The anonymous Annoyed Librarian has turned her sharp gaze on a couple of my blog postings, most recently in her post From Your Crusty Colleagues. This was a response to my entry about collegiality. It was a fun read, though I do think she stacked the deck by leaving off the part of my entry about positive change and leadership. I had thought this was my main point. Oh well.

Now, normally I wouldn't respond here to a blog that is mostly tongue-in-cheek. But AL made a couple of remarks in one of her comments to her Crusty Colleagues post that caught my eye. I think they're worth discussing.

AL commented: " I don't think I was unfair to Ms. Cohen, and I also don't think I was too harsh. I think the 2.0 folks overlook a lot of other priorities in their efforts to constantly adapt, and I think they tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as reactionaries who can be ignored. There certainly are plenty of reactionaries who just don't want to change, and my library has its share. I'm always tempted to smack anyone who says "that's just the way we've always done it." But there are also people who have a different, and at least as credible, view of what academic libraries should be doing, and who believe that collections are just as important as services now, and more important in the future. No amount of "leadership" without substantive arguments is going to persuade those people."

I don't care if AL was or was not too harsh - I can take it! But I was taken aback by two of her contentions: 1) that advocates of Library 2.0 dismiss those who disagree with them, and 2) that we advocates overlook other priorities, especially collections that are as important as services and will be more so in the future.

Let me take these one at a time.

1. Library 2.0 advocates are dismissive of those who disagree with them. If this is true, it's a bad thing. But how does one verify this? I haven't seen it, myself. What I've seen are enthusiastic Library 2.0 advocates who are trying to make their case in a culture that is not terribly welcoming of change. Library culture has actually incorporated an amazing amount of change in the past couple of decades, but it hasn't been easy. For example, a good friend and now-retired colleague has told me stories about her struggles to get CD-ROM indexes accepted when they first came out. (She eventually became a famous pioneer in online searching. Have you heard of Sara Knapp? Look her up.) Perhaps the noise level of Library 2.0 advocacy is in proportion to the conservatism that is endemic to our culture.

I'm not even sure if the issue here is necessarily Library 2.0. If we take a step back, we might see it as a vision that fits into a trajectory that began when computers first came on the scene. I don't know whether Library 2.0 is more radical than, say, the first CD-ROM indexes or the advent of online catalogs and library Web sites. I guess history will be the judge.

I do know a number of librarians who are frustrated with the pace of change in libraries. I'm one of them. In my own case, there have been times when I've advocated for certain changes that have nothing to do with Library 2.0, and have been met with hostility and closed minds. (Some of this stuff is done by many other peer libraries, so don't think I'm coming up with ideas that are too terribly wacky!) In other words, I've been treated dismissively. And who knows, the 2.0 plan I released yesterday may well go up in flames. I'm prepared for that - it wouldn't be the first plan I've been involved with that has died on the vine. In fact, maybe Library 2.0 will be trampled before it gets much of a chance. I'm not qute sure if I'm optimistic - I see signs that it could go either way.

The point is, dismissiveness can work in both directions. I think we need to be honest about this. As I've already pointed out, the question ultimately becomes one of leadership. This is especially the case when the issues are large and the stakes are high.

2. Collections are just as important as services and will be more so in the future. This comment took me by surprise. I've never had a notion that Library 2.0 sets up a competition between collections and services. In fact, I've always seen collections as the centerpiece of Library 2.0. Library 2.0 seeks to add value to collections by enhancing their findability and manipulability. Library 2.0 seeks to enhance users' interaction with scholarly materials in keeping with evolving research methods.

I wonder if it's valid to say that Library 2.0 is focused on process. It highlights the research process in new ways for the benefit of the academic community. Interaction with scholarly materials, often in a social way, is catching on because of the types of tools available in the networked environment. If, according to AL, collections will be more imporant in the future than they are now, might not the same be said of the research process that makes use of these collections?

One aspect of this that excites me is the possibility of preserving the record of this process for the future. In a way, some of what Library 2.0 is attempting is the equivalent of preserving what we've lost by discarding annotated cards from our card catalogs. Some have lamented this loss, and for good reason. If blog entries, wiki edits, comments, annotations, reviews, tags, etc., are the new form of card catalog annotations, then it makes sense for libraries to offer these tools and to preserve the record of their use. Cultural heritage lies not only in our collections, but also in the scholarly use of our collections. Academic libraries can preserve both.

It seems to me that collections and services go hand in hand in the Library 2.0 world.