Library ManagementLibrary managers and information in World 2.0Suzie Allard

Article information:To cite this document:Suzie Allard, (2009),"Library managers and information in World 2.0", Library Management, Vol. 30 Iss 1/2pp. 57 - 68Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120910927529

Downloaded on: 10 October 2014, At: 05:34 (PT)References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3387 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Edda Tandi Lwoga, (2014),"Integrating Web 2.0 into an academic library in Tanzania", The ElectronicLibrary, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp. 183-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2012-0058Kim Holmberg, Isto Huvila, Maria Kronqvist#Berg, Gunilla Widén#Wulff, (2009),"What is Library 2.0?",Journal of Documentation, Vol. 65 Iss 4 pp. 668-681Hui#Lan H. Titangos, Gail L. Mason, (2009),"Learning Library 2.0: 23 Things @SCPL", LibraryManagement, Vol. 30 Iss 1/2 pp. 44-56

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 465057 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Library managers andinformation in World 2.0

Suzie AllardSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

Tennessee, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide library managers with the ability to recognize andaddress World 2.0 information issues to enhance their ability to develop management plans for thefuture.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores what World 2.0 means to library managersin three ways. Three information dimensions are identified using models to examine World 2.0 in ahistorical context. An analysis is conducted of the different generations of users in World 2.0 includingtheir diverse attitudes, beliefs, experiences and skills and how these influence their engagement withthe information environment. Four key characteristics of Web 2.0 are identified through an analysis ofWeb 2.0 in relation to World 2.0.

Findings – Key findings in this paper are that: three dimensions of information in World 2.0 existand can be used by library managers to help them understand the challenges and to facilitate theconstruction of strategic management plans that address them. Generational and organizationalperspectives of World 2.0 can influence how libraries engage Web 2.0, and should be considered whenlibrary managers make strategic management plans for the future. The four characteristics of Web 2.0create considerations for library managers during their planning processes.

Originality/value – This paper is of interest because it provides library managers with a thoroughunderstanding of World 2.0 and how it may influence their libraries and their users so they can makemore informed, more successful planning choices.

Keywords Library management, Strategic planning, Information centres, Internet

Paper type Research paper

1. World 2.0 definedLibraries and information centers exist in a highly dynamic, chaotic informationenvironment characterized by changes that reach across the globe; an environmentwhich we will refer to as World 2.0. World 2.0 is economically and technologicallychallenging because traditional boundaries dictated by geography and regionalpreferences are falling, creating a disaggregated or “flat” world in terms of commerceand competition for innovation (Apte and Mason, 1995; Friedman, 2006; Ruth andPizzato, 2007; Tapscott and Williams, 2007). Additionally, there is “dog-year change”(Todaro, 2008), in which these changes happen so rapidly it may seem as if seven yearsof changes occur in only one year. The information environment has responded bycontinually evolving (Barnes and Hinton, 2007; Cheverie, 1999; Eagles et al., 1999;Fletcher, 2003; Heo and Han, 2003; Levine et al., 2007; Mithas and Whitaker, 2007).While traditional libraries and information services and organizations still exist, thereis also a shift to new paradigms of service and organization in the last decade (Allardet al., 2007; Carrasco and Funk, 1998; Gerth and Rothman, 2007; Lankes et al., 2007;Lutz and Meadow, 2006; Perry et al., 2005; McDonald and Uribe, 2008; Stephens, 2007b;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm

Librarymanagers and

information

57

Received 29 July 2008Revised 25 August 2008Accepted 16 September

2008

Library ManagementVol. 30 No. 1/2, 2009

pp. 57-68q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0143-5124DOI 10.1108/01435120910927529

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Tenopir and Ennis, 2002; Carrasco and Vanderkast, 1998). For example, there is anincreased emphasis on providing services for information users who manage andcreate their own content (Dearstyne, 2007) even in highly innovative environments(Allard et al., 2006a,b), and on supporting the creation and long-term viability of virtualorganizations, such as the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) (www.lternet.edu/)organization, that allow research communities to share researcher created content,including raw data sets, more easily.

Library managers must consider the best strategies for addressing the challenges ofWorld 2.0, which include diverse populations of users, and new frontiers of informationcreation, organization, dissemination, services and provision. One aspect of thesestrategies is to identify the competencies librarians will need to provide successful andrelevant services in this rapidly changing information environment characterized byexpanding content, new types of information organizations, and a growing schismbetween users in terms of their level of e-ability and their expectations regardinginformation provision (Boulos and Wheeler, 2007; Curran et al., 2007; Dye, 2007; Flora,2007; Abram, 2008a; Angus et al., 2008; Liu, 2008).

