The Library 2.0 Movement

Sarah KooistraINFO 522: Information Access & Resources

June 9th, 2010

Introduction and ScopeThis bibliography examines the research and discussion surrounding Library

2.0. Several of the articles look at examples of libraries, both public and academic, which have implemented elements of Library 2.0 and analyze the results based on patron use. A few articles focusing on specific aspects of Library 2.0 such as social networking and user tagging were chosen to give an in-depth look at the more popular tools of Library 2.0. Due to the intense discussion surrounding the definition of this topic, two articles defining the topic based on research of scholarly literature and interviewing librarians were included. The articles were published between 2006 and 2010. All articles were recent due to the nature of this topic.

DescriptionThe term Library 2.0 first appeared in 2005 on the blog LibraryCrunch (Sodt,

2009, p 98). As Kim and Abbas (2010) state, “The capabilities of Web 2.0 enable users to engage the library in two-way communication and knowledge exchanges...The integration and the utilization of Web 2.0 technology into library services is referred to as Library 2.0” (p 211). These tools include RSS, blogs, wikis, podcast. vidcast, instant messaging, social networking sites, and social bookmarking/tagging (Harinarayana & Raju, 2010, p 69). There was some resistance to the term in the beginning as the concept of a newer better library implicitly criticizes those libraries that do not use Library 2.0 tools (Rutherford, 2008, p 413). Despite this, many libraries have begun to use these tools in an attempt to better serve their patrons. As technology continues to progress, Library 2.0 continues to evolve, creating a diverse body of literature and research attempting to keep with all new developments.

Summary of FindingsThough the term Library 2.0 (L2) was introduced to library science circles

only recently, it has sparked a tremendous amount of discussion. Most of this discussion has been conceptual, suggesting ways in which L2 tools can be applied in the library context. Research on the application of these theories has only been possible for the last few years as reality caught up with theory. Majority of this research attempts to document what aspects of L2 libraries are implementing and

how users are responding.Creating a definition for L2 has been the subject of multiple articles. One

paper approached this issue using an empirical method. Twenty-nine practitioners and researchers were asked, “What is L2?” (Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg, & Widen-Wulff, 2009, p 671). Using co-word analysis, seven core components were extracted: interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social aspects, and technology and tools with interactivity at the heart of these components (Holmberg et al., 2009, p 675). Maness (2006) breaks L2 down into four essential elements, “It is user-centered, it provides a multi-media experience, it is socially rich, and it is communally innovative” (p 3). Many of the papers in this bibliography use a definition of L2 that includes interactivity and user-focus, including, Curran, Murray, & Christian (2007), Sodt & Summey (2009), Curran, Murray, Norrby, & Christian (2006), and Chowdhury, Poulter, & McMenemy (2006).

Interestingly, one study reveals that even in the top university library websites , only 57 out of 100 surveyed use at least one Web 2.0 tool on their website. In this study, the most commonly used tools were RSS and IM. RSS is primarily used to provide alerts about current events, while IM is used to provide online reference service. The study obtained these results through a survey of 100 universities websites from a list of 200 on the Times Higher Education website (Harinarayana & Raju, 2010,p 85). In another study conducted by Kim and Abbas (2010), 230 academic libraries were chosen from the academic library list on the Yahoo Web site (http://dir.yahoo.com/reference/libraries). Once again, the research revealed that RSS is the most commonly implemented tool with 73% of the libraries surveyed using RSS feed. Blogs were the second most commonly implemented tool (p 214).

Public libraries are also implementing L2 tools. The Vancouver Public Library, the third largest public library in Canada, redesigned it's website in 2007 with four goals in mind: user centered design, interactivity, users' experience, new graphic treatment, and easy navigation (Cahill, 2009, p 143). The first three goals embrace the concept of L2. According to Cahill (2009), the Vancouver Public Library chose to create a Facebook page and a Twitter account early in the

redesign. Before the pilot phase of the website had ended, the Facebook page already had over 420 fans and received an average of 20 hits per day (p 150). Since, “more than half (55 percent) of all online American youths ages 12 to 17 use online social networking sites with most listing either MySpace or Facebook” (Topper, 2007, p378), it is safe to assume that use of social networking sites among Canadians is similar, making social networking sites a good starting place for L2 implementation.

