Author Archives: library-policy

The 10-Minute Digital Librarian #12: Explore Digital Brainstorming Tools

The third round of posts in our 10-Minute Digital Librarian series focuses on digital productivity tools – things that allow you to be more effective in your work.

As highlighted in IFLA’s Global Vision, a key characteristic of the library field is collaboration. Libraries and library and information workers are naturally open to working with each other and sharing, in order better to support the needs of users. That’s why we have associations with committees focused on bringing together people to share ideas and experiences.

We also rely on successful engagement with users in order to design services that work for them. We need to hear their views and ideas to know how best to help them.

Of course, seeking views can also take time, so there’s a real interest in finding ways that are fun, interactive and easy to do this. The result will be stronger strategies, plans and outputs.

Digital brainstorming tools can be really helpful as means of doing this, and so exploring these is the focus of our 12th 10-Minute Digital Librarian post.

One option is a service like Jamboard, offered for free by Google to anyone with a Google account. It effectively acts as a digital whiteboard, where you can add in images, lines or text. It can, for example, act in a similar way to a board where you attach post-it notes with ideas. Other free services online include Mural and Miro.

You could also look at tools focused on mind-mapping, using diagrams to try and write down and organise ideas in order to work with them. Options here include MindMeister and MindMup, both of which allow you to generate an attractive output that can be used later.

These tools allow a number of people to contribute at the same time, opening possibilities for group work, or simply giving people time to come up with and contribute their ideas in a way that can easily be read and accessed by others. In particular, they can be helpful for potential contributors who may feel uncomfortable speaking up, or not be so confident in the main language used. They can also allow people to build off each other’s ideas of course.

In this way, you can hopefully make seeking and generating ideas from colleagues as easy and exciting as possible.

Let us know about the digital brainstorming tools that you have found most useful in the comments below!

 

If you are interested in issues around digital tools in libraries in general, you should take a look at the work of IFLA’s Information Technology Section.

Discover our full series of 10-Minute Digital Librarian posts, as well as our infographics.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #85: Think of a library myth that you can debunk

Libraries have long been key institutions in communities.

While this means that we have strong name recognition, it’s not always the case that people know what we’re about. There are a lot of library myths out there.

Look up library stereotypes on the internet, and there’s plenty of material. Although of course, you have probably come across many of these yourself in your work.

While some myths are relatively harmless, others give a dangerous false impression of what we do.

They can influence decisions about libraries – from discouraging someone from visiting the library, to giving a politician the impression that there is little harm in voting against library funding.

It is therefore important to be able to identify and correct these impressions.

So for our 85th 10 Minute International Librarian exercise, think of a library myth that you can debunk!

What false ideas do you come across that shape the way that people think about where you work?

How are they wrong? Maybe they are outdated (many people’s last experience of libraries was from their student days or childhood, which may be a long time ago)? Maybe they ignore the diversity of libraries?

Think then about how you can show why they are wrong – either in words or in your actions – and how to do this in a way that will change someone’s mind, for example with humour, or by remaining positive.

Share your best examples of debunked library myths in the comments box below.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 1.1 Show the power of libraries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. 

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!

The 10-Minute International Librarian #84: Celebrate the Local

Libraries have a mission to put global information into the hands of people, wherever they are.

Through their own collections policies, inter-library loan and document supply, and advocacy for internet provision and open access, they help overcome barriers to information.

This is a vital mission, allowing ideas to spread, mutual understanding to build, and innovation to happen.

Yet libraries are, alongside their focus on global access to information, also about fitting into their communities, responding to their needs.

They are both international and local at the same time, with a duty both to respond to local needs, and to act as a key part of the local cultural, educational and research infrastructure.

Demonstrating this attachment to the community, to the area, can also be a great way of building engagement.

So for our 84th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, celebrate the local!

Think about the particularities of your area and your community. Are there possibilities – in your collections, your services, your staff even – to draw on this as a source of strength?

What about the particular needs of your community that might mark them out from other places? Can you identify these and think how to respond?

What more can you do to attach yourself to the community you are in, in order to realise the potential of your library at the heart of ‘place-building’ and community cohesion?

