Og det var det! I dag har jeg drømmejobben hos Netlife Research, og jobber med nett dagen lang. Og da blir det ikke tid til blogging, som da jeg var student. Og får jeg tid til å blogge, så er det gjerne på I allenkelhet.

Så at bloggen er død er jo slik sett egentlig ikke sørgelig. Det betyr jo bare at den har gjort jobben sin :) Kanskje skal jeg prøve å følge i Ida Jacksons fotspor og lage meg en voksenblogg?

Hurra! Jeg har nå fått en mastergrad i Medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi, avlagt ved NTNU. I oppgaven min sammenfattet jeg forskningen på Facebook fra 2007 til til tidlig i 2011, og er utrolig glad for at jeg fikk en A – for det har vært en ganske utmattende vår!

Last ned analysekapittelet eller Last ned hele oppgaven

Ikke hele oppgaven er like interessant for alle, så jeg har valgt å dele oppgaven opp i kapitler.. For de fleste er det nok kapittel 4 som er mest interessant, hvor jeg ser på hva forskningen så langt har sagt om spørsmål som

• Hvorfor blir folk medlem av Facebook, og hvorfor fortsetter de å bruke det?
• Hva har Facebook å si for sosiale relasjoner?
• Hvordan kommer klasse- og raseskiller til uttrykk på Facebook?
• Hvordan gir folk uttrykk for identitet på Facebook, og hvordan påvirker det førsteinntrykk?
• Hva sier forskningen om risiko, personvern og privatliv i forbindelse med Facebook?
• Hvordan utspiller meningsutveksling og politisk engasjement seg på Facebook?

Men resten av oppgaven er også tilgjengelig:

• Kapittel 1 – Innledning
  Kort om tidligere forskning, utbredelsen av Facebook og oppbygning av oppgaven
• Kapittel 2 – Metode
  Hvordan jeg gikk frem for å sammenfatte forskningen
• Kapittel 3 – Kvantitativ oversikt over forskningen
  Oversikt over fagdisipliner, forskningstemaer, metodebruk med mer i Facebook-forskningen
• Kapittel 4 – Sammenfatning av forskningen
  Her oppsummerer jeg funnene innen temaer som
• Spredning av og motivasjon for bruk
• Kommunikasjon og sosiale relasjoner
• Klasse- og raseskiller
• Identitet, selvrepresentasjon og førsteinntryk
• Risiko, personvern og privatliv
• Meningsutveksling og politisk engasjement
• Kapittel 5 – Kritikk
  Kritikk av eksisterende forskning med tanke på metodebruk og neglisjerte problemstilinger
• Litteraturliste
• Vedlegg
  Facebooks historikk og funksjonalitet, samt kodebok for kapittel 3
• Fotnoter 

Last ned masteroppgaven min om Facebook her

I min masteroppgave gjennomgikk jeg Facebook-forskningen fra 2007 til våren 2011, og har lest over 100 forskningsartikler om Facebook. Støttes funnene til Pew av tidligere forskning? (Beklager om dette er en tunglest blogpost. Sånn blir man av å skrive masteroppgave..)

Facebook users are more trusting than others. Controlling for other factors, the research found that a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day is 43% more likely than other internet users and more than three times as likely as non-internet users to feel that most people can be trusted.

Dette høres litt vel optimistisk ut med en gang, men det er viktig her å merke seg at Pew ikke sier noe om kausaliteten. Det er kanskje ikke så rart at folk som velger å legge ut bilder av seg selv, fortelle hva de gjør, og gjøre det på et sosialt nettverk som har fått mye kritikk for sine retningslinjer, rett og slett må være tillitsfulle til sine venner (og Facebook-venner).

Dette stemmer også greit med at tidligere forskning om hvorfor folk ikke bruker sosiale medier. Både blant yngre og eldre brukere synes det som om den viktigste grunnen til ikke-bruk at folk rett og slett ikke har lyst til å bruke det (Raacke og Bonds-Raacke, 2008:171-173; Lüders, 28.02.2011). Både Lüders (28.02.2011) og Tufekci (2008: 560-561) fikk til svar fra ikke-brukerne at de oppfattet sosiale medier som uinteressant fordi de var “småpratende”, “meningsløse” og “sladrete”. Både brukerne og ikke-brukerne av sosiale medier bruker Internett til  instrumentelle formål (eksempelvis nettbank, netthandel og research). Ikke-brukerne derimot benyttet i mindre grad benyttet Internett til mer ekspressive aktiviteter (eksempelvis tekstmeldinger, e-post, surfe rundt for moro skyld, lage sin egen blog). Ulikhetene i bruk synes derfor å handle mer om personlige preferanser enn strukturelle forskjeller (Tufekci, 2008: 554-555)

