Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Reference, instruction, and technology come together in the arena of research support. No matter the level of the researcher (from the student writing his or her first high school research paper to the Nobel prize–winning scientist) source citation is fundamental to good research. Author Merinda Hensley reflects on the role of the librarian in choosing, promoting, and teaching citation management software. She examines four of the most popular citation managers from the perspective of both the patron and the librarian. More than just reviewing features, Hensley provides best practices for the instruction and support of these important research tools.—Editor

When I was an undergraduate student, I used a portable word processor to type all my research papers. (Does this date me too much?) In other words, formatting and typing a paper was a lot of work and had to be properly thought out ahead of time. I would write each reference on an index card, consult my dog-eared copy of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 3rd edition, and carefully write out each element of the citation, double-checking my work along the way. An errant finger could mean using White-Out on the mistake, or worse, retyping the entire page. Today’s students have it easy. They can import references into their own personal database, choose any citation style, and format a bibliography in seconds.

When will we admit to ourselves that twenty-first-century students do not identify with the importance of citation style? It is an afterthought, a requirement added on to an assignment from which a professor can reliably deduct points. It is an aggravation to be dealt with right up until the paper submission date. When I was in college, we chose a citation style, usually according to our discipline, and got to know it intimately. This is simply no longer the case. As librarians, how have we adjusted to the emergence of the citation manager? With new products being released every semester and old ones being updated, should we stand behind a single product? Is it our responsibility to buy access for our students and faculty? The answer is, it depends.

As librarians, we fuss over citation style details more than anyone else in the academy. As reference librarians, we endlessly answer questions about nuances of citation style management. As teaching librarians, we attest the value of academic integrity by illustrating the differences between intentional and unintentional plagiarism. As technology experts, we demonstrate and explain functions of the tool. And as discerning collection managers, we purchase citation management tools. But with so many choices available, how can we use our expert knowledge to review and recommend the “best” citation manager of the day? And will that change tomorrow? I faced this dilemma when user questions spanning the vast number of citation managers started to mount. How could I possibly understand the ins and outs of all the citation managers on the market? How could I develop instructional materials and teach workshops on several citation managers? Choices have to be made.

We know this much to be true—students are integrating technology into the larger fabric of their lives. Reference management increasingly resembles personal digital libraries,¹ with students refining their workflow by “living in the cloud.” Ultimately, today’s researcher is interconnected and searching for value beyond the citation. As so much these days is in perpetual beta, let’s examine a few of the citation managers on the market by asking ourselves two questions:

1. Is there a value-added citation manager worth investing money and time in?
2. What are the reference and instructional impacts of these choices?

A brief scan of academic library websites confirmed that RefWorks, EndNote, and Zotero are currently the most popular citation managers promoted and supported. There are many comparison charts available on the web, so instead let’s approach our review from the perspectives of both the user and the librarian.

A Comparison of Citation Management Software

Probably the most popular and most powerful citation managers currently on the market are RefWorks and EndNote. Both allow users to import thousands of citations into their own database, format them into any citation style, and feature cite as you write capability. The main difference lies in the responsibility of paying for access to the software. I surfed the web to compare how this is handled by academic institutions, and it seems the majority are placing the cost of EndNote on the user, although most campuses offer an educational discount. This also means that when an update is released, it is up to the user to purchase and install. RefWorks, on the other hand, is sold by institutional license (although individual users can purchase a license for $100/year), placing the cost on the library. To demonstrate return on their investment (e.g., continual increase in usage statistics), libraries must allocate resources to marketing and instruction.

RefWorks

RefWorks-COS is a business unit of ProQuest.

Benefits

RefWorks is web-based and compatible on all platforms. Most database vendors have adapted their interface to export references relatively easily into RefWorks. Users can also import references from library catalogs, other citation managers, RSS feeds, and websites. A bookmarklet is available for download to the browser to import metadata from websites. RefShare allows researchers to collaborate across institutions. Since RefWorks added the attachment feature, researchers can upload 100MB of a variety of file types; the administrator can increase this limit up to 5GB. Write N Cite is relatively easy to learn and provides support for writing with in-text citations and footnotes. RefWorks can be customized to suit your institution by adding a link resolver. From a user perspective, this provides a convenient link to articles in library subscriptions, which is useful with the limited RefWorks file storage space. Finally, users are surely pleased that the library foots the bill for access to RefWorks.

Drawbacks

Users need access to the Internet to use the functionality of their database of citations. Each article database interface implements a different process for exporting references, hence the onus is on the user to figure out how this process works. A librarian at our institution created instructions for importing citations by database. Not only is this type of instruction time consuming, but the document also requires constant updating. In addition, how often will students explore beyond their point of need to hunt down these instructions? While RefWorks will upload PDF documents, it does not import metadata from the PDFs. Although RefGrab-It will pull metadata from webpages, it is not possible to take and save website screenshots. Similar to other citation managers, RefShare does not allow the user to attach files to citations. The RefWorks mobile site is not as user friendly as a phone application could be. Possibly the most important consideration for a scholar may be that there is access for alumni for as long as the institution subscribes to RefWorks. What happens to user data if the subscription is cancelled? This is similar to the library’s relationship with database vendors—students are leasing access to the software rather than controlling ownership of their database. Should a library decide to cancel their institutional subscription, the user may purchase an individual RefWorks annual subscription for $100.

The Librarian’s Perspective

There is significant up-front cost, which is negotiated with RefWorks on the basis of the number of students at your institution. The interface is not as intuitive to learn as some of the other citation managers available, hence there is a human resource cost in developing instructional materials (although RefWorks help files are substantial) and teaching workshops. RefWorks is a powerful tool, almost too powerful for the needs of an undergraduate student. If you don’t have graduate programs at your institution, there are cheaper options available. Finally, the library has a commitment to the campus community and alumni to continue the subscription or find a way to migrate user data to another platform, a potentially daunting task to say the least.

EndNote X4

EndNote is a product of Thomson Reuters (released summer 2010). Every EndNote license includes access to EndNote Web.

Benefits

EndNote is most heavily used in the sciences. When I ask students why they use EndNote, I frequently hear that students are emulating their advisor. EndNote is compatible with Windows and Macintosh computers and is arguably as powerful as RefWorks. EndNote is a desktop application, which means it is accessible offline, and online access is available through EndNote Web (although it is not as robust, limited to ten thousand records). Importing records requires the connection files that EndNote updates regularly at the start of each month. The ResearcherID function builds a custom publication profile, and EndNote Web allows researchers to collaborate using the Groups function. EndNote allows the user to save search strategies, going a long way in assisting researchers with keeping a research log. For projects as large as a thesis or dissertation and for faculty, the most interesting features are that metadata can be extracted from PDFs, including the ability to search across the full text of PDFs, and records can be compared and edited side-by-side. Similar to RefWorks, both EndNote and EndNote Web work with a cite as you write program (Microsoft Word, Apple Pages, and Open Office). Institutional link resolvers can also be configured to work with EndNote.

