Competency H

“Each graduate of the Master of Library and Information Science program is able to… demonstrate proficiency in identifying, using, and evaluating current and emerging information and communication technologies.”

Introduction

From the time that Melvil Dewey developed the Dewey Decimal classification system, libraries have embraced new technologies. When people hear the word “technology” they may immediately picture electronic devices and software programs, but technology covers processes as well as products. As the pace of information creation accelerates and the need for new technologies to help manage that information explosion, librarians need to understand how to identify, use, and evaluate those new technologies.

There are several reasons why librarians and other information professionals want to know about technology including being aware of general technology trends, comparisons of related technologies, to find a specific product or service, and for help in configuration and maintenance of existing products and services.

There are three main types of technologies that have affected libraries in the past and continue to do so: those that have been created just for libraries, those that have been created elsewhere but has been adapted for use in libraries, and those that have been created elsewhere and not altered for use by libraries.  The first type would be technologies like classification systems and controlled vocabularies. The second type are things like library management systems that are customized to fit the needs of the specific library. The last type are things like barcode readers, email, website design, and social media (Burke, 2013).

In 2012, Burke (2013) conducted a survey of 2075 librarians from libraries and library associations across the U.S., with the majority from academic institutions. Burke wanted to know what technologies were being used in their information organizations. Interestingly, the technology and skills used by more than 50 percent of the respondents was not very surprising. Table 1.3, taken from Burke (2013, chapter 1) shows this data.

Table 1.4, also taken from Burke (2013, chapter 1) shows the technologies used by less than half the respondents and as can be seen, while these technologies are more complex than those shown in table 1.3, it could be argued that over time, the technologies and skills in table 1.4 will become more important for librarians.

I have included this information to demonstrate the types of technologies that are currently used by information professionals in libraries and other information organizations.

Identifying Technologies

There are many ways to identify technologies you might want to bring into the library. Because technology changes so quickly, it is important to regularly check various information sources on technology. There are many different information resources dedicated to the description of, use of, and evaluation of technologies both for use in libraries and for general use.

The American Library Association is good place to start when looking for technologies that have been successful in library settings. "Cutting-Edge Technology for Library Services" (American Library Association, 2014) describes on a periodic basis successful implementations of new technologies.

There are also journals that are dedicated to the use of technologies in libraries.  One good source is the Library & Information Technology Association’s (LITA) published journal, “Information Technology and Libraries”. This journal “publishes material related to all aspects of information technology in all types of libraries. Topic areas include, but are not limited to, library automation, digital libraries, metadata, identity management, distributed systems and networks, computer security, intellectual property rights, technical standards, geographic information systems, desktop applications, information discovery tools, web-scale library services, cloud computing, digital preservation, data curation, virtualization, search-engine optimization, emerging technologies, social networking, open data, the semantic web, mobile services and applications, usability, universal access to technology, library consortia, vendor relations, and digital humanities (LITA, 2016). Another journal to consider is the Journal of the Association for information science and technology, JASIST which “publishes reports of research and development in a wide range of subjects and applications in information science and technology” (ASIS&T, 2016).

Information on new technologies may be found on well-known blogs dedicated to technology in libraries. A couple of examples include the American Library Association’s “Library of the Future Blog” (American Library Association, 2016), Michael Stephens’ “Tame the Web” (Stephens, 2016) and Disruptive Library Technology Jester (2016).  

Finally, there are some good general product review sites such as ZDNet.com and CNet.com for technology professionals and library specific sites like the Library Technology Guides (2016) where it is claimed that they provide “comprehensive and objective information surrounding the many different types of technology products and services used by libraries. It covers the organizations that develop and support library-oriented software and systems. The site offers extensive databases and document repositories to assist libraries as they consider new systems and is an essential resource for professionals in the field to stay current with new developments and trends.”

Of course, there are discussion groups for technologies in libraries and it may also be very helpful to visit libraries who have implemented various types of technologies in order to see the product or service you are considering in action and to talk to other librarians about benefits and challenges.