The research showed that librarians are comfortable with social networking sites. In a series of email interviews designed to investigate the use of social software in public libraries Rutherford (2008) discovered, “respondents believed that implementing social software in their libraries would help them fulfill their mission and goals for the library service” (p 421). Day (2007) takes this a step further, arguing that, “people prefer to obtain information from within their existing knowledge framework and from their immediate work and social network” (p 165), libraries need to become a part of that social network. L2 tools are providing libraries with a unique opportunity to reach out to users who previously did not take advantage of the many resources at libraries (Curran, Murray, & Christian, 2007, p 296).

Another important element in this body of research is patron use. As libraries begin to acquire L2 tools, are patrons taking advantage of these resources? The Shanghai Jiao Tong University interviewed over 30 undergraduates to determine what aspects of L2 would be of most use to them, the response was a consistent request for a book evaluation system. The university is now designing their L2 program around the findings from this study (Zheng & Wang, 2009). As mentioned earlier Kim and Abbas (2010) and Harinarayana and Raju (2010) discovered that RSS is the most commonly implemented L2 tool, with blogs and IM coming in second. Users, on the other hand, primarily use bookmarking and social tagging, 42.5% of respondents indicated they used bookmarking as opposed to 10.8% who indicated they used the RSS feeds (Kim & Abbas, 2010, p 215). As one study cautions, libraries must take into consideration whether the implementation of L2 tools add value (Curran, Murray, Norrby, & Christian, 2006, p 58). The contrast between tools

implemented and tools used suggests that further research in this area is warranted.

As indicated above, research suggests that user tags and social bookmarking will be a popular aspect of L2 among users. Perhaps this is what has encouraged research specific to tagging. This research attempts to understand the usefulness of social tagging on library websites, will the tags add value or create confusion? Rolla (2009) attempted to answer this question with a comparison between user tags on LibraryThing and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The most startling result of his findings were the accuracy of user tags. Rolla suggests that the shear number of user tags, books on LibraryThing had an average 42.78 tags compared to the 3.80 LCSH per record, helped to make up for errors on the individuals part, whereas individual error in LCSH created an inaccurate label. In the end, he concludes that social tagging can be of use in libraries, but would be difficult to implement in special collections where specific knowledge is required (Rolla, 2009, p 182). Peters & Stock (2010) try to push the case for user tags in library's by creating an algorithm to be used in information retrieval systems for mining and processing power tags. Power tags are Peters & Stock (2010) attempt to create user tagging software that allows the librarian to enter correct classifications before library users begin filling in their own tags. This is accomplished by putting more emphasis on the first terms entered by the librarian, and then less emphasis on the long-tail created by users. It will be interesting to see how this area of research evolves.

In the five years L2 has been in existence, it has generated a great deal of scholarly research. This topic will continue to evolve as technology advances. There is a need for research to continue so libraries can continually explore the benefits of various L2 tools and their effectiveness with patrons.

BibliographyEntry 1:Cahill, K. (2009). Building a virtual branch at Vancouver Public Library using web 2.0 tools. Program:electronic library and information systems, 43(2), 140-155.

Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: Social Networks AND Public LibrariesSearch Strategy: I chose to begin my search with LISA due to it's peer-reviewed sort option; this was my third search attempt. The keywords used in the search string above were taken from the most promising articles in my initial search. I then clicked the tab for Peer- Reviewed Journals. This was the first article listed. I used Get It to obtain the full-text version.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the work undertaken by Vancouver PublicLibrary (VPL) in an effort to convert its website into a true virtual branch, both through the functionality of the website itself and by extending its web presence on to external social networking sites. VPL worked with its development partners to conduct a thorough community consultation to ensure that the new VPL website would be truly user-focused. Since the site’s launch, VPL has made strategic management of both its internal and external web presence a key organizational priority, reflected in its creation of two new professional positions which include co-ordination of VPL’s internal and external web presence as part of their job specification. VPL has demonstrated that it is possible to take a systematic, integrated, thoughtful approach to the adoption of Web 2.0 tools and technologies in order to enhance web services without sacrificing quality or control.Annotation:

This paper offers a unique view of the implementation of Library 2.0 resources on a specific website. The information regarding use of the site before and after the redesign is detailed, as well as compelling, and includes information regarding patron use of specific elements such as Twitter, RSS, and Facebook.

