One topic one can read frequently in the professional literature as well as the news reports about Chinese libraries is the "occupying seats" issue. It happens mainly in college libraries: too many students need to use academic libraries as a space for learning compared with the libraries' capacities. In public libraries too, especially in the vacations, you can see so many students waiting for entering a seat in the library's learning space. I cannot say that the large number of population is the only reason here, but obviously, it is one of the issues that makes Chinese librarianship unique. (So I am kind of curious about how libraries in India are dealing with these issues, if there is any.)
This phenomenon, by the way, is one of the best counterarguments against "Chinese people don't use libraries". They do! They have a need for libraries, though they may not need as much of some services and resources offered by the libraries and expected by the librarians. There seems to be a strong need for library space in such cases. (On the other hand, unfortunately, the focuses of most of the Chinese libraries, public or academic, are still resources or even physical books. I will talk about this issue in the next post.)
On the other hand, a lot of students who get a seat in the library just don't study there immediately. They try to use some ways to take this seat and come back later. This behavior makes the whole situation worse.
You can see a lot of these amusing pictures online:
There are a number of solutions to this problem, one of which is that, some academic libraries in China locks all the learning spaces, and they sell the seats to the students! This policy, as simple as it is, was severely criticized by some Chinese librarians.
Recently, Beijing Normal University Library (I got my undergraduate degree there) had a new policy (in Chinese) that, during certain hours in a day, everyone who wants to get a seat in the library must register in a machine in advance. If they leave the library, they need to log-off in the machine too. And if one is found to break the rule for three times, he/she will be deprived of the right to get a seat in the library for 30 days.
It doesn't sound like a very humanized policy because of the punishment part. However, I don't think this policy is totally unacceptable. It's interesting to know that some other libraries around the world are using this device too (like this Korean library). What makes me feel better about this policy is that, several days ago, the library tweeted a message in Weibo (again, Chinese version of Twitter) that public opinions about this seat management system are welcome.
Besides good management, at least in some cases, the problem in the library is only a part of the bigger issue on the campus. For example, in some universities, all the classrooms are forbidden to be used for anything other than classes. In such cases, it's inevitable that the library is overly crowded. The point is that, rather than just taking care of themselves, libraries under such a condition should try to do something to fix the bigger problem too (as early as possible).
So again, libraries should have conversations with all the stakeholders in this case. They should talk with universities to open all the available learning spaces on the campus. They should also talk with the students about the management measures and maybe about how they can find a space to learn more easily. For public libraries, one of the solutions is to establish a community library system, which also involves conversation, though a much more complex one.
Chinese librarianship is different with US librarianship on many big and subtle aspects. (for example, it may be hard to image the lack of space issue in the US libraries) However, even so, some basic principles, like conversation, can be applicable in China to at least ease the problem.
As a cataloger, I have always been a big fan of "Killing Dewey", which doesn't mean that Dewey be eliminated from the library world, because that is both unnecessary and impossible. However, based on the local context, individual libraries should explore other possibilities other than Dewey Decimal Classification (or maybe Library of Congress Classification) or maybe find new ways to use these legacy standards. There was a great article published in the Library Journal in 2009 talking about some of the approaches US libraries had taken to deal with DDC and accompanying discussions. In some of the cases mentioned in the article, DDC was not killed, rather, it was reinforced or mixed with bookstore classification to become more user-friendly.
However, after that, the discussion of replacing/augmenting DDC has not been as active as I expected. Not until recently, did I read another article on the Digital Shift about how an elementary school library gave up Dewey Decimal Classification this summer. The big change in the library was because the librarians realized that "classification is really just a series of compromises that inevitably results in a less than perfect solution". As a result, the library adopted a much broader classification scheme, moreover, the new classification system "group books by how subjects are taught". Kudos to these librarians!
That is definitely one of the examples about "how library catalog can support learning" after this week's 511 class, in which Professor Lankes talked about theories of knowledge creation. I do think philosophical rethinking of classification as what he did is interesting. Though some level of reductionism and objectivism is inevitable and necessary for anyone to understand the world, approaching toward constructionism is good for both the libraries and the members. (Sorry for all these "-ism" words.)
