USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGY

USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGY BY THE LIBRARIANS: A SURVEY
PREETI SHARDA
Librarian, Regional Institute of English,
Sector32-C, Chandigarh, 160036, India
E-mail: sharda.preeti@gmail.com
Libraries all over the world are undergoing fundamental paradigm shifts in the way they see their users and in how they offer their services. The thrust is on exploiting the Internet and in particular Web 2.0 applications, to engage users not only in developing new library services but also building a community. This paper investigates a survey done on librarians' needs and interests vis-à-vis web 2.0 technologies. The survey will guide in developing trainings and other resources that will help librarians to enhance community networking and other library services via online tools and technologies, learn best practices in applying web 2.0 technologies in library settings and make use of valuable networking tools like wikis and podcasts.
Keywords: Librarians 2.0, Library 2.0, Knowledge Management, Web 2.0
1. Introduction
Web 2.0 technologies are about social networking and collaboration. Web 2.0 refers to the second generation of the Web, which enables people having no specialized technical knowledge, to create their own websites, to self-publish, upload audio and video files, share photos, information and a variety of other tasks.
The term "Web 2.0" was coined by DiNucci in 1999. Her article was aimed at designers, reminding them to code for an ever-increasing variety of hardware. In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Batelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform," where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly (2006) considered Web 2.0 as the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.
Web 2.0 can be defined as a system in which online users become participants rather than mere viewers. It refers to the changes in the way people use the web. We can say that Web 1.0 was a creation of web pages that provided information while Web 2.0 takes that information and interacts with the reader and allow them to find or modify the information that he or she wants in the format which is most useful to them. Difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is made clearer through Table 1.
Table 1 Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
On-line Encyclopedias Wikipedia
Personal Web Page Blogs
Netscape Google
Taxonomy Folksonomy (tags)
Portals RSS
Companies Communities
Wires Wireless
Proprietary Software Open Source
With Web 2.0, information can be retrieved from various places and it can be personalized to meet the needs of a single user. Application can be built on the existing applications that comprise the Web 2.0 interface. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups and folksonomies.
Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques:
• Search: It provides a comfortable search through keyword search
• Links: Ad-hoc guides to other relevant information.
• Authoring: The ability to create constantly and update contents over a platform that is shifted from being the creation of a few to being constantly updated, interlinked work.
• Tags: Categorization of contents by creating tags: simple, one-word user-determined descriptions to facilitate searching and avoid rigid, pre-made categories.
• Extensions: Powerful algorithms that leverage the Web as an application platform as well as a document server.
• Signals: The use of RSS technology to rapidly notify the users of content changes.
1.1 Types of Web 2.0
• Social Networks. These are “web services” that allow individuals to create a public or semi-public profile within the online platform, while also allowing for the definition of a list of users which share some form of contact" (Arroyo, 2008) .
• Podcast: A podcast is a series of digital computer files, usually either digital audio or video, which is released periodically and made available for download by means of web syndication. These broadcasts are downloadable and therefore portable and usually include the use of RSS feeds that allow users to subscribe to the broadcasts.
• RSS: RSS (most commonly translated as "Really Simple Syndication" but sometimes "Rich Site Summary) is a format for delivering regularly changing web content. It allows user to easily stay informed by retrieving the latest content from the sites in which he is interested. He saves time by not visiting each site individually and also ensures his privacy, by not necessarily joining each site's email newsletter. Example: Yahoo News.
• Wiki: Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki support hyperlinks and has simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslink’s between internal pages on the fly. Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Example: www.wikipedia.com; wikispaces.com
• Blog: A shortened form of the term Web Log, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author. Blogs can be viewed as online journals to which others can respond and are as simple to use as e-mail. Example: www.edublogs.org
• Social Networking: Web-based social networking occurs through a variety of websites that allow users to share content, interact and develop communities of similar interests. Depending on the social networking website in question, many of these online community members share a common bond, related to their hobbies, religion, or politics. Examples: Myspace; Facebook; Bebo; Flickr; Windows Live Spaces.
By reviewing the discussion in the preceding pages we can say Web 2.0 is commonly associated with web development and web design that facilitates interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design and collaboration on the World Wide Web.
1.2 Web 2.0 and Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management (KM) is commonly known as the sharing of knowledge inside or outside of an organization. KM is a method of gathering information and making it available for others. It is a process of systematically and actively managing and leveraging the stores of knowledge in an organization and it helps in transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring values. It is a system or framework for managing the organizational processes that create, store and distribute knowledge as defined by its collective data.
