Running Head: LIBRARY 2

Running head: LIBRARY 2.0

Library 2.0 and Academic Libraries

Ohnmar Aung

San JoseStateUniversity
Abstract

This paper is going to research on the current developments and impacts ofLibrary 2.0 in academic public libraries. First, it is going to introduce what Library 2.0 is andwhat Web 2.0 is. Then it discusses advantages and disadvantages of Library 2.0. And also it gives a brief explanation on the Library 2.0 services and the remote user functions that supports user-centered virtual library services. Then, the research is going to examine the Library 2.0 environments of the public four year academic libraries in Southern California. Next, it is going to find out how much of Library 2.0 has been adoptedin universities in Southern California by comparing UC’s and CSU’sLibrary 2.0 activities. It will alsoanalyzethe reasons forthe current situations in academic libraries regarding the Library 2.0 movement. Finally, it recommends some solutions for those that are unable to use Library 2.0 and gives ideas for further research.

Library 2.0 and Academic Libraries

Academic libraries are at a crossroads. Technology changes the way people access resources. In the past, as a default, library users came to the library to seek the required information. But, because of the rapid development of technology, users now have more options and their demands and information seeking behaviors have changed. Nowadays, powerful search engines like Google and Alta Vista are used to find information. Users are more familiar with electronic reference services,like Ask a Librarian, customized home pages, Wikis and virtual collections. These are why users demand more personalized selection and virtual environmentsthan before. Lastly, these user demands impact the way libraries servicetheir customers for now and the future (Detlor Lewis, 2006).

These changes encourage libraries to offer user-centered and easily accessible library services. Because of this, a new modelfor library service—Library 2.0—was introduced to deliver user-centered, virtual libraryservices toacademic libraries. Some academic libraries are slow to implement this new model because of reduced funding, the high implementation cost for new applications and the rapid growth of technology. However, understandingthe impact of Library 2.0, its advantages and disadvantages, and a thoroughexamination of the current state of theLibrary 2.0 environments in academiclibrariesare the keysto providing an assessment ofthe future direction of academic libraries and futuredevelopments in theLibrary 2.0 revolution. Before examining its impacts on academic libraries, it is important to understand completely what Library 2.0 is.

What is Library 2.0?

According to Habib (2006), “Library 2.0 describes a subset of library services designed to meet user needs caused by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0”. He also points out that Library 2.0 is not a new technology: “It is an effect of services enabled by new technologies”. He describes Library 2.0 services as:

  • Services based on Web 2.0 concepts
  • Services using a Web 2.0 service for providing library services
  • Services in response to cultural effects of Web 2.0
  • Services in response to environmental effects of Web 2.0.

Also, Maness (2006a) defines Library 2.0 as a well defined model of the next generation web-based library that involves four characteristics: focus on interactive use, multimedia enabled, socially rich and communally innovative.

From the above definitions, it is clear that Library 2.0 is a subset of Web 2.0 that focuses on information-based services that are community oriented. The equation is:

Web 2.0 + Library = Library 2.0 (Miller, 2005). Because Web 2.0 is a precedent of Library 2.0, it is therefore important to examine what Web 2.0 is before studying Library 2.0 and its effects on libraries.

What is Web 2.0?

Web 2.0 is an evolvement of Web 1.0. Web 2.0 is an attitude that involves evolvements ofpersonal web pages into blogs, encyclopedias into Wikipedia, text-based tutorials into streaming media applications, taxonomies into “folksonomies”; and question-and-answer email customer support into instant messaging (Maness, 2006a). O’Reilly (2007) distinguishes Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 as “Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and making technology more efficient for computers. Web 2.0 is about connecting people and making technology [more] efficient for people”. Consequently, Web 2.0 is another level of an existing technology which furnishes enhancements of Web2.0 services: Instant Messaging (IM), Blogs, Wikis, Streaming Media, Social Networking, RSS feeds, Tagging and Mashups. Also Miller (2005) describes the characteristics of Web 2.0 applications as:

  • Web 2.0 applications are about sharing code, content and ideas.
  • Web 2.0 applications are about communication and facilitating community.
  • Web 2.0 applications work for the user.
  • Web 2.0 applications are about freeing data.
  • Web 2.0 permits the building of virtual applications.
  • Web 2.0 is participative and user-centered.

Web 2.0 is not a new concept to undergraduate students

Teens and young adults are power users of Web 2.0; they were born and raised with the internet. They use Youtube to download music and videos, and they use Amazon to browse the global catalogue of books and shop online; they use eBay for online marketing. Andthey grew up with Google to search the web and use Flickr to tag and share their photos. Additionally, most college curricula encourage students to participate online because students need to use Blackboard as a virtual classroom to manage their courses. Students also use reading and writing tools in the discussion forums and online collaboration tools for communication, and they also already accept Instant Messaging as a major communication tool in their daily life. As they are “net natives”, they are already comfortable with Web 2.0 tools, and the implementation of Library 2.0—to take advantage of teens existing knowledge of Web 2.0—is major undertaking that should be done by academic libraries only after they fully understand the consequences of Library 2.0, its advantages and disadvantages, and what role it plays for libraries now and in the future (Habib, 2006, p. 29).

