Web 2.0 v. Law Libraries

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.