This blog post
will deal with the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies in libraries and will
focus on the difficulties and issues that arise in the law library context. One of
the greatest difficulties with using Web 2.0 technologies in libraries appears to
be the merging of necessary services such as reference and circulation with the
“luxury” services such as blogs, twitter updates, and online support. In order for libraries to stay relevant and
current, they must be unafraid to take the technological bull by the horns. Steele
(n.d.) makes the need for technology apparent with the statement “…because a
commitment to reference service in libraries is also a commitment to being
comfortable with the latest technology” (p. 114). It is easy for a library to decide they want
to add services but the reality is that in a world of across-the-board budget
cuts and reductions, any new service that a library adds will require the
library to cut service somewhere else.
While having a blog may not have a direct monthly fee associated with it,
the time and resources spent keeping current in Web 2.0 technologies does
divert resources away from other library services. There are only so many hours
in a work day and how many, if any, of those are spent blogging by library
staff is a difficult decision.
One of the biggest issues facing
librarianship in general is the desire by libraries to avoid becoming or being
considered obsolete. Cannan (2008) points
out this reality within the law library context with the statement, “The tenor
of this literature is that in a profession like law librarianship, where it is
critical to remain current, you are not current unless you know Web 2.0” (p.
17). It appears that law libraries (like
all libraries) must remain abreast of the Web 2.0 development in order to be perceived
as current and forward-thinking. Law
libraries often have a focus on education and training, and Web 2.0
technologies are very useful with this mission statement. Posting information on a library website is a
useful way to keep patrons abreast of events, but Twitter announcements are a
real game changer because they make the library experience interactive. Being able to be a part of a patron’s social
network is a way to become a part of their life, and the interactivity of Web
2.0 is beauty of the technology.
This
leads to the question of what Web 2.0 technologies should be adopted by a law
library and which ones should not.
Murley (2008) states, “It is
impossible to generalize about which Library 2.0 ideas and tools should be
adopted in law libraries” (p. 201) and it is important for library
administrators to not be suckered into adopting those technologies with the
most name recognition, but rather choose those that will have the greatest
impact upon their patrons. The ability
for blogs to be used to avoid many of the spam issues associated with emails is
commendable, but the main advantage of a blog is the ability for readers to
post commentary; however, this is something that needs to be monitored and moderated
and any such activity requires library staff being allotted time during working
hours to do so (Murley, 2008, p. 202). I
remember my law school having a class on internet crimes that was taught
entirely in Second Life and this would also allow for distance learning
(Cannan, 2008, p. 18). The ability of
law libraries to use blogs and social networking to create a web presence is
vital to libraries promoting awareness of their services. Since awareness and funding often go hand-in-hand,
all libraries should have the desire to create as strong a web presence as is
practicable.
I think that blogs are the most practical way for law
libraries and libraries in general to implement Web 2.0. They are cost-effective, simple, and can be
used to increase information literacy among patrons. As Steele (n.d) comments,
“Recent law library literature has
discussed the blogosphere as a means for libraries to share law-related
information with their patrons” (p. 114). I think that other Web 2.0 technologies have too
many drawbacks both in implementation and in keeping them current as technology
changes staff would need to be train in the new versions of existing
technologies. While the statement by Steele (n.d) that “At
first the province of technologists and teenagers, the blog has evolved to be a
publishing platform by which a number of voices, including those of librarians,
can be heard” (p. 113-114) remains true, libraries must be aware of what
resources they are giving up in order to create this voice.
References
Cannan, J. (2008). In search of Web 2.0.
AALL Spectrum, 12(5), 16-19.
Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss
about library 2.0?. Law Library Journal,
100(1), 197-204.
Steele, J., & Greenlee, E. (n.d).
Thinking, writing, sharing, blogging: Lessons learned from implementing a law library blog. Law
Library Journal, 103(1), 113-13.
