Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World

My second critique is of a 2009 article called "Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World" by Fred Heath from the Journal of Library Administration, 49: 5, 519 - 532

Fred Heath is Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas (UT) Libraries. His article argues that research libraries should confront the challenge of digital information resources and web-based discovery tools by embracing the technological tools of information discovery. He argues that libraries need to stay focussed on facilitating critical inquiry.

Heath begins his discussion by examining the impact of the expansion of the digital environment on the newspaper, music and book publishing industries, and how these industries have responded or, in most cases, not responded.

He also discusses the challenges faced by higher education and then outlines what UT is doing to respond to these challenges.

In discussing the challenges facing universities, Heath states that even ‘in higher education, the digital world can render irrelevant the physical, geographical aspect of higher learning’. Despite this, it is interesting to note that his discussion about UT’s activities is as much about preserving the physical aspects as it is about embracing digital technologies.

As an example, Heath talks about what is being done about library instruction and helping undergraduates to develop their critical inquiry. The initiatives are all face-to-face responses – courses taught by professors, and seminar rooms being built. Nowhere is there an example of library instruction being given via a Web 2.0 service, such as Skype or YouTube, or of the notion that courses can taught be online and off campus.

Other responses orientated around physical structure are partnering with other libraries to store resources, and being focussed when building collections.

The initiative that most uses a digital response to a digital challenge is getting librarians to understand that when students approach the reference desk, it is because the navigation systems in the library have failed. To support students’ self-reliance, the library’s website has become more user-friendly and interactive. Here we see the library using resources that would be considered Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 .

To me, there are two things that stand out in this article.

The first is that Health does not mention whether students were at any stage asked what they wanted or needed from the library. What he describes is not the ‘open, opinionated, participatory, personalised and very public learning’ landscape described by Pru Mitchell in her 2007 SLANZA Conference presentation, ‘Information Literacy Experts or Expats’ (2007, p4). Mitchell argues that there has been a shift in power in terms of learning to where ‘learners now participate in decision making, where instructional skills focus on questioning, listening and responding’ (2007, p.4).

Mitchell also quotes Lyn Hay’s Australian school libraries research which shows the gap between what students value from library services and what teachers and librarians think are important. The surveyed students rated access to computers as most important whereas teachers and librarians considered getting and using information and working independently most valuable (2007, p2). This demonstrates the importance of getting input from students when designing digitally-based library services.

The second striking thing about this article is that the notions of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are not mentioned. It’s almost as if Heath is writing in a void. Heath could have taken the Library 2.0 definition outlined by Jack Maness and used it as a framework to discuss the innovations at UT libraries.

In his 2006 article ‘Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries’, Maness discussed the four essential elements of Library 2.0 as being:

• It is user centric
• It provides a multi-media experience
• It is socially rich
• It is communally innovative

This framework could have been used by Health to explore his library’s journey – where it had been and where it still needed to go.

The most enlightening aspect of this article is that it a real-life example of how research library is facing the digital future and attempting to adapt. It also highlights, however, how far some libraries need to go in embracing concepts such as Web 2.0 and Library 2.0.


Reference list

Heath, F (2009), Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World, Journal of Library Administration, 49: 5, 519 - 532

Marness, J. (2006) Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries, Webology, 3(2), Article 25

Mitchell, P. (2007). Information literacy experts or expats? Presented at SLANZA 2007 Conference.