Share your ideas in the comments below.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 3.3 Empower the field at the national and regional levels

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!

 

The 10-Minute International Librarian #83: think about different learning styles

Effective teaching requires two or more people – the information giver and the information receiver.

For information to be understood, and skills to be learned, the two (or more) people need to be attuned – in other words, the way that the teacher teaches, and the learner learns, need to fit together.

This can place particular responsibilities on the person giving the information – either in person, in writing, or in other ways – to flex their style in order to be most effective.

Why does this matter in libraries?

Many library and information professionals do carry out teaching activities, for example around (information) literacy, to develop digital skills, or the content of library collections.

But event beyond specific training or education sessions, so much of what libraries do is about giving information – about how to get the best out of the library, its services, and its collections!

So for our 83rd 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, think about different learning styles.

In your experience, what has proven most effective in helping users to understand the opportunities that are open to them?

How can you structure the information you are providing best? Do users respond better to shorter bursts of learning? Do they prefer learning by doing, or a more theoretical approach?

Let us know about your experiences in the comments box below!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 2.3: Develop standards, guidelines, and other materials that foster best professional practice

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!

The 10-Minute International Librarian #82: Ask for a testimonial

It’s important for libraries to be able to tell the story of what they do.

Showing how a collection, a service or a programme can make a difference to someone’s life is a powerful way of explaining why our institutions and our profession matter.

You can find some great examples of this on the Library Map of the World for example.

But as we’ve already discussed in a previous exercise, sometimes the most powerful advocates for libraries are non-librarians.

Because while librarians advocating for libraries is to be expected, external support can provide key support, getting new groups to think about what is so important our work.

While they can be someone more famous, day-to-day users can also be effective, even only by providing a story of a positive experience that you can use in your work.

So for our 82nd 10-Minute International Librarian, ask for a testimonial.

Think if any of your users could record – in writing or on video – a short piece talking about how your work made a difference for them.

Be gentle about asking them, and explain why it will help ensure that they can continue to benefit from effective services into the future.

Give them the option to contribute in a way that works for them – submitting by e-mail, filling in a paper at the library, or recoding in the library itself.

Be clear about what you would use the testimonial for and encourage them to be brief and to the point in their words.

Let us know the best stories from users you have received in the comments box below.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 3.3: Empower the field at the national and regional levels

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!

Looking Ahead on Copyright in 2022

Even as it has added new complexity to law-making, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a new light on the way that copyright regimes work, and how well able they are to flex to match an uncertain and changing world.

That they need to accommodate digital is clear, but there is still resistance to reproducing the sort of exceptions that already exist in the physical world. In some countries, worryingly, there is a growing readiness to attack libraries publicly around copyright issues (even on the basis of weak misunderstanding), something that perhaps betrays new levels of fear about the future. At the same time, there are new ways to enforce rights, stronger than those that existed previously, which in turn have their own potential consequences for libraries. Finally, there is the ongoing concern that zeal to regulate major internet platforms may have major negative consequences for non-commercial operators – both libraries themselves, and the platforms they rely on.

These issues will be felt first and foremost in public debate, but in particular in those countries where reforms are underway. In particular, this is the case in Australia, Nigeria, Namibia, Hong Kong (China), South Africa and Brazil, and we await the results of consultations in Canada. The European Union will also advance work on digital platforms, which is likely to shape approaches elsewhere, not least discussions in the United States with strong implications for how copyright is enforced on platforms.

It looks set to be another busy year.

Onsite vs Online Access: the combination of a pandemic that has forced the physical closure of libraries and laws that do not allow for remote access to library collections has proven frustrating over the last two years. Libraries, despite having legitimately acquired books and other materials, have been prevented from allowing their communities to use them. In many countries, digital access is still limited to computers on library premises – a complete non-solution in COVID times.

However, there are moves in a number of countries to extend the way in which we understand libraries (or other institutions, such as schools) to include remote access. In some cases, this is limited to those people who are affiliated in some way – for example, the European Union’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market proposes that access can take place through secure networks. Proposals in Australia only talk more broadly about taking reasonable steps to avoid infringements, with restricting use to registered library users mentioned as one means of doing this.

