"Library 2.0: revolution or evolution?" by Tom Kwanya ... [et al.]

Now that I look over the syllabus again, I hadn't even realize that this reading echoed the sentiments expressed by John C. Dvorak that I mentioned in a previous posting ... Namely, that the current changes in our information-gathering environment should not be seen as something utterly brand new and distinct from what has come before (i.e. "revolutionary"), but instead a natural progression and "evolutionary" step which builds upon - rather than completely tears down and replaces - the successful and time honored strategies of the past:

On the other hand are those who feel that these changes are not unique and should be dealt with in the same way libraries have handled myriad environmental and technological changes over the centuries ... Libraries need to offer traditional services more efficiently and new services which appeal to those comfortable with new ways of accessing information (Casey and Savastinuk 2007).


This paper considers Library 2.0 as the embodiment of the changes currently witnessed in libraries and librarianship and discusses the big question on whether it represents an evolutionary or revolutionary transformation of the library profession and/or institution.

The article further goes on to point out that the term "Library 2.0" can be seen as a derogatory term that is "deriding today's libraries and librarians as rigid and unchanging," and that its use can "[create] division where none is necessary" ... Again, there are people within the library profession who are using such terminology to advocate an "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy that - for lack of a better term - bashes the traditional library methods as useless and obsolete. As the author points out, this is unnecessarily confrontational, and fosters ill-will towards those who simply want to improve the current library environment with modern information-gathering tools.

Furthermore, I agree that the adoption of new social-networking tools within the library field "do not constitute novel approaches"; the authors use the example of email as "passing information from source to information" which is still fundamentally identically to sending a letter via snail mail or even having a face-to-face dialogue at the reference desk with a librarian. Perhaps someday we'll get to the point where a would-be patron can simply "download" his brainwaves to a central processing unit and have his question answered without moving a single muscle - as crazy (and appealing?) as that might sound, it's still the same basic premise of "passing information" back and forth. No revolutionary change there, just one more evolutionary step on the scale.

I like the words used by the authors when describing this argument for "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary" ... It is a "refinement of what libraries have been making available to their patrons for generations," and that it "complements rather than replaces the existing approaches" [emphasis mine]. This helps get across the idea that libraries are simply continuing to do what they do best (i.e. helping their patrons find the information that they are looking for), only that the methods are changing and evolving to better suit the current information seekers' needs.

As I've stated before, I don't feel that a full-blown "revolution" is taking place here (either within the library field or on the web); people certainly need to evolve and "change with the times," as it were, but that is a natural progression that should be recognized and embraced by all ... Introducing terms like "Web 2.0" and "Library 2.0" simply confuses the matter, in my opinion.