Library 3.0: Intelligent Libraries and Apomediation

Library 3.0

Intelligent Libraries and Apomediation

Tom Kwanya

Christine Stilwell

Peter G. Underwood

Table of Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright

About the authors

1: Introduction

Abstract

1.1. Current issues and emerging trends in academic and research librarianship

1.2. Drivers of and barriers to change in libraries and librarianship

1.3. The modern academic and research library user

1.4. The future of academic and research librarianship

2: ‘Point oh’ libraries

Abstract

2.1. Advances in web technology: webs 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0

2.2. ‘Point oh’ libraries

2.3. Change in libraries: evolution or revolution?

2.4. Reality check: the ‘point oh’ situation in research and academic libraries

3: Library 3.0

Abstract

3.1. Library 3.0 principles

3.2. Comparing Library 3.0 with the other library service models

3.3. The potential of Library 3.0 for research and academic libraries

4: Library 3.0 librarianship

Abstract

4.1. Core competencies of ‘Librarian 3.0’

4.2. Core competencies of users in Library 3.0

4.3. Apomediation in the Library 3.0 context

4.4. Research and academic librarians as apomediaries

5: Becoming 3.0

Abstract

5.1. Library 3.0 in reality

5.2. Library 3.0 tools and resources

5.3. Realising Library 3.0: the roles of users, librarians, professional associations and professional education

Index

Copyright

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier

225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA

Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, UK

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014955041

ISBN: 978-1-84334-718-7

For information on all Chandos Publishing visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/

Typeset by Thomson Digital

Printed and bound in the United Kingdom

About the authors

Christine Stilwell is an Emeritus Professor of Information Studies and Fellow of the School of Social Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). She headed the Information Studies Programme from 2003 to 2007. She served as Acting Director of the Centre for African Literary Studies on the Pietermaritzburg Campus from 2011 to 2013 and on the Advisory Board of the Alan Paton Centre and Struggle Archives (UKZN). She has published a co-edited book, a directory of South African resource centres, many chapters in books and numerous journal articles. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Boards of several international and local journals. She is currently a member of the Advisory Board of the Carnegie Continuing Professional Development Programme at the University of Pretoria. Her research interests include public libraries and their role in addressing poverty and social exclusion, and information behaviour.

Peter G. Underwood is a senior associate of Knowlead Consulting and Training, Emeritus Professor of the University of Cape Town and Honorary Professor of the University of KwaZulu-Natal. He is a graduate of the Cranfield School of Management, having completed an MBA there in 1980, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Peter is the author of Managing change in libraries and information services: a systems approach; Soft systems analysis and the management of libraries, information services and resource centres, and co-author of Basics of data management for information services and Freedom of information in the developing world: demand, compliance and democratic behaviour.

Tom Kwanya is a Knowledge Management specialist with several years of practical experience. He has developed and implemented Knowledge Management strategies; conducted knowledge audits; developed models and frameworks for knowledge elicitation and representation; and conducted knowledge management capacity building and mentoring consultancies in the South, East, West and Horn of Africa regions. He has also taught knowledge and information management; technology-mediated communication; and infopreneurship in public and private universities in Kenya. He is a published author of several refereed journal articles, conference papers and a monograph. His current areas of research interest include social networks analysis; infodemiology and infoveillance; library innovations; knowledge management; and infopreneurship. He holds PhD in Information Studies from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa where he is now a postdoctoral research fellow.

1

Introduction

Abstract

The socio-economic, technological and information environment in which academic and research libraries operate continues to change rapidly. The emergence of the Internet and its related technologies has prompted a momentous change in the way library users seek information, communicate and collaborate. Users are more aware of the possibilities of using technology and academic and research libraries face immense challenges with regard to how to offer services to such users effectively. Several conversations about how the libraries can manage this change are ongoing. This chapter discusses the salient issues arising from these conversations.

Keywords

information as conversation

prosumption

disintermediation

technostress

McDonaldisation of libraries

The emergence of the Internet and its related technologies has prompted a momentous change in the ways in which library users seek information, communicate and collaborate (Limb, 2004; Casey and Savastinuk, 2006; Miller, 2006; Rothman, 2006; Courtney, 2007). Similarly, the scope and depth of what the library users are able to do with the emerging information and communication technology (ICT) applications are growing by the day. The emerging ICT-enabled information environment has considerable implications for academic and research libraries because they support scholars and researchers working at the cutting edge of their fields (Franklin, 2007). For instance, the new tools and techniques have the potential to enable the scholars and researchers to search, identify, select, manipulate, use, communicate and store more information easily, instantaneously and inexpensively (Ramana, 2006; Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). Thus, the tools offer a new and versatile means of satisfying the information needs of the academic and research library users (Ramana, 2006; Chaddha, 2009). As these users become more aware of the possibilities of using technology and find it easier to go to Google than travel to the library, academic and research libraries face immense challenges on how to offer services to such users effectively.