Being flexible and user-friendly (or even user-generated) is always a solution here. Arranging resources by the actual use of these resources, rather than by the classification system is an idea worthy exploring. Just like the "virtue shelves" idea proposed in Professor Lankes' book, maybe a library can form subject groups (like tourism, cooking in public libraries, and anthropology, history in academic libraries), and letting these library members/experts to organize all the resources relevant to this area.
On the other hand, some of the great ideas mentioned in "Everything is Miscellaneous" written by David Weinberger may work here. With more and more virtual resources are subscribed or bought by libraries (Bookless library!), the order for libraries to organize physical resources (aka, library classification) will no longer be relevant in the future. It's not hard to notice the huge differences between the physical library shelves and online catalogs.
I was trying hard not to cross the line of cataloging and classification when I wrote this post. However, I was reminded of the "putting lipstick on pigs" discussion several years ago about whether OPAC 2.0 was necessary. In this term, I do feel that some of the "OPAC 2.0" solutions are awesome. (In case you don't know about the whole "OPAC 2.0" thing, you can see this presentation given by Mr. Dave Pattern. But on the other hand, even if you have never heard about "Library 2.0", I think it's totally fine, because people no longer talk about it. And people are talking about "discovery platform" rather than "OPAC X.0", which for me is basically the same thing.) But I totally agree that pigs with lipstick are still pigs. Like library website ("No one started their information search on a library Web site" as stated by the famous "Library Perception 2010" report), we should try to deliver our metadata in other platform that people actually are using. (Every time I thought about this issue, I was reminded of this blog post written by David Lee King.)
One revolutionary movement in the classification area is the linked data movement. With more and more institutions publishing their subject headings/classification systems as linked data (like Library of Congress' Subject Heading and classification, OCLC's FAST and even Dewey Decimal Classification!), these former library-centered data can be used by a bigger community, especially by the Internet community to truly organize not only resources owned by the libraries, but actually all the resources in the world.
This vision is awesome, though much more works need to be done before we arrive there. One thing that I recommend everyone to pay attention to is the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group. This program suggests that libraries can play a really important role in tomorrow's Internet world. Libraries are no longer the only knowledge center in the world, but we can use our expertise and metadata to become one node in the new knowledge landscape, which is an important one and can make major contributions to everyone.
To borrow the famous sentence: library classification will be dead, long live information organization!
My major as an undergraduate is history. It is interesting to be a history student in a country with a "long and glorious" history. But to be honest, I am not particularly proud of the "5,000 years" of history in China (at least, the number is what is publicized by the government and what is believed by the public). One of the reasons is that I subscribe to post-modern theory. As a result, I think history is construction in nature. Hu Shih, one of the greatest Chinese historians, once said that "history is like a girl's face, subject to makeup as one sees fit." Another reason is that, as what I can see, besides the glorious side in the Chinese history, there is also a dark side, which has been influencing the society until now.
One of the dark events is the burning of books and burying of scholars (I am surprised to know that there is a Wikipedia entry of this event) in the Qin Dynasty, which is the first and is also public seen a great dynasty in Chinese history. This event can be regarded as the starting point of the censorship in China. Here, I don't want to rephrase how censorship went through along the long history in China. But burning book is still happening in China, literally and metaphorically.
In Chinese social media world, people tend to have fierce debate about certain issues. Unfortunately, in some cases, these debates turned into personal attack. Burning the books is one of the ways some radicalists expressing anger toward some specific targets.
(This is a picture someone uploaded to Sina Weibo, because he is angry about the attitude of the author of this book in the debate between Han Han and Fang Shimin, which is a major social issue in China in recent years.)
Another event happened in 2010. In a "academic" conference about reading held in South China University of Technology, some scholars burned books which are seen by them as "garbage books". The issue of garbage books is more complex, because the quality of some of the books published in China is really low. But the point here is that, it's still our culture to burn books rather than to use conversations to solve a problem.
