CHAPTER FOUR – LIBRARY 2.0 MODEL
4.2 What is Library 2.0?
105
Miller (2005) asserts that leveraging the approaches typified by Web 2.0 offers libraries many opportunities to serve their existing audiences better, and to reach out beyond the walls and websites of the institution to reach potential beneficiaries where they happen to be, and in association with the task that they happen to be undertaking at that time. He summarizes it all by saying:
With these approaches, we take our existing wealth of data, and we make it work much harder. We begin to break down the internal silos of the separate systems within a single library, and we connect those components to one another, and to related components and services far beyond the building. At a technical level, we make it possible for searchers to be presented with choices to view online, borrow locally, request from afar, buy or sell as appropriate to their needs and circumstance. Technically, it is possible, and we are doing it with standards and specifications shared across a range of sectors, rather than inventing our own library-specific standards once again (Miller 2005:Web 2.0 + Library = Library 2.0).
106
Farkas (2007) admits that defining the Library 2.0 concept is a difficult task. She explains that if you ask any five people what Library 2.0 is you will most likely get five different answers. She adds that the definition thus obtained will depend on the respondent‟s perspective and context. For instance, some people would define Library 2.0 as being primarily about technology – being available at the point of need, providing library services online where the users are, creating more interactive library systems that capitalize on the collective intelligence, and developing more usable library systems.
Other people would focus more on service orientation than technology – user-centred services, surveying users, constantly re-evaluating library collections and services, meeting the needs of the long-tail; and the list continues. Many other scholars also support this view and admit that the end of the debate on the real meaning of Library 2.0 is not in sight (Miller 2005; Crawford 2006; Casey and Savastinuk 2007b; Maness 2006; Deschamps 2008; Farkas 2008; Gibbons 2009).
Iser (2006) defines Library 2.0 as the expression that captures the practical and focused efforts to use web technologies – Web 2.0 in particular – to connect to and create relationships with library patrons. She emphasizes that these new technologies enable library community members to interact and share information, more so with peers. In her view, librarians use Library 2.0 to bring libraries closest to the people through information-driven social media. She alludes to the notion that Library 2.0 is a second phase in library development which, according to her, is better, for instance, in terms of facilitating seamless users-to-users and users-to-librarians interaction than the previous phase. She emphasizes that Library 2.0 seeks to connect patrons to the library and to each other through diverse technologies determined by what the patrons currently use. The focus of Library 2.0, to her, is robust connectedness between all the members of the library community for mutual benefit.
According to Farkas (2005), the idea of Library 2.0 represents a significant paradigm shift in the way people view library services. It describes a seamless user experience, where usability, interoperability, and flexibility of library systems are vital. She adds that it is about the library being more present in the community through programming, community building (both online and physical), and outreach via new communication technology tools such as IM, screencasting, blogs, and wikis, to mention but a few. She also explains that Library 2.0 is really about allowing user participation through writing reviews and tagging in the catalogue and making their voices heard through blogs and wikis. She also underscores the effort by the Library 2.0 approach to make the library human, ubiquitous, and user- centred. To achieve these, she concludes that it requires a change in library systems, web presence,
107
and librarians‟ attitudes. She admits that it will take a lot of work and time for any library to be completely 2.0, but insists that the idea should inform every new decision made at the library today.
Cho (2008) also asserts that Library 2.0 is a transition within the library world in which programmes and services are delivered to the users through new and innovative methods. He adds that the principles of Library 2.0 are “entirely” user-centred and that they facilitate seamless collaboration between the users themselves to create community content using new communication technologies.
He is supported by Sanzo (2008) who also emphasizes that Library 2.0 is a new model of service in libraries that embraces change and technology and engages users to create a customer-driven library.
He (Sanzo 2008) also explains that Library 2.0 looks at how library services fit into the new user- centric world created by Web 2.0 technologies where dynamic web-based tools, online communities, and the ability to customize and personalize everything, drives people‟s computing environment.
Habib (2006), however, is of the view that Library 2.0 brings together two discrete concepts – library and 2.0. He suggests that defining the concept merely as an integration of the two concepts is limiting in the sense that it assumes that both concepts are transferred as they were during the integration. Conversely, he suggests that a true definition of the term should take consideration of the fact that when these two concepts merge they create a totally new and different concept which blends several features of either of them. To illustrate this view, let us consider cocktail juice made from mango and orange juices. While the cocktail may have orange and mango flavours, these flavours do not exist independently of each other. They are blended harmoniously to create a new juice with a totally new colour, taste and texture. Similarly, Library 2.0 is neither Web 2.0 nor is it a common library service. Library 2.0, therefore, cannot be defined by the separate characteristics of the two composing concepts but by new features arising from the resulting union between the two.
Habib (2006), therefore, proposes that Library 2.0 should be defined as a subset of library services designed to meet user needs precipitated by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0. He explains that this definition demonstrates that Web 2.0 catalyzes changing user needs and that Library 2.0 services have emerged to meet these needs. This view seems to contradict the common understanding that libraries have been changing throughout history even before Web 2.0. However, Maness (2006) explains that Library 2.0 actually recognizes the changes libraries have undergone over the years but adds that the use of this term, at least for now, is specific and tied to Web 2.0. In
108
fact, he suggests that the previous and impending changes in libraries can be described by other terms accordingly. They do not have to be “squeezed into” Library 2.0.
