CHAPTER THREE – LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Library service model
3.1.1 Traditional model
This is the oldest and most common model of library services. It is anchored in the effective management of the library catalogue and physical collection. Indeed, Sweeney (1994) asserts that the traditional library is defined by physical place and collection. The heavy reliance of this service model on physical collection has earned it the title: “Acquire - Catalogue – Circulate” model (Xiaolin 2004; Remelts 2005; Murray 2006). Other scholars also refer to it as the “Acquire – Catalogue – Store – Lend” model (Lim 2002). Some of the literature reviewed had negative comments on this model of library service and in some cases described it as archaic, primitive and outdated and predicted its demise in due course (Remelts 2005). This view can be attributed to the hype for change; not just in library services but also in the society at large. But there were others who asserted that the traditional library model is still relevant and will never be replaced by any other model; not even the digital library. While admitting that there is a great “temptation” to move to the
65
newer models – mainly digital libraries – those who support the traditional library model explain that the other models of library services will only co-exist with the traditional one and complement each other but not replace it (Remelts 2005). Persson (2003) also adds that libraries are in a constant state of motion travelling with the societal contexts to remain relevant and normally blend the new and traditional to offer wholesome services. It is also evident from the literature that many people, and institutions, advocate caution while at the same time agitating for modernization. Consequently, what is described by some as traditional actually turns out to represent continuity, reliability and quality assurance to others. The latter school of thought views the traditional library model as the bridge between the past, current and future models and cannot be discarded easily without jeopardizing the quality of library services.
The review also revealed that the traditional model emphasizes mediation of the services by the librarians. Thus, the librarians connect the users and the library collection. The information the users need is contained within the library building, and therefore the help that users also need in order to exploit these resources fully has to be delivered right beside the print collection (Joint 2008) by the librarians. It follows, therefore, that the resources have to be accurately described to facilitate efficient location and delivery to the users (Borbinha 2002). Of course the library services have evolved from the closed-stack systems where the users had to rely on the librarians to fetch the books on their behalf, to open access systems. However, while the users are now free to browse the shelves and choose the resources they are interested in, in the traditional model they still have to rely on the librarians to check out the books. Some scholars have called this the supermarket model which though better than the retail model, is still limiting to users on various fronts (Lim 2002). It is noteworthy that in these models – supermarket or retail – the librarian and the users are still separated by a service desk keeping the librarian in control.
The traditional model of service is also unidirectional, to a large extent, and rarely involves the users in making the decisions on what and how they should be served (Lim 2002; Pienaar and Smith 2008). It is hierarchical, relatively slow – exhibits hesitancy by preferring to “play it safe” – but stable (Sweeney 1994; Persson 2003). Though there are attempts to embrace participatory processes in this model of service, the libraries using it still generally apply the “one size fits all” policy in which users‟
diverse interests and preferences are least considered (Borbinha 2002; Lim 2002). Further, there is a perception that some traditional librarians do not take user comments and suggestions kindly and
66
interpret them as a challenge to their (librarians‟) authority and expertise. Such librarians believe that they know everything there is to know about information services and resources; they do not need any assistance, let alone from users who are not trained in librarianship (Farkas 2004). So, the library users should go to them like a patient to a doctor and wait for the prescription which should be followed strictly. Many modern users resent this mentality and only go to the library when they really must.
It is also evident from the reviewed literature that the traditional model is largely site-based. It requires the users to visit the physical library to get the services. Further, the library opens for a fixed prescribed period of time and the services can only be accessed during those opening hours. It follows, therefore, that the traditional library only serves users who are able to visit the library premises during the opening hours. Persson (2003) further explains that apart from being localized, traditional libraries, like most organizations, tend to be rigid and often resist change. He also adds that they (traditional libraries) also accomplish tasks through routines strictly managed and enforced by the appropriate systems in the hierarchies. Farkas (2004) supports Persson (2003) that some librarians can be “traditionalists” who do not want to change the decades-old techniques and tools.
Surprisingly, she says she met many of these “traditionalists” in Library School! It is also evident from some comments found during the review that many librarians do not understand the rationale behind the “push” on the libraries to offer services differently. For instance, some have wondered why a library should be fashioned like a “day care”54 centre. Specifically, Houghton-Jan (2006) points out that most librarians particularly find working with youths more difficult. However, she urges tolerance and encourages librarians to be prepared in “teen programming”, for noise, teen stuff (backpacks), group work, socializing, and group computer play.
Another key feature of the traditional model of service that is discernible from the literature is that it emphasizes the use of authoritative information sources. Consequently, libraries using this model have quality control mechanisms to ensure that only credible information sources are acquired and delivered at the libraries. This implies that the quality of library-based information resources is generally much higher than their digital and other contemporaries. Further, the librarian-mediated information services use tested techniques making them more rewarding and reliable than services
54 The concept is used here to denote pampering of the users who sometimes do not know what they are looking for and may seem disorganized.
