Transcript Potential of Library 2.0 Model for Research Libraries in Kenya

Research summary presented at the UNISA Doctoral
Forum in Pretoria, March 4, 2009
Tom Kwanya
PhD Candidate
University of Kwa Zulu Natal
Background
 The emergence of the ICT revolution has drastically
changed the way people seek and use information.
 Center for Information Behaviour and Evaluation
Research (CIBER) released a report in 2008 that
indicates that people currently exhibit a new
information seeking behaviour which is not
compatible with the traditional library models of
service.
 The report says that users are “promiscuous”,
skimming and bouncing off information resources.
Background
 CIBER’s report further says that the users:
 Have high ICT competencies;
 Prefer interactive to passive information systems;
 Have a higher cyber (electronic) than offline presence
(text more than talk);
 Multi-task;
 Prefer infotainment content;
 Exhibit zero tolerance to delays in information services
provisions;
 Rely on their peers more than experts;
Background
 Feel the need to remain constantly “connected”;
 Believe everything is on the web; and
 Are format agnostic.
 This new information seeking behaviour, as reported
by CIBER, seems to influence the perception of most
library users about the institutions and services.
 OCLC’s 2005 report on perceptions of libraries shows
that:
 Library users only prefer libraries for borrowing books;
 Many current library users indicate that they will stop
using the libraries soon;
Background
 Users want library services that fit their lifestyles and





not vice versa;
Users want to self-serve;
Essentially users want to get information anytime
anywhere anyhow;
Libraries are neither the first nor the only stop for
information;
Users find it easier and more rewarding to “google” than
visit a physical library; and
Users feel that libraries are about documents, not
information.
Background
 Research by Public Access Computing Project (PACP)
also reveals (through circulation statistics) that usage
of traditional library resources has been on a constant
decrease since the mid 1990s while their electronic
counterparts have been soaring.
 PACP also reports increase in the use of libraries with
Internet and other online services and suggests that
including Internet services actually increases the usage
levels of libraries.
Background
 But there are scholars (Mark Herring, Garry Price,
Larry Borsato, Corrine Jörgensen ) who are of the view
that the value of the “internetization” of library
services is overhyped.
 They point out that:
 The Internet cannot substitute libraries;
 The Internet does not have everything as assumed;
 The Internet lacks quality control so content credibility
is low;
 The Internet is not really ubiquitous, even in developed
countries;
 Internet mostly provides mere links and not
information.
Background
 These scholars conclude that though the Internet may
marginalize the library in certain respects, it cannot
completely replace it.
 They suggest that it is important for the Internet and
Library to develop a complementary model in which
they synergize and make libraries a preferred
destination; not just an afterthought.
 Could this complementary model be Library 2.0? If so,
how can it help research libraries which are one of the
most affected library typologies?
Research Libraries in Kenya
 Research Libraries in Kenya basically face the
following challenges (from KLA discussions):
 High expectations from individual researchers and





