CHAPTER FOUR – LIBRARY 2.0 MODEL
4.6 Library 1.0 versus 2.0
Library 2.0 presupposes Library 1.0. Indeed many people view anything before 2.0 as 1.0. However, the 1.0 term has become increasingly associated with the traditional classical libraries (Chad and Miller 2005). Whilst most proponents (evangelists) of the Library 2.0 model view it as a progression on Library 1.0 (Stephens 2005; Rothman 2006) making it better (Miller 2006; Solomon 2006), supporters of 1.0, on the other hand, have no kind words for 2.0. Gray (2006) sees no real new value in 2.0 that 1.0 could not offer. While admitting that there are several areas that need improvement in 1.0, he does not regard technology as the panacea to these inadequacies. He is supported by Deschamps (2008) who posits that merely having blogs and other social outreach utilities in the 2.0 model will not help much if there are active policy and other barriers preventing people from using the library effectively. He suggests that it is easier and faster to improve 1.0 than deploy a totally new 2.0 which requires elaborate strategies and longer planning cycles to implement. He further argues that it is communication with patrons that matters and not the mere use of blogs. He concludes that a library can launch many blogs, flickr accounts and other tools and not really accomplish anything when it comes to customer service. He recommends that libraries should identify their needs first and then select the technologies or solutions that would help meet those needs (Deschamps 2008).
Blyberg (2008) agrees with Gray (2006) and Deschamps (2008). He warns that it is easy to become enamoured by social networking sites and Web 2.0 “toys” to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything wrong with your library or your job. He further argues that it is not realistic to blindly prescribe tools such as wikis and hope that they will work some magic in isolation. He
116
points out that the reality that many 2.0 “evangelists” ignore that which the most successful users of these newest technology tools have recognized, is that they are just that - tools (Sheehan 2008).
But Rothman (2006) sees no reason for the controversy between 2.0 and 1.0 concept. He disagrees that calling the new model 2.0 does not necessarily place it in opposition with the old model which then must be perceived to have been anti-users. He emphasizes that the new model provides a method to actively invite and facilitate customer input so as to facilitate a stronger, clearer, more consistent conversation with the library patrons. He adds that embracing the new model does not imply that the old model was bad but that the former can facilitate better services than libraries have managed to offer to their clients, especially in light of the changes in the infosphere. He also admits that though libraries have always embraced change, there are a number of practices embedded in the traditional model that hinder the same. He identifies one of the greatest impediments to meaningful change as lip-service. He asks rhetorically, “if people are going to get bent out of shape every time someone says “we should be better,” how will any progress ever be made?” Rothman (2006) is supported by Levine (2006) who sees Library 2.0 as a mash up of 1.0 with new concepts and castigates those opposing the model as being linear in thought by implying that if something is not
“A” then it is “B”.
Some scholars and practitioners are also of the view that Library 2.0 is not really about change. They describe it as a hollow concept co-opted by a growing group of libraries, librarians, and particularly vendors to push an agenda of “change” that deflects attention from some very real issues and concerns without really changing anything. They also point out that even when this change actually happens, it is disruptive and ignores the delicate information ecologies of libraries and their communities. This disruption is witnessed in and affects costs, staffing, control and authority in library ecosystems (Blyberg 2008; Mercado 2008).
The role of vendors in hyping the 2.0 model has also been criticized. Many scholars believe that the vendors are driven by the desire for huge market shares and profits, and obviously do not have an honest interest in libraries (Crawford 2006; Blyberg 2008). They argue that one cannot really buy 2.0.
This implies that vendors need to realize that they cannot sell it and their hope that the real life situation will at some point mimic the virtual hype is misplaced.
117
Laying the foundation of Library 2.0 on Web 2.0 is also viewed as a fallacy (Farkas 2005). This is because Web 2.0 is largely considered as a technological concept while Library 2.0 is a service seeking to extend the reach of and experience in libraries. Besides, the latter did not develop with the former in mind (Blyberg 2008) and, perhaps, it never will. Others also argue that Web 2.0 is a technological hype which will fade away. Libraries, on the other hand, are not momentary (Farkas 2005). Consequently, those contesting the founding of Library 2.0 on Web 2.0 assert that it is very unfortunate that libraries are currently too consumed with technology while ignoring serious matters that they should urgently address (Mercado 2008). One of those serious matters is managing technological change, as he asserts below:
Web 2.0 is such that by the time most libraries, already behind the curve on technology and are understaffed, get around to implementing something new, a large chunk of the 2.0 community has already moved on to the next hot thing (Mercado 2008: Comments).
