The following are critical reviews of four articles written by professionals with exemplary careers in their field of expertise. Roxanne Missingham and Fred Heath are both library professionals while Paul Anderson and Moira Levy are computer scientists. Levy has also an advanced degree in knowledge management. While Anderson’s article concentrates on Web 2.0 application on libraries, Levy focuses on Web 2.0 and knowledge management. Heath’s article expresses optimism in library’s future in a digital world while Missingham reports on libraries’ role in promoting free and quality information through collaboration.

Web 2.0 and the Librarian

The following review is based on Paul Anderson’s editorial, ‘All That Glitters is not Gold-Web 2.0 And the Librarian’ published in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Anderson is a technical editor and a computer scientist with over twenty years experience working in computing both in academia and industry. Anderson tackles the question of what Web 2.0 is as he proposed a framework for analysis of this much asked question in the information world. Termed as Library 2.0, the editorial touches on the potential impact of Web 2.0 from within the library community. Because of lack of consensus, Anderson calls for an agreed definition of Library 2.0 and encourages librarians to engage in the development of libraries-based Web 2.0 services. This review will discuss the important issues in the editorial. In particular, it will concentrate on Web 2.0 as viewed by Anderson, his proposed framework for analysis of the subject, and his analytical contribution on Library 2.0-Web 2.0’s applications on library services.

Anderson (2007) asserts that public users’ expectations go with the rapidly changing technology-rich environment. He specifically cites as an example the Amazon’s book delivery process compared to the much slower inter-library loan process. Anderson (2007) claims that although speedy delivery is an important feature of Amazon’s services, it is not due to Web 2.0 function. Thus, he points out a wrong assumption of the scope and influence of Web 2.0, a term that no one really knows as there has been lack of agreement among writers about the subject. Despite of efforts of some individuals, definitions of Web 2.0 vary, with some focusing on the technology and others on the user (Murley, 2008). As a result, Abram (2005, p.45) humorously ended up with this definition: “Web 2.0 is just the title of a conversation. There is no standard (at least not just a single one). We can all participate.”

Because of this confusion about web 2.0, Anderson (2007) proposes three aspects of his framework for analysis and for discussion based on his JISC Technology and Standards Watch report. The first aspect includes the visible “surface” consisting of social software applications such as You Tube, Flickr, My Space, Bebo, and Facebook ; the second aspect consists of the Six Big ideas from Tim O’Reilly (2005) original paper on the subject matter; the final of Anderson’s framework includes the web technologies and standards that include XML, AJAX, Flash, etc.(Anderson, 2007). Anderson’s layered framework approach combines both the users’ perspective as well as the technical dimension. The visible surface and the second aspect should serve the users point of view, while the second and third aspects obviously deal with the technical perspectives of Web 2.0. This proposal by Anderson should placate both advocates of technology and users on Web2.0 alike. It also conforms to the suggestion by Bechina & Ribiere (2009) that web 2.0 should be seen as the convergence of two trends- technological trends and social dimensions.

Anderson (2007) discusses Web 2.0 and its impact within the Library community, termed by both critics and advocates as 'Library 2.0’. The term is believed to have been first used by Michael Casey in his blog Library Crunch (Stephens, 2007). However, like Web 2.0, Library 2.0 is also a contentious issue. Crawford (2006, p.4), compiled the diversity of different perspectives (sixty-two views and seven definitions, quotations from at least thirty-six librarian bloggers, and his own commentary) of what commentators think about Library 2.0 -  it is about “the technology, people, or revolution in the ways we think about and provide library services, or nothing new, that librarians have always evolved to meet the changing needs of library users and adopted new technology to support library services”. Because of this wide range of views, Anderson (2007) emphasizes an urgent need to have an agreed definition about the subject. However, with the issue of Web 2.0 (which Library 2.0 relies on as viewed by technologists) still not resolved, a call on a final definition of Web 2.0 would probably be more appropriate. Critics like Crawford (2006, p31) may just stick with their argument that “there is no need to put a name to discuss, demonstrate and build real-world uses of the new tools, techniques, and philosophies as most of the philosophies are not new.” It is doubtful if such a heed for a uniform definition of Library 2.0 will succeed. The article concludes with a call for librarians to engage, have more influence and say in the development of new type of technologies that would be useful in the library community and “to be prepared to experiment and to take risks”(Anderson 2007, p.196).

The title matches the chaotic nature of the much discussed terms Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. Overall, Anderson’s editorial has provided this reader a glimpse of the potential applications of the terms and the controversies that surround them.  Due to their popularity in the library community, different literature abound,  making the public get more confused as they read more about them. Indeed, Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, despite their glitters, are quite contentious. 

