Hyperlinked Environments of Academic Libraries: Idea Bank

Collectively, many of the articles concerning academic libraries reflect upon the radical changes that some universities have implemented and will need to continually revise, and what some academic libraries lack (need to change) in their positioning in the digital age. Much of the focus involves changes that are evident inside and outside the walls of the library. Also, the user and their needs have changed, as has the information.

To use one of MIT’s library approaches, I collected an Idea Bank of examples to share for this blog as I research Academic libraries. The following themes are what I focused on:  

  • Libraries are not what they used to be (research happens outside the library)
  • Libraries are designed spaces that support creation and innovation, and build community.
  • Information literacy looks different today.
  • Collection management and budget should be focused on the public domain with social understanding about privacy and ethics central to sharing information

I collect passages and quotes for my learning process, and I thought I would share some of the most impressive passages that Stephens curated for this Choose Your Own Adventure Module about Hyperlinked Environments. The resources are linked from the author’s name if you’d like to explore further.

Libraries are not what they used to be.


 Libraries are designed spaces that support creation and innovation, and build community.

Some universities have embraced these truisms. The physical library and/or the inherent approach of the mission and values align with the digital age and the Library 2.0 landscape. Some Academic libraries serve as strong examples of change in their approach and renovation based on the truisms above.

Example 1: Carroll University

Eventually working with Academic Affairs, and the campus chaplain, Carroll University started a food and supplies pantry in the high traffic area of the library, which grew to various locations on campus to address food and economic insecurity that students face:  

Our Philosophy
To stock it, we first asked staff for donations of non-perishable items. One of our librarians, Meghan, came up with our guiding philosophy of “take what you need, give when you can.” This means that if you’re in need, take something–no questions asked. When you want to “pay it forward” then drop off a donation. That’s why we refer to it as a “food share” on our campus. We also strongly felt that the food pantry should be unmediated. With sensitive issues such as food insecurity, people may feel embarrassed to ask for help. The food pantry is self-service. We promote it as judgment-free zone. It doesn’t matter if you’re out of money for meals or you’ve had back-to-back classes and you just need something quick from the pantry to nourish yourself. It’s there for you.

Hardenbrook (2019)

Example 2: Arizona State University

The library has been renovated since this article, but the leading philosophy and vision for the renovation was well inspired and reflected a Library 2.0 model:  

The renovated building will ditch the traditional single entrance in favor of multiple points of access and egress and feature some food options to take advantage of its central location on campus…

O’Donnell [who lead the renovation] explains: I want a building that is a showplace (a sign of ASU’s academic and achievement) and a showcase (a place to make people aware of library treasures and resources and of the achievements of student and faculty partners) and a showroom (a place for users to go to find out about and road test and learn how to use information resources for best contribution to academic work and ambition).

 Straumsheim, C. (2017)

Example 3: Carnegie Mellon University’sKeith Webster describes how CMU:

…announced our development partnership with Digital Science. The connection between a university library and a technology company may not be immediately obvious, but we are both committed to helping the research community conduct their work in a smarter way in order to fuel discovery. 

Webster reflects on the trends that CMU follows which serve as illuminating examples for academic libraries envisioning how to embrace change:

 At CMU we’ve seen the number of visits double in the past decade. Meanwhile, for most disciplines, the researcher finds her information needs met entirely outside the library. Put crudely, the success of our online services has driven the researcher away…The key point is that we are operating in a hybrid environment, both in the use of information resources and in the use of library spaces: we must meet information needs from both print and digital sources; and we need to provide spaces that serve those who need a quiet space alongside those who need collaborative facilities.

(Webster, 2017)

Information literacy looks different today.

Example 1: I loved the refining of the definition by Fister:

Here’s the old definition of information literacy:

Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.

 And the new one:

 Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning.

There’s an emphasis on information as something that is socially negotiated, that is complex, that isn’t merely something you find and use but is created by people – including our students. We need to think about this as we design our collections and services.

 Fister (2016)

         Example 2: Oregon State University Librarians spark curiosity to teach research

Oregon State University librarians worked with Freshmen Writing Seminar faculty to support the learning behind research for research papers. They found that collaborating with teachers was integral in supporting students’ needs and sparking curiosity (not “passion”) in the research process. As a former teacher of Freshmen Writing Seminars, I felt this was a strong example of how librarians and faculty need deeper collaboration to support student information literacy challenges. OSU librarians explain that:

As librarians, we need to advocate for our students to get the help they need from the very start. By shifting the discourse to focus on curiosity within the classroom, providing activities grounded in low-stakes exploration, and encouraging self-reflective behaviors focused on curiosity, we can provide opportunities for more students to create their own new knowledge.

