Article 2.
Heath F. (2009). Documenting the global conversation: relevancy of libraries in a
digital world. Journal of Library and Administration, 49: 5, 519-532.
SUMMARY
Heath [2009] goes some way to equate Web 2.0 as a perceived threat to the information sector much in the same way that newspapers, the music industry, book publishing are under threat, higher education and libraries specifically “are not immune to the pessimism that pervades the information sector” [p.522]. The question is posed “Is it possible as we sit here today that we can contemplate the demise of libraries?” [p.522] to answer the question Heath discusses the demise of newspapers, these industries and the apparent response of each sector to the way certain Web 2.0 applications have taken away their business.
He feels there is a perception that libraries will become extinct going into detailed examples of the report produced by a panel headed by James Dunderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan in 2002, which contemplated the end of the university as an institution and their libraries along with it [cited p. 523]. The report highlighted the threats the digital learning environment posed to libraries due to a fundamental shift in the relationship between people and knowledge. The panel also speculated about the end of the university. It is the concept that all knowledge can be linked and we don’t need professionals such as librarians to guide us through. It is the perception of those outside the library environment as well. The author uses an example of a colleague who called the library profession and the libraries ‘obsolete’ [p.525] but ultimately Heath feels that the perception is misguided “libraries may survive by doing what they do best” [p.526]. Libraries have been proactive in embracing the ideas behind Web 2.0.
The article outlines many positive examples of libraries facilitating teaching, learning and research including Heath’s own library at the University of Texas. The topics covered are:
Library instruction – various University of Texas Library instruction sessions, tutorials, research guides etc are discussed that serve to hone the students critical thinking and inquiry skills.
The reference desk – he sees the reference desk as a point of failure, that using library services should be instinctual and adaptable. Calling his librarians “…to build a transparent, friendly information navigation system that students encounter in all other aspects of their learning behavior.”[p527]. This has included a simplified search box, “Ask a Librarian”, library widgets to connect with the library at the time student wants and Blackboard.
Physical space of the library
Using buildings differently, centralizing collections across a number of libraries in a region [last print copy repositories].
Freezing print collections to their current capacity. Basically if one comes in, one must go out. Thus increasing the emphasis to electronic acquisitions.
Collection building – here he makes the apparently paradoxical conclusion that the two most important aspects of collection development for a university library are making it “resemble other great collections found elsewhere.”[p.528] and “acquiring distinctive resources unique to scholarship” [p.529]. How do we find the balance between the two?
Institutional repositories – outlines the ways that the user community can interact with the University of Texas Library. From the search and research tools through the library homepage, and the Texas Digital Library which documents unique collections of the library.
The future may not be predictable but in Heath’s view the library will continue its role as facilitator as new information containers emerge.
REVIEW
The article begins by outlining industries where Web 2.0 has had major impacts. There is an important difference between newspapers, the music industry, book publishing and to a great extent higher education that the author fails to note, it is that they are profit making businesses. While libraries have to demonstrate their worth it is true, libraries have always had to think outside the box in order to prove their value. This is true even when they are part of the profit driven higher education system.
The most significant point of the article to my mind is the acknowledgement of the shift in the way libraries function and their role. It may not have changed completely but the emphasis has adjusted to the increased importance of being facilitator and having a more reciprocal role with library clients. Library 2.0 is a user-centered, multi-media experience that is socially rich and communally innovative as “communities change, libraries must not only change with them, they must allow users to change the library.”[Maness, 2006, p. 3]This is recognized by Heath as he quotes Duderstadt’s report “changes being induced by information technology are different because they alter the fundamental relation between people and knowledge. Thus the technology could profoundly reshape the activities of all institutions, such as the university, whose central function is the creation, preservation, integration, transmission, or application of knowledge.” [2002, cited in Heath, 2009, p. 523] – The report is very insightful for 2002, pre Web 2.0. They have anticipated the shift in power from a hierarchical one to a grassroots one.
The search capacity of library catalogues can be seen as antiquated which Heath concedes “New tools of discovery have consigned the library online catalog to the waste bin alongside the card catalog, the bound journal, and reel upon reel of microfilm.”[p.525]. More than 60% of students at my University Library, The University of Queensland use GoogleScholar. Modern search engines use a collective intelligence harnessing complex algorithms and vast amounts of varying ranking criteria to produce results. How can the library catalogue compete? For Library websites the actual catalogue is increasingly in the background. So a library website might be a porthole to an amazing wealth of information but how do we get people to use it? Are we being hindered by a clunky catalogue system that does not search intuitively?
Heath’s idea that the reference desk as point of failure matches the philosophy of Library 2.0 where users should be able to point themselves to the right information. “Self-reliance is the aspiration of every scholar; the reference desk is seen by some as a point of failure.”[p.525] – clients should be able to find everything they need themselves. University of Texas Webpage now includes Twitter updates and Clouds. Here is the link
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
“We no longer set all the rules when it comes to the academic community’s pursuit of information. Students are very self-reliant and increasingly willing to make their own judgments about the utility of information.” [p.527] But how good are they? What does it mean for our roles as professionals judging the quality of information? Library information literacy programmes still remain imperative. It is a shift and the democratization of knowledge may mean sharing some power but their will always be room for experts.
In terms of collection and development and institutional repository has the emphasis on this role increased in the new digital environment of WEB 2.0? Heath concludes that “If libraries stick to what they do best, they will be seen as the place for presidents and provosts to go to obtain the best possible return on their investment in scholarly communications from the commercial marketplace. And will be seen by tentative students and savvy researchers alike as an indispensible ally in directing inquiry into a vastly expanded and increasingly unfamiliar universe.”[p.531]. He sees the primary role of librarians as facilitators and does not note that this is a shift from the critically embedded role of the value judgment of knowledge that librarians traditionally hold. Yet he does not stress its importance. It is moving toward a much more egalitarian world of knowledge. Maness [2006], by comparison, in his article ‘Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries’ grasps the fundamental shift away from the idea of librarians as gatekeepers of knowledge “A profession steeped in decades of a culture of control and predictability will need to continue moving toward embracing facilitation and ambiguity”[p.9]. Maness recognizes that Library 2.0 “ ... blurs the line between librarian and patron, creator and consumer, authority and novice. The potential for this dramatic change is very real and immediate, a fact that places an incredible amount of importance on information literacy. In a world where no information is inherently authoritative and valid, the critical thinking skills of information literacy are paramount to all other forms of learning.” [p.6]. The stress on information literacy is important. It is a significant area the library can facilitate in. It is also one area that can help close the digital divide. Many libraries have adopted Web 2.0 application in this arena for example podcast tours of the library, online training tutorials, and online referencing help in real time.
