Knowledge is created through conversation.
That’s a goal of the library as discussed in Participatory Networks The Library as Conversation produced by the Information Institute of Syracuse University for the ALA's Office for Information Technology Policy.
The paper, presented at the
What I found particularly fascinating in this paper, and why I recommend reading it, is that the authors begin their discussion with the premise that “libraries are in the conversation business”. Until now, none of the definitions of “library” I’ve studied have included this concept. The Institute observes, for example, that while brick-and-mortar libraries have exemplified this concept, i.e. speaker series, and book groups, their online systems, i.e. their catalogs, are one-way conversations. Participatory networks of Web 2.0 provide libraries with the opportunity for online conversations with their patrons.
The paper identifies, defines, and gives examples of the following characteristics of Web 2.0 : Social Networks (Flickr, The Alexandrian Public Library on MySpace); Wisdom of Crowds (LibraryThing, Wikipedia); Loosely Coupled APIs (YouTube); Mashups (ChicagoCrime); Permanent Betas (Google Labs); Software Gets Better the More People Use It (Amazon) and Folksonomies (PennTags).
Not to worry. I wasn’t familiar with all of these characteristics of Web 2.0 nor many of the sites listed. That’s what’s invaluable about this brief. While the authors define these Web 2.0 tools and give examples of them, they discuss these technologies relative to the concept of the library as a place of conversation.
Finally, one of the most exciting developments of participatory librarianship discussed in the paper is the reference blog. We know that face-to-face, IM, and chat reference transactions are, indeed, conversations. However, reference blogs would enable “multiple librarians and other users to be a part of a question-answering community. Reference done online creates artifacts of reference conversations: electronic files than can be cleaned of personal information and placed in a knowledge base and used as a resource for other users”. Wouldn’t it be rewarding to know that your initial reference question led to a discussion and an answer that ultimately became part of a library’s collection?
4 comments:
This is an interesting topic, and one that I think might scare some of the old-school librarians. What I mean by that is that one of the dangers of offering collaborative online reference services is that the individual librarian working in the face-to-face environment potentially becomes an endangered species. While on the upside, it lends itself to sharing more with less and building an incredible knowledge base that serves a larger population, a lot of more senior librarians I have spoken to seem nervous that technology is trying to run them out of business. I don't happen to agree with that point of view as I think technology can only enhance what we can provide to patrons, but I think that mindset is out there in some pockets of the profession.
I agree that library services are about conversations, and I am encouraged when I see librarians who take the time to delve a little deeper and make the reference transaction more meaningful for patrons by personalizing it in some way. I think we need more of this in addition to providing "unconventional" ways of delivering library services!
Thanks, Monica for your comment. Yes, I can see why this kind of reference blog would scare some librarians. However, as a library student expecting employment in this field, I have to believe that these technologies will provide us with more opportunities, more patrons and more conversations! Too bad some librarians think these kinds of Web 2.0/Library 2.0 services will run them out of business. It's just a matter of doing business differently.
Wow...great post about "conversations" and about doing business differently. This is important.
One collaborative reference service I've seen is called Government Information Online, with govt info librarians from 10-12 different schools sharing responsibility for chat and email reference. I love that idea of breaking down the traditional institutional barriers to deliver services and SHARE, which is a huge part of this reconception of the old "library."
Post a Comment