Libraries as service rather than resources
First post of the term for online class INFO 653: Digital Libraries. I wasn’t expecting much for this class, but based on the readings so far and the syllabus, it’s looking pretty exciting. Thinking about expanding on the service definition and into a discussion of service design for my term paper…
===
Apologizing in advance: I feel like such a poor library student for using Wikipedia here, but in the slurry that is the internet I’m having trouble finding a similar, more authoritative definition that communicates what I’m thinking — and interestingly enough it’s a very poorly cited article. I’m sure there’s something in business literature, but “service” is such a generic term that it’s tough to search for! That’s what I get for posting right before our weekly deadline, I suppose.
===
Before we define what “digital libraries” are, I believe it is essential to define first what “libraries” are — and in previous classes I’ve found this discussion often starts with what libraries are not. A common thread in defending libraries is that they’re not just repositories for books, etc. Thus, the first thing I would have I would have to say about digital libraries is that they are not just repositories for data. There is a greater level of service and deliberate organization than mere indexing and retrieval.
I would argue that at the core of libraries is service. Generally defined on WordNet, service (n) may be “work done by one person or group that benefits another” as well as “an act of help or assistance.”
In the economic sense, a service has 5 key characteristics: intangibility, perishability, inseparability, simultaneity, and variability. Libraries and librarians fulfill these characteristics in the following ways (the hairdresser example in the article makes these parallels a little more clear):
Intangibility — it is not the tangible book or computer system that is of value to library patrons, but the information or knowledge gleaned from that resource.
Perishability — Patrons develop an information need at a particular point in time; if they cannot satisfy that need within that time, the service is not of value to them.
Inseparability — Librarians provide expertise that renders them inseperable from the process of organization and retrieval of library information, whether or not they directly interact with patrons.
Simultaneity — As soon as patrons are exposed to the information that satisfies their need, the service interaction is complete.
Variability — Patrons’ information needs are unique to their domain knowledge, experience, and timing of the inquiry.
While semantics have clouded the meaning of “library” with definitions that are more apt for “repository” in many cases, service is at the heart of the value of libraries. Borgman’s 1991-92 workshop definition lists service as the primary, followed by “(2) an architecture; (3) a set of information resources, databases of text, numbers, graphics, sound, video, etc. and (4) a set of tools and capabilities to locate, retrieve and utilize the information resources available” (Borgman, 1999, p.233). She later states, “Libraries collect content based on the information needs of their user communities; the medium in which the content is captured is a secondary concern” (Borgman, 237).
This meshes well with Kuny & Cleveland’s premise that “Librarians provide another role in supporting resource discovery, one in which digital technologies play only a small role. This is in providing a ‘trusted’ service. This trust and authority is based upon librarians’ making choices, evaluating information as a part of collection development and with a thorough understanding of what users need. Librarians are do not only create pathfinders and guides for their users, they are the pathfinders and guides.” (Kuny & Cleveland, 1996, 5)
The CNN article referenced in the lecture notes describes librarians as “debate moderators, givers of technical support and community outreach coordinators” (Sutter, 2009). I would definitely agree with these as major characteristics of modern librarians — particularly “moderators,” not just of debates but of information provision in general. In online forums and chat rooms, moderators are those with authority and power to control the conversation. Likewise, librarians have the power to shape individual and group learning merely by provision or recommendation of one resource over another.
In the same article, a librarian from Ohio points out that “Some libraries are trying to gain an edge by focusing on the ‘deeply local’ material — the stuff that only they have” (Sutter, 2009). This is the same point used by many newspapers as they face potential obselesence in the face of the rapid pace of professional news networks (like CNN) and citizen social reporting (blogs, Twitter); it’s critical for both newspapers and libraries to focus on the unique local information and perspective they represent as community institutions. They have the potential to record and preserve local history that might otherwise get lost, as well as play a role in social change at a local level.
On the coattails of that, I’m skeptical of Coffman’s assertion in the Carnegie article (Akst, 2003) that libraries might effectively outsource their reference desks — now looking at the year in which it was written, it makes sense that he might make such a statement given the trend at the time. In IT, outsourcing has caused issues because of the language and cultural differences; I believe there is a push for customer support in particular to come “back home.” At the core of reference work is developing a report and deep understanding of the patron’s needs—which is likely to be inhibited by the differences inherent in global outsourcing. But at the same time, perhaps this could lead to beneficial cultural interaction and increased understanding, leading librarians and patrons to see problems in a new way and use resources that they might not otherwise consider.
One thing that struck me about quite a few of the readings was the dates (hovering around the turn of the millenium. While technology has advanced significantly in the past decade, we still face many of the same core challenges — using some points from the presidential report (2001) to summarize: subject/content representation, provenance, accuracy, scalability, interoperability, preservation, intellectual property, and usability. But it’s interesting to see that even in 2009, from the Google Books article, that digitization efforts are so riddled with errors that would be obvious to a moderately trained human eye. I think with the movement away from dependency on physical media, some of our problems with obselesence have been reduced, but there will always be issue of file formats. It’s always aggravating when I have old work that I’ve done that I can’t open anymore since the trial for the application I used to create it expired after the class ended :-/ Kuny & Cleveland state, “There are no preservation standards for digital information” (1996, p.8). There are more standardized and open formats than there were in 1996 (HTML, XML, a variety of image formats, and Adobe’s PDF spring to mind), but I do wonder if in the past 14 years we’ve come up with a “standard” for digital archiving of various types of work?
I just want to end on a quote that has already been discussed on the threads above, but I must say again that I find it the most concise and profound statement of this debate: “Technological progress has changed how libraries do their work, not why. … we would suggest that technology will not substantially alter the business of librarians—connecting people with information” (Kuny & Cleveland, 1996, 1).
===
References
Akst, D. (2003). The digital library: It’s future has arrived. Carnegie Reporter.
Borgman, C. L. (1999). What are digital Libraries — Competing Visions. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 227-243.
Kuny, T. & Cleveland, G. (1996). The Digital Library: Myths and Challenges. IFLA Conference paper.
Nunberg, G. (2009). Google’s Book Search: A disaster for scholars. The Chronicle of Higher Education. August 31, 2009.
President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (2001). Digital Libraries: Universal Access to Human Knowledge – Report to the President.
Sutter, J.D. (2009). The future of libraries, with or without books. CNN.com.