Knowledge is no just an explicit tangible “thing”, like information, but information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection. Knowledge involves the person as a whole, integrating the elements of both thinking and feeling.
Rowley (2000) stated, “Knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation of an organization…. Organizations that succeed in knowledge management are likely to view knowledge as an asset and to develop organizational norms and values, which support the creation and sharing knowledge”.
KM is the cycle of capturing, reusing and inventing knowledge, which is in turn driven by the overlap between people, processes and technology.
Knowledge sharing has been greatly facilitated by modern computer based technology. Where people and process drive the KM cycle, technology is the vehicle. Whether the vehicle is a Moped or a Ferrari depends on how well business objectives are met. For a project management consultancy firm, an objective might be “continued innovation in delivering projects on-time, within budget and with the utmost quality standards. This objective already defines what a possible KM for this firm will need to capture knowledge on, that is, project efficiency, budgeting best practices and maintaining high quality standards.
KM systems existed before digital technology in the form of manuals, handwritten text and possibly analogue recordings. All this information was decentralized, with little to no coordination between functional silos. There was no single version of the truth at any point in time and if a manager had diligently written down his projects’ Lessons Learned, it would eventually collect dust in a long forgotten cabinet. But today with the help of Web 2.0 knowledge managers are able to overcome these problems. Web 2.0 can help in seven unique ways:
(i) The Web As Platform – The web becomes a universal platform for all to utilize
(ii) Harnessing Collective Intelligence – The service gets better as more people use it
(iii) Data is the Next Intel Inside – Those with the most helpful data will win
(iv) End of the Software Release Cycle – Rather than big releases, constant evolution
(v) Lightweight Programming Models – Flexibility, open standards and change
(vi) Software Above the Level of a Single Device – Expandable beyond the PC
(vii) Rich user experience – Interactivity and an “application-like” feel (O’Reilly, 2005)
We can say that WEB 2.0 is very close in its principles and attributes to knowledge management.
1.3 Library and Information Centers and Web 2.0
Business world is changing in the new knowledge economy and in the digital age, libraries of all types are undergoing drastic changes also. The new role of libraries in the 21st century needs to be as a learning and knowledge center for their users. As a learning organization, libraries should provide a strong leadership in knowledge management. Unlike the business organization, the learning organization should share knowledge with others. Libraries should improve their knowledge management in all of the key areas of library services.
The exponential growth in human knowledge in a variety of formats, has forced libraries to develop their resources, access and sharing strategies from printed to electronic and digital resources. Restricted by limited funding, technology, staff and space, libraries must carefully analyze the needs of their users and seek to develop cooperative acquisition plans to meet the needs of users.
Many libraries in the world have been embracing the use of Web 2.0 and Social Networking tools to enhance services to library patrons as well as promote/market library events to new audiences. Libraries have been implementing a wide variety of these tools but many are concentrating their efforts on the use of blogs, open source content management systems.
Librarians have been quick to pick up on Web 2.0 and converting library as Library 2.0. Library 2.0 is a concept based on Web 2.0 that gives library users a participatory role in the services libraries offer and the way they are used. Maness (2006) defines Library 2.0 as “the application of interactive, collaborative and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections”.
Library 2.0 has the potential to change and shape library services in new ways, some of the Applications of Library 2.0 are:
• Blogs: Blogs provide a useful way for librarians to disseminate small snippets of information to their library users. A subject librarian in an academic library might find it useful to gather database updates, new site and service notices and event information in one place i.e. on the blog. It helps to provide openness and transparency, whilst informing of library news and events. Librarians can use blog to share good practice and experiences. Blogs can be a very effective way to offer advice and commentary on current library issues. Librarians can also raise the profile of the resources in their library by blogging about their features too.
• Wikis: Wikis are essentially open web-pages, where anyone registered with the wiki can publish to it, amend it and change it. Wiki as a service can enable social interaction among librarians and patrons, essentially moving the study group room online. As users share information, ask and answer questions and even librarians do the same within a Wiki, a record of these transactions is archived perhaps for perpetuity. And these transcripts are in turn resources for the library to provide as reference. Wikis can be used by libraries as content and knowledge management tools for: internal communication; staff resources or training; conference information; planning conferences, programs and projects; institutional collaboration; professional collaboration; social networking and sharing for librarians; community information; research guides ; reader's advisory guides; hosting a website and supplementing a website.
