Social Issues and Technology Trends in Librarianship

This week's trio of articles deals with issues that libraries and librarians will be confronting in the years ahead. The first article, "The Googlization of Everything" discusses the Google Library Project. This is an ambitious project that Google has begun which has the end goal of digitizing all books in all languages and putting them in a searchable database. The author states three areas of concern: privacy, privatization and property. He makes a persuasive case that more content should be released from some of the more stringent barriers of copyright, but in the end thinks that Google's project is misguided, as it "threatens to unravel everything that is good and stable about the copyright system. It injects more uncertainty and panic into a system that is already in disequilibrium," (Vaidhyanathan, 2005).

The second article touches upon technology and the erosion of privacy in the U.S. The author pines for the days before 9/11, when it was much easier for us to experience an unrecorded moment. As more of our lives and information become recorded, there is greater opportunities for governments, corporations, or other individuals to attempt to use our personal information without our knowledge. Thankfully, libraries value privacy and serve as bulwarks against the erosion of privacy. The American Library Association code states, "We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted," (Dixon, 2008). Compare this to a statement by a CEO of Sun Microsystems when questioned about privacy features on a computer networking system, "You have no privacy anyway. Get over it," (Lester, 2001). The author ends the article with a call for all librarians to guard patron information zealously, as they have in the past.

The final article shows us the way in which one library in Birmingham, UK (LoB) is evolving to stay relevant in the digital age. LoB understands that the way people access and view information is dramatically changing, and they are focusing on allowing for greater access to mobile devices to reach more users. LoB envisions itself as actually being five libraries: the Connected Library, the Virtual Library, the Logical Library, the Self-Service Library, and the Extended Library. LoB is on the bleeding edge of library design and is staged to serve as a model for the library of the future. As the author concludes, "if we adapt, take advantages of the technology, build sustainable partnerships, engage with communities and continue to provide meaningful services, and learn to operate effectively in the digital space, then the future looks bright," (Gambles, 2010).

Discussion Question: What are the ways that the Washington DC Public Library is or isn't adopting to the digital age as LoB is?


References:

1. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2005). The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright. Retrieved from: http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/40/3/copyright-creativity-catalogs/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf

2. Dixon, P. (2008), “Ethical issues implicit in library authentication and access management: risks and best practices”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 47 Nos 3/4, pp. 141-62

3. Lester, T. (2001), “The reinvention of privacy”, Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 267, pp. 27-39.

4. Zimerman, M. (2010). Technology and privacy erosion in United States
Libraries: A personal viewpoint. New Library World. 111(1/2): 7-15

5. Brian Gambles (2010). "Rewriting the Book: On the Move in the Library of
Birmingham " 30-July-2010 Publication: Ariadne Issue 64: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue64/gambles/

Usability Testing

These selections focus on ways that librarians can improve the “usability” of library websites, and thus better serve their patrons. The first of the three readings, “Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Websites,” makes recommendations for using the academic library website as a platform. The author begins by addressing what many library websites do have in terms of content, design patters, and other innovative features. She explains that in the current set-up, these sites are lacking opportunities for users to exert their influence, and thus they are less invested in the experience. “In the Web 2.0 era, the relationship between users and information is transformed from stand-alone, separate silos to mutually inclusive, mutually reliant, and reciprocal action-and-reaction entities,” (Liu, 2008). Tandem to that, most academic library websites have an overwhelming amount of text and links on their homepages, which leads to a jumbled user experience. Liu recommends a three-part conceptual model for library websites to act as more of a virtual place. They would include a Library Homepage, a Library Portal page, and a My Library space. This interface would allow for more personalization and user engagement.

The second reading takes us from the theoretical underpinnings of website upgrade, to an actual case study, examining the University of Michigan’s Art, Architecture, and Engineering Library, and how it made the transition from an HTML site to a CMS (Content Management System). Once again, the focus was on usability. The paper describes the step-by-step process the committee went through to enact the upgrade, including assessing the benefits and drawbacks of the old website, the software and scripting language selected, and the use of a “Usability Lab” to further assess whether their new site was meeting the needs of their users. The team included a “usability consultant” to help conduct various tests on the new site. In the end, the team was happy with their results, but the final line of the article is a telling one, “The lessons learned with the usability lab, to listen to users by testing the site and to trust librarian’ instincts and expertise, will guide development in the next state,” (Tolliver, 2005). It is encouraging to hear both that the usability lab was a success, and that it is to the librarians that the author chooses to lend his greatest praise.

Our final reading deals with ways in which library websites need to embrace usability with respect to their off-campus users. The central thrust of the article dealt with the efficacy of two usability techniques: formal usability studies and focus groups. After a detailed analysis of how best to implement these tools, the author concludes that they are both cost-effective and useful for libraries to use. Libraries will see greater use and more satisfied users of their website after implementing these techniques. After reading these articles, it is tough to see why anyone building a webpage would not employ some methods to test usability. These are simple and affordable tools which improve the librarian’s ability to better serve their user, and usability testing should be normative in all website designs and upgrades.

