“The library is the hub about which the academic wheel of education turns” Monday, May 25, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Information Literacy, Librarians and Librarianship, Library Services, Library Spaces, Teaching and Learning.add a comment
Librarian John W. Neth, Jr., with his student assistants. Photograph from the 1954 Milligan College yearbook.
The other day a professor colleague handed me a photocopy of an article he stumbled across while browsing back issues of The Stampede, Milligan College’s student run newspaper. The article was entitled “Library News,” and was dated Tuesday, October 15, 1953.
The article reported on the recent arrival of the new librarian, John W. Neth, Jr., and changes he was instituting in the Library. In 1953, the Milligan College Library was not housed in its own building, but occupied several rooms in Derthick Hall, the main administration and classroom building. A floor plan of the reorganized library was included in the article.
I read the article with a mixture of amusement over how much has changed in libraries and librarianship over the past 55 years, and admiration over how much has remained the same.
The users of the Milligan College Library are noting a definite trend toward a more efficient arrangement of the available facilities in relation to usability…[The] atmosphere of the library is taking on an air of interest.
Giving priority to “usability” and providing an “atmosphere of interest” for users remain very important in the contemporary library. Of course, deference to the user had its definite limits.
[T]hese changes have been accompanied by correspondingly necessary rules.
Well sure, we still have “rules” today—print periodicals and reference works do not circulate, and we still expect the “return of circulated books on or before the due date”—but we have broken down other long-standing library mores. We no longer prohibit “bringing…soft drinks namely cokes, into the library,” and student discussions (talking) in the library are no longer limited to “subjects relative to their search.” Today we merely ask students who bring food or drink in the library to clean-up after themselves, and while we no longer shush students for talking, we do ask that they consider and respect their neighbors as they interact.
The old rules reflect an understanding of the library as a place primarily where information resources are stored and searched. Emphasis was placed on protecting these resources and controlling the study environment. Today we have a primary desire to make the library a more open and welcoming place. We are less obsessed with control. We recognize that learning is a social activity, and learning is best facilitated when the study environment is comfortable and (even) domestic (I got this term from Scott Bennett).
In 1953, students had to come to the library because that was the only place where information resources could be accessed. Today, while we still stock our physical shelves with physical books to support the research needs of our students, the storage function of the library has diminished significantly in the face of anywhere/anytime access of information resources in electronic format just a few clicks away, starting from the library website. Students no longer have to come to the library. Whether or not they will depends on the library being more than a storage facility. The question of whether the relaxation of “rules” is pandering to the user, as I imagine Mr. Neth might have insisted, is way past moot. The role of the library itself has changed that much.
But what about the role of the librarian? Rule 5 presents an interesting paradox:
The last resort in any research problem is seeking the assistance of the Librarian. [Consult] the Card Catalog, the encyclopedia and dictionaries, the special reference collection and periodical indexes, and then finally consult the Librarian. However, no one should leave the library without an answer to the question at hand until all the above have been consulted.
The last resort?! At first I was taken aback by the brashness of wording that could be construed as communicating the librarian’s time was too important to be pestered by students seeking assistance with their research questions. But in fairness to Mr. Neth, he was the only full-time staff person, running all the functions of the library with the help of some student workers. (Today we have three full-time librarians, a part-time librarian, two part-time paraprofessionals, and a small army of student workers.) Even considering that the library was significantly smaller in 1953, Mr. Neth’s time was definitely at a premium.
Seen more positively, this rule (even if originally motivated by pragmatic concern) provoked students to take greater ownership for the research process, and propagated in them a self-service attitude well before its time. Although there are still students who come into the library (often at the last minute) hoping that a librarian will do all their resource searching work for them (yeah right), the democratization of information access fostered by the Web has encouraged all of us to rely less on professionals and experts as authoritative mediators—at least initially. We like being able to seek-out our own answers. The librarian’s role has shifted from mediating information to instructing students how to search effectively for information, and how to better evaluate the quality and relevance of that information for the intended use. Librarians are also more involved educationally in getting students to think-through their research topics, and composing a managable thesis. We then set them loose. Assuming we aren’t leaving students entirely to their own devices as we endorse a self-service attitude, the rule has a very contemporary ring to it. I like it.
I also like the way the article closes. Mr. Neth expressess a key affirmation of the function academic libraries should play on every college or university campus—both symbolically and in actuality. This affirmation remains every bit as timely and relevant today as it did over half a century ago:
The library is the hub about which the academic wheel of education turns. It is as much a tool in the process of gaining knowledge as is any other individual tool in that program.
