[Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data(wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)

[Walker, David]

>> We're losing because we can never 

>> offer the simplicity that they do. 

>> www.google.com is always easier to 

>> type than library.someuniversity.eduis.

 

I disagree.

 

Academic libraries can provide a simple means to search and find library content.  We have metasearch systems and even the ability to load and index our most used databases together with our catalog records into a local system [1]. 

 

A system like that would not only be as easy to use as Google, it would be in many ways better, since it would be tailored to our community, and would only include those resources that are directly useful and available to our users.  Give them the ability to save and format records in a citation style of their choosing, and then you've really got something that people would want to use.

 

If you, in turn, integrate that system, together with reserves and librarian generated content, into a learning management system, then students wouldn't even have to go out to 'library.someuniversity.edu', because they would have all of the library resources specific to their course right there where they already are.

 

There's a lot of work to be done there, to be sure.  But, again, if we make that our top priority, there's absolutely no reason why it can't be done. 

 

If nothing else, we should consider the fact that we find ourselves in this mess precisely because libraries declared that corporations could do library automation and other key technical tasks better than us.  Thirty years later we're struggling, because we don't have sufficient control over our own content and systems to do what we need to do.  Do we really want to make that same mistake twice?

 

 

>> We no longer serve "society's needs" 

>> in general

 

But academic libraries never did that to begin with.

 

 

>> Simple needs, simple tools. 

>> Complex needs, complex tools.

 

Sounds good to me.  But we already have the complex tools; in fact, we've got them in spades.  What we really need are the simple tools.  And, no, Google is not enough.

 

--Dave

 

[1] http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6413442.html

 

-------------------
David Walker
Library Web Services Manager
California State University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu

________________________________

From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Mark Costa
Sent: Tue 5/8/2007 9:32 AM
To: Casey Bisson
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data(wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)



On 5/8/07, Casey Bisson <cbisson at plymouth.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Why are undergraduate students the core audience?
> >> they also conduct the least amount of intensive research, are less
> >> enthusiastic about research, and are less connected  to the
> >> academic community.
> >
> > Well, not only are undergraduate students the largest group of
> > users at virtually all academic libraries, but at the large number
> > of academic libraries that are not at doctoral degree granting
> > institutions, they are effectively the sole user group.


That is why you cater your presence to your community.


And, like it or not, it's from those undergrads that tomorrow's
> teachers will come.


I am not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that they won't be a
fan of the library because it didn't cater to their unsophisticated needs as
an undergraduate? As people move from undergraduate to graduate, and then on
to faculty, their information seeking behaviors change. Perhaps you can
argue we can catch them in transition. Much of what we offer is authority
and precision. Authority is not as important to an undergraduate as it is to
a graduate. Perhaps I went to a less than stellar university for undergrad,
but I was never graded on whether or not the theory in the scholarly paper I
used was the most current, or had the most weight in my field. That
certainly has become more important as I became more involved in academics.

Like I said before, there will be some undergraduates who require
sophisticated tools to meet their information needs. Perhaps it would be
more worthwhile to break users into three sophistication categories - low,
medium, and high. Google has the market locked down on the unsophisticated
users, leaving the medium and high's to us. Yet libraries are running around
chasing the low end users, hoping to generate large numbers over a dedicated
user base. We're losing because we can never offer the simplicity that they
do. www.google.com is always easier to type than library.someuniversity.eduis.

The jiggs up; technology has relegated what we do to a niche market. We no
longer serve "society's needs" in general, because someone else found out
how do to it much more cost effectively than us. The only market left for us
is the high end information seeker. What I am arguing is that we need to
focus on that person, or someone else will.


Simple needs, simple tools. Complex needs, complex tools.


Then we have to ask ourselves: will they direct their students to the
> library...will they support continued funding for the library?
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/