called “Día state.”

Concurrent with that effort, RCLS had begun to promote new and varied cultural programming for adults in a number of ways. Through the work of a contract employee, Kathryn Morton, RCLS added a vibrant cultural programming series starting in the fall of 2007 and extending through the spring of 2008 (and repeated again in the spring of 2009). This series brought multicultural programs of poetry, music, performance, lectures, and demonstrations to RCLS. Meanwhile, other libraries in the county were presenting their own adult programming series. The Temecula Library began partnering with the school district to present a Temecula Reads series and a similar series began in Glen Avon called Jurupa Reads. At Palm Desert Library, library staff and the Friends group launched a vigorous series of programs, including a cooking series in which chefs demonstrated recipes and shared their creations with the audience. As a result of this new emphasis on programming, total program attendance increased at RCLS by 120 percent from 2005–06 to 2008–09 and, in the same period, adult program attendance quadrupled from 15,517 to 61,748.

Against this background of escalating adult programming, CCH’s proposal to explore a new type of programming, one that had not generally been tried in libraries before, greatly appealed to RCLS management. Whang and Kelley sketched out CCH’s vision for these programs. They would have the following characteristics:

1. Library staff would be formally trained to facilitate discussions among attendees at the programs, and that these discussions were designed to be for small groups of people to allow for depth of interactions.
2. The programs would key off a “text,” which they liberally interpreted to mean a short story, poem, painting, film excerpt, photograph, or any other cultural artifact with ample potential for interpretation.
3. The library staff would seek out partnerships in the community to bring diverse points of view to the programs.
4. The programs would be organized around national holidays and days of observance in order to provide a rich context for community discussion and engagement (such as the MLK Day of Service in January) and to aid in the coordination of technical assistance provision.

RCLS management and staff immediately recognized that these programs were fundamentally different than the standard library program. In the traditional adult programming model, the role of the library staff is to organize and promote the program, introduce the event, become part of the audience for the event, then serve refreshments at the end. In this new model, the role of library staff is at the front of the room, not the back. Armed with the training provided by CCH, the staff would reach out to partner agencies, pick the text, and then be responsible for gently guiding a discussion among patrons. This is a very different model and one that could be very intimidating to some staff. First, librarians need to handle expectations of the public who are used to being presented with a program rather than their discussion being the program. Second, if the point is to draw out a public discussion around a topic that may be controversial, library empoyees could find themselves in the middle of a very animated, even confrontational discussion.

The Participating Libraries

Rising to the challenge, six RCLS managers volunteered to participate in the program. In keeping with CCH’s interest in having diverse communities involved, the six participating libraries represented very different communities. They were:

• Cathedral City, located in the desert region of the county, serving a mix of middle-income families and winter retirees. Branch manager: Amy Dodson.
• Coachella, a small facility located in a remodeled church in the eastern Coachella Valley desert area, serving a population that is approximately 80 percent Latino, with a high percentage of monolingual Spanish speakers. Branch manager: Veronica Evans.
• Glen Avon, a larger facility in the west end of the county serving a modest-income community in a semi-rural area west of the city of Riverside, with an ethnically diverse population of Latinos, African Americans, and whites. Branch manager: Tracie Carignan.
• Home Gardens, a new library wedged in an unincorporated area between the cities of Riverside and Corona, serving a largely Latino population with many monolingual Spanish speakers. Branch manager: Alicia Doktor.
• Palm Desert, a large and modern building co-located with the College of the Desert community college library and serving a demographically mixed community—including college students, nearby country-club residents, snowbirds, Latinos, and others. Branch manager: Jeannie Kays.
• Woodcrest, a beautiful, new, LEED-certified, craftsman-style library facility serving a mainly upper-middle-class community in a suburban area just south of the city limits of Riverside. Branch manager: Connie Rynning.

The Training

This is the group—joined by RCLS regional managers and program staff—that assembled in October 2009 for training sponsored by CCH and conducted by PCR. PCR trainers Ryan Lewis and Georgina Dodge led a two-day session in which RCLS staff members explored not only the techniques of stimulating and guiding discussions, but also how to select literature that would bring out the type of discussion that CCH and PCR encouraged.

A quote from the text The Drum Major Instinct by Dr. Martin Luther King began the training. In a very encouraging tone, Lewis asked, “What does this say to you?” All attendees were asked to have read the text the day before in order to be prepared to discuss. However, at first no one felt truly prepared to answer how this text made them personally feel. This stems from a traditional programming setting in which participants are rarely asked their opinion, and much less often how they feel. Another question was presented, “What do you think Martin Luther King Jr. is saying here?” Once participants understood this was a different, more comfortable setting, an inspiring discussion followed. Each participant spoke of his or her experiences, memories, and reactions to this quote and the text in its entirety. The text evoked a profound reflection that all participants felt they needed to share. It was a discussion that was hard to conclude.

Lewis commended all of the participants for having shared, and said with a smile, “You have now participated in a civic discussion, the type of discussions you will be having at your libraries.” Giving the group some time to reflect on what had just commenced, Dodge led a debriefing. She noted techniques and offered suggestions on leading a discussion. In addition, the entire training was devoted to sessions on civic discussions, such as the initial exercise, with different forms of literature as well as themes. Lewis and Dodge discussed the three stages of civic reflection: what happens before, during, and after the discussion. By the end of the training all participants understood the foundation of this new model of programming. It meant to encourage participants to reflect on their personal experiences and impressions, listen to those of others, and discuss ideas on a deeper level. Most importantly it is creating a sense of space and community within the library for civic reflection, civic dialogue, and civic engagement.⁴

The Programs

Between October 2009 and June 2010, the six libraries participating in Making a Difference held a total of eighteen programs, most of them planned around the following observances: Martin Luther King Day, National Women’s History Month, César Chávez Day, and Memorial Day. The programs reflected a range of complexity. The first two programs were held at the Woodcrest and Cathedral City libraries and built a discussion around the themes of the book, Wherever There’s a Fight: How Runaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants, Strikers and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties in California.⁵ In both cases, the library offered a program featuring a reading with the book’s authors and a separate program in which the library managers led a discussion of an excerpt from the book.

