"Library 2.0 - It's many things to many people. What does it mean to you? What does it mean for school libraries?"
You know, when I first read Library2Play's
comparison between Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, I couldn't help but think, "isn't that right along the lines of
Ranganathan's 5 Laws of Library Science?" " . . .Harnessing the user in both design and implementation of services," is parallel with "every reader his/her book," "every book its reader," and "books are for use." - although the term "book" is no longer the correct term. I don't know what would be correct - medium, maybe? The three laws are basically there to focus the materials, mediums, technologies, whatever that are available through the library to the users. Isn't that also the purpose of Library 2.0? To focus on the users' needs and wants? " . . . Embracing constant change as a development cycle over the traditional notion of upgrades" sounds similar to "the library is a growing organism." To grow means to develop and change, so I assume it would automatically include advancing and changing to flow, reflect, and coincide with society's trends and current technology no matter if it was traditional or non-traditional.
" . . . And reworking Library services to meet the users in their space, as opposed to ours (Libraries)" not only centers on the user, but also follows the law, "save the time of the reader." Granted, the terms "books" and "readers" are outdated for Library 2.0, I think the general concepts underlying the Laws of Library Science are very similar to its philosophies.
Library 2.0 is all about how and what services are delivered to users. While the delivery methods may change, I believe that the library was always supposed to have been user-centered, and therefore, that remains the same. In fact, the only way to keep a library user-centered
is to grow and change how and what services are delivered. I do think that Library 2.0 is more collaborative than earlier libraries, though, asking users for feedback, suggestions, and encouraging them to participate in the library community. It's no longer a place for looking for information, but a place for sharing and collaborating, with information going out as well as coming in.
Rick Anderson listed three obstacles that pose a threat to Library 2.0's success: "'Just in case' collections," "reliance on user education," and the "'come to us' model of library services." The "just in case" collection of books seem like a waste of money and space when everything is now available online. While some people may worry about having a physical copy available in case of a bad connection, power outage, etc., I agree with Anderson that the collections, such as reference books, need to go. Plus, finding the information takes more time than searching online or in a database. If the Librarian's job is to save the time of the reader, then in makes sense to provide quick and simple methods to search for information. As he explains,
We need to focus our efforts not on teaching research skills but on
eliminating the barriers that exist between patrons and the information
they need, so they can spend as little time as possible wrestling with
lousy search interfaces and as much time as possible actually reading
and learning.
This is especially important in schools. While school librarians are available to teach research skills, they can't be expected to adequately train/teach each student immediately. Instead, information should be made easy to access and even easier to search through. Plus, as Anderson points out, then it leaves more time for the librarians to collaborate with teachers on curriculum. The last thing Anderson points out is that libraries are no longer the only places users go to for information, so librarians have to be willing to bring their services to the users. I wonder if this would change how school librarians plan their days. Instead of staying in the library and students visiting, school librarians would be reaching out virtually and physically to classrooms and students.
Michael Stephens really laid out what would be required of a Librarian 2.0. He envisions an open library that can be accessed from anywhere; a complete collaboration between Librarian and users to implement services and new technologies based on the users' needs and their ability to access everything easily. Through blogs, open databases, tweets, wikis, etc., school librarians could break down the barriers keeping students at bay. Librarians could even ask students to help create and maintain them to encourage involvement. I love that he suggests chatting and mash-ups as a form of collaboration, with the librarian meeting the "users in their space." Again, as Anderson also envisioned, the librarian is no longer staying in the library, but reaching out virtually and visiting the users in the environment where they're comfortable. In addition, Stephens points out that the Librarian 2.0 is a trendspotter, staying on top of news and new developments that might impact library services. My favorite point that he makes though, is about content. He explains that
the librarian understands that the future of libraries will be guided by
how users access, consume and create content. Content is a conversation
as well and librarians should participate. Users will create their own
mash ups, remixes and original expressions and should be able to do so
at the library or via the library’s resources.
It will be interesting to see how school's support this view with all of the restrictions they put on internet use, programs, software, and sites. Schools would have to lower restrictions or create intense school-specific programs, software, sites, etc.
It's sad; I think in the school's desire to "protect" the students, it's pushing digital natives away instead of pulling them in. Instead of creating and increasing a sense of community, schools that don't change with the current technological trends are creating an even larger gap in students' minds between "us and them."
