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.
(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment