Saturday, October 13, 2007
Do Libraries Matter - You Bet They Do!
The Talis white paper issued a call to action to all librarians to technologically transform their libraries or risk becoming irrelevant or even obsolete. From the provocative title to the final paragraph, the authors use strong language to convince their audience that the library's salvation lies in the use of cutting-edge technology. While they discuss numerous creative ideas, many of their assumptions are questionable, including the premise on which the paper is based, that libraries as they are have become outdated in the modern world. Technology, while a transformational tool, is not an end in itself. Libraries have always made use of technology throughout history, from card catalogues to MARC records, to serve their patrons. It is in this progressive way that librarians should approach the ideas in the white paper. Technology alone will not affect the future of the library. Libraries offer a unique service which cannot be replaced by a search engine. Not all technologies suggested by Library 2.0 may be an optimal fit for libraries. It is always good to challenge the status quo to keep an institution vibrant, but change inspired by panic or fear, without a strategic plan, may not be appropriate or sustainable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hi Judith,
It does seem as if Chad & Miller have both been tarred with the same brush. One wonders how they are going mark this if everyone has basically the same thing to say. It was a pretty loaded paper to give to room full of mostly librarians, me being one of the few exceptions I think.
Tell your daughter she is more than welcome to check out/make use of any Celtic material I shall post. I did a specialist Hon BA in Celtic studies here at UofT. Its an excellent program, but St.Mary's is as well. I concentrated on mostly Irish studies but I did have a paper published on Irish and Scottish wake practices a few years ago. It is nice to know that the tradition of "Celtic Obsession" is being continued by the younger generation.
See you in class
Hi Judith,
I agree with your assessment and came to similar conclusions in my review. I found it difficult to seriously consider the viewpoint of a vendor that claimed such altruistic intentions of "saving" the library from impending doom.
I think that, while a lot of the ideas proposed are interesting and may work well in the library, the article seemed to overlook other aspects of the role of the library and seemed to give glowing praise to Amazon.
It would be essential to determine which services could enhance the individual library based on its unique needs and resources.
A problem that I had with the article was that they completely ignore the things that libraries do better than Google does. While it may be easier to search Google than it is to search a library catalogue, with a catalogue the user can be certain that every result retrieved is relevant, and that the recall of items is high.
I suppose when one's trying to sell software to a library, threatening that if they don't buy one's latest product they'll be doomed to obsolescence is a decent strategy.
Judith,
I agree that Chad and Miller use provocative language and it overwhelms their argument, strong language does not mean strong support. However, I do not believe their language is meant to inflict fear. I read the white paper as the genuine excitement of Chad and Miller of the potential for what technology could do for libraries, and not as a bad thing. Yes, libraries have adapted with card cataloguing and MARC records but could those not have been considered the new version of technology for the day? What is really that different about library 2.0? In my opinion Chad and Miller are advocating for the ideals of the traditional library through changes in technology, not drastic change to something new altogether.
Good work, I liked it. And agree that at least Chad and Miller did something for the library profession.
Judith
Great post! So true, we should not be distracted by the flashy lights of technology and not think about what libraries do well and what they shouold continue to do, as well as what they should change.
Hi Judith
I enjoyed reading your conclusions about Chad and Miller's article. In my review, I stressed the importance of looking at the needs of the community in which the library is situated. Each community is unique with regard to the library patrons and available infrastructure. Therefore, I find your statement, "not all technologies suggested by Library 2.0 may be an optimal fit.." sums it up well.
nice summary - libraries are actually more about people who want to read and study than about technology. Technology supports people, but we can't be ruled by it. We have to think more carefully about its uses than Chad and Miller do because, as you say, it is not an end in itself.
It is always a good idea to be wary of bandwagons and the common wisdom and to ask who benefits - and if it is those promoting the bandwagon then one needs to ask probing questions - be it library 2.0, CO2's role in global warming or whatever...gord
Interesting post. I also thought that the article meant to inspire fear and panic. I agree that Library 2.0 principles are not necessarily applicable for all libraries and/or audiences.
Post a Comment