Applying Diffusion of Innovation theory to the adoption of the codex book form: An analogy for understanding e-book adoption? Saturday, March 14, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Culture, History of the Book, Nature of Information, e-Books.add a comment
PROLOGUE
The following is the text of a proposal I prepared in 2004 for a Research Methods course while a graduate student in the School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona (Tucson). I offer it here as a follow-up to my post of February 22, 2009: “When you’re used to paper rolls it takes some time to convert to turning pages of a book.”
The proposal is entitled “Christians and the Codex: ‘Early Adopters’ of New Media Technology.” It appears from available manuscript evidence of the first few centuries of the Common Era that Christian communities—as a minority social group—showed a distinct preference for the codex book form than what was true for majority Roman society. It is a question of some interest why this was so, and has led to further questions into what role, if any, these Christian communities may have played in contributing to the eventual diffusion and adoption of the codex into majority society, and its subsequent triumph as the ubiquitous book form we know today. Many scholars have pursued answers to these questions. My purpose was to possibly offer another methodological lens for looking at the problem. Of course, I was spared the real hard work because the assignment was to develop the proposal, not conduct the actual research.
I find these historical and cultural questions intriguing in their own right, and maybe one day I will get around to some of that research work. At the moment, the most compelling aspect—as I introduced in my earlier post—is to try to imagine, by analogy, the dynamic at play as we consider adoption of the e-book as a new book form technology.
Harry Y. Gamble, Professor in Religious Studies at University of Virginia, a scholar who has inquired into these questions, and whose writing informed my proposal, later captured the essence of that dynamic (though working in reverse) when he wrote:
The gradual transition in Western Antiquity from the time-honored bookroll to the codex followed upon and imitated the popularity of the leaf-book in early Christianity, and specifically in connection with the formation of the Christian Bible. This was a monumental change in the history of the book. In significance it is sometimes compared to the invention of movable type in the fifteenth century…But the transition to the codex is perhaps more aptly compared to the advent of electronic texts in the late twentieth century, which even now is revolutionizing the way texts are made, accessed, and stored. In both cases we have to do with a major change in the format of texts, and consequently in the means of producing and using them. It may well be that for readers of the not-to-distant future the word “book” will automatically conjure the meaning “e-book” rather than the leaf-book that it suggests to us, or the bookroll that it designated in pre-Christian Antiquity. (Bible and book. In M. P. Brown (Ed.), In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000 (p. 16, emphasis mine). Washington, D.C.: Freer Gallery of Art & Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (distributed by Smithsonian Books), 2006.)
It turns out that a clear and definitive answer to the question of why early Christians preferred the codex book form continues to evade scholarship. Even a recent work by Larry Hurtado (The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006) ultimately disappoints. After insightfully critiquing the proposals of others, Hurtado himself sends us away largely empty-handed. Toward the end of a section entitled: Why Did Christians Prefer the Codex? Hurtado writes: “It is not my primary purpose here to argue for a particular answer to the questions involved…[M]y main emphasis in this discussion is that the early Christian use of the codex is an important matter worthy of attention by all scholars concerned with Christian origins” (pp. 80-81). O-O-O-K…
Maybe the question is unanswerable given the current state of our knowledge. The physical evidence in favor of the codex is indisputable. But motivational questions (Why?) are notoriously difficult for historians to answer. My research proposal would likely lead to a similar dead-end. But still I wondered whether a social-scientific approach might yield a different way of looking at the available evidence.
I decided to share my proposal essentially as I wrote it in 2004. I would be interested in your comments. Compared to five years ago, I think I am now very much more interested in wondering if a diffusion of innovation study on the adoption of the codex book form could provide us with any insights into the process of how the e-book might gain ascendancy as the book form of choice in our society. Notice my reference to reading an e-book at the time—George Orwell’s 1984—on a Palm handheld device! I think I meant that to be vaguely ironic.
Closing the distance between classroom and library: An open letter to the faculty (2005) Saturday, February 28, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Information Literacy, Librarians and Librarianship, Library Services, Teaching and Learning.add a comment
I was doing a little house cleaning in my email folders the other day, and I came across the following “open letter” I sent to the faculty back on April 27, 2005. I was still Reference Librarian at the time, and just two months into the job. I believe this was my first formal communication with faculty regarding information literacy and the changing nature of libraries and information resources. I hit upon the idea of the classroom and the library as separate “domains” that risked an ever widening “distance” for students. I used this metaphor as the basis of an appeal for greater intentional collaboration with faculty in order to bridge the gap. (The mug shot was original.)
As an extension of my role as Reference Librarian, I want to make myself available to you as a resource—and potentially more than a resource—for bibliographic instruction and information literacy in your courses. Allow me to share some of my thinking and interests in this area.
It is conventional (for my generation, and for many generations prior) to think of the library as a place where information resources are stored. Users go to the library to access these resources on an as-needed basis. For students, the need is typically oriented toward completing class assignments. Bibliographic instruction in this vein seeks to inform students
1) about the relevant (subject and course-related) resources that are available in the library
2) how to go about accessing relevant resources in the library, and
3) how to productively use these accessed resources in support of the learning process.
This is an important exercise. However, viewing the library as a place—an information “warehouse”—may contribute to more than just the sense of physical distance required to traverse there from the classroom. A potentially problematic metaphorical distance may also be building up. The greater this perceived distance, the harder it is for students to see the intimate relationship between classroom and library in the learning process.
The sheer volume, availability, and mobility of knowledge and information resources in non-print and electronic formats is certainly one aspect contributing to the increased sense of distance. Imagine all this information, just a few keystrokes away, and all conveniently accessed from the comfort of home or dorm room! Some lament this as the death of the book and the demise of the library as we (my generation, and for many generations prior) have always known it. I am less pessimistic (though I recognize that changes are inevitable). Besides, having access to an ocean of unmediated information is not necessarily helpful. (In fact, it can be exceedingly frustrating!) Access to information never directly translates into the acquisition of knowledge. But the new(er) reality does suggest to me that a broadening understanding of what the library is and how the library functions in the learning process is needed. In many ways, it must be admitted that the sense of distance was there even before the introduction of electronic information resources. Students, to varying degrees, have always complained about having to make the trip from classroom to the library for information needed to complete their assignments. It’s just that we can see the distance more clearly with this increasing (if still largely imagined) student expectation that technology will at last make the trip entirely unnecessary.
Physical distance exists as a result of practical considerations of space. (We need a place where we can store and organize books on shelves so we can retrieve them later as needed.) But metaphorical distance doesn’t take up space. The “ah-ha” for me considering this technological capacity to electronically disassemble information content from information format is not that I should lament the death of the book (which I do not believe) but that I should be provoked to focus even more attention on the nature of information itself. Yes, new information formats require the learning of new skills (e.g., database searching, electronic document delivery, etc.). This is an important part of bibliographic instruction today. But bibliographic instruction in the vein of my present thought broadens beyond a discussion of the format of information resources or where they can be found, to include a discussion about how to think about and use the information contained in whatever format, wherever it is found. This is where bibliographic instruction extends toward information literacy.
I have an interest in narrowing the sense of distance for students, not by lamenting a lost past or resisting an uncertain future for the library, but by proposing a stronger on-going relationship between myself as librarian and you as a faculty member. I fully appreciate and respect that the classroom is your domain, and you have the responsibility to guard it well for the tasks of teaching and learning. But I also believe the library needs to be conceptualized (by both librarians and faculty) as more than just a domain of support to the classroom in the learning process. After all, it is the separation of domains that creates the sense of distance. I believe the distance can be narrowed by inviting the library into the classroom. Information literacy aims for the library to be more integrated with the classroom in the learning process. It proposes a more active role for librarians to respond to partnering opportunities with faculty so that students will more readily sense the intimate relationship, and come to place a higher value on the gift of knowledge as a result. I welcome and look forward to the opportunity to talk with you further about bibliographic instruction and information literacy prospects in your classroom as you begin to plan your courses for Fall Semester 2005.
“When you’re used to paper rolls it takes some time to convert to turning pages of a book.” Sunday, February 22, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Computers, Culture, History of the Book, Mobile Computing, Mobile Web, Nature of Information, Software, e-Books.add a comment
“Medieval Helpdesk” sketch from the Øystein og jeg show on Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), 2001.
Here is the medieval equivalent of the IT guy making a house call (in true Geek Squad fashion) to help walk a frustrated user through a new piece of technology. The situation is familiar to most people (especially those of us over a certain age), though the time-shift takes us off guard. That’s what makes the sketch so hilarious. Familiarity in an unfamiliar context. As a non-Norwegian-speaking person, I find this “familiarity in the midst of unfamiliarity” dynamic enhanced even further.