In celebrating MLK National Day of Service (also known as Martin Luther King Jr. Day), the Palm Desert Library (PDL) planned a two-part program. The first part of the program was a community discussion. Those who participated in the discussion would be offered a “backstage pass” as well as premier seating at the second part of the program, a meet-the-author event. To create an intimate discussion, Kays focused the discussion on a particular audience: teens. She led a stimulating discussion with the teens around injustice and nonviolent solutions in the community of Palm Desert. The discussion centered on the text Burro Genius by award-winning author and peace advocate Victor Villaseñor.⁶ More than fifteen teens participated in the discussion.

After reading the assigned text, participants were asked thought-provoking questions in relation to education. The protagonist in the book is chastised for his inability to speak English—this resonated deeply with many of the participants. They shared their stories, as they related to the feeling of being a burro (slang for an idiot). As more and more participants began to share personal stories, Kays turned the discussion into a message of empowerment, asking the often difficult question, “What are you going to do about it?” followed by a friendlier version, “What are some non-violent solutions?” They pondered for a long time. Some mentioned they did not think they could do something about it. Further questioning led to a revelation. In reading the novel and participating in this discussion, they now realized they could do something about the injustices they faced in school with nonviolence, as both King and Villaseñor did.

The second part of the program had many in the community very excited, especially the teens who participated in the first part. Villaseñor would speak at PDL. The event was full to capacity. The teens who participated had a chance to meet Villaseñor before the program with their “backstage passes.” They also sat in the front row and received their very own copies of Burro Genius. Villaseñor’s speech was moving, as he spoke about the importance of education and peace. While he discussed his life story of being dyslexic and punished for it, he spent most of his time sharing how he did something about it: He finished school and became an award-winning author all because he believed that he was more than a burro.

March 31 marks the birthday of labor rights activist César E. Chávez. The Home Gardens Library (HGL) hosted a program titled “Dream Street” in partnership with the Inlandia Institute, a nonprofit literary center supporting literary activities within the Inland Empire. The program focused on the changing nature of the American Dream through the photos and writings of local artist Douglas McCulloh’s book, Dream Street.⁷ The program consisted of a photo exhibit and a community discussion. The program began with a presentation from McCulloh about his work on Dream Street, which centers on the men and women who work in the construction industry building houses in the Inland Empire area of California. These workers—often undocumented and poorly paid—struggle to provide a piece of the American Dream for others, as they build California suburban neighborhoods, while they also know that the dream is far out of their reach.

After an interesting presentation, McCulloh and the HGL branch manager facilitated a civic discussion about the American Dream, immigration, and labor rights today. The discussion began almost immediately as all twelve participants had something to say. The discussion led itself as attendees shared stories and presented additional topics in relation to labor today. The conversation continued and lasted well over the two hours allotted for the program.
Perhaps the purest example of what these programs can evoke came at the Coachella Library’s Memorial Day program. Having been unable to secure a desired speaker, branch manager Evans decided to make the participants the speakers. Attendees were invited to “honor the sacrifice of our military troops, to share photos and personal experiences, and to enjoy a discussion about freedom with local teens,” Evans said.⁸

While initially surprised to be put at the center of the program, the nine teenagers and twelve adults in attendance soon volunteered to speak about their experiences or those of their loved ones. Evans asked the adults to explain to the teens what various terms or phrases meant (such as “the draft,” “Agent Orange,” and “deployed”) as they came up in the discussion. Three of the men personally brought up their diagnoses of cancer from the spraying of Agent Orange. One teenager shared an essay that she had written on “What Freedom Means to Me.”

Evans said, “The oldest female, who appeared to be in her late eighties, was so happy just to be among widows who understood and shared the commitment their husbands made. One widow currently has two sons serving in different parts of the world. There were many moments of sincerity. A few teens came in to the library [later] and said they’d never seen a man cry.”

Evaluating the Program

Following the conclusion of the Making a Difference programs, staff and management began to discuss the pros and cons of the project. Some evaluation occurred in internal staff conversations and some with CCH and PCR staff. While the reactions of staff and management are very positive, a debriefing session held on June 21, 2010, revealed that staff and library administration had somewhat differing reactions to the program.

Is any new endeavor free from bumps in the road? Management tended to see this pilot as an important turning point for the library system, one that changed the dynamic of the kind of programming offered, and began to position the library as a key crossroads of the community where the public could feel comfortable engaging in this type of conversation and exploring topics of individual and community values. While the participating staff wouldn’t disagree with this or dispute the success of the programs, they (not surprisingly) tended to feel the challenges more acutely. There was confusion about how to structure the dialogue programs (for example, should there be a typical presentational event and then have a text-based dialogue as a pre- or post-event discussion?). Some weren’t sure why they were being asked to program around national days of observance. (This was the choice of CCH in order to have a subject-matter focus for programs, the possibility for collaboration among branches, and to be able to coordinate the timing of planning and debriefing technical assistance calls with the library staff.) Some of the branch managers were unclear if staff or management were in charge of determining the content of the programs. As stated previously, this was a very different model of library programming, so the road from old to new was not always smooth.
Nevertheless, the overall assessment of both branch and administrative staff was highly positive. The following are the broad conclusions shared by all RCLS staff:

• The civic reflection model was effective; the public did seem to find the library a natural place to come together and they did engage in the process and interact meaningfully at the library.
• This type of programming is an opportunity to connect the library with new clienteles, develop new partner opportunities, and position the library in a new and potentially exciting relationship with the community.
• Library staff acquired valuable new skills that represented a growth opportunity for themselves and for their libraries.
• The programming put the library at the center of the community and the library staff gained new insights into the nature of their communities and what sorts of programming resonated with their communities.
• These programs required a different standard of success; unlike other programs, drawing a huge crowd was no longer the goal. In some cases, the staff wished more people had come to the discussions, but crowds of more than twenty or twenty-five people made meaningful dialogue more difficult.
• Simple is better. Discussions built around simple content—like a single page of literature, a few photographs, or a film clip—were often more stimulating than programs built around more elaborate or longer presentations.