These challenges and possibilities have triggered new conversations about how to discover, invent and share knowledge (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). These emerging applications, possibilities and conversations are rapidly altering perceptions of the fundamental principles and concepts of librarianship (Smith, 1990; Underwood, 1990; Miller, 2006; Casey and Savastinuk, 2007) and further complicating the situation. They have also created new expectations of better usability and faster responses to customer needs with better products (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007) and have exposed the limitations of library services available at a physical building that is not continuously accessible because of limited opening hours (Shuman, 2001; Chad and Miller, 2005; Rothman, 2006), with strict membership requirements, restricted information resources and often inadequate user involvement in influencing the level and quality of services provided (Cohen, 2006).

As the pace of this change accelerates, the greatest challenge, especially to the academic and research libraries, is how to keep up (Courtney, 2007). Indeed, the latest library usage statistics show that there exists a dissonance between the environment and content that libraries provide and the environment and content that information consumers want and use (OCLC, 2005; Miller, 2006). Preferences for self-service, satisfaction and seamlessness have been identified as some of the indicators of this dissonance. Therefore, library service characteristics that support self-service or disintermediation (Downie, 1998), increased user satisfaction and seamlessness such as ease of use, and convenience are now as important to the modern library user as the quality and trustworthiness of the products (OCLC, 2005).

Salwasser and Murray-Rust (2002) conducted a needs assessment of the users of the Oregon State University libraries and found that the users wanted to find, retrieve, integrate and synthesise well-organised information quickly. The study also found that, although many scholars of librarianship and practitioners recommend the involvement of the relevant stakeholders early and, indeed, at all stages of new library developments, the common approach still seems to be to ignore the users (Salwasser and Murray-Rust, 2002). Farkas (2008) also explains that the user studies she conducted revealed that users want to have more full-text articles available online so that they do not have to use interlibrary loans, a notion she calls self-sufficiency.

Similarly, the results of the OCLC (2005) library users study revealed very unflattering perceptions of the modern library user about the library and its resources in the light of the digital revolution: 1) A large number of users begin their information searches with search engines, not librarians or library catalogues; 2) People who have used both search engines and librarians for information searches admit that the two approaches yield results of more or less similar quality; 3) Libraries are about the provision of outdated, dirty, bulky and often not immediately available books, rather than information; 4) The library is not the first or only stop for many information seekers and, although this is not an entirely new finding, the situation is worse now because more alternatives to the library exist; and 5) Information seekers are not satisfied with the library experience and desire that it should stretch beyond books, crowded noisy reading areas, limited parking, bureaucratic limitations on the use of resources, and the need to travel, as well as unfriendly, unavailable and inadequate library staff. Choh (2011) also reports that a user study conducted in 2010 in Singapore revealed that researchers and general users found the national libraries there inconvenient to use and preferred digital resources. The findings of the Singaporean user study also revealed that the researchers were not proficient in using library databases and relied on the help of the librarians for this.

As libraries struggle to cope with the new demands and challenges, OCLC’s (2005) report and other statistics (Aiken, 2006) indicate that they are rapidly relinquishing their place as a main point of enquiry (Chad and Miller, 2005; Campbell, 2006). Indeed, a sizeable number of current library users indicate that they will reduce their library use in due course (OCLC, 2005). This change can be attributed to the constantly shifting expectations of users, especially revolving around time and convenience of use of library services and collections (D’Elia et al., 2002). Fundamentally, modern library users expect to be able to access any information they want, any time, anywhere (Blyberg, 2006; Crawford, 2006). They want the library service to fit their lifestyle and not vice versa (OCLC, 2005). They easily realise when this is not happening and stop using the library (Albanese, 2004). All these trends illustrate that expectations that libraries, regardless of their typology, will be able to deliver high-quality, comprehensive, user-friendly, new-generation services have grown tremendously in recent years (Ramana, 2006).

A hint as to where fleeing library users seem to be going is given by a sizeable number of current library users who affirm that they have reduced their library use as a consequence of using the Internet (OCLC, 2005). This view is also supported by a number of research studies conducted by the Public Access Computing Project (PACP), supported by the Gates Foundation and others, which have also confirmed through analysis of circulation statistics that usage of traditional library resources has been on a steady decline since the 1990s, whilst an increase in the use of electronic resources has been noted over the same period (D’Elia et al., 2002). There is also a perceived increase in the usage of libraries which offer Internet access and other online services (D’Elia et al., 2002). This observation is also supported by the PACP studies, which have provided anecdotal evidence that including Internet access points and other electronic services in libraries increases library usage (Kinney, 2010).