The possibility for libraries are able to give access to their collections digitally is certainly something that we can hope see advanced in 2022, drawing on the lessons of the pandemic. The traditional argument that the need to visit a library represents a sort of ‘friction’ that means that libraries do not compete with the market was already questionable, firstly because this ‘friction’ would be felt more by some than others (not people living far from a library, or with disabilities), but also because the substitution effect of library lending for sales still has not been conclusively demonstrated (and indeed, lending may well support sales).

Tensions grow: the state of relations between libraries and publishers has swung back and forth in recent years, with the low point of the embargo imposed by Macmillan rapidly replaced with much more positive news as the world entered lockdown, and wider and cheaper access was offered. However, and perhaps inevitably, special offers have not necessarily lasted, and the old challenges – refusals to license, restrictive terms, and high prices – have returned to the scene. With libraries likely to continue doing a lot of work digitally, the costs and terms associated with digital content will only become more important.

There has been notable success on both sides of the Atlantic in the past year, with a number of states in the US passing laws enforcing the right of libraries to licence eBooks under reasonable terms, while a similar proposal made significant progress in Germany before elections got in the way. However, these efforts have faced angry and frantic opposition, leading the Governor of New York state to veto a bill there. In Germany, a public campaign was even launched by rightholders, opposing calls for reasonable access to eBooks.

In the meanwhile, we have also seen strong opposition (including an anthology) to a move that would have allowed access to books that the National Library of New Zealand would otherwise have had to divest, effectively placing the principle of copyright over books that were long out of print ahead of their ongoing retention or access.

Sadly, these campaigns seem often to be built on a misleading presentation of what is being called for by libraries, and a disregard for the importance of equitable access to information. It has to be hoped that 2022 will be a year of greater readiness to step back from dramatic arguments, and to focus more on finding an optimal situation for all.

Zero tolerance: copyright offers very extensive powers to those who hold it, both in terms of what they are allowed to control, and the duration for which they can do it. In a physical world, many of these powers were hard to enforce – traditional means of copying did not leave a trail, meaning that enforcement efforts focused on significant commercial infringement. Furthermore, the challenges involved with going through the courts similarly meant that it was not worth trying to pursue smaller players.

However, technological tools have long since brought in new possibilities to monitor use and potential infringements (even if the long discussions about upload filters in the context of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market made clear that such filters are far from able to determine whether a use is legitimate or not), leading to what was already described in 2018 as the ‘demise of toleration’. Added to this, the creation of ‘small claims’ courts in the US makes it easier, potentially, to pursue smaller operators.

Coupled with the rhetoric that every use of a copyrighted work requires compensation (which conveniently ignores both the emphasis on ‘free uses’ in the Berne Convention, and the establishment of rights of access alongside rights of compensation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), this potentially opens the door to increased efforts to penalise any infringement (or perceived infringement) of copyright severely. A key expression of this is likely to be in the types of platform relation increasingly being in different countries around the world, following the model of the EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The pressure will be on platforms to take on the sort of policing role usually left to public authorities, with the expectation that they use technological tools to spot infringements, even only very minor ones, or those carried out in good faith.

Crucially, in addition to having a chilling effect on decisions around using copyrighted works, this approach may well also serve to deepen inequalities, with only better funded players able either to take the risks, or to pay for broad licences which offer them adequate protection against liability. It will become all the more important to ensure clear rights for users, as well as protections for libraries and others when acting in good faith.

More blockchain: with new money flowing into ‘web3’ business models, we’re likely to see a resurgence of talk about how blockchain might be used. Clearly, web3 in general has its critics, ranging from those who question how novel it is, to those who ask what difference it is likely to make in reality, or who point out the risks of it concentrating power in the hands of those who already have it.

However, with potential investment funding available, as well as confused attempts to turn copyrighted works into non-fungible tokens (or at least to link the two), there remains the underlying concern that a shift to blockchain and a model focused on using technology, rather than law, to set out the rules of the game risks undermining the role of governments in ensuring fairness.

Of course, with many arguments for web3 based on a sense that institutions are untrustworthy – and indeed that we need to get rid of the need to trust, and instead be able to depend on things happening correctly – it is perhaps normal to want to exclude government. However, copyright in particular depends on achieving a balance that, it feels, blockchain and micro-contracts may struggle to achieve. The risk is that web3 applications rigidly enforce the ‘rights’ side of the picture, without considering the exceptions on which libraries and users depend.

Avoiding collateral: finally, and following a point already made above, the drive to regulate platforms will continue apace in 2022, with the European Union’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Acts scheduled to be agreed, ongoing drives to reform Section 230 in the United States, and the subject coming up regularly in reforms elsewhere.

Major internet platforms are tempting, and often well-justified targets, given their significant market power, and degree of control over so many aspects of people’s lives. Breaking them up, or imposing stricter rules that allow users greater freedom to move and choose, may well be positive outcomes for societies as a whole. Indeed, their power is one of the things driving interest in web3 mentioned above.

At the same time, in the excitement of efforts to regulate platforms, it can be all too easy to apply major new restrictions or liabilities on much smaller, non-profit entities which operate platforms, such as repositories or digital libraries, book review sites or similar. These are clearly not in any position to take on the same sort of responsibilities as multi-billion dollar companies – for example to implement filtering technology, or to respond to notifications within hours or even minutes.

The challenge is that those calling for reforms too often have little awareness of the risk of collateral damage, or even interest in preventing it. An important role for libraries and others in 2022 will be to make sure that the lawmakers involved in this work do understand the implications of the decisions they make, and ensure that in looking to regulate the power of platforms, they do not end up causing harm to education, research and culture institutions and infrastructures.

The 10-Minute Digital Librarian #11: Discover collaborative tools for developing documents

After series of posts focusing on using digital tools to communicate your work, and how to keep yourself and users safe online, the next series of five 10-Minute Digital Librarian focuses on tools that are available to you, for free, in order to get more done, in particular with other people.

In doing so, it draws heavily – as does the whole series! – on the original ’23 Things’ developed by Hélène Blowers, which focused on useful tools available to library and information workers in order to help them in their work.

This post focuses on what is available in order to support collaborative drafting of documents. This refers to tools that allow documents to be shared with others, and for comments, suggestions and edits to be made ‘live’ by others.

Of course, many of you will already be familiar with these in one way or another, although will also come across situations where documents are still sent forwards and backwards as attachments.

In addition to reducing the burden on inboxes, collaborative drafting also helps to avoid trying to reconcile different sets of comments, allows participants to engage more directly with the views of others, and can automatically allow for a form of version control.

It can be used for developing plans, statements, reports or other materials that benefit from having a variety of views shared, as well as demonstrating a more inclusive approach.

In addition to business tools provided for cooperation within organisations, perhaps the most widely used tool here is GoogleDocs, which allows for free use to anyone with a Google account.

However, Google is far from the only player on the market, and many can feel uncomfortable using it. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that its services are offered in all countries, or are offered in a way that offers the levels of privacy that you may want.

Free alternatives (or at least tools with free options) include Etherpad – an open source collaborative drafting tool – as well as potentially less well known ones like Draft or Zoho Docs. There are, of course, also paid options that exist.

Issues to think about when using these include:

How widely you want to share your text – you may want to make sure that only a smaller group of people have access, at least at an initial stage. For example, you may want to ensure that only your close team consults an initial draft, before seeking wider views. Look at settings for controlling access.

How changes are made – different tools have different ways of deciding whether people can make direct edits, or only suggestions on a document. Using a ‘suggestions’ mode allows for more transparency about changes, although can get confusing if there are a lot of them!

Version control – you may want to create new files from time to time, after rounds of comments. This can both increase transparency by allowing everyone to look back at how a document has developed, but also provide a means of avoiding re-opening discussions that have previously been closed.

Let us know about any other tools you would recommend in the comments box below!

Good luck!

 

If you are interested in issues around digital tools in libraries in general, you should take a look at the work of IFLA’s Information Technology Section.

Discover our full series of 10-Minute Digital Librarian posts, as well as our infographics.