ALA 2.0–what might it look like?
Library 2.0 is more than a buzzword; it is a grassroots phenomenon that has been gaining momentum, especially in the public library sphere. See also:
Library 2.0 Theory
What Will You Do Today?
Walt Crawford’s Cites & Insights, v. 6, no. 2, Midwinter 2006
Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models
These do not offer the definitive picture of library 2.0. Nevertheless consensus has developed that Library 2.0 is user-centered, empowers users to participate actively and collaboratively in their library use, embraces change, removes barriers between users and information, experiments, and values user input. In short, it means giving up control and forming collaborative user-driven partnerships with those each library serves.
Control has long been central to library theory and practice. Our jargon exemplifies this. We exercise bibliographic control and build authority files, working without consultation of users. Today tagging and folksonomies challenge, or perhaps supplement and complement, these time-honored practices. Wikipedia places trust in the collective wisdom of the masses; Britannica continues to celebrate authority conferred by an authors academic peers.
How might Library 2.0 apply to the American Library Association? Like most libraries, ALA has a hierarchical structure. Authorities–e.g., the ALA vice-president, division vice-presidents, and round table chairs-elect–possess the authority to appoint individuals to committees, to create task forces and ad hoc committees, and to plan programs tailored to favored topics. Committees have a fixed number of members. Only the roster is filled; others can observe, but they can’t participate as full-fledged members. Committees come into existence through governance procedures. In other words, ALA 1.0.
ALA 2.0 would not do away with committees, boards, etc. These remain important to the necessary governance structure. It would, however, offer complementary organic structures, structures that would arise out of members shared interests and ambitions. It would allow online communities to form free of any approval requirements by any ALA authority. These communities would meld and morph, be born and die at the will of their self-selected members. They would transcend but not obliterate lines drawn by membership in divisions and round tables. A collateral benefit would be increased collaboration between and among ALA units. ALA 2.0 would allow a way for some of programs at the Annual Conference to arise from a planning and funding track much shorter than is now typical. This would assure that the hot topics that programs address are indeed still hot. This is but the most preliminary sketch of ALA 2.0. Neither I nor any other individual can complete that sketch. The library community, working collaboratively and creatively, must describe and create ALA 2.0.
An effective, proven hybrid model of ALA 1.0 and ALA 2.0 exists–the Washington Office and its complementary grassroots advocacy network of members and other concerned citizens. The WO, its advisory committees, and ALAs Committee on Legislation carry on the best of ALA 1.0 and complement that work through their mobilization of members through its email alerts. ALA 2.0 does not replace ALA 1.0; it offers broader opportunities for members to participate in meaningful ways.
This model may be applicable to other important ALA activities.
