Critical Review - Maness: Web 2.0 and its Implications for Libraries

Maness, J. (2006.) Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology 3(2). Retrieved from: http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html

Maness, Assistant Professor and Faculty Director at University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries has written many articles in relation to libraries and Web 2.0.  He has an interest in computer mediated communication and virtual services in academic environments and how libraries can assist change within them (“Contributing Authors”, 2008, ¶10;“Faculty Profiles,” n.d., ¶ 9-17).  Maness put forward a definition and theory of “Library 2.0” in order to resolve the controversy surrounding the term and identified some of the implications for librarianship.  He deemed this essential for the library community to effectively plan for the application of any future web based services.  Maness uses several references to support his claim concerning the disagreement and/or confusion around the term “Library 2.0” and to identify the need for clarification.

Maness proposed that “Library 2.0” be defined as "the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections" (¶7).  Maness asserted that limiting the definition (to ”web-based” services) would avoid confusion and be more useful for future research and discussions.  Maness’s definition is not dissimilar to Holmbert, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg & Wilden-Wulff (2009) who used a “consensual crowd surfing approach” followed by a “co-word analysis” (p. 668) to define Library 2.0 as “interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social aspects, and technology and tools” (p. 678).  Maness’s definition could be described as more “user friendly”.

There are four elements Maness deems essential to Library 2.0 theory:

user centred - a collaborative approach between user and librarian.  A concept recognised by Casey and Savastinuk (2006, ¶3) “The heart of Library 2.0 is user-cantered change”.
a multi-media experience
socially rich
communally innovative (most importantly) - libraries continue to change and evolve with the community, finding new ways of delivering services allowing whole community to “seek, find and utilize information” (¶8).

Throughout the article Maness cites many references to support his ideas and/or claims and discusses some of the key Web 2.0 tools.  He not only presents the possibilities of Web 2.0 but also the barriers, whether it be acknowledging that while he believes it vital that libraries need to plan for future web based discoveries, it is difficult to foresee what the changes may be or conceding perhaps the biggest barrier to libraries, the shift of Librarian from creator/controller to collaborator/facilitator.

Unfortunately it does not appear Maness achieved his purpose of defining “Library 2.0”  In 2011 Crawford (2011, p. 60) stated “a concise definition of what Library 2.0 is or was … wasn’t feasible in 2006—and it isn’t feasible now”, while Fitzpatrick (as cited in Crawford 2011, p.60) stated “The panel [ALA 2009 Annual Conference, “Has Library 2.0 Fulfilled Its Promise?”] couldn’t exactly agree on what Library 2.0 was, let alone whether it’s fulfilled its promise.”  Whether or not the definition is still being debated does not deter from the fact that Library 2.0 has had an impact on libraries today and many of the ideas Maness put forth in 2006 have since become common place.  Video tutorials and IM chat reference are standard in many library services.  Libraries are active on Facebook and Twitter, they blog and promote their delicious and Flickr accounts.  Maness’s prediction that “the face of the library's web-presence in the future may look very much like a social network interface”(¶28) is near actuality with many libraries incorporating social media and tagging into their web OPACS and library websites.

However, as Jenny Levine (as cited in Crawford, 2011, p.59) states:

… Library 2.0 doesn’t really replace anything. Like so many library services, the opportunities these new tools afford us are in addition to everything we’re already doing, which causes problems, because we don’t get additional resources to implement them. To serve as many of your users as possible, you have to be in as many of the places where they are as possible.  … That means being out in your community physically and digitally, and that’s one of the pieces of L2 that I think was never adequately explained.

One important obstacle Maness overlooked was the digital divide.  Levine touched upon this above, Libraries need to have the resources to implement Web 2.0, and remote areas in particular simply do not have (internet connection and/or speed for example).  Therefore as advantageous as Web 2.0 technologies are, they should not be the main focus of Libraries.

References

Casey, M., & Savastinuk, C. (2006, January 09). Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library.  Library Journal. Retrieved December 05, 2011, from: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Contributing Authors. (2008, September/October). D-Lib Magazine, 14(9/10). Retrieved from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/authors/09authors.html

Crawford, W. (March-April, 2011). Library 2.0 five years later. Online, 35(2). p.58-60. Retrieved December 05, 2011, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=csu_au

Faculty Profiles. (n.d.). Retrieved from University of Colorado at Boulder’s website: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/facultyprofiles/public/profile.cfm?id=68

Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., & Widen-Wulff, G. (2009). What is library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 668-681. doi:10.1108/00220410910970294