institutions;
Dwindling budgets;
High obsolescence rates for information resources;
Lack of trained professionals capable of meeting the
demands of the researchers;
Inadequate resource sharing and collaboration systems;
Poor of information capture and dissemination habits;
Research Libraries in Kenya
 Knowledge gaps – not being able to cope with the
rapidly changing trends;
 Poor state of ICT systems and knowledge;
 Marginalization of library staff from the real “center” of
power in the organizations – generally regarded as mere
support staff; and
 Lack of a strong professional body to cater for the
professional and other needs of the librarians.
 In Kenya, however, these are the best (collection,
budget, ICT systems, etc) libraries compared to public,
school or academic libraries.
Library 2.0
 Many definitions exist; there is no agreement yet.
 It is a spin-off the Web 2.0 concept.
 Some scholars (Casey, Savastinuk, Miller, Rothman, Cohen,
Chad, Blyberg, Albanese, Maness, Habib, Crawford) posit
that it is the application of interactive, collaborative, and
multi-media web-based technologies to library services
and collections.
 The same group of scholars identify the following as the
principles of Library 2.0:
 The library is everywhere;
 The library has no barriers;
 The library invites participation; and
 The library uses flexible best of breed systems.
Library 2.0
 There is agreement that Library 2.0 represents a
change in librarianship but no consensus on the
nature of that change:
 Some scholars opine it is revolutionary;
 Others argue that it is evolutionary; and
 Yet others assert that it is neither evolutionary nor
revolutionary – just normal change.
 There are many controversies around Library 2.0
concept:
 Is it better than “Library 1.0” ?
Library 2.0
 Walt Crawford proposes a distinction between Library
2.0 and “Library 2.0”. He asserts that while the former is
technology mediated change in design and delivery of
library services, the latter is confrontational and views
librarians as rigid.
 The role of ICT in Library 2.0 also remains controversial;
just a hype by ICT vendors to popularize their products.
 Some argue that it is a hollow concept touted by lazy
librarians to deflect attention from real issues facing the
profession (Rothman, Blyberg, Sheehan, Gray,
Deschamps, Levine, Crawford, Mercado, Farkas).
Library 2.0
 Library 2.0 is a commitment to assess, improve,
integrate and communicate library services using the
newest information technology and the tried and true
“human technology” (Casey and Savastinuk).
 There is a great synchronicity between librarianship
and Web 2.0 through the “read/write” features
enabling library users to have greater control over the
services they are offered by the libraries (Maness).
 Blyberg identifies catalogues as one of the areas
proposed for a drastic shift in terms of access and
control.
Library 2.0
 Practitioners and scholars report discernible resistance to
Library 2.0 (Crawford, Smith, Cohen, Miller).
 They suggest that this could be attributed to the following:
 Librarians think they know more than the users;
 Librarians do not encourage users to search for themselves;
 Librarians still prefer to use the old-time tested techniques of
information searching and retrieval;
 Librarians want to classify as much information as possible;
and
 Librarians operate in bureaucratic environments – no space
for adventure.
Library 2.0
 David Lee King proposes a framework for
implementing Library 2.0.
 Begins with the traditional library as we know it today;
 Augmenting traditional libraries – adding search




