Making it Work
Library 2.0 Revisited
It’s been 17 months since the last discussion of Library 2.0-related items (March 2008)—and that was a narrow discussion. The most recent general discussion of Library 2.0 was back in September 2007, 23 months ago. In the meantime, I decided against doing a revised Balanced Libraries incorporating the original Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0,” in part because others suggested that Library 2.0 was very old news.
Meanwhile, the term continues to be used—and that special issue continues to be viewed and downloaded now more than almost any current issue. One systems vendor has a whole podcast series using that name. A Google blog search shows “about 79,817” results, including “about 2,421” in the past month. Lots of those are trivial mentions, I’m sure—but the term continues to be bandied about as though it means something, and there’s clearly still interest in whatever that something is.
The items here range over nearly two years (since September 4, 2007), a period during which Google blog search shows about 31,825 results for the phrase “Library 2.0.” Even if there were only the 828 items Google actually shows, that’s a lot of activity. Most of them date from late 2007 and early 2008—since then, I’ve subconsciously or deliberately paid little attention to Library 2.0-related posts.
I hope this doesn’t come off as either a reasoned dissertation on Contemporary Use of the Library 2.0 Meme or a deadly serious overview. It’s summer. This is a once-over-lightly on things that caught my fancy.
Most of the items noted are in chronological order. Incidentally, starting now, if the URL for a blog is obvious or easily discoverable (e.g., www.laughinglibrarian. com), I’m omitting it—particularly since blogs can and do change platforms.
This piece by Brian Smith appeared on The laughing librarian on September 4, 2007. He takes off from some of the 2.0-related posts on Annoyed librarian. Smith doesn’t care for the term AL uses, twopointopian, but thinks “twodotnaughty” would work in some cases. Some of what he says:
Maybe things have changed, but back then, the real problem with at least some twodotnaughties is they sometimes spewed bullshit.
We don't mean bullshit in the sense of “ideas we don't agree with”. We mean bullshit in the sense of bullshit. Example: We heard two different speakers at two different events mislead (one of them outright lying to) their audiences about the number of user comments that Ann Arbor District Library was getting on its website. That's bullshit, deceptive bullshit. We sincerely hope that twodotnaughties aren't still talking about opening up a blog for comments as a way to build community. At least not without also mentioning that the average number of comments made on a public library blog item is, when rounded to the nearest whole number, zero. This is even true of Ann Arbor if you don't count the articles about video games.
At least, that's our hypothesis, based on a quick glance at things. Great project for a library school student: Examine library blogs with dedicated rigor—to hell with anecdotal evidence—and test our hypothesis. How much “community” is being built? Put a little actual science into library science. The data's just sitting there like a big, dead toad of data, waiting to be resuscitated through the amphibian CPR of reasoned analysis…
As far as I know, no library school student undertook such a study, and that may not be surprising: It’s a hellaciously big project yielding results nobody much wants to know about. I know. When that post appeared, I was just finishing precisely such a study of public library blogs and working on a similar study of academic library blogs. Smith’s hypothesis was right on the money:
· For the three-month period studied, the 252 public library blogs had a total of 1,768 comments—but nearly one-quarter of those were related to gaming posts on the Ann Arbor blog. Technically, Smith’s wrong—the average (mean) number of comments per blog was seven—but realistically he’s right: the median number of comments was zero, with only 118 of 252 blogs having any comments and only 13 averaging more than two per week.
· The numbers were worse for the 231 academic library blogs: A total of 575 comments, an average of 2.5 comments, only 86 blogs with any comments (thus, another zero median), and four blogs out of 231 averaging at least two comments per week.
That’s what Kathryn Greenhill says, in a September 10, 2007 post at Librarians matter. She begins by disclaiming the name itself: “I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think Library 2.0 is a dumb name for a set of very useful new ways to look at our libraries.” She also points to a few other places—including Jennifer Macaulay’s “Library 2.0 roundup—Redux” (scruffynerf.wordpress.com/2007/ 09/04/library-20-roundup-redux/), one of the best roundups through early September 2007.
Greenhill says (good) libraries have always been user-focused—and Library 2.0 isn’t just about new tools. She sees a power shift in several areas. Excerpting and summarizing:
· The power of the user to choose: There have never been so many alternatives to libraries as information resources… When users reach for an information source, the convenience of these services often outweighs the quality of our library sources. Challenge: To use new web tools to increase the convenience of access to our information resources.
