Library 2.0 and the Academic Library

I didn’t want my official last post on the subject to be a critical one when in reality, I think much of what is packaged in Library 2.0 has the potential to be beneficial to libraries and their users. Quite simply, it’s the lack of context in the movement that gives me pause, not the theories or applications. “Library 2.0” is a way to market a fresh wave or reawakening of user focused change. Energetic inspiration, which many advocates bring to the table, isn’t negative as long as it sparks conversation. Library 2.0 is a conversation and in deference to the course, I will take a brief look at it in terms of what it could mean to academic libraries.

I was surprised to learn that much of the talk of Library 2.0 originated with public libraries and librarians. (Crawford, 2006.) From my very brief observations of the computer area in a public library, most of the patrons would ask how to print from their workstations or how to create bullet points in a Word document. The variety in age, socio-economic status and race of public library users would lead me to believe that public libraries would be concerned with attempting to provide electronic equality more than seeking to be on the cutting edge. Like Crawford, I would have thought that academic libraries would be at the forefront of this movement. A 2005 Pew Internet study found that 88% of adults 18-29 use the Internet and at least 84% of adults of all ages who have had at least some college use the Internet. ( 2006) Academic libraries' users are a technologically savvy generation and Library 2.0 applications could be vital in serving the university’s educational mission, especially with the rise in alternative students and distance education. (Coombs, 2006)

Briefly, here is how some of the Library 2.0 applications can serve universities in positive and even revolutionary ways.

Podcasts: These could be especially positive in non-traditional educational settings. Considering most distance students will be accessing the academic library from their own homes, their interaction with librarians will be limited to the telephone, e-mail or Instant Messaging. Podcasting is a way for librarians to market themselves in a more personal manner. Podcasting can enhance library instruction. Learning styles vary. There may be students who respond better to being shown how to actually use the library website and perform database searches. Online library instruction would no longer be relegated to the written word.

Wikis: Wikis allow students to interact with teachers and other classmates outside of the classroom in one place without the wait time of e-mail. (Cochenour, 2006) Colleagues can develop a scholarly paper together and students can work on group projects without the need for everyone to be available in the same place at the same time. Although any academic setting can benefit from the technology, wikis provide a virtual opportunity for distance education programs to mimic similar projects done on physical campuses.

Social Tagging: Social tagging allows users to become more proactive in describing the information resources available to them. While cataloguers attempt to be as descriptive as possible, the time and resources might not be provided to do it well. Social tagging means students can enhance the bibliographic records to include key words that might not occur to catalogers or appear in the LCSH. Allowing social tagging could lead to spagging (spam tagging) so there are risks. (Arch, 2007) Still, the advantages of increased access for students could outweigh the cons, especially if librarians pay attention to what terms students use for certain subjects in order to improve the “official” cataloging.

Those were three of the ideas I really liked. As I said in my last post, I do believe libraries can incorporate technology, even Web 2.0 technology into their libraries as long it’s to serve the mission of the library and not completely adjusting our focus just because the new gadgets are cool.

Work Cited:

Arch, Xan. (2007). Creating the academic library folksonomy: Put social tagging to work at your institution. College Research & Library News, 68(2), F. Retrieved from Library Literature on April 10, 2007.

Cochenour, Donnice. (2006). Is there a wiki in your (library) future? Colorado Libraries, 32(1), p. 34-36. Retrieved on April 10, 2007 from Library Literature.

Coombs, Karen. (2006). Planning for now and then. Library Journal Net Connect, 2(3). Retrieved from Library Literature on April 5, 2007.

Crawford, Walt. (2006) Library 2.0 and “library 2.0” Cities & Insight. 6(2) Retrieved on May 1, 2007 from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf [Updated link.]

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2006). Demographics of internet users. Retrieved on April 29, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_4.26.06.htm

A Critical View of the Movement

When an idea or concept seems to appear out of nowhere and ends up as the focus of many papers, conversations and blog posts, it’s natural for there to be backlash. When I did the initial research to discover what exactly was Library 2.0 and what was so great about it, I suspected that it might be one of those concepts; one that people might both embrace fiercely and ridicule harshly. Very few of the articles I read touched on the cultural phenomenon surrounding the Library 2.0 movement. They'd admit their own skepticism, or acknowledge that it was out there, before moving on to championing the technology. That sent me to Google where I encountered a variety of opinions on Library 2.0. Given the fact that most of the opinions were posted on blogs, a Library 2.0 technology, it was no surprise to find the majority of opinions were positive. Still, there were voices questioning the profession’s need for such a movement and the importance of technology overall in libraries.

