The above is an evolution of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models developed for my Master’s Paper. While the original model primarily focused on academic library services for students, the new model focuses on services for researchers.

Like in the original models, the top represents communication spaces grounded in physical space, while the bottom mirrors this in the online realm.

Two ends of the spectrum are informal communications and formal communications. My argument is that Research 2.0 falls somewhere between these extremes.  I developed the model for the presentation below.

(Update: A video of the presentation is located here.)

This model is meant to capture Research 2.0 as concerns scholarly communication and not research conducted through 2.0 methods such as Galaxy Zoo.

I am eager to receive feedback on how well this model represents the concept of Research 2.0.

• Where is it limited?
• Where is it right? Wrong?
• Please feel free to leave comments below (or on FriendFeed)

I had the opportunity to revisit my concept models and develop this variation when preparing for recent lectures hosted by the University of Belgrade Libraries with support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development and the Serbian library consortium KoBSON. While there, I also had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Technical Sciences Library and the National Library of Serbia; both of which are working on a number of interesting projects.

The first of these lectures is above, the second lecture (and another new model) will follow in a separate post that explores the concept of Scholarly Identity 2.0.

I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic,  at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.

• Nomads at last – Economist.com
  Special report on how wireless is effecting culture. It is a great report covering a wide range of related topics. Maybe we gave up on Workperch too quickly? Complete with mentions of libraries as third places.
  (tags: wireless mobile culture nomads workperch economist)

I applaude John’s effort to approach criticism with dialogue and agree with many of his conclusions. As an institution, libraries have a well established history as central repositories of physical, and now digital, collections. In my last post, I pointed out how we need to transition our thoughts of library as place to the digital world. However, John reminds me that the place is only important in so much as it meets the needs of our user communities.

To me, libraries are much more than collections, but instead represent a broader set of ideals related to universal access and intellectual freedom. As far as I am concerned libraries will live on as vital institutions as long as we embrace these ideals. John asks:

I agree on both points, especially with the ““Don’Â’t expect kids, seniors, and everyone else to trudge downtown”” part. But let me ask you this, is there any reason why a new library initiative couldn’Â’t encompass all those things? Why not subsidize wifi hot-spots around town that default to the library web page when a user first logs on? If you don’t have the money, raise it. Why not have our libraries represented on planning commission boards so that we can push for ubiquitous broadband access? Why the hell are we not the ones spear-heading these efforts?

All of those suggestions appeal to the ideals of universal access that I previously mentioned. Whenever I visit a new town, the first thing I assess about the public library is its location. I ask, “Is it accessible to those who need it most?” Oftentimes the answer is no. Contemporary information technologies offer new opportunities to distribute access points in new and valuable ways. And to answer John’s last question, I sure as heck would rather see librarians leading these initiatives than other interest groups. One of the reasons I entered this profession is so I would have a platform to get on local technology boards, school boards, and the like. I see our profession as a calling to help people connect with the information and knowledge they need to live fulfilling lives. We have a strong history of professional ethics and public service that we need to apply to these new initiatives.

John states, “The problem is that libraries are not typically aggressive beasts.” He then discusses a number of places we need to be aggressive. It seems that traditionally our value has been largely accepted without argument. As defenders of intellectual freedom, we should wonder why that is. Isn’t increasing criticism in many ways due to a more informed public? As defenders of intellectual freedom don’t we recognize the value of looking at both sides of an issue. Even if we are right, it is usually helpful to embrace criticism as an opportunity to reflect and improve. One of the ways we can become aggressive is to meet criticisms head on instead of going on the defense.

All this said, it is also important to attack these particular criticisms head on in the way Michael Stephens and Sarah Houghton have. In this case, it is clear that many of the points in the original critique were unfair to the Lawrence Public Library.

I look forward to seeing other responses to John’s essay.

A few days ago, Peter Bromberg of Library Garden posted a version of an essay called “Library as Place”. I had the good fortune to meet Peter at Library Camp a few weeks ago, and I wholeheartedly agree with the arguments of his essay. However, I feel it is important that we, as librarians, look beyond the walls of the library when discussing library as place. We need to expand our vision to include digital library as place. We are already doing this implicitly by incorporating social tools such as blogs and wikis into our websites. However, by explicately acknowledging this phenomenon, we can utilize what we already know about the physical library as place when building online communities. In fact, I originally created my Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model to demonstrate the parallels between physical and virtual library places. It was only after completing the model that I took the additional step of recognizing the virtual library places as Library 2.0.

When discussing library as place, Peter brings in the concept of “third place”. It is exactly this version of physical library as place that my model hopes to parallel in the virtual world. Peter explains:

By our very nature we offer people a “third place” (not home, not work) where they can come to explore, imagine, think, learn, play, and reflect. Our function as a “third place” has never been more important to our continued health and relevance. If libraries are to survive and thrive we must redouble our efforts and refocus our energies to ensure that we are not only “third places” but destinations of choice.

