REFLECTION BLOG POST #3: On Hyperlinked Environments

This module on Hyperlinked Environments offered me several points for reflection. Following along with the Choose Your Own Adventure model, I decided to focus on three different topic areas that capture my interests as a current MLIS student, and future librarian: The Hyperlinked Public Library; Hyperlinked Museums, Galleries, and Archives; and Libraries & COVID-19. I examined these with an eye for how to center issues of equity and deepen participatory service and design, both major goals of mine in considering my future library work.

 In the Hyperlinked  Library sphere, the Four Spaces model both discussed by Laerkes and also detailed on the Agency for Culture and Palaces’ Model Programme website underlines a thread I’ve seen across our readings, which is that while the Hyperlinked Library model is based in a commitment to constant change that nurtures user participation in designing, evaluating, and refining changes, that there is still a need for change to be built on a foundation, a framework that helps ensure that whatever new service is being created, it stays aligned with the mission and goals of user service. Whether or not a library adopts the Four Spaces model or something else to guide its planning, implementation, and evaluation work, keeping the change purposeful requires some level of structure to base these three activities around. This type of (re)visioning is distinct from rebranding — which deals superficially with the image/common perception of the library — in that it is much more substantive in user engagement, and is meant to develop a plan that is both focused and adaptable. In the end, the goal is not a new marketing campaign (alone), but a significant change in user service or experience. (Dr. Stephens’ strong assertion that librarians create mission statements for all their services and programs — existing and emerging — also underlines this understanding that hyperlinked environments can be both driven by an openness to adaptability and a grounding in answering the fundamental question: is this service creating a valuable experience for users? 

That ability to hold both a flexibility and strategic mindset is something I think is essential to building more equitable services, since it enables change to serve a growing diversity of users. It also can enable change to ensure existing users are being served equitably as well. I was struck by Dr. Stephens’ description of Dokk1’s approach to maintaining order in the library space in “Dream Explore Experiment,” based in eliminating restrictive library policies and reintroducing some back as necessary (Stephens, 2019). This reflects an understanding that conventional patron policies far too often replicate other social institutions’ punitive or carceral approach, and that to be more inclusive and welcoming spaces, libraries need to reject this approach. As an aspiring librarian of color who wants to center equity in my work, this is essential to me. My home system, Seattle Public Library, has well-documented how the consequences for “disruptive behavior” in the library by some users are disparate across Black and white youth. While there have been some attempts to address this through diversity trainings and the like, I believe the eliminating restrictions approach would be much more transformative. There obviously need to be some uncrossable lines (such violence against staff or other users), but many library restrictions seem to take up valuable time, and work against cultivating a welcoming environment.

In terms of Libraries and COVID, Rainie’s Pew Report from 2014 offers up a lot of useful facts, but I’m really interested to see a significant report on how the pandemic may have affected folks’ use and perception of libraries. Fact 5 cites 80% of Americans responding that no-cost access to books and media was the most important service that libraries provide. It’s likely that number has gone up, and depending on a given system’s existing offerings and how it has pivoted to meet them during COVID, that some other services — some of them virtual events-related experiences — may have been made more visible on users’ radar. But I’m likewise curious to see an overview of how libraries have come to more deeply understand or consider the needs of their communities because of COVID, and how needs and wants may shift due to folks’ experiences with more digital resources, such as e-books. As noted in Wilburn (2020), the pandemic may be creating some shifts around collection development/acquisition, with collection developers/managers needing to reassess even their well-researched analyses of their communities, and considering previously less prominent genres for acquisition in digital form. This can be exciting — seeing our communities’ needs shift so quickly in real time — but is likely also creating new challenges around how to resource such needs with the existing pricing structure for e-books and other online materials, significantly higher or more restrictive than acquiring print materials. 

