modulating social space: optimizing the connective potential of libraries

8/8/2019 Modulating Social Space: Optimizing the Connective Potential of Libraries

1/11

Running head: MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 1

Modulating Social Space

Optimizing the Connective Potential of Libraries

Steven Kemple

Kent State University


2/11

MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 2

Abstract

A cross-disciplinary discussion of Web 2.0 in libraries suggests a theoretical

framework for the kinds of social engagement synonymous with Web 2.0

technology. Conceptualizing libraries as interactive media permits Library

2.0 entry into the same wider discourse surrounding the shifting dynamics of

media. This discussion will begin with a comparative look at critical

arguments by Geoffrey Nunberg (2006) and John Buschman (2007),

identifying themes relevant to contemporary discourse on social media,

followed by an investigation into the relationship libraries, media, and

societal spaces. Finally, the discussion will turn toward an epistemological

foundation of Library 2.0, affirming that libraries exist for and because of

people.


3/11


Modulating Social Space

Optimizing the Connective Potential of Libraries

Introduction

Much of the conversation regarding Web 2.0 in libraries, aptly Library

2.0, (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006; Crawford, 2006) emphasizes the

integration of particular technologies into existing practices. This literature

gives special attention to practical concerns, seldom venturing toward

theoretical implications (Kim & Abbas, 2010; Murray, 2010). While

undeniably valuable, this pragmatic discourse falls short of realizing the

larger picture, wherein Web 2.0 is greater than the sum of its virtual parts.

Having less to do with technology than with people, Web 2.0, and

consequently Library 2.0, are foremost social phenomena (Black, 2007;

Murray 2010; Shirky, 2008). Beneath its digital surface, Library 2.0 is

human (Stephens, 2007, p. xvii). This approach permits a cross-disciplinary

discussion of Web 2.0 in libraries, suggesting a conceptual framework for the

kinds of social engagement synonymous with Web 2.0 technology.

Conceptualizing libraries as interactive media permits Library 2.0 entry into

the same wider discourse surrounding the shifting dynamics of media.

Space, Media, and the Public SphereFirst published in 1996, Farewell to the Information Age (2006) by

Geoffrey Nunberg criticizes the tectonic shifts brought about by the Internet.

At the core of Nunberg's argument is an observed symbiosis between media

(as experienced forms of information) and the public institutions that contain

them (pp. 517-518). Information, he posits, relies on a distinction between

public and private, which the Internet ostensibly blurs. In his view, the

resulting forms of discourse hearken a past when the sense of the public

was mediated through a series of transitive personal relationships (p. 521).

John Buschman (2007) presents a criticism of librarianship in many

ways analogous to, and an extension of, Nunberg's argument. He applies

German philosopher Jrgen Habermas's concept of the public sphere to

libraries' role in a democratic society. The public sphere, he explains, is the


4/11


space between the private and the state (p. 39); most importantly, it is a

space tempered by public discourse and is the origin of non-governmental

opinion (p. 40). Buschman suggests libraries not only embodythis concept,

but collectively serve as the concrete place of the democratic public

sphere (p. 47). Turning to critique, he questions the individualist/

consumer ... models of [deriving libraries'] value (p. 175). Tracing their

ideological roots to Reagan era government information policy, he suggests

such valuation is detrimental to libraries' ability to embody the public sphere:

Librarianship enacts its democratic purpose through democratic process

its fundamental basis (fiscally and socially) is in the public realmnot the

private good (p. 175). Similar to Nunberg, Buschman sees postmodern

technology and its inherent modes of communication as not only

representative of the economic model, but as actively aiding in its task of

dismantling the public sphere (p. 161).

Both Nunberg and Buschman describe a syllogistic relationship

between kinds of media and kinds of societal spaces. For Buschman,

communication is the basis of the public sphere as well as the creation of

knowledge (p. 47). Both arguments, however, rest on the assumption that

media is, or ought to be, mono-directional. But media has changed; this is

the operative notion of Web 2.0., wherein media is the connective tissue of

society (Shirky, 2010, The Connective Tissue of Society, para. 7).

From Passive to Participatory

In Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age

(2010), Clay Shirky describes a shift from two available modes of

communicationone public and mono-directional, the other private and

bidirectionalto three. The new third option he characterizes as two-way

media that operates on a scale from private to public (The Connective

Tissue of Society, para. 12). This he sees as the direct result of opportunities

afforded by Web 2.0 technology; essentially the same observations Nunberg

made fourteen years prior but to dramatically different ends: Shirky argues

such technologies serve merely as a means to harness surplus of free time


5/11


yielded during the past century. The more meaningful shift, he suggests, lies

in the use of that free timefrom passive consumption to participative

creation. Here his reasoning runs parallel to Buschman's: A society where

everyone has some kind of access to the public sphere is a different kind of

society than one where citizens approach media as mere consumers

(Shirky, 2010, Paradox of Revolution, para. 7).

