Articles for 15 April

Rayward
Reading this article at times seemed a bit confusing to me, particularly because I do not have a background in general functions of library bureaucracy and functioning other than what we have learned in this class, but the content itself evoked the images and evolution of computer use in the public library. An interesting point at the beginning is that many of the early organizational undertakings were in fact advances in technology; they simply do not fit contemporary stereotypes of the word “technology.” However, the paper card catalog was indeed an innovative development in the library that at the time had just as many implications as the “digital library catalog” does today. Modern use of the word technology automatically stirs up associations with computer-related facets. However, technology is defined by Merriam-Webster as

“the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.”

So in reality, traditional, paper methods of cataloging and indexing were certainly “technical means” within the branch of knowledge. Such endeavors further organized the library system, like the standardization of each card catalog entry by the Library of Congress. As the library became more complex in its services and functioning, it demanded even more innovative and technical ways of handling library tasks. Particularly because this work could be very tedious, expanding library technology to computer use seemed potentially attractive, yet implementation was actually rather slow. In part, though, such slow implementation seems not just a problem of hesitant and traditionalist librarians, but also because of shortcomings of the computer systems themselves, as Rayward notes. Since computers were initially for number crunching, the word/text based application in the library system was “ill-adapted.”

After reading through the article, the description of technology evolution in the library made me think of my own home public library in the Chicago suburbs where I used to live. Rayward’s explanation of the internal actions by the library in regard to computer use can actually be visibly seen through my library. As a young child in elementary school, the card catalog in the children’s department was located in the middle of the entrance – impossible to avoid when you walked in. There were computer catalogs off to the side, but they were somewhat confusing (as we had not quite jumped into the world of computers as we have today), and the computer consisted of simple screens of green text only. Later, though, the card catalog was moved against the wall and a more technical computer system was formed allowing for key word and advanced searches. Visiting that library today, the card catalog has moved out completely, and instead the card catalog is an internet-based catalog that can be equally accessed from within the library, from home, or from any internet-abled computer in any nation.

Downey
The article brings up and interesting and much-talked-about issue: the future role of the librarian and print culture within the public library. It seems almost ironic that the “ultimate” place of knowledge and information is one of the slowest institutions to embrace the “digital information technology” craze, but once it fully does, I do not think this will lead to an overall significant change in the library. The article throughout makes reference to the importance of the labor aspect of the library, and I agree that the human interaction level is extremely important, and that it will remain so even once the library “goes” digital. LIBRARY-21 hoped to create a library system in which catalog information and sources could be accessed from remote locations without need for “specially trained labor.” While most libraries today have developed to the point of external catalog access, and to some degree access to the content of material via online journal subscriptions, the human-interaction factor is no less important. UW provides remote access to all journal subscriptions simply by giving your username and password. However, access alone is often times not enough; the library homepage has a section where you can “chat” with a librarian when you have questions. Just because the computer can take you to where you want to go, does not mean that “lay-people” will know how to get there on their own. For this reason, people are still staffed to answer questions and guide users. Moreover, the LIBRARY-21 exhibit seemed understaffed with librarians as they were overwhelmed to meet the needs and questions of the many visitors each day.

Even once implemented, technology could not operate the library itself. Aside from computer-maintenance staff, librarian labor would be needed to “develop metadata for a significantly sized collection.” As such technology does gradually become available in the library, users still must be acquainted with how to use it; they still need a guiding librarian. Technology and computers in the library are a tool, not a replacement. It is something that aids the librarian and the user in carrying out tasks, but cannot replace the books, encyclopedias, hard copies, or even human assistance on which the library depends. Besides traditional librarians, the users themselves do not usually want a quick and sudden change, and the public at large is hesitant to adapt to new technology in the first place.

Lancaster
Lancaster’s article is truly visionary – many of the technological uses and advancements he predicts have in fact come to life. However, his assertion does not seem to hold true for many other areas of research and investigation: many fields today still depend heavily on a paper society even when the paperless is a viable option. Plus, while Lancaster alludes early on in his article to a likely struggle “for existence and simply survival,” in his conclusion he states that he has no such intention of investigating the credibility of the library’s doom. This contradiction, along with the title of his article, confuses the actual purpose of his writing.