Most significantly, library staff found that this type of programming can be highly rewarding and can lead to very interesting connections. In one instance, a group from the University of California Riverside traveled to HGL for the first time. A few days later, that same group was instrumental in holding a meeting at HGL attended by National Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine. In another situation, a local group that fights for the rights of local residents to have safe air and water, partnered for a discussion at the Glen Avon Library. Several weeks later, that same group presented a health fair at the library that drew dozens of local residents.

CCH was pleased by the first year of the project as well. “We learned a tremendous amount from working with Riverside, PRC, and our other consultants on this pilot. We believe it does have the promise to effect profound change in libraries and we feel lucky to be able to continue to improve the program with our partners and support libraries to not only be access points of knowledge, but places of community engagement,” Whang commented.⁹ Kelley added, “As librarians and staff learn new skills, a base of knowledge will grow upon which others can build. We hope by providing this training that we are giving the librarians something no one can take away.”¹⁰

Conclusion

Making a Difference lived up to its name. The programs made a difference with the citizens who attended them and with the library staff. We are pleased that CCH was awarded a second year of LSTA funding (for 2010–11) and combined with its own resources has expanded this project to two other California libraries—Salinas Public Library and the Yolo County Library—while funding a second year of participation by RCLS. CCH instituted various improvements to the program (which has since been renamed “Now We’re Talking”) based on its experiences with RCLS and its own evaluation, and hopes to continue
to expand it to other jurisdictions who are interested in engaging with their communities in a proactive way. The staff of RCLS is very grateful to CCH for bringing this exciting project to Riverside County and is committed to making civic engagement an enduring aspect of its programming and services into the future.

REFERENCES

1. Vanessa Whang, email interview with the author, Feb. 27, 2011.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. An account of the training can be found on the website of the Project for Civic Reflection.
5. Elaine Elinson and Stan Yogi, Wherever There’s a Fight: How Runaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants, Strikers and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties in California (Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books, 2009).
6. Victor Villaseñor, Burro Genius: A Memoir (New York: HarperCollins, 2004).
7. Douglas McCulloh, Dream Street (Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books, 2009).
8. Veronica Evans, Coachella Library program report, June 5, 2010.
9. Whang, email interview with the author.
10. Ibid.

The post Making a Difference: Civic Engagement at the Public Library first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The Fayetteville Free Library (FFL), a member library of the Onondaga Public Library System, is located in a suburb of Syracuse, New York. FFL purchased the old Stickley Furniture factory in 2001, a historic building with deep roots in the community. The library was founded in 1906 and had two previous homes prior to 2001. Rated a five-star library by Library Journal for four consecutive years, FFL has worked hard to meet the growing and changing needs of the community. While the library is chartered to serve just over ten thousand people, the circulation statistics and qualitative data collected show a much larger area of service. Throughout the past year, FFL has been working to create a new, fully integrated library service: The FFL Fabulous Laboratory — the first permanent makerspace in a public library.

What Is a Makerspace?

A makerspace is a place where people come together to create and collaborate, to share resources, knowledge, and stuff. This definition sounds oddly familiar, doesn’t it? It reminds me of . . .the public library. Makerspaces developed out of do-it-yourself (DIY) culture. They evolved from a desire to understand, tinker, remake, and share. A few years ago, Willow Brugh wrote:

When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Which is to say, you use the tools you have to solve the problems at hand. Tools and technology do, of course, range everywhere from a wrench to language to roads to electricity. And when your tool is the mindset of a maker, any system at hand looks like something to be tinkered with and improved upon.¹

Makerspaces give people the tools to create, hack, and remake their world for the better. They give people the ability to, in the wise words of Neil Gershenfeld, create local solutions to local problems.²

The library profession is constantly evolving and adapting to meet the needs of our communities in the best and most effective ways possible. These evolutions and adaptations are usually caused by a technological catalyst of some kind; new tools come along that enable us to better serve our communities. It is truly an exciting time to be in the information profession—there are multiple tools at our disposal, many new and innovative ways to work with our communities to meet their information needs. Libraries are moving beyond the dated and limited definition of a warehouse of books to a new model of community resource that includes tech times, job search assistance, Skype author series, and more. R. David Lankes, professor and dean’s scholar for new librarianship at Syracuse University said, “Librarianship is not about artifacts, it is about knowledge and facilitating knowledge creation. So what should we be spending our precious resources on? Knowledge creation tools, not the results of knowledge creation.”³

Librarians are not curators of books, we are leaders in our communities, who are able to provide services and access that are not available anywhere else. However, to fully embrace this role, to actually facilitate knowledge creation in our communities, we need not only new tools, but perhaps new mindsets as well—the mindset of a maker. Why would libraries include makerspaces in their services? Because librarians (and therefore libraries) facilitate knowledge creation, in other words the why, and makerspaces are a tool, or the how.

Before tackling a project like this it is essential that, as an organization, you challenge your own assumptions about what a librarian’s job is—what librarians are “supposed” to do. At every level of the hierarchy, people need to be empowered to have big ideas and to take risks. This can only happen if both staff and management are not only tolerant of risk but also able to effectively manage the risks. The culture of innovation needs to exist and be supported internally before being taken to the community at large.