Library managers who are developing management strategies to address World 2.0will find their planning is facilitated by having an understanding of the informationdimensions of World 2.0, of how generational and organizational perspectivesinfluence management decisions for World 2.0, and of the four key characteristics thatdefine Web 2.0.

2. Three information dimensions of World 2.0World 2.0 has associated technologies and societal developments that influence thenature of information. This paper identifies three distinct dimensions of informationthat define the relationship that information has with World 2.0.

Professionals in libraries and other information centers are very familiar with thefirst information dimension of World 2.0 – content expansion. Lyman and Varian(2003) document this in regards to electronic documents. However, understanding theintensity of this expansion throughout history can be difficult, since information is nota tangible product than be easily measured. A model can be utilized to analyze thescope of this change. Robertson’s (1998) five levels of mankind which purports that wecan quantify information quantity at each level in bit units. He proposes that Level 0precedes the advent of language and is essentially the information contained in onehuman brain, which is estimated at about 107 bits of information. Level 1 addslanguage and people interacting in groups of what might be termed a tribe of brains orabout 109 bits of information. Level 2 introduces societies with writing (e.g. the Libraryof Alexandria). Level 3 is civilization with printing and about 1017 bits of information.Today we are at Level 4, a civilization with computers, which translates into at least1025 bits of information. This means that Level 4 represents more than a billion, billiontimes more information than on Level 1 (Robertson, 1998).

This analysis suggest two key items for library managers:

(1) exponential increase in information means that libraries exist in anenvironment of ever expanding content which is unparalleled in previousages; and

LM30,1/2

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

(2) library managers are facing challenges that require strategies that may bebased in past experience but which must creatively address conditions thatlibrarians have never seen before.

The second dimension of information in World 2.0 is the rate of expansion. Thedevelopment of mankind has been tens of thousands of years in the making, however amajority of the time has been spent in the hunter-gatherer state, and mankind’sorganization into large civilizations and exploitation of technologies has occurred in arelatively short time. One way to conceptualize this is with Pelton’s (2000) CosmicSuper Month which conceptualizes mankind’s history as being contained in 30 days. InPelton’s model, mankind’s existence as hunter-gatherers represents 29 days and 22hours. Only the last two hours of the “Cosmic Super Month” represent the societalstructures that we would consider modern. For example, the rise of agriculture appearsin the last hour and a half, the Renaissance in the last four minutes, and the industrialrevolution in the last two minutes (Pelton, 2000). Therefore, World 2.0, the electronicage, occurs in only the last 20 seconds of Pelton’s “Cosmic Super Month.”

This means that library managers are being called on to quickly identify strategiesto adapt to the changing environment. While library manager’s responsibilities inWorld 2.0 continue to include familiar activities such as developing informationresources, budgeting, and supervising staff, the manager must, more quickly than everbefore, find strategic answers to address the many challenges that accompany therapid rate of information content expansion.

The third dimension of information in World 2.0 is the accumulation of humanknowledge (which for this paper will be defined as information that has been capturedfor reuse), which is increasing as the technologies for capture have improved. Tovisualize this Pelton (2000) presents a model with two buildings, one representinghuman development and the other human knowledge, each with 10,000 stories.Hunter-gatherers and their survival knowledge represent the first story in eachbuilding. Pelton notes that the next major human developmental events would be thestart of agriculture, which would occur at story 9980 and the Renaissance at story 9999.By contrast, human knowledge has accumulated much more slowly – the knowledgeexistent at the time of the renaissance would represent only the 50th story compared tostory 9999 in the temporal context. The rate of human knowledge acquisition increasesrapidly after that point with accumulated knowledge through WWII reaching aboutthe 1,000th story (see Figure 1) (Pelton, 2000). It is technological capability that isresponsible for rapid increases in the store of human knowledge, for example there aremore than 3,000 stories represented by the knowledge accumulated from the time of theinvention of the transistor to the start of the internet (Pelton, 2000).

What this means for library managers is that as technology continues to advance,the library is becoming responsible for providing access to and possibly storage ofeven greater amounts of human knowledge. For example, the World 2.0 informationenvironment includes technology that enables user-generated content from people asdisparate as citizen reporters, teen moviemakers and academic researchers.Additionally, it is likely that the first two dimensions of information will continue tointensify and the manager will continue to need to find the means to address thisintensity.

