Critical review of Jack M. Maness’ article “Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries”.

This article is freely available from: http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html

In 2006, Jack M. Maness published an article entitled “Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries”, in which he aimed to establish a precise definition and theory for the term “Library 2.0”. This review will analyze whether, six years later, the hypothesis Maness put forward was sound and if his thoughts and speculations on burgeoning Web 2.0 technology have turned out to be accurate.

The crux of the article was to establish Maness’ definition of Library 2.0, which is: “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections" (Maness, 2006, Library 2.0 section, para. 3). His accompanying theory states that this definition is comprised of four essential elements: Library 2.0 is user-centered, socially rich, communally innovative, and it provides a multi-media experience. Of particular note is that his definition excludes library services, rather it is solely about particular web services a library can provide.

This definition and theory is certainly problematic. By removing physical library services from the definition altogether, this definition has made itself redundant; it is still just Web 2.0 technology being used in a library. How this will “focus discussion and experimentation”, as is Maness’ goal, is not apparent. If interaction and collaboration between users and the library is too occur successfully, it will surely involve more than just website use (Nguyen, Partridge, & Edwards, 2012, p. 343), especially when one considers factors such as user’s lack or knowledge of technology. “Podcast studios, video-editing bays and flexible, collaborative group space for work creating content” (Stephens, 2007, p. 36) are seen as future options for libraries; these meet all four elements of Maness’ definition, yet are technically excluded by it.

Maness’ speculations regarding the technological aspects of his idea of Library 2.0 is mostly on the right track but is lacking in a number of respects. Perhaps most glaring is the omission of any reference to mobile technology when in today’s library environment it is an essential aspect; as one author put it “It is clear that the current trend is towards 
mobile technology” (Sara, 2012, p. 317). Whether this was due to an oversight on Maness’ part or because, at the time, the technology was not considered (the iPhone was released the year after publication, a mobile device which “changed the conversation” (Little, 2011, p. 267) when it comes to the use of Web 2.0 technology within libraries) is uncertain.  

With smartphones usage continuing to climb (“Generation App”, 2011), mobile technology has to be included in any discussion of Library 2.0 or Web 2.0. There is also the increasing integration of devices such as tablets and e-readers, which are also conspicuously absent from the article, and their impact on e-resources to be taken into account.

A number of other Web 2.0 technologies are predicted by Maness to become integral parts of any Library 2.0 and most are accurate. Instant messaging is used widely, especially by academic libraries (Tripathi & Kumar, 2010, p. 199), but Maness’  theory that this will lead to a stage where a Library 2.0 “will know when users are lost, and will offer immediate, real-time assistance” seems overambitious, even six years later.

Streaming audio and visual content, RSS feeds, and social networking are also covered, all of which are detailed accurately. However Maness’ suggestion that library collections should include content from blogs or, somehow, the blogs themselves, does not seem to be thoroughly thought out. The oversight needed to ensure academic rigor would be beyond the knowledge base of librarians, rather it would need to be performed by professionals in the field of the blog’s content.  With scholarly blogging on the rise (Deitering & Gronemyer, 2011, p. 496) this issue will need to be analysed in much more depth.

Overall Maness’ article has a number of issues, more than can be properly covered here, for example: lack of depth; the “utopian and revolutionary overtones” (Carlsson, 2012, p. 199) of his writing; and the absence of how Library 2.0 would affect different institutions, even public libraries compared to academic libraries. Yet he has still accurately predicted a number of aspects of Library 2.0 and his definition, while problematic, at least provides a good starting point towards a more definition.

References

-->

Carlsson, H. (2012). Working with Facebook in public libraries: a backstage

glimpse into the library 2.0 rhetoric. Libri: International Journal Of Libraries & Information Services, 62(3), 199-210. doi:10.1515/libri-2012-0016

Connolly, M., Cosgrave, T., & Krkoska, B. B. (2011). Mobilizing the library's web

presence and services: a student-library collaboration to create the library's mobile site and iPhone application. Reference Librarian, 52(1/2), 27-35. doi:10.1080/02763877.2011.520109

Deitering, A. & Gronemyer, K. (2011). Beyond peer-reviewed articles: using blogs

to enrich students' understanding of scholarly work. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(1). 489-503.

Generation App: 62% of Mobile Users 25-34 own Smartphones. (2011). Retrieved

from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=29786

Little, G. (2011). Managing technology: Keeping Moving: Smart Phone and Mobile

Technologies in the Academic Library. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 37(3), 267-269.

Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2012). Participatory action research in the age of social

media: literacies, affinity spaces and learning. New Library World, 113(11/12), 571-585. doi:10.1108/03074801211282939

Nguyen, L., Partridge, H., & Edwards, S. L. (2012). Towards an understanding of the

participatory library. Library Hi Tech, 30(2), 335-346. doi:10.1108/07378831211239997

Sara, A. (2012). Information Literacy beyond Library 2.0. Australian Library Journal,

61(4), 317.

Stephens, M. (2007). Technology Trends for a 2.0 World. Library Technology

Reports, 43(5), 32-44.