When viewing the topic of “library as classroom”, I decided to first explore the idea of designing a library information environment in the style of a school. In the article Curating Learning Experiences: A Future Role For Librarians, by Brian Mathews (2013), it is said that by creating classroom-style areas the library can open itself up to educational opportunities. The reasoning behind this is that it enables a certain style of interaction, one where the participants feel more like students. This arrangement also allows the instructors to have the full attention of the group.
Note. (Mathews, 2013).
A second branch of this topic was the idea of supporting local low funded schools, through the library. Modern youth have an increased amount of digital skills that they need to learn to succeed, and often schools lack these technologies or the means to teach them (Park, 2016). Utilizing local libraries is a cost-effective way to supplement these information needs, as often libraries will have available computers, printers, and sometimes STEM labs dedicated to newer technology. My own city matches this figure of low funded schools but higher funded libraries, so we often collaborate with the school to offer programming and outreach. This helps fill the educational gaps somewhat, and it has built trust with our community.
For my Innovation Strategy & Roadmap paper I explore the idea of implementing an Augmented Reality (AR) map feature into the library, in order to increase accessibility. The map would guide patrons in-person or online to help with familiarization of unknown places, and to assist with item location.
This idea was based of the UC San Diego First Year Experience, which is an AR scavenger hunt that guides new students through the library. Students seemed to feel less worried about having to wander through a new place after their virtual tour, and it even added an element of fun to the process.
The topic that interested me the most during this module was the human libraires. A human library involves patrons checking out a human book, the same way they would a library book, and instead of reading they have an in-depth conversation (Wentz, 2013). Storytelling is something that has existed for centuries, and it was the way that most people shared information when being able to write was uncommon. The idea behind human libraries and human books feels similar to historic storytelling, in the way that it is sharing information through communication.
The benefits of human books is in creating new conversations between people who would not otherwise meet. People who are chosen for human libraries often have a diverse background or they have experienced something that gives them a unique perspective. Opening up a dialogue with these individuals gives the patrons a chance to reflect on their biases, because they are put into a conversation that pushes them to understand a person beyond their own assumptions (Arne-Skidmore, 2021). The differences between a “human book” and someone giving a “talk at the library” is the longevity. Having something at the library long term makes the experience open to a wider audience, and it creates opportunities for the program to expand as it gains interest.
Libraries are constantly evolving and rotating collections to suit the needs of their communities. Introducing technology into library services is inevitable in this sense, since the younger generations thrive in digital and hybrid environments. This integration of technology can look like many things; Discord servers, VR rooms, 3D printers, and much more. There is no defined “correct” way for libraries to meet modern technology needs, as we are at a crucial turning point in what information can look like. I think it’s important for libraries to explore options and think creatively, or, at the very least, create opportunities for patrons to “determine their own experiences” (Marc, 2017).
My personal experiences on this topic are through my own library. Our digital resources are most commonly used by younger generations, and digital interactions make up around half of our total interactions. One of our most popular in-house services is our 3D printer, which is something that has brought attention to our science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) room. A second, and more upcoming, technology incorporation is a Discord server which will house online and asynchronous book clubs. This is something still being designed, but it has wrought a lot of interest because it removes corners of scheduling and time commitments. Technology also has great benefits for accessibility of information; those who cannot travel easily still have ways of interacting with local communities through these library resources.
When reflecting on hyperlinked environments, I wanted to explore the topic of public libraries further as it is my desired career path. The four-spaces model was an interesting take on what libraries should look like (Skot-Hansen, 2017). It is somewhat idealized, but I think that there’s a lot of good advice about creating different spaces for different types of information needs. The model also reminds me of my college library, which had different noise levels for each floor of the building. It created quiet zones for solo-work and louder zones for group projects and hanging out, which sort of reflects the models idea of learning space vs meeting space zones. The biggest difference between this model and my college library, was that the zones in the model intertwine with each other to create more unique zones. For example, the meeting and learning spaces combined into a space of empowerment, which means learning about others from my interpretation.
I enjoy this model in theory, although I do only see it work in certain public library scenarios. A library that is near a school or other community hubs would probably benefit greatly from increased patron interaction. While my library, a downtown library, does better when patrons are given their own individual spaces with separated zones for programs. While we do strive to build community connections and create spaces, we also have to take into account the needs of our local patrons and the real communities who reside in the area.
Note. The four-spaces model by Dorte Skot-Hansen, Henrik Jochumsen, and Casper Hvenegaard Hansen
References
Skot-Hansen, D. (2017). Impact of humanities research: 24 case studies. University of Copenhagen.