References

Abram, S. (2005). Web 2. Huh?! Library 2.0, Librarian 2.0, Information Outlook, 9(12), 44-46.

Anderson, P. (2007). All that glitters is not gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195-198. DOI:10.1177/096100607083210

Bechina, A.A.A., & Ribiere, V. (2009). Is the Emergence of Social Software a Source of Knowledge  Management Revival? Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 56-65.

Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”. Cites & Insights, 6(2)1, 1-32. Retrieved from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf.

Murley, D. (2008). What Is All the Fuss about Library 2.0?. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 : Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

Stephens, M. (2007). Foreword, in Michael E. Casey & Laura C. Savastinuk, Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service, xv.

Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World 

Fred Heath’s Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World was published in the July 2009 issue of Journal of Library Administration. According to the University of Texas (UT) website, Fred Heath has more than 30 years experience in academic librarianship and is currently the Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, a position he has held since 2003. Heath’s article concentrates on the transformation of research libraries as they try to adapt in the ever changing information technology. His article highlights the tremendous effects of the web on the newspapers, music industry, book publishing, higher education, and on libraries. Despite of the pessimism brought by the web on these fields, Heath (2009, p.526) claims that libraries may survive “by doing things they do best”. He then discusses the activities being undertaken by his organisation-University of Texas to meet the challenges of the future. This review will focus on the important issues regarding Heath’s vision of research libraries in a digital world.

The first half of Heath's article concentrates on the enormous impact of the web on the newspapers, music industry, book publishing, and higher education - many companies from these industries had ceased operations because of the web. He also discusses what survival strategies these industries are implementing as well as their actions to take advantage of the situation. Some of the disruptive changes he portrays, to name a few, include: in the music industry, artists could just release their internet albums; in book publishing, printed books sales declined while e-books sales has dramatically increased; the newspapers have ceased as the major source of news and advertising and as a result, a lot are closing down; in higher education, distance education courses have became so popular. In all of the industries mentioned, there is an obvious ongoing common trend - the elimination of intermediaries to gain information made possible by the web. To emphasise further a scenario that may as well be applicable to libraries, Heath (2009, p.523) cites the world of learning of Louis Rosetto, editor of Wired magazine, where there are “no gatekeepers and no navigators needed”.

Despite of all the gloom caused by the web in the above mentioned industries, the other half of the article discusses Heath’s optimistic view for the survival and the future of academic libraries. He illustrates his points by taking into account recent directions and activities undertaken by UT. Heath (2009) argues that libraries will survive because they are places where critical thinking is developed and questions are answered with the guidance and help of instruction librarians, administration and faculty alike. In other words, the environment a library can offer is vital to effective learning. In addition, UT’s reference librarians developed an efficient and transparent information navigation system to help students in their quest for knowledge.  UT’s library spaces are also being transformed into an “interactive meeting space, rather than storage facilities for analog formats” (Heath, 2009, p528). This is in conformance with Duderstadt (2009) observation that libraries are now built not as repositories but rather as a “knowledge commons”- a common place, where users accessed digital knowledge on remote servers. Heath (2009) emphasises the need to have a world class collections to attract scholars and researchers around the world as well as services that would facilitate the easy access of information for students. Heath (2009) also suggests that libraries should move to facilitate effective inquiry by employing more advanced tools such as Google Scholar. Finally, Heath (2009) considers libraries as institutional repositories where history is preserved.

Heath’s account gives the reader an overview of the activities and directions of industries that have been affected by the web. In particular, the activities of UT’s research libraries give the reader a taste of what research libraries and librarians have become. However, by concentrating his presentation with those undertaken by UT, the reader could end up wondering what strategies other libraries are implementing, especially smaller ones, to wither the transformational changes brought about by technological advancement. The title starts with the phrase 'documenting global conversation'. At first glimpse, some readers might think the article would consider inputs from different stakeholders such as students, academics and librarians globally, or about the consensus of the directions libraries are heading into. Heath’s article proves otherwise. For interested readers, such a report could be found in an article moderated by Hay and Todd (2010), where based on gathered information and viewpoints from different stakeholders, they posited sixteen recommendations as essential elements in creating sustainable futures for school libraries.

References

Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the global conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration, 49(5), 519-532.