I asked FFL Executive Director Sue Considine how, as a manager, she created the environment in which this kind of project could flourish. She said:

First and foremost, I am not a manager. I don’t manage people, I don’t manage your work, I don’t manage your lives. I’m a facilitator. I’ve been able to help this team understand that my expectations are very high and that I have absolute trust in them. The team also understands that in order for these expectations to be met, on behalf of the community, incredible risk taking has to happen constantly—I encourage everyone to think with a risk-taking mentality, with a “why not, let’s try it” attitude. The only way this works is when everyone involved understands that failure is absolutely ok. This culture of innovation was built with clear, open communication and, at the base of it all, trust. When someone comes to me with an idea I don’t necessarily judge the idea, I immediately go into “let’s try it” mode; how do we make this happen—you need time, you need people, you need resources, you need press. Let’s look at the budget, timing, and resources and let’s do it.⁴

The Fab Lab

It is one thing to talk about these ideas. It is another to actually implement them. The FFL Fabulous Laboratory (or the FFL Fab Lab) developed out of a proposal I created for a course while earning my MLIS at Syracuse University. The course was called Innovation in Public Libraries and over the semester we were introduced to a number of interesting ideas, places, and people, including the Syracuse University Design Works Lab and 3D printing. The class had a loose structure that allowed us to create our own final project with the goal of creating an actionable, innovative thing. I decided to research and develop a proposal to build a Makerspace, with 3D printing at its foundation, in a public library. The proposal, titled “3D Printing: A Catalyst for Community Collaboration,” included an introduction to 3D printing, the difference between hackerspaces, makerspaces, tech shops, and fabrication labs.⁵ It also included goals and outcomes, a S.W.O.T. analysis, a budget, possible sources of funding, descriptions of responsible parties, and more. Key stakeholders in the community were identified and recruited. I presented my idea to Considine and she hired me to execute the program.

It is important to point out that there were barriers to launching this idea. I actually created three different proposals to present to Considine because I took time to understand the potential barriers to my idea and understood what the assumptions might be—and I had a plan to work through each of them. I developed a thorough and strategic process in order to ensure the greatest possibility for success. This project did not happen overnight, but was supported with research, nurtured by passionate community supporters, executed by an incredible staff, and it enabled FFL to engage with the community in a new way.

Like many programs and services in a library, the question of funding was one of the first issues we needed to tackle. My first task as a new librarian at FFL was grant writing. We are still raising funds for the physical location of the FFL Fab Lab in the east wing of the library, but this hasn’t stopped us from moving forward with launching programs and creating access—the FFL Fab Lab is currently mobile. With a small collection of carts and staff we can take this makerspace anywhere.

In addition to writing grants we are using a number of other sources to raise funds. In October 2011, I participated in the Contact Summit in New York City hosted by Douglas Rushkoff. I presented the FFL Fab Lab at the Bazaar, where we competed for and won one of three $10,000 awards. As part of the award we were given a free campaign on Indiegogo, a crowd-sourced funding site. We were able to raise an additional $4,000 through this campaign. We had donors from around the world.

The FFL Fab Lab started with a 3D printer, the MakerBot Thing-O-Matic. Our first Thing-O-Matic was donated by Express Computer Services in Manlius, N.Y. This MakerBot required assembly—think Ikea furniture but with more parts and a truly phenomenal customer service/support team. I connected with one of our patrons, Tim Brower, who runs the Syracuse University Design Works Lab, and he volunteered to help me assemble the MakerBot.

Our second Thing-O-Matic was also purchased through a donation, although this one came fully assembled. I asked Bre Pettis, founder of MakerBot and NYCResistor, for a quick description of what a MakerBot is and what it can do. He said, “A MakerBot is a tool for innovating. The cost of using it is low so that you can fail as many times as you need to until you are satisfied. You can download digital designs from Thingiverse for free and even modify many of them and customize them! I would love to see more MakerBots in libraries so that more people can have access to the raw power of innovation.”⁶

These 3D printers are smaller than you might think, and fit easily on a desk—only slightly larger than a regular ink-and-paper printer. The next generation of MakerBot was recently released, the Replicator, and it is at the very top of my materials wish list. Three-dimensional printers use ABS plastic to print objects and it comes in a variety of colors—including glow-in-the-dark. The Thing-O-Matic printers we have at FFL cost under $2,000 and the Replicator is listed on the MakerBot website at $1,749.

While our makerspace started with 3D printing, it has grown to fully incorporate all avenues of maker culture. The technology is certainly important, however it is not the focus. The focus is placed directly on giving our patrons the tools they need to create, to foster a read/write culture in our community. Read/write culture encourages people to add, change, influence, and interact with their culture.⁷ People consume information and then use that information to produce or create something new. For example, through this program, children have the opportunity to make their own books, which can then be catalogued and circulated in the library. We are currently developing innovative and exciting summer reading programs, including bringing in local experts to teach a range of classes, like Intro to Digital Fabrication and Intro to Computer Programming.

The Importance of Community

One of the essential components of a successful makerspace is community. Traditionally, hackerspaces and makerspaces develop rather organically. You have to start with the people. Our community is full of experts—and so is yours. Technology teachers, local artists, computer programmers, and lawyers—these experts and practitioners from all fields, active and retired, have knowledge that is worth sharing. It is our job to create access and develop an environment where people can come together to share resources (whether they be physical or mental), collaborate, and create.

As librarians we are the facilitators—we do not have to be experts. This technology can be downright scary for some librarians and others simply have no desire to use it. And that’s ok. However, we can’t allow our lack of desire, interest, or understanding to create a barrier to access. As you build the program, you connect with the community—the experts are there.

Makerspaces are a natural extension of library services. As a society we are moving toward a read/write culture. Because of innovations in technology it is simple for all people to be creators as well as consumers. There are a number of excellent reasons for encouraging this spark of innovation, including fostering new ideas that can transform our lives and the world. Our patrons no longer simply consume. They have the transformational opportunity to create, to put their thoughts, dreams, wishes, aspirations, and skills out into the world. Why not help our patrons create, by giving them access to the tools and information they need to do it, and then circulate their creations?

This is what a library makerspace is. It is not just about providing access to machines like 3D printers and laser cutters, although this technology is important. Makerspaces in libraries give our communities the opportunity to make anything. From a feature-length film, to designing the next game-changing technology innovation—the sky is the limit. As librarians we don’t need to become experts in movie making, we need to do what we have always done—provide access, space, and facilitate opportunity. Maybe this means taking a class on digital fabrication to get the basics. Maybe it means bringing in community members to share their knowledge by volunteering to teach classes or workshops. It will mean something different to each library because a library is, and must be, a reflection of its community and each one is different.