Question: Looking back at our Information Retrieval System Evaluation papers, could the IR systems we evaluated have benefited from some usability testing?

References

1. Liu, Shu (2008). Engineering Users: The Future of Academic Library Sites. College and Research Libraries v. 69 no.1 (January 2008) pp. 6-27.

2. Tolliver et al. (2005). Website Redesign and Testing with a Usability Consultant: Lessons Learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). Pp. 156-166.

3. Beth Thomsen-Scott (2005). Yeah, I Found It! Performing Web Site Usability Testing to Ensure That Off-Campus Students Can Find the Information They Need. Journal of Library Administration, 41 (3 & 4). Pp. 471-483 (full text available via EBSCOHost)

Exploring Web 2.0

This week’s trio of articles deal with the structure of the internet and show how the development of “Web 2.0” has changed how businesses, people, and the library have viewed and used the internet. The first article, “How the Internet Works” discusses the architecture of the internet, beginning with a survey of its initial development and then deconstructing the various applications that make it function. The author discusses routers, backbones, IP addresses, and networks and networks within networks. As the author states, “the entire internet is a gigantic, sprawling agreement between companies to intercommunicate freely,” (Tyson). It is into this milieu that we begin to learn about Web 2.0.

The two articles, “Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities” by Gavrilis, Kakali and Papatheodorou, and “All that Glisters Is Not Gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian” by Paul Anderson, deal with how Web 2.0 technologies are specifically affecting libraries. As Anderson summarizes, the group of technology associated with Web 2.0 is blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, etc, and these “facilitate a more socially connected Web where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space,” (Anderson, 2007). Some libraries have made attempts to incorporate some of these technologies and concepts into their information systems. The Ann Arbor Public Library has integrated a social facet into their OPAC system, called SOPAC, which allows the users to rate, review and comment on the library items (Gavrilis, Kakali, and Papatheodorou). A study by the same authors shows that users were more satisfied with a prototype library information system that utilized Web 2.0 technologies.

It is quite a large task to try and incorporate all of these new applications and platforms into pre-existing library information systems. Fortunately, librarians are making the effort to keep up with these rapidly evolving technologies. As Anderson points out though, as the new technologies begin to have limitations due to copyright or perhaps privacy issues, librarians will be perfectly poised to influence their development as they have been trained to serve the public and to always be aware of how these technologies affect the greater society.

Question: What are some of the copyright or privacy concerns that have arisen, or could arise, from libraries implementing Web 2.0 technologies?

References

1. Tyson, Jeff. How Internet Infrastructure Works. Retrieved from: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-infrastructure8.htm

2. Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. In Proceedings of the 12^th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (Aarhus, Denmark, September 14 – 19, 2008). B Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. Castelli, B Ammitzboll Jurik, and J. Lippincott, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 148-159. Retrieved from: http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf

3. Anderson, Paul. (2007). “’All that Glisters Is Not Gold’” – Web 2.0 And The Librarian”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, 195-198 (2007) (available Sage Premier 2009)

Digital Records Management

The first article, “Records Management in a Digital World,” gives an overview of the objectives, benefits, and weaknesses of electronic records management. There are numerous benefits to practicing good electronic records management, among them improving access for either employees or customers, preserving a record of your institution, and maintaining evidence of business activity. Additionally, it is important to know which records should be retained for future use and which records to be disposed of. Setting up clear guidelines delineating the disposition of records can save a business or institution precious time and money. There is one weakness to records management systems that the authors note. As the author states, “The primary data and information systems employed by most institutions do not routinely and systematically fulfill the five major requirements of a record keeping system,” (Bantin 2002). While many systems are effective and work quite well, no one is a panacea.

Where Bantin gives an overview of various aspects of digital records management, Sherry Owen’s article “Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study”, takes us into a step-by-step process of what it is like to actually attempt to implement an electronic document management system (EDMS). Owens article perfectly illustrates some of the benefits and pitfalls enumerated previously by Bantin. I found it particularly helpful to be guided through the process by someone who has clearly been through it and done it successfully. While Bantin provided the groundwork, Owens actually took us through the process and made it seem real.

The third reading, “The Benefits of Electronic Records Management Systems: A General Review of Published and some Unpublished Cases” (Johnston and Bowen 2005), reiterated many of the points listed above, but expands upon them by relating specific statistics highlighting the benefits of an EDMS. While it appears the benefits in cost are difficult to quantify, the article clearly gives the impression that each business that implemented one is happy with its performance, and at least internally believes they have made many cost savings. The three articles together outlined an entirely new application for me, digital records management. I now feel well versed in the theory and practical benefits of instituting such a system.

Question: The three articles have predominantly positive views of electronic records management systems. Taking a more critical view, what are some more potential pitfalls to digitizing records? Anything the authors may have glossed over?

References

1. Bantin, Philip C (2002). “Records Management in a Digital World”. EDUCAUSE, Research Bulletin, 2002(16). http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0216.pdf

2. Owen, Sherry (2006). “Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study”. Arkansas Libraries, 63(1). 22-25.

3. Johnston, Gary P. and Bowen, David V, (2005). “The Benefits of Electronic Records Management Systems: A General Review of Published and some Unpublished Cases”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3, pp. 131-140.