This parallel places libraries squarely in the domain of social media.

Just as the tools comprising social media are defined by uses and users

(Shirky, 2008, New Leverage, para. 7) so too are libraries (Buschman,

2007, p. 47). In fact, user-centrality is among the hallmark principles of

Library 2.0, (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007, pp. 23-33). How can Web 2.0 inform

what constitutes use?

Speaking of Participation...

In Participatory Networks: The Library as Conversation (2007)

authors Lankes, Silverstein, Nicholson, and Marshall posit, through the

theoretical lens of Conversation Theory, that libraries are in the business of

people talking to each other (p. 2). The authors suggest, through numerous

examples, that all aspects of library services may be viewed as serving to

facilitate conversations. They point out that conversations can also take

place over centuries, with the participants changing ... and the conversation

being recorded in ... artifacts, books, pictures, and digital files (p. 3). This

view is consistent with descriptions of Web 2.0 in that it models the library as

a mutable interactive social space wherein knowledge is the aggregation of

collective cognition. It is also consistent with Buschman's notion of libraries

actuating the public sphere, further grounding the ideals of Web 2.0 in the

traditions of librarianship.

Lankes, et al.'s argument further provides a conceptual framework for

Library 2.0. Suggesting that libraries serve as loci for social knowledge

formation entails a view wherein library services are described as the

optimization of a rich knowledge environment (p. 4). An implication of this

service model, in further alignment with Buschman (2007) and Shirky (2010),


6/11


follows: taken as interactive systems having variable environmental quality

dimensions, it follows that these dimensions can be optimized to encourage

conversation, creativity, and collaboration. In the superbly titled Up, Up,

Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, A, B, Select, Start: Learning From Games and

Gamers in Library 2.0, David Ward (2007) draws a similar conclusion:

Libraries, which share many of [the] same goals in the creation of their own

social spaces and research environments, must in a sense become good

game designers (p. 116).

Modulating Information Space

In Fostering Social Creativtiy by Increasing Social Capital (2004),

Fischer, Scharff, & Ye employ the concept ofsocial capital toward designing

sociotechnical environments so as to optimize conversation, creativity, and

collaboration. A concise definition of social capital comes from Fukuyama

(2001), who writes: An instantiated informal norm that promotes

cooperation between two or more individuals. (p. 7). Fischer, Scharff, & Ye

look at several social capital-sensitive systems (p. 360), such as open

source development and distance-learning environments, to discuss

environmental qualities that encourage self-motivated collaboration. Based

on their observations, they posit a conceptual model readily adapted to the

library environment. In this model, the information repository is flanked by a

thin input filterallowing the easy addition of information to the repository

and a thick output filterproviding information contextualized to the task at

hand and the background knowledge of individual users (p. 390). This

model is characterized by group ownership, active information consumption

(i.e. information consumers are also information producers), functional

fluidity (i.e. the system may be appropriated for a variety of purposes), and

distributed responsibility (i.e. change through many small contributions by

consumer-producers) (pp. 389-391). They also find that such systems are

neither totally centralized nor totally de-centrallized (p. 390), and that the

perceived benefits (i.e. social capital) must outweigh the contributions (p.

392). The network itself must also utilize the same qualities that also tend to


7/11


bind individuals into social groups, namely the motivation and trust among

members of a community, and the shared understanding and interests that

binds communities together (p. 393).

Fischer, Scharff, & Ye acknowledge the same epistemological

foundation purported by Lankes, et al. (2007) and Buschman (2007), and

that is an essential component of Web 2.0 and thus Library 2.0. That

foundation is embodied in the notion ofcollective intelligence, which

suggests that people know more together than they do on their own. In

Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder, David

Weinberg (2007) writes, knowledge isn't in our heads: It is between us (p.

147).

Collectivist Kool-Aid?

As to be expected, this is not a universally accepted view of

knowledge. In The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our

Culture, Andrew Keen (2007) argues that crowds are not wise, equivocating

participatory culture as mob rule. His criticism is fundamentally similar to

Nunberg's (2006), in that he suggests an abandonment of quality and

coherence by inverting the directions of media. He too invokes Habermas's

concept of the public sphere, essentially suggesting the result of the internet

is one inhabited by anarchy and empty of authority.

David Weinberger (2007) outlines a compelling response to this

argument, suggesting that authority has always been achieved through

group knowledge. Of Wikipedia, he writes: Conversation improves expertise

by exposing weakness, introducing new viewpoints, and pushing ideas into

accessible form (p. 145). This turns out to be supportive of, rather than

contradictory to, the public sphere.