· The power of the librarians to control code: Libraries have developed Open Source Library Management Systems...
· The power of the user to create their library: With the technology to add comments, ratings and reviews to items in our catalogues…
· The power of librarians to speak with our own voices: Social software generally involves an informal voice, where any hint of b*llshit or corporate speak is firmly put in its place....
· The power of librarians to be in our users’ space: …Services like chat reference, widgets and gadgets let us offer our services using the users’ tools, instead of making them come to us.
· The power of librarians to risk:… If a tool is imperfect, but does a few things really well, users are far more forgiving then they would have been five years ago. This doesn’t mean that we should try every half baked idea that comes our way, but losing the “culture of perfect” does give us more scope to try newer things sooner…
· The power of librarians to collaborate: New web tools make it much easier to collaborate with a wider group of people quicker…
· The power to use our library buildings in a new way: The library is no longer defined by its bookstock in a physical building….
I like much of this, and am almost hesitant to suggest some mild overstatements. I’ll note one thing: The suggestion that bullshit in blogs is immediately and soundly “put in its place” sounds nice—but that’s not how it works in practice, at least not for the most powerful voices in various circles. I would also suggest that, at least for most American public libraries, the bookstock in physical buildings continues (and will continue) to be a critical factor, if not the only definition.
While my September 2007 discussion covered Ryan Deschamps’ post and some early reactions, it was already out when Michelle Boule posted this response on September 20, 2007 at A wandering eyre. Some of what she has to say:
Library 2.0 has succeeded in nothing as well as creating a group of frustrated 2.0 Librarians. L2 has done a wonderful job of educating, enlightening, and invigorating librarians to be better, to do better, and to involve our patrons. We are reaching a critical mass of librarians who are excited about what is possible. The problem is that many of those librarians are stuck in 1.0 libraries…
[B]eing 2.0 in a 1.0 library means extreme frustration with the glacial pace of change, immovable people and policies, or any other number of things that make you wonder why you bother. Sometimes it means banging your head against a wall that will never move. Being 2.0 in a 1.0 environment can foster independence, confidence and innovative thinking… It can be a positive thing, a testing of your wits. Eventually though, the challenge can wear you down.
2.0 Librarians usually end up leaving for somewhere better, more innovative. This is a great option if you are mobile and able to move. Not everyone can. This “brain drain” has resulted in a hand full of libraries doing really great stuff, a few more libraries sticking toes in the water, and the majority of libraries looking around in befuddlement. I would not be afraid to guess that in many 1.0 libraries, there are 2.0 librarians working behind the scenes and those librarians are tired…
Deschamps responds in The real pangs of Librarian 2.0, posted September 25, 2007 at The other librarian. Excerpts:
…Whereas some are calling for radical change, I am willing to work with steady forward progress. Why? Well here are some good reasons:
I could be bored to death waiting for a Second Life patron to visit our Second Life Library: I have been on Second Life three times recently at different times of the day and all three times, no one was there. Not librarians. Not anyone. Right now, the supply of Second Life libraries far exceeds the demand…
I could have a totally RSS’d up website that users hate: I love RSS. I think the model of library service that RSS enables is great too—get the library news where you get your local news… Email is still the major mode of information access—for librarians and regular public. RSS will grow, but for now, it is absolutely on the margins of information access points.
I could put out big promises in an arena where we cannot meet expectations: Our customers expect us to know everything about technology. We do not. If we put out a service, people will expect us to be able to help them get at it. If they cannot, they will ask us for help. If, when they ask us for help, and staff go “Flickr, who?” we look absolutely dumb. That is why I keep on harping on the training benefits of something like Learning 2.0.
I could be evil:…Web 2.0 doesn’t really address the digital divide in specific terms. Putting out services that benefit a few, high-tech oriented users at the cost (however minimal) of services that may directly resolve serious community needs is evil. We can’t call ourselves professionals unless we put time and thought into ethics of a new service.