Also, some systems have worked to maintain services helpful to houseless/unsheltered patrons, such as reopening some branch restrooms before the library collections space, and providing Wifi via hotspots, parking lot access, or even routers at encampments. But will this focus persist, as physical library spaces reopen? Will we learn the lessons the pandemic provided us, around drawing on creativity and adaptability to continue connecting with and serving not just current users, but potential users? 

Finally, the readings on archives really elevated the work I’d like to be doing as part of my public librarian role: supporting community engagement with and even creation of archival collections. Two fundamental principles in the archival profession exist in somewhat conflict: providing access as openly as possible to current users, while also ensuring that materials are preserved for future users. Archival practice is based in attempting to balance these two principles — which sometimes means adopting a gatekeeping, authoritative stance. Our readings — particularly Baicco (2016), Beck (2016), Becerra-Licha (2017) — describe the emerging shift away from this stance, towards one based in a “participatory archives” or “liberated archive” model, where users/community members are not only allowed much more open access to materials, they are even invited into the collection building process, provided ways to enhance such collections, and granted some measure of control over how materials are presented to and accessed by others. I believe such approaches are critical, not just to ensure that our histories are more rich, complex, and honest, but also that it reinforces the idea that information professionals should facilitate the building and ongoing enhancement of information collections — including archival collections — through participatory practice. Our universe of knowledge isn’t just contained in the library’s or archives’ physical or digital collections, but throughout our communities. As noted in the facilitation principles of the Anti-Oppression Training and Resource Alliance (aka AORTA): “No one knows everything. Together we know a lot.” (AORTA, 2017)

REFERENCES

AORTA. (2017). Anti-Oppressive Facilitation for Democratic Process.

Baiocco, L. (2016). Labor or Love: Opening Up Archival Gems for Community Engagement.

Becerra-Licha, S. (2017). Archives as Community Practice

Beck, K. (2016). Participatory Archiving in Caribe Sur

Laerkes, J.G. (2016). The four spaces of the public library.

Rainie, L. (2014). 10 Facts about Americans and public libraries.

Stephens, M. (2019). “Dream. Explore. Experiment” in Wholehearted Librarianship, p. 60

The Agency for Culture and Palaces. (n.d.). Model programme for public libraries.

Wilburn, T. (2020). Libraries Are Dealing With New Demand For Books And Services During The Pandemic

Posted in Reflection Post | 4 Comments

REFLECTION BLOG POST #2: On Participatory Services and Transparency

As an aspiring librarian deeply interested in centering equity and inclusion in my future work, the Hyperlinked Library model’s tenets of participatory service and transparency provide me with an innovative framework to ground my efforts. Both of these principles are about centering current users, and expanding their participation in library services, planning, and governance at an authentic, substantive level. But even further, the HL model’s vision of participatory service seeks to grow the user community through ongoing outreach, charging librarians to continually consider who isn’t being served by the library, and who isn’t at the table when decisions around services and programs are being made. It also challenges us to move past assumptions about what our communities want to truly collaborate with community members on building a dynamic, adaptable space where all can feel welcome, make connections, and enrich their lives. This positive orientation towards creative and disruptive change and willingness to cede control and power, towards a more mutual and collective vision of power, is precisely the transformation I seek to support in my future role as a public librarian. 

Like Schneider and Kenney (and I’m certain, many others), I reject the idea that the user or community member is broken, and instead believe that it is our systems and practices that need to be considered broken until we prove them otherwise (Kenney, 2014; Schneider, 2006).* I see this not as pessimism, but based in a restless and critical optimism, one synonymous with a refusal to be satisfied with what is, and in line with the focus on constant, purposeful change within the HL model. This critical optimism promotes an ongoing, positive mindset that can drive us to always be open to new ideas to better meet users where they are, instead of allowing complacency and a conservative, risk-averse mentality to guide our work as library professionals. Schneider and Kenney’s critiques call for meeting people where they are, vs. giving them what they think they need, and for us to transform our institutional practices and models of change that maintain institutional power, towards more flattened, horizontal, mutually beneficial relationships between library staff/professionals and community. This can only happen when we open up our work so community members/users can more actively determine the trajectory of our libraries with us. 

The DIY History project cited in our lecture (Stephens, 2021) is a prime example of the type of work I want to be doing; it not only helps enhance a history collection, but it does so through recognizing the depth and breadth of community knowledge as a resource. It also validates and reflects a respect for different forms of knowledge and the many forms through which knowledge can be embodied. This project creates a multidirectional information exchange, where librarians can learn from community, as opposed to the commonly held understanding of librarians as gatekeepers to all the knowledge that is worth knowing. I also found the YOUMedia model exciting, and was surprised to learn that my library system — Seattle Public Library, a fairly well-respected system — does not have a YOUMedia space, and is not part of the Learning Labs Network. This feels like a missed opportunity, I personally would be interested in promoting and exploring alongside a few other folks I know that work for the system in youth/teen services in my possible future work in this system (fingers crossed!). I have volunteered in the past for an all-ages arts organization here in Seattle, which could easily be a partner in this.

Over my time at SJSU, I’ve learned about projects such as this in the context of the Hyperlinked Library, but also through a class of Archives and Manuscripts. The archival profession has  been wrestling with questions around bias and a lack of cultural competency in its prevailing practices, with an emerging call for more inclusive collection-building and maintenance practices and models. These include inclusive description (where communities are provided opportunities to collaborate on how materials documenting their community’s culture and history are cataloged alongside archivists); community transcription of historical objects, such as letters or photo content; and the creation of folksonomies, user-generated tags and subject headings, which have already made their way into many library systems’ online catalogs. A particularly intriguing development includes culturally-responsive/attentive platforms such as the Mukurtu CMS. This content management system — developed by Dr. Kim Christen and Craig Diestrich in collaboration with the Warumungu aboriginal community based in Northern Australia — actually allow marginalized communities to determine the protocols for access and sharing of information related to their cultural heritage. All of these reflect a commitment to authentically involve community members in shaping the shared knowledge and heritage content available in their community, including enabling a more transparent process through which these materials are organized and presented. This is participatory service at its best, with users being involved in the ongoing development of materials reflecting their community’s history, and creating value that library professionals who may lack specific cultural knowledge simply cannot create themselves.

Fundamentally, participatory service and transparency are based in the recognition that libraries — and librarians — do not exist outside of, but are part of a community, and that the value of libraries is determined not by their materials or their facilities, but the possibilities they enable for community to emerge, connect, grow, and thrive together. That way, we not not only all share in the gifts of what Stephens (2016) calls the “informational commons,” but we all work together to preserve and sustain its potential to, in the words of former ALA president Loida Garcia-Febo, “expand minds and open futures” (Garcia-Febo, 2018).

* NOTE: I believe this to be true at a wider societal level in many different areas beyond librarianship, but I’ll stay focused on our more immediate topic of libraries. This is, however, a pretty useful critique around rooting discussions of inequity and social problems in systems, over individuals.

REFERENCES

Garcia-Febo, L. (2018, Nov 1). Serving with love: embedding equality, diversity, and inclusion in all that we do. American Libraries. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/11/01/serving-with-love/ 

Kenney, B. (2014, Jan 27). The User is (Still) Not Broken. Publishers Weekly. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/60780-the-user-is-still-not-broken.html 

Schneider, K, (2006, June 3). The User is Not Broken. Free Range Librarian. http://freerangelibrarian.com/2006/06/03/the-user-is-not-broken-a-meme-masquerading-as-a-manifesto/ 

Stephens, M. T. (2016). The heart of librarianship : attentive, positive, and purposeful change . ALA Editions, an imprint of the American Library Association.