67
from other non-mediated alternatives (Krupa 2006). There are also views that besides questionable quality, online/digital resources, for instance, are not eye-friendly. Many people find it easier to read physical printed books than their digital counterparts on the digital device screens. Krupa (2006) reports findings of an investigation into information medium format preferences and provides the verbatim response below:
I prefer reading the traditional book, because it is more comfortable for me. I just cannot imagine reading the whole book on the computer screen. It would be awfully tiresome for me and give no pleasure (Krupa 2006:
Research Results).
While supporting the view that library collections are more authoritative, Farkas (2004) suggests that librarians need to incorporate the “ease of use” one finds “with a Google or a Yahoo!”55 in order to make searching at the library more seamless. Particularly, many users reportedly prefer searching for information using natural language. Of course, there are several disadvantages to this such as low relevance levels, but the librarians should adapt their systems to the “Google or Yahoo!” reality;
giving hints on spellings, derivatives, abbreviations and other possibilities on every search conducted by the users.
The literature also reveals that the traditional library model services are offered in quiet and sombre environments. This view emanates from the notion that anyone using the library services needs to be “serious” and silence in libraries is considered an important attribute of seriousness. As a way of reminding users of this obligation, signs requesting users to maintain silence are posted conspicuously on most traditional library buildings. Consequently, library users are meant to use the resources silently on their own without engaging colleagues in the reading areas. Besides, there is little or no provision of group-work environments in the traditional libraries. The users are also not meant to carry any foodstuffs or drinks into the library, let alone eat in the library (Farkas 2004;
Houghton-Jan 2006). Clearly, the traditional library premise, among other library metaphors, is treated as a sacred place (Kennedy 2008) where the golden rule of silence abounds. Whereas silence may be conducive to some users, many others may want some background noise to keep them productive. This is the rationale behind use of piped music in libraries (Rippel 2003). Actually, in the
55 These are search engines; used here to represent digital content which is searchable and readily available online.
68
real world, people work amidst many other activities and surroundings. People who are used to the
“real” world work environments find the quiet library unsuitable for meaningful work.
Some scholars also suggest that the traditional library model utilizes the “Just-In-Case” collection development policy as opposed to “Just-In-Time” policy which is steadily being adopted by progressive libraries. They explain that in a “Just-In-Case” approach the library acquires information resources with the hope that some user may someday require the resources. In the latter concept, however, the libraries only acquire what is needed when it is needed. Actually, the libraries using the
“Just-In-Time” approach focus more on access to resources rather than ownership (Hanson 2007).
Such libraries have worked out mechanisms to facilitate faster access to resources “full-text” on demand through various technology facilitated systems such as electronic journal servers, current awareness services with document delivery, tailored full-text products, bibliographic databases offering full-text access, and pre-print servers, among others (Arant and Payne 2001; Nielsen and Eriksson 2002; Hanson 2007). However, Sweeney (1994) explains that the “Just-In-Case” collection approach also has certain benefits over “Just-In-Time”. For instance, he points out that the former results in more “well-rounded” collections than the latter. Nevertheless, he is quick to add that most traditional libraries boast of the collections without realizing that a good collection alone does not constitute good library services. Hamburg et al. (1974) agree with this view and point out that the success of a library cannot be evaluated merely on the collection it has but critically by the level of exposure to the collection it gives to the users. They conclude that a good library maximizes the exposure of users to bibliographic material. Consequently, an effective library service requires systems that enable users to interact optimally with the good collection and is normally indicated by a satisfied user. If a user is unable to locate an information resource because it is being used or it is borrowed or it has been mis-shelved, s/he leaves the library dissatisfied even though the collection is good and had the potential of meeting his/her needs. Nitecki (1993) also underscores the fact that librarianship is more than just the collection or its arrangement. The concept of metalibrarianship, he explains, is that true librarianship is involved in understanding and facilitating the relationships between library users, the content of the collection and the systems that facilitate the sharing of the collection. He adds that librarianship is not just a record-service oriented approach (explicit service based on the collection) but also an information-process science (pivoted on the provision of information through dynamic processes and systems). Consequently, whereas some traditional libraries still measure their success by the adequacy of the physical collection and library place such
69
as size of collection, number of books borrowed, number of chairs and tables in the reading areas;
progressive libraries measure success by evaluating user satisfaction.
From the literature reviewed, the researcher concludes that there is overwhelming evidence that many library professionals and users agree that the traditional library model should be reengineered.
Some of the reasons put forth to support this view include: 1) User service demands are increasing far more rapidly than the resources to meet these needs in traditional ways; 2) The cost of building large collections of books and journals has escalated far faster than library resources; 3) New information technology provides opportunities for vastly improved services with far greater access than traditional model libraries; 4) External agencies, parent organizations, and governments have placed greater burdens upon libraries and the services which libraries must provide; and 5) Users have increased the scope and depth of demands on libraries (Sweeney 1994; Farkas 2004; Krupa 2006; Hanson 2007).