Libraries and Technology

Libraries are always looking for the best new ways to serve their patrons, including online services, program offerings, self-checkout stations, etc. “New information technologies have revolutionized information access,” (Rubin, 2004, p. 79), but librarians must not forget to evaluate the new technologies they choose to implement. According to Rubin (2004), “It is very tempting to accept uncritically the belief that new information technologies inevitably lead to progress,” (p. 80). Looking over the history of information technologies described in our textbook, it seems that most new technologies have added value to information services at the time of their conception, but many of them have inevitably been replaced by the next big technology advancement. This makes me wonder, what is to come of the information technologies we so highly value today, like Google?
Many Internet users are increasingly viewing Google as a monopoly of information on the Web because of its ever-increasing popularity, plethora of applications (Blogger, Page Creator, Calendar, etc.), and its specified search functions (Image Search, Product Search, Book Search, etc.). However, according to Keegan (2008), it is highly unlikely that Google will become a monopoly. First of all, when monopolies are created, the common trend is that the monopoly has the freedom to charge excessively for its products. In terms of Google, “nearly all of their products from search to document storage are free,” (Keegan, 2008). Second, monopolies generally have the power (directly or indirectly) to block other companies from entering the market. However, in Google’s case, “there are no insurmountable barriers for new entrants” (Keegan, 2008).
That being said, Google is more vulnerable than people think. “It is brilliant at displaying the answers most linked to - but not if what you want is buried deep in the search pile,” says Keegan (2008). If another company, no matter how small compared to Google, were able to create a more intelligent search engine, people would eventually catch on and change, “as they did when they ditched AltaVista for Google a decade ago,” (Keegan, 2008).

Let’s also take into consideration the allegation that Google performs data mining. Some Web technologists have reason to believe that Google uses data it collects through particular services and uses it to its advantage in other services. For example, on a recent ReadWriteWeb blog posting, Kirkpatrick (2008) wrote, “We know the company (Google) scans our GMail and uses the text there to sell ads.” Kirkpatrick (2008) makes another assertion that “Google has been experimenting with technology that would allow them to use your computer's microphone to track the ambient audio in a room, determine what TV shows you were watching and then serve up related ads in your browser.” To Kirkpatrick’s knowledge, that experimentation has not developed into actual use. And, when Google’s Mark Lucovsky was questioned about data mining he assured the public that “Google only uses the information it collects from his javascript libraries to improve the service of the javascript library service.” Yet, data mining is still a scary thought. But, is it scary enough to be an effective selling point for future vendors? Quite possibly.
Knowing that even big powerhouses like Google have the potential to be replaced or “out done” by some new technology lurking in the future, makes it that much more important for libraries to evaluate new technologies. According to Rubin (2004), “Librarians sometimes fail to demand evidence that the technologies adopted actually have an overall beneficial effect on library services,” (p, 80). Librarians should start by questioning how new technologies fit into their library’s philosophy. Casey & Stevens (2008) suggest establishing well-defined expectations and goals and a written statement regarding some measurable return, so when the time comes to evaluate a new service or tool, the evaluation process can be more effective and worthwhile. Library administrators must look at the “big picture” when evaluating new technologies factoring in budget issues, staff hours, and community impact (Casey & Stevens, 2008). In addition, library administrators should get staff and user feedback. Casey & Stevens (2008) suggest collecting anecdotal evidence from staff who have used the new technologies and to track patron use (by tracking hits on blogs, wikis, and other Web applications, for example).
This is an interesting and challenging time for librarians. With an abundance of information, tools, and technologies available, there is much to familiarize ourselves with and much to evaluate. As always, we must be mindful of our users and our missions as librarians when making decisions that ultimately affect the usefulness and relevance of our libraries.


References:

Casey, M. & Stevens, M. (2008, Apr 15). The transparent library. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6547089.html

Keegan, V. (2008, May 22). In google we trust, but should we? Retrieved June 16, 2008, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.google

Kirkpatrick, M. (2008, Jun 10). Do you trust google to resist data mining across services? Retrieved June 16, 2008, from
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/do_you_trust_google_to_resist_data_mining_across_services.php

Rubin, R. E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman.