Paul Anderson, a technology writer, authored the article ’All that Glisters is not Gold’ – Web 2.0 and the Librarian to provide a brief introduction of what Web 2.0 means to the librarians and how they can use it in their libraries. In this post I will be reviewing this article.
Anderson provides a very short historical introduction to Web 2.0, suggests a great framework to analyse Web 2.0 and concludes with very few examples of Web 2.0 implications in libraries. In the introduction the author sets out to define and explain many concepts and ideas for further research. Unfortunately the article does not quite satisfy all of what the author had set out to cover.
Anderson starts out by defining Web 2.0. Next he proposes a three part framework to analyse Web 2.0. First part deals with the visible surface of Web 2.0 which consists of social software applications, media-sharing services, and social networking services. In the second part he offers six ideas that power Web 2.0 based on a Tim O'Reilly article. He writes summaries of each one of the six ideas (Individual Production and User-generated Content, Harness the Power of the Crowd, Data on an Epic Scale, Architecture of Participation, Network Effects, and Openness) and how they are related to current and future developments in Web 2.0. Finally in the third part he emphasises looking at the use of web technologies and standards.
In the end of the article the author provides his views on impact of Web 2.0 on libraries. He introduces the term ‘Library 2.0’ and explains how this concept is being viewed in the academic world. He argues that there is an urgent need to come up with an official definition of Library 2.0. He gives two examples of how libraries are using Web 2.0 now and suggests that librarians can play a critical role in the future as the debate around privacy and copyright issues intensifies.
Having a theoretical framework to develop new research questions and theories is extremely important (Botha 1989), especially in newly developed subjects such as Web 2.0 (Rathi 2010). Anderson’s proposal of a three part framework to analyse Web 2.0 provides a much needed lens to view the literature and research written about Web 2.0. It is of particular importance to include the visible surface of Web 2.0 but also not to forget more abstract concepts that a researcher needs to deal with. This is where Anderson’s adaptation of O’Reilly’s original ideas about Web 2.0 becomes important. The six ideas he identifies and defines are must-consider ideas for any researcher who ponders to write on the subject of Web 2.0.
While rich on the detail of proposed framework to analyse Web 2.0, the author does not deliver as much information on the two other parts of the article, namely History of the ‘Web 2.0’ and Web 2.0 and the Library. History of Web 2.0 only offers the reader an explanation of where the term ‘Web 2.0’ originated from. There is no further discussion about how Web 2.0 came to be, why the need to name a new version of the web arose or not even a history of the services that make up Web 2.0.
In the abstract of the article, Anderson says he will discuss “some of the areas in which librarians are positioned to provide a unique contribution to the further development of … services.” However he only mentions the librarian’s potential in having a say in the privacy and ethics area of Web 2.0. The other examples the author provides are the ways libraries use and can use Web 2.0 services, not how librarians can provide unique contributions. Use of Facebook to track down a patron can hardly be considered revolutionary today, although it might have been in 2007 when the article was published. The author could have provided more detail on what he thought the definition of Library 2.0 should be rather than just pointing out the need for an agreed definition of Library 2.0. This was a missed opportunity for him to start the conversation on what exactly Library 2.0 is.
The topics of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are being discussed and researched frequently (see Arch 2010, Coyle 2007 for examples). The framework Anderson provides will no doubt play an important part in developing and researching new theories. It is possible to find a more in-depth analysis of Web 2.0 and its history in another article by the same author published in JISC (Anderson 2007).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul Anderson until recently was the Technical Editor of the JISC Technology and Standards watch. He is currently working on a book on Web 2.0.
His blog can be viewed at http://techlun.ch/
His twitter account can be followed at http://twitter.com/pdanderson
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? ideas, technologies and implications for
education. JISC. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Anderson, P. (2007). `All That Glisters Is Not Gold' -- Web 2.0 And The Librarian.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195-198.
Arch, X. (2010). The Ultimate Debate 2009: Has Library 2.0 Fulfilled Its Promise? A
Report of the Library and Information Technology Association Internet Resources and Services Interest Group Program, American Library Association Annual Conference, Chicago, July 2009. Technical Services Quarterly, 27(4), 369-371. doi:10.1080/07317131.2010.500982
Botha, M. (1989). Theory development in perspective: the role of conceptual
frameworks and models in theory development. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(1), 49-55. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.
Coyle, K. (2007). The Library Catalog in a 2.0 World. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 33(2), 289-291. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
Dinesh Rathi, Lisa M. Given, "Research 2.0: A Framework for Qualitative and
Quantitative Research in Web 2.0 Environments," Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-10, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2010
