Labels, labels, labels.

This morning, I had planned to write about something that happened at my library a couple of days ago, but first I went through my RSS feeds. I found Michelle Boule's We Got 2.0 Librarians, Not 2.0 Libraries, a response to Ryan Deschamp's We Asked for 2.0 Libraries and We Got 2.0 Librarians, to which Ryan responded in turn. And to which, I guess, I'm responding too. Gotta love the blogosphere.

First, let me tell my tale. A couple of days ago, we were interviewing a candidate for Curator of Digital Collections. The candidate gave an all-library presentation, followed by a question-and-answer session. When we asked if she had questions for us, here's what she had to say: Where is this library going in the future? Do you have a strategic plan? What are your priorities?

One of the assistant directors spoke up. Her answer: This is a challenging question and we don't know the answer. We've had a lot of change in the past few years, and we'll have more change in the future. But we don't know what this change will be.

In other words, we haven't figured out our vision of the future or our priorities. I appreciate the honesty of this individual, but I can't say this is the kind of answer I'd want to hear if I were a candidate. Talk about a consummate 2.0-librarian-in-a-1.0-library moment.

Michelle said something I can relate to, because I live it:

"I know that being 2.0 in a 1.0 environment can proceed great change and innovation in YPOW. I have seen this happen. I have seen it happen slowly at MPOW. I also know, both from personal and anecdotal experience, that being 2.0 in a 1.0 library means extreme frustration with the glacial pace of change, immovable people and policies, or any other number of things that make you wonder why you bother. Sometimes it means banging your head against a wall that will never move. Being 2.0 in a 1.0 environment can foster independence, confidence, and innovative thinking. (Getting around the rules is an art form.) It can be a positive thing, a testing of your wits. Eventually though, the challenge can wear you down."

I'm not worn down but I am, often, discouraged.

I also see Ryan's side of it. He attempts to analyze why libraries do/do not change, and how quickly, and what a 2.0 librarian can do about it.

"I agree that it is frustrating that Librarian 2.0 is happening faster than Library 2.0. Sometimes lack of change happens because of stubborn staff, lack of leadership, or literal suppression by the environment (ie. resistance happening external to the library). This is where librarian 2.0 needs to consider looking elsewhere to be the librarian she/he always wanted to be.

Other times, lack of change is just imminent but slow change. This is where librarian 2.0 needs to look even deeper into the culture of his/her POW and see where, precisely, the change can take root."

Ryan then proceeds to give good advice, most of which I've followed.

I have to say that I respect the frustrated 2.0 librarians of this world. They realize that time is not necessarily on our side. As an academic librarian, I've already weighed in on the fact that we don't have a captive audience. If we're not careful, we're on the way to becoming glorified study halls as users find other, more amenable avenues for finding and using the resources they need in their academic lives. Think about the pace of change for most of us, and envision the gap between our information environment and the environment of the wider culture in, say, the next decade. This can be a daunting thought.

In its September 17th issue, Information Week released its annual ranking of the top 500 business technology innovators. Here are a few of the findings:

• 55% use blogs, wikis and social networking tools for internal communications, while 27% use these tools with customers
• 45% use Ajax development tools at least to a limited degree
• 70% widely use Web services
• Nearly half the top 100 are creating mashups, compared with 27% of the remaining 400

The September 24th issue of Information Week has a cover story about Facebook and its use and potential use - along with other social networking tools - in the business world.

Needless to say, what's happening in the business world is indicative of changes elsewhere. So while I'm concerned about the frustration of 2.0 librarians who work in 1.0 libraries, I worry even more about 2.0 faculty and students who use - or are forced to use - 1.0 libraries. And I worry far more about 1.0 faculty and students who use 1.0 libraries, and are missing out on a tremendous opportunity to participate in new models of the academic, research and professional information culture.

Are academic libraries islands, or are they part of the world's information culture? Isn't part of our mission as academic librarians to be educators and leaders about information culture?

In my own library, there are small pockets of librarians who are attempting to move forward, usually by taking matters into their own hands. We're finding each other. I've been approached to help with 2.0 initiatives, always a pleasure. Occasionally, there is yearning - for example, a tenure track librarian who wants to experiment but is under pressure to stick to the traditional paths until he gets tenure. (No comment!) I've made overtures at various levels that have been rebuffed. I've made overtures that have led, at least, to expressions of interest. I hear expressions of interest even at higher levels, but interest that isn't yet integrated into notions of explicitly-stated priorities or library-wide vision. If it were, the answer to the candidate's question the other day would have been far different.

It's all a big, mixed-up scene. Maybe this is characteristic of times of paradigmatic change?