Drawbacks

All of EndNote’s information is downloaded and saved to the computer hard drive, including attached files. Not only does this take up valuable space on a user’s personal computer, but file attachments are not accessible from EndNote Web. The search capabilities of the connection file technology are not always as nimble or comprehensive as the native database search interface. Although PDF metadata are extracted, there is no capability to work with PDFs within EndNote. Website metadata can be imported, but there are known issues with using Internet Explorer and Safari browsers; EndNote suggests using Firefox instead. Maybe most surprisingly, there currently is no smartphone compatibility and is no cloud solution. Since there are no cloud storage options, users will need to find their own solution for backing up their database, which adds to the cost for the user. The cost would be considered prohibitive: Students with university ID: $115.95. All other users: $249.95 (download); $299.95 (CD). Upgrades can be purchased by everyone for $99.95 (download) or $109.95 (CD).

The Librarian’s Perspective

The software is not intuitive to use, so if your library chooses to actively promote EndNote, librarians need to be prepared to address navigation and technology troubles through reference and instruction. One of our librarians spent considerable time configuring the local connection files to redirect to our institutional server address for both Windows and Macintosh computers. The cost of the software resides with the user so the library can focus its resources on support.

Zotero

Zotero was developed by a team of librarians at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. It is a free extension of the Firefox browser.

Benefits

Zotero recently updated to 2.0, and with it brought several upgrades including automatic synchronization across multiple computers, backup space on Zotero’s servers, and automatic sync of attachment files to a WebDAV server, including your university server. Since learning how to use Zotero is fairly intuitive and uses drag and drop technology, importing references is not as complicated as for RefWorks and EndNote. Users simply click on the Zotero item image in Firefox’s location bar, and the citation information is added to the user’s library. Zotero stands out in its ability to scrape metadata from webpages, and includes screen shot capability. In an effort to bring researchers together, Zotero created the Zotero Groups and Zotero People features with which users can upload their CVs and share libraries for quick collaboration. Like EndNote, Zotero has the capability of recognizing and importing PDF metadata. For researchers on the go, cloud service syncs data across machines. Zotero also has a cite as you write application (Microsoft Word, Mac Word, and Open Office), but unlike RefWorks and EndNote, Zotero also works with Google Docs. Conveniently, there are two ways to directly link to an item through the View (which works through your proxy server) and Locate (which works through the institutional link resolver) buttons. Three of the more unique features of Zotero include the ability to create a timeline feature, assignment of shortcut keys, and the application of tags instead of folders to organize citations.

Drawbacks

Zotero is not as robust a software program as RefWorks or EndNote, although consistent updates indicate there will be improvement over time. Since data are saved in the individual’s Firefox browser, users should be concerned about storage space. Currently, users are limited to 100MB of free cloud-based storage and must pay for additional data access (RefWorks administrators can set each individual account up to 5GB; in contrast that same amount for Zotero will cost the user $60/year). Zotero’s website indicates that the next update, Zotero Everywhere, will include a standalone desktop version and plugins for Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer, as well as mobile access. For researchers who are manning thousands of citations, Zotero may not be the best solution.

The Librarian’s Perspective

With a free option like Zotero, many librarians are wondering if it is still worth substantial funds to license access to citation software. It is increasingly clear with the development of Zotero and other free citation managers that citation management service has been monetized through data storage. Institutional storage plans are available from Zotero, so if your institution deems it adequate, you could invest in Zotero. Even though librarians have critiqued the longevity of web applications, any company or institution could decide to discontinue a service or close. Finally, many have argued that Zotero is more suited to casual and undergraduate research. Since this is not easily quantifiable, it could be a significant tool with which to start the intellectual discussion on the complexities of citation management.

Mendeley

Mendeley is a London-based company. New to the party, Mendeley is the next generation of citation management software. It is an integrated research tool that promotes collaborative work and weaves itself into the research process rather than simply organizing citations.

Benefits

Mendeley combines both a desktop and a web-based application that is compatible across platforms. Mendeley also is fairly intuitive to learn and features drag-and-drop technology. There is a Cite This Document feature that allows users to copy and paste a citation for a single item using the major citation styles, similar to WorldCat and the Landmark Project’s Son of Citation Machine.² Like RefWorks, a bookmarklet allows metadata to be imported from websites, and users can take snapshots of webpages that can be annotated. The most valuable advancement Mendeley boasts is comprehensive PDF management that includes importation of PDF metadata, automatic naming and filing of documents, opening of multiple PDFs in a single application that are navigable by tab, and the ability to highlight and annotate PDFs within the application. Mendeley Dashboard takes academic collaboration to a new level by leveraging the users of Mendeley to watch research trends. Research groups, which can be made public or private, have the ability to collaboratively annotate and share notes. As for cite as you write, Mendeley generally works a little different from other software programs; it inserts formatted citations by dragging and dropping into any text editor, including Google Docs, LaTeX, blogs, and e-mails. There is also a Microsoft Word plug-in. Other features include link resolver capability, iPhone and iPad applications, generation of overall Mendeley and individual statistics, synchronization with Zotero and CiteULike, as well as a simple yet research-changing feature: the ability to mark papers as read or unread.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Jenny Emanuel is passionate about the user search experience. She is young (well, younger than me) and her experience growing up with networked libraries informs her views. She doesn’t rest on generalizing from herself or reading what Millennials want; she conducts usability studies and talks with a range of users to better understand which changes to library interfaces are improvements and which are just change. I asked her to set her views and research findings to paper after many conversations over our cubicle wall.—Editor

For the past several years, there has been much discussion about the future of libraries in the digital age. Most of this discussion involves librarians’ fears that we are falling behind technologically in meeting our patrons’ information needs. As a result we’ve begun work to transform libraries. We have built elaborate websites incorporating electronic resources, tutorials, and social media such as blogs. We have begun to digitize collections to make them more accessible to users at a distance. We have moved from print indexes and paper journals to a system of electronic resources, giving us instant access to a plethora of both scholarly and popular media with only a few mouse clicks. Although no one can argue that these systems are perfect and will not continue to evolve in the future, one library system has continued to remain relatively unchanged from the past decade: the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC). Or to use the language of our library users: the catalog. When I started library school seven years ago, no one questioned the library catalog and its status in the library; it was ubiquitous. I grew up with the catalog being networked in some capacity, and my visits to the library usually started with a text search on dumb terminal. There was no mouse and no navigating a fancy user interface; I navigated using a series of text commands to get to the proper menu to search for what I needed. Today that seems so simple, and as I look back, I liked how simple it was. But information needs and expectations change, and by the end of high school I was online and searching for information in an entirely different manner. Websites such as Yahoo!, Amazon, and later Google, changed how I found information. Search engines replaced the reference librarians who previously seemed almost godlike at finding obscure pieces of information. I could find book summaries and tables of contents from Amazon that before I’d have to make a trip to the library to access. My information needs were evolving— because I both transitioned to college and spent an increasingly larger amount of my time on the Internet. When I started library school, I knew I wanted to be a librarian who focused on technology and how libraries will change as more of their resources go online. By then, most libraries had a Web-based catalog that basically displayed the same data in a similar manner to the earlier text-based online catalog. The difference was that this new online catalog allowed for hyperlinking between different records and had a shiny, colorful interface that made the library appear to be on par with the rest of the Internet world.