• Social Networks: Social networks enable messaging, blogging, streaming media and tagging. Website like “LibraryThing” enables users to catalog their books and view why other users share those books. The implications of this site on how librarians recommend reading to users are apparent. LibraryThing enables users, thousands of them potentially, to recommend books to one another simply by viewing each other's collections. It also enables them to communicate asynchronously, blog and “tag” their books.
• Tagging: Tagging essentially enables users to create subject headings for the object at hand. In LibraryThing, they tag books. In Library 2.0, users can tag the library's collection and thereby participate in the cataloging process. Tagging simply makes lateral searching easier.
• RSS Feeds: RSS feeds and other related technologies provide users a way to syndicate and republish content on the Web. Libraries are already creating RSS feed for users to subscribe to, including updates on new items in a collection, new services and new content in subscription databases. They are also republishing content on their sites.
• Mashups: Mashups are ostensibly hybrid applications, where two or more technologies or services are conflated into a completely new, novel service. Library 2.0 is a mashup. It is a mashup of traditional library services and innovative Web 2.0 services. It is a library for the 21st century, rich in content, interactivity and social activity.
2. Objective of the Study
The issue about the importance of web 2.0 in libraries is taken up in this paper. It investigates the prevalence and use of Web 2.0 applications in libraries. The objective of the study was to investigate the use of Web 2.0 applications by librarians of Chandigarh. The focus of the research was what types of Web 2.0 technologies were applied and to what extent by the librarians of the region.
3. Review of Related Literature
In writing a research paper, the review of related literature is considered a difficult task but plays an essential part in the completion of the study. An attempt has been made to review the latest studies about the use of web 2.0 in libraries.
Miller (2005) explores some of the recent buzz about the concept of 'Web 2.0' and asks what it means for libraries and related organizations. According to the author Web 2.0 is a convenient label upon which to hang a range of concepts.
Maness (2006) suggests that recent thinking describing the changing Web as "Web 2.0" will have substantial implications for libraries and recognizes that while these implications are very close to the history and mission of libraries; they still necessitate a new paradigm for librarianship.
According to Patkar (2007) a new trend for information organization was emerging and thus referred to various technologies used in this regard. He added that everybody talked about the information overflow but the librarians can handle it well only with the use of efficient and strong tools.
Linh (2008) found through his research that at least two-thirds of Australasian university libraries deployed one or more Web 2.0 technologies. Only four Web 2.0 technologies were used for specific purposes and with some basic features. The general Web 2.0 application indexes were still low as the mean application index was 12 points and the highest index was 37 points (out of 100).
According to Randeree and Mon (2008) the web has extended beyond a search tool to become a mechanism for participatory content creation and dissemination. They investigate the extent of awareness of the phenomenon among undergraduate and graduate students, the usage of Web 2.0 and social computing sites and the role of librarians under this new paradigm.Dora and Maharana’s (2008) article explained that how Web 2.0 tools could be applied in academic libraries to convert them as A-Lib 2.0 or Academic Library 2.0. The paper further includes a few cases from different libraries which have already adopted these new services. One recent survey found that 34.41% of total academic libraries in New York State are using Web 2.0 Services; the major ones include IM, Blogs, RSS, Book marking, Wiki, Social Networks, etc.
Aharony (2009) has studied whether librarians, whose main work focuses on information, are familiar with new technological changes and innovations and whether they make use of different Web 2.0 applications. The research revealed that personality characteristics as well as computer expertise, motivation, importance and capacity towards studying and integrating different applications of Web 2.0 in the future, influence librarians' use of Web 2.0.
According to Rogers (2009) many academic and public libraries in the United States have been embracing the use of Web 2.0 and Social Networking tools to enhance services to library patrons.
Studies reviewed in the present section show the application of web 2.0 in libraries. Understanding the concept as the need of the hour is what the research was taken up for.
4. Research Methodology
Underscoring the importance of research methodology, Ghosh (1982) has stated that “Research is means to the advancement of knowledge and of Science; but a fruitful research study appears to be almost impossible without the proper understanding of research methodology.” Methodology in research is a way to solve the problem to unfold the probable answer and to test the hypothesis stated.
The nature of the present study required a thorough study of librarians working in the college libraries of Chandigarh, survey method using questionnaire was used to collect information. A questionnaire for accessing use of Web 2.0 by the librarians working in college libraries of Chandigarh was circulated and the data was collected from the librarians working in government, private and government funded college libraries. There are about 40 Librarians working under the Chandigarh Administration. Out of 40 questionnaires 38 were received back. Out of these 38, 2 Questionnaires were not duly filled so 36 responses were taken as the sample of the study.