engines, online databases, email referencing, etc;
Scanning the horizons for new technologies and
techniques usable in the library;
Experimentation with the emerging technological tools;
Customer participation in testing and adopting the
tools;
Community creation and engagement.
Library 2.0
 The following have been identified as the major
challenges facing libraries attempting to implement
Library 2.0 (Helling):
 High staff turnovers, especially if any members of the
core team are involved;
 Use of inappropriate Library 2.0 tools;
 Resistance to change by various members of the library
community; and
 Some of the core services or tools may be outside the
direct control of the implementing libraries.
Library 2.0
 In such cases, the following best practices have been
suggested by professionals who have implemented the
model:
 Constant training and re-training of staff to boost the
competence pool;
 Preparation of adequate budgets for 2.0 model tools as
well as the staff to handle them;
 Reduction of the level of third party 2.0 service
dependencies; and
 Establishment of the services the clients really want so
as to minimize resistance.
Library 2.0
 Andrea Wright suggests the following “ten
commandments” for effective Library 2.0 implementation:
 Listen to your staff;
 Involve staff in planning;
 Tell stories – demonstrate why and how;
 Be transparent;
 Report and debrief;
 Do your research;
 Manage projects efficiently and effectively;
 Formally convene the Emerging Technology Group;
 Training 2.0: Let everyone play and experience; and
 Celebrate success.
Research Objectives/Questions
 Understand the role of research libraries in Kenya
 What is the vision of research libraries in Kenya?
 What is the mission of research libraries in Kenya?
 Overall, what is the role in research libraries in Kenya?
 How well has this role been played?
 How are the roles of research libraries in Kenya
changing in light of the information revolution?
 Understand the operations of research libraries in
Kenya
 What service models are currently employed by the
research libraries in Kenya?
Research Objectives/Questions
 How effective are these models in fulfilling the vision
and mission of the libraries?
 How are the models applied compliant to the provisions
and requirements of the Freedom of Information Policy
(2006) as well as the Kenya National ICT Policy (2006)?
 Are there any social networks existing in the ecosystems
of these libraries? What is their current impact? How
can they benefit the library?
 What are some of the challenges already identified by
the libraries and their communities of users?
Research Objectives/Questions
 Identify and explore other models of library service that
could be adopted by the research libraries in Kenya
 What other library service models exist?
 What are their advantages and disadvantages for
research libraries in Kenya?
 Explore the Library 2.0 Model
 What is Library 2.0?
 What are the controversies around the model?
 Which libraries have adopted this model?
 Which lessons can be learnt from their experience?
 What is the future of Library 2.0?
Research Objectives/Questions
 Applying the Library 2.0 Model for Research Libraries
in Kenya
 What are the benefits of adopting the model for
research libraries in Kenya?
 What challenges are the libraries likely to face when
adopting this model?
 What is the plan of action that should be taken by
research libraries in Kenya seeking to become Research
Library 2.0?
Theoretical Framework
 David Lee King Ripple Effect Framework – for Library
2.0 implementation
 Maness’ four theories of Library 2.0:
 It is user centered
 It provides a multi-media experience
 It is socially rich
 It is community innovative
 Theories
 Conversation theory, Social Network Theory, Network
Effect Multiplier
Research Methodology
 Qualitative interpretive research
 Case study research method
 Cases – Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI),
Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), African
Medical & Research Foundation (AMREF),
International Centre for Agroforestry Research
(ICRAF), and International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI).
 The choice of cases is based on:
 The general perception of the libraries’ and their parent
institutions’ commitment to excellent research both
locally and internationally;
Research Methodology
 Representation of the local (KEMRI and KARI) and the




international (AMREF, ICRAF and ILRI) scenarios which
will enable the researcher to obtain diversified findings
which can be applied both locally and internationally;
Ease of access and anticipated cooperation from the
librarians due to existing rapport between them and the
researcher;
The current level of adoption of new technologies in the
delivery of library information services to the users;
The large and remarkably diverse population of the
research communities served by these libraries; and
The expressed desire and willingness of the libraries to
constantly modernize and transform their models and
delivery of services.
Data Collection Techniques
 Data collection techniques to be used:
 Documentary analysis
 Individual face to face interviews
 Focus Group Discussions
 Observations
 Mystery Shopping
 Individual interviews for librarians and library users will be
conducted by research assistants who are graduates of
Information Science using semi-structured questionnaires.
 FGDs for librarians and users will be done by the researcher
using appropriate interview guides.
Data Collection Techniques
 Researcher and assistants will selectively conduct
participant observations directly and through mystery
shopping at all the cases.
 FGDs will be recorded on tape for further reference
and back-up.
 Secondary data will be collected from books, journals,
white papers, professional articles and online
resources.
Data Analysis
 Data will be analyzed through:
 Content Analysis
 Conversation Analysis
 Descriptive/Interpretive Techniques
 Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(CAQDAS)

Non-numerical Unstructured Data with Indexing, Searching
and Theorizing (NUD*IST) software (Nvivo)
 Reliability will be ensured through accurate coding,
issuing explicit instructions to the participants in the
project as well as maintaining objectivity throughout the
process .
Data Analysis
 Validity threats are likely to come from Hawthorne
Effect (e.g. librarians performing much better because
they are aware that they are being observed) and Halo
Effect (observations influenced by the researcher’s
impression of the subjects).
 However, the researcher will strive to ensure the study
achieves high validity through triangulation and use of
appropriate samples which are truly representative of
the research population.
Challenges
 This is a relatively new discipline; limited information
resources.
 There is also limited theory development for the
subject.
 Lack of ubiquity of ICTs and the requisite
infrastructure.
Asanteni. Siyabonga.