Chad and Miller make some valid arguments. They are right that librarians need to think a great deal about what their patrons want and what will make information retrieval more efficient for those users. If libraries can get away from the expensive operating systems they use now, all the better. Chad and Miller’s enthusiasm, however, is a little suspicious because they seem too eager to move ahead with new technologies without thinking thoroughly through the possible negative as well as positive effects on the library; especially the physical library. They offer no quantitative evidence, such as statistics or in-depth studies, of what library patrons really want out of their library, but make assumptions about the desires of library users. Their suggestions about partnering with corporate entities like Amazon are disturbing as well because it is not particularly well thought through especially in terms of what corporations would want in return in such a partnership. These omissions, combined with the fact that Chad and Miller are employees of a computer company that could stand to gain from Library 2.0 technology, should give librarians pause to consider Chad and Miller’s motives.
Ultimately, Chad and Miller’s article is speculative. It wisely doesn’t seek to provide any solid answers, it merely attempts to open a dialogue with librarians about the future of their libraries. Their motives are some what suspect and their enthusiasm for future seems premature, the debate indeed has merit. Credit should be given to Chad and Miller for bringing this topic into the open and insisting on its importance. It is essential for librarians to find ways to make the library a vibrant and relevant place, and this discussion will only help in that endeavor. Despite the sloppiness of Chad and Miller’s presentation, this is a conversation that must continue. Hopefully other information professionals and librarians take up Chad and Miller’s challenge but will bring more nuanced and thoughtful arguments forward to discuss Library 2.0.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with you that this paper is valuable for opening a dialogue between suppliers and librarians, and challenging librarians to think (not that they weren't thinking before of course). I think that is the best thing about this paper.
Good points! Chad and Miller bring up a motivating topic that worth it to examine by Library staff in a plausible and rational way.
Ten Points for using the word sloppiness! I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, especially when you comment on the assumption that all patrons want new services. That is a LARGE assumption to make and yet, it is something to keep in mind. An excellent starting point for discussion
I really liked the way that you worded your conclusion -- A+ for your wording and sentence construction. I think that is the English major coming out in me! I agree with how you highlighted that Talis didn't discuss the terms of agreement between its system, Amazon and Google (in my paper, I focused on the privacy implications of this, but I also think that there are different marketing implications too). That is not to say, though, that libraries should not consider the possibilities offered by new technologies!
I agree that the idea of libraries getting into bed with corporations is rather scary. Perhaps its the extremist in me coming out, but I just can't help but imagine a world in which you're not allowed to have that brand new book in the library because we want to encourage people to buy it if they want it right away or you cannot have that journal article about the ill effects of soda pop because your journal database is being sponsored by coca cola. While libraries need to think about the financial and practical issues we still cannot forget that we serve a specific clientèle and perhaps it is okay to not be everything for everyone and instead do the best we can for our users.
Good job!
Hey Rachel,
You raise several good points. I also thought it was weird that Amazon and Google are mentioned so frequently. Hooking up with corporatations has major implications - and the article did not touch on one potential negative of this outcome.
I thought it was interesting that Chad and Miller initially mention the possibility of posting information from "an online bookstore" in order to compensate for the library's inadequate interlibrary loan program, but later only refer to Amazon. Why not link up with LOCAL bookstores (independent AND corporate)? Why ship things all over the planet?
The constant references to Amazon and Google made me wonder if these companies were already sponsors of Talis' platform. Or that maybe Talis' platform was modeled after these successful websites.
I also was shocked that the only solution provided for improving the interlibrary loan system was to link up with a corporate website in order to encourage patrons to buy books rather than wait to borrow them. What?!? Why not try to improve the existing interlibrary loan system so that it comes closer to meeting Amazon's fulfillment system? A suggestion to improve the existing interlibrary system would have been more useful, and less intentionally shocking.
That said, I do think Chad and Miller have the library's best interests at heart. The internet has made a major impact on how people expect to access information. We do need to figure out how to best implement Library 2.0 in order to remain relevant to the digital natives. However, not everyone will want our systems to change (people resist change - especially older users who don't like computers). We need to think our changes through in order to satisfy all our users, in order to maintain the authority of our resources, and in order to avoid "jumping into bed" with corporations and releasing Pandora's box.
(And yes, this post means that I've finally finished my essay. Woo hoo! Thanks for your pep talk!)
Hey Rachel. Certainly agree with your conclusions... I also find it hard to use a clearly commercially biased paper to make key decisions about anything!
Post a Comment