Library landscapes and today’s distracted generation

Citation

Mitchell, E. and Barbara Watstein, S. (2011), "Library landscapes and today’s distracted generation", Reference Services Review, Vol. 39 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr.2011.24039baa.001

Library landscapes and today’s distracted generation

Article Type: Editorial From: Reference Services Review, Volume 39, Issue 2

A New York Times article on the average person’s consumption habits for cameras, phones, and other gadgets caught our attention (Pogue, 2011). We have heard that the electronics industry is built on frequent renewal, of course, and many of us believe that technology really does advance that quickly. Others are skeptical, preferring to think that planned obsolescence is at work. The author of the article, David Pogue, curious if there were solutions, asked his followers on Twitter for suggestions. He writes:

The response was surprisingly lively and voluminous. Unfortunately, most people weren’t hopeful. “It’s not the gadgets – it’s the people […] We have an entire ADD generation that demands new toys and features”.

Think about it – an entire A.D.D. generation – don’t we know it! Reference and instruction librarians perceive present generational differences in a markedly different way than historians, sociologists or psychologists.

Generational labels

Generational labels help us appreciate the diverse challenges this distracted generation poses to library workers of all kinds, and at all levels.

In their book Generations, historians Howe and Strauss (1991) suggest the following generational labels:

• •

  Lost Generation (1883-1900);

• •

  GI Generation (1901-1924);

• •

  Silent Generation (1925-1942);

• •

  Boom (aka Baby Boom) Generation (1943-1960);

• •

  13th Generation (aka Gen X) (1961-1981);

• •

  Millennial Generation (1982-2000); and

• •

  ????? (2001-).

Howe and Strauss stop short at 2001, leaving us to propose what the next generation will be called.

Blogger and social economist Rebecca Ryan[1] presents some of the contenders for the name of the next generation:

• •

  “The Homeland Generation” courtesy of Howe and Strauss (2007) in their article “The next twenty years: how customer and workforce attitudes will evolve”.

• •

  “Generation Z”. Check it out in Wikipedia (2011).

• •

  The “New Silents.” This is Strauss and Howe (1997) from their book The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. Here, their rationale is that every fourth generation’s archetype repeats itself. And since “Silents” were the archetype four generations ago (see list above), “New Silents” could work for the current version.

• •

  “Re-Gen” from Erickson (2009) in her book What’s Next Gen X?: Keeping up, Getting Ahead, and Keeping the Career You Want.

Our evolving environments and the distracted generation

This much is clear to us – reference and instruction librarians today face daily, troubling complexities in working with our distracted patrons and coworkers of this generation.

Consider our users – connected 24/7. Consider their dependency on technology. Consider the range of gadgets and devices on the market. Consider the average attention span.

And by all means, consider searching, whether EbscoHost, FirstSearch, or your library’s OPAC. “Show available results now.” We suggest that this is the minimum expectation of this generation: “Show” + “available” + “results” + “now.” Add to this expectation for display, availability, and immediacy myriad options to refine, integrate, save or package results. The implications for service design, delivery, assessment and enhancement are strong. These too are the minimum expectation of the A.D.D. generation – this is what they expect of our resources. These expectations, in turn, influence their expectations for our services and facilities.

This is the landscape in which we are operating.

Closer to home … RSR Vol. 39 No. 2

The articles in this issue focus in different ways on our evolving environments. Arendt and Graves consider virtual question changes, specifically looking at reference in evolving environments. Pemberton, Hoskins and Boninti also look at evolving environments, here learning commons in an academic library. Her particular focus is the identification of performance issues using the Human Performance Technology Model. Bickley and Corrall are also concerned with re-conceptualized spaces; their article explores student perceptions of staff in an information commons. Student achievement and assessment are Swoger’s concerns, while Samson considers best practices for serving students with disabilities. McMinn concentrates on bibliographic management, and tools available to assist twenty-first century students in their study and research. Wyatt and Hahn look at copyright concerns triggered by web 2.0 services and uses; here the focus is as much on library 2.0 as it is on library user 2.0, and librarian 2.0. The final article in this issue also looks at opportunities and obligations for librarians; where Wyatt and Hahn were concerned with copyright concerns, Osinski turns his attention to the Animal Welfare Act and why it matters to librarians.

Eleanor Mitchell, Sarah Barbara Watstein

Note

1. Ryan is founder of Next Generation Consulting and author of Live First, Work Second. See her February 8, 2011 blog post http://nextgenerationconsulting.com/library/blog-post/what-should-we-name-the-next-generation/