Librarymanagers and

information

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

3. Generational and organizational perspectives in World 2.0Adding to the challenges in World 2.0 is that users have diverse attitudes, beliefs,experiences and skills that influence how they engage with information and theinformation environment (Angus et al., 2008; King, 2008; Lee and Boling, 2008;McKnight et al., 2008; Nahl, 2007, Nicholas et al., 2008). One aspect of these differencesmay be explained by generational differences.

Today, libraries are serving six generations of users born in the twentieth andtwenty-first century. Defining generations can be challenging, however using a specificdefinition for a specific population (Howe and Strauss, 1993; Howe and Strauss, 2000 –please note that these generations were defined in US society) can help illustrategenerational differences that arise because of societal issues and technologicalexposure (Table I). Using this generational typology, older users (those 65 years oldand above) belong to the GI and Silent generation. Users 26-64 years old belong to theBoom and GenX generations. Those 25 and under belong to the Millennial and iGengenerations.

Figure 1.Comparison of humandevelopment versusaccumulation ofknowledge

Generation Birth years Age on December 31, 2007a

GI 1901-1924 83-106Silent 1925-1942 65-82Boom 1943-1960 47-64GenX (13th Gen) 1961-1981 26-46Millennial (echo boomers) 1982-2000a 8-25iGena 2000- -7

Note: a From library.thinkqust.org

Table I.Generations as defined byHowe and Strauss (1993)

LM30,1/2

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Each of these generations has a unique “personality” that helps define how members ofthat generation view and interact with the world (Table II). For example, the GIgeneration is considered to be idealistic, high achievers and the Millennials exhibit ahopeful, “change the world” attitude (library.thinkquest.org, 2008). It is also importantto recognize that each generation has different experience with technology based ontheir exposure while growing up. For example, newer technologies in the lives of the GIgeneration are refrigerators and large cabinet style radios while the Millennials havegrown up with cell phones, space shuttles and game boys (library.thinkquest.org,2008). Growing up with these different technology experiences suggests that themembers of the generation will have a very different set of technological skills andexpectations.

What this means for library managers is that they need to consider the experiencethat each generation has with the world wide web. This author believes that a generalidea of this experience can be gleaned by identifying the midpoint of the generationand noting the relationship to the beginning of the web, which is an integral part ofWorld 2.0. For example, the midpoint of the generation was calculated and thencompared to Mowery and Simcoe’s (2002) date of the advent of the WWW, 1991. Usingthis gauge, the average member of the Boom generation was about 40 years old whenthe WWW came online, while the WWW has been a fixture in the world of Millenials.

The generational tools noted above can help library managers better understand theusers they are serving as well as the staff working for them. This can help the librarymanager identify general concepts regarding user experience and expectations, whichcan be useful in developing tools for exploring specific attitudes and beliefs (e.g. surveyor interview) and in predicting how the users might react to the changing informationenvironment including new technological tools, and greater ability to create their owncontent.

Organizations are also changing in response to the new environment which blursdistinctions between information content and communication technologies (Allard,

Generation Qualitiesa Tech in lifeaYears from

WWW (1991)

GI High achievers, patriotic, idealistic Refrigerators, toasters, radios(large furniture) 278 years

Silent Cautious, unadventurous, silent Transistor radio, televisionbegins, electric typewriter 258 years

Boom High self-esteem, self-indulgence,individualism

Television replaces radio, poliovaccine,Toys: Barbi, hula hoop, Dr Seuss 240 years

GenX(13th Gen)

Me-generation, latchkey, born intotroubled world

MTV, computers, CDsToys: Game Boy, Rubik’s Cube,Transformers 220 years

Millennial Hopeful, “precious”, nurtured, wantto change the world

Cloning, Space shuttles, cellphonesToys: Play station, Game Boy

They werethere!!

iGena Connectivity, convergence ofmedia þ9 years

Notes: a From library.thinkqust.org

Table II.Comparison of

characteristics of eachgeneration

Librarymanagers and

information

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

2002; Choo, 1996; Choo, 2007; Choo et al., 2008; Tapscott and Williams, 2007; Watkins,2004). In the broadest sense, this is referred to as the ICEE Age which is characterizedby telecommuting and electronic immigration, a 24/7 work week, globalcompetitiveness, new job profiles and globalization (Pelton, 2000). In this newenvironment, organizations are “flattening,” with their organizational structures morelikely to resemble a distributed system resembling something like a net rather than thehierarchical structure resembling a tree. Some of these organizational challenges arebeing addressed by introducing vibrant cyberinfrastructure, which is defined as acomprehensive infrastructure that utilizes information technology (NSF, 2005). Thesekinds of organizations that rely on cyberinfrastructure are being designed for a widerange of domains from science (e.g. LTER) to government (DiGiammarino andTrudeau, 2008).

Therefore it can be surmised that World 2.0 suggests that library managers arelikely to be operating in an increasingly flat organization where hierarchies ofmanagement will be collapsed. Library managers should also considercyber-infrastructure solutions for information problems related to distributed datasuppliers and users.

4. Four characteristics of Web 2.0 in World 2.0Library managers who are keeping pace with World 2.0 are facing an informationenvironment that is growing and changing more quickly than ever before in humanhistory. Many suggestions for effective management in this environment are rooted inthe foundations of good librarianship such as matching the institutionalmission/goals/objectives, good project management and focusing on user-centricplanning (Stephens, 2006, 2007a). However, there are also strategies that are moreunique to World 2.0 such as controlling the desire to focus on technology, helping toenable non-traditional content, keeping up with trends and visualizing the future(Stephens, 2006, 2007a). Each of these is important to consider. Additionally it is usefulto consider Web 2.0 in relation to the major characteristics of World 2.0.

Many dimensions of information in World 2.0 are reflected in Web 2.0, which wasfirst “identified” in 2004 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 increases the amount of informationavailable, increases the speed with which information is growing, and provides theability to capture more human knowledge by enabling user-generated content andbrowser based software that facilitates collaboration and sharing among users. Web2.0 also has the capability to address generational perspectives because it allows forusers to have different experiences based on their own skill sets and expectations.

Web 2.0 is a natural outgrowth of society’s move toward World 2.0 – a view whichis bolstered by the fact that Web 2.0 is not as much about a change in how informationas it is about how existing technology has been engaged. In fact, Web 2.0 technologyrepresents the maturation of and new application of existing technologies(Langingham, 2006). This suggests that library managers should continue to bealert for how existing technologies may be extended or used in new ways.

Web 2.0 presents challenges and opportunities that are important to consider whendeveloping strategic management plans. Four key characteristics of Web 2.0 emergewhen it is compared to World 2.0 Below the four characteristics are noted, followed bya brief discussion of what these characteristics suggest to library managers when theyare developing management plans for their library, their staff and their users.

LM30,1/2

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

The user experience as an information seeker is changingFor example, content can be displayed in different ways for different users through theuse of Cascading Style Sheets. Additionally, as business has adopted the Web 2.0platform, it has provided new ways for users to participate and utilize the web(O’Reilly, 2005). This means users are encouraged to become active members of theinformation environment through interactive applications (many of which are Ajaxbased). In fact, the user experience is also enhanced through up-to-date feeds, theability to access content on demand, the creation of social space, and the ability toprovide feedback.

Understanding that the user information-seeking experience is changing can helplibrary managers make plans regarding how to educate and assist users since usersmay now need more help in navigating an unfamiliar venue for information access,storage and retrieval. By considering the generational perspective of the users,managers can consider how the new user experience may affect their users. Thisallows the manager to build a plan that may include user surveys, user education, orassessment of the efficacy of new methods of providing assistance such as using chator other forms of e-reference.

Managers should also consider how they will make users aware of the dangersinherent in Web 2.0. Keen (Tenopir, 2007) warns that Web 2.0 creates a “cult ofamateurs” in which authoritative content is not protected. For example some contentmay be presented as news when in fact it is an individual’s opinion. Including thesekinds of issues in information literacy training may be part of the plan to addressWorld 2.0.

The user experience, as an information producer, is newFor example, many of Web 2.0’s tools (e.g. blogs, wikis and mash-up) provide userswith a means to share content they have created either by producing an original workor by merging content from different sources.