Mooers’ Law and Today’s Information Retrieval Systems

This week’s readings focus on information retrieval systems and why some are used and some are not. The lecture given by Calvin Mooers in 1959 gives us perspective on the efficacy of different retrieval systems. The speech he gave was so influential that librarians and information specialists still refer to and use Mooers’ Law in their everyday work. It states, “An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it,” (Mooers, 1960). This poses an intriguing quandary for a librarian. How does one go about getting the end user just the right amount of information, and what is so painful and troublesome about information retrieval systems?

The following two readings jump ahead 50 years to focus on two forms of retrieval systems in use today. Google has of course been wildly successful as a search engine on the world wide web. The article explains the method Google uses to collect and rank the results when it receives a search query. I thought it interesting that Google uses many computers to work on one search query at the same time, thus saving the time it would take for one very large, very powerful computer to sift through the same amount of data. The question I kept on coming back to has to deal with Mooers Law though. How is Google so very successful when really their rankings are based on popularity, and there is no real way to discern if one’s search results are all that valuable?

The final article describes the catalog system that the library at North Carolina State University has been attempting to implement and make more user friendly. What makes the system they were developing noteworthy is that they were moving beyond the system as application model, and moving towards the system as platform model (Sierra, Ryan, and Wust 2007). Essentially, this means that instead of having a catalog that is static and unchanging, it could be reprogrammed by outside users, more adaptable to changing environments, and ultimately more versatile. If libraries are going to compete with Google and other popular search engines, and also stay competitive in the ongoing internet battle for attention, these are the kind of steps that are going to have to be made. It is encouraging to see the NCSU programmers attempting to make their systems compatible with mobile devices as well, as that is clearly the direction the end user is taking us. Google has certainly seemed to have muzzled Mooer of late, and it’s up to librarians to see if they can do the same.

Question for class: What aspects of the Google search engine helps it avoid the pitfalls expressed in Mooers’ Law?

References

1. Mooers, C.N. (1960). Mooers’ Law or, Why Some Retrieval Systems Are Used and Others Are Not.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1996 vol: 23 iss: 1 (via ProQuest Database)

2. Cutts, M. (2005). “How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?” Google’s Newsletter for Librarians. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/librariancenter/articles/0512_01.html

3. Sierra, T., Ryan J., and Wust, M. (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib. Available at http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/10/comment-page-1

Kochtanek, Matthews and Hirshon: Technology and Library Information Systems

Of the two readings, Kochtanek and Matthews (K & M) serves as a succinct survey of the development of Library Information Systems (LIS), principally over the past 50 years. It also gives a background on the accompanying technologies and other platforms that have developed along the way. Where K & M leave off, Hirshon’s well-written article, "Environmental Scan", takes us from where we stand now and shows us where the various technologies will lead us, and what the impact on the field and our society will be.

K & M traces the origins of the first library systems and follows that thread as it leads to the development of integrated library systems, online databases, web-based resources, digital library collections and e-books and e-journals. As they explain this rather detailed and complicated history, they offer broader backdrops to give context to these evolutions by naming the three stages of library automation and also the four eras of development of integrated library systems. One cannot discuss these without mentioning the technologies that sprang up along with them, and the article deals with hardware, software, and telecom developments, and goes into detail how the rise of the World Wide Web has brought many, if not all, of these disparate applications together. As the authors state, “Each of these application areas has had a different gestation and development period, the web as an access and distribution medium has served to weld these back together at the seams” (Kochtanek and Matthews, p.9).

The most gripping portion of Hirshon’s essay “Environmental Scan” is in the introduction where he cites the work of two futurists, Paul Saffo and Raymond Kurzweil. Saffo explains the pitfalls of trying to forecast the future, and, as Hirshon summarizes, “it is not the pace, but the simultaneity and cross-impact of curves that will make a forecast inaccurate,” (Hirshon, p. 3). Indeed, envisioning the future would seem like a fool’s errand, but that is exactly what Kurzweil attempts to do. He posits that the discovery rate of new technologies is on a dramatic uphill curve, and that the curve will only grow steeper over time. This leads him to make such claims as, “in another 15 years your life expectancy will keep rising every year faster than you’re aging,” (Hirshon, p.4). This is the age we are in, and Hirshon uses the futurist backdrop to navigate us through five areas in which technology will change the operations of the library in the near future: societal and economic issues, technological issues, education and learning issues, information content issues, and library leadership and organizational issues. Each of these articles lay the basic groundwork from which to understand where library information systems have come from and where they are going. For the novice entering the field, the two articles are indispensable.

My question for the group is whether they think Mullen Library falls under the bleeding edge, leading edge, in the wedge, or trailing edge category that K & M mention in terms of adapting to new technologies? Or, for the students who work in other local libraries, where do they think the library they work in falls?

References

Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch 1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems; Libraries Unlimited.

Arnold Hirshon (2008). “Environmental Scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.” NELINET, Inc. Retrieved from blackboard.cua.edu.