I’m biased. I care about semantics, and would think that every librarian should have a respect for language. I believe names do matter. I’m a touch over thirty. I’ve been involved in change throughout my five-decade career, and I resent being told that no change has occurred. I’m not a revolutionary and I believe that “evolution” has worked remarkably well. (Crawford, 2006)

Walt Crawford, whose blog is “Walt at Random,” wrote this at the end of a thorough summary of the Library 2.0 movement. He criticizes a sense found in the writings of many Library 2.0 promoters, or “evangelists” as he calls them, that the library is an outdated concept and needs to change to remain viable. Most librarians would find change to be a good thing but is 2.0 the only acceptable way to reach change? I found his critiques to be on target. Placing “2.0” after the term “library” is controversial. It suggests that the library that existed before “Library 2.0” came into practice is “Library 1.0.” In doing so, all the years of evolution and change libraries have experienced gets trivialized in favor of promoting a new concept.

The trouble with the concept, however, is that it remains somewhat nebulous and undefined. Most of the literature dealing with Library 2.0 treats it as the incorporation of Web 2.0 into the library. However, the term “Web 2.0” has its own detractors, including the originator of the Internet. In an interview, Tim Berners-Lee states that he does not believe that Web 2.0 is a new concept.

Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along. And in fact, you know, this Web 2.0, quote, it means using the standards which have been produced by all these people working on Web 1.0. It means using the document object model, it means for HTML and SVG and so on, it's using HTTP, so it's building stuff using the Web standards, plus Java script of course. So Web 2.0 for some people it means moving some of the thinking client side so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact. (DeveloperWorks, 2006)

He also points out that Amazon was running “Web 2.0” applications before they were known by that name. So if creator of the Internet casts doubts on the revolutionary claims of Web 2.0 advocates, where does that leave Library 2.0?

It gets even more confusing when one examines the definitions people associate with Library 2.0. Michael Casey, a well known Library 2.0 advocate, and Laura Savastinuk say this about Library 2.0:

The heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change. It is a model for library services that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the create of both the physical and virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings.(2006)

And later:

While not required, technology can help libraries create a customer driven, 2.0 environment. (2006)

In the last sentence, they actually expand the concept of Library 2.0 beyond the technologies offered by Web 2.0 to include developing community spaces like games rooms and coffee shops. Introducing coffee shops in the library existed before "Library 2.0" was coined. In a response to Crawford pointing out many of the concepts are not new, Michael Casey and Michael Stephens acknowledge that the some of the concepts had been evolving for a few years before being labeled as Library 2.0. (2006) But has it really only been a few years? In Rome, public libraries for the masses were often combined with Roman Baths. (Krasner-Khait) In the United States, libraries have evolved from being private collections to public spaces. They’ve evolved from mainly scholarly holdings to offering books for pleasure reading. Libraries have reached out to immigrants, started bookmobiles and developed Inter Library Loan. Arguably, all of these developments in librarianship have been “user-centered.” While some of the technologies Library 2.0 brings to the table are relatively new, changing to better meet user needs is not.

Critiquing the terminology might seem nitpicky but the terminology in this case defines a technology movement. Technology movements themselves deserve scrutiny. In this conversation surrounding Library 2.0, it might be useful to question what is truly the force behind this wave.

Again, librarians have increasingly narrowed their perspective, concentrating on how librarians as “information managers” can contribute to the electronic transmission of information to the customer rather than on the role of librarianship in promoting access to knowledge in all its forms in the educational, cultural, social, political, and economic life of the citizen. (Birdsall, 2000)

Birdsall wrote his “A Political Economy of Librarianship” before the concept of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 were even invented. He highlights some of the drawbacks of the technological movement, mainly that it is consumer and commercially driven instead of citizen or public driven. Deregulation has allowed companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T to own the lines of online communication. As a result, private companies control the means by which many people receive their information. He is concerned that in the drive to implement technology into the libraries, librarians are buying into a commercially driven political economy when they should be creating their own.

Libraries have been around longer than many of the new technologies. They’re still vital and appreciated resources to the community. Prudence should be used when considering the implementation of certain Library 2.0 technologies. Libraries should also study their history to understand why they have survived and it's something this research has inspired me to study a little more. Technology itself isn't bad. In fact, libraries have benefitted greatly from it. The switch from card catalogs to online catalogs and databases has increased access. Now there is no limit to how many subject headings, author added entires, title added entires and descriptive summaries a bibliographic record can include. Users can easily browse through subject headings, discover similar headings and perform keyword searches. Librarians used what technology offered to improve their services and that should be the priority.

