This started out as a comment on a piece by Chad Haefele on his Hidden Peanuts blog (which I found via an Aaron Tay from Nat University of Singapore tweet - yay 21st century):
Defining what I do: What makes a technology emerging or disruptive?
All too quickly I realised I was rambling - but what struck me (eventually, as I stream-of-conscioused via a keyboard) was Chad's description of his job seemed to be implying (or I wildly extrapolated) that change would be consistent; evolutionary rather than revolutionary. That his job (and mine, and yours) would stay approximately the same. The tools, methods and channels would be different but at their core libraries would be the same.
So I started:
Interesting piece Chad, I've pondered how to describe this aspect of my job too.
Then almost immediately went on a tangent down a steep incline:
Sometimes I think it's me that's disruptive rather than the technology. Echoing the the point Walt picked up on and you acknowledge, re: mp3s - you don't have to change, you make the choice.
My disruptive influence is that I don't think the library's survival is paramount; I think the meeting the user's need is. Sometimes we have to acknowledge that we just get in the way, for at least some users. I'm happy for people to make the case for the continued mystic aura of the library - but the justification shouldn't be based on 'the library is a good thing' it should be about why the library is best placed to meet a valid user need.
What libraries fear is being bypassed, so we watch each new technology enter the hype cycle and we ponder how we can use it, if we should, who else is, and how we would manage it with all the other kittens we're herding.
For a long time we've been picking winners and dropping losers from our rosters of resources and services but I have this itching in the back of my brain that makes me think we are slowly reaching a singularity - a point where our systems do their thing well with little help from us. When our only value is in one-to-one communications and relationships. And that value is only to a relatively small proportion of our client base.
Thinking out loud from an academic library standpoint - what happens if the MOOC model foments new and better standards for accreditation and education delivery? If students can build their degrees from subjects offered anywhere in the world, and not be tied to a particular institution? If textbooks and research lit and data sets are open access? If microcharging finally works? If the wolfram alpha model of query analysis gets more sophisticated and more widely adopted? If linked data is ubiquitous?
In this post-apocalyptic scenario could we be reduced to small groups of curators, advocates and mentors organisationally attached to the student and/or research services areas?
Will we be willing to let go of the library as a brand? Does it matter?
The flaw I see in my speculation is I'm painting academia after the singularity as a tranquil place where all is perfect, and therefore not needing change, or change agents. Bollocks to that. Like any good singularity we just can't see what's on the other side from here.