However, there were definitely grumblings about the online catalog in some library circles. It did not take long for librarians to realize that search engines such as Google and Amazon were getting better at meeting information needs while the library catalog remained static. Librarians assumed that the catalog could not change because of the underlying data; the complexity of a system that usually included acquisitions, catalog, and circulation modules; and the tangible and intangible costs associated with ongoing development. As an added bonus, library catalog vendors, knowing that they had no outside competition, continued implementing systems that were static at the time of installation and would remain static until the next major installation, which could be years in the future. Librarians did not like this system, but there was little that could be changed, since no library had the resources to develop its own online catalog. Nor did they have the resources to compete with the online retailers and search engines that were revolutionizing the way people searched and found information—leaving libraries behind.

The Next Generation Catalog Arrives

Then, in 2006, North Carolina State University announced a partnership with a commercial search corporation, Endeca, to develop a new catalog interface to overlay on top of their current catalog data. The Endeca project made libraries realize that yes, the current catalog systems are not user friendly, and yes, we can do something about it. It also made library vendors worry about outside competition and set them on a course to develop their own competing systems.

These systems were quickly dubbed “next-generation” or “nextgen” catalogs. They allowed the online catalog to break free of the rest of the library system and enabled libraries to make customizations to the catalog interface and make the search for library materials easier on users. However, these systems are not the end all to library catalogs. They are not Amazon, and libraries are still burdened by the template of the MARC record, which may not have all of the data patrons want to see about an item and may constrain the useful display of the data. Nextgen catalogs are a solution that libraries can use to make their materials easier to access and also to create some flexibility to improve the catalog in the future.

In the four years since NC State’s Endeca Project, many major library vendors have come out with their own version of a nextgen catalog interface: SirsiDynix’s Enterprise, Ex Libris’s Primo, Innovative Interfaces’ Encore, VTLS’ Visualizer, and Serials Solutions’ Aquabrowser. There are also several open-source initiatives as well, including VuFind, Scriblio, Blacklight, and the eXtensible Catalog Project. OCLC also has developed WorldCat into a local catalog and is using WorldCatLocal as a launching point to a new integrated library system. Most of these interfaces used not only a new user interface, but bring in streams of data to supplement the MARC record information, as well as integrate social media functions.

Long Live the OPAC

These new products are simply catalog interfaces. They are not integrated systems and therefore rely on antiquated back-end systems for functions such as acquisitions and cataloging. Therefore they still have many of the same issues online catalogs have had for years, but display the data differently. I cannot help but be especially critical of the nextgen catalogs provided by the major OPAC vendors because they are distributed as an additional product that libraries must purchase on top of their current system. I believe that vendors should be supplying these new interfaces as an upgrade to their current systems. However, because nearly all libraries already have an integrated catalog system that works for them and are not in a position to adopt a new system, nextgen interfaces have become an income stream for vendors.

Because libraries must pay to adopt a nextgen interface, not all library users have access to a catalog that is user friendly. I am beginning to see nextgen interfaces as a new digital divide between libraries. Ten years ago this divide was between automated and nonautomated libraries, and five years ago the divide was between online graphical OPACs and text-based OPACs. In the next several years, there will be a bigger divide between libraries with usable online catalogs and catalogs with outdated, clunky interfaces. Open-source nextgen catalogs may appear on the surface to bridge this widening divide, but it is important to note that open-source does not mean free; rather, open-source implementations can involve many personnel and large amounts of hardware that could near the cost of purchasing a commercial product.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
I was a little behind in getting this column finished. This semester I took on another project that has required a lot of time: teaching an introductory reference course online for a graduate school of LIS. Fortunately for me, this is a technology column in a reference journal, so I caught up with writing by making this column about teaching reference online. Seriously though, we use so much technology in our reference work and teaching made me look at reference and the technology we use in a new way. Teaching raised a lot of questions, and I will share those along with the answers I found (or at least the musings that I had).

Course Structure and Planning

In what ways is teaching different than training?

Every year for the last eight years I have provided training for the 50+ graduate assistants that work at my library and the ten that work in my department. This consists of about thirty-five hours of training in the week before fall classes start. It takes a group of librarians to provide this much training, but I help with the planning and teach several of the topics. I also lead about thirty more hours during weekly meetings for my department’s graduate assistants. This amounts to a lot of training, and I have had years to evolve the content and methods. I had an idea that I knew from doing this training, and from supervising our graduate assistants on the reference desk, exactly what I would want to teach in a reference course. When it came time to put together a syllabus, I realized how untrue this was. For a start, I know that the graduate assistants who work for me will take the reference course, generally in the first semester, and this does affect the content of my training. During training at my library we focus a lot on searching skills, but for the reference class I would be teaching, searching was not important as the students were taught this in a previous course.

Aside from these specific content considerations, there is a major philosophical difference between training and teaching, which may be best illustrated by an anecdote. Early in my time as graduate assistant coordinator in my reference department, one of the students I supervised asked: “Why do we do so many exercises in finding difficult-to-find citations for our weekly meetings? This won’t help me with my future work.” I acknowledged that this was true, as he would not use this skill much in a public library. However, he still needed to do the exercises as it was a vital skill for his current position working for me. At that time, we had a couple million brief-cat records in our library catalog—pairing that with the sometimes sketchy citations brought in by patrons meant a need for this specific training. Now that we have improved many of our catalog records, I have our graduate assistants do fewer of these exercises. My point? Teaching is not training. The goals are different. Training is as much for the needs of the workplace as for the employee. Teaching is for the student. I hope that when I train, the employees learn transferable skills. It is a requirement in teaching that the skills be transferable. This is where theory and research become important elements in the Master’s program, and a reference class cannot be entirely practice in answering questions.

Where do I even start?

Once I discovered that I knew more about training and less about teaching, I looked at other instructors’ syllabi, via the generosity of others and the openness of the Internet. I even made a spreadsheet to compare topics and the order of presentation, the assignments and readings. It would have been easiest to start with someone else’s syllabus, and perhaps I should have. When examining so many, it became difficult to choose and I ended up trying my own thing, building off of the work of many others.

What is the right order to present topics?

This question is still giving me fits. I still wonder if I taught the reference interview too late in the semester. (It was the fifth week.) In training our graduate assistants, I prefer to teach the reference interview before I teach sources. Part of that sequencing decision has to do with being face-to-face and the practice interview exercise. If the employees have just learned sources, they gravitate toward how to answer the question rather than focusing on the interview techniques. In preparing the reference course, however, I thought that the reference interview might seem too abstract to throw in at the beginning and that somehow learning about sources and types of reference questions would provide an anchor. Also, I knew that I wanted one of the three short papers to be about the reference interview, and it seemed a little early to assign on the second week of class.

