In this review I will discuss this paper on Library 2.0 produced by the authors, Casey and Savastinuk, who are both library professionals currently working in the United States. I will relate their perception of the impact and the far reaching effects of Web 2.0 on the libraries of today while looking at some of the elements of this model. Rather than concentrating on the just the new technologies involved, I will look at the far-reaching effects on our current model of library and the implications for the future.
In their introduction to his article, Casey and Savastinuk make the point that Library 2.0 is user-centred and should be customer-driven in relation to service opportunities. While the authors are primarily describing public libraries, Woodward makes the point that there is no type of library that will not increase its success by making itself more appealing to a broader audience (Woodward, 2005, p. xiii).
Casey and Savastinuk stress that many libraries have become used to the idea of concentrating their services on the clientele they already have. They argue that the Library 2.0 model of service should concentrate on ‘the long tail,’ a term borrowed from Chris Anderson to describe the eighty percent of customers usually not catered for. However, Mossman goes on to state that libraries have never really followed the 20/80 rule and have always attempted to create the broadest collection possible by including niche items and fostering an appreciation of the collection in the patronage (Mossman, 2006, Libraries on the tail, ¶2). I feel that point that Casey and Savastinuk have made here is that whereas once the user came to the library, now the library must attempt to come to the user in order to more fully satisfy the needs of nonusers who are not physically in the library.
In this article the authors also stress that users can be enabled to tailor library services to more fully meet their own needs. This can be achieved electronically by allowing participation and feedback in library websites and OPAC systems, e.g. blogging, tagging and rating. The same result can also be brought about physically in the library by allowing impromptu book talks and discussion groups. While the authors make note of these points, I feel that they could have taken the concept further and discussed the idea of library as ‘village square’ to cater for the leisure needs of their patrons (Jones, 2007, p. 16).
Casey and Savastinuk make a valid observation when the state that while allowing patrons greater participation and interaction in the Library 2.0 model, customer privacy cannot be forgotten. They recommend that anonymity be preserved when customers participate in virtual services. I feel that a full discussion of this issue should have included the updating of library policy. Khoo states that notions of privacy continue to change along with technology. To keep pace, libraries need to continually update policy and guidelines to best protect the privacy of their users (Khoo, 2002, Conclusion, ¶1).
As change in any library model can be expensive, Casey and Savastinuk discuss practical ways that economically disadvantaged libraries can still partake in this model. The reality of time and manpower being in limited supply in many libraries can be overcome to a certain degree by the use of free sites such as Flickr, wikis and various mashups are excellent suggestions to significantly reduce cost.
As inclusiveness is a great part of Library 2.0, I feel that while the authors have mentioned the digital divide, they have overlooked users with physical disabilities. Wallis states that the power of the web is the fact that it can be used by anyone regardless of abilities (Wallis, 2005, p. 482). A discussion of inclusive technologies could have enriched this argument.
In conclusion, I have discussed how Casey and Savastinuk’s model of Library 2.0 is more about user-centred change and inclusiveness rather than simply the use of new technologies. They have demonstrated ways that this model can be implemented in libraries by the consideration of the long tail and engaging potential clients, not just with new technologies, but new customer-based approaches to library use. While some areas may not have been discussed to their full capacity, Casey and Savastinuk have given useful and practical ideas for the successful implementation of the model of Library 2.0.
Bibliography
Jones, C. (2007). The evolving public library. In S. Ferguson (Ed.), Libraries in the twenty-first century : charting new directions in information services. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.
Khoo, M. (2002). Privacy in the “library without walls”: library practice in an age of digital content. Retrieved 28 August, 2008 from: http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres12n1/Khoo.htm
Mossman, K. (2006). Serving the niche. Retrieved 18 August, 2008 from Library Journal.com Website: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6349032.html
Wallis, J. (2005). The web, accessibility, and inclusion: networked democracy in the United Kingdom. Library Review, 54(8), 479-485. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from Emerald Group databases.
Woodward, J. (2005). Creating the Customer-driven Library: Building on the Bookstore Model. Chicago : American Library Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment