Of Circulation Policies, Primal Instincts, and the Existence of Libraries

The greatest barrier to the implementation of social software arises when library staff put their own needs before those of the patrons. I don't think that is something library staff often do, but when they do it can be harmful and regressive. To make my point, I need to walk you through a discussion of a seemingly unrelated circulation and accounting procedure at the cooperative where I work, so bear with me. (As always, my argument focuses mostly on public libraries, but I think it can be more broadly applied.)

A few weeks ago, the circulation services committee for the regional library cooperative where I work began a discussion about making some changes to our policies and procedures involving refunds to patrons. Right now, if a patron loses a book, she has to pay to replace it, but if she later finds the book and returns it, the money will either be refunded to her or credited to her account for paying future fines. Makes sense, right? Well, in a cooperative where libraries are independent but also share some funding and try to cooperate, things can get complicated. Many of the member libraries have "nuance" to their refund policies. Some libraries allow a patron to "pay" for an item by bringing in a replacement copy; some libraries do not allow it. Some libraries will only refund money or credit an account if the lost item is returned within 6 months or 1 year; some libraries offer a refund or credit for returned items well beyond a year. Some libraries do not clearly articulate their policies, and transactions are handled on a case-by-case basis. Exciting, no? There is a point, I promise.

So. Many circulation employees and managers believe the current policies and procedures regarding refunds are too complicated and difficult to manage, and they're right. Something needs to be done. The circulation committee, then, in an attempt to bring some consistency to this issue, is discussing whether or not to just cease giving refunds. Essentially, you-lose-it-you-buy-it, and that's it. Now, I've only attended these meetings a couple times when a coworker was out sick, and I wasn't at this particular meeting. It's not clear what the final proposal will be (if it even comes to that), or how seriously it is being considered, but the issue is being discussed not just among managers but among frontline staff. Reactions vary. Some think it's appalling to get rid of a procedure that seems so basic to good customer service; some welcome a change because the discrepancies in refund procedures can be confusing and frustrating. Personally, I think it makes no sense to choose a regressive move that favors clerks and accountants over patrons. I'm frustrated by the discussion, but not surprised. Whether it be restructuring the delivery of reference services, revising circulation policies and procedures, or implementing social software, most people initially ask themselves, "How is this going to make my job harder?"

It's not a bad reaction to have. Everybody reacts that way every once in a while. Our library administrators have brought up the idea of extending our evening hours in order to provide more access to patrons, meaning I and many others would probably be working later shifts; I'll admit that at that moment I'm thinking, "Screw the patrons, I got a wife I want to see, schoolwork to do, and TV to watch." It's primal. We're just wired to think of ourselves and our kin first. But the primal response is literally just the first response to a situation; it doesn't usually serve us very well when it's the final response. We are able to accomplish a lot more when we consider the needs of the community. I mean, that's why public libraries exist in the first place.

Libraries are a lot of hard work. It is really hard to organize information, to make it findable, to preserve it, and to make it accessible and free. We support and do this work because we have evolved to value community and the "greater good." Thankfully, this evolved understanding of community often wins out and we end up with things like public libraries, public schools, and public transportation (still waiting on public healthcare). Sometimes, after we've worked within a public institution long enough, we can forget why we are there in the first place, and we begin to make decisions that do not have the community's best interest at heart. Primal reactions are sustained, and that is when barriers to progress arise.

I think over the course of this semester, we've learned that there are a lot of important questions that have to be asked when implementing social software; certain criteria have to be met in order for it to be successful. But those questions help clarify. They are built on the presumption of eventually finding the tools that make the best fit, not on blocking their use altogether. Too often, however, in the "real world" those questions are simply used to box in ideas that might threaten the status quo. It really doesn't matter if we're talking about social software or circulation refund policies. People fear the challenges that improved patron services present, but if we had let that fear dictate all of our professional decisions, libraries would have never existed in the first place. We take so much of what we do in libraries for granted, but in the beginning it was messy, difficult, and risky. That's where libraries now stand when it comes to social software and community building, and we just have to keep pressing. Hopefully, it will all one day be taken for granted, too.

(Of course, twenty years down the road there will be a library's social software committee meeting in which I and my disillusioned peers will be sitting in hover-chairs, discussing some regressive policy change that will make sense to us only; if in 2030 you so happen to find me in this state, please slap me across my bald pate and download all the blog posts from this class into my brain.)

What an excellent post. I do

Submitted by sarahkishler on Sun, 05/09/2010 - 1:50pm.

What an excellent post. I do really think "what is best for our patrons?" is always the question we should ask first when we implement new library policies or change existing ones, whether it has to do with social software use or anything else.

It's important to be realistic about what we can provide, and I don't think making things as easy as possible on the patrons means it's okay to inflict mental breakdowns or severe disruptions in work-life balance on the staff, but you are so right that we need to remember why libraries (and not only public libraries) exist in the first place. They exist for the patrons.

LIBR 246-04/13 Web 2.0 (Spring 2010)

Who's online

Recent comments

Navigation

User login

Syndicate

Of Circulation Policies, Primal Instincts, and the Existence of Libraries

What an excellent post. I do

It's definitely true that we

Don't you think if we have

Assuming you'd (as in the

Baldness has been cured for

That's true. There can

One of the most beautiful

Balding, like most things,