Noen oppga også at de ikke hadde tillit til de sosiale mediene og var bekymret for personvernet (dette finner også Tufekci, 2008). Av de norske ikke-brukerne oppga 14% at grunnen til at de ikke brukte sosiale medier var bekymring for misbruk av personlige data. Jo eldre de var, jo mer bekymret var de også for å dele personlig informasjon på nett (Brandtzæg & Lüders, 2009: 43, 9).

Facebook users have more close relationships.  Controlling for other factors, the research found that someone who uses Facebook several times per day averages 9% more close, core ties in their overall social network compared with other internet users.

Her blir det viktig å se på hvordan spørsmålene er stilt, for dette er det ikke tydelige funn på i tidligere forskning. Ellison et al (2007) fant en mye sterkere effekt av Facebook på hvor mange bekjentskaper folk har, enn hvor mange nære venner de har. Tufekci (2008: 560) fant brukere og ikke-brukere av sosiale medier hadde omtrent det samme antallet nære venner og ganske nære venner. Brukerne av sosiale medier hadde imidlertid kontakt med flere venner i løpet av en uke. Flere studier tyder på at den kommunikasjonen som skjer på Facebook er et supplement til annen kommunikasjon når det er snakk om nære venner. Studenter som West og Lewis (2009: 1216-1217, 1223) intervjuet understreket at for ens faktiske venner skjedde ikke kommunikasjon på Facebook i stedet for å kommunisere på telefonen eller og møtes. Dermed mistet de heller ikke kontakten med de vennene som ikke var på Facebook.

Facebook users are much more politically engaged. The survey was conducted over the November 2010 election season. Compared with other internet users, and users of other social networking platforms, a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day was an additional two and half times more likely to attend a political rally or meeting, 57% more likely to persuade someone on their vote, and  43% more likely to have said they would vote. 

Dette er den jeg er mest skeptisk til. De får støtte av Zhang et al (2010: 87), som fant en signifikant sammenheng mellom bruk av sosiale medier og samfunnsengasjement. Men Valenzuela et al (2009: 893-894) gjør at vi kan nyansere dette funnet. De fant at de som i større grad engasjerte seg politisk offline brukte politiske Grupper på Facebook, og at de som engasjerte seg i samfunn og organisasjonsliv i større grad var aktive i Facebook-grupper knyttet til samfunn og organisasjonsliv (Valenzuela et al, 2009: 894). Det er altså ikke Facebook-bruk i seg selv som “gjør” dem mer politisk aktive. Det synes som de som allerede er engasjerte (logisk nok) også bruker Facebook som verktøy.

Samtidig skal man også være forsiktig med å hylle engasjement på Internett og sosiale medier om dette blir såkalt slacktivism, altså at symbolske nettbaserte handlinger tar oppmerksomheten bort fra det å faktisk arbeide for endring (Smeltzer & Keddy, 2010: 428). Facebook-grupper fungerer kanskje først og fremst som en form for symbolsk støtte, omtrent som en button på jakka, ifølge Wooley et al (2010: 647) (se også Smeltzer & Keddy, 2010: 434).

Facebook users get more social support. The survey explored how much total social support, emotional support, companionship, and instrumental aid (such as having someone help you when you are sick in bed) adults receive. Controlling for other factors, a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day receives more emotional support and companionship. For Facebook users, the additional boost is equivalent to about half the total support that the average American receives as a result of being married or cohabitating with a partner.

Dette synes å stemme rimelig godt med tidligere forskning. Steinfield et al (2008: 44) er blant de få som har gjort en studie av de samme Facebook-brukerne over lenger tid, og de fant at økt Facebook-bruk fører til økt sosial kapital, og ikke omvendt. Dette er i tråd med egenrapporter fra amerikanske studenter, som mente at Facebook hadde hatt en “ganske positiv” (83%) og “veldig positiv” effekt (13%) på deres sosiale liv, mens kun én person svarte at det hadde hatt en “litt negativ effekt” (Pempek et al, 2009: 234).

Facebook helps users retain high school ties and it revives dormant relationships. In our sample, the average Facebook user has 229 Facebook friends.

Dette er heller ikke noen bombe, og både norsk, amerikansk og britisk forskning støtter disse funnene (Ellison et al, 2007: 155; Debatin et al, 2009: 95-96; Line et al, 2010: 6-7; Brandtzæg & Lüders, 2009: 52-53).

They reported that their friends list contains:

• 22% people from high school
• 12% extended family
• 10% coworkers
• 9% college friends
• 8% immediate family
• 7% people from voluntary groups
• 2% neighbors

Over 31% of Facebook friends cannot be classified into these categories. 

Også god støtte fra tidligere forskning, og vi ser at folk har stadig nye typer relasjoner på Facebook. Facebook-brukerne, både amerikanske, britiske og norske, unge og gamle, leter i hovedsak etter folk de allerede kjenner, heller enn å lete etter nye mennesker de kan bli kjent med (Lampe et al, 2006; Lewis & West, 2009: 1214; Debatin et al, 2009: 96-97; Pempek et al, 2009: 232; Young & Quan-Haase, 2009: 270; Livingstone, 2008: 415; Brandtzæg og Lüders, 2009: 53; Mayer & Puller, 2008: 332). Brukerne søkte gjerne opp og la til mennesker de hadde møtt gjennom livet, for eksempel fra tidligere skoler, studier, jobber, reiser og fritidsaktiviteter, eller folk man hadde felles venner med.

Det gir også utfordringer. På Facebook blir disse svært ulike sosiale sfærene smeltet sammen til én, noe som gjør det vanskelig for brukerne å vite hvordan de skal oppføre seg (Lewis & West, 2009: 1217-1218; Livingstone, 2008: 405; Brandtzæg & Lüders, 2009: 60; Raynes-Goldie, 2010: 2; Young & Quan-Haase, 2009: 270; West et al, 2009: 621)

However, only 3% of Facebook friends are people users have never met in person, and only 7% are people who have met only one time.

Disse funnene tyder imidlertid på at folk enten har blitt mer strenge på hvem de legger til, eller at de overvurderer andelen som de faktisk ikke kjenner av sine “venner” på sosiale medier. Debatin et al (2009: 93-94) og Pempek et al (2009: 232) fant at henholdsvis 10% og 24% aksepterte en Venneforespørsel fra “hvem som helst”, og henholdsvis 52% og 69% sa at de kun aksepterte Venneforespørsler fra folk de kjente personlig. I tillegg fant Debatin et al at 37% la til personer som de “hadde hørt om gjennom andre”. Disse selvrapportene er i tråd med et eksperiment der en student lagde et dataprogram som sendte ut 250 000 venneforespørsler, og 30% aksepterte ham som venn (Debatin et al, 2009: 87).

Jeg legger ut en blogpost senere i dag hvor jeg kommenterer resten av pressemeldingen!

Men da jeg var på UXLondon så fikk jeg høre Kate Rutter arbeider som Experience Designer ved Adaptive Path. I sitt foredrag forklarte hun hvorfor hun mener at vi som jobber med brukeropplevelse må ta mye av skylden selv om vi ikke får gjennomslag..

På tide å ta litt av skylden selv? Les hele blogposten på iallenkelhet.no

Under Rutters foredrag gjorde jeg et forsøk på å skisse notatene mine.. Klikk for full størrelse

Antall dollar som ble donert til Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund økte 10,2 % prosent. Skjermdump: ABTests.com

Så flott det er få lov til å reise over Nordsjøen for å få lov til å lære enda mer!

I anledning at jeg var på UXLondon, så har jeg skrevet en blogpost om hvordan man kommer i gang med A/B-testing. A/B-testing vil si at man publiserer ulike versjoner av den samme nettsiden, og så ser hvilken av disse som klarer seg best.

Les hele blogposten på iallenkelhet.no

Click for full size! Sketch note from Kate Rutters talk on Strategy Patois

I really enjoyed Kate Rutters talk on strategy, design and how to deal with managers. I’ll post a higher resolution version later on.

So Lou Rosenfeld told us that he was a hater of redesigns, and teach us easy methods to make a lot of small changes that make a lot of differences, instead of throw everything over board.