Entry 2:

Chowdhury, G., Poulter, A., & McMenemy, D. (2006). Public Library 2.0: Towards a new mission as a network of community knowledge. Online Information Review,30(4), 454- 460.Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: TI=Libraries AND DE=(Social Networks)Search Strategy: I chose to begin my search with LISA due to it's peer-reviewed sort option; this was my second search attempt. The most promising articles in my initial search had 'Libraries' in the title, I combined a Title Search with the descriptor 'Social Networks' to limit my results. I then clicked the tab for Peer-Reviewed Journals. This was the 18th article listed. I used Get It to obtain the full-text

version.Method of Searching: Title SearchAbstract:

This article seeks to propose a new vision for public libraries in the digital age. This conceptual paper is based on an understanding of the recent developments in ICT, internet and digital libraries; and also on the authors’ personal experience in research and development in library and information science – especially in relation to public libraries – and digital libraries. The study argues that currently there are no proper mechanisms for capturing, preserving and disseminating community knowledge, and proposes that public libraries in the digital age should take a new role whereby they should act not only as a gateway to knowledge, but also as a platform facilitating the creation of, and access to, local community knowledge. Proposes a model for PL2.0 where public libraries can take on this new role to build a network of community knowledge. Annotation:

Most literature discussing the implementation of Library 2.0 tools in libraries focuses on academic libraries due to the age of their users. This article fills the research gap with a practical study on public libraries. Includes a graph detailing the design overview of this PL2.0 proposal.

Entry 3:Curran, K., Murray, M., Norrby, D.S., & Christian, M. (2006). Involving the user through library 2.0. New Review of Information Networking, 12(1-2), 47-59.Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: TI= (Library 2.0)Search Strategy: As my paper topic evolved from social networking to Library 2.0, I found that many of my best articles had Library 2.0 in the title. I did a title search for 'Library 2.0', and then clicked on the tab for Peer-Reviewed Journals. This was the 42nd article listed. I used Get It to obtain the full-text version.Method of Searching: Title SearchAbstract:

Libraries, as we know them today, can be defined by the term Library 1.0. This definesthe way resources are kept on shelves or at a computer behind a login. These resourcescan be taken from a shelf, checked out by the library staff, taken home for a certainlength of time and absorbed, and then returned to the library for someone else to availof. Library 1.0 is a one-directional service that takes people to the information theyrequire. Library 2.0 or L2 as it is now more commonly addressed as aims to takethe information to the people by bringing the library service to the Internet and gettingthe users more involved by encouraging feedback participation. This paper presents anoverview of Library 2.0 and introduces web 2.0 concepts.Annotation:

As with the majority of scholarly literature discussing Library 2.0, this article

focuses on the user driven nature of Library 2.0. However, this article takes it a step further, using diagrams to visually represent implementation of Library 2.0 and its affects on staff and patrons. Any paper on this topic would benefit from the inclusion of this article.

Entry 4:Curran, K., Murray, M., & Christian, M. (2007). Taking the information to the public through Library 2.0. Library Hi Tech, 25(2), 288-297.Database: INFOSCI (Dialog)Search String: s Library 2.0Search Strategy: After searching LISA, I decided to adjust my topic to Library 2.0 as there appeared to be more scholarly literature in this area than in social networking. I did a simple keyword search for 'Library 2.0' and browsed the results until I found four appropriate citations. I used Hagerty Library's electronic resources to obtain the article's