Process matters:…Librarian 2.0 has to ask his or herself “is this resistance to change flat-out stubbornness or due process?” If it’s the former, than I think Michelle is right—we are going to see people moving away from the laggard libraries and fighting for jobs in the innovative (and probably resource rich) libraries. If it’s the latter, I think librarian 2.0 needs to hold on for a moment and look at how to move forward… The important thing is to think your way through the problem and focus less on a “golden age” of library 2.0 and more on the next positive step in that direction. Sometimes gradual is better; sometimes gradual is faster…
I’m not sure what I can add to that dialogue. I must admit an evil thought that someday, someone should do a cost-per-transaction study of non-librarian transactions (reference questions, program attendance, whatever) in all the Second Life libraries and library-related things, when full costs (including not only direct SL costs but staff time spent) are included. At some point, “we’re spending time and money to learn about it because it’s The Wave of the Future” begins to ring a little hollow.
Jeff Scott asks that question in a September 26, 2007 post at Gather no dust. He recognizes that there’s no clear destination, but thinks he has some feel for what a “2.0 library” might be like. Excerpts:
If we look at the issue in a macro term, we stop thinking about a library and we begin to think about service. We then begin to think about what type of service is best for a community. The 2.0 part is how that service is communicated and implemented. How much control is relinquished so that the individuals in that community decide the best library services?...
ILL 2.0: …Allowing patrons to order ILLs at will. They have direct control of the interface and can order what they want. The library with the book processes the order, the book is sent to the library, and the patron picks it up…
Collection Development 2.0: … Allowing patrons to order what books they wanted for the library to own…have the patrons order them directly…. This is a little extreme and would need some tabs on the process (like a patron could order only so many books, requires a card in good standing, etc.)
Programming 2.0/Space 2.0: [If] a patron wants a program, have them perform the program, or contact the programmer to come down and the library helps with advertisement and other administrative items… If patrons want to come in and do something on their own, whether it is to have a club meeting, have an impromptu storytime, or set up a Wii tournament, they would have the space to do so. Providing the equipment is another step. Patrons could bring their own and the library can adapt its resources so that is always freely available…
Reference 2.0: Reference could work the same way, having resident experts that can provide reference help on topics…
Equipment 2.0: …A successful library should be able to provide and sustain new technologies, provide training for those new technologies, and provide space for collaboration and the ability to play with these new technologies…
ILS 2.0: The social opac should allow a patron to set-up their account originally using their library barcode number and a pin. After that, they should be allowed to set up their own unique username and password that only they would know. They could set up a profile and make it public if they wish. It can provide items they have tagged or commented upon in the catalog, books they have ILL'd, books they have read, books they have reviewed, books they have requested or ordered, articles from databases they have saved or shared, and other thoughts on how the library can improve their services…
What is the difference between libraries that exist now and a library that is 2.0? …The difference between benevolent despotism and a democracy.
So what are the barriers? Money and staff time are major barriers… A library that can create this environment will need to do the following:
1. Have enough money as a buffer to provide this level of service
2. Be able to cut funding in other areas to provide that funding in these areas
3. Provide a long term plan to allow space, equipment, and flexibility to change.
There’s a lot more to the post, but this is the gist. Is this a fair definition of the ultimate goals of Library 2.0? It certainly resonates with Kathryn Greenhill’s post (above).
That astonishing claim appears as the title of an October 31, 2007 post by Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk at LibraryCrunch. My first reaction, as you might expect, was “Puhleaze…” or some less polite version. The title is repeated as the first paragraph. Excerpts:
…What does Library 2.0 mean to you and your organization? What is it that you want Library 2.0 to do for your users? If you don’t know the answer to these questions, you must figure them out before you begin implementing new services and programs…
Energy focused on implementing new tools and programs is wasted if we don’t know what our users really want. Without knowing that, we create more work for ourselves with hit or miss initiatives.
In the past two years much of the discussion of Library 2.0 has been focused on little things we can do to better serve our users… It is inspiring to see so many libraries creating new ways to reach their users.
However, we have to be careful to not flood ourselves with new projects until we have a clear understanding of what it is we’re trying to do and where we want to go. And in the spirit of Library 2.0, that means first figuring out what our users want and need…
Library 2.0 is user-centric. It is a shift in our focus from having libraries decide what is best for users to letting users decide what they want, how they want to get it, and how we can best serve them… It is imperative that we do the research before we throw programs and initiatives at them. Otherwise, we’re the ones deciding what our users want and need–a concept that is decidedly not Library 2.0.