This is my attempt to summarize what Rosenfeld said, the “I” and “me” in the following text referring to Rosenfeld, not me (Ida)!

Wondering who I am? I’m an interaction designer working at NetLife Research. I’m @idaAaon Twitter, I also have a Twitter-account with links in English, called @idaAaLinks.

“I’m wearing two hats. One as a publisher, being happy, and a sad information architect. I need an information therapist. I’m kind of sad because I’m been dealing with a problem for 17 years now, called redesign.

I’ve been called a hater of redesign, but let me give you a little context of what I mean with redesign. I’m a consultant, so I work with huge, messy, unmanageable websites of huge organisations. Am I the only one, or has everyone run away and started doing app development? (Nope, I guess, since people are laughing, they’re not get rich on apps..)

Prologue

I read about 12 years ago that the university of Michigan was going to redesign its site. They told the newspaper that they had hired my company for the redesign. They had a site that looked OK, but they had subsites that looked completely different. The complaints they were hearing were that people couldn’t find that they were looking for.

But I never heard from them. Basically they had some student labor and some software, so they had figured they didn’t need our help after all. The actually had a ribbon cutting.

Then they did it all over again. And again. And again. The site is still getting complaints about people not finding what they needed.

Why do people redesign?

The IBM redesigns were probably coming from the CEO.

It’s not just a case of vanity, but insanity: I need this change tomorrow. And they do it again and again and again.
- Seagull managers, mutters Cooper with a laugh, sitting next to us.

A lot of us make a lot of money doing these redesigns, even though we know it’s not they right way to go. So what are we doing? So many times we try to “boil the water”, throwing every thing aboard and starting a new. This is attempting the impossible.
We also belive the unbelievable. There are often “solutions” from software vendors, but they are rarely the solutions of the actual problem of the institution.

We are also being irresponsible. We often let thing go at the expense of end users. We serve ourselves.
It’s about high time that we do something about this.

Ban the word “redesign”

One thing is starting to see the problem differently. I want to ban the word “redesign”. It has nothing to do with what the actual solution. What are we solving for? What are we going to change? Not change for change’s own sake.

Rosenfeld wants a new term. Our websites are things that we need to see not as singular, perfectable, things that can even be understood in a snapshot, they are shifting under your feet. They are complex adaptive systems.

There are so many factors, how can you perfect it, how can you say that it’s done? Because in 2 years, you have to do it again. Even if you have great content, and you leave it alone, that content will not be good enough in a few years. It won’t be acceptable.

The swing of the pendulum

Regime A is that we have to get control of the mess, but hat doesn’ work. Then we gets Regime B, we have to let the thousand  flowers bloom. And then people feel like they need to get control. It’s a pendulum movement, and a healthy organisation has a little bit of both, both centralisation and decentralisation.

Redesigns also piss people off. You’re going to lose a lot of friends, for instance with Gawker blogs like Lifehacker, which had a drastic drop in visits.

My point is that redesigns is a dangerous course. I want to argue for refinement in stead.

Prioritize

You need to prioritize. Identify the important problems regularly A little goes a long way, think about Pareto principle and the Zipf distribution. A few queries amount for a huge amount of traffic. So we should love the short head, and leave the long tail alone. (This is similar to Gerry McGoverns argument about the “long neck” of websites).This way you can start improving the first 1% or 10% og 30% of the queries on your website. (While Ove Dalen at NetLife Research would suggest you spend a lot of time deleting the remaining 80%, like they did at Telenor).

The Zipf distribution is every way, a few search queries go a long way, a few documents, a little navigation. We also need to look at what are the important audiences, ans the essential wants and needs they have, and then combine and prioritize these wants and needs. Doing this we need information from both user research and stakeholder research. This can also be combined with user testing to see how big of a problem each of these are (how horrible is the current solution?)

Tune

You have to constantly improve your site, and address those problems regularly.Be an incrementalist. Repair the plane while you’re flying.

With the example from the University, they also found that the students had different needs through the year, and the data from the site shows the seasonality of their use. You have behaviors you need to tune for. We should also tune our processes. I committed a great crime when I co-authored the a book about IA. These days I’m advocating that you look at a content inventory as a process, that you’re constantly looking at.

Opportunism

Be an opportunist: find the low-hanging fruit.

Looking at wants and needs.. small changes that have big impacts. If you know that 4000 people a month are trying to find information about grades, that doesn’t sound like a lot, but it adds up. Another example is to teach the search engine to be smart, for instance like they have done at HP. If you put in a spell checker in the search for instance..