In spite of this apparent high preference for the ‘Internetised’ information services, some library scholars and practitioners are of the view that the value of the Internet in information services provision has been hyped and founded on myth rather than facts. Herring (2008) lists a number of reasons why the Internet cannot be a substitute for libraries. He argues that the Internet does not have everything; lacks organisation; lacks quality control; and that Internet access is really not ubiquitous, even in developed countries. In the United States of America a report by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB, 2008) supports Herring’s arguments and adds that, besides the fact that the Internet does not give access to all existing information, its usage is not free, concluding that digital libraries cannot be a substitute for ordinary libraries. Price (2003) also points out that there are instances when the Internet only provides links to information and emphasises that a link to a possible answer is not an answer. Borsato (2004) adds that even though the Internet may marginalise the library in certain respects, it cannot entirely be a substitute for it. This view is also supported by D’Elia et al. (2002), who propose that the Internet and the library should develop a complementary relationship, with each fulfilling certain information needs and functions. This relationship, they add, will enable the two agencies to reinforce each other’s use. Commentators such as Rein (2007) also point out that, in some cases, the challenge which librarians face is not an inability to provide techno-based services: rather the challenge is adjusting to the fact of techno-based tools as the information resources of choice.

There are scholars (Hoadley, 1999; Hernon and Nitecki, 2001; Budd, 2005) who caution that the library’s central core identity and role are still, and will remain, the same. They argue that although methodology changes with technology, meeting user needs has always been and will always be the crucial role of libraries, even far into the future. Although they admit that technology makes it possible for almost any place to become a library, they assert that physical libraries will continue to serve as destinations for people who wish to engage with other people in the pursuit of knowledge (Thomas, 2009).

It is evident from the foregoing that academic and research libraries are at a crossroads. While there is consensus that the socio-economic, technological and information environment in which academic and research libraries operate is changing rapidly, there is no agreement about how or whether the libraries should respond to this change. As mentioned earlier, several conversations are in progress on how the libraries can manage this change. This chapter discusses the salient issues arising from these conversations.

1.1. Current issues and emerging trends in academic and research librarianship

Several trends, with implications for academic and research libraries, are emerging in the prevailing information environment. Some of these include:

1.1.1. Information as conversation

In the past, people used to get information through linear processes but this is changing as information-seeking embraces combinations of different modes of behaviour and ‘multiple expressions’ to use Choh’s (2011, p. 5) phrase. People now seek and use information in a social, active, contextual, personalised (owned), and connected environment. This approach to information seeking and use has been described by some people as ‘information as conversation’ in which social interaction and participation are a key element. In such an environment, information is created, shared, remixed, and re-shared through social interactions and networks (Sloniowski, 2005). This recognition brings to mind the ‘invisible college’, a networked group of researchers who share their insights informally. Researchers are no longer as interested in stand-alone information resources as they are in conversations that yield rich information at the point of need.

The concept of information as conversation is a shift from the idea of information as a commodity which can be given away. Instead, information as conversation envisages an environment in which users generate their own information through engagement in mashed-up and socially networked platforms. The ‘information as conversation’ approach also underscores how people connect with each other in their pursuit for information. Information produced in a conversational environment is non-linear and mutates as it is used, reused and passed along. The concept also entails the recognition that there are different viewpoints represented in any piece of information (Pachat and Manjula, 2011). This concept seems to contradict the view of the library as a place where quiet one-to-one communication occurs. Indeed, the latter view is getting replaced by the perception of the library as a nerve-centre facilitating multidirectional interaction and communication between myriad users. Vershbow (2006) also explains that information published in a conversational platform provides myriad entry points for discussion and places the users and contributors on a par with the author.

It is also important to note that the focus of this emerging approach is on information and people rather than documents (Stahl, 1995). Indeed, it is true that bringing people together has the potential to enable them to engage, create and share otherwise inaccessible or non-existent information. Once people are connected with each other, they are in a position to share information which may not be in any information system. This information may be in their heads, desk drawers, on pieces of jotting-paper on their tables, computer memories, or in personal notebooks. The people may also discover new information by collaboration (Jones, 2009).