Evidently, the label and meaning of Library 2.0 as a concept remain debatable (Miller 2006;
Rothman 2006; Casey and Savastinuk 2007b). It is a mushy term (Plutchak, 2006), an amalgam of ideas (Blyberg 2006) and so, there are many contrasting and seemingly contradicting views about what it really ought or ought not to be (Crawford 2006). But there are three overarching views: (1) It is the representation of transformational change of existing library models making it revolutionary;
(2) It is the continued improvement and extension of existing library services to meet the constantly changing user needs making it evolutionary (Crawford 2006); and (3) It is neither revolutionary nor evolutionary since its main features, such as user-centeredness, have been hallmarks of librarianship for ages (Solomon 2006). However, most Library 2.0 concepts are constructive; building on today‟s best practices and improving them for the future (Crawford 2006). In spite of the contestations, the term continues to be an acceptable label for the new change – whether revolutionary, evolutionary or not – in library services (Miller 2005). It is an attempt to focus energies on two specific objectives:
1) empowering the user; and 2) embracing constant change (Casey and Savastinuk 2007b).
Apart from the debate around its real meaning, Library 2.0 has also provoked fresh controversies.
For instance, Crawford (2006) draws a distinction between what he calls Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”. He explains that while the former is the new model seeking to improve current library services, the latter is a confrontational bandwagon movement deriding today‟s libraries and librarians as rigid and unchanging. He avers that “Library 2.0” is unfortunate and adds no value to the existing concepts but detracts and creates division where none is necessary. Other controversies revolve around the role of technology in Library 2.0 as well as whether or not it can be adopted by all types of libraries and how it should be implemented (Chad and Miller 2005; Miller 2006). Some librarians also suggest that Library 2.0 advocates have misplaced priorities and are unfairly dismissive of those who don‟t agree with them (Cohen 2007a).
There is a consensus, however, that the heart of Library 2.0 is user-centred change (Albanese 2004;
Abram 2006; Blyberg 2006; Cohen 2006a; Miller 2006; Rothman 2006; Walter 2006) which is not only constant (Albanese 2004; Abram 2006; Blyberg 2006; Cohen 2006a; Crawford 2006; Miller 2006), but also inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services
109
they want (Miller, 2006), supported by consistent evaluation of the services. It is also an attempt to reach new users while offering better services to the current ones through improved customer- driven packages. Each component by itself is a step toward better user service (Crawford, 2006).
However, it is through the combined implementation of all of these that Library 2.0 can be attained (Chad and Miller 2005; Casey 2007).
Despite the change represented by Library 2.0 fitting so well with the history of libraries and their mission, it is still a major paradigmatic shift from the traditional model. One of the areas Library 2.0 model seeks to change is access and control of systems such as catalogues. Whilst it is relatively easy for librarians to provide open access to the catalogues and collections, it is difficult for them to cede their control to the actual and potential users (Blyberg 2006). Library 2.0 recommends that libraries focus less on secured inventory systems which are selected and managed largely by the librarians and more on collaborative discovery systems which are designed or selected and managed constantly by both librarians and users in a mutually-beneficial partnership (Miller 2006). These systems are dynamic and are regularly changed by the librarians and users. There is perhaps a great synchronicity between librarianship and Web 2.0, but viewed holistically, Library 2.0 will change the profession.
Ideally, rather than creating systems and services for patrons, it will enable users to create tools and solutions for themselves. Consequently, the traditional librarianship profession which is steeped in decades of a culture of control and predictability will need to continue moving toward embracing facilitation and ambiguity. This shift corresponds to similar changes in library history, including the opening of book stacks and the inclusion of fiction and paperbacks in the early 20th century (Maness, 2006). These shifts, however, have limits and may only be executed selectively and in varying extents in different library ecologies (Crawford 2006).
Cho (2008) asserts that Library 2.0 ultimately relies on the skilful use of emergent technologies to serve library patrons. He suggests that the Web 2.0 technologies that librarians could use to offer services to the users include:
1. Instant messaging (IM);
2. Video sharing (like YouTube);
3. Podcasting;
110
4. Photo sharing (such as Flickr80);
5. Blogs and wikis;
6. Social networks (such as MySpace, Facebook);
7. Folksonomies and social tagging;
8. RSS81 feeds; and 9. Web mash-ups.
In conclusion, therefore, it is evident from the foregoing that Library 2.0 describes a subset of library services designed to meet user needs precipitated by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0 (Crawford 2006; Habib 2006; Casey 2007; Maslov, Mikeal and Leggett 2009). It is a way of thinking and a way of operating (Casey 2007). It is not just about searching, but finding; not about mere access, but sharing (Albanese 2004; Maness 2006). In the words of Walter (2006), Library 2.0 is a commitment to assess, improve, integrate and communicate library services using the newest information technology and the tried and true “human technology”. It is any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input (Casey and Savastinuk 2007a). While Library 2.0 is still an evolving concept, it nonetheless is a necessary development that encourages both users and libraries to reposition themselves – in terms of redefining their expectations and obligations – and their ideas about how a library functions. It ultimately helps libraries to grow and develop as a significant cultural institution in the society (Cho 2008).
Thus, Library 2.0 can be defined as the new model of library service which harnesses the power of emerging information and communication technologies to create a dynamic physical and/or virtual library platform which is defined and controlled by the users and librarians and which facilitates the delivery of a superior library experience to the users anytime anywhere anyhow.
80 Flickr is a photo sharing website. It provides a means for Web users to share personal photographs with each other and is mainly used by bloggers. It was developed and launched by Ludicorp, a Canadian company, in 2004. More information on Flickr can be obtained from http://www.flickr.com/.
81 RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary. It is a format for sharing Web content among different websites. It is a system that scans and aggregates contents of blogs and other tools that are updated regularly and delivers the same to registered users (Fagan Finder 2004).
111