Stephens, M. (2021). Module 4: The Hyperlinked Library: Participatory Service and Transparency [Panopto lecture]. In M. Stephens, The Hyperlinked Library. San Jose State University. https://sjsu-ischool.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=35b4e981-cd58-479a-96d3-aab3011b0f24 

Posted in Hyperlinked Library Model, Reflection Post | 5 Comments

CONTEXT BOOK REVIEW – Eric Klinenberg’s Palaces for the People

In Palaces for the People, Eric Klinenberg argues forcefully that the creation and cultivation of social infrastructure is essential to building and sustaining vibrant, resilient, inclusive, human communities. Drawing both from history as well as more contemporary sociological studies, he situates libraries — alongside civic associations, unions, green architecture, and mixed-income neighborhoods — as part of a social system that nurtures community connection and interaction. These structures and institutions enable community members to come together in diverse configurations and relationships, to learn from and with each other, and to support the flourishing of themselves and their communities. They can include not just associations or groups, but the built environment and physical spaces in which community members interact in public. Klinenberg’s call is for our society to renew and expand our commitment to such spaces, towards preserving the notion of the commons, and an ethic of mutuality, equity, and democracy, which he sees as crucial to meeting the challenges of our time. It is through social infrastructure that these values and principles can be realized in the everyday lives of communities. 

Although presenting several different examples of social infrastructure throughout Palaces…, Klinenberg devotes a large measure of attention on libraries. Through discussion of different library branches — most pointedly the Seward Park Branch of the New York Public Library — he counters the narrative of libraries as book repositories, pointing towards several examples of  how library organizations can serve their communities independent of print, or even digital materials: as social gaming space for elders participating in a cross-borough virtual bowling league; as an emergency response center following natural disasters; as a space for first-time parents or youth to connect and learn from one another; or just as a safe place for houseless folks to spend their day. The free and open nature of libraries, he notes, makes them truly accessible “third spaces,” distinguishing them from other spaces labeled as such, like cafes, which are still governed by the dictates of commerce, requiring payment for the privilege of using the space. 

This anti-commercial mission of libraries is what makes them both sites of such possibility, but also explains perspectives of those who see them as being on the wane. Klinenberg delves into this by asking and answering a critical question:

Why have so many public officials and civic leaders failed to recognize the value of libraries and their role in our social infrastructure? Perhaps it is because the founding principle behind the library — that all people deserve free, open access to our shared culture and heritage, which they can use to any end they see fit — is out of sync with the market logic that dominates our time. (If, today, the library didn’t already exist, it’s hard to imagine our society’s leaders inventing it.) (emphasis added)

It is precisely this founding principle, this mission that makes libraries such a valuable contributor to a community’s social infrastructure — because it is focused on providing access to information and content to anyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, level of education, ability status, or any of a number of other dimensions of identity. Librarians need to center this openness and ongoing collaboration with a diversity of potential users through developing community-responsive services and programs, towards helping to build and realize community. They should work to make their library “a space of permission,” in the words of Sharon Marcus, who Klinenberg features in a narrative about her childhood experiences with libraries. 

While acknowledging the connective potential of digital technologies (particularly for youth, whose lives are increasingly regulated and surveilled in the offline, physical world, and who have been increasingly seeking some level of autonomy online), Klinenberg asserts that much of the value of social infrastructure emerges from its capacity to bring a diverse range of people together in physical space. Libraries, as physical spaces open to all and focused on serving just such a diversity of users, can thus be crucial contributors to the social infrastructure of the communities they serve. In fact, in a world where social interactions are increasingly shaped by algorithms and filters intent on keeping most people in a state of outrage and disconnection from those different from them in identity and perspective, libraries remain a fairly unique space in terms of their potential for enabling of heterogeneous, cross-cultural and intergenerational exchanges. Klinenberg argues that even in physical space, social distance and segregation lead to polarization and disconnection, while contact and conversation help humanize and expand community. Libraries can be fluid, dynamic physical spaces that help anchor social gatherings, and thus, enable social cohesion and solidarity to flourish.