Through this emerging concept of information as conversation, librarians and users now engage in active dialogue to generate, refine and share information using a wide array of tools and techniques. The users and librarians are constantly creating communities using collaborative tools and techniques (Nelson, 2005). Pachat and Manjula (2011) define collaboration as applying joint efforts to achieve both short-term and long-term goals. They explain further that collaboration is characterised by well-defined relationships, long-term goals, comprehensive planning and joint strategies, shared resources and efforts, mutual risks and distributed benefits for all the stakeholders. They add that collaboration can be both internal and external and happens between communities, project teams, external clients and third parties, and partners. Collaboration helps the libraries to overcome the challenges emanating from the increasing pressures on resources, time and space in light of changing user needs. Collaboration creates communities in which information is generated and shared through conversation. Given the high premium academic and research libraries place on original and new knowledge, information through conversation is steadily becoming a preferred approach of knowledge management for these libraries and their users.

1.1.2. Prosumption

This is the integration of consumers’ participation in the creation of the products or services they consume (Xie, 2005). It is a multi-dimensional, multi-stage and multi-faceted phenomenon that blurs the traditionally distinct production and consumption processes (Collins, 2008; Humphreys and Grayson, 2008). Prosumption involves a wide array of activities such as storing, assembling, combining or shaping with equally diverse variety of input to produce concoctions in which some of the original inputs are not distinguishable (Xie, 2005).

The concept of prosumption was introduced by Alvin Toffler in his book The Third Wave, published in 1980. He predicted the emergence of a new breed of consumers who would choose to produce some of the goods and services they consume (Kotler, 1986). Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) explain that even though the history of prosumption goes beyond the Internet age, the concept has become more prominent with the emergence of Web 2.0. They argue that, although prosumption was not invented on or for Web 2.0, this technology remains its most prevalent location and means. As opposed to traditional production and consumption processes which focus on predictability, calculability and efficiency, prosumption fosters contingency, experimentation and ‘playfulness’ (Zwick, Bonsu and Darmody, 2008). Chu (2010) and Fuchs (2011) explain that Web 2.0 tools which facilitate prosumption through data sharing, communication, community, and co-production not only democratise but also exert greater influence on various spheres of life in society. Comor (2010) explains that prosumption is liberating, empowering and prospectively revolutionary. Although Kotler (1986) points out that it is not possible to get absolute prosumers, he predicts that people will increasingly produce more of what they consume.

Kotler (1986) identifies some of the motivations for prosumption as the increasing discretionary time from the shrinking work week; higher education; rising costs of skilled labour forcing people to undertake the activities themselves; technological advancements providing tools and techniques for production; high sensitivity to quality leading people to produce their own products; individuation, that is, self-expression in producing one’s own goods and services as a matter of pride and self-fulfilment. Xie (2005) explains that the motivations for prosumption are not necessarily economic. For instance, he explains that a person may decide to eat at home for nutritional purposes; conduct online banking for convenience; do gardening for enjoyment; or perhaps prepare breakfast at home because no alternative eating place exists, and so on. Kotler (1986) also suggests that prosumption activities which are likely to appeal to the people promise high cost-saving, consume little time and effort, yield high personal satisfaction and require minimal skill. Nonetheless, he explains that some prosumers resent the over-simplification of tasks. He cites a case where prosumers rejected a cake brand which required the consumers to merely add water when they actually wanted to also add milk and eggs to their taste. Consequently, some prosumers attend basic courses on cooking, gardening, knitting or painting to engage in more demanding prosumption processes.

Emerging evidence indicates that modern academic and research library users are not mere consumers of library services and content. Conversely, they are steadily embracing prosumption. They are content creators, creating their own content and augmenting existing material through annotations (adding tags or comments) or cross-referencing (adding links) within a dynamic and collaborative information space (Pienaar and Smith, 2007; Dussin and Ferro, 2009). To these prosumers conversations, research and learning never end (Primus, 2009). They interact and create resources with each other and with the librarians and thus blur the lines between user and librarian, creator and consumer, as well as authority and novice (Maness, 2006). Consequently, they appreciate efforts to empower them to create or manage content (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). Most of these prosumers create as much as they consume and want to share and collaborate. They want library systems to be easy, quick, recognisable and flexible (Pauli, 2008). They view the library as a platform where user-contributed content is being used to add value, and which is fun to work in and has something for everyone (Ayre, 2008).

1.1.3. Disintermediation

Disintermediation is the removal of a ‘middle person’ from a transaction. The concept of disintermediation emerged from the business world, where it refers to the removal of intermediaries from a supply chain (Stahl, 1995). It has been a buzzword in information circles since at least 1994 (Downie, 1998). In these circles it is perceived as giving library users direct access to information that would otherwise require the input of a librarian or any other mediator. Downie (1998) further explains that disintermediation involves the bypassing or complete removal of professional information intermediaries from the key components of information seeking, access and the process of use. Stahl (1995) explains that disintermediation helps libraries to identify and keep only value-adding intermediaries. He explains further that it is facilitated by