Is the library's future truly with the technologies of Web 2.0? Myspace? Blogs? Wikis? I'd argue that they're wonderful tools and are great ways to market library services, but librarians should not put all their technology eggs in one basket. For instance, I'd hope in the excitement over Library 2.0 that we won't lose site of trying to make improvements in the way our catalogs work that have advantages over online search engines. For instance, the cataloging world has been debating FRBR and how it might improve upon the services we already offer. FRBR, or other discussions on FRBR-like applications, deserve as much buzz as Library 2.0 but it doesn't seem to get it online. A simple Google blog search shows over 8000 hits for "Library 2.0." FRBR results in less than a quarter of that.

This is not to say that Library 2.0 is necessarily a bad thing. In Crawford’s critique, he is careful to point out the difference between “Library 2.0” as a movement and some of the generally good ideas that Library 2.0 brings to the table. (2006) Ultimately, Library 2.0 is inspiring conversations about how libraries can improve upon the services they offer. We just owe it to ourselves to think beyond technology and make sure we can align our philosophy with the technology.

Works Cited:

Birdsall, William. (2000) A political economy of librarianship? HERMÈS : revue critique. Retrieved on April 27, 2007 from http://pages.globetrotter.net/charro/HERMES6/birdsall.htm

Casey, Michael E. and Savastinuk, Laura C. (2006) Library 2.0. Library Journal. Retrieved on March 27, 2007 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Crawford, Walt. (2006) Library 2.0 and “library 2.0” Cities & Insight. 6(2) Retrieved on May 1, 2007 from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf [Edited to update link]

DeveloperWorks Interview: Tim Berners-Lee. (Recorded in 2006). DeveloperWorks Podcast. Retrieved on April 27, 2007 from http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt

Krasner-Khait, Barbara. (2001) Survivor: The history of the library. History Magazine. Retrieved on April 27, 2007 from http://www.history-magazine.com/libraries.htm

Stephens, Michael and Casey, Michael. (2006) Better library services for more people. ALATechblog. Retrieved on April 20, 2007 from http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/01/better-library-services-for-more-people.html

Library Humor.

Just for the fun of it. I'll probably take this down after tonight as I do believe the legality of posting a clip like this on YouTube is in question. Is it fair use? Since it hasn't been taken down, is it okay to assume the owner of the content is okay with it being online? The logical side of me says that it probably is illegal while the selfish side of me wants to be able to enjoy clips whenever possible.

In honor of tonight's class: Mr. Bean at the Library

What is "2.0?"

It seems like this would be the place to begin. Here's a clever introduction to Web 2.0 I found on YouTube.



It seems everywhere I look these days I see “2.0” this and “2.0” that. I can almost understand the application of 2.0 to Web as it’s a relatively new concept itself that has been at the forefront of modern day buzzword creation. But does applying “2.0” to long-established concepts such as “library” and “business” make any sense? If one thinks about all the changes libraries have experienced over the years, shouldn’t we be discussing Library 42.0 instead of Library 2.0? Have we given ourselves a demotion in order to identify with something that could potentially be a fad? “Hey look at us, we can be hip too, II, 2, 2.0.” While I pose the questions, I’m not sure if there are answers. For that reason, I felt it important to explore the concepts of Web 2.0 and how they contribute to the premise of Library 2.0.

In order to define Web 2.0, I choose to go to a source about which I’m normally a skeptic but it is nevertheless one of the prime examples of the success of Web 2.0. According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0 is a phrase coined by O’Reilly media which “refers to a perceived second-generation of Web-based services—such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies—that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users.” (Wikipedia.) The characteristics common to Web 2.0 are that they are user centered, socially rich, multimedia enabled and communally innovative. (Maness, 2006) Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty also point these characteristics can be found in the services and technologies that survived the Dot-com bubble burst. (Maness, 2006) While many felt it proved the Web was over hyped, in reality it was the beginning of Web 2.0’s ascension. (O’Reilly, 2005) The web was no longer solely about providing information but allowing its users to interact with it.

As the concept of Web 2.0 began to take root, it spilled over into other areas where interactive information would be valued. On his blog, LibraryCrunch, Michael Casey coined the term Library 2.0. Library 2.0, in essence, brings the principles of Web 2.0 into the library to better serve its users. (Curran & Murray, 2006) Library 2.0 isn’t about replacing common aspects of Library 1.0 such as reference services and information collecting, but instead can be used to promote and enhance those core services. (Huwe, 2007) By using the technology available to us from the Web 2.0 wave, we are able to create a virtual library experience containing the interactive aspects that were once restricted to the actual library building. The barriers of place are torn down and we can not only reach our customers in person but wherever they are in cyberspace.

