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 .