Introduction
Factoid was a word originally defined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. It meant "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper". Some of the so-called facts were planted in spurious news stories by eager public relations agents.
That “grey” information is still with us today is a point vigorously made by Web 2.0 critic Michael Keen (2007).
For Keen, “[M]any blogs and “news” sites are merely fronts for public relations machines. Others conceal their agendas. They are … unaccountable and rarely remove their mistakes.”
And an academic librarian has referred to the “black holes that populate the larger information universe” (Heath, 2009, reviewed below).
The problem of how to distinguish valuable information contained on the World Wide Web, from that which is of lesser quality, is a theme that runs through the articles in this review.
Anderson (2007, reviewed below) sees a role for librarians in driving the development of Web 2.0 technology. Levy (2009, reviewed below) addresses the issue of how the Web2.0 infrastructure can be adapted to modernize knowledge technology techniques in the enterprise.
In building an informational environmental world fit for a democracy, Missingham (2008, reviewed below) reminds us that the issue of valuable content is an important issue, but needs to be matched by equality of access and also by a capacity to make good use of the technology.
And, in critiquing the articles, we establish another issue … how neutral is the gatekeeper? And how valuable?
Review 1: Journal Editorial
Anderson, P. (2007). `All That Glisters Is Not Gold' Web 2.0 And The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195-198. doi:10.1177/0961000607083210
Anderson is a respected scientific writer.
His article is an editorial and seeks to show that librarians can play a constructive role in the building of Web 2.0 services. His article borrows from a framework for analysis developed from earlier work for JISC in the UK (Anderson, 2007).
The concept Library 2.0 has been adopted both by enthusiastic supporters and critics. It relates to three components:
1. clearly visible social web tools,
2. Reilly’s(2005) six big ideas including vast amounts of data and user generated content,
3. Core web technologies such as XML and Javascript.
The concept involves re-imagination of library items as retrievable objects (“content”) in a network. To date, Anderson argues that the concept has not adequately been supported by peer-reviewed work. However, "the librarians’ public sector ethos could be a valuable constituent in building the technologies of the future"(p.196).
In the article the role of librarians is not elucidated at any length. To find any depth in the discussion one would have to refer back to the earlier 2007 JISC article, where, for example, there is an expanded discussion on archiving the web.
As well, in this editorial, the emphasis on public sector ethos is not precisely located. Does this mean serving the public, as a partner in innovation? Or “serving” the government, in identifying, and preserving, content which met prescribed value benchmarks of value? Or is it about a code of ethics stressing lack of bias?
The answer, given vent in the earlier 2007 piece, is that
“(librarians) are also the guardians of a long tradition of a public service ethic which will increasingly be needed to deal with the privacy and legal issues raised by Web 2.0”.
Perhaps for a more directed view of the role of the librarian one would also have to read Dale (2007). Dale stressed the flatter structures of the new knowledge technology, stressing peer to peer connectivity. In this environment, librarians and knowledge managers have a growing role as knowledge facilitators, and “there is a surely an opportunity here for the re-invention of the traditional Librarian role - if only they would grasp it."
This article refers to the possibilities of utilising the simpler connectivity tools provided by Web 2.0. This is a point also made by Levy (2009, reviewed below). One of the positive features of the technology is that it is in a state of constant self-improvement. But for the librarian (with or without a public sector ethos), one point has been missed. The existing tools are designed to fit into a corporation’s business model. Clearly this is the case with News Corporation’s acquisition of Facebook. This model is also darkly illuminated by the closedown of two much- loved Web 2.0 applications – Yahoo 360 in July 2009 and Platial in Feb 2010 (both Wikipedia).
If there is a lasting Web 2.0 model in which librarians could be involved, there is probably a need for open source applications to be underpinned by a massive community investment a la Firefox. But then librarians can help design the architecture, but probably cannot cut the code.
This editorial piece has reassured librarians of a continuing role but there need to be more peer-reviewed sources to which we could turn, to establish any real substance to this proposition. The shadow of a Google Scholar backed by clever artificial intelligence search algorithms (and chat rooms?) continues to loom.
Review 2: Journal Article
Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration, 49(5), 519-532. doi:10.1080/01930820903090896
Fred Heath works in the University of Texas (UT) libraries.
The aim of his paper is to find a way for research libraries to continue have relevance, and grow, in a world of low resources - and to meet the challenges posed by the Internet.