5. Findings
Information about the librarians regarding their age, gender, education, status as defined by their institutions, tenure, rank, years in the profession, salary and area of service was collected. 47 percent (17) of the respondents were between the age group of 41-50 years in comparison to the librarians below 30. This number shows a dire need for recruitment of younger people in this profession. Seventy-five percent (27) of the respondents were females. 83 percent (30) of Chandigarh librarians are married. 72 percent (26) of the librarians are serving in government colleges. It was further found that all the 36 respondents are having master degree in Library an Information Science as this is the basic qualification required for this job. 31 librarians had an additional M.A. and 2 of the librarians had Ph.D. degree also. Some of librarians had done certificate course in computers and even M. Phil. in Library and Information Science. 67 percent (24) have been in this profession for more than fifteen years. Surprisingly, of the 36 responses, 11 percent librarians were there in the rest of the three categories, i.e. below 2 years, Above 2 but below 6 years and above 6 but below 15 years. 20 percent of the 36 respondents opined that they are engaged in providing circulation services to the users. The statistics reported that 2 librarians work in reference. The second largest area of service was the cataloguing.
Librarians were further asked whether they think Web 2.0 tools are important for promoting library services or not. It was found that about 60% of the librarians stated yes. Librarians were also asked about what Web 2.0 tools they use in the library? (the options were: blogs, wikis, RSS, instant messaging, social bookmarking. It is very clear from table 2 (figure 1) that librarians of Chandigarh have not fully utilized the web 2.0 applications. Wiki is the only tool which is used by about 47% of the librarians while IM is used by only 14% of the librarians.
Table 2 Use of Web 2.0 tools
Web 2.0 Tools (N= Number of respondents)
Blogs 10 (27)
Wikis 17 (47)
RSS 8 (22)
IM 5 (14)
Social Benchmarking 7 (19)
(Percentage given within parenthesis)

Figure 1 Table 2 Use of Web 2.0 tools
Librarians were asked about how 2.0 tools are used by them. For e.g.: if they have a blog, what do they use it for? It was found that wiki was used for providing reference service and for compiling results of large group research projects. Blogs were being used to communicate news and information internally in the library. Some of the librarians RSS feeds were used to stay upto date with their favorite journals. Tools like IM and social bookmarking were rarely used.
Librarians were further asked about their comments on the issues while implementing these tools? The responses to this were really shocking, they commented:
• This type of tools can reach a specific type of users,
• Time to consistently attend to is the real issue.
• Don't have the staff or time to do an effective job with these tools.
• Libraries have to determine the costs and benefits of actually using such tools.
Technology fear and lack of training were few of the other problems. It was further found that personality characteristics, as well as computer expertise, motivation, importance and capacity towards studying and integrating different applications of Web 2.0 have influenced librarians to use of Web 2.0.
6. Conclusions
The Web 2.0 and social software explosion has the capability to transform the online profile of libraries and help reach out to tech-savvy young users to whom the library may otherwise be invisible. Libraries can now easily collaborate and create online communities, as well as explore new techniques to communicate with, educate and attract new users - and also to market themselves. Libraries all over the world have been employing many Web 2.0 applications to promote library services since their inception. Conversely, many librarians have feared this paradigm shift in communicating library services to their users because of traditional values and tend to cite an unsubstantiated fear of possible security breaches to their online systems and integrated library systems. In the survey of the librarians of Chandigarh it was found that they are not fully utilizing the web 2.0 tools. Many of them asked questions about the implementation of Web 2.0 applications in the library: “How can I convince my library authorities of the usefulness of Web 2.0?” “We are already understaffed and busy so how can we find the time to use these tools?” and the most general question, “Why should my library offer or even promote social media?” The answers to these questions are quite simple.
Librarians need to update themselves with the technology and are supposed to adapt to the changing needs of users. It is now essential that we start preparing to become Librarian 2.0 now. The Web 2.0 movement is laying the groundwork for exponential business growth and another major shift in the way our users live, work and play. We have the ability, insight and knowledge to influence the creation of this new dynamic – and guarantee the future of our profession.
Librarians, the Knowledge Managers should examine if younger employees can serve as knowledge catalysts. WEB 2.0 concepts should be tested as to organization's maturity, to decide if they can be adopted as part of the organizational knowledge sharing. Librarians should adapt with the fast growing technology. We have witnessed the tremendous changes that took place in the library services such as infrastructure, content creation, collection development, user interface, information and knowledge management strategies etc. Digital libraries are the library without physical boundaries. Patrons could access the information at any place, any time, anywhere and in any format. The expectations from the users have gone up into a high level that the librarians are trying to meet with continuous learning.