Using Technologies

Tables 1.3 and 1.4 above show the results of a survey taken by 2075 library and information professionals. What is interesting about these tables is there is specific mention of social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and blogging, but there is no mention of the “hottest” technologies currently getting all the buzz: cloud computing (Bowers and Polak, 2014), augmented reality (Bell and Cottrell, 2014), mobile technology (Peters and Bell, 2013), text mining (Higgins, 2014), and makerspaces (Griffey, 2014). This says to me that the actual adoption of new technologies is much slower than some people would have us believe.  I know that there are libraries using these new technologies as I have seen them with my own eyes. But, since the vast majority of information institutions don’t seem to be jumping on the bandwagon, this argues that many libraries have yet to determine that the technology is actually needed. Perhaps as the technology become more pervasive, more and more libraries will adopt it.

The first step in acquiring new technologies and services is to figure out whether it is actually needed. The ideas may come from different sources such as patron suggestions, colleagues, and personal observations. Rather than running after technology for technology’s sake, a needs assessment should be run and it should be determined that current technology doesn’t already meet those needs. Once the decision is made and the technology or service is purchased, there should already be a plan in place for training and maintenance. The types of skills needed to maintain the system should be identified so the right people can be trained. Once the system is up and running, if the system will be used by patrons, training sessions should be designed and offered on a regular basis.

Finally, before a technology or service is brought into the library, an assessment plan should be in place. This plan helps to both convince stakeholders that the program is needed and to help with ongoing improvements and justifications once the system is in use.

Evaluating Technologies

When deciding which technology or service to acquire, it is important to compare several options in order to determine whether the system under consideration meets the needs of the library. Several criteria should be considered during comparisons of similar solutions such as how well it meets the needs of the library, how close to obsolete the technology might be, how durable the technology is, any space requirements, ease of use and training complexity, what types and how often will maintenance, upgrades, and updating be required, what type of support is offered, whether the price is comparable to similar solutions, and whether the solution is the most appropriate way to provide for the library’s needs (Burke, 2013, chapter 4).

It is always helpful to try and locate another information organization where the technology or service you are considering is already in use. Going to see the technology in action and talking to other information professionals about their experience with the technology is invaluable information for helping to decide on a solution.

Coursework & Work Experience

During the course of my MLIS degree, I have taken several courses that have prepared me for this competency. Since 1996 when I graduated with my PhD in Computer Science, my work has been defined by the research, design, and implementation of information related technologies.  In my INFO-203 course I was introduced to 3-dimensional virtual worlds and Learning Management Systems (LMS) (in my case it was something called Angel, then it was changed to Desire2Learn, and now it is Canvas). In INFO-240 I designed and implemented an entire website that utilized all the (then) current web technologies including CSS for style and HTML for adding content and widgets. I chose this website as part of my evidence to demonstrate my ability to develop requirements, design, and implement a website. In INFO-294, I was required to do a weekly blog posing of my work on the VCARA virtual island in Second Life. I include this evidence to show I am able to maintain an informational blog. In INFO-287, Virtual Environments: Immersive Learning for Libraries and Archives, I created a virtual exhibit on the history of science during the enlightenment. I also created a YouTube video of our end of the semester “faire” which includes a section on the exhibit. I chose this evidence to illustrate my technical abilities in 3D immersive environments. A couple of weeks ago, I did a presentation for the Virtual Worlds Best Practices in Education Conference (VWBPE’16) about how I made the machinima (video of virtual world activities) that won an ISTE award last year. I am submitting this as evidence because it explicitly shows the processes and technologies I used to create the YouTube video. Finally, last year I presented a paper in the Archiving’15 conference on some technology that I have been working on for the last 5 years. This evidence shows that I am able to create new technologies from the ground up that are useful for information organizations.

Evidence

The first piece of evidence I have included is the link to my website, http://www.marievans.com/. This website is currently hosted at DreamHost and, while I have not had the time to maintain it since it was originally created in 2012, I have plans to do so once I’ve finished my MLIS degree. The website contains several pages with information related to helping encourage girls to pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) careers. As part of the implementation, I used several style sheets for different uses such as printing, made sure it met the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines for accessibility and added social networking capabilities.  This small website, while not currently up-to-date, shows I am capable of creating webpages using current web design technologies.

The next piece of evidence is a video I created using video capture and editing techniques to document the end of the semester “faire” for my INFO-287, Virtual Environments: Immersive Learning for Libraries and Archives course. This video can be found on my YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtNM-htfSOw. At 18 minutes in, the video shows the exhibit I made for the final project in this course. It is a virtual learning exhibit that focuses on learning about the history of science during the enlightenment. The video provides evidence for two aspects of my technology skills. The first is my ability to design and implement the exhibit using 3D virtual world technologies.  Most of the objects in the exhibit, like the books, and the texture changing pictures, and the coffee and French salon were created by me. The second skill is the video which shows is my ability to use capture and editing software to document activities in 3D virtual environments.