The students also answered questions for the Internet Public Library (IPL) which I assigned for the last third or so of the class. My reasoning being that they needed to learn enough about sources and techniques to be able to have a foundation for answering questions. I still believe that this is true, but if I teach again I will have the students start one or two weeks sooner. I will also add a practice e-mail question or two before they start with the IPL. I think that this will ease some of the pressure of the 24-hour IPL turn-around; this is an appropriate policy for their service but made a few of the students feel under the gun. I will also be able to review these questions in a different way, providing feedback to the student without the response already being in the hands of the patron. I think that this will make the students more comfortable as well.

I am pleased with most of my assignments and discussion questions, but the order of the syllabus will be the biggest area of change if I teach this course again.

OnlIne Students and Teachers

Should I teach this course the same way as I would to an in-person class?

Obviously the differences in the learning environments make this impossible. The lectures and discussion are structured differently. What would be contained in one three-hour session in a classroom is spread out over the week.

The most vital, perspective-altering and assignment-affecting difference is geography. On-campus students can all be expected to use the same library and hence the same range of sources. With off-campus students I had no idea what they would have access to in print. I could have required that they visit a library of a certain type and size, but even that seemed impracticable. This led to more creativity in the reference sources assignments. Some instructors focus on source examination and comparison. While evaluation is an important aspect to learning reference sources, reference questions get students into sources in a different way. And they are fun. After all, we are interested in being reference librarians to answer questions, not to evaluate sources.

The reference questions were tricky. Sometimes I specified that students use both print and electronic sources. Electronic was easy since they all had access to the university’s subscriptions (as well as sources freely available online). But print? What could I ask that could be answered by a student working in a K–5 library, a student visiting a university library, and a student using her local public library? I wrote the questions to allow maximum flexibility in the sources used. For example: When was the Franco-Prussian War? What was the cause? Was there a decisive battle? I had asked students in the first week to describe the library that they would most often use for the course. It was interesting to see them relate their choice of sources back to their user population even when I did not explicitly asked them to do this in the assignment.

With the exception of an ill-fated National Union Catalog question (which I will never assign to a class again), I totally let go of teaching from a list of titles. Specific sources were part of the textbook, but nothing that I reinforced when I talked about types of sources. I would use this same type of exercise again, even on-campus, as it gives the student the most range to mimic answering questions in the type of library setting where she plans to work.

What makes a good (online) discussion topic?

In-person discussion flows in a different way than online. The synchronous nature of the communication leads to questions building off of each other in a way that rarely happens online. On the other hand, an online discussion board gives everyone a chance to add their responses as the conversations stay online for response and do not drift off in the ephemeral way of face-to-face conversation.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)

In May 2008 I spent a month working at the Shanghai Library as part of a work exchange. A month is a long time to be gone from work and home, but a short time to become acquainted with a library as large as the Shanghai Library. In this column I will share a few of my thoughts on my experience. Some of my observations are about technology, some on other aspects of the library, and some are more cultural reflection. I hope that you will enjoy this persion from the regular Accidental Technologist topics.

Overview of Shanghai and the Shanghai Library

Shanghai is located in the center of the Pacific Chinese coast. It is a major trade and financial center with a population of more than 13 million people. Construction is rampant, with the entire area east of the Huangpu river (Pudong) new since 1993. The Shanghai Library and Institute of Scientific and Technological Information of Shanghai is one of the ten largest libraries in the world and the second largest library in China. It houses more than 50 million items and serves 9 million users a year. In likening it to a U.S. library, it seems close to the New York Public Research Libraries, except with a circulating collection. The 1996 merger with the Institute of Scientific and Technological Information of Shanghai brought scientific and industry research assistance into the purview of the Shanghai Library.

Within the Shanghai Central Libraries network are fifty-four district and community public libraries. While the district and community libraries are public, they are administratively separate from the main Shanghai Library, with separate funding and governance. The network started in 2000 and aims to increase cooperation and provide a “one-card-through” service to library patrons that can be used at all of the Shanghai public libraries.

My time at the Shanghai Library was pided between several departments. My first two weeks were primarily with the Friendship Library in the foreign documents pision, where I offered English-language reference assistance and learned about the library. (I also spent some time adjusting to the time zone and figuring out living on my own in a large city where I spoke none of the language. The head librarian in that unit was very helpful.) Next I spent about a week with the interlibrary lending, document delivery, and document supply center. The last week contained some time with acquisitions and cataloging, tours of two branch libraries, and the digitization and preservation units, and presenting a lecture on my final day. Somewhere in the twenty-five days I visited Nanjing and Suzhou, spent three days buying books, learned to use the subway, and spent hours walking miles through the city.

Shanghai is a very safe city. I’ve heard that most of China is this way, but I felt like I was in a particularly safe place. My lodging was at a hotel immediately behind the library, and there were guards by the hotel and by the library. It was also a block from the U.S. Embassy, which had Chinese Army guards stationed outside. Shanghai was also easy to navigate, since the street signs are in both Chinese characters and the Romanized Pinyin. The subway stops are labeled in Mandarin and English. The total of my knowledge of Mandarin consists of “hello,” “thank you,” and “good,” but people under about twenty-five years of age have been required to study a second language starting at age 10, and most choose English.

sidebar

Building the New, Celebrating the Old

I traveled to three cities while in China. In all three places I saw significant new cultural institutions. Nanjing and Shanghai both have magnificent new libraries, and Suzhou has a museum designed by renowned architect I. M. Pei. There are numerous other new cultural institutions in Shanghai as well. The historical, cultural, and economical antecedents to this recent proliferation of cultural institutions are complex. As a casual traveler, however, my impression was of a city (indeed a nation) exerting its identity and pride.

Embodied in the buildings of the Shanghai and Nanjing libraries were the themes of history and modernity. Modernity was often mentioned by the staff of the library. It was also echoed by my guide in Nanjing when she showed me her city’s library. Modernity was something that the librarians wanted to bring to my attention, but would have been evident without comment. The automated book-delivery trolley in Shanghai, the array of computers in the lobby in Nanjing, and the very architecture of both buildings impress the visitor as state-of-the-art upon sight.

At the same time, history is highlighted in both buildings as well. The Nanjing Library is built over part of the old city road, and through a glass floor in the basement one can see and walk over the tracks left hundreds of years ago by wagons. The Shanghai Library has a room devoted to genealogies, with several ancient volumes on permanent display. Next to that is a room where the public can view the restoration process for ancient documents. The Shanghai Library also has an interior courtyard evoking traditional Chinese gardens.

This “forward to the future” mentality is also present in the Expo Reading Room. Shanghai will host the 2010 World Expo. There is a reading room that houses a historical collection of World’s Fair and Expo books, maps, brochures, and memorabilia as well as contemporary publications to help Expo planners and researchers. The Expo is very big in Shanghai and tied to city pride with the motto of “Better City, Better Life.” The library is part of this planning and one of the buildings being built for the Expo will eventually be a district public library.

