demonstrates the consistency of client needs and behaviors across time and location, providing a sense of continuity in a rapidly changing environment.
BEING THE BAD GUY: INSTITUTIONAL RULES AND
freedom of information. The data show that participants who responded also generally assume that bureaucratic control is possible, and they share rules they have developed and posted in their libraries:
[17] This procedure falls under our ‘‘Rules Governing the Use of the Library’’ of which number one states ‘‘No engaging in disorderly conduct, committing a nuisance, or un- reasonably disturbing or offending library users or staff-one warning, then out.’’
[18] We have also posted signs that state something to the effect that the displaying of sexually explicit material may be a violation of the university’s policy on sexual har- assment.
[33] Our systemwide Library Code of Conduct, which is displayed for public viewing, includes under ‘‘Prohibited Activities’’: ‘‘Inappropriate use of library computers includ- ingysending, displaying, or printing obscene material’’ (of interest also may be to know that we include here ‘‘playing interactive games or using chat’’).
The sense that bureaucratic controls are appropriate and could conceivably be effective in this setting is rooted in how the workers are themselves controlled by administrators and how they perceive the appropriate role of professionals. The supervisor says he has no legal or ethical ground to create or enforce rules against the behavior the librarian experienced. That is, he has internalized the principles ‘‘as a professional,’’ reproduces them in his interaction with her, and expects her to internalize them as well. The par- ticipants who respond in turn offer policies to be posted in the library, without any discussion of how clients might be induced to internalize them.
Only the first example above [17] suggests any means of enforcement, being asked to leave the premises or be ejected by force.
Professional status in these conversations calls not only for the right to create policies, but also to enforce them selectively (segment 9, lines 83–92):
C: But I think we don enforce things jus for the sake of enforcing them //(.)//we only enforce
[ ]
F: //right//
them if there’s a problem or the:y monopolize resources //or infringe on other people’s rights//
[ ]
F: //Yeah an that’s-that’s// a good thing I think
C: I think that’s good //(.)//1we tolerate a lot (as a profession)
[ ]
E: //Well that’s-that’s// under the rubric of professional discretion F://Right//
[ ]
C: //Yeah//
That is, non-professionals would be restricted by clearly delineated rules, whereas professionals expect to be free to judge in each case whether to enforce a particular rule. The parameters given in this example are that a rule will be enforced to allocate resources fairly or to protect the rights of a larger group.
Although bureaucratic control is the first choice, the possibility of im- plementing technical control is of great interest to listserv participants as a way of removing themselves as enforcers of the rules. Examples proposed include password control of workstations, privacy screens on monitors, fil- tering software, and the humorous proposal of ‘‘ejection seats.’’ Likewise, in the face-to-face conversation (segment 9, lines 13–22), the participants pon- der the situation of a librarian in a public library being expected to enforce 30-min limits for ‘‘fair’’ allocation of time on Internet computers:
13 B: Gosh if they’re gonna do that they should’ve automated it so you have to 14 log on and then it just (.) shuts you down //or something to take the//
[ ]
15 C: //Right {m} so you don’t have to//
16 make the person come and ya know //(.)// be the bad guy (.) right (.) I
[ ]
17 G: //Be the bad guy//
18 thought11oh boy that must be really hard11( )|h=h=|
19 F: So you’re probably creating problem patrons (.) because //(.)// how nice is
[ ]
20 C: //maybe//
[ ]
21 G: //Yeah {m}|h=h=h=|//
22 that patron gunna be the next time they have to use the library
This proposed technical solution implies that the computer should be the
‘‘bad guy,’’ instead of setting up a library worker as the object of anger for
the next time the person comes in. In addition to managing the client’s emotional response, participants also question whether client behavior that angers them can be defined as a problem:
221 E: But w-we probably can differentiate between a problem patron and somebody 122 who’s just (.) irritating I guess- //(.)// well it sounds funny to say that
[ ]
123 B: //yeah//
[ ]
124 G: //|heh heh heh heh heh|//
125 (.) but I would say a problem patron is somebody whose interaction with 126 us (.) poses problems to a larger audience (.) perhaps it’s (.) disruptive to 127 other patrons it’s disruptive to: the work flow (.)
Here, Evan (E) implies that it might be part of the librarians’ job to put up with irritation (lines 121–122), but that other clients are to be protected from it (lines 126–127). Similarly, when Barbara (B) is asked whether a persistent client was a ‘‘problem patron’’ (segment 9, lines 174–184), she replied not in terms of her own patience level but in terms of annoyance to other clients and control of resources:
174 B: Only {m} because (.) not if he had been doing things independently 175 and wasn’t really bothering anyone but he was-he was clearly bothering 176 others around him (.) because he’d be very agitated and irritated and start 177 talking to the computer and start talking to other people //.hh (.) and (.)//
[ ]
178 F: //oh (.) yeah//
[ ]
179 C: //no (.) yeah//
180 because he was (.) using (.) a- a great amount of our resources in terms 181 //of//
[ ]
182 E: //sher//
183 asking for assistance (.) //repeatedly (.) repeatedly//
[ ]
184 F: //right (.) right (.) yeah//
Framing the problem as one of wasting resources shifts the concern from emotional labor to the traditional bureaucratic power base of institutional control. In addition to enhancing their mutual status, it also provides an acceptable reason to avoid responding to a client whose behavior is irri- tating or alarming. Frances (F), Cathy (C), and Evan (E) all actively ratify Barbara’s framing of this interaction at lines 178, 179, 182, and 184.
In contrast, the issue of resources is absent when faculty are the clients concerned (segment 9, lines 94–102):
94 B: ¼I find it particularly hard (.) dealing with faculty-there’s one faculty 95 member at the (branch library) who (.) comes to the library a lot- uses the 96 library a lot-which is wonderful but on the other hand (.) um (.) (haltingly) 97 isn’t particularly interested in learning or applying (.)
98 what]it]is]that]I’m]trying]to]demonstrate]to]him so he just keeps coming 99 back to me and having me do it for him which (.) isn’t what I’d prefer but 100 (haltingly) if that’ s gonna keep him coming that’s okay but-
101 I]don’t]really]know]if]he’s]a]problem11so much but-I but it sorta 102 tied in with that same (.) //issue//
Here the overriding concern is to encourage the faculty member to use the library (line 96) as a client whose support is important to the institution.
Because the faculty member carries more power in the interaction relative to a student, the issue of managing resources cannot be employed, even though providing the service is less preferred than demonstrating the procedure and having the client learn and apply it independently (lines 97–99). In the case of high-prestige clients like faculty, emotional labor entails managing one’s own frustration or irritation. In the case of low-prestige clients, it entails managing the client’s frustration or anger at not receiving the preferred level of service.