Advantages of Library 2.0

As Web 2.0 servicesimprove the web, a new service model—Library 2.0 presents many advantages, and improves libraries—by allowing greater user participation, it is more “community oriented” and it makes the library more like a virtual library over the web.

Library 2.0 is more “user-centered,” as it allows greater feedback and participation from the users using newer technologies such as Blogs, Wikis and Instant Messaging (IM). Blogs “enable the rapid production and consumption of Web-based publications.” And for libraries, they are “another form of publication and need to be treated as such” (Maness, 2006b, p. 6). Blogs have many uses, but for libraries they can be useful for encouraging readers to review and recommend particular books. Wikis are “essentially open web-pages, where anyone registered with the wiki can publish to it, amend it, and change it” (Maness, 2006b, p. 6). An example of a wiki on the web would be Wikipedea, where anyone can create and amend encyclopedia articles. For libraries, Wikis are “…a service [that] can enable social interaction among librarians and patrons, essentially moving the study group room online”(Maness, 2006b, p. 7). Instant Messaging (IM) allows for constant, text-based communication between individuals. Libraries use IM to “…provide ‘chat reference’ services, where patrons can synchronously communicate with librarians mush as they would in a face-to-face reference context” (Maness, 2006b, p. 4). With IM, the reach of the librarian is increased and encompasses the virtual world; they can use this technology to gauge what the user is looking for, and then post these questions and answers onto a FAQ list. Relieved of the basic questions, librarians can use their free time to help students with more esoteric research needs.

Library 2.0 allows librarians to take full advantage of the web, to do ordinary tasks more easily and efficiently. Additional aids to Librarians from Library 2.0 are Streaming media, Social Networks, Tagging, RSS feeds and Mashups.

Because of increased bandwidth, and cheaper memory costs, libraries are turning to streaming media to provide tutorials and archives of rare content: “The static, text-based explanation coupled with a handout to be downloaded is being supplanted by more experiential tutorials. …Many of these tutorials use Flash programming” (Maness, 2006b, p. 5-6). These tutorials provide the user with a more graphically rich experience then text-based HOW-TO documents, and facilitate greater understanding of the subject. Cheaper memory costs mean libraries have more space to archive, and protect, rare material over the internet, so that singular material can be viewed digitally, from anywhere, and interpreted by future generations of researchers.

Of all the advantages of Library 2.0, Social Networking may provide the greatest advantage of all, as it mirrors the social networking and sense of community that libraries have always provided. Social Networks allow users to easily share information; Maness explains how this would benefit libraries:

LibraryThing enables users to catalog their books and view what other users share those books. The implications of this site on how librarians recommend reading to users are apparent. LibraryThing enables users, thousands of them potentially, to recommend books to one another simply by viewing one another’s collections” (Maness, 2006b, p. 7-8).

This social networking site just allows, on a grander scale, what libraries have always provided: a place to go for people to easily find knowledge. Social networks, however, find connections between persons of similar tastes in books more quickly and easily, allowing knowledge to spread faster. “Social networking could enable librarians and patrons not only to interact, but to share and change resources dynamically in an electronic medium” (Maness, 2006b, p. 8).

RSS provides a valuable information serving tool for libraries. RSS is used to publish frequently updated content, like news feeds, blogs, Podcasts and recent information from other websites. Maness describes what libraries can do with RSS: “…libraries are creating RSS feeds for users to subscribe to, including updates on new items in a collection, new services, and new content in subscription databases. They are also republishing content on their sites” (Maness, 2006b, p. 9). Tagging allows users to describe content in ways they understand, instead of the standardized way. “…it allows users to add and change not only content (data) but content describing content (metadata)” (Maness, 2006b, p. 8). This will make searching for books easier, as users are able to search for books using search terms that they understand: “users could tag the library’s collection and thereby participate in the cataloging process” (Maness, 2006b, p. 8). Finally, Mashups are the combining of two or more different technologies to create a new technology; In a sense, Library 2.0 itself is a mashup, as “it is a hybrid of blogs, wikis, streaming media, content aggregators, instant messaging, and social networks” (Maness, 2006b, p. 8).

All of these new technologies combine to create a “new” library that is more interactive, user-friendly and user-centered. No longer are users passively waiting for web designers and content creation programs to create and store content, now they are creating content; and all users are able to view other user’s data. This is the essence of Web and Library 2.0.