The advent of user-generated content provides many challenges for librarymanagers since it often means that plans must be made to support users and to provideprofessional development opportunities for their own staff to acquire skills related tocreating and maintaining blogs, wikis, image collections like Flickr, mash-ups, andRSS feeds. Librarians also need the training to comfortably help users learn how tonegotiate Web 2.0 technologies (Tenenbaum, 2006) and contribute to podcasts andother user-generated sites such as YouTube. Professionals and academics are alsolikely to be engaged in self-archiving materials; for example repositories for documentsuch as arXiv.org, the open access archive for e-prints in physics, mathematics,computer science, quantitative biology and statistic. Library managers who keepabreast of these developments in different fields will be able to supply the supportthese professionals and academics need to do so successfully.

The library manager may include in planning how to revitalize traditional activitiessuch as collection development and user services to address the new environment. Forexample, the concept of the collection must be reconsidered in view of user-generatedcontent, and with expanding content that is accessed directly by the user there must beadditional concentration on user-centric service which integrates services into theusers everyday tasks (Anderson, 2006).

Librarymanagers and

information

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Content is being processed outside the traditional cycleContent is being described in a variety of new ways and by different stakeholders. Forexample, content may be described through semantically valid XHTML and HTML orby users in communities that create user-generated taxonomies called folksonomies.Therefore, library managers may need to consider their library’s goals in terms of theimportance of helping users understand and learn about key concepts of contentdescription. For example, an academic library that has university faculty contributingto institutional or disciplinary repositories may consider providing education in theseareas (Allard et al., 2005). Additionally, the library manager needs to develop plansthat treat content in a “container agnostic” manner, addressing all kinds of information– text and no-textual – with less concern for the container and format than with thecontent, and allowing for both old and new content and how that may generate newcontent (Abram, 2008b).

Cyberinfrastructure is implicitWeb 2.0 allows syndication, aggregation and notification of data (RSS, Atom) whichcan provide new channels for organizations to establish the cyberinfrastructure tocommunicate. Earlier, we discussed how World 2.0 has changed the very nature oforganizations, and Web 2.0 is the technological infrastructure that can help supportthis flattening. This is an important consideration for library managers for tworeasons. First, if their own organization does not have the technology to supportcommunication in a flattening organization, Web 2.0 may figure into the strategic planfor the library itself. Second, the manager needs to consider how the library mightinteract with growing cyberinfrastructures such as the US Long Term EcologicalResearch Network (LTER), which is a portal to a confederation of users and producersof information. Ultimately, the manager should consider relationships that allow thelibrary and its staff to provide connections that promote discussions between experts,users and other communities of practice (Abram, 2008b). Also in terms oforganizations, library managers should look for ways for the library to become amember of relevant social networks rather than be an entity outside that network.

5. ConclusionWorld 2.0 is characterized by expanding content, increasing rates of contentacquisition, increasing stores of knowledge, users influenced by generationalperspectives, and changing organizational structures. This creates a dynamic,chaotic information environment, in which libraries must be agile enough to identifyand serve the diverse populations of users, and must identify and explore new frontiersof information creation, organization, dissemination, services, provision. For example,the new frontiers might include examining how distributed human intelligence can beorganized to improve the accuracy of folksonomies (Gruber, 2007) or how artificialintelligence can be used to help tame the large amount of user-generated content as wemove toward a semantic web (Tenenbaum, 2006).

Within this dynamic environment, library managers must balance the soundtraditional foundations of library management with plans that allow the library tosuccessfully serve its users in the future. This can be accomplished when a librarymanager uses his knowledge of information in World 2.0 to help shape his strategicplanning for the future. This includes understanding the three dimensions of

LM30,1/2

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

information, the generational and organizational influences on users in the informationenvironment and the four characteristics of Web 2.0. Using this knowledge a librarymanager can address today’s dynamic environment and also plan ahead to be preparedfor the rapidly changing environment of the future.

References

Abram, S. (2008a), “Social libraries – the librarian 2.0 phenomenon”, Library Resources &Technical Services, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 19-22.

Abram, S. (2008b), Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and Librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 World,SirsiDynix OneSource, 5 March.

Allard, S. (2002), “Digital libraries and organizations for international collaboration andknowledge creation”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 369-81.

Allard, S., Levine, K. and Tenopir, C. (2006a), How Technology Professionals Work(Comprehensive Research Report and Executive Summary Report), IEEE, Minneapolis,MN.

Allard, S., Levine, K.J., Tenopir, C. and Urs, S. (2006b), “Naturalistic observation forunderstanding users: How technology professionals use and communicate information”,Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Scienceand Technology.