For this module I focused on how public libraries build communities beyond the walls of their buildings. As an employee of a public library, this is a relevant topic that feels important to acknowledge as we try to reach out to younger generations and stay safe during pandemics. A lot of patrons of the library interact digitally these days; e-books are on the rise and digital content is how many people seek their information.
With the pandemic that now started over five years ago, many libraries have made an important shift to focus on digital and asynchronous learning environments. Things like Discord channels for book clubs, digitizations of local content, and Ask a Librarian chat rooms are all methods that seem to make information more easily accessed and more appealing to younger generations. It is unfortunate that it took a pandemic for this realization that libraries need to keep up with the accelerations of the internet to come about, but I do believe the community impacts of this shift have been positive within the negative.
An article within this topic that interested me was Libraries are Bridging the Digital Divide, by Williams and Muller (2021). While I did not work at a library during the first years of the pandemic, I have seen the many ways that communities rely on the library. This article covers the ways that some libraries went out of their way to help their communities while not being able to let them in the building. Since WiFi is a resource that is sought out by many library users, some libraries used “antennas or routers” to extend their signals to outside the doors (Williams, 2021). Other libraries further developed their available digital content and started digitizing what they physically had in-house.
What I liked about this article is that it highlighted the ways that libraries act around the needs of their community. The library I work at started offering curbside pickup when they could not open the doors, added book-lockers, and as well they shifted funding to e-books and digital resources. Although the pandemic made it hard to connect with communities, the extension of digital resources acted as a community of its own.
The book Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service stood out to me in our readings. It acknowledges the rapid change that libraries take on, and offers a new approach to keep up with the progression of our communities. The idea is participatory service, which is described as the adjustment to our library structures to allow for patrons to design their own desired services.
The structure of this approach is broken up into three steps:
Reach out to new users: the purpose of this being to expand the information needs, to those in which the library does not already cover.
Build new services: the purpose of this is to allow for the community members to enact the changes they desire, in some form.
Respond rapidly to changing customer demands: while patrons enact the changes they desire, the staff is still relied on to respond to these needs.
Pros
The concept of this seems practical, although many pros and cons come to mind. The main benefit of participatory service is that it takes community-focus to a higher level. Modern public libraries strive to be community hubs within their own environment, but by handing over a portion of control to the patrons the library would open up its doors to collaborative progression.
One such library, in Australia, took participatory service to action through social media (Smeaton, 2014). The library opened up channels of communications that allowed patrons to communicate directly with staff and voice their opinions. The staff would then apply these suggestions quickly, within reason. While the essence of this action is simple, it did apply the participatory service approach in an achievable way and it helped the library keep relevant to the community.
Patron Participation Example
Cons
The participatory library service approach in no way has to be all-or-nothing. As we reviewed with the Australian library, even small doses of patron-participation yields good results. One of the issues I had with this concept is less in its results, and more that one of its priorities did not get fully recognized. In Library 2.0, the authors wrote about the need for librarians to shoulder less of the rapid progression that libraries have to keep up with: “Faced with more work and greater demands, library staff are wilting under the intense pressure and demand for efficiency” (Casey, 2007). The structure of participatory service does not change this fate that library staff meet, it instead shifts it: “Responding rapidly to changing customer demands” is one of three ideas within the framework (Casey, 2007). This is just a small critique, however, as I think its an overall positive to be able to shift focus to the community directly.
Reflection
Participatory library service is a forward thinking idea that takes community input into visible action. As libraries are a hub of information for their communities, it is a great idea to have patrons and users be able to give input in valuable ways. As I further approach the information field, I think that I will keep in mind the benefit that comes from user experiences. While you can put a lot of thought into the design of something, a user can quickly find the flaws by the struggles and snags they encounter.
Desire Path Example (Hodge, 2020)
References
Abd Rahim, S. M., Abdullah Sani, M. K. J., & Shuhidan, S. (2024). A conceptual framework for social media engagement in academic library to advocate participatory service towards dynamic learning community. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 9(SI18), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v9iSI18.5459
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2007). Library 2.0 : A guide to participatory library service. Information Today.
Smeaton, K., & Davis, K. (2014). Using social media to create a participatory library service: an Australian study. Library and Information Research, 38(117), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg593
My name is Tyler and this is my third semester of the MLIS program. I wanted to take this course because it seems like keeping up with trends and technology is a big part of working in the information field. I currently work at a public library, and I see myself continuing down that career path after I graduate. I’m looking forward to this course, and I hope everyone has a great semester!