Library 2.0 is constant change and evaluation. Once we’ve decided to implement a new service or program, we must continually revisit and evaluate it…
Library 2.0 is not just about technology… While technology can be a tool to better serve our users, it is not the final answer to all of our problems.
Library 2.0 is political... We have to get not only our staff and administration on board–we also have to get our library boards, community leaders, and users on board as well. And the best way to do that is to talk to them–let them know that we all share a common goal of providing access to all kinds of information.
We’ve heard from countless librarians who have encountered some form of resistance in their organization to Library 2.0. Why is that? As has been said from the beginning, the spirit and driving force of Library 2.0 is the same tenet that has been a fundamental part of library service for decades–providing our users with access to information. Library 2.0 strives to reach this goal in part through customer-driven services…
If we focus too much on the details and specific programs before we can explain what it is our users want, then our communities, administrators, library boards, and staff may well rebel against Library 2.0 without ever truly understanding what it is about.
We hope that some conversation can be focused back on the fundamental concepts of Library 2.0, the efforts and resistance for change, and how to figure out what our users really want from us.
As an assertion of what “Library 2.0” should be about, this is interesting. Also interesting that the writers profess not to understand why there’s resistance to Library 2.0, a statement that seems disingenuous.
The comments were also interesting. Steven Chabot noted that “the solutions proposed by Library 2.0 are mostly about technology” (emphasis added)…and notes that libraries tend to adopt easy tech fixes (blogs, Second Life, wikis) without determining whether there’s a demand or even desire for those things. Jenny Levine argued for what users “need” rather than what they “want”—and cites RSS as one of those. She also said, “while L2 proponents can generally agree on philosophy, I think all of our personal definitions are a little different” and that “L2” can’t be boiled down to four tenets. Key here, I think, is that Levine was (I stress was, not is) within that group that felt it was perfectly appropriate for Library 2.0 librarians to establish not only details but specific programs without any actual input from users, because the librarians know better. I don’t believe you can reconcile Levine’s view (shared by many other early Library 2.0 proponents, based on my reading) with the post here as representing a single, shared definition, particularly since the post says that for librarians to decide what users want and need is “decidedly not Library 2.0.”
Meredith Farkas offered a careful comment that, among other things, said “each of us brings a different spin to Library 2.0. It doesn’t have one official definition. No one owns it. No one ‘knows what it is and is not’ for anyone but themselves.” That yielded a remarkable response from Laura Savastinuk, given the title and approach of the post itself: “I think you misunderstand. ‘We’ is collective—it is all of us, understanding it for ourselves.” Meredith responded, noting that several of us (myself included) “misconstrued” the title of the post as meaning Michael and Laura. You know, 21 months later, reading the same title and the same post, I still can’t read it as saying “the library field as a whole knows what Library 2.0 is and is not, and here’s what we all agree on.” Nor do I believe that there was—or is—any such generally agreed definition.
Steven Chabot wrote a longer commentary on the previous post on October 31, 2007 at Subject/Object (subjectobject.net). He begins with a striking statement: “I’m sorry. Library 2.0 is NOT user centric.”
He loves the statement (quoted above) on focusing energy on implementation without knowing what users really want—but “can’t really stomach” the opening line, saying that opening a debate about definitions of Library 2.0 might be much more productive. Then things get really interesting…
“Library 2.0 is not just about technology,” say Casey and Savastinuk. Which is a fine attitude to have–although I am of the camp that believes if it is not technology, it is really just librarianship. If what is left of the concept is user-centrism, change and evolution, and politics, then librarians who do not do these things are bad librarians. Good librarians have always been user-centric. They were user-centric in the “public education” era of the library, where they suggested books at “the people’s university.” They were user-centric when they began to offer readers’ advisory of popular fiction, when that came in demand. [Emphasis added]
However, the solutions proposed by Library 2.0 are mostly about technology. Casey and Savastinuk agree: “No matter how much this is said, technology continues to be a leading topic of discussion.”
And why is that? Because technology gets visible results quickly and cheaply. People believe that the library is missing a certain segment of the population–or perhaps it is that a certain segment are missing the library? Regardless, librarians want to do something. So they start a blog (without questioning if the missing population reads blogs) or they have a wiki (without questioning if there is a demand for a wiki) or a Second Life presence (without questioning whether there are people looking for their library on SL).