To continue performing the valuable role they do, Klinenberg believes that libraries and librarians need to respond and transform themselves, to ensure they stay relevant and responsive to the communities they serve. He presents the example of floating libraries, which have emerged in Bangladesh in response to increasing floods generated by climate change, as a creative approach to maintaining and even possibly expanding access. Such grassroots, hyperlocal innovations show how library service need not be defined by major funding, and  inspire librarians in countries and communities with significantly more resources to explore new ways of facilitating use, sharing, and creation of content by their users. 

Although speaking of social infrastructure in general, Klinenberg ends his book with a few crucial imperatives, which I think are very much aligned with the Hyperlinked Model and future of libraries. First, he underlines his primary point, which is that social infrastructure needs to be understood as an essential component to the wellbeing of communities alongside physical (or increasingly tech) infrastructure, and that we need to carefully consider how and what we build of it, since our values are expressed in such constructions, and define what future we want to create. In the context of libraries, this can be taken to mean both spaces and services need to be purposefully developed and designed and even redesigned, in line with what users are seeking to meet their needs, and that library workers should be advocates and collaborators with others within their community focused on enhancing the overall welfare of their communities. In addition, he argues that such design cannot be the work of political officials or experts, but need to be inclusive, democratic, and participatory, “harnessing all kinds of collective intelligence.” This resonates with the notion of participatory design and services that are fundamental to the Hyperlinked Library model, and should be adopted by any library system desiring to remain relevant and responsive to its users (and potential users). Finally, while arguing for the importance of innovation, creativity, and possibly even technology in designing social infrastructure, Klinenberg maintains that social connection and interaction — nurturing humanity — must remain central to the outcome; libraries need to maintain a similar stance, keeping people, not materials, as the center of their work.

CONCLUSION: PANDEMIC REFLECTIONS

While I found Klinenberg’s Palaces of the People a compelling case for investment in social infrastructure, I’m left with many questions about how much the COVID pandemic may have shifted or even damaged some of its capacity, in our country, and elsewhere. This public health crisis, which has specifically complicated the ability of folks to interact physically, has caused many institutions and communities to pivot towards more digital means of interaction, and access of information. What Klinenberg might make of these recently emergent forms of connection is not entirely clear, and possibly speaks to how challenging it can sometimes be for libraries — as one part of social infrastructure — to address issues caused by the failure of another — our mixed for-profit and non-profit health care system here in the U.S. libraries. 

The library system in the city I call home, Seattle, already had a fairly robust range of digital resources and platforms available to users, and expanded into programs such as virtual story hours, author events, and other online meetups. (SPL eventually moved to curbside service, and — after several months of limited hours — reopening with masks and other protocols in place.) However, I wonder about other, particularly smaller or less-resourced systems, which may not have been able to adjust as easily to the demands of the pandemic. As long as they keep their focus on connecting users to materials and each other by whatever means they have available, however, libraries will continue providing a valuable service to their communities.  

REFERENCES

Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people : how social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life . Crown.

Posted in Book Review, Hyperlinked Library Model | 2 Comments

REFLECTION BLOG POST #1 – THE HYPERLINKED LIBRARY MODEL

Our readings on the Hyperlinked Model* were (and are) helpful for me as a callback to my professional aspirations at a time when many folks who know I’m reaching the downslope towards my degree have been asking me what kind of librarian I want to be, and what type of work I want to do. The practices, preoccupations, and possibilities embodied in the Hyperlinked Library model directly speak to several of the reasons I decided to pursue a path in librarianship, and provide me with a clear vision of how I wish to approach my future work, the values I’m seeking to promote through it, and the impact I hope to have in my community.

My intention in becoming an information professional is to not just facilitate others’ learning, their use of knowledge and information, but to also their participation in the creation of and sharing of new knowledge, ideas, and perspectives. This intention emerges from a few different sources, directly related to my experiences and participation in social change movements and creative cultural (sub)communities for a few decades as a Black person, an independent musician, a community activist, a zinemaker/blogger, and a lover of learning. The HL model aligns with this intention in a few ways which I’ll note below.  

