Comments on: SunSpec: Serious Conversations Are Serious Business

By: rcn

rcn — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:38:43 +0000

Some real conversations (beyond Tweets) occur elsewhere, such as still active librarian listservs (remember those? one surviving example is DIG_REF), pre-Twitter and pre-FaceBook blogs (such as LiveJournal librarian communities), and LinkedIn librarian groups. However, I don’t think there is a single, primary source of such conversations.

rcn in San Francisco Bay Area

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:23:31 +0000

John,
I completely value interchanges like this, but they are not, in my mind, conversations. When there is a face to face meeting, some people talk (usually the same people) and some do not – not everyone is comfortable chiming in. The same thing happens for tweets, blog posts and what have you. There are more people sitting silent than participating.
At least in a meeting, you see people’s reactions, some of them have conversations afterward, etc. So, yes, you and I are “talking” – and hello out there to those of you who are watching what develops. I know it’s the only way to engage a wider range of people, but that doesn’t mean that substantial ideas are fully explored. However, news does travel faster.
Hhhm, a conversation about conversations?

By: John Kirriemuir

John Kirriemuir — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:54:07 +0000

It’s a tricky, but perhaps one of the most essential questions you pose here, Andy. Perhaps the most important question, after “What, exactly, is a librarian?” in the sector. If librarians don’t know where the conversations are “happening”, or even worse, think they are not happening, it’s kinda not good.

I don’t have an answer, trite, profound or otherwise.

The twitter observations, above. I’m doing a year off from tweeting with a few caveats, for various reasons. I’d say, two months in, that it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to avoid tweets/twitter (not quite the same thing) and confidently claim that they are part of the “essential conversation” about issues library, or that they get timely alerts or updates on breaking library issues. So am in the odd position of not tweeting, but defending twitter to sceptical librarians and info professionals.

Also – disagreeing strongly with Cindy on “And, each post is not really a conversation.” No, that’s not true, literally or otherwise. A post grows as a conversation as comments are added. And the author can edit, add to, link from the post as time goes on. If anything, a post is an enhanced conversation as someone, anyone, can come in at any time, see the entire back history of the ‘conversation’ and participate with this full knowledge.

High-profile blog posts that are repeatedly enhanced and commented on, and augmented and publicised through twitter, are the nearest form of the best media of conversation. For me, anyway.

By: librarianry

librarianry — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:18:39 +0000

Do you think that a potential problem is that there are too many different places to speak or hear about issues in the field? There are many great bloggers out there writing about ideas and ideas dealing with the library world, but since there are so many it seems to displace the readers. Could there be too much of a good thing? Or is there just not enough?

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:21:46 +0000

An interesting take on my post, Cindy. And I think there is a kernel of truth to that observation. That we can react to fundamental principles with the ease of a united front but when it comes to other issues and other conversations?

Well, not so much.

Off the top of my head, I’d say it is the profession’s inclination towards non-confrontation and inclusion that makes the tough conversations hard to have. I think we need a reminder that dissent is not dislike and that as we represent all views in our collections so can we in harboring divergent views. Maybe that’s why conversations outside of core values fizzle.

On the other hand, I prefer to imagine that if my ideas can change the mind of one person, they can maybe pay it forward to more people. Perhaps it is a byproduct of my own professional approach (that I am helping one person at a time, that I am changing one life at a time), but I like to think that the pond has ripples to it.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:08:33 +0000

Totally agree with you, Kim. Thanks for your comment!

And keep disseminating!

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:07:28 +0000

It’s an excellent discovery method, no doubt. As I am going through the comments and replying to them, I think it’s a matter of the crossover appeal or takeaways that is of concern. You and I can talk all we want and shoot ideas back and forth; it’s another thing if I take an idea back to the workplace or committee and make use of it.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:05:53 +0000

For outrage, sure. I would have liked to get more comments on non-outrageous blog posts, though. Perhaps the problem is that they are episodic; they take an issue, run with it, then put it down. While I have had posts that I have come back to, they are few and far between. Or maybe blogs aren’t the best platform for that kind of sustained engagement. (FriendFeed can be, but some of those threads can get long and confusing.)

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:04:10 +0000

I think it’s more of a matter of looking for crossover communication: meaning, the people on Twitter talk to the people on Facebook or in their local library associations.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:03:08 +0000

Maybe it’s a question as to where the lines of communication go after they get through a group. If they just stop at the proverbial border (like, within a library or in a Facebook group), then they really are limiting in their impact and outlook. Perhaps it is a matter of how many circles on the Venn diagram a person communicates with…