Service Response Discussion: Do we need a Gaming response?
September 12th, 2006 by Andrea MercadoThis post is part of a series designed to further discussion of the PLA Results service responses, designed in 1998 to describe “what a library does for, or offers to, the public in an effort to meet a set of well-defined community needs.”
The bulleted comments below were gathered in conference sessions by the PLA Results team, in an effort to update the current service responses, which were originally written almost ten years ago. The PLA Results group is looking to the community for feedback on how to update these service responses to better reflect current public library methods and standards.
Currently, there is no formal Gaming service response. The discussion points below are seeds for discussion, and your added commentary can help to develop the new Gaming service response (for examples of service responses, see the Library Service Responses page.)
Gaming Discussion Group Comments
Do we need a service response related to gaming?
- Is gaming a part of Current Topics and Titles?
Go back to the Service Response Discussion Index.
Tags: PLA, PLA Blog, service responses
|
Print this post
September 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I read with interest the notes from the service response discussions. I have been thinking about how the gaming response fits into service priorities. Can it be broadened to be a service priority? Maybe its because a local library is thinking of providing this program as part of lifelong learning or current topics and titles. A gaming program/evening/tournament will require staff members with gaming skills, necessary technology, a place to hold the program, marketing, collection/software - and it is new and it is exciting and it can reach a new audience. Except for a demand on technology and some skill sets, how is it different than a Magic tournament, battle of the books, scrabble or chess evening. Is it a different type of program that can be incorporated into one of the other service responses? – how is it different from scrabble night – except the technology is a little bit more complicated?
September 29th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I tend to agree with Sara. Designating gaming as a full response is akin to saying libraries will be the Scrabble Tournament mecca for the community. Gaming is a component of either a programming or technology response.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I think it fits into the idea of Commons, too–a place to gather, even if it is virtual.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:25 am
I agree with above, not a service response.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I would only add that gaming both board and computer oriented can be a program that facilitates the learning process in making, developing and/or creating culture via games.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I’m surprised to not see ” Leisure & Entertainment” among the service offerings. Surely gaming would fall somewhere under this, as would the video and DVD collections that libraries offer. But I also think that to focus on gaming as specific area muddles the thoughht process. Gaming addresses new cognitive learning areas, therefore it is fundamental to learning & growth. If you offer gaming tournaments, it also addresses Leisure & Entertainment pursuits. So in reality it’s not Gaming that’s the service area, but rather Gaming that supports the service area - does this make sense?
October 14th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
I agree …. A service reponse for leisure and entertainment might be better than just one just for gaming. Gaming to me is a program, like scrabble night or Bingo evening or movie night.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Despite my enthusiastic advocacy for gaming, I don’t want to see gaming as a stand-alone service response. When I think of gaming, I see it as Engaged Recreation or a Recreational Learning Opportunity. What else would fit in with that though? (and…what Helene said).
October 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am
I don’t see gaming as a separate service response. I like the idea that Helen Blowers shared: a “Leisure & Entertainment” service response, that gaming, as well as many other activities would fall under.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
I totally agree with the comments above. “Gaming” is too specific and I can’t imagine a library that would give it that much of an emphasis. Also agree with a response that incorporates entertainment but think the word “leisure” is outdated. I like Recreational Learning.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
[...] New Service Responses - Gaming (10 comments) [...]
October 24th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Couldn’t all this be included in a Popular Materials role ? Perhaps that service role could be inclusive of this by not using just the limiting term of “materials”, but something more inclusive to include popular virtual entertainment.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
As much as gaming is imporant to large numbers of people, and can be used as a teaching tool, I can’t imagine asking taxpayers to increase library funding so we could have a physical or virtual gaming center. Depending upon how broad a definition you want, it seems more a part of popular materials.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
It seems to me that — setting aside other reservations — gaming is too specific a technological application to merit consideration as a service response.