I completely agree with Casey and Savastinuk: we focus too much on solutions before understanding the problems. And I think that suggesting these technological solutions is specifically not user-centric in this case. Suggesting technologies is librarian centric. The problem is that proponents of LIbrary 2.0 rely too little on empirical research about what users need and about their perspectives. Giving them technologies is telling them what they want, not giving them what they need. The solution librarians always suggest is more technology. And the suggestion they rarely suggest is to slow down and listen to people.
There’s more, but that’s the heart, and I think it’s an important statement that was all too true at the time. Is it still true? How many libraries have instituted blogs after studying public needs and how many have done so without such studies? Second Life libraries, anyone? I’d love to see an objective study showing that a majority of “Library 2.0” technology initiatives instituted in 2007-2008 were based on actual user study or input. If anyone knows of such a study, let me know: I’ll happily publicize it here. Have Library 2.0 initiatives become truly user-centric for the users of a given library, or is “user-centric” given lip service?
In comments, Leo Klein says every new library fashion or fad—”particularly related to technology”—has claimed itself to be user-centric, including text-based databases and user-configurable web portals. “Tracy” asked about the difference between giving users what the need and what they want, says “there is obviously a huge difference there,” and asks who defines what it is they need. Chabot, in the final comment, responds thoughtfully (quoting in full):
Well, I would assume that would be handled by qualified professionals, with degrees whose training emphasizes qualitative and quantitative studies of user populations, and who have a firm grounding in what it takes to live and work in a democratic society and an information economy. We give other professionals, like police and firefighters, the power to decide for us based on their training. Yes, librarians are not as critical as doctors, but we don’t expect a decade of education for librarians either.
As I have noted, the debate between give them what they need and give them what they want goes far back in the library literature, and it is not a debate easily solved. I think it is up to each librarian to come down in a particular place on the sliding scale between the two. As a soon-to-be academic librarian, I think that our educational imperative looms larger for me; however, the public library once had an educational imperative as well.
The point I hoped I was trying to make was that it is extremely questionable that the technologies and services promoted as “Library 2.0″ is either what users need or what users want. I think too many assumptions are made, and I think that needs analysis is a necessity. To that point, conducting needs analyses and implementing services is not Library 2.0, it is just good librarianship.
Thank you for your comment, I think it is an important point.
A few days later, Chabot added “Part 2” to this post, after discovering a related post at The proletarian librarian, “All things in moderation.” Proletarian quotes much of the “We know…” and adds a few comments, including this one:
I'm all for finding out what our users want and how they want to get it. I'm also for attempting to guide our users towards quality materials and services and I'm afraid that often Library 2.0 chastises librarians who hold this belief.
To which Chabot adds
I don’t think this chastising is unique to Library 2.0, but it does crop up in a lot of the rhetoric so-called progressive librarians make and have made against so-called conservative librarians. We’ve heard it before in the Reader’s Advisory movement of the 1980’s: who are we to say what reading is good and bad. And now, who are we to say what information outlets are good and bad. We should, as they argue, give them what they want.
It’s certainly true that, for materials, “give ‘em what they want” isn’t particularly part of Library 2.0 and predates the concept by a couple of decades. I’m not even sure I’d lay that particular form of chastisement at the feet of Library 2.0 proponents.
This February 4, 2008 post by Aurora Jacobsen at super turbo (superturbo.blogspot.com) is part of a 23 things program and particularly interesting as a two-years-later response to one of the fundamental early Library 2.0 posts by John Blyberg (apparently “required reading” on the 23 Things page). As Jacobsen reads Blyberg, she thinks he assumes that libraries currently aren’t relevant or will become irrelevant. She has a problem with this:
Circulation has, for the most part, steadily increased since 1990. How is that proving our irrelevance? But somehow, all the library literature out there acts as if libraries are some decaying being. That bothers me. We fail as librarians in buying into the hype that libraries are dying on the vine, without actually looking at the situation very critically. I think that is one of the main failings of Library 2.0--it's all about poking holes into institutions that may, yes, sometimes need a finger in their direction--but it seems to be poking those holes at random with no real evaluation going on.