full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

Libraries as they are known today can be defined by the term Library 1.0. This defines the way resources are kept on shelves or at a computer behind a login. These resources can be taken from a shelf, checked out to the librarian, taken home for a certain length of time and absorbed, and then taken back to the library for someone else to use. Library 1.0 is a one-directional service that takes people to the information that they require. Library 2.0 – or L2 as it is now more commonly addressed as – aims to take the information to the people by bringing the library service to the internet and getting the users more involved by encouraging feedback participation. This paper seeks to present an overview of Library 2.0. The major difference between Library 1.0 and L2 is that Library 1.0 only allows for aone-way flow of information while L2 is a read-write library that gives library users the power to decide the service that they get. L2 reinforces the role libraries play

in the community by building on today’s best and continually improving the service. L2 can be summarized as being user-driven and aiming to save each library user time in retrieving information.Annotation:

This article spends a great deal of time arguing with itself. The study often veers off course in an attempt to uplift the values of Library 1.0 while discussing Library 2.0. Still, the article provides a unique breakdown of the principles Library 2.0 must embrace to be successful, particularly in Table II.

Entry 5:Day, R. (2007). Information networks building social networks. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 20(4), 153-169.Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: DE=(Social networks) AND DE=(Public Libraries)Search Strategy: Building participative library services: the impact of social software use in public libraries was the kind of article I wanted, I decided to try a controlled vocabulary search using two of it's descriptors. Once again I narrowed the results by clicking the Peer-Reviewed tab. This article was the 2nd result, I obtained the full text through Get

It.Method of Searching: Controlled Vocabulary SearchAbstract:

A review of the literature relating to community information suggested that community service organizations (CSOs) could play a significant role in facilitating the flow of community information (CI) within a community as they have frequent contact with the individuals and families who form their clientele as well as with each other. A study showed that CSOs make limited use of formal community information to support their information and referral for clients, and that public libraries could extend their role and identify as the information centre for their community by building stronger links with CSOs and by embracing CI as a core library service. Public libraries and CI services, whether integrated or not, need to

connect more with their communities, and be more responsive to them.Annotation:

Any paper on Library 2.0 should include this article. Social networks are an important aspect of Library 2.0. The study this article discusses interviews staff and patrons of CSOs, including CSOs that are not libraries. This offers a unique insight into an area of research that has not been thoroughly explored in scholarly literature.

Entry 6:Harinarayana, N.S., & Raju, N.V. (2010). Web 2.0 features in university library web sites. The Electronic Library, 28(1), 69-88.Database: Web of ScienceSearch String: Library 2.0 in TopicSearch Strategy: Based on my success using the above search string in LISA and LISTA, I decided to try a similar search in Web of Science. I searched for 'Library 2.0' in topic, then refined my results to Information Science & Library Science under Subject Area and Articles under Document Types. This article was the 5th result. I

obtained the full text through SFX.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

The purpose of this paper is to explore recent trends in the application of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 features as exemplified through university library web sites around the world. The top 100 universities from the ranked list of 200 provided on the Times Higher Education web site were considered for collection of data and from this list a selection was made of 57 of these universities. This selection was based on whether the site was in English and whether it had at least one Web 2.0 feature. For each of these universities their web sites were visited and data on their Web 2.0 features (such as Blogs, RSS, Instant Messaging, Wikis and the like) were collected and analyzed. Results reveal that 37 university libraries use RSS feeds for dissemination of library news, events and

announcements and 15 university libraries provide blog space for users. Whereas wiki is the least applied Web 2.0 technology, with only one university using it, Instant Messaging is another most widely applied feature with 37 libraries already providing reference service through it. Podcast (used in three libraries) and Vidcast (used in six libraries) are yet to become popular facilities to be offered in university library web sites.Annotation:

Much of the literature published on Library 2.0 is a discussion of possible uses in the library context. This article offers quantitative findings on Web 2.0 tools based on 57 university library websites. The breakdown of the various elements of Library 2.0 make these findings applicable to papers on all types of libraries.

