Review of Using blogs and wikis to communicate with library clients

Watson and Harper (2006) discuss two technologies that have now commonly been used in libraries in Australia but were at the time of publication still somewhat uncommon. Based on then available experience - and there is no indication from more recent literature that this experience is now outdated - they provide six (actually seven) tips on how other librarians may successfully create online communites using blogs and wikis.

In this they note, based on "Recent Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 discussions" that these two particular technologies are suitable technologies for the task, without any consideration of other technologies. There is a reference to their more detailed research (Watson & Harper, n.d.), but this research does not appear to address this comparative aspect of different technologies. The reader is left with guidance on how to successfully create online communities using blogs and wikis, but is not provided with the reasons why these two of the many technologies should be selected over other technologies.

The first strength of the article is that although it is about technology in libraries, it is not about the technology itself, it is about issues involved in implimenting the technology, for which they list six tips but should have listed a seventh, the main tip is - "If there is going to be a library 2.0, the driving force will surely be Librarian 2.0" It is the librarian who impliments the tips who is key to the whole process - an issue touched on in Kajewski (2007). Librarian 2.0 is the most important issue.

The second strength of the article that continues on from the first is in Tip # 2, "Control 'technolust'". Too many technology articles aimed at librarians only highlight how useful technology is in libraries and how libraries having the technologies discussed in the articles makes the library more connected, more responsive, better able to service their users, without discussing drawbacks, and without discussing whether or not a specific technology truely is beneficial to the needs of the users.

The first major weakness of the article, apart from not discussing the why of implimenting these two technologies, is that it contains some general principles without sufficent details to guide the Librarian 2.0. For example, in Tip # 3 there is a need for "an agreed upon, honest library voice". Watson and Harper do not make it clear as to how this agreed upon library voice will be arrived at, and if agreed upon, how it would be also honest as each contributor would be compelled to "speak" in a way that is not naturally their own.

The second major weakness is that there are no tips to cover a major aspect of implimenting new technologies - the users. The six listed tips are under the heading of "Developing a successful communication tool", a tool whose raison d'être is to communicate. If the communication process ignores the users it is likely to not be as successful as a communication process that considers the users. Many users, despite common references to the internet generation and tech-savy teenagers, are not effective in their use of ICTs. An additional tip would need to address at least two aspects of the users - the technologies should be available in the easiest to use formats possible, and the users need to be trained in the effective use of the technologies.

Overall Watson & Harper is useful as a broad guide, a begining point of issues to consider in implimenting technologies in libraries.

References

Kajewski, M. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivey models. The Electronic library, 25(4), 420-429.

Watson, K., & Harper, C. (n.d.). LibraryBlogsWikis: A wiki that looks at how blogs and wikis are being used in Australian libraries. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.seedwiki.com/libraryblogswikis/ .

Watson, K., & Harper, C. (2006). Using blogs and wikis to communicate with library clients. inCite, 12. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2006/12/print.html?ID=138 .

Review of Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models

Kajewski "aims to explore the range of free and inexpensive technologies that are available and have been simply implimented with practical and immediate benefits both for library staff and clients". These aims appear to have been achieved in this article.

According to Kajewski blogs, wikis, RSS feeds and aggregators, podcasts, vodcasts, web conferencing, and instant messaging are free or inexpensive technologies that increase user interaction with and access of the library, particularly with tech-fluent young adults. It appears from the article that the new technologies meet user needs in a variety of ways in that the user has 24/7 access to information that can often be tailored to their specific needs, and that the technologies are not theoretical or untested but have been applied in actual libraries.

While I generally agree with Kajewski there are two minor issues that detract from her article, and a few more that detract from the overall argument that emerging technologies are beneficial. They are, but not to the extent the article suggests.

The detracting issues:
(1) the wording of the purpose of the paper does not suggest limitations that are only found in the design/methodology/approach – only public libraries are discussed in the take up of the emerging technologies leaving this reviewer wondering about the relevance of these technologies to users of other types of libraries
(2) for a paper on “emerging technologies” it appears a little dated in that no technology that emerges after 2006 is discussed (the latest date of any item in the reference list). The latest technology discussed appears to be podcasts which were about three years old in 2007, while blogs were more than ten years old in 2007 and already somewhat mature ICTs

