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a sense found in the writings of many Library 2.0 promoters, or “evangelists” as he calls them, that the library is an outdated concept and needs to change to remain viable.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