Neil Gershenfeld stated that, “Literacy has, if anything, regressed over time to the most minimal meaning of reading and writing words, rather than grown to encompass the expressive tools that have come along since the Renaissance.”⁸ You would be hard-pressed to find a librarian who doesn’t believe that promoting literacy is at the heart of their work. But we need to expand our definition of what literacy is and embrace the idea of transliteracy. Yes, many consider it to be a buzzword, but the concept is real. Transliteracy is the ability to read, write, and interact across a range of platforms and tools. Makerspaces give us a way to promote new forms of literacy, to help our patrons communicate across a range of platforms that are necessary for success.

Douglas Rushkoff is one of my greatest sources of inspiration. His book, Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands For A Digital Age,⁹ changed the course of both my MLIS education and my future career. In the introduction of the book he writes, “When human beings acquired language, we learned not just how to listen but how to speak. When we gained literacy, we learned not just how to read but how to write. And as we move into an increasingly digital reality, we must learn not just how to use programs but how to make them.”¹⁰

Public libraries are truly democratizing institutions in that we break through the divides and we bridge the gaps that society constructs. We can’t bridge the digital divide simply by offering access to free Internet and computers. We need to give our communities equal access to the tools they need to be successful in creating knowledge. Makerspaces can help teens learn to create a videogame, not just play one. In an inspiring presentation, Ned Potter (also
known as “thewikiman”) asserts that the top ten jobs in 2010 did not exist in 2004.¹¹ How do we help our patrons adjust to such a fast-paced, ever-changing information landscape? My answer: makerspaces.

Programming at FFL

While we wait for the physical space to be renovated, we are hosting a variety of programming opportunities to ensure our community has access to the technology. We hold monthly Fab Lab open houses where patrons can use all of our “making” supplies and technology with librarians and community support members present to facilitate. These open houses are designed to be exploratory; we do not staff each table with librarians and instruction manuals. We encourage our patrons to wander through and experiment. We cover the walls with white butcher paper and encourage our patrons and visitors to write about what they’re experiencing, to examine their assumptions about what a library is supposed to do, and to think about what a library might be able to do.

In addition to the monthly open houses, we host monthly workshops for duct-tape art, hardware jewelry, and more. We are currently working with a variety of local community members, as well as maker enthusiasts across the country, to offer a variety of in-person and Skype workshops.

Once the physical space is renovated and open for use, we will add additional technology that is generally associated with fabrication labs, tech shops, and
makerspaces, like a laser cutter and CNC router. These machines require more training and direction than MakerBot 3D printers. So librarians on staff are currently learning how to use them, and studying their software and safety elements. FFL has invested resources to give me the opportunity to enroll in Syracuse University’s Intro to Digital Fabrication course to build a strong foundation in the basics that I can then share with my colleagues, students, and community members. As we are the first public library to incorporate a makerspace into our plan of service in this way, our goal is to share the knowledge with you—librarians across the country who are interested in creating similar opportunities for their communities.

Conclusion

Many of you might be thinking that you don’t have access to a university with a lab like Syracuse University, or that you don’t have the funds to purchase a laser cutter. And, guess what? That’s ok! The cool thing about library makerspaces is that there aren’t any requirements. Have a conversation with your community and discover what they know and what they want to know more about. We are doing something that has never been done before—the only rules are to be creative, encourage your patrons to create as well as consume, and give them access to the tools they need to do this. Be open to alternative forms of fundraising, like a crowd-source campaign. Gershenfeld has said that the future of technology lies not in thinking outside the box, but in making the box.¹² I argue that the same can be said for public libraries. Let’s make a new box.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Willow Brugh, “Why I Believe in Maker Culture,” The Steampunk Workshop, Feb. 4, 2010, accessed June 18, 2012.
2. Neil Gershenfeld, Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desk Top—From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 13.
3. R. David Lankes, The Atlas of New Librarianship (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011).
4. Sue Considine, personal interview with the author, Dec. 1, 2012.
5. You can see an excerpt of the proposal, including my literature review, on my blog.
6. Bre Pettis, email interview with the author, Feb. 17, 2012.
7. Wikipedia’s “Remix Culture” entry, accessed June 18, 2012.
8. Gershenfeld, Fab, 41–42.
9. Douglas Rushkoff, Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands For A Digital Age (New York: OR Books. 2010).
10. Ibid., 7.
11. Ned Potter, “The Time for Libraries Is Now,” thewikiman (blog), Mar. 13, 2011, accessed June 18, 2012.
12. Gershenfeld, Fab, 17.

The post A Fabulous Labaratory: The Makerspace at Fayetteville Free Library first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

But there’s always more to do. The barriers between software, data, and creativity are becoming increasingly porous, and have led more people to start programming their own technology tools.¹ At the local level, the results have been impressive. Last year, the city of Chicago began offering an application programming interface (API)—a set of tools programmers can use to interact with large sets of public data. Since that time, people have used these datasets to create everything from snowplow trackers to apps for locating the nearest free Wi-Fi hotspot. If there’s an open data movement in your community, you’ve probably got some useful local research tools at your disposal.

But we can’t wait for these resources to come to us. If we want to see resources customized to our information needs, we’re going to have to learn a thing or two about code.

I’m not necessarily advocating that librarians go out and become programmers. Rather, I think it’s important for librarians to develop a working knowledge of the mechanics of code. Like many of the topics that come across our desks, we don’t have to be experts to get results. Whether it’s tweaking the PHP in a WordPress template, performing a batch edit on a group of MARC records, or experimenting with a catalog API, knowing just a little bit can go quite a long way. Consider this your crash course in how code can help your library.