Entry 7:Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., & Widen-Wulff, G. (2009). What is library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 668-681.Database: INFOSCI (Dialog)Search String: s Library 2.0Search Strategy: After searching LISA, I decided to adjust my topic to Library 2.0 as there appeared to be more scholarly literature in this area than in social networking. I did a simple keyword search for 'Library 2.0' and browsed the results until I found four appropriate citations. I used Hagerty Library's electronic resources to obtain the article's

full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

The aim of this paper is to define both theoretically and empirically the concept of Library 2.0. Written answers to the question “What is Library 2.0?” given by practitioners and researchers (n ¼ 29) interested in Library 2.0 issues were analyzed by using co-word analysis to map the underlying elements of the concept. The study resulted in a model of Library 2.0, containing seven building-

blocks of the phenomenon: interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social aspects, and technology and tools. The model provides a basis for framing Library 2.0 as a research object and to map central themes of future research. A comprehensive model enables both researchers and practitioners to frame the phenomenon more clearly, evaluate existing and planned services and their proximity to what is Library 2.0.Annotation:

This paper's verifiable and consensual crowd-sourcing approach to defining Library 2.0 distinguishes it from the rest of the literature seeking to define this topic. It is a extremely helpful tool for future discussions on this topic.

Entry 8:Kim, Y.M., & 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.Database: Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA)Search String: Library 2.0Search Strategy: LISTA was listed as a suggested resource in the Final Project Description document. I went to Hagerty Library's website and found the description of the database promising. I started with a keyword search for Library 2.0 which was my most successful search in LISA and Dialog. I used Advanced Search to limit my

results to Peer-Reviewed articles and Document Type to Articles, this article was the first result. I used SFX to obtain the article's

full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

This study investigates the adoption of Library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users through a knowledge management perspective. Based on randomly selected 230 academic library Web sites and 184 users, the

authors found RSS and blogs are widely adopted by academic libraries while users widely utilized the bookmark function.Annotation:

An excellent study on Library 2.0 offerings and patron use. The study is broken down into sections which provides an insight into the usefulness of a various Library 2.0 functionalities based on user adoption. Several tables give a compelling look at the perception of usefulness on the part of the organization versus actual use on the part of the patron.

Entry 9:Maness, J.M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2). Retrieved from http://webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.htmlDatabase: N/ASearch String: Referenced in:

Rutherford, L.L. (2008). Building participative library services: the impact of social software use in public libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 411-423.Search Strategy: In order to find a few more articles, I browsed through the references listed in articles I planned to include in my bibliography. I found this resource when consulting the article listed under Search String. A link to the full text was provided as

part of the citation.Method of Searching: Footnote ChasingAbstract:

This article posits a definition and theory for "Library 2.0". It suggests that recent thinking describing the changing Web as "Web 2.0" will have substantial implications for libraries, and recognizes that while these implications keep very close to the history and mission of libraries, they still necessitate a new paradigm for librarianship. The paper applies the theory and definition to the practice of librarianship, specifically addressing how Web 2.0 technologies such as synchronous messaging and streaming media, blogs, wikis, social networks,

tagging, RSS feeds, and mashups might intimate changes in how libraries provide access to their collections and user support for that access. Annotation:

Unlike similar articles, the theory for Library 2.0 is determined through examining definitions from other articles and combining them into a single four part concept. This article was published early in the discussion on Library 2.0, and has been cited by many scholarly articles since.

Entry 10:Peters, I., & Stock, W.G. (2010). “Power tags” in information retrieval. Library Hi Tech, 28(1), 81-93. Database: Web of ScienceSearch String: Library 2.0 in TopicSearch Strategy: Based on my success using the above search string in LISA and LISTA, I decided to try a similar search in Web of Science. I searched for 'Library 2.0' in topic, then refined my results to Information Science & Library Science under Subject Area and Articles under Document Types. This article was the 4th result. I

obtained the full text through SFX.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. Thepurpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies

and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system.Annotation:

As the abstract indicates, this conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation. Despite this, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of tagging, and the suggested next step of “power tags” is well researched and presented. This paper is a great platform for future research to build upon.