Deitering and Gascho Rempel (2017)

Collection management and budget should be focused on the public domain with social understanding about privacy and ethics central to sharing information

         Example 1: Research in the Commodity Age

As an academic librarian, Fister explains that librarians try to eliminate the stress from the very consumeristic attitude that researchers (faculty and students) have by hiding the costs of burden that libraries take on to meet the expectations of researchers. They want researchers to use the library for their information needs. However, she proposes a new way of understanding research/information that involves new public domain and sharing practices, shifting away from the commodity/consumer approach.

So many of our decisions as librarians in the past decade have reinforced the information-as-a-commodity, research-as-consumerism model that Google and Amazon have made a part of everyday life…

As librarians, we don’t want to stand in the way of research by exposing the ugly underbelly of the system or adding any friction…  So we make the costs as invisible as possible, the acquisition of stuff as easy as we can.

If we think about information as something communities create in conversation within a social and economic context rather than as a consumer good, we may put less emphasis on being local franchises for big information conglomerates and put more time, resources, and creativity into supporting local creativity and discovery. We may begin to do better at working across boundaries to support and fund open access to research rather than focusing most of our efforts on paying the rent and maintaining the security of our walled gardens. 

Fister (2016)

         Example 2: In the quest for supporting information literacy, are academic libraries doing enough in the following instances? The overwhelming issues of privacy and security need further focus:

  • Surveillance has become the dominant business model of the internet and, by extension, news media. This has huge implications for intellectual freedom and for society at large.
  • Privacy is more important than ever, but surveillance is the default setting. There are things we can do, but most people don’t know about them. (If they did, it could threaten the business model of the internet and news media.)
  • Aggregated data, much of it gathered through companies that build wealth through surveillance, is being used to determine who gets jobs, who gets arrested, who gets mortgages, and who gets elected – or at least what highly-tailored messages we see that nudge us to vote for one candidate over another. Our lives are increasingly governed by big data locked in big black boxes, combined and sold in the dark.
  • Big Data has the capacity to do many wonderful things, but we need some social agreement on how it can be used ethically.
  • The systems we rely on are increasingly important but extraordinarily vulnerable because so many of them depend on networked software that isn’t secure. It doesn’t take much to take out internet service in large parts of the world, to set off a city’s warning sirens, or to take over computers in businesses and hospitals worldwide. It doesn’t help that governments are more interested in exploiting software vulnerabilities than in securing us from attack.

Fister (2017)

While the Idea Bank fills, I am hopeful to see so many examples of libraries and librarians creatively addressing academic library realities.

Practice on the Pitch: Libraries=People

I am so grateful I got to attend Michael Casey’s meet up with our class. I found it very helpful to hear his advice to future applicants. Enthusiasm is a significant factor in doing well in interviews. In essence, I remember him saying that though experience is important, it can be superseded by an applicant’s energy to be visionary and advocate for change towards Library 2.0 services and strategies.

I am eager to keep learning about the 2.0 world and how I can be an advocate. As I plunge towards Casey’s advice in the MLIS program, I find it interesting to observe people in conversation with me when I tell them what I am studying. As so many articles note, most people I talk to believe libraries=books. Kennedy (2014) concurs: “According to a 2010 OCLC report, Perception of Libraries, 75% of Americans primarily associate libraries with books.” Subsequently, some people I talk to recognize that internet access is now why libraries are important. So, libraries=wifi? These conversations sometimes come to a dead end at this point because I can get tongue tied when I have so much that I want to say.

I struggle with the oversimplification of libraries while having these conversations. I am overwhelmed with where to start in response to invite the person to indulge in what libraries can and are doing. I usually tell stories about cool programming, like the one about the library that hosted a local butcher to butcher a pig in the library.  Suffice it to say, I need to practice my pitch. To do so, I created an artifact that offers illustrations that libraries=people, and I focused on our two modules Participatory Service and Hyperlinked Communities. I am hoping that collecting brief reviews like this slide show will help to keep me (and anyone interested) agile when we talk libraries with friends and strangers. Inspired by the storytelling avenue, I compiled concepts from our readings these last two weeks, and some of my own interests since I live in California.