DOI: 10.1080/01930820903090896

Duderstadt, J. (2009). Possible Futures for the Research Library in the 21^st Century. Journal of Library Administration, 49(3), 217-225. DOI:10.1080/01930820902784770

Todd, R. & Hay, L. (2010). School Libraries 21C: The Conversation Begins. Scan, 29(1), 30-42. Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/schoollibraries/

assets/pdf/21cexsum.pdf

Web 2.0 and Knowledge Management

The subject of the following review is Moria Levy’s article, Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management published in the Journal of Knowledge Management in 2009 (Vol. 13, Issue 1). Levy is the founder and CEO of ROM Knowledgeware, a knowledge management solutions firm in Israel. She holds a Master’s degree in Computer science and a PhD in knowledge management. She has 25 years work experience in the computer field, and twelve years experience in knowledge management. Levy’s article is divided into three main parts. The first part concentrates on Web 2.0. She then went on to explain Enterprise 2.0, the application of Web 2.0 on organizations. The third part, the core of her article, tries to show the nexus of knowledge management (KM) and Web 2.0 into four aspects. This review will highlight the important issues on Levy’s article on how knowledge management can be enhanced with Web 2.0.

Levy’s approach in introducing Web 2.0 to the reader is similar to those of other authors.  She presented several different definitions of Web 2.0 from different sources, giving the reader a hint of the controversial nature of the term Web 2.0. However, she gave emphasis on the eight principles of Web 2.0 that are connected to knowledge management, to name a few: web as a platform, services development, collective intelligence, and active participation of users. She also touched several popular applications such as wiki, blogs, RSS, tagging, and social networking to further explain what Web 2.0 is.

The second part of the article introduces the term Enterprise 2.0 as an implementation of the Web 2.0 infrastructure and/or tools by organizations (Levy, 2009, p.125).Because Enterprise 2.0 has only several aspects connected to KM, Levy proposes a quadric to analyze Web 2.0 used by organizations based on the type of technology adapted and the type of user that is being addressed (Levy, 2009, p.125). An application of Levy’s matrix could be found in an article written by Bebensee, Helms, & Spruit (2010). However, despite of some tools and applications of Web 2.0 being used in several organizations, there is no study undertaken on the level of adaption of these tools and most usage is not for “production” (Levy, 2009, p.127). Skepticism abounds about its relevance for companies. Levy (2009, p.127) points out that security and lose of control are issues that are of utmost concern from CIOs.  In addition, other factors such as hierarchy anarchy, rejecting social computing, “heard it all before” attitude and not trusting employees are possible barriers to organizations from implementing Web 2.0 (Tebbutt cited in Gilchrist, 2007, p.130).

In the third part, without giving an introduction of what knowledge management is, Levy compares knowledge management to Web 2.0 into four aspects. Readers who are not familiar with the concept may refer to introductory knowledge management literatures like Dalkir (2005). The author’s conceptual aspect of comparing KM to Web 2.0 is based on her argument that KM is based on specific needs that require analysis, KM solutions, as well as processes and technology that fits (Levy, 2009). She suggests that “Web 2.0 tools and its perpetual beta capability is the appropriate technology that can support KM” (Levy 2009, p128). Based on the comparison of the eight principles of Web 2.0 to that of KM,  she argues that aside from the main difference (of decentralized Web 2.0 against the centralized, controlled nature of KM), “Web 2.0 principles are part of the traditional KM core concepts” (Levy, 2009, p.129). Similarly, the comparison of the tools and attributes between Web 2.0 and KM reveals that despite of the existence of gaps between the two, "most Web 2.0 applications and tools have roots in KM tools” (Levy, 2009, p.129). Based on the statement of Snowden (cited in Levy, 2009) that social computing is about different tools that co-evolve with each other, with people, and with the environment, Levy (2009) suggests that Web 2.0 tools can help KM evolve. Under organizational culture, Levy pins her hope to the younger generation to be the catalysts of changes in KM due to their easy adaptation socially and technologically, a notion disputed by some analysts. Bechina and Ribiere (2009, p.62) believe that motivation, i.e., people inclination of using Web 2.0 technologies is the decisive element and not the age. Levy (2007, p.132) also points out that “Web 2.0 focuses on people while knowledge management focuses on organisations but  in order to benefit from the trust that Web 2.0 has, the focus has to be changed”. Tebbutt (cited in Levy, 2009, p.132) also see the change needed on KM on focusing on people. However, for this to happen, the above mentioned barriers from implementing Web 2.0 into organizations need to be resolved.

In her concluding remarks, Levy gave a sound practical advice of the application of web 2.0 in KM. She sees its significant impact and calls for this new wave of technology to be adopted in knowledge management in the application level (Levy, 2009.) However, in the conceptual level, she calls for organizations to be cautious and to move slowly for knowledge management is not mature enough to let go its centralized control and because organizations are much smaller than the web, different rules apply (Levy, 2009).