Information resources from the Internet influence the content of the library’s collection policy and require inclusion of electronic journals, current awareness services, document delivery and even ephemeral information resources from the Internet.
Librarians and information professionals will have to be familiar with key Internet resources and even provide their own content. Library 2.0 has become the buzz word. Librarians have to start migrating to become Librarian 2.0, This require them to know several web 2.0 technologies such as RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Wikis, Blogs, Web tools, Technology standards and protocols.
Knowledge Manager Identification, Verification, Acquisition, Organization and Dissemination - these are the traditional services provided by librarians since the emergence of the library services. In the last few years librarians have again had to expand their area of expertise to include digital information, including areas of the World Wide Web. And they are expected to redefine themselves again. This time, as knowledge managers they have to manage the knowledge of the organization. Knowledge is people, content, practices or processes and intellectual capital. The Librarian will be the ideal person to manage the knowledge of the support organization. He can be the knowledge manager for training organization who can take the complete responsibility for training content, delivery model and so on. Being the Knowledge Manager means that creating value to the firm by facilitating access to high quality information and through networking they put people and their ideas together using the technological infrastructure. The emphasis will shift from technical skills in the library to communication, facilitation, training and management skills (e.g. strategic and marketing management).
The transformation from librarian to knowledge manager is clearly underway; however, a deeper look in the direction is that the Internet is taking research reveals the possibility of more far-reaching changes. As many business processes move to the Internet, the use of information will become integrated with the systems and services. In this environment, information as a distinct function or resource may no longer exist. To adjust to these more far-reaching changes, information professionals must search beyond current bounds (e.g. librarian, information, knowledge management) and think in terms of benefits to their organizations. Right now, information can be used to enhance competitiveness and productivity. If information is to be seamlessly integrated with transaction processes, then someone must scope out work-related behaviors to ensure that it is done in the most efficient and effective manner. And, if equal information and technology is available to everyone, then competition rests on the ability to interpret and apply these tools. Clearly the impending shift to knowledge management (and beyond) represents an exciting change for library and information professionals. However, it's an opportunity that requires a great deal of preparation and a new way of thinking.
Thus, the role of the librarian evolves from network specialist to information broker, systems designer and knowledge manager, to mention only a few. In essence, an overall intensification of specialization both in the technological aspects of library and information services, as well as stronger subject-oriented competencies and evaluative abilities are being demanded from the information professionals and should be taken into consideration both in the training and education of professionals as well as in in-service continuing education to meet the changing technological demands in the organization.
References
Aharony, Noa (2009). Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 31(1), 29-37.
Arroyo, Natalia (2008). Libraries and social networking: A question of visibility. Proceedings of the Fourth National Congress of Public Libraries, 24 to 26 September 2008, Spain. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00014815/
DiNucci, Darcy (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32.
Dora, Mallikarjun and Maharana, Bulu (2008). A-Lib 2.0: New avatar academic libraries with web 2.0 applications. Conference Proceedings of the International CALIBER 2008, February 28 - March 1, 2008, University of Allahabad, Allahabad. Retrieved from http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/501/1/CALIBER%202 008(51).pdf.
Ghosh, B.N. (1982). Scientific method and social research. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 254.
Linh, Nguyen Cuong (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 630-653.
Maness , Jack M. ( 2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2) Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
Maness, Jack M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2). Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
Miller, Paul (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne, 45, Retrieved October 30, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/
O'Reilly, Tim. (09/30/2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Patkar, Vivek (2007). Transforming library to cope with the new web technology and social challenges. Conference Proceedings of National Convention on Knowledge, Library and Information Networking (NACLIN 2007) November 20-23, 2007, New Delhi. New Delhi: India International Centre.
Randeree, Ebrahim and Mon, Lorri (2008). Web 2.0: A new dynamic in information services for libraries Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 1-6.
Rogers, Curtis R. (2009). Social media, libraries, and Web 2.0: How American libraries are using new tools for public relations and to attract new users. Conference Proceedings of German Library Association Annual Conference: Deutscher Bibliothekartag 2009, 2-5 June, 2009, Erfurt. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt-download/socialmediaandlibariesfinal-090523180527-papp02.pdfSignature= 1m%2F02jOKdUEKHrZ%2FuYVf51hoznA%3D&Expires=1247997427&AWSAccessKeyId=1Z5T9H8PQ39V6F79V8G2
Rowley, Jennifer (2000). Is higher education ready for knowledge management? International Journal of Educational Management, 14(7), 325–333.
Tim, O'Reilly (12/10/2006). Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html