I imagine that many people watching this video will, in fact, identify with the described situation while thinking of an analogous modern situation, such as learning to use a computer, a new piece of software, or the latest consumer electronics gadget. But as a librarian, I am interested in the described situation itself. Although the historical time-frame is off slightly, the sketch allows me to imagine the cultural, intellectual, and (even) emotional processing that accompanied the technological transition in the form of the book from roll/scroll to codex.
With the benefit of this perspective, I can then extrapolate some of the processing required as we are once again approaching a credible point of transition in book form from paper to electronic (i.e., the so-called e-book). I am not interested in speculating about the imminent demise of the ink on paper book, which I do not see. Rather, and at the risk of over-analyzing a two-and-a-half minute bit of humor, I am interested in thinking about human interaction with and reactions to technology at points of significant technological transition, such as the maturing of the e-book format, which I do think is now well underway.
The “familiarity in the midst of unfamiliarity” dynamic of the sketch allows us the space to see, by analogy, that the form of the book we all take for granted was itself a technological innovation that encountered significant resistance to adoption in the presence of an existing and presumably satisfactory alternative—the book roll. Vocal detractors to the codex as an appropriate form for literary texts were well known in first and second century Roman society.
Brother Ansgar says, “When you’re used to paper rolls it takes some time to convert to turn[ing] pages of a [book].” Familiarity to the point of taking a technology for granted is a key point exposed in the sketch and shouldn’t be missed. Adoption of any technology by a society and individuals within that society becomes complete when that technology effectively disappears as a technology—it becomes ubiquitous. That is why technological developments that disturb ubiquity are frequently met with resistance. After fifteen hundred plus years it’s easy to forget that the printed book as we have it today is still a technology, an invented thing that hasn’t always been.
Notice how this ubiquity is reflected in modern language usage. Here is a definition for the word “codex” from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition (2005):
Notice the phrases “in book form” and “hence a book.” The definition is offered from the standpoint of “everyone knows (is familiar with) what a book is, and a codex is like a book in its form.” This definition is not untrue. But this usage reinforces identification with what is ubiquitous, and inadvertently contributes to resistance to change. How can an e-book be a real book? I imagine that a literate person in second century Rome would vigorously reject this dictionary definition. He or she would say that while a codex might be fine for keeping a grocery list, or for children to use to practice their alphabet, it is definitely not a book! “Would you read Virgil’s Aeneid on a grocery list?!” How far off is this, really, from someone today saying, “Would you read Virgil’s Aeneid off a computer screen?!”?
I have gone to persistent pains in this post to talk about the roll/scroll, codex, printed book, and e-book as book forms. I will even throw-in a text inscribed on a clay tablet as an authentic book form. Literate Akkadians or Babylonians certainly thought so as they read the Epic of Gilgamesh! I disagree, however, with the notion that a book is only about content. It does seem significant that a book needs to have a form—needs to be in some sense a discrete object that exists as a container for its associated content. But why can’t that discrete object be a digital file accessible in virtual space at the click of a mouse, or the touch of a screen?
I know there are a raft of conscious and unconscious, social and conventional, personal and emotional associations that build-up over time to authorize a book form as ‘real’ and authentic (e.g., the dictionary definition above). But these associations are learned, as the use of any technology is learned. From the safe distance of several centuries we can laugh at Brother Ansgar for his technological difficulty with something that, to us, is so obvious. But if we laugh we’re really only laughing at ourselves. If a codex can become a ‘real’ book even if at one time it was not deemed to be so, then by analogy an e-book should be able to acquire a similar authorization. It’s just a question of time.
UPDATE: While writing this post I stumbled across an article by John Siracusa on Ars Technica entitled, “The once and future e-book: on reading in the digital age.” Siracusa was involved with efforts in the 1990s to get e-books adopted into the publishing and reading mainstream. Although I disagree with his contention that the book is format agnostic, and only about content, his article is otherwise very illuminating and well-worth a read. I may interact with Siracusa’s article further in a subsequent post because he addresses some of the common technological issues that have hampered the pace of wide-spread e-book adoption (like the Medieval Helpdesk producing their user manual for the codex in codex form! “Oh. We hadn’t thought about that.”).
Students, faculty, and information resources: sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction Thursday, February 12, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Information Literacy, Library Services, Teaching and Learning.add a comment
They say the truth is stranger than fiction. The following are actual interactions I had in the library with students and faculty related to the use of information resources. I shared these interactions, essentially without elaboration, in a series of animated PowerPoint slides at a faculty retreat at the beginning of the 2007-08 academic year.
