i always find it interesting to read technology articles from the past, whether from a couple years ago or decades distant. it seems like they make predictions that are either eerily correct and guided by incredible forethought, or comically outdated and riddled with overly-optimistic speculation. the three articles for this week generally fit in to the first category, particularly because they emphasize the growing need for library professionals to cultivate a broad knowledge of technological trends.1) OCLC report: Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers (2004).
http://www.oclc.org/reports/2004format.htm
This OCLC report is especially interesting because it examines the ways that the Internet and other communication devices not only signal advances in technology, but also social changes in the creation and exchange of information and knowledge. Traditional mediums for the transmission of knowledge such as monographs, newspapers and print journals are falling out of favor, while blogs, wikis, online journals, and self-published research on websites are gaining popularity. Specific content is spliced into smaller pieces and made available for purchase for small fees. There is an increasing reliance on web searches and online social networks rather than "authoritative" sources for information gathering. These trends could pose some risk for libraries if these more socially-based knowledge exchanges are not understood and incorporated into existing library services.
Internet users are becoming used to interacting with individualized and accessible content (whatever the format), but libraries can still play a role in mediating, contextualizing, organizing and archiving that content. On page 13 of the report it states: "This new world is abundant and unstructured, but contextual mechanisms for navigating and synthesizing the information commons are scarce, even in - perhaps especially in - libraries. 'We are drowning in information but are starving for knowledge. Information is only useful when it can be located and synthesized into knowledge.'"
2) Clifford Lynch, "Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture." (February 21, 1998).
http://www.cni.org/staff/cliffpubs/info_and_IT_literacy.pdf
Like the OCLC report, Clifford Lynch also points to the social changes that advances in communications technology bring. He emphasizes the need for both information literacy (such as "authoring, information finding and organization, the research process, and information analysis, assessment and evaluation") and information technology literacy (understanding technology infrastructure and its tools, the "legal, social, economic and public policy issues that shape the development of the infrastructure and the applications and use of the technologies.") because information and information technology are influenced and shaped by each other.
Importantly, he stresses the need for education not just about how to use computer programs, but also the logic behind how programs operate, their limitations, and "experience in the process of learning new tools," - learning how to learn. A liberal education in technology would also include the history, evolution, and sociology of "technology infrastructures... including computing, telecommunications, broadcasting, publishing, electrical power distribution, transportation and financial infrastructure." Additionally, an understanding of how people communicate generally can help people know how to use information technology to communicate in the most effective way - this could be written, visual or multimedia.
Of particular relevance to libraries, he states that "an understanding of how searching systems work, and of the interplay between indexing techniques, descriptive practices and organizational systems (cataloging, abstracting, indexing, rating), searching, and information accessibility, visibility and impact is becoming essential."
3) Jason Vaughan, "Lied Library @ Four Years: Technology Never Stands Still," Library Hi Tech 23,no. 1 (2005): 34-49.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet;jsessionid=C5A0E976F56F442F9919082BF1F79360?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2380230105.html
Jason Vaughn's account of the technology programs and planning at the Lied Library at the University of Nevada is very impressive, and makes clear the challenges all libraries are facing today while attempting to stay technologically relevant. Not only are there logistical challenges in dealing with space, electricity, and internet access for computers, but also when negotiating student and non-student use of computers, software maintainence and updates, staff training, physical security and network security, and perhaps the most daunting, finding stable sources of funding.
The Lied's system for the total exchange/upgrade of library computers was particularly monumental in its coordination of movers, inventory management, software and hardware installation, and staff training. He makes the point clear that library technology is never static - technological innovation and the demands of students and faculty require that all library workers keep abreast of changes and updates. There is always some new piece of hardware or software or network that could improve the functionality of a library system, so up-to-date knowledge, careful planning, and adequate funding are essential to maintain the effectiveness of a library.

One of the important points made in the OCLC article is about librarians helping to contextualize content in this new digital transmission of information. Children growing up citing wikipedia articles in research papers need to understand what it means to get information from different sources. Contextualizing information is one of the most important parts of research.
ReplyDeleteI agree about librarians contextualizing knowledge, but I kind of wish the OCLC report had gone into greater depth with how librarians are supposed to do that. Librarians aren't masters of the content of their libraries (if they were, librarians would all be researchers), and while they might have lots of handy metadata, they also might not and I don't think that was what the article was trying to get at anyway. What is the "context" for knowledge that we're supposed to be providing?
ReplyDelete