Entry 11:Rolla, P.J. (2009). User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174-184.Database: Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA)Search String: Library 2.0Search Strategy: LISTA was listed as a suggested resource in the Final Project Description document. I went to Hagerty Library's website and found the description of the database promising. I started with a keyword search for 'Library 2.0' which was my most successful

search in LISA and Dialog. I used Advanced Search to limit my results to Peer-Reviewed articles and Document Type to Articles,

this article was the 32nd result. I used SFX to obtain the article's full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to

the bibliographic data in catalog records. The website LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.Annotation:

The most interesting aspect of this article is the discussion of tags in LibraryThing versus Library of Congress subject headings per record. The author makes a numerical comparison of the data collected in addition to analyzing the accuracy of the user tags versus subject headings. His findings argue the relevancy of user created data, supporting the concept of Library 2.0. This is a unique study in the body of literature available on this topic.

Entry 12:Rutherford, L.L. (2008). Building participative library services: the impact of social software use in public libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 411-423.Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: TI=Libraries AND DE=(Social Networks)Search Strategy: I chose to begin my search with LISA due to it's peer-reviewed sort option; this was my second search attempt. The most promising articles in my initial search had 'Libraries' in the title, I combined a Title Search with the descriptor 'Social Networks' to limit my results. I then clicked the tab for Peer-Reviewed Journals. This was the 10th article listed. I used Get It to obtain the full-text

version.Method of Searching: Title SearchAbstract:

The purpose of this paper is to examine the adoption of social software in

public libraries and to explore its impact. This research uses a qualitative methodology and took the form of open-ended interview questions using an e-mail format. The research uses Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory as a framework. This research found that participants consistently described social software as a means to deliver a library service that truly reflected their users’ wants and needs. Participants indicated that social software would help achieve this goal in two ways. Firstly, participants felt that social software enabled users to interact with the library in the ways they wanted to. Secondly, the participative elements of social software made it easier for users to provide feedback on all aspects of the library service. The study also revealed that while social software is not currently being used to its fullest extent in public libraries, public librarians are exploring the meaning and potential of this new technology.Annotation:

The topic of social software in libraries is relatively new, and as a result much of the literature is mostly based on theory. This paper offers an empirical exploration of a previously theoretical topic. The data sought to understand the impact of social software on librarians providing concrete evidence that librarians feel implementing social software will help libraries fulfill their mission. This is a well-written and comprehensive attempt to address a gap in the literature.

Entry 13:Sodt, J.M., & Summey, T.P. (2009). Beyond the library's walls: Using library 2.0 tools to reach out to all users. Journal of Library Administration, 49(1/2), 97-109. Database: INFOSCI (Dialog)Search String: s Library 2.0Search Strategy: After searching LISA, I decided to adjust my topic to Library 2.0 as there appeared to be more scholarly literature in this area than in social networking. I did a simple keyword search for 'Library 2.0' and browsed the results until I found four appropriate citations. I used Hagerty Library's electronic resources to obtain the article's

full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

The Library 2.0 movement emerged as a response to the technologies and concepts in the Web 2.0 movement and has been taking the library world by storm. Web 2.0 takes the stagnant Web 1.0 and makes it more user-driven, collaborative, participatory, and personalized. Library 2.0 takes the tools of Web 2.0 and moves them into a library setting with libraries that are user-centered, networking faculty, students, and librarians to create a vital and evolving organization designed to meet the needs of the current information culture. Library 2.0 is especially relevant to institutions providing services to off-campus students. Many students taking courses remotely have full-time jobs and busy lives beyond their coursework. Providing those students with a customizable, personalized, and collaborative library assists in their success as a student. Using Web 2.0 technologies and other social networking tools in the library setting brings the library to our users, making them more relevant in today’s information society.Annotation:

This article provides a general examination of various libraries use of Web 2.0 tools. The analysis is somewhat superficial compared to other articles available in this area, and sometimes falls victim to simply discussing the options available.