Learning to Speak Machine

Just like performing a reference interview, writing code is often a matter of asking the right questions. Despite evidence to the contrary, computers aren’t very smart. They’re designed to respond to very specific queries in a specific fashion. No matter the language, grasping this syntax has a definite learning curve. As a gentle introduction to some of these concepts, I’d urge you to consider the web resource If This Then That. IFTTT provides an elegant solution to the question, “How do I keep all of my social media accounts updated at once?” The service allows you to create tasks — structured triggers based on your social media postings that IFTTT turns into automated actions. Want to send your blog posts to Facebook? Archive your Instagram photos on Flickr? Send a favorited tweet to your Instapaper to-be-read pile? IFTTT has you covered.

If you have an IFTTT account, pick out a few of the premade “recipes,” and examine how each task is structured. Look at the way commands are written out. Which parts are instructions for IFTTT? Where are the variables—the bits pulled from an external web service? What conditions must be fulfilled in order to trigger an action? Gaining an eye for these mechanics will make it easier to recognize similar structures found elsewhere.

Class Is in Session

Hopefully tinkering with IFTTT has given you some ideas. You’ve seen how a little bit of code can streamline parts of your digital routine. Perhaps you’ve even got a few ideas of your own for digging into library data. Where do you start?

The impression is often that you should have started coding back in kindergarten. Traditional computer science classes often assume a certain amount of preexisting knowledge—be it theory, math, or just a general intuition about how programming languages work.

Code Year is a response to that, and a boon to those of us who passed up programming classes in lieu of more practical subjects like library science or underwater basket weaving. Similar to the self-guided course offered by Stanford University and the interactive Python tutorial, Code Year was launched under the belief that the best way to learn how to program was to jump in and start programming.²

The smattering of librarians who have joined Code Year have created an interest group to cheer one another on and to discuss practical applications for their newfound skills. For cofounder Andromeda Yelton, creating such a space seemed like a perfectly logical step. “I noticed that half the people using the Twitter hashtag (#codeyear) were SEO/marketing people, and the other half were librarians. We should have a place where we should talk about that,” she said.³ The space on ALA Connect launched, and a few conversations at ALA Midwinter Meeting turned into an interest group, sponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) and the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS), both divisions of ALA.

This demonstrates an important similarity between coders and librarians: Collaboration is a key factor in both fields. As Yelton pointed out, “The stereotype is that coders are all by themselves working in their basement. But the reality is that past a very introductory level, coding is tremendously social.“⁴ Comparing notes on successes and failures alike serve to further develop these emerging skills.

This mutual affinity for collaboration opens the door to connect with hackers in our own communities. If you can dream up a possible application harnessing library data, there’s a good chance that someone in the hacker community can help you bring it to fruition. Local groups can be found all over Meetup, and electronic mailing lists such as code4lib can help you identify other local resources.

Beyond developing our own skill sets, learning more about how software works can also help us to become better consumers of library products. In Yelton’s view, this can be incredibly empowering. “Even if they never write a single line of code, librarians can really benefit from understanding the software they use and how to talk to the people who make it,” she said.⁵ By providing better feedback, or by developing our own solutions, we can level the playing field in our conversations with vendors.

The Library Code Year group currently has around fifty members, and they’re eager to expand their ranks. Don’t feel pressured to catch up; active participants are all at different points in the process, and can help you think of ways to apply your newfound skills.

Taking Code to the Public

But you don’t have to limit yourself to personal learning and networking. The renewed focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) topics in education gives libraries a chance to offer some complementary programming.⁶ This summer, the youth services department at Darien (Conn.) Library (DL) is doing just that. The library’s workshop series for kids ages nine to twelve is based onCoderDojo, a movement devoted to creating coding clubs for young people.

For Gretchen Caserotti, DL’s assistant director for public services, this was another case of two distinct communities with a common goal. “The structure of [CoderDojo] just really struck a chord with us, because all the things they’re asking for are things libraries are able to provide—a place to come together, strong Internet, and the ability to organize an event. We can do all that,” she said.⁷

CoderDojo Darien will connect kids with mentors recruited from area hacker groups, colleges, and high schools. The flexibility of the seven-week program allows for wiggle room between structured classes on specific languages and open lab time. Through past programs involving Scratch and Minecraft software, Caserotti knows her patrons already have the enthusiasm. “The kids just really love to make stuff,” she said.⁸

For the organizers, the CoderDojo experiment may help them get up to speed. “I don’t know how to code. But I’m willing to learn with the kids. And I think the structure of this is a great way for me to get my own introduction to it,” Caserotti said.⁹ You can track the progress of this program atwww.twitter.com/CoderDojoDarien.

Timing Is Everything

It feels like we’re on the cusp of something. More and more library vendors are releasing APIs for their software. Any worthwhile social media platform has tools for remixing its own content. As local data sets continue to open up, new tools will emerge to help people locate public information. Libraries are well-positioned to be a part of this process.

Beyond the simple act of learning, code opens the door for public librarians to connect with a whole new group of people. As Yelton sees it, “for library technology culture to really flourish, we need to connect librarians in different institutions to collaborative relationships with non-librarians.”¹⁰ Public libraries have always thrived on their ability to connect with important groups in their service area. By trading on this established skill with the coder community, librarians have a chance to add some programming knowledge to their technology toolbox.

Editor’s note: For the full interviews with Andromeda Yelton and Gretchen Caserotti, please visit Public Libraries Online.

REFERENCES

1. Jenna Wortham, “A Surge in Learning the Language of the Internet,” New York Times (online ed.), Mar. 27, 2012, accessed Apr. 27, 2012.
2. For more learning resources, refer to Carli Spina, “Computer Programming Resources,” Pearltrees.com, accessed May 23, 2012.
3. Andromeda Yelton, interview with the author, conducted via Skype on May 23, 2012.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. For more on programming resources for kids, please see Gretchen Caserotti, “Beyond Legos: Coding for Kids,” ALSC Blog: The Official Blog of the Association for Library Service to Children, Mar. 10, 2012, accessed July 11, 2012.
7. Gretchen Caserotti, interview with the author, conducted via Skype on May 23, 2012.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Yelton, interview with the author.