Library 2.0 technologies change the way we deliver information to users and allow users to play a part in how that is done. Here are some of the technologies linked to Library 2.0 that could make their way into academic libraries in the future.

• Interactive OPACs: Given the success of Amazon.com, libraries could choose to remodel their OPACs to “smart” models that recognize a user and allow for customized portals providing information that best suits their interests. (Maness, 2006)
• Instant Messaging: “Chat reference” is already employed in many libraries but it could be taken a step further. With the permission of the user, a chat window could pop-up and offer help if the computer notices a user experiencing an unsuccessful search. (Maness, 2006) It seems similar to the online shopping experiences I had when I bought a phone online. Periodically, a window would pop up allowing me to enter a chat session where a Verizon representative would be available to answer any of my questions. Many of these technologies also allow for simultaneous browsing. A librarian could not only perform the search for a user but show him or her how it is being done.
• Wikis: According to one of the largest wikis on the net, a wiki is “a website that allows visitors to add, remove, edit and change content, typically without the need for registration. It also allows for linking among any number of pages. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for mass collaborative authoring.” (Wikipedia) Basically wikis allow for library staff to collaborate on projects and certain sites can be opened to library users. One never knows what kind of expertise a user might be willing to provide when given the space.
• RSS: Known as Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication allows libraries to publish blog content onto their website as well as export content to subscribers. (Maness, 2006) The librarians at the College of New Jersey has even experimented with integrating RSS feeds about new books into the College Course Management System. (Corrado and Moulaison, 2006)
• Tagging or Folksonomy: Tagging or folksonomy allows users to add their own tags to books, journal articles, websites...etc. Perhaps one day we will even look at such sites such as Library Thing to see which keywords people apply to books they have read and incorporate them into our cataloging. (Bates, 2006)
• Blogs: Short for weblog, a blogs, according to Merriam Webster Online is “a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer.” (Merriam Webster) Merriam Webster fails to include one of the most important aspects of blogs that turn it from a Web 1.0 concept into a Web 2.0 concept and that is the ability for readers to comment on what is written.
• Mashups: Mashups bring us back to Interactive OPACs. Mashups are aggregators that bring things of interest to the user into one place like MyYahoo and Google’s personalized home pages.

I’ll have to admit to being overwhelmed with the amount of information out there in cyberspace about Web 2.0 and its numerous applications in an academic setting. While some of the ideas like social tagging in cataloging are truly innovative in ways they can shape the library, other aspects, such as soliciting feedback, seem less revolutionary. Doing it in a virtual environment may be new but the concept of working with users to improve our services isn’t. That's why I found myself changing my second post from more discussion of specific applications and focusing on how the discussion of Library 2.0 is effecting the culture of librarianship.

For me, research wasn’t the only goal of this project. I didn’t simply want to learn about Web and Library 2.0, I felt I should practice it. So in addition to cited blog posts, I may include shorter posts as well update the hyperlink list on the left. With this introduction behind me, I will open up this entry to comments, suggestions, responses or whatever bits of wisdom you’d like to share.

Works Cited:

Bates, Mary Ellen. (2006) Info pro on the edge. Econtent, 29(10), p. 17. Retrieved from Library Literature on March 27, 2007.

Corrado, Edward M. & Moulaison, Heather L. (2006). Integrating RSS feeds of new books into the campus course management system. Computers in libraries. Retrieved on April 3, 2007 from http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/oct06/Corrado_Moulaison.shtml#top

Curran, Kevin and Murray, Michelle. (2006). Library 2.0-Bringing the library to the user. Multimedia Information Technology, 32(4), p. 103-105. Retrieved from Library Literature on March 26, 2007.

Huwe, Terrence K. (2007) Surfing the library 2.0 wave. Computer Library, 27(1), p. 36-38. Retrieved from Library Literature on March 27, 2007.

Maness, Jack M. (2006) Library 2.0: The next generation of Web-based library services. Logos, 17(3), p. 139-145. Retrieved on Library Literature on March 26, 2007.

"Blog." Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved on April 3, 2007 from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/blog

Netscape. What is a mash-up and why are they good? Netscape Gadgets & Tech. Retrieved on on April 3, 2007 from http://tech.netscape.com/story/2006/08/16/what-is-a-mashup-and-why-they-are-good

O’Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved on April 4, 2007 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html%20on%20April%201,

Wikipedia. Web 2.0. Retrieved on March 29, 2007
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Wikipedia. Wikis. Retrieved from on March 29, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikis%20on%20March%2030