I don't think I'm alone in this frustration. I think a lot of librarians have tuned out of Library 2.0 for that very reason--it's calling anything that came before it a failure. Libraries were not failing before this buzzword came into being. They were reexamining their place in the world-- as most institutions do. [Emphasis added]
Jacobsen strongly supports the 23 Things program and believes in things that make us a little uncomfortable—but puts it a different way: “I don't think libraries were broken—but I always think we should push ourselves a little bit.” I would take issue with the comment that “all the library literature out there acts as if libraries are some decaying being”—Cites & Insights most certainly does not, and there are others in my camp—but I hear what she’s saying.
Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran, also involved in the 23 Things program, noted Jacobsen’s post and added these comments in a February 5, 2008 post at Impromptu librarian (impromptu.wordpress.com):
Good point, and one that hadn’t consciously occurred to me, but was instead lingering in the back of my mind. Libraries are relevant and are important--and aren’t failing as institutions. It’s not that what we’re doing is wrong, but much of the Library 2.0 literature insinuates that we are. You’re old, you’re antiquated, you’re outdated, and you’re losing your clientele. Hmpf. No wonder so many librarians are a bit put off by the whole thing.
Look, libraries are still doing what we’re best at doing--finding stuff and organizing it so people can find it. We’re the keepers of the information, and we’ll gently take you by the hand and help you find it. It’s what we’ve been doing for a very, very long time, and it’s what we’ll continue to do. So chin up, Dear Librarian. You’re doing wonderful things.
So, what about this Library 2.0 stuff? Well, they’re swell new tools that can help you do your job better, that’s all. For all of the hype and occasional hysteria, all of these things are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of the tools will fit better for some libraries than others. Some of the tools may not fit your situation at all. But not every tool works for every job – that’s why we have toolboxes with many, many tools. Don’t use a hammer when a wrench will work better.
I’m inclined to agree with Sancomb-Moran—and I find it nearly impossible to reconcile that informal definition of Library 2.0 with the definition “we” have.
I’m sure I could find hundreds of other interesting posts mentioning Library 2.0 between February 5, 2008 and March 14, 2009—but I’m not going to. (Some will doubtless turn up in other Making it Work essays devoted to other, more substantive topics.) If nothing else, this essay is already too long…(but it’s over 100 outside, it’s summer and I’m too tired to make it shorter.)
A pair of posts from March 2009 deserves some attention, though.
Meredith Farkas posted this on March 14, 2009 at Information wants to be free (meredith.wolfwater.com/ wordpress/). She recounts a talk she did for the 2009 ACRL virtual conference:
In the beginning of my talk, I showed screenshots of library blogs that haven’t been posted to, MySpace pages that haven’t been logged into, and podcasts that haven’t had new episodes in years. And I talked about some of the reasons why these 2.0 projects may have failed:
The first reason is that frequently social software implementations are not tied to institutional goals. Research has shown that libraries have been much more successful in marketing information literacy instruction when it’s tied to University goals/General Education requirements/etc. It’s the same with 2.0 technologies. Whatever we’re doing should be tied to the library’s strategic goals and planning. If it’s not tied to the library’s goals, then how will it be seen as a priority?
Similarly, 2.0 technologies should be planned for in a strategic way, which I think has not happened at a lot of libraries. Some libraries jumped on the blogging bandwagon because they thought (or were told) that every library must have a blog. Other libraries started wikis because staff were really excited about the idea of having a wiki. Neither are good reasons to implement a technology. We first need to understand the needs of our population (be it patrons or staff) and then implement whatever technology and/or service will best meet those needs. We need to have clear goals in mind from the outset so that we can later assess if it’s successful or not. These technologies may be fun, but they’re simply tools. We don’t walk around with hammers looking for nails to smash in…
There’s a lot more to the post—e.g., cases where social software is someone’s pet project, the sheer ease of starting “2.0” initiatives without a plan for maintaining them, 2.0 initiatives that aren’t provided ongoing time to maintain them, and some considerations before shutting down a “failing” project. This portion, though, relates most directly to Library 2.0 as a theme.