Disadvantages of Library 2.0

There is one major disadvantage to Library 2.0—it is loss of privacy. Library 2.0 ideas are concurrent with Web 2.0, and it allows one to easily share information with other users: “Web 2.0 websites are, with some exceptions, based primarily on sharing information, but sharing information in a particular way: essentially, they are about seeing and being seen” (Litwin, 2007, p.1); however, traditionally libraries are places where users go to seek and gather data in private:

Reading is so necessarily private and so related to the process of thought as it has evolved over the centuries that its history is congruent with the history of the concept of the private, individual thinking mind in Western culture…libraries have traditionally treated the privacy of readers as sacred. Privacy is a central, core value of libraries (Litwin, 2007, p.1).

Additionally, social networking sites contain built in controls so that users can limit who sees their private information, but if the social networking software is privately owned (proprietary), how does one limit what the owners of the software can see? “A Myspace user may feel confident in her ability to control who can view her profile and bulletin board postings, but Rupert Murdoch still owns her data” (Litwin, 2007, p.2). Libraries can overcome these problems if they use open source instead of proprietary software: “Modifiable automation systems and catalogs are preferable to proprietary, closed systems”(Casey & Savastinuk, 2006, p. 3), and open standards: “John Blyberg…[is] concerned that ILS (Integrated Library Systems) vendors, in an attempt to capitalize on the changes brought about by Library 2.0, will design proprietary interfaces to link library catalog data with our users. Blyberg has responded with a call for open standards” (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006, p. 3).

Additional disadvantages of Library 2.0 have to do with costs, not enough free time, and librarian’s general lack of technical know-how. “The mainstream of librarianship, the older side of the profession, has by now heard of Library2.0, but understands it poorly or not at all” (Litwin, 2007, p.1). This will undoubtedly fade over time, as newer librarians—who possess a greater technical knowledge—replace older ones. But most librarians lack the technical and design abilities of programmers and web developers: “Not every library system can employ programmers or maintain a large IT staff … ‘I would love to implement some of these Web 2.0 ideas, but with reference, instruction, and collection development responsibilities, I don’t have the time to innovate constantly’” (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006, p. 3). A solution to this might be to employ more systems librarians in libraries, as they are more technically trained then regular librarians.

Remote patron’s functions

Other than Web 2.0 services that make libraries provide interactive, multimedia enabled, socially rich services, there are some functions that help academic libraries to be user-centered at the physical library. Because these are used to focus on the ease and convenience of the remote patrons, these are assumed as parts of academic Library 2.0 in this paper.

Self-Checkout:

Some libraries use self-checkout systems to provide faster service to its library patrons. In this system, users can checkout materials by themselves when they are ready instead of waiting in the line, which saves time.

Offline-Circulation:

The offline circulation feature helps library staff to provide uninterrupted library operations to users when the network goes down.

Telephone Renewal:

This feature is useful for students to renew their books by phone when they are not online. It saves their time because students can renew by phone.

E-reserve:

E-reserve allows users to perform course reserves by course name, department and instructor through the library OPAC. This gives an easy reservation help to instructors and students from any computer on and off campus.

TheLibrary 2.0 environments of the public four year academic libraries

Even though there are some problems with Library 2.0, many universities in the Southern California have already upgraded to Library 2.0 services. Research was done to examine the Library 2.0 differences between the public four year academic libraries in Southern California based on the usage of Instant Messaging, Blogging, Wikis, Streaming Media, Social Networking, RSS feeds, Tagging, Mashups, E-Reserve, Self-Checkout, Telephone Renewal and Offline Circulation. According to the definition of Library 2.0, as delivering user-centered virtual library services is the key, the services of Self-Checkout, Telephone Renewal and Offline Circulation are also considered to be part of Library 2.0for this research.

Library 2.0 research findings

It is found that Broome library, the library of California State University Channel Islands (CSUCI) is using Blogs, Wikis and E-reserve web services for its students. Although RSS feedsare used widely in the campus, the library has just started RSS feedsto record daily events instantly. But the library does not yet have an instant messaging reference and other Library 2.0 services.

In California State University Fullerton (CSUF), Blogs and RSS feedsare found in the campus website and the Pollack Library provides a 24/7 real time instant reference service. But news on RSS feeds is found in the library news regarding implementing RSS Feeds. Also, E-reserve and Offline Circulation are available in the Pollack library OPAC as remote patron functions and the library is using self-check out for the convenience of users. Other Library 2.0 services are not found on the library’s website.

The Oviett library ofCalifornia State University Northridge (CSUN)has an Instant Messaging reference service for the scheduled time period. Also E-reserve is available in the library web-OPAC for offline use. Blogs and RSS feeds are found in the campus main website and the library has just offered new book RSS Feeds onits website.

Top View