Allard, S., Mack, T. and Feltner-Reichert, M. (2005), “The librarian’s role in institutionalrepositories: a content analysis”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 325-36.

Allard, S., Mehra, B. and Qayyum, M.A. (2007), “Intercultural leadership toolkit for librarians:building awareness to effectively serve diverse multicultural populations”, EducationLibraries, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5-12.

Anderson, R. (2006), “Away from the ‘icebergs’”, Next Space: The OCLC Newsletter, available at:www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/2.htm (accessed 8 June 2008).

Angus, E., Thelwall, M. and Stuart, D. (2008), “General patterns of tag usage among universitygroups in Flickr”, Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 89-101.

Apte, U.M. and Mason, R.O. (1995), “Global disaggregation of information-intensive services”,Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1250-62.

Barnes, D. and Hinton, M. (2007), “Developing a framework to analyse the roles and relationshipsof online intermediaries”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 63-74.

Boulos, M.N.K. and Wheeler, S. (2007), “The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suiteof sociable technologies in health and health care education”, Health Information andLibraries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 2-23.

Carrasco, L.O. and Vanderkast, E.S. (1998), “The information professional in a networkedsociety”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 95-9.

Cheverie, J.F. (1999), “Federal information in the networked environment: a perspective from thecoalition for networked information”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 261-75.

Choo, C.W. (1996), “The knowing organization: how organizations use information to constructmeaning, create knowledge and make decisions”, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 329-40.

Choo, C.W. (2007), “Information seeking in organizations: epistemic contexts and contests”,Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2.

Librarymanagers and

information

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Choo, C.W., Bergeron, P., Detior, B. and Heaton, L. (2008), “Information culture and informationuse: an exploratory study of three organizations”, Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 792-804.

Curran, K., Murray, M. and Christian, M. (2007), “Taking the information to the public throughLibrary 2.0”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 288-97.

Dearstyne, B.W. (2007), “Blogs, mashups, and wikis: Oh my! Ready or not, Web 2.0, a newgeneration of web-based services, is changing the way people work and the way recordsand documents are created, used, and shared”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 41No. 4, pp. 24-32.

DiGiammarino, F. and Trudeau, L. (2008), “Virtual networks: an opportunity for government: theincreasing power of computing is enabling a new generation of Web-based applications –Web 2.0 – to harness collective intelligence in the public sector”, The Public Manager,Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-12.

Dye, J. (2007), “Collaboration 2.0 – Make the web your workspace”, Econtent, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 32-6.

Eagles, M., Katz, R.S. and Mark, D. (1999), “GIS and redistricting – emergent technologies, socialgeography, and political sensibilities”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 5-9.

Fletcher, P.D. (2003), “Creating the front door to government: a case study of the Firstgov portal”,Library Trends, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 268-81.

Flora, B. (2007), “It’s all about community – prerequisites for Web 2.0 content management”,Econtent, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 44-7.

Friedman, T. (2006), The World is Flat, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, NY, p. NY.

Funk, C.J. (1998), “Evolving roles of life and health sciences librarians for the twenty-firstcentury”, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 380-4.

Gerth, A.B. and Rothman, S. (2007), “The future IS organization in a flat world”, InformationSystems Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 103-11.

Gruber, T. (2007), “Ontology of folksonomy: a mash-up of apples and oranges”, InternationalJournal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Heo, J. and Han, I.G. (2003), “Performance measure of information systems (IS) in evolvingcomputing environments: an empirical investigation”, Information &Management, Vol. 40No. 4, pp. 243-56.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (1993), 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Random House, NewYork, NY.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, Random House,New York, NY.

King, A.B. (2008), “Finding online subcultures in shared meanings”, Social Science ComputerReview, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-51.

Langingham (2006), “Interview with Tim Berners-Lee on 26 July 2006”, available at: www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt

Lankes, R.D., Silverstein, J. and Nicholson, S. (2007), “Participatory networks: the library asconversation”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 17-33.

Lee, J. and Boling, E. (2008), “Information-conveying approaches and cognitive styles of mentalmodeling in a hypermedia-based learning environment”, Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 644-61.

LM30,1/2

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Levine, K.J., Allard, S.L. and Tenopir, C. (2007), Communication in the 21st Century Workplace: ATheory of Communication Nexus, National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Liu, S. (2008), “Engaging users: the future of academic library web sites”, College & ResearchLibraries, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 6-27.

