Rick Anderson is Director of Resource Acquisition, University of Nevada, Reno Libraries.
In his article Away from the “icebergs”, published online @ http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/2.htm, Anderson discusses, amongst other topics, the relevance of training for library clientele in a web 2.0 environment. In essence Anderson argues that resources spent training clients would be better used in making library resources more user-friendly. It’s the library that needs to be “fixed”, not the client. This gets my goat.
Anderson does not acknowledge that libraries are presently end users of products they do not themselves produce. Libraries mostly buy, lease or otherwise access products produced by others. This may change over time, but will not cease to be so in the near future. Hence the continuing pressure to educate library staff and clientele in the use of products that libraries make available to them.
Or to mirror Anderson’s simplistic style, libraries as organizations are better able to train people in the use of – for example - EBSCO products, than to rebuild and make transparent these products to users. Kind of obvious isn't it?
It is clear to me that libraries as customers are getting better at demanding more user friendly products and more vendor support. Consortiums were so overdue and are still at an early stage. Perhaps soon libraries will be organized enough to commission products. Then libraries will have more control over the nature of these products. Whilst working towards that end, libraries need to face the reality that training is central to their role.
Anderson also notes that web 2.0 and etc enables deeper and broader access to resources and an end to the requirement that users must always physically come to the library. These no-brainer observations are correct as a nod to developing trends.
In his article Away from the “icebergs”, published online @ http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/2.htm, Anderson discusses, amongst other topics, the relevance of training for library clientele in a web 2.0 environment. In essence Anderson argues that resources spent training clients would be better used in making library resources more user-friendly. It’s the library that needs to be “fixed”, not the client. This gets my goat.
Anderson does not acknowledge that libraries are presently end users of products they do not themselves produce. Libraries mostly buy, lease or otherwise access products produced by others. This may change over time, but will not cease to be so in the near future. Hence the continuing pressure to educate library staff and clientele in the use of products that libraries make available to them.
Or to mirror Anderson’s simplistic style, libraries as organizations are better able to train people in the use of – for example - EBSCO products, than to rebuild and make transparent these products to users. Kind of obvious isn't it?
It is clear to me that libraries as customers are getting better at demanding more user friendly products and more vendor support. Consortiums were so overdue and are still at an early stage. Perhaps soon libraries will be organized enough to commission products. Then libraries will have more control over the nature of these products. Whilst working towards that end, libraries need to face the reality that training is central to their role.
Anderson also notes that web 2.0 and etc enables deeper and broader access to resources and an end to the requirement that users must always physically come to the library. These no-brainer observations are correct as a nod to developing trends.
No comments:
Post a Comment