Consider it a cheat sheet. Maybe someday it will be helpful to review before an interview to get fired up. I was inspired by Kennedy (2014) as he reflected on Schneider’s “The user is the Sun” mantra: “If libraries remain focused on channeling their resources toward helping people solve their problems and meet their needs, then we are providing a service so unique in this world that it will be hard to readily dismiss us.” Shine on.

“Learning Transformed” Offers Librarians Insight into K-12 Needs (Context Book Assignment)

Sheninger and Murray ’s (2017) Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools Today is a useful resource for librarians, especially in the Library 2.0 trajectory. Sheninger and Murray (2017) focus on how schools can implement learning beyond the classroom walls, create a creative and connected culture of learning, and enrich schools with new and hyperlinked 21st Century approaches to learning and engagement. As such, librarians can benefit from this book by gaining insight into the challenges that schools face (which are similar to library challenges), so that they can better support schools. Librarians and administrators can also consider similar strategies towards resolution and innovation for the future. Consequently, replacing the concept of “school” with “library” when reading this book makes for a fascinating and relatable read. The “8 Keys” that Sheninger and Murray (2017) present can be aligned with where libraries are heading, especially concerning youth and the mission of Library 2.0’s life-long learning.

Before jumping into the 8 keys, it is essential to lay the purpose for such radical change in education (and libraries as support systems in the educational world of K-12 education). Sheninger and Murray (2017) claim that learning needs transformation because of the “American Education Crisis” (p. 1). While dismal to read, framing education in “crisis” really illuminates the need for revolutionary approaches. Librarians can find a plethora of similar scholarly work regarding the crises of libraries (Just look at Matthew’s (2012) inscription on his “Think Like a Startup” article: “Facing the Future: We don’t just need change, we need breakthrough, paradigm-shifting, transformative, disruptive ideas”). Clearly, analyzing why we need change is essential for both educators and librarians.

Some of the failures relate to a decrease in student interest and engagement. One of the most discouraging insights Sheninger and Murray (2017) find is that “…the longer that students are in the K-12 educational system, the less they feel interested in what they learn, the less fun they have, and the less they feel they get to tap into their own skills and abilities” (p. 10).  Current focus of many schools in their study focuses on getting students “’…across the stage with a diploma in hand as opposed to getting them the knowledge and skills they need to set them up for success’” (qtd. in Sheninger and Murray, 2017, p. 11). Pair this with the idea that Casey and Savastinuk (2007) admit that librarians “…have done better with some age groups and demographics than others. Teens, especially, seem to be our weak point” (p. 62). It is vital that we regroup to focus on the needs of young adults, and the foundational learning for children, so that high school graduation is a successful launch point into what Sheninger and Murray (2017) call “Industry 4.0: The Next Industrial Revolution” (p. 13), which indicates we are currently preparing students for jobs that will exist in the future because of advances in technology.

Change must be made because Sheninger and Murray (2017) explain: “This isn’t simply and educational issue to debate but an economic issue that will have lasting impact on generations to come” (p. 24). Educators and librarians should also be concerned about establishing creative innovation and life-long learning into the lives of young people. Weinberger’s (2001) manifesto claims that hyperlinking is a means to longevity in our constantly changing organizations, and the “economy of voice” will help fund our civic success as a connected, community of learners (p. 25). Finally, low-income, students of color, and underserved students suffer the worst at the hands of systemic inequality and lack of cultural competency in our education and library systems. Sheninger and Murray (2017) highlight sweeping statistics regarding lower rates of graduation, test scores, budget restrictions, attendance, performance, infrastructure, presence in AP testing, STEM programs, and digital access, yet higher rates of suspension, expulsion, and drop-outs. To be culturally competent, any transformation needs to prioritize all students, and focus on needs especially to be implemented for those who are historically and presently underserved, or not served at all, for that matter.

Key #1: Leadership and school [library] culture lay the foundation (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

Flattening leadership and focusing on building community through collaboration is the key to transformation in schools and libraries alike. Sheninger and Murray assert that “True leaders know that their success is intimately tied to the work of the collective” (p. 29), which aligns with Weinberger’s (2001) manifesto to “subvert hierarchy” (p. 6), and Casey and Savastinuk’s (2007) suggestion to implement “vertical teams” in order to  “… flatten the organization, reinforce the sense of worth of staff from all levels of the library, and instill a sense of responsibility that everyone feels toward everyone else” (p. 45). If schools are to follow this approach to collective leadership, then librarians can and should be involved with supporting students and patrons in hyperlinked ways. Likewise, libraries can and should also invigorate their leadership by including the collective community in order to implement powerful learning transformation.

Key #2: The learning experience must be redesigned and made personal (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

In order to address the decline in student engagement as they reach adulthood. Sheninger and Murray (2017) claim that:

Intentionally designed schools develop and implement various adaptive and dynamic interventions to meet individual needs and see student agency (voice, choice, advocacy) as a valuable component of the instructional process” (p. 55).

Where schools and libraries get this wrong is when technology implementation is used as a crutch, so to speak, to increase engagement. It is important to acknowledge that research in schools has shown that technology investment alone does not increase engagement without good teaching. Teachers must be supported in pedagogical approaches in using technology as a means to foster “student agency.” Librarians need to focus on teaching pedagogy as they help engage their communities and are essential in supporting the teaching methodology needs of teachers. Sheninger and Murray concur: “The teacher, not the technology, is the key variable to this equation” (p. 63).

Key #3: Decisions must be grounded in evidence and drive by a Return on Instruction (ROI) (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

Focusing on the Return on Instruction helps schools iteratively align with the mission of education. The same can be said for the effectiveness of librarians, in which focusing on goals should help us to drive the returns the community is gaining.  Ensuring that students are engaged, and technology is a tool for good pedagogy, Sheninger and Murray (2017) offer 10 strategies for school leaders to identify what that return looks like, keeping the following mission in mind:

A primary goal of education should be to have students empowered to own their learning, create artifacts and demonstrate conceptual mastery, use their voice, be responsible in online spaces, and connect with the world in meaningful and authentic ways (p. 86).

 This illumination of the goal of education aligns with Library 2.0 objectives, especially involving information literacy. Library leaders can also create strategies to “leverage a true Return on Instruction [librarian effectiveness],” as Sheninger and Murray explore like improving feedback, modeling, and co-observing to name a few (p. 97).

Key #4: Learning spaces must become learner-centered (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

Moving away from 20th century notions of “cells and bells” models of educational spaces, students can become better engaged and learn when schools are designed with innovation in mind (Sheninger et al., 2017, p. 104). This extremely important key includes suggestions that even concern noise, temperature, wall design, and furniture. Sheninger and Murray (2017) reason that “If we desire creativity, collaboration, ingenuity, authenticity, and multifaceted approaches to learning, then the spaces in which these experiences occur must be relative” (p. 111). With a similar approach, Mattern (2014) challenges library infrastructure in order to consider the library as “platform.” Mattern (2014) asks essential questions to focus on the learner-centered approach; for example: “What programs and services are consistent with an institution dedicated to lifelong learning? Should libraries be reconceived as hubs for civic engagement, where communities can discuss local issues, create media, and archive community history?” Considering these questions, design of space matters in all learning environments, from making sure rooms are meeting human needs (i.e. heating and cooling), to putting a reference desk on wheels for better engagement.

Key #5: Professional learning must be relevant, engaging, ongoing, and made personal (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

Refraining from using the term “professional development,” “professional learning” implies that educators are always learning to teach students more effectively (Sheninger and Murray, 2017, p. 140).  According to Sheninger and Murray (2017): Professional learning ensures that “When teachers feel as if they are a vital part of the professional learning cycle, then increased ownership for learning occurs—creating a culture shift in responsibility and passion” (156). Clearly, this reasoning can be applied to librarians and their professional learning pathways. In order to spur engagement in “professional development and learning,” for librarians, Stephens (2016) suggests tapping into “curiosity and creativity” to embrace change (p. 34). The idea being that school and libraries can develop a “personalized” and “empowering” “culture of learning” (to use terminology that Stephen’s (2016) and Sheninger and Murray (2017) often use). The days of pyramid leaders forcing training are over, if we want librarians and teachers to as Stephen’s suggest “embrace constant change” (p. 17). Additionally, if we believe in Weinberger’s (2001) “Bottom Up” approach to hyperlinked organizations, then Sheninger and Murray’s guide to professional learning is vital.  

