For my first foray into LSC 555 blogging, there are actually two readings under consideration; the title of this entry is actually heavily indebted to them, so to make sure to give credit where credit is due, the selections in question were:
Kochtanek, T. R., & Matthews, J. R. (2002). Ch 1: The Evolution of LIS and Enabling Technologies. Library Information Systems: From Library Automation to Distributed Information Access Solutions (pp. pp. 3-12 ). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited. Retrieved 8/29/2011 from http://blackboard.cua.edu.
Hirshon, Arnold. (2008). Environmental Scan: A Report on Trends & Technologies Affecting Libraries. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://blackboard.cua.edu.
The content of these two selections actually covers a pretty broad span of time and perspectives, and normally it might make more sense to look at them separately. However, in this instance, I found it appropriate to deal with these readings together because they complement one another: “The Evolution of LIS and Enabling Technologies” offers a discussion of the development of various LIS technologies up until this point in time, while “Environmental Scan” is literally a scan of the current technological/social/economic environment and its impact on library and information services. Briefly, you might summarize these readings as “How did we get here?” and “Where are we now?,” respectively.
Kochtanek and Matthews’ summary of LIS development, while it is perhaps more detailed than it needs to be, is fairly interesting, and instructive, particularly (I think) for younger information professionals. Those of us who have grown up using computers to access our library catalogs and getting automated messages about overdue books may sometimes forget that things were not always this way, or that there are libraries today without systems as elaborate as the WRLC’s ALADIN catalog. What particularly struck me was the great extent to which such systems have enabled circulation control – if you think about it, how difficult must it have been for librarians prior to library mechanization to keep track of overdue materials and enforce borrowing policies? Yet the ability to do just that is something that many of us may take for granted as part of the tools available to modern librarians.
This selection is also particularly useful and instructive in its discussion of the progression of LIS philosophy as well as LIS technologies. Kochtanek and Matthews deal with this development on two levels: first, the availability of these technologies to users, and second, the intent behind their design. Early computer systems tended to be very large, proprietary machines, making them prohibitively expensive for most libraries. Where such equipment was purchased, its expense kept the list of users extremely limited, and even then users did not directly access the mainframe’s processing power, instead using remote terminals. These early systems were used primarily for circulation control (since it was too expensive to develop library-specific software), meaning that they were used primarily ‘behind the scenes’(that is, not by library users/patrons). Today, of course, users/patrons are the primary focus of libraries, an incredible change which is important for us to consider. This change in the “target audience” of LIS is a result not only of a change of philosophy but also of changes in technology which allow such a philosophy to exist. The advent of microcomputers, turnkey (off-the-shelf) software, and finally personal computing allowed LIS to become more user-oriented. Today, we can expect users to have access to a wide variety of computing devices of various power, according to their needs; we can also expect that many of them have access to the World Wide Web, creating a demand for anytime/anywhere information resources. We, as librarians, are responsible for meeting at least part of that demand, to the greatest extent that our abilities allow. But here’s an important take-away that Kochtanek and Matthews have to offer: in the past, when information technology has failed or disappointed us, it has often been because we were focused on automating the system that already exists, rather than rethinking it. So when we think about using LIS to improve our users’ experience and access to knowledge, we have to consider whether we are simply cut-and-pasting our print systems into the computer, or whether we are actually considering different, more-innovative ways for LIS to accomplish the same tasks. But of course, that brings up a question to consider: What does this mean for traditional methods of organization? Are online catalogs such as ALADIN merely automations of a card system that already exists – outdated automations? Or do they actually take information retrieval to a new level? How can we use LIS to further innovate these types of organization systems?
Conveniently, this question leads us nicely into considering Arnold Hirshon’s report on the current information environment. This reading was not so much a progression as an overview, touching on a variety of aspects of our culture which are important for our consideration: the philosophy of the newest generation(s) coming into power (Gen Y and the Net Generation -- it is not always clear, either in this article or elsewhere, whether these are synonymous or no); the state of the economy and its effect on information technologies; the development of technology, generally speaking; usage of technology and e-resources; and the role of libraries, with special attention to how they function in the academic/university environment.
What I think we really want to take away from this report (and this ties in with the take-away from the last selection, also) is the many different ways in which LIS and other technologies are, in fact, changing the ways we approach information. For example: technology in many cases lowers the cost of doing business, for instance in the case of publications. When the cost of doing business is or approaches zero, this may change drastically the way in which we approach doing business…or the way we charge for doing business (Hirshon gives the example of movie theaters, which might charge for the experience or their concessions even though the cost for them to show a film is negligible). But then again, business is also affected by peer production. The existence of the World Wide Web means that we don’t necessarily have to be professionals or obtain any kind of recognition in order to make ourselves heard. I choose (or have been asked) to discuss library science on this blog. I’m technically an amateur, and it would probably be a fun adventure trying to find a journal or publisher to print my (informal) thoughts at this stage in my career; fortunately, all I have to do is create a free blogger account and begin typing. Or, if I felt like sharing information in a more structured format, I could edit a Wikipedia article on a relevant topic. Or create a website. The possibilities are endless, and not just for me, but for everyone. This must necessarily completely change the way many companies do business , and it does – Hirshon cites the example of Encyclopedia Brittanica, which will incorporate user knowledge into a dynamic, online encyclopedia. But it should change the way librarians do business, too, for a lot of reasons, some of which will be evident to any of us who have ever done online research and tried to sort out scholarly/professional sources of organization from amateur ones. It is also important for us to recognize the expectations of our users: information is ubiquitous, as is (in great part) access to information resources, and users will often expect libraries to provide similarly-universal access to our resources—a service accomplished through catalogs like ALADIN, or features such as CUA e-Journals…but as technology develops user expectations may increase.
And yet, here’s an interesting point to consider: the library as we traditionally know it is not necessarily a thing of the past. Although digital libraries, eJournals, and internet resources are becoming increasingly important, Hirshon notes that the Net Generation actually comes to the library looking to unplug from the internet/social networking/etc. Additionally, in a survey of 150 college/university libraries worldwide, 49% of respondents never used eBooks, and an additional 28% used eBooks less than one hour a week. Why? While 57% of participants simply didn’t know where to look, a reasonably 45% responded that they actually preferred traditional print formats. This presents an interesting question for discussion: what is it about traditional library spaces and formats which continues to interest even the Net Generation? And as a corollary to this, what can we as librarians do to ensure that that aspect or aspects of the library environment remain available, convenient and helpful to our users?
No comments:
Post a Comment