Entry 14:Topper, E.F. (2007). Social Networking in libraries. New Library World, 108(7/8), 378-380.Database: Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)Search String: TI=Libraries AND DE=(Social Networks)Search Strategy: I chose to begin my search with LISA due to it's peer-reviewed sort option; this was my second search attempt. The most promising articles in my initial search had 'Libraries' in the title, I combined a Title Search with the

descriptor 'Social Networks' to limit my results. I then clicked the tab for Peer-Reviewed Journals. This was the 17th article listed. I used Get It to obtain the full-text

version.Method of Searching: Title SearchAbstract:

The purpose of this paper is to understand the impact that social networking has had on public and academic libraries. The paper finds that libraries will have to reach users in their preferred methods of communication. Annotation:

This articles examines findings from the Pew Internet Study, and contains good statistics on social networking use among teenagers and young adults. The article is brief and does not go into in-depth analysis, but the information presented in excellent for papers interested in the potential use of social networking in libraries. Entry 15:Zheng, Q., & Wang, S. (2009). Programming Library 2.0 that users need. The Electronic Library, 27(2), 292-297.Database: INFOSCI (Dialog)Search String: s Library 2.0Search Strategy: After searching LISA, I decided to adjust my topic to Library 2.0 as there appeared to be more scholarly literature in this area than in social networking. I did a simple keyword search for 'Library 2.0' and browsed the results until I found four appropriate citations. I used Hagerty Library's electronic resources to obtain the article's

full text.Method of Searching: Keyword SearchAbstract:

The aim of this paper is to focus on the formulation of a Library 2.0 program that will

guide the realization of a “user-centered” service pattern. In-depth user investigations are the first step toward a successful Library 2.0 program, which will reflect what users really hope to achieve through Library 2.0. Three user investigations were carried out with the purpose to get users’ opinions and suggestions about Library 2.0 services. Then the target was formed on the basis of analysis and evaluation of users’ needs. The Library 2.0 programming was analyzed in four tiers of management ideas, service patterns, technical support, and content development. User investigations are of primary importance in programming Library 2.0, and a program formulated on such investigations will not miss its aim, and be more realistic.Annotation:

A concrete example of analyzing user needs to create a plan for managing library services. Though other articles in this body of literature examine patron use of Library 2.0, this paper is unique in it's attempt to use the user investigation to develop a methodology for programming.

Personal StatementCompleting an annotated bibliography gave me a new appreciation for

scholarly research. I learned a great deal about the nature of scholarly literature, search strategies, and organization. I appreciated the early advice to keep a detailed log of my search strategies, strings, and findings; this proved invaluable later on. In other cases, my approach could do with some improvement.

If I could tackle my search for articles a second time, I would experiment more with footnote chasing. As I read my articles a forth and fifth time searching for common themes, I came upon possible leads I missed in my initial frenzy to find all I needed online. I believe this would have been a more effective method of finding relevant articles. My earlier mention of reading articles over and over brings me to a second improvement in my future attempts of this nature, a closer first reading of articles. During this search, I would browse articles to make sure they fit the requirements for this project, and then set them aside and continue searching. This approach lead to a lot of wasted time later on. If I could do it over I would group articles by theme right away, making my summary of findings much

easier to compose. My most exciting breakthrough moment during this project was when I

became familiar with the literature available. As I searched different databases I found I recognized articles, authors, and publications. It was interesting to start to understand the major players in this discussion, and see how articles built upon one another. In a few cases, several papers would all refer back to the same article, but would use the information from the original article in different ways. Overall, I really enjoyed navigating the various databases and learning how to best search for articles. By the end of the project, I could tell if a keyword, controlled vocabulary, or title search would work best. I also improved my ability to weed out irrelevant articles by taking advantage of advanced search options. By the end of this project it was much easier to tell from the title and abstract if an article was relevant.

Inevitably, when completing a project such as this I always think, “If only I knew then what I know now.” Perhaps the only aspect of this project I would not alter in any way is my topic, Library 2.0. This proved to be a fascinating and informative research topic. I gathered an incredible amount of information, and can't help but be excited for the future of library science. Librarians have always valued service, now tools are available that make it possible to create user focused resources for a wider group of patrons than ever before.