Institutionalize Me! A valuable theory for library managers
I believe that today’s library can really benefit from the work of the Institutional Theorists in understanding how to bolster its position in the community. As our world becomes more and more mobile, we are constantly faced with the pressure of reacting to expectations and experiences that patrons have in other places. In a very real way, if I get good information doing a simple Google search, why should I use such a dusty old dinosaur of a place like a library? While many of us can answer this question convincing for the library, many of the potential patrons cannot. Enter Institutional theory.
I really liked Berger and Luckmann’s (from the Symbolic-interpretive school) argument in The Social Construction of Reality as summed by Hatch in the textbook as that “human social order is produced through interpersonal negotiations and implicit understandings that are built up via shared history and shared experiences” (p. 42).
Scott in his book Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems defines institutionalization as “the process by which actions are repeated and given meaning to self and others” (p. 117). I like this concept a lot, as well as Meyer and Rowan’s concept, taken from their article “Institutionalized organizations” from American Journal of Sociology, of “Rationalized Myth,” which gives social legitimacy to organizations based on how people view an organization in the context of the world.
Library managers could use these concepts in building long-term strategic plans for their institutions. If we accept that what people believe about a library is both important and manageable, then we have the foundation for organization goals. This foundation, I believe, is already at work in many libraries today.
For another class, I interviewed a senior manager of a public library system. She related that the single biggest push for her and her system was outreach. She wanted individuals who wanted to be engaged with the world outside of the library walls. Why? It is easier to have a good relationship with a community if you attempt to meet them first where they are, build trust, and invited them to use your services. You create the idea of a library that extends beyond the physical walls and the reference desk. The manager is already seeing results.
What would happen if the focus is removed from improving the library image or “rationalized myth” within the society? Google is only a click away.
Dave H.
posted by Mary Ann @ 12:15 PM
3 Comments:
Reenstjern points out in his article that libraries were originally elitist organizations and Carnegie brought the concept to the those in the lower socio-economic brackets (p.5). Although I think it is an important step forward for libraries to remove the "rationalized myth," it might be pertinent to remember that because we don't all have "shared experiences and history" we may have to find a different way to reach out to the community.
I agree with David that the work of Berger and Luckman is a good perspective from which to view the changing role of libraries. I'd suggest, though, that a continuation of the quotation taken from page 42 of Hatch's Organization Theory is also pertinent.
In her description of Berger and Luckmann's social construction of reality theory, Hatch states, "what sustains social order is at least partial consensus about how things are to be perceived and the meanings for which they stand." I had this perspective in mind when I read Vartan Gregorian's Libraries as Acts of Civic Renewal, a speech given at the Kansas City Club on October 17, 2002 to celebrate the new main branch. Follow this link for a transcript of the complete speech:
http://www.kclibrary.org/support/central/Gregorian.cfm
Gregorian states that, for the campaign for the library to be successful, the consensus opinion of the value of the library to the community needed to be changed. Rather than being perceived as repositories for books or outmoded ways to search for information in the age of Google, libraries should be perceived as "communities' institutional hearts and minds."
Not only was this drive to change consensus and perception put into practice and used to design the marketing and fundraising for the new main Kansas City library, I'd suggest that this is behind the push for outreach described by the manager David interviewed.
I'd also suggest that if library and community are able to achieve this type of mutually perceived and sustained "social order," as Luckmann and Berger describe, there'd be less need for a "rationalized myth." John Meyer and Brian Rowan state that "decisions that only superficially conform to the norms of rationality " or "that were actually emotionally based" contribute to an institution's rationalized myth (Hatch, pp. 84-85). What need for a myth to maintain social legitimacy if an institution, in a community-library social construct, were actually doing what it said it was doing?
Oops! I neglected to add my name to the previous post connecting David's ideas about institutional theory to Vartan Gregorian's speech. I also see that the hyperlink didn't copy properly. To read Gregorian's speech, I'd suggest copying and pasting the URL into your browser.
Becky H.
Post a Comment
<< Home