Lutz, M. and Meadow, C. (2006), “Evolving an in-house system to integrate the management ofdigital collections”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 241-60.

Lyman, P. and Varian, H. (2003), “How much information?,” University of California, available at:www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/

MacDonald, S. and Uribe, L.M. (2008), “Libraries in the converging worlds of open data,e-research, and Web 2.0”, Online, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 36-40.

McKnight, C., Dearnley, J. and Morris, A. (2008), “Making e-books available through publiclibraries: some user reactions”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 40No. 1, pp. 31-43.

Mithas, S. and Whitaker, J. (2007), “Is the world flat or spiky? Information intensity, skills, andglobal service disaggregation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 237-59.

Mowery, D.C. and Simcoe, T. (2002), “Is the Internet a US invention? – an economic andtechnological history of computer networking”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 Nos 8-9,pp. 1369-87.

Nahl, D. (2007), “Social-biological information technology: an integrated conceptual framework”,Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 13,pp. 2021-46.

National Science Foundation (2005), “NSF’s cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st centurydiscovery”, NSF Cyberinfrastructure Council, September 26, Ver. 4.0, p. 4.

Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Jamali, H.R. (2008), “User diversity: as demonstrated by deep loganalysis”, Electronic Library, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 21-38.

O’Reilly, T. (2005), “What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the nextgeneration of software”, available at: www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Pelton, J.N. (2000), e-Sphere: The Rise of the World-wide Mind, Quorom, Westport, CT.

Perry, G.J., Roderer, N.K. and Assar, S. (2005), “A current perspective on medical informatics andhealth sciences librarianship”, Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 93 No. 2,pp. 199-205.

Robertson, D.S. (1998), The New Renaissance: Computers & The Next Level Of Civilization,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Ruth, S. and Pizzato, A. (2007), “Is the world still flat? An update”, IEEE Internet Computing,Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 77-81.

Stephens, M. (2006), “Into a new world of librarianship”, Next Space: the OCLC Newsletter,available at: www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/3.htm

Stephens, M. (2007a), “Web 2.0 and you”, American Libraries, Vol. 38 No. 11, p. 32.

Stephens, M. (2007b), “Electronic journal forum – Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the hyperlinkedlibrary”, Serials Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 253-6.

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2007), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration ChangesEverything, Penguin, New York, NY.

Tenenbaum, J.M. (2006), “AI meets Web 2.0: building the web of tomorrow, today”, AI Magazine,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 47-69.

Tenopir, C. (2007), “Web2.0: our cultural downfall?”, Library Journal, Vol. 132 No. 20, p. 36.

Librarymanagers and

information

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Tenopir, C. and Ennis, L. (2002), “A decade of digital reference – 1991-2001”, Reference & UserServices Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 264-73.

Todaro, J. (2008), “21st Century libraries”, paper presented at the University of Tennessee SISResearch Forum, Knoxville, TN, February.

Watkins, E.R. (2004), “The internet, organizational change, and labor: the challenge ofvirtualisation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 357-8.

Further reading

MacKenzie, C. (2008), ““Reaching higher – looking out”, The Australian Library Journal, Vol. 57No. 1, pp. 6-23.

Mansourian, Y. (2008), “Coping strategies in web searching”, Program: Electronic Library andInformation Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 28-39.

Corresponding authorSuzie Allard can be contacted at: sallard@utk.edu

LM30,1/2

68

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Isfandyari-Moghaddam Alireza, Hosseini-Shoar Mansoureh. 2014. Factors affecting Web 2.0 adoption: acase study. Program 48:1, 2-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Alireza Isfandyari‐Moghaddam, Maryam Sedehi, Mozhdeh Dehghani, Leila Nemati‐Anaraki, ElahehHasanzadeh‐Dizaji. 2013. The status of information technology in Iranian hospital libraries. Program47:3, 220-238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. K.P. Singh, Malkeet Singh Gill. 2013. Web 2.0 technologies in libraries: a survey of periodical literaturepublished by Emerald. Library Review 62:3, 177-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Elisha Ondieki Makori. 2012. Bridging the information gap with the patrons in university libraries inAfrica. Library Review 61:1, 30-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Riaan J. Rudman. 2010. Incremental risks in Web 2.0 applications. The Electronic Library 28:2, 210-230.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Sonja Špiranec, Mihaela Banek Zorica. 2010. Information Literacy 2.0: hype or discourse refinement?.Journal of Documentation 66:1, 140-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 05:

34 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)