Foreword: Evolving Instructional Activities by Using the Philosophies of Google and Apple

People keep predicting the death of libraries, but unlike so many other institutions, from telegraph offices to travel agencies, libraries have survived, because librarians have had the wisdom to evolve as technology and societal needs have changed. Had libraries remained merely repositories for printed materials, they would now be history. However, far from being a thing of the past, the average academic library today is a vibrant institution, one of the most heavily used facilities on campus, and a favorite place for both socializing and scholarship.

The author of this book has traced the history of library instruction for those unfamiliar with it, but he has also gone far beyond that, pointing to the philosophies of both Google and Apple as guideposts which can better enable libraries to evolve and meet user needs as time goes by. Google’s search engine clearly put libraries’ arcane search processes to shame, and as a result most academic libraries have now implemented Summon, or a similar discovery tool, which comes close to the simplicity and power of the Google search, but focuses on the library’s own collection—an imitation that has made collections much more ‘discoverable’ than heretofore, though much work remains to be done to achieve total accessibility to the information most libraries theoretically have to offer.

Google’s simplicity and focus on giving the user what he or she wants quickly are admirable, but not always optimal. Di Su points out that Apple’s top-down approach also has its value; in their role as educators, academic librarians sometimes have to expand the users’ universe, and tell them what they need to know, not just what they had assumed would be enough. Without being overly prescriptive, Su points out circumstances in which one philosophy or the other is preferable. A library tour or a 50-minute one-shot lecture is no place to provide specialized content, much as the librarian might desire to engage in that futile attempt. In a 15-week course, however, inculcation of in-depth content is reasonable and potentially more helpful to students than just providing them with simple sources and approaches.

It is interesting to consider that libraries have much to learn both from Google’s service-oriented, patron-centered, bottom-up design and from Apple’s vision-driven, top-down, long-term approach. Both the ‘yin’ of the one and the ‘yang’ of the other are important, as is having the wisdom to know when to apply each. Su’s thoughtful analysis will help librarians apply both philosophies and even more importantly, help them to realize that instructional activities are not one-size-fits-all gloves into which every instructional effort must be shoved.

As my own career as a person formerly much involved with reference and instruction approaches its end, it is good to see people like Di Su carrying the ball forward and advancing the work which so many of us devoted ourselves to in earlier decades. Here’s hoping that he and his colleagues will continue to learn the lessons society and our users are teaching us, and help libraries to evolve as useful institutions, even though their missions and roles may change over time.