Participatory Practices Nurture Creativity and Inclusion

The Hyperlinked Library model’s focus on creating participatory services and programs in collaboration with and centered around the needs and interests of users makes it a valuable framework for creating social change through enabling information and creative equity. Its proactive engagement and openness to forms of knowledge beyond the book, periodical, or other traditional text-based materials (Booth, 2013) is not just important to me as a musician and cultural activist with a history of producing “alternative” literature in the form of zines, it also fosters the inclusion of expressions of non-text-based cultural knowledge from marginalized communities and perspectives which have not previously been deemed not worthy of collection by traditional library institutions. I believe participatory cultural practices are essential in nurturing human creativity and ensuring everyday/marginalized voices are included in cultural conversations. 

Also, a key element of both Library 2.0 (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007) and the Hyperlinked Library model is that change efforts should be inclusive of not just existing users, but non-users/potential users as well. This intentional engagement with community members outside of the library’s doors makes space for a diversity of experiences, perspectives, learning and creating styles, and different types of expression all to be considered in service and program design, and resources to be offered.

Centering People, Not Technologies

As social institutions, libraries have served a critical role in promoting equity of access to information for all, regardless of lived experience or socioeconomic status. The HL model goes beyond simply working to make access as open as possible, prioritizing services, programs, tools, and even physical spaces that connect people, and provide them opportunities to learn and create in collaborative ways. While interested in the possibilities that digital technologies and resources offer around information access and use for library users (I’m actually taking INFO 240 on Information Technology Tools and Applications this semester as well), I particularly appreciate that the HL model — for all its attention to the prospects of new information technologies — is fundamentally people-centered, with all change efforts focused on whatever works to expand everyday folks’ capacity to learn, create, and build community and to foster greater, more deep human interaction, collaboration, and inspiration, as opposed to further disconnection and isolation (Searls & Weinberger, 2015). As Searls and Weinberger (2015) assert, “The Net’s super-power is connection without permission,” and libraries should embrace and enable uses of digital technologies and online platforms that bring people together.

The emphasis of remaining people- and user-centered in the HL model and Library 2.0 is, to me, an essential corrective to what is otherwise an elevation of technology and innovation as the solution to library organizations’ challenges. It grounds change in values of human connection, creativity, and dignity, and as opposed to those of efficiency and cost-effectiveness — which serve the interests of profit and commerce more than people. I was glad to see Mattern (2014) address this point directly, arguing that “innovation” as a principle should always be defined and embraced in the context of the values, ethics, and missions of libraries. Both Library 2.0 and the HL model are explicitly against a one-size-fits-all approach to innovating services and programs — including tech-based approaches — and more about developing a mindset and orientation that centers constant change and user participation (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007). 

Evolution, Not Revolution

Dr. Stephens is fond of saying, “The Web changed everything,” and I’m inclined to agree with him. But what I find both fascinating and comforting about Library 2.0 and the Hyperlinked Library model is that they provide a disruptive orientation towards librarianship that is still very much grounded in the historical mission and purpose of libraries. The focus on a constant, purposeful, positive adaptation to change” (Stephens, 2021) specifically reminded me of the last of S. R. Ranganathan’s 5 Laws of Library Science, proposed 90 years ago: The library is a growing organism. This optimistic and intentional approach to potentially disruptive change is perhaps the most visible alignment of the 5 Laws with the HL model, but all the other principles — which express the centering of information users’ demands and needs — are there as well.   

