Library 2.0: The Concept
Library 2.0 is vague, although although I think everyone can agree that the concept is well founded. Libraries need to keep up with technological trends to stay relevant. Blyberg quotes Sarah Houghton’s idea behind Library 2.0, “The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought.” Library’s need to use new technologies to achieve the concept Houghton has defined as Library 2.0.
The most interesting aspect of Library 2.0 is how this concept will be translated into actual change in the library and information science realm. This will be dependent upon how library and information professionals interpret this concept as it relates to their libraries’ specific circumstances. Because there is so much room in this concept for interpretation and variation in implementation, the concept of Library 2.0 is dynamic and exciting.
What Library 2.0 Means to Me
There is more to Library 2.0 than only technology upgrades and keeping libraries relevant in the eyes of users, patrons, and possible patrons. Yes staying relevant to patrons and their needs is important and all libraries should pursue that goal with great haste. However, there is an implied, inherent message of the need for change with how libraries provide services and operate, and even their own organizational perception.
The theme of change riddles this week’s readings. Blyberg discusses non-authoritative data and the usefulness of it, where libraries need to change their mindset so they may offer this type of information to their patrons, where user/patron generated information is hosted by the library. Casey and Savastinuk wrote, “the heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change,” where this is a model of “constant and purposeful change” and the ship is partially steered by patron contributions and needs. Miller and Chad frame Library 2.0 as the way libraries can evolve to deliver information and research services in ways their patrons expect. Considering these and the myriad of other descriptions and conceptualizations, I interpret Library 2.0 to mean great changes in how information professionals conceptualize what a library is and how this affects a library’s future.
What do you think? Comments are welcome …