The post 2012: The Year Code Broke first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

I have remembered those words for many years, and now have an opportunity to proudly state that I am standing on the shoulders of all of the past PLA presidents who have come before me, especially Effie Lee Morris (1971–72) and Charles Brown (1990–91), the first and second African Americans, respectively, who had the distinct honor of serving PLA as president.

As I take the office of PLA president, public libraries continue to face unprecedented challenges. No matter the size of our service area population, we all are grappling with the same challenges, just on different levels of scale. Many of us are facing declining budgets; rapidly changing models of e-book pricing and lending; new and emerging technologies; and expanding public services. We all are concerned about institutional relevance and the need for new service models to respond to enhanced user expectations.

In spite of these challenges, I contend that the greatest impediment to the future of public libraries is the growing number of library practitioners who lack community leadership skills. I fear that many key staff members in public libraries are reluctant to interact and work with local government administrators and other community leaders, at a time when it is absolutely crucial to relate how the library finds solutions to meet the needs and priorities of the  communities we serve.

From my vantage point, I am hearing firsthand that on many occasions library leaders do not meet with their local government administrators on a regular basis, and are not present at the table when community issues and goals are discussed. Sadly, in some communities, the library is not even thought of as a potential community partner, because the library is not represented at the table when partnerships are developed.

A case in point happened when my former employer (city of Denton, Tex.) recently contracted with a consulting firm to conduct a nationwide search for a new department head. City administrators narrowed a large field of candidates to five. Only one of the five candidates was local. As is the protocol in Denton, all of the department heads, including the director of libraries, are invited to a reception to meet the finalists. During these occasions, I asked the candidates about the services provided by their local public library to see if they knew the library director’s name. The local candidate was the only one of the five finalists who knew their fellow library department head by name. One of the other four (unsuccessful) candidates even said, “The library director is never invited to high-level meetings like this one.”

This, as well as the many other horror stories that I have heard, leads me to believe that the need for the training and development of community leadership skills for library practitioners is more crucial than ever. We must be willing to find ways to regularly meet with our local government administrators, department heads, and community leaders. At every opportunity, we must be able to articulate how the public library can be a vital partner when community strategic initiatives are being discussed and planned.

I am very pleased that PLA has recognized this critical need. In 2006, PLA established a Leadership Development Task Force, chaired by past-PLA president Luis Herrera, to develop leaders for the profession and the association in response to the changing environment in which public libraries operate. We need leaders who embrace change and can implement a vision that will transform public libraries. The work of the task force, now chaired by Carolyn Anthony, continues. The task force has identified key elements of successful leadership for public libraries. A key observation is that to be an effective library leader, a person must be a community leader, engaged with the community and relating the library’s offerings to the needs and priorities of the community. Effective library leadership also involves partnerships with other agencies in the community. We continue to develop this leadership model and plan to launch it nationally.

As the task force has recognized, we must remember that we share the same challenges and issues as those faced by our local government administrators. In a Public Management (PM) magazine article titled “Picturing It: The Year 2020,” local government administrators were asked to predict what their professional challenges would be in the year 2020.¹ Their predictions were summarized as follows:

• Quality of life and a sense of place will be important to residents.
• IT developments will allow for greater productivity.
• Service delivery will be streamlined.
• Resident engagement will become the norm.
• Performance measurement and benchmarking will be emphasized.
• Teamwork and consensus building will be essential skills.
• Working effectively with diverse and aging populations will be a major skill.
• A commitment to sustainability will be standard.²

Isn’t it ironic that what our local government administrators see for their future is the current reality for us as public library leaders? We can make a difference in the way public libraries are perceived by our local government administrators by becoming not only effective library leaders, but community leaders.

REFERENCES

1. “Picturing It: The Year 2020,” Public Management (PM) 94 no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2012), accessed July 18, 2012.
2. Alliance for Innovation, “Nine Predictions about the Year 2020,” accessed July 18, 2012.

The post Leadership Skills More Crucial Than Ever first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Salem Press, a division of EBSCO Publishing, has announced the release of Critical Survey of Graphic Novels: Heroes & Superheroes, the first of several resources aiming to establish the graphic novel medium as an important academic discipline and research topic in high school, public, and academic libraries. Heroes & Superheroes provides unique insight into the most popular graphic novels and core comics series. Researchers will be familiar with the characters and stories covered but will gain a new, deeper understanding of them as their literary nature is presented in critical format by leading writers in the field. The 130 essays challenge the reader to see beyond the panels of a comic book and its pop-culture aspects, exposing a range of literary themes and artistic styles used to convey beliefs and conflicts, some harking back to ancient times. Other titles in the Critical Survey of Graphic Novels series include Independent and Underground Classics, released in May, and History, Theme, and Technique, scheduled for release in the fall 2012. Salem is extending free online trials to the complete Heroes & Superheroes content in its complementary database (ongoing free access accompanies the print purchase). Trials do not require registration.

Evanced Solutions Launches Peek-a-Book Total Access

You have great children’s picture books, but how do you help parents and kids discover them from home? Peek-A-Book Total Access is a web-based service that provides audiovisual previews to promote your collection. Whether embedded into your own pages or linking to the Peek-A-Book web viewer, your patrons can explore hundreds of titles and check out the print versions or download the e-books directly to their home computer or mobile reading device. Peek-A-Book’s growing content library features Caldecott winners, perennial favorites, and starred reviews from School Library Journal and Booklist. With more than three-hundred titles and more added every month, the previews combine images from the book with narration, music, and effects to give children a peek at the story without telling them how it ends. Administrative tools are available for programming.

EnvisionWare Introduces Grand Central Library

EnvisionWare launched a complete line of 24-Hour Libraries at the 2012 PLA National Conference in March, each designed to deliver a broad range of library services around the clock. The 24-Hour Grand Central Library offers OPAC browsing, remote monitoring, validated patron self-registration, and an online reserve station connected to the ILS via SIP2 or NCIP. Receipt printing, digital signage, and a sorter are integrated features. Library cards are scanned by either an integrated barcode scanner or RFID reader. Libraries can choose a model that provides a selection of 200, 400, or 800 items. Model weight ranges from 3,000 to 8,000 pounds and sizes range from 8′ to 11′ wide and 7′ to 8′ tall. Systems are built for security, extreme weather, and for at-library and remote installation.