We were just kicking-off our college’s information literacy program. I was trying to provoke awareness and buy-in from the faculty to the importance of our moving beyond “traditional” library and bibliographic instruction. I was appealing for a more collaborative relationship between the domains of classroom and library, by suggesting that librarians have a unique role to play in the teaching and learning process. If nothing else, librarians observe how students actually think about and use information resources as they try to negotiate the expectations of their professors in research and writing assignments. It was easy to raise a chuckle when exposing the foibles of the students in the situations I shared. It was a little more sobering when I put these in the context of faculty actions and attitudes that sometimes get in the way…
Student performs a catalog search for resources on a topic for a research paper. She requests three books through interlibrary loan. The books arrive. They are “on-topic” but otherwise unusable…
They were written for a juvenile audience.
Student types the following search query into Google (verbatim): “What affect did the crusades haveon the current war between Palestine and Isreal.”
He gets no results.
Students are having trouble finding a journal from which a professor has assigned readings on the course syllabus.
The title of the journal changed… 13 years ago.
Professor forbids students from using “Internet sources” in their research, but leaves the impression that an “Internet source” is any resource accessed using a web browser.
Students don’t think they are allowed to use the Library’s online journal literature databases.
Student is looking for a book to use in a research assignment. In order to direct the student to a useful resource, the librarian asks how he is developing his research topic.
“Oh, I’ve already finished writing my paper. I just need to cite a book… That’s what the assignment says.”
Student doesn’t appreciate research as a developmental and recursive process. It is viewed as a product constructed, in a single sitting, out of a grocery list of loosely assembled information resources.
“Let’s see. I need 3 books, 3 journal articles, and 1 reliable website on this topic…so I can write my paper tonight.”
Student seeks assistance from a librarian about a research paper assignment. While discussing ideas for how she might develop the topic, the student repeatedly expresses concern about her grade.
Rather than pursuing a direction of interest, the student wants to steer the paper in a direction she thinks her professor will approve.
Professor asks librarian: “Is it valid to cite directly from full-text journal articles accessed in a database, or do I need to secure the ‘real’ (i.e., print) article first?”
Both students and faculty are uncertain how to properly cite documents accessed in electronic format. Students are also confused by multiple discipline-based citation conventions (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.).
Student is caught plagiarizing on a Library Orientation assignment.
When asked to explain his actions, the student replies, “I would have never plagiarized on an important assignment.”
Re-posting Laura Cohen’s “A Librarian’s 2.0 Manifesto” Monday, February 9, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Information Literacy, Librarians and Librarianship, Library Services, Library Spaces, Nature of Information.add a comment
I am a latecomer to Laura Cohen’s blog, Library 2.0: An academic’s perspective. Curious that I should discover it almost exactly one year after it ceased publication! Laura Cohen was Web Support Librarian at University at Albany (SUNY). On February 5, 2008, she wrote her final post announcing her retirement. In that post she also wrote: “My dean has promised that this blog will remain available for at least the next year. Some of my entries are still being discovered by new readers…”
Indeed! And seeing that the year may be about up, I am scampering to glean interesting bits from the year and a half run of Laura’s blog. Of special note, and of enduring value in the rapidly evolving library environment and librarian profession, is “A Librarian’s 2.0 Manifesto,” which she posted on November 8, 2006. I am re-posting it here in its entirely:
I will recognize that the universe of information culture is changing fast and that libraries need to respond positively to these changes to provide resources and services that users need and want.
I will educate myself about the information culture of my users and look for ways to incorporate what I learn into library services.
I will not be defensive about my library, but will look clearly at its situation and make an honest assessment about what can be accomplished.
I will become an active participant in moving my library forward.
I will recognize that libraries change slowly, and will work with my colleagues to expedite our responsiveness to change.
I will be courageous about proposing new services and new ways of providing services, even though some of my colleagues will be resistant.
I will enjoy the excitement and fun of positive change and will convey this to colleagues and users.
I will let go of previous practices if there is a better way to do things now, even if these practices once seemed so great.
I will take an experimental approach to change and be willing to make mistakes.
I will not wait until something is perfect before I release it, and I’ll modify it based on user feedback.
I will not fear Google or related services, but rather will take advantage of these services to benefit users while also providing excellent library services that users need.
I will avoid requiring users to see things in librarians’ terms but rather will shape services to reflect users’ preferences and expectations.
I will be willing to go where users are, both online and in physical spaces, to practice my profession.
I will create open Web sites that allow users to join with librarians to contribute content in order to enhance their learning experience and provide assistance to their peers.