Key #6: Technology must be leveraged and used as an accelerant for student learning (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

Diving deeper into Key #2, Sheninger and Murray (2017) focus on strategies to create connected (hyperlinked), safe, and effective learning. Though Sheninger and Murray (2017) reiterate that “pedagogy should determine learning,” technology is a “great delivery vehicle” (p. 173). Connectivity is so vital that Sheninger and Murray (2017) imply that every student deserves as a human right access to technology as a means to learning and engagement, which will therefore level the playing field for student achievement. Libraries surely have this going for them, since connectivity to the internet is a major reason that many walk in the door, but priority on life-long learning is foundational. Furthermore, Sheninger and Murray (2017) provide advice on privacy, efficiency security, viability, and sustainability to implement technology in honor of learning.

Key #7: Community collaboration and engagement must be woven into the fabric of a school’s [library’s] culture (Sheninger and Murray, 2017)

To conclude, Sheninger and Murray (2017) make a case for the need for all stakeholders to work together collectively in order to support student learning. This sentiment is expressed across the board in our course readings, that our revolutionary focus today is to embrace communal, collaborative approaches to flattening educational organizations for the sake of life-long learning. Librarians and administrators can see this book as a strong resource to create a hyperlinked library for the people, and one that supports K-12 education and educators. I recommend taking a look, especially for the sake of our youth.


Casey, M. E. and Laura, C. S. (2007) Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service. Medford, N. J.: Information Today, Inc.

Mattern, S. 2017. Library as infrastructure. Places Journal, June 2012. Retrieved on 4 February, from https://doi.org/10.22269/140609.

Matthews, B. (2012, April). Think like a startup. Ubiquitous Librarian. Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/18649/Think%20like%20a%20STARTUP.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Sheninger, E. C. and Murray T. C. (2017). Learning transformed: 8 keys to designing tomorrow’s schools, today. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Stephens, M. (2016). The heart of librarianship: attentive, positive, and purposeful change. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Weinberger, D. 2001. The hyperlinked organization. The Cluetrain Manifesto. Retrieved from https://cluetrain.com/book/hyperorg.html. pp 1-26.

Insomnia 2.0: Module 3 Blog Reflection

I’ll admit it. I am a recent Library 2.0 convert. I woke up last night at the magical insomniac hour of 3am, spinning my wheels about the Clue Train Manifesto and all the change inevitable in my future LIS profession. I think I experienced my first bout of what Stephen’s (2016) calls “librarian insomnia” (p. 17). Teacher insomnia has long kept me awake at night, so it is familiar to similarly ponder the existential desire to instill Stephen’s (2016) sense of “relevance” in what I choose to do in my life’s work in the service of others (p. 17).  

Any indoctrination about professionalism, from my mom reinforcing the importance of wearing nylons to an interview, to the proper etiquette of an email which I over-formalize, to the trained respect that I have shown to a Board of Director’s and their lofty decisions made in a vacuum, have taken a blow. It’s about time.

I am sometimes a quiet radical, walking the line of authenticity to respect authority. I have often made allegiance to my administrators because part of me feels I need to respect the system, trusting that wisdom and experience will lead to ultimate success. Sometimes it has been a good call; I have been lucky to have worked with some amazing mentors. In contrast, when I read chapter 5 of the Manifesto, paired with the other foundational readings these past two weeks, I feel validated in my past radical inclinations that I just haven’t had time to reflect upon or admit to until now. Time to break the silence. For this blog, I decided to explore these discoveries in a list:

Org Charts: As a teacher, I can’t tell you how many times I have sat to analyze an org chart in faculty/staff meetings. Weinberger’s (2001) cynical outlook on org charts is certainly a radical shift for me. Weinberger (2001) asserts what I wouldn’t dare to admit: An “org chart is an expression of a power structure. It is red tape. It is a map of whom to avoid” (p. 2). I have long lived under the auspices of org charts and horizontal team playing as Casey and Savastinuk (2007) criticize. I had a job since I was 15 years old, and it is quite groundbreaking to me to think about toppling all of my employee-centered understandings of organizational authority. The org charts represent the institutionalized hierarchy and authority, that in my experience, have long caused snags in the fabric of the organizations with which I have worked.

Vertical Team Playing: Casey et al.’s (2007) suggestions for vertical teams feel like a natural approach: “Vertical teams, like vertical communications, serve to flatten the organization, reinforce the sense of worth of staff from all levels of the library, and instill a sense of responsibility that everyone feels toward everyone else” (45). I admit that though I strongly believe in this type of collaboration, I haven’t truly experienced the ideal. When I have been a part of a vertical team, some times the façade of a vertical team was all a show, and the top org chart leaders made odd decisions despite the vertical teams’ recommendations.

