Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models (Basic v2 and Detailed)

I have updated the original Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model. The new version aims to maintain the simplicity of the original, while adding a few examples and using more precise language. Also worth noting is that the line separating the physical and virtual environments is now dotted to signify the artificial nature of this boundary.

This model presents a view of how students might view the library as place in relation to their academic and social lives. It is at this intersection that I propose Library 2.0 has begun to materialize. The primary goal of the model is to encourage brainstorming over how we can develop virtual environments that will fit into students’ lives. However, I would argue that new collaborative spaces in the physical environment could also be viewed as part of L2 in so much as they are responses to changing learning styles that are partially brought on by the social nature of Web 2.0 tools. In this way, a definition of L2 that focuses on Web 2.0 might include some innovative services in the physical environment. This said, it is my belief that L2 is primarily useful as a concept for developing new online tools. To learn more about this model, you can check out the post accompanying the first model here. The comments and links at the bottom of that page will help guide one through the discussions of the original model.

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model Basic v2

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model Basic v2

I have also created a more detailed version of the model. In this version the boundary between physical and virtual has vanished. Furthermore, this model includes interaction types as well as places. Instead of focusing on exact tasks such as shaking hands (physical) or commenting (virtual), I have looked at interactions in a broader way. At this point, the key is a little confusing on the model, so please use the revised key posted below the model. However, the basic goal is to get people thinking about designing virtual and physical places according to the types of social interactions our patrons will be having in those environments. You will also notice that ALL of the interactions mentioned occur in both the physical and virtual places. Of course we will be seeing more places inhabiting both physical and virtual as well. For example, virtual group study rooms might supplement our physical study rooms.

The scale at the bottom of the model highlights some of the key spectra that lie between a student’s social and academic lives. Again, it is my argument that the library inhabits a space somewhere in the middle ground between these extremes.

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model Detailed

Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model Detailed

(REVISED KEY:
underlined = physical
uppercase = virtual
interactions or spaces can be both
———————————-
non-italics = spaces
italics = interactions)

I am still working on these models and final drafts will be included in the second part of my Master’s Paper. I am also developing a model to describe Library 2.0 in general. I should have the paper done relatively soon and will post a link to it. Furthermore, the structure of the paper should work well for filling in the wiki that I proposed here.

As always, I encourage feedback. You are welcome to leave comments here or on your own blog. If you are linking to the image on Flickr, please link to this post as well, so that your contribution to the discussion will be included on this page. Thanks.

Technorati tags: library 2.0 library-20 library2.0 L2 web 2.0 web2.0 academic libraries academiclibrary20

10 thoughts on “Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models (Basic v2 and Detailed)”

  1. Michael, I like your updates to the Academic Library 2.0 model. I almost made a comment some months back that the OPAC was missing from your initial model (but then became overwhelmed with school work). As I said before, your model really helps me visualize the social importance of the L2.0 movement.

  2. Hi Jennifer, thanks for all of your great feedback on the models. One of the reasons that I deliberately left the OPAC off the first model is because I was focusing on where I thought we were already developing library 2.0 environments and less on where we were going.

    The OPAC should of course be one of the center pieces of Library 2.0. The patron review features on Open Worldcat and folksonomy features like PennTags are moving towards making OPACs more social, but we have a long way to go. It is important to note that the OPACs presented on my models are not your traditional OPACs, but social OPACs. Again, thanks for all your great comments.

  3. Hi Michael,

    I think you’ve nicely drawn out a concept map of the library2.0 landscape and nailed the library as both social and academic space. Have you thought of incorporating infrastructure costs (systems and CPU, digital and physical collections, metadata creation, licensing, DRM…) inherent in the web2.0 world of your model? Or giving a parallel library view of the landscape in which those are highlighted?

    I realize that you’re concentrating on the communication aspect of and student/user view of L2, but I fear that the traditional library ideals of collection, dissemination and preservation are getting short shrift in your model and in the general thoughts of the L2 community. This is a major failing IMHO. The L2 community (and libraries in general) seem to want to rely on others to incorporate library ideals into their business models and their thinking about information rather than doing the hard work themselves (and there are many reasons for this, mostly having to do with money or lack thereof). However, we can’t rely on google/y!/corporate sector to have these ideals. Remember, Google is scanning books to generate advertising dollars; preservation and access (to more than snippets of information) are not at the top of their list.

    We (meaning libraries) need to be figuring out how to enhance our traditional strengths with W2, combining our collections with mashups, creating collections on the fly and increasing access with W2 technologies. If we forget about those traditional strengths, we’ll be heading down the same road to obsolescence as travel agents (and I’m not the first to use that metaphor ;-) ). We need to reach out to users, extend and increase use of our physical spaces, but also extend and increase use of our collections. W2 can help in all of those areas. All service and no information/collections/data make the library a dull place!

    Libraries may not be the center of the universe, but they remain relevant cultural institutions.

    Thanks again for posting. I look forward to reading your thesis.

    Regards,

    James Jacobs
    http://freegovinfo.info
    [email protected]

  4. Hi James,

    Thanks for the detailed feedback. I had not thought about a comparable model of the type you propose. However, I plan at least to scratch the surface of many of those issues in the written part of my paper. In particular, I will discuss content and collections more explicitly. I will do so both as I flesh out the ideas in the models and also when I introduce the other half of my vision of Academic Library 2.0. I have yet to share this part of my ideas yet. After all, I need to save something fresh for the paper. So you are absolutely correct that content has been left conspicuously out of my model.

    I must admit that I do not take some issues such as preservation at all into account in my discussions of Library 2.0. This is partly because of a lack of knowledge on my part due to my background in public services. It is not that I feel such duties are unimportant to our profession; I just am not qualified to discuss all of them.

    Furthermore, I have always envisioned Library 2.0 as specifically related to public services and patron facing web applications such as the public face of the OPAC. I have always argued that Library 2.0 is not a replacement of the traditional library, but simply a way of describing one genre of new library services. While sub-fields such as preservation are also changing on account of new technologies, these changes are not necessarily part of what I would consider Library 2.0.

    Again, thanks for such detailed input. I hope that my completed paper will address some of your issues. As it is my ultimate goal to populate an Academic Library 2.0 wiki with the sections of my completed paper, I will be encouraging others to fill in those gaps in theory with which I am unfamiliar.

    -Michael

  5. dear michael
    Hi
    im mansore, student librarianship and information science in iran.
    im writing my theses whit title” factor analysis of use of web 2.0 by librarians of academic libraries”
    i refrenced yure article” conceptual model for academic library” in my proposal. would you please send me more information about my theses! i will glad if you help me.
    thetes my email address hosini_shoar@ yahoo.com
    thanks

Comments are closed.