Aside from the library issue, Lancaster’s predictions are remarkable in their accuracy some decades later. He accurately portrays the online journal, the online database’s ability to search multiple journals, the enabling of email in correspondence, and the basic functions of instant messaging. His yardstick year of 2000 is additionally rather accurate. While sophistication of such technological functions improves practically daily, to predict this from 1978 is a remarkable feat.

Nevertheless, his prediction (or at least his allusion of a prediction) of the library’s fate seems a bit far-fetched. Lancaster assumes that once the ability to have a digital (and hence paperless) society exists, it will automatically be so. Though there are many advantages to digitization, it is not a catch-all solution. Law firms spend countless amounts of paper to print off all kinds of legal briefs and documents, even when they can be accessed online. Although many state and federal courts all require electronic filing before a case is heard, both sides always print out all of the documents anyway; computers are not used by the lawyers in the courtroom. Moreover, libraries are in no danger of disappearing. Granted, the digital revolution is obviously changing some of the ways that libraries work, but it is not threatening it. Online databases and subscriptions are still expensive, and many students or other researchers do not have individual access to so many journals and databases; instead, they use their local and/or university library. While the digital world has replaced a lot of the paper our society uses, we are certainly not a paperless one; after all, the article we read was in a published, printed out reader.

Lynch
One of the most important aspects of the technological revolution within the library and information sciences is access. The amount of people who have access to increasing amounts of information has grown exponentially. The locations from which these people can access this information know almost no limits, especially with the transportable laptop and wireless internet. Traditionally, libraries have been known as somewhat cold, closed places where information had to be requested and given through a middle-man (or, in library terms, usually a reference librarian). Today, though, people can walk into a library and gain open access to a majority of the library’s collection without the assistance of a librarian. Last semester in Ecuador I was still able to access all of the digital collections at the UW library and communicate with librarians sitting behind the College Library information desk. Networked information has thrown geography out the window.

Gaining access to increasing amounts of technology and sharing it with others is technologically possible; interestingly, what is holding this back has nothing to do with technology. Rather, traditional copyright laws refuse to make way for the growing revolution of information sharing. Copyright law has come to the forefront not only of the legal profession, but of American society at large. College students who don’t know any better (or that perhaps do) are getting sued for millions by big-name record companies for sharing a 99-cent song with someone halfway across the country they’ve never met. Libraries are adapting effectively to this innovation, but the law still lags behind and needs to catch up.

Marcum
I must admit I got a bit lost in the alphabet soup of this article, and am still a little unsure of the end result of such endeavors, but I think one of the key things I got out of this article was the importance of the nature of cooperation in computer application within the library. Applying technology often seemed first of all to be a bit far reaching, as Marcum alluded to in discussing projects that sought to create “the library of the future,” treating the library more as a laboratory than what is supposed to be an understandable and cohesive service to patrons seeking information. This was a key point, and the gradual work toward such a system required national cooperation. But, in building a national data base, CLR wisely noted how it should be a “confederation of library systems working toward an ideal system, but basing their plans and expectations on reality.” Therefore, the idea of a “decentralized centralization” ended up being the result. Today, library sources aren’t compiled into one at one specific location, but rather are accessible on a whole-scale, but from anywhere – home, office, United States or abroad.

Marcum notes how libraries today are understood more in terms of the services they provide, instead of the collections they contain. I think this has an important implication for library futures – the library certainly, as previously discussed, will not disappear, but perhaps some of the ways in which it functions will change. People will still need librarians to assist them in their information searches and human labor will remain a key component, just like with any institution headed into the digital world. With this new technology comes in fact a growing importance of knowledgeable librarians able to cater to the needs of its technologically-advanced clientele. This seems to be the true challenge of the library in the future, not the notion of pure survival.