For-fee Services

The Shanghai Library has a staggering array of services available, many targeted to business and industry. Most of these I did not witness first-hand. With only a month in Shanghai and less than twenty days in the library, there was a lot that I did not see. I did participate in one of the library’s research services—housed in the document delivery department—which provided in-depth research, particularly for more science-focused industry. As I currently work at an academic library where the model is to provide instruction in the use of resources, the opportunity to sink myself into a market analysis was a trip back in time to when I worked for a management consulting firm.

Other for-fee services are as far-ranging as document translation, book restoration, rare book valuation, and current-events clipping services. There is a list of services on the left-hand menu of the services page of the English-language version of the Shanghai Library website. Some of these services, such as the online reference service, are free. Others carry a fee, although fees are not listed on the English version of the website.

For-fee service is a fraught issue in the United States and has been the cause of debate among librarians. There are the ethical questions of what we can charge for as publicly funded institutions and if it is counter to the concept of free access to information. We may have fewer qualms when it comes to chargeback for in-depth research for business, but then we find ourselves in a legal environment where we must pay close attention to our database licensing agreements.

The Shanghai Library is very entrepreneurial, using the wide array of librarian expertise to offer services for businesses and inpiduals with needs outside of reading and basic research. Certainly there is a different service philosophy, as well as a different legal environment, that underlies this service model. Even at the level of library cards and readers’ access there is a stratified system with four levels of fees.

This quarter, Michael Stephens of the popular Tame the Web blog offers advice on dodging �technolust� and how to recognize and deal with �technodivorce.� It isn�t all avoidance, though, as he provides ten positive steps for your library�s technology planning. Michael has a pedigree in technology planning as the former Special Projects Librarian at Saint Joseph County (Ind.) Public Library. He now teaches in the LIS program at Dominican University and recently authored two Technology Reports on Web 2.0 for the American Library Association. If you�ve heard Michael speak, you will recognize his straight-from-the-hip style. –Editor

Back in 2004 when I started writing and speaking about technology planning, I urged librarians to be mindful of letting a desire for flashy, sexy technology outweigh conscious, carefully planned implementations. Over the years, I�ve returned to the topic of wise planning and �technolust� on my blog and in various publications. Simply, technolust is �an irrational love for new technology combined with unrealistic expectations for the solutions it brings.�¹

While the emerging technologies of 2004 seem quaint when seen through the lens of 2008, the issue of technolust remains. Call it a 2.0 world, the age of social networking, or whatever you�d like, but now more than ever librarians are finding themselves in a position to make decisions about new and emerging tech�when everything is in beta version and �nimble organizations� are the words of the day.

A fact: new technologies will not save your library. New tech cannot be the center of your mission as an institution. I�m still taken aback when I hear of libraries spending money for technologies without careful planning, an environmental scan of the current landscape, and a complete road map for training, roll out, buy in, and evaluation. When the latest technology hits, are you keen to add it to your library, boosting the coolness factor? For example, buying every librarian on your staff an iPhone as a way to improve reference services is probably not going to be a wise solution. You may have some happy librarians, but that type of technolust does not well serve the organization.
I believe these days we�re dealing with a lot more than just lust. Consider the following other states, if you will:

Technostress: New tools and Web sites come at us daily, easily creating a feeling of unease or anxiety about how much technology we can take on or even understand. How do we keep up? How do we stay in the know, when it seems that those cutting-edge libraries we always hear about are launching yet another social tool or widget on their blog-based, RSS-equipped, Meebo�d-to-the-hilt Web site? This anxiety can lead to poor decision making and knee-jerk reactions. It might also lead to multiple irons in the 2.0 fire at one time, spearheaded by individuals and departments all over your library. This, in turn, leads to more stress. More stress aggravates bad decisions for technology, which means more Technostress . . . well, you get the idea.

Technodivorce: It�s hard to admit we�ve made a mistake–especially in our profession. The culture of perfect in many libraries at times prevents us from cutting the cord on projects that just aren�t working. Did they really work to begin with? Many things–that IM service for young adults, the readers� advisory wiki, RSS feeds–sometimes just die on the vine from lack of use, promotion, or upkeep. Found a few months later, a dead library blog speaks volumes about project management and buy in at all levels of the organization. Who is watching this? Maybe potential new hires who are now running for the hills.

Technoshame: The librarian who steps up after one of my presentations and whispers �I don�t know anything about this stuff and have no idea how to begin� might be experiencing a bit of embarrassment. The world is moving just too fast. Fear not! And feel no shame. It�s never too late to kickstart an institutional learning program or learn on your own. See the tips below for more.

Technophobia: This librarian is frozen with fear about new tech. Often the reaction is to oppose vigorously. In the right position, this person can infect a good portion of the organization. Tech projects stand still until any light of day vanishes. Is it really the technology or is it rapid change that causes the fear? Sometimes I think it�s more a fear of the open, transparent times we�re moving into more than blog software or a wiki for planning the new branch or department.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Sam Stormont’s well-considered column made me think about current virtual reference issues in a different way. He brings together and unifies several threads: instant messaging, the goal of convenience, technological barriers, and collaboration. These themes were hot topics at the Collaborative Virtual Reference Symposium in July 2007. I am pleased to present Sam Stormont’s column and to bring these issues to a much larger audience.–Editor

Virtual Reference (VR) has been around for at least twenty years and has grown in popularity, with more and more libraries offering some version. As librarians evaluate their chat services, a consistent question is, “Why aren’t more people using this service?” There is abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messenging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm.¹ A lot of discussion focuses on increased marketing and promotion efforts as the way to increase use of VR services. Little has been written, however, about the influence technical barriers have had on VR and how those issues have impeded VR’s acceptance and growth.

With any emerging technology, it’s reasonable to expect an initial period of problems while the bugs are being worked out. However, VR electronic list discussions still include too much about problems and too little about features, services, and the innovative ways this technology can be used to help our users. Too much time and energy is spent writing and reading e-mails describing problems with co-browsing and working with vendors and local systems departments trying to troubleshoot the problems. At this point in VR services development, more of the glitches should have been worked out. I believe that it’s time for librarians to focus on a VR solution that emphasizes simplicity and convenience. The process of asking for help needs to be uncomplicated and easy for the user.

VR: The Early Years

The earliest documented e-mail reference projects date to the mid-1980s.² Commercial use of chat also dates to the same period.³ In the late 1990s, there was increased interest, and some experiments began with live, or real-time, reference. Those early initiatives have evolved into what is now commonly referred to as chat reference and IM reference.