I will lobby for an open catalog that provides personalized, interactive features that users expect in online information environments.
I will encourage my library’s administration to blog.
I will validate, through my actions, librarians’ vital and relevant professional role in any type of information culture that evolves.
Incidentally, I found this nice video slideshow mashup on YouTube of Laura Cohen’s “A Librarian’s 2.0 Manifesto” by Soren Johannessen, of Copenhagen, Denmark:
Google Book Search goes mobile Sunday, February 8, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Culture, Library Services, Mobile Computing, Mobile Web, Nature of Information, Software.add a comment
Last week I wrote about WorldCat Mobile. This week, thanks to a post on Andy Ihnatko’s blog, I learned that Google Book Search has gone mobile, too! Point your device’s web browser to http://books.google.com/m, and check it out.
The Book Search home page displays a search box, a “My books,” “Featured books,” and a nicely organized “Browse categories” section. The mobile edition defaults to browse or search the current collection of 1.5 million titles in the public-domain. Copyrighted titles in Google’s hoard can be searched for brief bibliographic information, but unlike the full version of Book Search, no text preview or snippets are available.
Here I selected “Philosophy” from the Browse, and then Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra to give you a view of the reading page. Each reading page actually displays ten pages of the book’s text, which feels a bit long to me, since you can only navigate to the next or previous set of pages by scrolling all the way to the top or bottom of each reading page. There is currently no way to bookmark your text, which can make returning to the place where you left off a bit of a pain. A Table of Contents button, however, helps a bit to zero-in, as does a “Jump to page” box at the bottom of the Contents page. Illustrations are included in the machine read text, and tapping on any paragraph toggles a display of the original book text image for that paragraph. That’s kind of neat.
One major limitation of Google Book Search Mobile compared to other application-based ebook readers on the iPhone/iPod touch, such as eReader or Stanza, is the inability to download books to your device for offline reading. With recent developments in providing offline functionality to Gmail and Google Docs, however, this feature may be coming.
I highlighted the phrase “1.5 million titles” above. But I think it was still too easy for me to type. I’m not sure I can fully grasp the enormity of this level of access, with this much ease, from a mobile device! What does all this mean? I’m not sure. Will Google eventually replace libraries in the content delivery business? Maybe. (I do think libraries and librarians need to be seriously rethinking roles and core competencies right about now.)
Google has long presented itself as a company committed to making profit without resorting to evil (see especially point 6 in Google’s corporate philosophy). Many are still suspicious. Maybe rightfully so. But it’s hard to complain when what Google is providing here is not just cool, it is also very useful. I love the way Andy Ihnatko maneuvers that edge when he writes:
Good golly. If Google is evil, then they’re a Doctor Doom sort of evil. What’s a little evil, when the totalitarian dictator takes such wonderful, indulgent care of his subjects?
Huge, hulking, armed Googlebots may suddenly appear on every street corner one morning but I’ll be inclined to think “Well, yes, that’s annoying, I won’t lie. But I do get to keep Google Books for Mobile, right?”
Okay Google, I’m going to say Mobile Book Search is great! Now, how about a mobile version of Google Scholar?
WorldCat goes mobile Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Library Services, Mobile Computing, Mobile Web.2 comments
WorldCat is the world’s largest cooperative online library catalog, produced and maintained by the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and over 69,000 member libraries worldwide. Cooperation in building WorldCat as a network for bibliographic information sharing has been leveraged to facilitate actual information resource sharing. WorldCat combined with interlibrary loan powerfully extends the reach of individual libraries—a worldwide reach—to access materials on behalf of their users. Other than the time it takes to process and ship item requests, even a relatively small liberal arts college library—such as the one where I work—is not significantly disadvantaged in research potential when using WorldCat. WorldCat is one of our most valuable resource discovery tools.
In 2006, OCLC began making a portion of the vast WorldCat database available as a free open-Web service called WorldCat.org. The thinking behind WorldCat.org is related to the question: Will the library—the historically central community institution (and physical space) for providing access to information and knowledge resources—get lost in our increasingly digital world? The library has always been committed to providing access to quality information and knowledge resources for its users. However, the library is no longer assumed to be the first or only information access point for users. As the information seeking and information participation behaviors of users continue to change under the influence of ubiquitous commercial and social networking Web services such as Google, Amazon.com, and Facebook, how does the library, even if it has a virtual presence on the Web, keep from getting drowned out or bypassed?
