 |
| Image from: knowledgeoman.com |
This review is seeking
to evaluate and identify the information that is relevant to the information
professional in today’s technological society. It will look at the strengths
and weaknesses of the argument and identify the key points. In summary Norman’s
(2012) paper describes the impact of technology on the public library and how
these libraries need to adapt and change to work to be relevant to their
funding and purpose within the community. Norman (2012) explains that most
professionals predicting the future of the public library see a grim picture
where the library is completely changed in functionality and usage from what it
is traditionally seen as today.
The professional views
presented by Norman (2012) are from the more extreme end of the discussion of
the future of the public library. He presents the view of what professionals
are discussing in relation to the public library being made irrelevant because
of technology and what is actually occurring in the public library as being completely
different. As stated by Prentice (2010) technology has not changed the purpose of
the library but the way the purpose is facilitated (i.e. connect patrons with
information). Public libraries need to adapt and work with the changes in
technology and provide new services working to connect patrons through
technology with the information that is relevant and necessary for their needs
(McClure & Jaeger, 2008, p. 91). Norman (2012) provides a view of what the
library in which he is working in is doing to work with their patrons in
regards to technology and changes. He is facilitating streamlining and adapting
the library and it’s policies to work for servicing the clientele’s needs rather
than keeping the traditional services some librarians see as necessary despite
not running to capacity or being responsible to their funding. Norman (2012) explains
an interesting solution in regards to funding the application of the creation
of consortium and spreading funding to allow for better services and facilities
of the library patron. It is also a question of being responsible to the
provision of funding to the library through evaluating the need of relevant
services within the differing communities that each library serves (Kenney,
2011).
While Norman (2012)
succeeds in making the point that libraries are adapting in the face of
technology in most situations the examples of “futurists” opinions he uses to
describe what the issues are shows his clear bias. He demonstrates that while
he has listened to people report on what they see as the future issues of the
public library in the face of the technology component and impact of society he
regards them as being misinformed and wrong. Missing from his argument is the
component of how other libraries are working to integrate technology into their
library systems and services. One such service is the provision of computer
access to the majority of the public to work to close the digital divide
(Burke, 2009). Norman (2012) mentions the importance of storytime in the
purpose of the library in facilitating literacy and interaction of the younger
generation in the library services. He doesn’t mention the partnerships described
by Kenney (2011) that various public libraries focus on in providing the
accessibility of information in regards to education for primary and high
school students, such as HSC collections and project resources. The missing
components and the use of more extreme ideas on the disappearance of the public
library to counter his argument actually works to identify the ideas that he
does put forward as weaker than they could be.
This article provides
an interesting perspective on the issues that the public library is facing in
regards to the technological changes that have occurred within the digital age.
While there are weaknesses in the argument and the comparison of futurist opinions
against his agreement unbalance the article. There is relevant and important information
contained here if the reader assess the article with a critical eye. The
article provides a perspective of what some libraries are doing in the face of
change and how they are adapting to serve their clients to accomplish the
mission and purpose of the public library, even if that purpose has to change
with society (McClure & Jaeger, 2008).
References
Burke,
J. J. (2009). Neal-Schuman library
technology companion: a basic guide for library staff. New York:
Neal-Schuman Publishers.
Kenny,
B. (2011). The baby with the bathwater: change is needed but so too is values. School library Journal 57 (6) p. 7. Retrieved
from www.slj.com
McClure,
C. R. & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Public libraries and internet services roles:
measuring and maximizing internet services. Retrieved from EBook Library.
Norman,
A. (2012). Frail, fatal, fundamental: the future of public libraries. Australasian Public Library and Information
Services, 25(2), 94-100. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=370003152479087;res=IELHSS
Prentice,
A. (2010). Public libraries in the 21st century. Retrieved from EBook
Library.
No comments:
Post a Comment