The next evidence is the blog I maintained during my INFO-294 internship course. This blog, located at https://amvanstechblog.wordpress.com/, started out as a technical blog for INFO-240 as additional information source for my website (it can be accessed from the “About Me” page on the website) and was subsequently used for INFO-294. This evidence shows my familiarity and technical capabilities for updating and maintaining a blog, including the ability to add images, videos, and other widgets.

I am also including as evidence the slides for a presentation I did this past March for the Virtual Worlds Best Practices in Education (VWBPE’16) conference. My presentation, which can be found on the evidence page, is titled “Machinima_Presentation.pdf”.  This presentation focused on the process and technologies I used to create a machinima in my INFO-287: Seminar in Information Science — Virtual Worlds: Traveling Through Time and Space: Birth of the Renaissance in Florence course which won an ISTE award in 2015. This evidence shows my ability to use various technologies in order to create an educational video.

The final evidence is another presentation. This presentation was given at the Archiving’15 conference in Los Angeles last May. The presentation is available on the evidence page and is titled “Archive-enabling Tagging Using Progressive Barcodes.pdf”. Progressive barcodes are a 4D barcode technology that I have been working on for 5 years. It is 4 dimensional in that the first 2 dimensions are black and white (like typical QR-Codes or Data Matrix codes), the 3rd dimension is color and the 4th dimension is time. This means that the barcode itself can change over time by adding color. I presented this technology as a way to increase the amount of information that a barcode could carry for archiving purposes. The reason I’ve included it as evidence, is that it demonstrates my ability to create new technologies that may be of interest for libraries and other information organizations.

Conclusions

My experience both in the MLIS program and at work have prepared me for this competency. Website creation and maintenance along with the ability to maintain a blog are important skills for librarians as the website can be the first contact patrons have with library. It should be professional and up-to-date and I believe I’ve shown that I am able to do this. 3D immersive experience design and implementation skills allow me to create on-line learning experiences using complicated technologies like OpenSim or Second Life. I have shown I am proficient with content creation tools like YouTube and video editing programs which are important for tasks like marketing and documenting activities in libraries. Finally, my work with new technologies, like the 4D barcode, illustrate that I am capable of creating new technologies that may be helpful in information and archival institutions.

References

American Library Association (2014). Cutting-edge technology for library services. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/advleg/pp/prog/c-ala_cutting_edge6-10-2014b.pdf, Accessed March 23, 2016.

American Library Association (2016). Library of the future: Center for the future of libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/transforminglibraries/future, Accessed March 23, 2016.

ASIS&T. (2016). Journal of the Association for information science and technology. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292330-1643/issues, Accessed March 23, 2016.

Bell, B. and Cottrell, T. (2014). Hands-Free augmented reality impacting the library future. In: The Top Technologies Every Librarian Needs to Know, Varnum, K.J., editor. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Bowers, S.K. and Polak, E.J. (2014). The future of cloud-based library systems. In: The Top Technologies Every Librarian Needs to Know, Varnum, K.J., editor. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Burke, J. J. (2013). Neal-Shuman library technology companion: A basic guide for library staff, 4th edition. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Disruptive Technology Library Jester. (2016). Disruptive Technology Library Jester Blog. Retrieved from www.dltj.org, Accessed March 23, 2016.

Griffey, J. (2014). The case for open hardware in libraries. In: The Top Technologies Every Librarian Needs to Know, Varnum, K.J., editor. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Higgins, D. (2014). Reading and non-reading: Text mining in critical practice. In: The Top Technologies Every Librarian Needs to Know, Varnum, K.J., editor. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Library Technology Guides. (2016). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/, Accessed March 23, 2016.

LITA (Library & Information Technology Association). (2016). Information Technology & Libraries. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/index, Accessed March 23, 2016.

Peters, T.A. and Bell, L. (2013). The handheld library: Mobile technology and the librarian. Libraries Unlimited. Santa Barbara, CA.

Stephens, M. (2016). Tame the web. Retrieved from http://tametheweb.com/, Accessed March 23, 2016.