And what is terrible is that, censorship (a broader sense of burning books) is becoming omnipresent and stronger in China.
Michael Anti (a Chinese journalist, political blogger and dissenter) gave a speech about the recent development of censorship in China in TEDGlobal 2012. It's one of the most insightful and accurate descriptions of what is going on inside the Great Fire Wall I have seen. Based on his observation, the government's censorship and people's enlightenment are both growing, and they are having complex interactions in China. It's really interesting to see what will happen in a couple of years.
It should have been the stage for Chinese librarians, unless it isn't.
Last week, Professor Lankes talked about people should not ask "what is the future of libraries" in America, they should ask "what should be the future of libraries and librarians in a democracy". That's kind of the starting point of this blog post. It was this question that reminded me some of the difficulties of being a librarian in China under the omnipresent censorship, which librarians in America may not encounter, or at least these problems may not be as much serious here. On the other hand, just like my last blog post mentioned, people in China like to say "there is no choice" without actually trying anything. I also feel that we should not blame everything on the political system. Even though it's extremely hard to change a political system, we can do something to make everyone's life better, which, little by little, will eventually change the whole country.
Before anything, I want to share a number of stories I came across when I was a librarian in China.
The Chinese government has been banning a lot of books. Banning books are not unique in China, what makes things unique here is that you never know what books are banned. Because banned books are a sensitive topic which is highly invisible to the public even if you can find a way to talk about it in the media. This fact reminds me of a Chinese American historian, Ray Huang's books, in which he talked a lot about the different ways of the Chinese governments and the Western governments in the history. One differences he emphasized is that the Chinese governments has been lacking the ability to manage the country using statistics, thus they can only rely on moral principles and secrecy. In an environment in which even talking about banned books is sensitive, is threatened by politic forces, it's no wonder that nearly all the libraries in China have to take some sort of self-censorship measures. (Sure, another reason is that, like I have mentioned, nearly all the Chinese public libraries belong to and be managed by the government. And Chinese universities are highly bureaucratic too, which makes Chinese academic libraries' situations equally bad.)
In China, publication is strictly controlled. Every book to be published in this country need to be approved by the government, which means that libraries cannot buy unapproved book published in China, because these books hardly exist. For materials published outside the country, there is only one legit channel for libraries to buy these stuff, which is the National Publication Import and Export Corporate. I was a cataloger dealing with English books. There were several times when I cataloged books about really sensitive topics, like Dalai Lama, but in these books there were notes forbidding these books to be public accessible. There was another time when an organization in the US wanted to donate some English books to us, but to get these books, our library had to get permissions from several government departments and ensure that there was no book with "inappropriate" contents.
Another story I can think of is our library's public lectures. Public lectures are one of the most popular projects in our library. There are basically lectures in the library everyday, but lectures held on weekends are especially well-attended. Once upon, one of my colleagues who's in charge of the lecture project had an idea to invite a very famous Taiwanese talk show host, Kevin Tsai (who has the same number of followers in Sina Weibo as Barack Obama in Twitter) to give a lecture in our library. Because Mr. Tsai is also famous for his love of reading, so it'll be a perfect idea not only to promote reading, attract his fans, but also to attract the eye balls of the mass media. This lecture could have been awesome, however, it was rejected by our director. I heard the reasons our director gave to reject this idea were, first, he is a Taiwanese; second, he is a gay, both of which are kind of sensitive. So the director thought even if she approved this idea, the Bureau of Culture in Beijing would definitely rejected it, and may blame her for not rejecting the idea by himself.
Ironically, there is this "great development and flourishing of socialist culture" policy in China recent years. To achieve this "goal", a large amount of money was invested in Chinese public as well as academic libraries. The results? The results are interesting but definitely beyond the scope of this post. But in short, no matter how much money be invested, there is no reason that great libraries can exist in a undemocratic country. (To be noted, there are some libraries in China doing relatively better jobs in their relatively loose environments.)
As a maybe too simplistic map, Chinese librarians should give up their hope to rely on the government. They should be more brave to make changes, they should embrace the people, and they should try to influence the society more rather than remain socially aloof. Those are the first step before any substantial changes to be made.
My last blog post talked about the idea that you don't have to hold an MLIS degree to become a true librarian. But even after proposing this quite heretic idea, in most of the cases, I do believe it's a really good thing that all the librarians hold an MLIS degree.
When I was a librarian in China, I was actually very surprised that most of the Chinese librarians did not have an MLIS degree (including me for sure). In my library (which is the major public library in Beijing, in case you don't know), the percentage of the librarians with an MLIS degree is lower than 10%. For a number of good academic libraries and top public libraries, the number may be higher. But for most of the public libraries, this number is even lower than us. During the last five years, I found a lot of reasons to explain this phenomenon.
I think the most important reason here is that the library science education in China is largely seen as unrelated with library practices. When I talked to other librarians in the Chinese library community, one comment I heard a lot was that, those library professors did not understand what was going on in libraries. As a result, for library practitioners, the ideas proposed by library science professors are unrealistic in many cases. While on the other hand, for many professors, the developments of most of the libraries are not satisfactory at all. The point here is not which side is right, which side is wrong. They are both right and wrong. I think the point is that, unlike the landscape in the US, there is a lack of communication and trust between the two sides because of some really profound reasons. (In China, you can hear people talking about "profound reasons" a lot. This expression is largely an excuse of people's "having no choice", like an article in Lonely Planet said. So I think I should try to avoid this cynicism, and think deeper about this issue.)
I have not attended any library school in China. As a result, I have little knowledge about what's REALLY going on there. But I do have some connections (which is another expression in the article mentioned above) with library students or people working in library schools. Moreover, my library once had a training session for librarians in cooperation with the library school in Beijing Normal University. I attended this project, and had some really bad experiences.
One the one hand, compared with the curriculum in American library schools, the courses in China are much further away from practices. In the project organized by my library and iSchool, BNU, there was even a course about database. However, the course was taught poorly. The teacher just talked about what elements did a database normally have, and how did they look like, and things like this, without any exercises. I understand the project was only an ad hoc project rather than a real course in the school. However, I still don't think the knowledge taught in a real course had strong connections with what's going on in libraries. This partly explains why many directors in public libraries (again, including the library I used to work) like recruiting students from other professions rather than library schools. One of the comments I heard our director saying a lot was that, librarians need expertise of other professions; what you do in a library is easily to be learnt. Is that so easy? I certainly don't think so. However, this is a popular mindset among library directors in China.
But on the other hand, there are even more problems in the libraries. It's hard to talk about Chinese libraries as a whole, because there are big differences between public libraries, academic libraries and special libraries. There are even greater differences between individual libraries in these categories. But it's a fact that Chinese libraries, especially public libraries, are not doing a good job. They should have done a better job as expected by the public and the professors. But in this case, the "having no choice" expression comes out again. We have some many limitations in terms of management structure and the governance. I don't want to make this issue too complex (which is really complex though). In short, all the Chinese public libraries belong to the government; and in China, the power of the government is so strong and omnipresent, especially in the "culture industry" (in China, the library is categorized into the broader term "culture industry"). The government tends to censor everything in this area. Sometimes, even new ideas come out from librarians, they cannot be implemented because the government is afraid of these ideas; or at least librarian directors think so. Moreover, in most of the cities, like Beijing, public libraries on different levels belong to different levels of governments. For example, the library I used to work, the Public Library of Chinese is part of the Government of Beijing Municipality; while district libraries in Beijing belong to different district governments. It makes extremely hard to harmonize the efforts of different library entities in the same city, and present a uniform brand to the public.
Also, living in Beijing is really hard. Librarians definitely earn much less than people in other professions. So working in Beijing as a librarian is naturally not the best decision an MLIS student can make, who has the ability to take other better paid jobs; not to mention the fact that, many libraries don't like them at all.