A lot of different names have been used to describe VR. I will follow the guidelines established by the RUSA Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services:

Virtual reference is reference service initiated electronically, often in real-time, where patrons employ computers or other Internet technology to communicate with reference staff, without being physically present. Communication channels used frequently in virtual reference include chat, videoconferencing, Voice over IP, co-browsing, e-mail, and instant messaging.⁴

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
When I finished reading Amy Wallace’s manuscript, I knew it needed to be the next Accidental Technologist column. Amy’s experience with users’ constantly changing technology needs will resonate with all frontline librarians. Her library’s response is a readily available but often overlooked technology and her advice will be of great use to libraries in their quest to provide access to a variety of computer peripherals, both cutting-edge and legacy. As promised in my first column, I have provided my thoughts on emerging (and retreating) technologies in the sidebar.–Editor.

Open any glossy news magazine and you will find articles on all sorts of exciting technologies that are revolutionizing learning in our universities. The pervasive media coverage leads one to believe that every incoming student has a tablet PC, iPod, PDA, and cell phone that can do everything including cook dinner. Okay, maybe not actually cook dinner, but have it delivered to them from their favorite take-out place. Many of these technologies are portable and will no doubt turn up in libraries sooner than we think. Colby Riggs, in her two part Library Hi Tech News article, details a number of such technologies, including the SanDisk Folding Universal Serial Bus (USB)/SD Card; the Pupillo video camera for video calls; the Cellstik that backs up information stored on cell phones; the TuneBuckle iPod Nano Belt that serves as an iPod case while holding up your pants; the Thanko MP3 Watch that records and plays music; the U3 Smart Drive that stores Windows settings and applications for use on other PCs; and the Eyebud 800 that records images directly to an iPod.¹ Additional items can be found by browsing the latest editions of popular computer magazines. Some examples include the Pure Digital single-use camcorder, the SanDisk Cruzer Crossfire drive with preloaded interactive games, and the Young Micro USB 2.0 Adapter for using old 2�-, 3�-, or 5�-inch drives.²

The pressure from our users to support these technologies is enormous. Shoham and Roitberg’s study on the uses of public workstations concludes that “from the user’s point of view, learning is not divided into library and non-library uses. For the benefit of the students, libraries should offer them all learning tools under one roof and in one workstation.”³ Academic libraries everywhere are scrambling to meet these demands either by launching new services or finding new ways to support these must-have technologies with existing services. This scrambling, however, is nothing new and not just reserved for academic libraries. Libraries have always had to grapple with implementing new technologies to support user demands. In some cases, decisions to provide support for a new hip technology has paid off, and in other cases libraries invest many dollars and work hours to find out a technology is pass� just as it is implemented. Walk into any library and you are likely to see remnants of technologies past, including computer towers with out-of-order zip drives, specialized workstations languishing off in a corner, microform readers, or massive televisions occasionally used to view VHS tapes and DVDs.

Limits of Traditional Public Workstation Planning

Because it seems like libraries are always playing catch-up, it might be a good time for them to revisit how they interface with emerging and legacy technologies in general, instead of considering each individual technology or groups of similar technologies as they come along. To do this requires libraries to rethink the concept of the public workstation. The ideal public workstation has been a one-stop shop that allows all users to accomplish any desired function without waiting. Library Technology Reports notes that “public workstations in the library tend to offer the following features: access to the library catalog, access to Web-based electronic resources, access to CD-ROM-based electronic resources, productivity software, and e-mail and instant messaging.”⁴ To help with planning, the same report also encourages libraries to gather formal or informal statistics on things like the total number of workstations, number of sessions per workstation per time period, sessions per type of user, applications accessed and number of sessions per application, measurements of activity, and pages printed per workstation.⁵ Although the report is four years old, the planning model presented is not much different than ones presented today or even ten years ago.

The typical result of workstation planning–considering cost, function, space, and use–is usually not the ideal one-stop-shop workstation, but rather a plan for several different kinds of workstations with a clear idea of how many of each kind will be installed and in which location. A plan may call for a large number of workstations that provide access to Web-based resources, some computer workstations that provide access to specific electronic resources and applications, some kiosks set up for a specific task, some specialized multimedia stations configured to view and edit, or other workstations that meet site specific needs. Even with all the recent discussions on creating the “information commons,” the end result of workstation planning today does not look that different from five or ten years ago. Church’s article on a newly designed information commons describes a general and registration-express workstation, but also notes that the library has scanner and media workstations located in another section of the library.⁶ Hein’s article on the same topic describes a general workstation as well as kiosks to access the catalog and course reserves, scanning workstation, and CD-ROM computers.⁷ Neither article mentions if the workstation plan considered audio, video, or other single-use workstations. Libraries have not yet been able to achieve the goal of the single workstation that can do everything for everyone.

Unfortunately for libraries, the ideal public workstation is different for every single person. The ideal public workstation of today may also not be the ideal public workstation of tomorrow. As a result, even after hours of planning and implementation, there is still the very real worry that a user will come in and need access to something that was not considered in the plan. Library workstation planning tends to be based on what are considered traditional library functions and the current technologies associated with those functions rather than on how more and new technologies are being woven into these tasks. Workstation planning often focuses on computer functions and overlooks functions that are already served by existing specialized video, audio, or even microform workstations. Current discussions about public computing in libraries focus primarily on the use of thin-client technology or personal laptops and handhelds in a wireless environment.⁸ These forays have not directly addressed the challenge of how libraries can better interface with emerging and legacy technologies; but all is not lost. Other new technologies may provide the missing link in the quest for the single public workstation that does it all.

New Model for Public Workstation Planning

How can libraries plan for a low-cost, multifunctional, space-saving, old- and new- technology-friendly public computer workstation? One answer is to design a more flexible public workstation that can serve as an interface for unknown future technologies just as it has for traditional library resources and applications. The library could then provide access to technologies on an as-needed basis. Users could either bring in desired technologies, or check them out from the circulation desk. One technology that has the potential to take libraries a long way in providing a more flexible workstation is the USB. This technology is poised to have an enormous impact on the delivery of services and resources via the public workstation, yet it is rarely talked about in library literature and continues to be underutilized in libraries.

USB technology has been around since 1995, and is available on many existing library workstations, but often is not accessible. On most existing workstations the USB port is located on the back of the central processing unit (CPU) or hidden under some secret flap. The CPU is then tucked away under a desk or stashed behind a giant monitor. Even if a user can find the USB port on the library workstation, the port might already be taken by some predetermined peripheral, or the port might be locked down so the public cannot use it.

A number of advantages would result for libraries if they made USB ports more accessible to their users and if they made USB technology the central focus of public workstation planning. An article about the “new mobile scholar” mentions two key advantages of USB technology:⁹

The great advantage of the USB is, as the name suggests, its universality. Almost everything can be attached to a computer, even such large and energy-greedy items as printers and scanners are now available in USB format. Another advantage of USB technology is that it permits hot swapping. That is, devices can be connected and disconnected while the PC is turned on.¹⁰

Still other advantages include the support of legacy hardware such as external floppy or zip drives, the capability to connect to wireless devices using Certified Wireless USB, compatibility with many emerging technologies such as the Thanko MP3 Watch or U3 Smart Drive mentioned above, and the ability to connect devices such as headphones and DVD players that libraries traditionally have relegated to non-computer listening and viewing workstations. New products, such as the OverDrive Download Station software, which allows users to download audiobooks and music, are being pitched to libraries that require the use of USB ports.¹¹ Even microform readers are now incorporating USB technology.