I have been, however, able to create some vertical teamwork experiences in the classroom. The hyperlinked reality is also a great manifesto for being a good teacher. My best teaching moments were when I told stories and asked students to do the same. Roundtables, open discussions, creative classroom teaching helped “reinforce the sense of worth” students deserved. This vertical approach especially became important when I taught difficult subjects about human behaviors including racism, violence, and prejudice. Although Weinberg’s (2001) note of Fernando Flores’s sense of hyperlinked conversations applies to the web, it also applies to face-to-face instruction: “’To have a conversation you have to be comfortable being human—acknowledging you don’t have all the answers, being eager to learn from someone else and to build ideas together’” (p. 5). I challenged student expectations of teacher authority when I admitted that I didn’t have the answers. This sentiment is the reason that I love oral history education so much and being an educator overall. One of my most central manifestos as an educator was to follow what a Holocaust survivor wrote to educators (I suggest reading the letter in full and checking out Facing History and Ourselves):

“Dear Teacher: I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no man should witness:…So, I am suspicious of education. My request is: Help your students become human.”

Dare I say vertical teamwork and the hyperlinked library can help us to become more human?

Hyperlinked Library: I have a new understanding of “The hyperlinked library”. It is a concept I knew had more meaning that I would continue to understand. As such, I love Weinberg’s (2001) explanation: “Hyperlinks are the connections made by real individuals based on what they care about and what they know, the paths that emerge because that’s where the feet are walking, as opposed to the highways bulldozed into existence according to a centralized plan” (p. 4). The goal then is to create a user-centered, human focused library that exists based on the people and their needs and trajectories. After reading Library 2.0, I can see that such a radical shift in thinking about libraries deserves a revolution as Casey et. al (2007) captures: “Also fundamental to the Web 2.0 idea is the importance of the conversation” (p. 75). In this conversation, likewise, I really loved Mattern’s (2014) reflections on “Library as Infrastructure” to help us to ask the right questions in the “conversation” and to stay vertical: “What ideas, values and social responsibilities can we scaffold within the library’s material systems — its walls and wires, shelves and servers?” The examples and reflections that Mattern (2014) provides with the images suggest infinite answers that are personal to each community. I really appreciate Mattern’s article.

Third Places: Decades ago, I used to work at Starbucks and their motto was that their stores were the “third place,” which I find fascinating in relation to Leferink’s (2018) suggestion that: “Third Places provide opportunities for a community to develop and retain a sense of cohesion and identity. They are about sociability, not isolation.” At Starbucks, they build their business model on the third place, wherein the décor, experience, and staff training all contribute to the sense that no matter where a customer is in the world, they can find the comfort of the third place in Starbucks. By contrast, a library as third place can be localized, not monetized, and each community can create their own authentic identity and place-based connections.  

Imperfect Humanity: The Manifesto is a reminder that we can find the imperfections of our humanity somehow in the Web. Weinberger (2001) claims that the Web “…throws everyone into immediate connection with everyone else without the safety net of defined roles and authorities, but it also sets the expectation that you’ll make human-size mistakes rather frequently” (p. 5). How comforting to hear! Truth be told, entering this program, after hunkering down for 5 years as a new mother has been nerve racking. I fell out of date, out of the loop into the outskirts of tech and education. Even though I taught for 15 years, everything has changed so rapidly that I feel left in the dust, but I am ready to learn from mistakes.

Conclusively, reading Library 2.0 (especially) and these recent readings has already helped me to dust off the old boots and start marching forward in community.


Casey, M., & Savastinuk, L. (2007). Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Leferink, S. 2018. To keep people happy…keep some books. Next. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/blog/main/to-keep-people-happy-keep-some-books/.

Mattern, S. 2017. Library as infrastructure. Places Journal, June 2012. Retrieved on 4 February, from https://doi.org/10.22269/140609.

Stephens, M. (2016). The Heart of Librarianship: Attentive, Positive, and Purposeful
. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Weinberger, D. 2001. The hyperlinked organization. The Cluetrain Manifesto. Retrieved from https://cluetrain.com/book/hyperorg.html. pp 1-26.

Skip to toolbar