WorldCat.org addresses this issue by leveraging the bibliographic database in the Web environment on behalf of its member libraries (over 10,000 to date). Rather than starting with the library location to search for a needed item, the user starts with the needed item. WorldCat.org then directs the user to a near-by library where that item is available. This discovery approach fits into the Web user’s regular workflow (using tools such as Google, Google Books, or Facebook) and raises the profile of the library as a result.
The reach of WorldCat.org is further extended through an affiliate program which allows anyone to embed a WorldCat search box into their personal or organization website or blog. Urrr! I have tried repeatedly to add one to the sidebar of my blog page, but for some reason the code isn’t playing nice on WordPress. Anyway, this is what the search box looks like (image only). If anyone out there has found a fix to this WordPress problem please let me know.
WorldCat.org has recently gone one logical step better in attempting to capture the attention of online consumers of information on behalf of member libraries. WorldCat has partnered with mobile search provider Boopsie to bring WorldCat to your Web-enabled mobile device. Check-out this link to play with WorldCat Mobile through an on-screen emulator. Here are some screenshots from my iPod touch:
From the home screen of WorldCat Mobile, I begin by setting my location by ZIP Code.
When I start to search for an item, I can limit right away by format. By just typing “b” I have selected Books as my format. Next I start typing title or author. I want to find the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. WorldCat Mobile starts searching for possible matches even before I finish typing the entire title!
WorldCat returns many hits for this title (150). I find an edition of the text I want near the top of the list and select it. This brings up an abbreviated record.
Next, I scroll down the record to view a list of libraries that have this book (4,322). Milligan College Library has it! And since it is the nearest library to me based upon the location I entered at the start, it is at the top of the list. I can click a link to map the library location using Google Maps, and get directions to the library if necessary.
Another very handy link on the record is “Cite this item,” which displays the citation for the title from several popular style guides.
WorldCat is also experimenting with a mobile version formatted for use on the iPhone/iPod touch (although you can access the URL from any web browser). The functionality of this version is largely the same, except that it can also connect directly with the selected library’s online catalog to tell you the availability status for the item you are searching. It can also dial-up the library for you (if you have an iPhone) for more information.
The subscription-based WorldCat is a powerful research tool, and we will continue to make it available to our students and faculty. The opening-up of a significant chunk of WorldCat for anyone to freely search from any computer was a great move. Now the ability for anyone to search WorldCat while on the move seems especially fitting in the growing mobile environment—and very cool!
“On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh.” Happy 25th! Saturday, January 24, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Computers, Culture.add a comment
I first saw the original Apple Macintosh computer in 1984 at the Team Electronics store in Duluth, Minnesota. I was blown away! It was so “uncomputer-like.” The compact form-factor, and the use of a mouse input device was very unique. But it was especially that black-on-white graphical display that held me mesmerized. It was like watching TV! I knew I wanted one. But since my wife and I lived pretty much hand-to-mouth at the time, I was not in the position to buy.
That moment would have to wait for roughly three years. It was 1987, and my wife and I were then living in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Canada. Swift Current was a town of about 15,000. If you can believe it, they had a computer store—one that sold Apple computers. That I would purchase a Mac was all but assured by a very clever sales strategy—the owner let me take one home for the weekend! I had to take out a loan (about $3,500 Canadian!), but I made the purchase—a 512Ke with an ImageWriter II dot-matrix printer. It’s been Macs for me ever since!
Here is a great blog site run by Andy Hertzfeld called Folklore.org. Andy was one of the principal members of the original Mac developer team. The blog is a collection of stories surrounding the creation of the Macintosh computer, and served as the basis of his book Revolution in the Valley: The Insanely Great Story of How the Mac was Made (O’Reilly, 2004).
I’ve become a “helicopter parent,” but I hope I don’t “hover” that much Thursday, January 22, 2009
Posted by librarygary in Culture, Information Literacy, Library Services.1 comment so far
My wife and I sent our oldest daughter off to college this fall. She isn’t our first child to go to college, but she is the first to go to a college that is a very long day’s drive away from home. After that initial bout of homesickness, she’s been doing OK—great actually. She is engaged with a positive and supportive group of friends from her dorm and the dance program. She is being challenged academically, she studies hard, and it is showing in her grades. It’s especially heartening for me, the librarian dad, to have her report that she also spends a lot of time studying in the library!
Practically born with a mouse (a computer mouse) in her hand, my daughter is part of a generational group called “Millennials,” also known as “digital natives” or the “Net Generation” from the standpoint of “from day one” familiarity with and use of computer and network technology. All my children grew up with computers and Internet access in the home. We started with an Apple Macintosh 512ke back in 1987, and first got “connected” to the Internet with a 14.4Kbit dial-up modem in 1994. (Incidentally, I recall that in 1994 Yahoo! was little more than a running list of web page links. The “search engine” we all take for granted had not yet been invented, and Google did not yet exist.) When we first went with broadband “high speed Internet access” around 2000, it was such a great experience for everyone that I could actually feign threats of a return to dial-up if the kids were misbehaving!
I have read a fair amount of the literature to prepare our library to respond to how “Net Geners” are inclined to interact with libraries and the larger information environment over the course of their college career. Two especially good treatments I read last year included: Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester, edited by Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons (ACRL, 2007), and Susan Gibbons’ related The Academic Library and the Net Gen Student (ALA, 2007). In describing Millennial or Net Generation students, the University of Rochester study observed characteristics in their own students echoing the larger literature (e.g., the now classic study of Neil Howe and William Strauss, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation [Vintage, 2000]), including the observation that
“Our students seem to be much more in touch with their parents than in previous generations,… The University of Rochester students we studied mentioned a great deal of communication with their parents as well as parental involvement in their research papers, such as in the search for a topic or in proofreading drafts. Several mentioned communicating with their parents via instant messaging. Clearly, and somewhat to our surprise, these students maintain quite close ties back home” (65-66).
The explanation offered for this close parent-child relationship is that Baby Boom parents have tended to shelter their children more than they themselves were sheltered, reflected in changing American cultural attitudes toward children, and rising concerns about child safety. The study continues
“Some Boomers even want colleges to return to in loco parentis [serving as substitute parents]. These attitudes have given rise to what is now referred to as the ‘helicopter parent,’ who hovers over a child’s college experience, trying to exert as much control as possible and generally interfering in even the smallest details of the student’s life” (66).
In her treatment, Susan Gibbons refers to a 2006 College Parents of America survey revealing that “81.6% of parents rated their level of involvement with their college-bound children to be either ‘more involved’ or ‘much more involved’ than they experienced when in college” (77). This high level of involvement is facilitated by now common communication technologies such as cell phones, email, and instant messaging.
I read all this last year with considerable interest, intent on making the appropriate connections with my library context. But I was otherwise personally detached from this experience. I was even inclined to disparage this description of parents who “hover” over their child’s life in college. All that changed this year, now that my daughter is in college. It seems I’ve now become a “helicopter parent.”
I’ve become a “helicopter parent,” but I hope I don’t “hover” that much. I concur that my wife and I are more involved with our daughter’s college experience than our parents were involved with us. But I would like to think that my wife and I are not seeking to control or interfere in our daughter’s college life. Yes, we sent her off with a cell phone, and we have our IM clients open whenever we’re at our computers. We’re all on Facebook, and we even have webcams for periodic video chatting. We want to communicate that we are supportive of and available to our daughter if she needs or wants to connect with us. We are thankful for the technology that facilitates this connection.
I would echo from our own recent experience what was observed in the University of Rochester study. Although there is a writing center on campus, and our daughter has made use of this service more than once, she prefers and routinely solicits our involvement in topic development and proofreading of her writing assignments and research papers.
My daughter’s experience has led me to consider with greater personal interest the approach taken by the libraries at the University of Rochester to the helicopter parent. The tone of the study document excerpted above seems to communicate that they were perhaps put-off by the level of parental “interference.” But the study was a learning experience for the library organization, too. The tone had changed in what Susan Gibbons subsequently relates in her book. In 2006, the libraries revamped their freshmen orientation activities, and instead of trying to get a message across to distracted and overwhelmed in-coming students, they actually decided to focus on the parents.
“While conversing with [parents] the librarians delivered a simple, concise message: ‘Every class has a librarian.’ If the parents retain that message, when their son or daughter calls home for advice and help on a class assignment, perhaps they will suggest that their child make contact with the librarians” (15).
This is a great idea—to simultaneously reassure parents and encourage them to advocate for the library and librarians with their children. I suppose that as an academic librarian it is natural that I should already be doing this with my daughter. But again, I’m seeing this whole dynamic in a new light now that I am personally (and not merely professionally) involved. My wife and I bring a fairly high level of educational experience that may not be shared by all parents of college students. But this makes me wonder if librarians might extend their advocacy and strengthen their collaboration through the development of a program of information literacy instruction for parents. What might it mean to give added tools to parents when their children call home for help? Hmm, let me give this some further thought.