All of these capabilities make USB technology a good fit for public computer workstations in libraries. Users would then have the ability to upload or download from a variety of storage devices, connect to personal peripherals, and not have to wait to power up or down to use a device. For example, a user could access information on her U3 Smart Drive (which stores Windows settings and applications for use on other PCs); or could stop by the circulation desk and check out a USB-ready headset and DVD player to view a DVD from the library’s collection, a floppy drive to access a homework assignment or r�sum�, or a scanner to save an image.

Making It Work: USB Technology and Our Library

My library serves a small public university with approximately 2,200 full-time equivalents (FTE). The library installed thirty PC workstations in fall 2003, each comprised of a small tabletop CPU with CD-ROM player and front access to two USB ports. The following year, the library acquired five Macintosh computers, each equipped with a CD-ROM player and access to three USB ports (two on the side and one in the keyboard). Students and faculty were encouraged to use USB key drives to download and upload information on the public workstations, but the library soon found that some students still did not have their own USB drives, or desired to use other storage formats. The library made six USB key drives, four USB-ready floppy drives, and one USB-ready zip drive available for checkout at the circulation desk. Each device was available for a two-hour period. There were some checkout period exceptions made for the key drives, which some users wished to check out overnight in order to transfer information to their home computer or to make an in-class presentation. So far all equipment has been returned in good working order, which has meant no replacement costs. Damage to an external drive would have little impact since it would not require confusing out-of-order signs or computer downtime.

Analysis of checkout records revealed that the USB-ready zip drive had seven checkouts, the USB key drives had sixty-eight checkouts, and the USB-ready floppy drives had 299 checkouts during the 2005-2006 academic year. Although there were never any waits for, or holds placed on, these items, the usage statistics for these items gives several insights into our users’ public computing needs. Few users are using zip disks, but it still seems worth the $149.99 investment to have a zip drive on hand when needed.¹² There was a bit more demand for the USB key drives, which definitely came in handy for those who did not have one of their own and needed to transport something that could not be e-mailed or saved to another storage device. Most often these situations involved making a presentation in a campus classroom or transporting large files to a home computer or campus lab to complete tasks. The USB floppy drives had the highest circulation, but usage still only amounted to approximately six hundred hours. Again, purchasing four USB-ready floppy drives at $31.95 apiece seems like a relatively inexpensive way to have them available when people need them. Prior to last year these items were checked out by hand, and not via the integrated library system, so no usage statistics were retained. When informally polled, the circulation staff agreed that zip drive use probably was about the same, floppy drive use was probably up, and key drive use probably was down from the previous year.

In addition to these three items, the library also circulates USB-ready audio, video, and image technologies that can be used for class projects. The audio and video recorded on these devices can then be uploaded to library workstations, library-circulated laptops, or other computer labs on campus via the USB port (for editing, addition of text, and background research), and then downloaded to be used in class presentations somewhere else on campus. All of these audio and visual items are extremely popular and usually have users waiting to check them out as soon as they are checked in. Our library currently circulates four Canon Power Shot G2 cameras, ten Canon Power Shot G6 cameras, and ten digital audio recorders for use in language courses. What’s more, this trend does not seem to be restricted to small public universities like our university. At a recent local program, a librarian from a large private university talked about the success her library had circulating equipment needed to create podcasts for course assignments. Last year the large private academic library circulated each piece separately, but is considering circulating all pieces as a kit next year to assist users who do not know which pieces to pick and choose.

The reliance on USB technology for public workstations has been a great success for our library for the following reasons:

1. No need to purchase zip or floppy drives for each public workstation–Students could still use a zip or floppy drive on any workstation by simply checking one out from the circulation desk. As a result, the overall cost and footprint of the workstation was reduced.
2. Ability to purchase relatively inexpensive drives to meet user demands–If damaged, the devices do not require any downtime for the workstation.
3. Easy for library users–Users did not have to search around to plug in drives and other peripherals, since the drives are located front and center on the computer. Users also did not have to power up and down the workstation to use a new device.
4. Enables the use of more than one drive or peripheral at the same time–For example, a user can move a class project file from her USB key drive to another group member’s USB key drive without saving anything to the workstation.
5. Allows libraries to take advantage of emerging technologies. The library can quickly provide access to new technologies without designing a new type of workstation or waiting until the end of a computer replacement cycle.

It is difficult to guess what technologies users will request this year or next, but USB connectivity gives libraries the flexibility to allow users to upload to all types of platforms, or download from a variety of devices, wherever and whenever they are working on a project. The digital audio recorders purchased this year are one example. Using the results from a recent user survey, the library has also identified a demand for USB-ready CD burners and scanners. Each device can be purchased for less than $100 and checked out to give scanning and CD-burning capability to all of the library’s public workstations.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Something happened last week to cause me to reflect on how I became technologically knowledgeable enough to edit a technology column. One of my graduate assistants asked me to explain (1) how a patron clicking on a link in an article index is taken to the full-text of the journal article from another vendor, and (2) what happened behind the scenes when the patron was off-campus to allow remote access. I found myself explaining open URLs, link resolvers, digital object identifier systems (DOIs), and proxy server authentication.¹ I realized that I learned a lot of technical stuff somewhere between graduating with my master’s in LIS and now.

How did this happen? I never set out to be a technology guru. I didn’t take any tech classes in library school (and I graduated in 1999, so a lot has changed). I don’t feel like I am on the bleeding edge of anything. Any time I mention some new technology to my husband, he says “yes, I read about that a month ago.” Yet I have a not-so-quiet pride in my ability to keep up and learn what is new. I am not a systems engineer, data security specialist, or programmer, but I can hold my own in meetings.

While explaining DOIs to my graduate assistant, I determined that I am probably a lot like many readers of Reference and User Services Quarterly (RUSQ): we use technology daily in reference, collection development, and almost everything else that we do. At the same time, most of us are not the systems librarian or the go-to person for all things techie, and we occasionally wonder where we learned what we know and if it is enough. If you are like me, you might fear that you will someday have outdated technical knowledge–that you won’t keep up. Or, you could be concerned that you aren’t keeping up right now. (I have this recurring nightmare where I am in a meeting and I realize that I don’t know what is going on …)

Today’s column is about where you can go to stay current and a little bit about why you should care about emerging technologies. Future columns will highlight current–but major–technologies with a public services impact because, after all, service is what we are about. There will also be a “what to watch” section that will help you with what to keep your eye on and what might be on the way out.

Look beyond Your Immediate Area

It is easy to become overfocused and to build expertise in one area to the exception of all else. Staying current requires lifting your chin up and looking around. Think about what is outside of your immediate sphere and even further–think outside of librarianship. In the realm of technology, what is happening in your community, in higher education, in the rest of the world?