Wrap up! What shoud this mean for us?

First of all, design gets a lot easier. We’re coming up with small fixes, tweets. We’re making design challenges easier, but we have to handpick our methods.

Then there’s the hardest thing, which is the ethical side. We are ethically challenged. If you’re at an agency, you can earn a lot on redesigns. If you’re on a team, it’s the same challenge. It might be comfortable, but you’re not serving neither your employer nor your users. We’re getting to a point were organisations might realize that they don’t need to do redesigns.

I’m not worried, though. I have a lot of faith in the kind of people who are in this field. A lot of us are gap fillers. You probably got here because you find something unsettling. We are foxes, not hedgehogs. We know many little things. If we truly care about huge websites, then we’re going to take another approach.”

Wondering who I am? I’m an interaction designer working at NetLife Research. I’m @idaAaon Twitter, I also have a Twitter-account with links in English, called @idaAaLinks.

Veronica Heltne aka @vheltne's sketch notes from Coopers talk

So, UX London was kicked off by having Alan Cooper telling us all how much better the world would be if we, the interaction designers, would be in charge. His main focus was how our work processes today have very little in common with more traditional, industrial ways of working and managing work. He then argued that agile software development and interaction design is, well, a ying yang thing – better together.In the post-industrial world, we need to be effective – not efficient. Cooper is going to post a bibliography at the Cooper blog later.

Here my summary of what Cooper said (with my comments in parenthesis!):

Wondering who I am? I’m an interaction designer working at NetLife Research. I’m @idaAa on Twitter, I also have a Twitter-account with links in English, called @idaAaLinks.

Cooper was a “touring hippie with a backpack” in London in 1972, working as a carpenter…

I was a craftsman, a practitioner, I worked with wood, now I work with bits..
I want to talk about how the world is changing, and how we change the world.

Were we are today

I believe we are at an inflection point, in the evolution of our commercial organisations. We’re going to more satisfying ways of working. Most practitioners have experienced poorly managed software projects.. For years there was nothing we could do but accept our faith. But things are finally starting to change.

Even the most hard-headed old school managers can see that Steve Jobs and Apple is making money, and they want to make money too. Every vendor has a silver bullet to sell you in terms of managing the project, but there is no silver bullet.

But interaction design has become an essential part of the process. Agile development has created a great opportunity to make interaction design effective.

The problem

Hundred years ago, the key to profit was efficiency. It’s all about the reduction of time, effort or cost. But one key method they used was factoring out redundant efforts. By factoring out decision-making from the factory floor, they could have less skilled workers on the factory floor, and they saved a lot of money on staff. Just a few white-collar executives could support at lot more blue-collar workers. This style of management became known as command and control.

The twin notions of aggressive cost reduction and factoring out decision-making, these twin ideas is deep in the gene of business people. But it doesn’t work anymore. In our digital world we’re moving bits, not atoms. Unlike atoms, there’s unlimited bits.

Cutting costs can only hurt your softwares behavior. Our products aren’t built on factory lines, and it cannot be made by low-payed, blue-collar workers. The people who design software are motivated and highly educated. It need minute by minute decision-making. Software workers are no-collar workers.

Most software failures comes from the command and control-model. So much of what we call management consists of making it difficult for us to work. It stifles innovation and creativity. They’re not stupid, they just think they’re still in a factory.The crux of the problem is that you cannot make good decision when you’re distanced from the process.

Many managers still believe they need to control, to decide, to manage. But separated from the actual work they can only guess.

Cost and price are not linked at all in the post-industrial world. Today the only road to success is to make people love the products for what they are, not for what they cost. (But, if it’s free, I guess you’re the product being sold, as they say!)

Agile thinking was revolutionary. To me, what most defines it is that it opens programming up like a flower. It makes development more transparent, when agilists lift their heads from their screen and see that they need help from interaction designers. Agile is like sensitivity training for software developers.

Cooper compares the themes from OOPSLA 2002, with topics like “C++ Idioms” and Agile 2009, with “Giving and receiving effective feedback”.

It’s a real watershed in thinking.

The balanced team

To interaction designers, nothing of this is surprising. We learned early on to see the human face of the problem. We always had to collaborate with programmers.

At Cooper we’re worked for 20 years to accomplish responsible craftmanship.