Ruckus Releases New Digital Reading App

Ruckus Media Group recently released Ruckus Reader, a learning program for iPad that features digital storybooks that provide parents with personalized feedback on their child’s reading experience. The Ruckus Reader is designed to help young children practice important reading skills and develop a love of reading with characters they love. It addresses the needs of parents and caregivers with weekly Reader Meter email reports and an online dashboard that provides details of their child’s progress. The Ruckus Reader is the first library of mobile apps to deliver a safe and interactive learning environment filled with iReaders (digital storybook titles), eReaders (e-books), narrated video books and videos, and activities for children to enjoy without leaving the library. Ruckus iReaders feature such characters as My Little Pony, Transformers, and The Wiggles. They also feature activities designed to appeal to the creative learner, the science lover, the mathematician, and the music enthusiast with content from Crayola, SeaWorld, Dino Dan, Cyberchase, and VeggieTales. Developed by educational experts, the Ruckus Reader is designed to match age-appropriate standards determined by the Common Core State Standards. Ruckus Media Group creates interactive applications for mobile devices designed to entertain and educate children ages three to eight.

Midwest Tape Debuts Hoopla at PLA

Midwest Tape announced it will launch a digital media platform, Hoopla, later this year. This is the first digital initiative for Midwest Tape, which previewed the platform at the 2012 PLA National Conference in March. Conference attendees got a first look at the new platform designed specifically for libraries. Featuring a clean, user-friendly interface, the platform will provide an exceptional experience for patrons of all abilities. Users will be able to borrow, use, and return the cloud-based stored digital content at any time from their computer or mobile devices. Hoopla will offer a wide selection of music, audiobooks, television shows, and digital movies. Library patrons will be able to use a Netflix-like interface to access one of two lending models, a single-copy/single-user model or a pay-per-circulation model. Libraries that elect to launch the pay-per-circulation model will be able to offer users the entire Midwest catalog without an upfront financial commitment.

EBSCO Releases EBSCOhost Collection Manager

EBSCO Publishing recently introduced EBSCOhost Collection Manager (ECM). With ECM, libraries gain a simplified ordering process and easier ways to search and browse e-books and audiobooks and manage collections. Users can search or browse by title, author, and publisher or make selections from the Subject Sets or Featured Collections created by EBSCO’s collection development experts. ECM can also help libraries create and manage lists of titles they want to expose to patron-driven acquisition, manage deposits, and determine which ownership models to apply to the various e-books and audiobooks in their collection. As ECM expands, it will also be used to manage profiles, lease options, and Smart PDA—which allows patron usage to trigger access upgrades or leases ensuring users never encounter an e-book or audiobook that is “checked out” while also helping libraries keep their
e-book and audiobook costs in check.

Opening the Book Launches Stylish Children’s Units

Opening the Book recently launched three new children’s display units. The company’s philosophy of combining play with book display has been extended to the units’ design to really get children excited. Check out the Rocket Pod, a children’s version of their popular Book Pod, designed to get children (particularly boys) hooked. If your library doesn’t have space for the Reading Hideaway, the new Reading Nook could be the answer. It has all the fun of the Reading Hideaway but works in smaller spaces. And if you’re looking to combine paperback display with a chillout zone, take a look at the new Splash Pod. Brodart is the exclusive distributor for Opening the Book’s library display furniture line, a partnership launched at the 2012 PLA National Conference in March.

OverDrive Showcases WIN Catalog at PLA 2012

OverDrive recently launched its new WIN Catalog and Test Drive as new ways for libraries to expand discovery and increase access to e-books. The OverDrive catalog features more than 700,000 popular e-book and audiobook titles and is growing at a rate of 30,000 titles per month. OverDrive’s new WIN Catalog and Test Drive (the latter covered in a previous issue) complement unique, popular features such as Kindle compatibility (United States only) and the OverDrive Advantage plan, which gives libraries participating in shared collections the ability to offer popular titles exclusively for their patrons. The OverDrive WIN Catalog suite of features supports a win/win/win between libraries, publishers, and readers. Pilot programs are now live in several OverDrive-powered libraries, including New York Public Library, Boston Public Library, and Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Public Library. Features include Buy It Now, which provides
links to enable readers to easily connect with online booksellers to purchase titles and the opportunity for patrons to discover and sample excerpts from hundreds of thousands of additional titles beyond their library’s collection. “Recommend to Library” links provide libraries a new method of patron-driven acquisition. Other features include readers’ advisory tools and Smart Lists. Smart Lists can provide data-driven and editorial lists, such as bestseller and award lists, and even let libraries automatically purchase content according to profile, making ongoing collection development faster and easier.

EBSCO and NoveList Introduce LibraryAware

EBSCO Publishing and the creators of NoveList recently introduced Library-Aware, a product that will revolutionize the way libraries promote their programs and services. In addition, NoveList is also celebrating communities with the Library-Aware Community Award, cosponsored by Library Journal. LibraryAware is an easy-to-use online tool designed to maximize the library’s resources and services. The innovative resource will help libraries create professional-looking promotional materials and then deliver those materials via print, email, social media, and online communication channels. With LibraryAware, librarians can combine professionally designed templates with their own pieces of “reusable content” to carry information across an entire suite of promotional materials that can then easily be delivered to customers, community partners, elected officials, and the media. LibraryAware improves what libraries are already doing with their promotional efforts by providing continually updated designs and best-practice recommendations. LibraryAware tips and templates are available at www.libraryaware.com. First place for the LibraryAware Community Award will be $10,000, second place $7,500, and third place $5,000. Additional information on submission requirements is available athttp://features.libraryjournal.com. The first awards will be presented in 2013.

The post New Product News – Jul/Aug 2012 first appeared on Public Libraries Online.