Read. Just a Little. Every Day.

Reading something every day, in addition to looking for information when you need it, is a great way to stay current. It is also less overwhelming than trying to set aside a large block of time for professional development. There are a lot of places to find information on technology in print and online. Web sites, blogs, and mailing lists are some of the easiest ways to get a daily dose of library (and nonlibrary) technology information. Setting up Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds make it even easier, as the information is then aggregated into one place, perhaps even into your e-mail.

TechEssence
http://techessence.info

“Come here for accurate, understandable explanations of important information technologies for libraries. Go elsewhere for the hype.” TechEssence lives up to its promise with a straightforward approach. The focus is not on the technology–although the technologies are well explained here–but on how libraries can use the technologies to provide services and content to patrons.

The content of TechEssence is written by a group of library technology experts, including Roy Tennant of the California Digital Library; Andrew Pace, technology columnist for American Libraries; Jerry Kuntz, creator of the KidsClick! Web portal; and other leaders in library technology.

The default page for TechEssence is the blog, which is regularly, but not obsessively, updated–about once a week. The Technologies section contains detailed information about technologies, with sections devoted to what it is, what can be done with it, and who should be using it. As with any site created by good librarians, it also contains directions on where to go for more information on a technology and links to examples.

If there is any downside to this site, it is that the emphasis is on technologies that are already proven as important to libraries, not on what is hot or emerging. Those librarians looking to be trendsetters will need to get information elsewhere.

Techsource blog
www.techsource.ala.org/blog

This is the blogging arm of the American Library Association’s (ALA) TechSource Online publications. Posts to the blog are frequent–you can expect new content several times a week–and substantial. The content is a mix of news, factual information, and opinions on an amazing range of technology issues. The categorization and tagging of posts in the blog is extensive, enabling discovery of relevant content. You can subscribe to the RSS feed or just look at the most recent posts.

Library Success Wiki
www.libsuccess.org

The Library Success Wiki was created by Meredith Farkas (also a contributor to TechEssence) in 2005 on the premise that “All over the world, librarians are developing successful programs and doing innovative things with technology that no one outside of their library knows about,” as the site notes in its introduction. As with all wikis, this is a participatory sport, and librarians are invited to add to the content of the Library Success Wiki by writing about it in the wiki or posting a link to content posted elsewhere.

There is a big section of the Library Success Wiki devoted to technology, but other topics are covered as well, including readers’ advisory, marketing, and management. You can search for a specific topic, browse by subject, or view just the most recent postings on the recent changes page or by subscribing to the wiki’s RSS feed.

Library Link of the Day
www.tk421.net/librarylink

This Web site is not entirely about technology, but I recommend it as a way to stay broadly aware of the field of librarianship. To make sure that you get this daily, sign up for the mailing list or subscribe to the RSS feed. Links to online articles about libraries of all types and library issues of all manner, from technologies to censorship to preservation will be delivered to you once a day. The focus is on current issues, but sometimes the links are to articles that are years old but have contemporary relevance. The scope is global (but mainly in English) and occasionally there is even an article which might be suitable to pass on to your nonlibrarian friends or bring up at a party.

Tame the Web
http://http://tametheweb.com

Michael Stephens posts almost daily about libraries, technologies, and the ways in which libraries respond to technology. Occasionally amusing, frequently informative, and often eye-opening, Stephens brings his experience as a public librarian and his evident fascination with technology to his blog.

Be Discerning

Where do you want to be on the technology scale? First-adopter? Fast-follower? Cautiously curious? Last on the block? Not everyone (or every library) can be so far out in front that they are falling off of the edge. And even the edgy library is likely to pick where to be a leader and where to be a follower. Being “on the edge” on everything hurts.

So, make some decisions about where you want your library, or department, or yourself to be. Which areas are most ripe for technology change? Keep your eyes open to new technologies in case something really good comes along, but save more of your energy for those things that fit in areas where you are planning change. If you implemented a new catalog interface last year, maybe you will only give related technologies a scan and focus instead on new communications technologies.

Get to Know Your Gadget Guy … or Gadget Gal

I think you know what (or rather, who) I mean. Someone at your organization probably came immediately to mind. It is the person who was the first to own a PDA and cameraphone, the one who lists an Instant Messenger name on a business card. If this person does not already talk to you about fresh technologies, reach out. Let him know that you want to know what’s new, what he and his friends are using.

For me, I have a host of gadget guys among my graduate assistants. I am blessed by their willingness to question how we currently do things and suggest technologies that may (or may not) be an improvement on our existing processes. A big part of this is being open to suggestions and the other person knowing that not everything mentioned will come to fruition.

Pool Your Resources, or Many Heads Are Better than One

There are also several librarians with whom I work or with whom I’m friends who are members of different organizations than me or who read different discussion lists and blogs. They send me e-mails asking “Have you seen this?” with links to new technology information. If I’ve seen it, I delete the message. If I haven’t, I click and read. I know that they’ve prescreened what they send to me and it will be worth a look, maybe even a full-blown exploration. Likewise, I send them information that I find. This is a way to spread out the effort. There is enough technology to spread around. If all of you are interested in gaming and you put your collective focus there, you might miss out on a lot of other developments. I suppose you could be organized and coordinate who belongs to which lists and RSS feeds or who follows what technologies, but the point is to reduce the effort; just be ad hoc.

Care

This is the most important element to staying current, and if you don’t already care, little I write here is going to make a difference. But I am a columnist, so I will try. What happens in information technology (IT) (especially the IT world outside of the library) will affect your patrons and will affect you, if not directly, then by extension. Let me rant a bit more, please. This goes not just for IT, but for technical services as well. There is a lot happening in cataloging right now, and I predict that the trickle-down effect on public services will be big. Staying aware of the coming attractions will make you a better reference librarian and more promotion-worthy. If you are feeling sluggish or in a professional rut, it could even renew you.

Attend Something Outside Your Comfort Zone

I once turned down encouragement to attend the Digital Library Federation (DLF) conference because I deemed it outside of my area of expertise. Now I know that you learn the most when you attend conferences, conference programs, and courses that are a little outside of what you already know. Constant bombardment with the new can be overwhelming, and you want to also improve your current skills, but by being discerning, you can probably select two conference sessions at each Annual Conference, or one new conference a year, or a continuing education offering online or at your campus that will expand your areas of knowledge. I attended a great lecture on social taxonomies held at the electrical and computer engineering school on my campus.

There are online offerings as well, from a variety of places: RUSA, the Library Information Technology Association, Educause, the Association of College and Research Libraries, state library associations, and local library consortia. If there are enough interested people in your geographical area, it may be cost-effective to bring in a consultant. There might be an expert near you. Try the ASCLA/OLOS/RUSA Directory of Peer Consultants and Speakers at https://cs.ala.org/speakers or the Special Library Association’s Consult Online. Again, your state association or local consortium may have a list of experts available to offer training.