Taken in a different context, isn’t this exactly what we are trying to transform our web sites into? MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr are wonderful examples of the online third places that people spend their time. What is different about the virtual world is that it is easier to incorporate the library into other third places. For example, if a patron is on your library’s MySpace page, then it could be argued that they are both at MySpace and your Library.

For those who are having trouble conceptualizing of the web as a place, lets look at the example of Second Life instead. As a 3D virtual world, Second Life is more obviously a place. The Second Life Library 2.0 is also the most obvious example of digital library as third place. If a patron is at their house on their computer in Second Life at Library 2.0, where are they? If they are focused enough, they are at the Second Life Library 2.0. Where we are is often more mental than it is physical. By embracing this concept, we will be able to build more compelling physical and virtual places. How might we go about this? Peter asks the following:

Why would someone in our community choose to spend their time here rather than somewhere else? Related questions might be: What does the library look like, smell like, feel like, and sound like? What do our signs communicate? What kind of environment are we offering to the community and how do library staff contribute to the creation of a friendly, welcoming environment?

Outside of smell, couldn’t we apply all of these questions to our websites? To conclude, the next time you find yourself discussing “library as place”, please ask how the discussion would apply to the online world.

Technorati tags: libraryasplace library2.0 secondlife thirdplace academiclibrary20

I have updated the original Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model. The new version aims to maintain the simplicity of the original, while adding a few examples and using more precise language. Also worth noting is that the line separating the physical and virtual environments is now dotted to signify the artificial nature of this boundary.

This model presents a view of how students might view the library as place in relation to their academic and social lives. It is at this intersection that I propose Library 2.0 has begun to materialize. The primary goal of the model is to encourage brainstorming over how we can develop virtual environments that will fit into students’ lives. However, I would argue that new collaborative spaces in the physical environment could also be viewed as part of L2 in so much as they are responses to changing learning styles that are partially brought on by the social nature of Web 2.0 tools. In this way, a definition of L2 that focuses on Web 2.0 might include some innovative services in the physical environment. This said, it is my belief that L2 is primarily useful as a concept for developing new online tools. To learn more about this model, you can check out the post accompanying the first model here. The comments and links at the bottom of that page will help guide one through the discussions of the original model.

I have also created a more detailed version of the model. In this version the boundary between physical and virtual has vanished. Furthermore, this model includes interaction types as well as places. Instead of focusing on exact tasks such as shaking hands (physical) or commenting (virtual), I have looked at interactions in a broader way. At this point, the key is a little confusing on the model, so please use the revised key posted below the model. However, the basic goal is to get people thinking about designing virtual and physical places according to the types of social interactions our patrons will be having in those environments. You will also notice that ALL of the interactions mentioned occur in both the physical and virtual places. Of course we will be seeing more places inhabiting both physical and virtual as well. For example, virtual group study rooms might supplement our physical study rooms.

The scale at the bottom of the model highlights some of the key spectra that lie between a student’s social and academic lives. Again, it is my argument that the library inhabits a space somewhere in the middle ground between these extremes.

I am still working on these models and final drafts will be included in the second part of my Master’s Paper. I am also developing a model to describe Library 2.0 in general. I should have the paper done relatively soon and will post a link to it. Furthermore, the structure of the paper should work well for filling in the wiki that I proposed here.

As always, I encourage feedback. You are welcome to leave comments here or on your own blog. If you are linking to the image on Flickr, please link to this post as well, so that your contribution to the discussion will be included on this page. Thanks.

Technorati tags: library 2.0 library-20 library2.0 L2 web 2.0 web2.0 academic libraries academiclibrary20

Again, thanks to Michael Stephens for pointing my model out to the readers of Tame The Web. Since his post, my model has been viewed over 300 times. Over 100 readers continued on to my blog to view the post. So far I have found three other blog entries about it. I would like to share my responses to each of these four posts. I will address them in the order the were discovered.

1. Tame the Web: Michael liked “the blend of technology, space and people!” I wish I could have stated it so succinctly. It is about where people live and work and how they interact in those spaces.

2. Rick L. Fought at The Bailey Blog posted about the model asking his readers, “What do you think of his blending of the library and technology?” What I like best is that this appears to be the blog for librarians at the Bailey Library, Hendrix College. This demonstrates that they are atarting to build these spaces for their librarians. I notice they have a wiki as well.

3. Peta at Innovate noticed the ??? and posed the central question the model was meant to get people thinking about: “Ok, what else goes below the line in the green Libraries area?” This is exactly the kind of brainstorming I hoped to facilitate. How can this model get us thinking about what new services we should provide? To see some of her answers, you can view her post here.

4. Jennifer of Life as I Know It argues that many Academic libraries identify solely with the academic side of the spectrum. When I made the model, I was trying to explore the virtual side of things. I am now thinking it might also be a helpful tool for explaining new services in the physical library. She states:

I think many academic libraries identify solely with the academic part of the college experience – and this might account for some of the hesitation in adopting social software. Often if something doesn’t support the academic mission of the college, it gets vetoed. However, it would be difficult to argue that libraries are not social spaces – just social spaces in which academic endeavors take place.

Technorati tags: library 2.0 academiclibrary20