Another factor may be that, Chinese libraries (again, especially public libraries) are still publicly seen as the repositories of books. Namely everyone, when they think about libraries, they think about print books. My colleagues used to make a user survey about digital resources. The result of this survey indicates that, many people have no idea what is "digital resource" in the context of a library. This factor, combining the low earning, explains why the social status of librarians is very low in China.
Above is a brief version of this story. For some parts of the story, my narrative is over-simplified. One of these parts is the differences between different libraries in China. There are certainly very good libraries in China, most of which are academic and special ones, like the National Science Library of Chinese Academy of Science. One of the reasons is that, it's a library located in a purely academic institution, thus, there are relatively less institutional barriers. Another reason is that, the director of the library, Dr. Xiaolin Zhang, is a truly creative library leader even around the world. You can never underestimate the library leader's influences on a specific library, especially in China.
I used to think the situations in the US are just opposite to China, that most of the librarians hold an MLIS degree. However, last year, when I read Ken Haycock's book Portable MLIS, I was surprised to find that the percentage of American public librarians who hold an MLIS was much lower than I expected too (though much higher than in China). On the other hand, with the increasing importance of subject librarians, American libraries, especially academic libraries, have a stronger need to have librarians with an MLIS degree as well as a doctor's degree in another field. Again, the real world is too complex to fit into any simple schema.
This blog post is supposed to be the first blog post about some of my thoughts about library management after taking IST 600 Collaborating Effectively in the summer. The point I want to make here is that, when I was in China, I always thought that the librarianship in the US was totally different with the one in China. However, I have know that my previous thought was too simple. For sure, there are a lot of differences, especially in terms of political environment, institutional structure and the culture. But there are also a lot of spaces for improvement in Chinese librarianship. From the strategical level, we should keep the confidence that everything can be better. And in the next few posts, I hope I can cover the topics about how to actually turn things better in China and what I (and everyone) can do to achieve the goals.
I may have read this piece of news earlier this week, but when I read about the story that the people's library in Oakland was shut down by the police yesterday, I was both excited by the efforts of the volunteers who established the library and was kind of sad about the result.
According to the news, some activists in Oakland took over the building of an abandoned library in the morning of this Monday, which was one of the Carnegie's donations originally established in 1918 and has been closed since 1970s until this Monday.
After occupying the library, the volunteers coming from everywhere filled the library with donated books and erected banners to make it working again. But that's not all. They tried to get the community to engage! According to one of the occupiers' narration:
the organizers also put out a press release, went door-knocking in the neighborhood to inform and invite the community, and built a gardening program that invited youth to come and develop the blighted space.
And they even planned to host a poetry reading program according to the news! In short, they did it, and they did it like awesome librarians.
As I mentioned earlier, I have been reading Professor Lankes' Atlas of New Librarian recently. This event made me excited not only because it is a perfect example of how libraries can help to improve the society in a broader sense, but also because it illustrates what librarians are.
Definitely, librarians are not only those people who work in a library. On the one hand, if one is working in a library in a "wrong" manner, I don't think he is qualified to be a librarian (I am certainly not unbiased toward this issue). On the other hand, as Professor Lankes puts, people with an MLIS degree, no matter where he/she works, he/she can still do the job like a librarian. But here, this story may extend Professor Lankes' statement further. Because there is little information about these activists' professional backgrounds, it's safe to assume that little of them have a MLIS degree. So we can say, even if you do not work in a library nor have an MLIS degree, you can still be a librarian by doing things like this, to sharing information to promote knowledge creation in your community.
Sadly, according to the news, this library was closed by the police last night. But on the other hand, even this library being open for less than a week, we can still expect the little changes it posed to the local community and the society as a whole will turn out to be something great. Just like we can see the influences of Occupy Wall Street Library in this library by its name "people's library", we can expect this library inspire other people to make our society better in the future.
For more information, you can follow Twitter hashtag: #peopleslibrary