References

Bebensee, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2010). Exploring Web 2.0 Applications as a Mean of Bolstering up Knowledge Management. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 65-73.

Bechina, A.A.A., & Ribiere, V. (2009). Is the Emergence of Social Software a Source of Knowledge Management Revival? Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 56-65.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Boston : Elsevier/ Butterworth Heinemann.

Gilchrist, A. (2007). Can Web 2.0 be Used Effectively Inside Organisations? Information World / Bilgi Dunyasi, 8(1), 123-139.

Levy, M. (2009). Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.

Australian Digital Economy and Citizenship

Roxanne Missingham’s article Encouraging the Digital Economy and Digital Citizenship was published in the November 2009 issue of the Australian Library Journal. The author is a parliamentary librarian responsible for the delivery of research and information services to the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. Having been an assistant director general of a division of the national library of Australia before her present position, her long career in libraries include  being an educator, manager and a researcher. This review will discuss the author’s views on important issues concerning digital information for Australians and the challenges and activities of libraries in supporting the Australian community to become more digitally adept.

The author considers participation in government and the economy via the digital environment is fundamental to an understanding of what it means to be an Australian citizen (Missingham,2009, p.138).  Fortunately, the Australian Labour government supported this notion with their one laptop per child scheme and the establishment of the National Broadband Network Company (NBN Co.) whose objective is to provide 90 percent of homes, schools, and workplaces with fibre connection.  However, recent statistics have shown that Australia’s broadband infrastructure lags behind leading nations and like any other developed countries, the Australian community has an uneven access of digital information (Missingham, 2009, p.388). Termed as digital divide, and a prominent topic in information society literatures, it is defined as the gap between Information and communications Technology (ICT) ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ (OECD, 2009, p.68). Australians who live in capital cities and with affordable access to networks  have vast information choices, however, this is not the case for some rural residents  as evident in the many submissions that have been received to a senate inquiry made in 2003 (Missingham, 2009).

Missingham (2009, p.392) emphasises the importance of access and quality information in the participation of a modern democracy. However, such quality information usually comes at a cost only organisations with big budgets can afford (Missingham, 2009, p.388). As an answer to this problem, the Electronics Resources Australia (ERA) was launched to deliver quality digital content (Missingham, 2009, p.391). This collaboration enabled 1,200 participating libraries to deliver authoritative online information to many Australians (Missingham, 2009, p.393). It is indeed an important step to “support individuals living in remote Australia overcome isolation”(Missingham, 2009, p.393).

Missingham (2009, p.396) considers three main issues dominate the topic on Australian digital information: connectivity, content, and capacity. The lack of broadband access and affordable internet access in rural Australia remains a significant issue (Missingham, 2009). However, with the commitment by the Australian Federal government to deliver superfast broadband to the Australian public, this barrier is expected to be resolved soon. The recently released NBN Co. Business Case Summary in 24 November 2010 marked August 2012 as “ready for market” looks promising (NBNCo, 2010, p.13). With the support of the Greens and the three rural independents -who sided with the current administration mainly due to its broadband program, the Australian Federal Labour government is set to deliver this much needed infrastructure.  For the issue on content, the author suggests the following improvements needed: implementation of funding models that would allow all Australians access to reliable content; adoption of a user-friendly online government services and; funding of a research to build the digital economy (Missingham, 2009, p.397).  For Australian public’s digital information skills, the author suggests the following: support for public libraries to provide training for the community; user-focused online services; and availability of services and resources to those with disabilities (Missingham , 2009, p.397). 

Missingham’s article has shown yet another proof of relevance of libraries in a digital world. It portrays the crucial role of libraries as providers of access to quality information and a place to learn information literacy. The consortium undertaken has surely made the life of students, teachers, and researchers in both rural and capital cities alike easier by not having to go to major libraries to get quality information. The article also gives an overview to this reader of how Australia fare with the rest of the digital information world. The completion of the National Broadband Network roll-out is expected to further enhance Australians’ digital participation and allow us to catch up with the leading countries. The author’s suggestions for improvements are worth taking into consideration for better digital citizenship participation.

References

Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the Digital Economy and Digital Citizenship Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.

NBNCo (2009). NBNCo Business Case Summary, Canberra. Retrieved from

http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/publications-and-announcements/latest-announcements/nbn-co-business-case-summary.

OECD (2009). Guide to Measuring the Information Society, 2009, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/52/43281062.pdf.