The videos of the Belgrade lectures are now loaded on the University of Belgrade Library’s YouTube channel.

The second day’s presentation was the more interesting topic and a better presentation overall, so I am going to highlight it first.  A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is here and the playlist for the second lecture is embedded below:

The first day’s presentation was titled From Academic Library 2.0 to (Literature) Research 2.0.  A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is located here and the playlist is embedded below:

I look forward to any feedback you might have on either presentation.

As mentioned in my previous post, my first Belgrade lecture focused on the concept of Research 2.0.  The second lecture focused on Scholarly Identity 2.0, which is increasingly important because of the wealth of online identity information created by Research 2.0.

The Scholarly Identity Matrix below is adapted from a general identity matrix concept pioneered by the founders of ClaimID. It is meant to display the different types and components of a researcher’s online identity.

The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model below displays how the different components from the Matrix fit together.

The black text is content types. The blue are the characteristics of identity these content types best represent. The green is who is responsible for managing this information. The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model takes the series of concept models one step farther, but with a slightly different twist.

The spectrum is more specific than in past models with one end being entirely user-generated content (UGC) and the other traditional scholarly communication. My hypothesis is that scholarly identity online, or Scholarly Identity 2.0, is a combination of these two information types held together by a unique identifier. For example, the combination verifies not just topical expertise through peer-review of articles, but also personality verified by LinkedIn recommendations.

Please share your thoughts on the accuracy of this model in the comments below or on FriendFeed.

The below presentation covers each quadrant of the Matrix culminating in the Concept Model as a summary.

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.

Title: Toward Academic Library 2.0: Development and Application of a Library 2.0 Methodology

Authors: Michael C. Habib

Issue Date: 17-Nov-2006

Publisher: School of Information and Library Science

Abstract: Recently, librarians have struggled to understand their relationship to a new breed of Web services that, like libraries, connect users with the information they need. These services, known as Web 2.0, offer new service models, methods, and technologies that can be adapted to improve library services. Additionally, these services affect library users’ information seeking behaviors, communication styles, and expectations. The term Library 2.0 has been introduced into the professional language of librarianship as a way to discuss these changes. This paper works to establish a theoretical foundation of Library 2.0 in academic libraries, or Academic Library 2.0.

URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1901/356

Available for download: http://mchabib.com/masterspaper.pdf

__
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the paper. Please leave feedback in the comments. Thanks.

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

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

I developed the above model for a paper I wrote for INLS 342: Academic Libraries Seminar. This is very much a work in progress. I hope to explore this area further for my Master’s Paper.

The paper was titled Defining Academic Library 2.0. However, in it I argue for a narrower definition of Library 2.0 than the broader definitions proposed by Michael Casey and Michael Stephens. My narrower definition is as follows:

The application and adaptation of the Web 2.0 model to the library environment (both virtual and physical).

Consequently, the above model proposes a way to look at the libraries role in students lives in a Web 2.0 world.

Below is a slightly edited excerpt from my paper:

One approach to adapting Web 2.0 technologies to academic library services is to examine how these technologies already fit into student life and then determine the library’s role in this picture. Figure 2 introduces one conceptual framework that applies this method. This model analyzes the libraries’ position as a physical place in student life and then draws parallels with libraries’ possible position as a virtual place. The model is based on the concept that most of student life is divided between the social and the academic and that physical libraries have traditionally provided a unique location that mixes the two. A more precise model would show a spectrum between social and academic places with libraries falling near the middle. At one end is the strictly academic formal classroom. Here the professor is an authority to the student. At the opposite end is a party, a purely social occasion. Libraries have traditionally provided a place where students could collaborate on school work without the pressure of being watched by an authority figure, thus allowing them to socialize while they work. Of course, this space also provided students with whatever research materials and reference assistance they might need. Towards this end, librarians have traditionally tried to maintain strict patron confidentiality so as to keep the library a safe haven from authority. Furthermore, many academic libraries now provide popular materials collections to provide residential students with materials for pleasure reading, thus further blending the line between social and academic space. Recent trends in academic libraries have moved closer to blending this line by adding coffee shops, WiFi access and Information Commons. If one accepts that the physical library provides students with this blended environment, then one might ask, “How might the library provide a similar virtual space?” To find an answer to this question, this conceptual model creates a parallel spectrum describing a student’s virtual life. At the academic end of the spectrum, lies course management software such as Blackboard. Similar to the classroom, this space is controlled by the professor and has the same authority structure. On the social end of the spectrum, is Facebook. Students traditionally think of this as a safe social place devoid of authority figures. This is demonstrated by the fact that students have recently been punished for information they post to Facebook. To examine this phenomenon, one need only Google “facebook” and “discipline”. Stutzman’s research demonstrates this feeling of safety (2005; 2006). Given this spectrum, what virtual place might the library provide for students? One possibility would be virtual group study rooms. Such a place might provide the tools to enable students to collaborate remotely and asynchronously on course projects. This space might also provide resources and links to live reference help to assist students in their work. This place would be different from Blackboard because professors would not be able to review students’ discussions. This proposal is just one possibility; hopefully this conceptual framework suggests others. This conceptual framework only suggests one way to examine how academic libraries might apply Web 2.0 concepts to their mission. Another way is to examine what data academic libraries have available.

To learn more about my vision for Academic Library 2.0, you can view a copy of the accompanying presentation here (.pdf)

library 2.0web 2.0 academiclibrary20