Conclusion

As stated previously, by conceptualizing the library as an interactive

system having variable quality dimensions, it follows that these quality

dimensions can be modulated so as to enhance its connective capacity.

According to Fischer, Scharff, & Ye (2004), A sociotechnical perspective is


8/11


important because new media, technology, approaches to collaboration, and

communities must coevolve in order to foster a richer form of collaboration

(p. 394). This rests on the notion that knowledge is made by people talking

to each other (Lankes, et al., 2007, p. 2), illustrating a cross-disciplinary

framework compatible with the notion that libraries serve the public good.

By creating environments with rich potential for many forms of conversation

and discourse, libraries serve this public good by facilitating conversation,

the precursor to a democratic society (Buschman, 2007, p. 47). That is to

say: Library 2.0 exists for and as a result of interactions between human

beings.


9/11


References

Black, E. L. (2007). Web 2.0 and library 2.0: What librarians need to know. In

Courtney, N. (Ed.), Library 2.0 and beyond(pp. 1-14), Westport, Conn.:

Libraries Unlimited.

Breeding, M. (2010). Taking the social web to the next level. Computers in

Libraries, 30(7). Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-

displaytext.pl?RC=15053.

Buschman, J. (2007). Dismantling the public sphere: Situating and sustaining

librarianship in the age of the new public philosophy. Westport, Conn:

Libraries Unlimited.

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., (2006, September 1). Library 2.0: Service

for the next generation library. Library Journal, 131, 40-42. Retrieved

from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html.

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., (2007) Library 2.0: A guide to participatory

library service. Medford, N.J.: Information Today, Inc.

Castronova, E. (2010). Social networking: When the crowd isn't wise, trust

your librarian. Information Outlook, 14(3), 18-20. Retrieved from

http://www.sla.org/io/2010/04/860.cfm.

Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and 'library 2.0'. Cites & Insights, 6(2), 1-32.

Retrieved from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf.

Dillon, D. (2008). A world infinite and accessible: Digital ubiquity, the

adaptable library, and the end of information.Journal of Library

Administration, 48(1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/01930820802035034.

Fischer, G., Scharff, E., & Ye, Y. (2004). Fostering social creativity by

increasing social capital. In Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (Eds.), Social

capital and information technology(pp. 355-399), Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press.

Fukyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third

World Quarterly, 22(1), 7-20.

Keen, A. (2007) The cult of the amateur: How today's internet is killing our

culture. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday/Currency
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15053http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15053http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.htmlhttp://www.sla.org/io/2010/04/860.cfmhttp://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820802035034http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15053http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15053http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.htmlhttp://www.sla.org/io/2010/04/860.cfmhttp://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820802035034


10/11


Kim, Y., & Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by

academic libraries and users: A knowledge management perspective.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 211-218.

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003.

Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J., & Nicholson, S. (2007). Participatory networks:

The library as conversation. Information Technology and Libraries,

26(4), 17-33. Retrieved from

http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/Publications/Journals/COLISFinal-v7.pdf.

Luo, L. (2009). Web 2.0 integration in information literacy instruction: An

overview. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 32-40.

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.11.004.

Murray, A. (2010). A mutable cloud: Fostering community through cloud

computing. Library Leadership & Management, 24(2), 58-64. Retrieved

from http://llama.metapress.com/content/g04207405833417n/.

Nunberg, G. (2006). Farewell to the information age. In Finkelstein, D. &

McCleery B. (Eds.), The Book History Reader(2nd ed.) (pp. 509-540).

New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without

organizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press. Retrieved from

http://itunes.apple.com/.

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a

connective age. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press. Retrieved from

http://itunes.apple.com/.

Stephens, M. (2007). Foreword. In Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., Library

2.0: A guide to participatory library service (pp. xv-xvii), Medford, N.J.:

Information Today, Inc.

Ward, D. (2007). Up, up, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start:

Learning from games and gamers in library 2.0. In Courtney, N. (Ed.),

Library 2.0 and beyond(pp. 105-118), Westport, Conn.: Libraries

Unlimited.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/Publications/Journals/COLISFinal-v7.pdfhttp://llama.metapress.com/content/g04207405833417n/http://itunes.apple.com/http://itunes.apple.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/Publications/Journals/COLISFinal-v7.pdfhttp://llama.metapress.com/content/g04207405833417n/http://itunes.apple.com/http://itunes.apple.com/


11/11


Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new

digital disorder. New York, N.Y.: Times Books.

modulating social space: optimizing the connective potential of libraries

Documents