The krafty librarian responded on March 19, 2009, saying (in part):
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There are a ton of blog and wiki corpses littering the Internet these days and libraries have their fair percentage of them. Knowing about these tools and when we need to apply them is the important message that gets lost sometimes. However, we can only do that if we keep our eyes and ears open. Running out and starting a blog just because everybody has to have a blog is about as helpful and effective as burying your head in the sand regarding technology. Neither extreme is good and libraries suffer as a result…
I think sometimes we would be better off if we just stripped the term 2.0 off of technology. We evaluate and plan other technologies, services, and upgrades in our libraries. Sometimes we plan them to death (but that is another topic). But when you throw in the term 2.0 it seems that sometimes we forget ourselves and jump to extremes. We either run out and adopt it automatically without question, or we bury our heads in the sand thinking “not another 2.0 thing.”
Forget buzzwords and 2.0 terms. We need to know about the tools but we also need to remember to let the need choose the tool, not the tool choose the need.
No additional comment required.
In a January 8, 2008 post at davidrothman.net, David Rothman says this about Library 2.0, or more specifically “Library 2.0”:
I think that I have come to agree with T. Scott. The work is important and good, but the term is not. I urge librarians, particularly bibliobloggers, to use the term carefully (if at all). We don’t need it to describe the application of Web trends and technologies to library work, we REALLY don’t need it in order to describe making libraries more patron-centric, and when we use it (usually failing to explain/define it) we add to the confusion and needlessly alienate potential ALLIES for improving computer literacy in libraryfolk and in patrons.
I like Wikis and blogs and RSS and APIs and mashups and portable data and rich user experiences and social networking tools and online productivity tools and social bookmarking. I’m fascinated by the new and interesting things people keep doing with the Web. I believe that librarians need to be technologists and need to know what “Web 2.0″ means--but that doesn’t mean they need to add to the existing confusion. It means they need to help smooth it away.
Jargon is fine in small groups of specialists--but information professionals, I think, have a special responsibility to help others overcome and dismiss jargon when it gets in the way of sharing information. Not only to bring the benefits of these new technologies to all our colleagues, but to all our patrons.
“Add to the confusion and needlessly alienate potential allies…” sum it up pretty well. One fundamental bit of confusion is that “Library 2.0” masked a real dichotomy between two groups of library people: Those who really, truly believe that libraries are doomed without rapid and transformational change—and those who believe that libraries will succeed by evolving from a strong base of success. I’m obviously within the latter group, even believing that too-rapid, too-transformational change within public libraries (at least) could, in fact, endanger them by alienating the strongest supporters and users. I believe the first group wanted Library 2.0 as a rallying cry—and I don’t think that’s what it’s become. As it is, it continues to be a distraction.
Maybe it’s a distraction that’s on its way out. I certainly don’t always agree with Rory Litwin, but an April 15, 2009 post at Library juice (libraryjuicepress.com/blog/), “Library 2.0 talk enters backwardation,” includes a couple of paragraphs worth thinking about:
There is a kind of library talk that you can read on blogs and hear at conference presentations that seems to have the quality of a commodity. Library 2.0 talk has a commodity-like quality to it, as does a lot of other talk about technological change in libraries. You see the title of the presentation and you pretty much know what to expect, and people attend the presentation with a desire for some of that refreshing, predictable stuff (predictable and refreshing are not mutually exclusive qualities--think of orange juice). Occasionally you will hear or read something that stands on its own and has to be considered separately from other stuff--the boutique speaker or writer. But most of what you get is commodity-grade talk--ideas that you’re familiar with and have heard a dozen times.
It seems to me that demand for a lot of this stuff, the Library 2.0 talk, is beginning to decline, at the same time that supply seems to have surged, with everybody and her cousin a supplier. People are getting a little tired of it, and it has become so abundant that it is everywhere. It tends to stay around for a while, too, in the web environment. It might even be accurate to say that there was a commodity bubble in Library 2.0 talk.
Has that bubble finally burst? Only time will tell.
Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 9, Number 9, Whole Issue 119, ISSN 1534-0937, a journal of libraries, policy, technology and media, is written and produced by Walt Crawford, Editorial Director of the Library Leadership Network.
Cites & Insights is sponsored by YBP Library Services, http://www.ybp.com.
Opinions herein may not represent those of Lyrasis or YBP Library Services.
Comments should be sent to waltcrawford@gmail.com. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large is copyright © 2009 by Walt Crawford: Some rights reserved.
All original material in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
URL: citesandinsights.info/civ9i9.pdf