In 1998 I wrote the book “The inmates are running the asylum”. The book was explicitly aimed at the tech-savvy businessmen, but the most people who read it were practitioners. The inmates are getting far better at running the asylum than any outside managers.

In january 2010, at Cooper, both groups, designers and developers both complained, “You don’t appreciate my skills and the importance of my competence!”. Then a remarkable thing happened, the ice broke. (But how did they do it?)

This was the origin of the balanced team, with people from agile development and interaction design. The idea of the unified team is the core idea of our work. IT is not UX shoehorned into agile development, and not, making developers learn design.

Neither camp is converting with the other, but they are naturally symbiotic, each helps the other be more effective. (But how did they do it? That’s what I wanna know!) This integrated balanced team is very effective.

Efficiency vs effectiveness

Management guru Peter Drucker asserts that a company can be very efficient all the way to bankruptcy, but in the post-industrial age the product can’t be cheaper, it has to be better. The company has to be more effective.

When you’re working with bits, it’s easy to make stuff cheap. But it’s not easy to make it good. Yesterdays managers focused on the bottom line, reducing costs. Todays managers has to focus on the top line, increasing income.

The programmers need the freedom to choose their tools, and designers need the freedom to communicate with users and change the design. In particular, they need to be able to make decisions throughout the process, without blame.

Desicions need to be made, but it’s now made by the same people who make the work.

It’s all us. It’s no us and them. Just us. I finally grasped what the unified team really was, it need to have autonomy.

Critics of the balanced team will say that it’s less efficient and that it will make bad decisions. The answer is YES!, they will. But it doesn’t matter. In order to innovate, you need to detect and correct your problems as early as possible.

It’s far more important to end up with the right decisions – it is far more important than the time and money spent to arrive at this decision. The amount of money you put into making great things aren’t that important any more. If you make right decisions, you don’t waste money on being wrong.

What a waste to do something efficient, that is not worth doing!

What motivates people?

Understanding people is equally important to understanding technology.

Cooper refers to Daniel Pink, check out the video here:

There are three factors that lead to better performance and personal satisfaction, are

• autonomy
• mastery
• purpose

Open source is autonomy in action, it shows how motivating self-direct is. The programmers sole satisfaction is to decide to build it by yourself. It also shows the problem of true autonomy, because nobody is in charge. Open source has successes and failures.

Mastery is about the feeling of getting good. While the player at the soccer team wants to get best, the coach will but each player where their strengths and weaknesses will work best.

Purpose is about people wanting a good reason to work hard. They want something more than reaching an arbitrary ship date. It has to be something that sparks their imagination, and will work for the whole team. It has to be communicated.

Expect of what you inspect. It’s better to not measure anything, than to measure the wrong thing. People will change their behavior accordingly, and every measure can be gamed. What you should measure is business value.

We, the software practitioners, are taking central stage. As we assume the role of decisions makers, our role becomes more important, yet more difficult. Maybe we are the inmates running the asylum, but we have proven that we do a great job with it.

Wondering who I am? I’m an interaction designer working at NetLife Research. I’m @idaAa on Twitter, I also have a Twitter-account with links in English, called @idaAaLinks.

Jeg skulle egnetlig delta på Girl Geek Dinners sitt møte om blant annet iPad og journalistikk, men satt dessverre på toget! Så sa ja til å synse litt på bokstavelig talt stående fot i en litt vinterkald park. Beklager at jeg hopper frem og tilbake.

Forresten: jeg påstår i videoen at mange har returnert GalaxyTaben, men de tallene har blitt tilbakevist av Samsung.

Og det var veldig hyggelig! Thomas Brevik skrev et sammendrag underveis på Blogg og Bibliotek.

Likevel trur vi ikke det var av rein høflighet at mange av tilhørerne takka henne for foredraget. Innfallsvinkelen hennes betyr en horisontutvidelse for mange bibliotekfolk, som trengs for å komme videre.Men, tenker vi (59), når unge bibliotekarer ikke for lengst har forklart oss dette, betyr det at de svært tidlig og effektivt sosialiseres vekk fra sine jevnaldrende? Eller ligger det i genene? Aner vi Harald Eia-mat her? Les mer hos Norsk Bibliotekforening

Dette temaet har jeg også snakket om tidligere, da jeg holdt foredrag på EMTACL-konferansen.