How do you successfully convey to people that when you propose that we engage with ‘this’ community using ‘this’ tool, that you’re not just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest whizzy technology?
I guess you may have to address:
- perceived need and actual need
and some other things. That’s all I can think of right now though.
Other things I vow not to do (other than reiterate that I don’t jump on bandwagons):
find myself using ‘fad’ terms, such as “twopointopian”, “2.0”, “library2.0”.
I believe I understand how my colleagues feel when they hear that library2.0 word. But do they know any real definitions of it? I think I do and I’d like to hazard a guess and approach these people empathetically. The term 2.0 is just a number. For some it means doing something you do well already (service delivery), but adding another participatory angle to it.
We should break down the Institution that is The Library; break down it’s walls and allow people to come in and walk around. Browse even.
Sure I like policy and things need to be documented and thought out and suggestions taken and proposals offered. But from the ground up, people.