The limiting issues, problems or potentially emerging problems:
(1) there is much claimed about the emerging technologies but very little in terms of verification of their actual usefulness and none presented by Kajewski. For example, a statistic on what percentage of Australian public libraries use blogs to communicate only provides a part of the picture of the communication channel; the other part is the user. If users are not reading blog content then the library has used a communication technology of limited usefulness
(2) to keep users reading the output from their library sent via emerging technologies, the user has to have a reason to read the output, and generally it is because the content is relevant to their specific needs. This makes some of the emerging technologies other than free or inexpensive as there is a cost in staff time to make the user want to read content that has been, at a cost, tailored to be relevant to their specific needs
(3) the plethora of emerging technologies is an asset in that specific technologies might be applied to specific needs, but there is a risk of either fragmentation or duplication of content. For example, if a user is communicated to using one technology but not another, then the message to all uses has to be sent via each technology otherwise that user may miss being communicated to, however, if that user receives information from the library by two or more technologies, they will receive a duplication of information – potentially increasing the chance they will view library communications as spam
(4) there is a cost to the library in preparing content to be issued in each emerging technology. Often the content is virtually the same such as text in blogs and instant messaging, but a technology such as podcasts require the content to be prepared in a different (audio) format
(5) there is a risk not discussed by Kajewski that as emerging technologies become more mature users become more selective of the content they want delivered by those technologies. A recent example of this is email (email was a decade ago an emerging technology) but users now generally regard library emails as spam.
(6) Kajewski acknowledges the non-technological aspect of technology – the need for staff buy-in, but does not note the lack of resources for staff training in many libraries, nor the lack of resources to train the users. Many users might be tech-savy, but many are not and there is no discussion by Kajewski of the role of technology as a cause in increasing comparative information poverty even as information poverty as a whole is decreased. Kajewski’s design/methodology/approach refers to “Questions around the level of use or non-use by public libraries are also explored”, perhaps there should have been more focus on levels and reasons of non-use by library users

With time the emerging technologies will found useful, will be modified until they are useful, or will be discarded – especially if replaced by yet newer technologies. Of more concern is the impact of these technologies on many non-users who may be sidelined as more resources go via newer service delivery models to tech-savy users.

References

Kajewski, M. A. Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models [Electronic version]. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420-429.

Review of Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library

Casey and Savastinuk's article begins with a common opening - "Libraries are changing". They refer to funding limits, staffing levels, service models, access to resources and services to the public, and following reference to these make reference to "Library 2.0" which is about "user-centered change", a change that will (1) reach out to the "long tail" of current non-library users and (2) make the customer a "collaborator" who "will be able to tailor library services to best meet their own needs". While briefly there is mention of change that is not technology based, this is limited to about three sentences out of a three page article, so overwhelmingly the article is about how technology can be used to effect Library 2.0.

The “long tail” discussion of the article is one that is rarely discussed, especially in articles that have a public library pedigree like this one (both authors work in a public library and refer frequently to public libraries). According to the authors many users do not use the library service as the library service does not carry the items they desire. Most of the solutions they describe are physical such as interlibrary loans, but they also discuss the role technology has as it can provide electronic texts.

This is true, but the limitations are not discussed. These include:
(1) Most material needed by the long tail cannot be provided by electronic texts as most publications are not available in electronic form. As a library user whose needs commonly fit the “long tail” a simple test of two lesser known journals on two library catalogues for libraries who see themselves as responsive to user needs and who use electronic delivery of texts demonstrates this. The journal Dead Sea Discoveries is despite being available from the publisher electronically not fully available at CSU, who lack subscription to earlier issues and the most recent embargoed issued, and is not available at all at the largest public library in western Sydney, Penrith City Library. Likewise the journal Meghillot, despite being a current journal is not available in electronic form so cannot be delivered electronically to either library
(2) Even where texts are available electronically (and without the non-technological limitations such as pay-per-view), the user needs to have the technology to access the texts and the skills to use this technology. Given the penetration of computers and the internet into Australian homes this is generally not an issue, except to those “customers who otherwise never visit libraries” – these often being the customers who lack access to technology and the skills to use the technology
(3) Limitations of the staff to deal both with the technology and users, and the inappropriate technological means often used by libraries to address the users. Examples of this include Web based instructions on how to use the Web! Since the authors have noted in their opening paragraph limited funds, customer demands and “staffing levels” – which is possibly a term for cuts in staffing, the failure to address the negative impact of technology on staff and users is a significant failure of this article.

On the other hand, there are other potentially positive aspects of technology that the authors do not discuss. For example interlibrary loans are not to the authors “virtual services” but “physical” services, and here technology can have an impact on “long tail” users. These users can now via the Web rapidly search out the locations of items not in their local (physical) library, and potentially have items copied and sent to them electronically. As with previous mention with pay-per-view journal articles the limitation of electronic interlibrary loans is not in the technology itself, but elsewhere, in this case costs and copyright.

