CHAPTER THREE – LITERATURE REVIEW
3.2 Summary
Very little is written about library service models. No wonder most of the professionals are unable to say which model they are applying in their libraries. Literature on this subject is also scarce and exists mainly in non-traditional formats such as blog entries and web pages. Nonetheless, the subject evokes heated debate, especially regarding which model is better than the others. Often librarians strive to support the model they prefer and are hesitant to embrace newer developments, especially relating to the application of emerging technologies in library service delivery, transformation from the provision of passive to active services as well as liberalizing the library environment to allow group work, and food and drinks.
This literature review reveals that library service models are continuously evolving. Each of the models cannot suit all service provision contexts. Therefore, none can be perceived as better than the others. However, it is also evident that some models may yield more benefits than others to a specific library community at a particular time. Libraries are careful to accommodate the prevailing characterization of the users. This cautious approach often results in the library being perceived as slow in adapting to the dynamic needs and lifestyles of the users.
Several trends in library models are discernible from the reviewed literature. These trends are as follows:
1. A shift from the static library service point as exemplified by the traditional model to mobile and virtual models which take the library services to the users;
2. Also a shift from offering physical information resources, as is the case with the traditional model through to the delivery of hybrid physical and virtual resources in the library outpost and bookstore models, to pure digital models delivering intangible services and products;
3. Less focus on collection development through ownership; more focus on collection federation and availability of mere access to information resources;
4. A shift from conservatism to liberalism in terms of classification (adoption of reader-interest approaches and folksonomies); open library membership; decentralized and shared control
97
between librarians and users; provision of shared spaces; borderless, minimum barrier, networked environments; and acceptance of food and drinks, among others;
5. Repetition of history with models moving from library services offered through the initiatives of individuals passionate in sharing knowledge (for example, ancient special libraries) through institutionalized libraries (most models fall here) and inevitably back to individual initiatives like the Biblioburro by Luis Soriano and library outposts by Nate Hill;
6. A full-cycle shift from free library services through fees based environments and inevitably back to free service delivery;
7. A shift from robust organization, quality control and standardization to less organization, minimal quality control and fluid mutational services and products;
8. Movement from less automation to more automation with the processing, organization and delivery of library services;
9. Adoption of marketing, customer care and public relations techniques in enhancing the uptake of library resources and services; and
10. Acceptance of ergonomics (better upholstery) and aesthetics (flowers, scenting, and attractive arrangement) as part and parcel of a good library experience.
The models discussed in this chapter cannot be all that exist. Similarly, due to space and time constraints, it was not possible to discuss them in greater detail. Nonetheless, the researcher hopes that this discussion is adequate to stimulate more dialogue on this topic and perhaps generate new and better models than those presented. The onus is on the professionals to harness the benefits of these discussions to develop new and/or update current models of library service which are consonant with the current civilization status and needs of the 21st Century generation of users.
98
Table 3.2 – Comparison of major library models Source: Researcher
Feature Traditional Mobile Community Bookstore Outpost Embedded Digital Hybrid Collection Focus on
ownership of general collection
Focus on less collection;
just what is needed
Focus on ownership of localized collection
Focus on ownership of new collection
Focus on less collection;
just what is needed
Focus on specialized collection;
less ownership and more access
Focus on access and not ownership of diverse collection categories
Focus both on ownership and access collection developm ent Resources Physical
resources Physical
resources Mixed physical and digital resources
Mixed physical and digital resources
Less physical and more digital resources
Less physical and more digital resources
Digital resources and no or negligible physical resources
Mix of both digital and physical;
steadily moving towards more digital Services Traditional
“acquire and lend”
Traditional
“acquire and lend”
Traditional
“acquire and lend”
Less traditional;
including shared spaces.
Less traditional;
users take shortest time in the library
Less traditional;
services tailored to individual researcher needs
Non- conventio nal services mixed and remixed by the users and librarians
Mix of conventio nal and non- conventio nal
Mediation Full mediation by librarians
Substantial mediation by librarians
Substantial mediation by librarians and the community
Less mediation by librarians
Less mediation by librarians
More self-
service Full self-
service Self- service and librarian- facilitated services exist side by side Library
place “Sacred” “No
place” “Sacred” More Liberal More
Liberal More Liberal Virtual Both virtual and physical
99