One of the strengths of the library profession is that we are not one size fits all. Even within particular classes of libraries, there is significant variation in what we can choose to do. There are local imperatives. Each institution has its own mission, goals, priorities, strengths, needs, conditions, motivations, aspirations, and so on.

This is both necessary and, as I said, a source of strength. But at some point, optionalities can overtake us. Take two peer libraries with very similar profiles. Library A1 may decide to move ahead with creative initiatives while Library A2 may decide that the status quo is just fine. At some point, this discrepancy raises questions.

I can understand that local conditions shape outcomes. What I don't understand is why these factors are so dominant in our profession. Why do we have so much choice? Is this an ultimate good?

I wish that academic libraries in this country would come together and plot a strategy for the future - say, the next five years. (That's far enough ahead!) This is where, as I've said before, I look to ACRL standards. In part, this is because I don't see that inspiring examples, or individual initiative, or the lucky confluence of the right conditions, are enough to create the imperatives for change. Since blogging about this notion a few months ago, I've come to make the connection between the lack of focused, future-oriented, aspirational standards and the fact that we're floundering in a sea of optionalities.

I can't guarantee that better ACRL standards would entirely solve this problem. I can't guarantee that any such efforts would satisfy everyone. In fact, they would not. Try meeting the needs of those who are hot to implement a culture of 2.0, those who believe that integration should come first, those who advocate for social scholarship above all else, those who believe that scholarly communication, or digitization, or going where users are, or any number of priorities are the key. It would take a fair amount of courage to work on such an effort.

I mentioned this issue in my talk on Monday at the spring conference of the Eastern New York Chapter of ACRL (ENY/ACRL). I described my ideas about living standards that are developed online using social software. I mentioned the sea of optionalities. Someone in the audience pointed out that focused, aspirational ACRL standards could serve as clout. Librarians eager to move ahead could use these standards as a kind of national initiative that might pull along reluctant administrators and colleagues. He had an interesting point.

If standards can't give us clout, what will? What else can fill the gap between our culture of optionality and a vigorous engagement with the future?