The “customer as collaborator” discussion is about the new trend towards interactivity, the library does not just distribute information but interacts with the users who can tailor what is delivered to them and how it is delivered. Again there is a brief mention of some of the technologies available and what can be done with those technologies – including virtual reference, personalised OPAC interfaces, user comments, and tags. Again there is a lack of consideration of limitations, limitations that are not technological.

Overall what the authors have to say about the role of technology in delivering services to users in Library 2.0 libraries might well be true, but by not addressing the non technological limitations that impact on technologies use they have come across as Pollyannas.

Reference

Casey, M. E., & Savastinul, L. C. (2006). Service for the next-generation library [Electronic version]. Library Journal, 1 September 2006, 40-42.

Review of User collaboration in websites

Judith Pearce's paper (originally presented with images not present in the online form) discusses Web 2.0 where the Internet is a platform for the delivery of library services by the NLA, with a focus on how the NLA is using Web 2.0 in two projects, PictureAustralia and Australia Dancing.

There are huge amounts of information available in Web 2.0 environments such as flickr and Wikipedia but traditionally libraries have not been interactive or inclusive. Pearce sees this as needing to be addressed by libraries such as NLA as “People of all ages are now coming to expect a degree of inclusiveness, interactivity and access from websites that they use on a daily basis that is not yet reflected in our service.” Pearce’s article presents in glowing terms how the NLA is obtaining photographs via flickr and biographical information via Australia Dancing in a “Wikipedia style approach”. Unfortunately Pearce’s article with its emphasis on NLA schemes does not address fully how those schemes are or are not the most appropriate use of Web 2.0 technology.

The main issue, for Pearce, is that technology is driving user expectations, and libraries have to respond to those expectations. The shortcoming with this view is that Pearce:
(1) never asks the question of why libraries should change their roles and their methods of delivery of services to their users every time their users change their expectations – it just seems to be assumed that the response is somehow necessary. Pearce probably is correct, but provides no theoretical or evidential reason for this reader to know she is correct
(2) does not consider how this response to changing expectations places the library into a difficult position – every time user expectations change the library will need to respond, but as the expectations are being driven by rapid technological change the rate of change in users expectations may exceed the ability of the library to respond
(3) does not consider the cost of implementing newer technologies and how this cost is drawing resources from pre-existing library services to users
(4) does not consider how this expectations-response relationship impacts on already existing library services apart from allocation of resources
(5) does not consider how technological change is fragmenting the library users into those who can use the newer technologies and those who cannot

Pearce’s perspective is too perspective – she looks to new technology to address new user expectations, but she does not consider how new technology can be used to address existing user expectations, nor does she consider how the implementation of new technologies can be counter-productive to the needs of users. For example, flickr may add an abundance of photographs, but without the appropriate and consistent use of metadata users may face the problem of too many hits when searching. Many libraries are assuming that a few keywords will be sufficient to locate a photograph on a topic, but are not considering how lack of quality metadata hinders users in finding specific photographs in an ever growing number of irrelevant photographs.

From this librarian’s experience, sometime more choice made available by poorly implemented schemes based on technology is of no use to the user who is confused by an abundance that cannot be grasped. Technology should
(1) make it easier for users to locate and access the specific information they need,
(2) and this information must be accurately described with descriptions that unfortunately usually takes expertise to create.

This is more important than NLA schemes to enhance inclusiveness and interactivity.

References

Pearce, J. (2006). User collaboration in websites. Paper presented at the ARLIS/ANZ Conference, 21-23 September 2006. Retrieved August 25, 2009 from http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2006/jpearce1.html .

Introduction, and testing blog set-up

Selection of blog template choosen as black writing on light background is easiest to read for lengthy slabs of text (600 words), and most of the templates look too busy so are too distracting from easy reading. I have purposely choosen NOT to make to the template on the assumption that as the exisiting template has been carefully considered by whoever designed it.

A single photograph has been choosen for all 4 reviews. This is to make the reviews all share a similar prompt to the reader - the computer is about technology in libraries, and a different photograph would be used for each other topic potentially covered in the blog.

Selection of blog title based on my interests in studying old manuscripts - I mean REALLY old manuscripts, pre-early 4th century AD, for which technology is an asset in that
1. Use to find much information on the web from unusual sources that are often ephemeral - such as blog that are here today and then disappear without explanation
2. Use to find some online articles - too bad most things are not online despite the beliefs of many that everything is on the web, and the near future is unlikely to change this unless soembody is prepared to wear the cost of digitising the obscure stuff I'm interested in.
3. Technolgy is great for typing up results - thank God for word processing for clumsy typists like me.
4. Technolgy can be used for data enhancement.