Disruptive Models of Practice and Knowledge Creation

A particular focus of mine coming into library science school was to develop new, potentially disruptive models that could make research and information seeking more accessible to everyday folks — not just scholars or enrolled students — to cultivate learning, research, and scholarship outside of traditional educational institutions. As a zinester and blogger who has written about topics ranging from music to political commentary/analysis, I believe in supporting everyday folks doing just such content creation. I am particularly interested in empowering community members to do research towards leveraging information on behalf of transformative social change in their communities. This requires (re)considering existing reference service models, interactive instructional trainings and tools around databases and other information sources, creating user-friendly information retrieval interfaces, and other issues — all very in line with the HL model. I’m also interested in community-generated history, in the form of community archives and zine collections/libraries. There is an emergent understanding — alongside Library 2.0 — around both of these for collection, cataloging, and access practices that are more participatory in nature, and more open-access oriented. The HL model provides a useful guide towards developing such new approaches.

Libraries as Community Hubs

The growing movement to remake libraries into community hubs that can enable a wide range of experiences as well as provide a wide range of resources is also pretty important to me. Their example as a shared public commons is critical in a time of increasing privatization of all kinds of public or previously more openly accessible services — education, health care, even natural resources and physical space itself. I’m dedicated to maintaining and expanding the capacity for libraries to enrich people from all different experiences’ lives, with as few barriers as possible, and to make deep contributions of positive change in their communities. I believe the Hyperlinked Library model is already pointing the way for libraries, librarians, and communities to create such deeper relationship and connection, making a more human and humane future possible in the now. 

*NOTE: I actually find it difficult to consider the Hyperlinked Library model separately from our Foundational Readings, particularly Casey and Savastinuk’s Library 2.0. This is because the fundamental principles expressed in the Library 2.0 framework — a commitment to constant, purposeful change focused on user demand and need and user participation in development of the services, programs, and resources to meet those demands and needs — are central to Hyperlinked Library ideas and practices. 

REFERENCES

Booth, M. (2013). People and UTS Library. https://287.hyperlib.sjsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Booth_PeopleUTSLibrary.pdf 

Casey, M. & Savastinuk, L. (2007). Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service, Information Today Press, 2007. http://books.infotoday.com/books/Library20.shtml 

Five Laws of Library Science. (2021, August 30). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science

Mattern, S. (2014). Library as Infrastructure. Places (Cambridge, Mass.), 2014. https://doi.org/10.22269/140609 

Searls, D. & Weinberger, D. (2015). New Clues. Cluetrain. https://www.cluetrain.com/newclues/ 

Stephens, M. (2021). Module 3: The Hyperlinked Library Model: Exploring the Model [Panopto lecture]. In M. Stephens, The Hyperlinked Library. San Jose State University. https://sjsu-ischool.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a0569381-4d66-4e0a-a7fa-aab3010a8f3e 

Posted in Hyperlinked Library Model, Reflection Post | 2 Comments

OH, HELLO THERE!

Hello folks!

My name is Marc, and I live in unceded Duwamish territory, sometimes referred to as Seattle. I started in the SJSU MLIS program in Fall 2019, and am planning to finish in Fall 2022; I’ve got a few more electives, my Research Methods required class (taking in the Spring), and the e-Portfolio (next Fall).

I first encountered Dr. Stephens’ concept of the hyperlinked library in my Information Communities class, and found its emphasis on ensuring libraries stay human- and user-centered community spaces even as new technologies and new user practices emerge really compelling. As an aspiring public librarian who is really committed to the notion of libraries as community hubs which enable users of different identities and needs to use, create, and share the resources they are seeking to grow and thrive, I am really interested in how libraries can change and adapt to better serve their communities through different technologies and new access models, while also ensuring the human experience stays central to our work. As a person of color, entering a field where there is little representation and sometimes shaky work around racial equity, I hold questions of social inequity and how they are either replicated or disrupted in libraries as institutions pretty central to my future work. 

Having grown up in the Do It Yourself/grassroots creative subcultural communities of indie music and zines and community activism, I’m also interested in nurturing non-traditional creative cultural communities, and participatory/collaborative practices. Coming out of school, I’d like to work somewhere in the intersection of public librarianship, community archival collection, and creative cultural programming both within and outside library systems, to support transformative social change. 

I’m looking forward to learning from and with you all. Thanks!

Posted in Introduction! | 5 Comments