"New tools of discovery have consigned the library online catalogue to the waste bin alongside the card catalogue, the bound journal, and reel upon reel of microfilm. Self-reliance is the aspiration of every scholar; the reference desk is seen by some as a point of failure”(p525).
“Self-reliance” and new technology are also causing a fall in interest in online catalogues.
For Heath, a critical point is that “education has become a private good and is not well placed to meet the challenges” (p. 523). At a key stage in the development of academic libraries there is no Carnegie or benevolent government to fund a crucial expansion into a new area. The problem exists for the universities more generally. Heath quotes Michigan president James Duderstadt, reporting for the National Academies, who said “almost every academic function will be affected, and sometimes displaced, by modern technology”.
Heath reports on some directions being taken by UT. Librarians work with instruction teems to ensure that the goals of foundation studies are achieved. The reference desk has been extended into the virtual world, with simplified search boxes online, librarian widgets in the Blackboard online course delivery system, and a web-based “Ask a Librarian” application.
Other developments Heath cites are cost cutting exercises - including reduced “analogue” storage and concentration on flagship projects such as a human rights repository.
Heath is correct in an injunction not to be too pessimistic. Perhaps the web should be seen, not as an alternative, but as a new tool in an evolving work space that has continuity with past achievements.
However, some caution needs to be attached to another of his formulations – the concept of the research library as an agora, an open meeting place rather than as a collection of research objects. There appears to be, as yet, no conclusive evidence that the social web (or the blogosphere) provides a quality research space equivalent to seminars and conferences.
Still more care needs to be taken with his “sandboxes” concept. This would have it that the librarian has a role in creating secure work spaces for undergraduate students. It could be foreseen that some “self reliant” students would regard this as over safety-conscious and over paternalistic, putting the librarians in the same camp as the university hierarchy.
By contrast, Habib (2006), in a master’s thesis, expounds on the theory, that, to be trusted, librarians need to occupy neutral ground between the academics and the students.
Certainly there is a need for the university library to do some more research about users’ internet use and users’ concept’ of the library role. Change is better pulled by a client group than pushed by a benevolent patron.
Review 3: Journal Article
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120–134.
Maria Levy is CEO, at ROM Knowledgeware, Reut, Israel.
She has written an opinion piece to attempt to discover whether using ideas and applications from Web 2.0 can add value to corporate knowledge management processes.
One of the primary issues identified is the reaction of Chief Information Officers (CIOs) to new method – the social web or facsimiles certainly raise security issues and the CIOs appear also to be worried about losing control. A second issue is that a new infrastructure could prove to be a niche only adopted and maintained by pioneers. Levy is certainly hopeful that these two resistance points can be overcome.
A newer generation will expect to see Web 2.0 like tools available within an organisation. However, it will be essential for progress for the CIOs to loosen the controls.
Levy notes 8 basic concepts underlying Web 2.0, and possibly by extension “Knowledge 2.0”:
1. the web is a channel (like Amazon) not an application that can be dominated,
2. the purpose is to develop services,
3. users are active,
4. the value of services increases over time because of active participation,
5. there is collective intelligence - it involves the long tail or the small consumers,
6. content is the core ("Data Inside"),
7. the technology involves perpetual betas,
8. rich content is added through small modules.
Levy thinks points 1 to 7 have at least some validity for knowledge management.
There is a proviso though, that the long tail is not that long within a single organisation – meaning that the value added by a high participation level will not be as much.
Enterprise 2.0 is defined as is Web 2.0 in corporations, and has two dimensions. One is the technology dimension and another is the stakeholder group – employees and outside corporations and consumers. Within an organisation, trust, or “altruism” can certainly operate. Perhaps narrowly, she defines the application area for external stakeholders as marketing. Perhaps this is understating the role of trust between organisations.
Adler (2001), not cited in Levy’s paper, defined three kinds of trust: self interested, values and ethics, and repeated contact. Adler was certainly convinced there was a possibility of trust operating across the economy as a whole, even if only of the self interested kind, and this appears to be born out by the Linux and Firefox open source projects.
Levy does address the issue of the overall setting for content. Knowledge Management consists of culture, processes, technology and content. However, the organisation of content, filtering it and processing, is still of primary importance. New, lighter, tools, it is hoped, will bring corporate knowledge into a clearer view.
This writer works in a medium to large organisation. Though there is resource sharing software (Sharepoint) very few have taken the opportunity to actively edit common documents – especially across departments. The tools alone will not self-create usage. The “foundation” training needs to be done, perhaps by simulating a group exercise.
The issue too is Keen (2007), with his concerns about unfiltered knowledge. But perhaps any problems there reflect the low level of intellectual capital within many organisations, rather than a fault of the infrastructure.
Review 4: Journal Article
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, The, 58(4), 386-399.
The author works at the Parliamentary Library in Canberra, Australia.
The problem for Australian citizens was that “quality” resources could be on be accessed on the Web by paying user charges.
The paper describes the development of the Electronic Resources Australia project (ERA: http://era.nla.gov.au/) was which was established in May 2007 to deliver digital content. The creation of this body followed four years of discussion which took place after the publishing of the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee (2003).
For ERA, the National Library of Australia has sponsored site licensing, and ERA has an opt-in subscription model, Participating libraries now give forty percent of Australians potential access.
Problems of content have been partially addressed, but Missingham notes also the related problems of limited connectivity and limited individual capacity to access and absorb information. The introduction of the national broadband scheme is seen as addressing the issue of connectivity, and public libraries have a role in raising the information and computer literacy of the general public.
There is, however the old problem, that you can lead a horse to water but not get it to drink. The LaGrange (USA) internet TV initiative (Kvasny and Keil, 2006, not quoted in Missingham) provided free internet services but take up was less than expected.
The LaGrange city manager commented:
“There’s much greater hesitancy towards embracing technology in our poorer areas than in our wealthy areas. What we’ve found is just hesitancy, a lack of understanding, a lack of appreciating what it potentially means and breaking through that”(p.43).
For Kvasny and Keil, it was a powerful reminder that social access cannot occur in a vacuum.
There is another problem signalled by the nature of the content licensed by ERA. Missingham reports that "[t]he focus has been, and remains, on Australian full-text content"(p.393). As well, the author notes that ERA has parallels with, and links to the Australian government’s social inclusion program.
On the face of it, more programmes are needed to supplement the work done by ERA. In Missingham’s data, most of the subscribing libraries to that programme are in schools – this is laudable but doesn’t address so much the question of educating the (voting age) citizenry.
More generally, the issue is the same as with Heath above, the problem of the neutrality of the gatekeeper. It leads to the problem of democracy versus paternalism. What does constitute “valuable” and “Australian” content? The list supplied is one of categories only: Australian news and business, health issues.
Perhaps we need a cultural studies expert to define the meaning of “Australian”. Otherwise, standing alongside the risk of economic disempowerment, is the risk that, unwittingly, we are imposing a monoculture on Australia’s vibrant migrant communities.
The gatekeeper role certainly warrants a better definition, certainly one that addresses content that the citizens want rather than what the government is willing to sponsor.
Conclusion
Really, the jury is still out on whether the library profession is facing extinction. Corporations do need knowledge managers, but perhaps ones who can manage, and encourage, the productive interplay of minds around a flat-structured organisation and who can build platforms based on trust within and without the corporation.
Academic and research librarians certainly need a better business model for the future: perhaps the customer isn’t always right, but a neutral but constructive dialogue with the users seems necessary. And they need to find a technical platform which replicates the functionality, but transcends the commercialness, of Web 2.0.
What about the local public library, now that “analogue” collections are (supposedly) a cost, rather than an asset? A possible key role for the public librarian will be in providing foundation classes for an internet aware citizenry.
But at base, the Web is an available tool within our society rather than a separate structure. Perhaps we just need a way to bring the tool inside from the rain.
References
Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 215–234.
Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Dale, S. (2007). Dissident: Knowledge Management (KM) and Social Computing – are they the same? Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://dissident.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/knowledge_manag.html
Habib, M. C. (2006, November). Toward Academic Library 2.0: Development and Application of a Library 2.0 Methodology. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/bitstream/1901/356/1/michaelhabib.pdf
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur : how blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today's user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday. Reviewed in: Flintoff, J. (2007). Thinking is so over - Times Online. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1874668.ece
Kvasny, L., & Keil, M. (2006). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: a tale of two US cities. Information Systems Journal, (16), 23-53.
No comments:
Post a Comment