Whether Library 2.0 is better than 1.0 or not cannot be assumed since it is still contestable (Levine 2006; Plutchak 2006; Rothman 2006). Levine (2006) sees no logic in directly contrasting the two models and argues that defining something as new does not necessarily make it diametrically opposed to or better than the old. For her, it is a continuum with revolutions and evolutions but not opposition or denigration of 1.0. Nonetheless, there is discernible resistance to Library 2.0 on many fronts which could be attributed to many factors including:
a) Librarians think that they know more than the users. It is their considered opinion that users should depend on their (librarians‟) expertise and experience to seek, locate, access and use information (Crawford 2006). They fail to discern the relationships between themselves and the information; themselves and the users; and users and the information in libraries. There is need for the triad to be harmonized in a synergized bond to bring out the best of each entity for the greater good of the whole infosphere (Smith 1990).
b) Librarians also think that the library patrons should continue to utilize the tested information searching techniques such as the Boolean system (Cohen 2006a). This requires the users to understand the library bibliographic apparatus such as catalogues, indexes and bibliographies. Furthermore, in working their way through these apparatus, they must also be willing to move back and forth through immense perseverance and effort (Smith 1990).
118
c) Librarians encourage users not to search for themselves because they believe the users will not get the information they need. Again, reliance on the librarians to search for information is encouraged (Crawford 2006). This view is premised on the fact that to retrieve information effectively, one needs more than just the technical searching skills. For instance, they need to understand the library processes encompassing varied issues such as cataloguing policy, circulation regulations and interlibrary loan procedures. As Smith (1990) asserts, information searches of this kind are arduous, complex and time consuming and are frequently frustrating and seldom satisfying. Of course, technology supported searches are much simpler and faster and do not require as much expertise as their conventional counterparts. They are more deskilled and can be conducted effectively by users themselves with little or no assistance from the librarian. With the emergence of more techno-based searching utilities, such as FOIOTI82 pioneered by Melius Weideman, information searching is bound to be even simpler and more rewarding.
d) Librarians want to classify as much information as possible (Miller 2006) to facilitate easier search and retrieval. In this pursuit, several techniques and tools have been used and discarded over time. One of the major contentions has been whether or not to use natural or controlled language. The Cranfield tests,83 however, proved that the use of either of the approaches to subject indexing does not significantly impact the information retrieval performance (Cleverdon 1991; Salmela 2006). Consequently, both approaches are applied in varying degrees by different libraries and librarians. In this pursuit, the librarians have been guided by two objectives: completeness and control. They have attempted to gather as much collection as possible and organized it into structures to make it adequately identifiable and positioned (Smith 1990). But users, on the other hand, prefer to collaboratively classify information by themselves through social systems such as folksonomies as they emerge (Barnes 2007; Magnuson 2009). This latter view is informed by the understanding that information creation and sharing is dynamic and exhibits rapid growth that cannot easily be captured and classified by the traditional librarianship techniques. Furthermore, there are many instances in which users have a better understanding of the structure of knowledge in
82 This is an Internet information searching aid. More information on the tool can be obtained from http://www.mwe.co.za/htm/internet-searching-foioti.htm
83 Tests conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s at Cranfield College of Aeronautics by Cyril Cleverdon and others to investigate the link between indexing languages and the performance of information retrieval systems (Salmela 2006).
119
their areas of specialization than librarians.84 There are divergent views on whether such user-generated “classification schemes” are more effective in aiding information searching and retrieval. Perhaps, this is an indication that though such new approaches to information classification may be innovative there are obvious limits to their usefulness.
e) Librarians and libraries operate in relatively bureaucratic systems which allow limited adventure. Consequently, they can only adopt new systems gradually. This is positive in certain respects. For instance, it 1) ensures that libraries do not adopt changes just for the sake of it; 2) creates room for consultation of the other players in the system and facilitates participatory approaches to change; and 3) gives time for preparation and organization of resources to implement and manage the desired or inevitable change more effectively (Smith 1990). On the other hand, this relatively cautious approach to change may be unsuitable for ICT because the users get more easily excited, anxious and ready to espouse new tools and techniques as soon as they know of them (Cohen 2006a). Evidently, libraries and librarians have always changed but to remain in tandem with the constantly changing user needs and tools, the pace of that change should be much faster than it has been in the past (Casey and Savastinuk 2007b).