Article #1

Danielle Bork

September 20, 2011

Article Review #1

(2010). State of america's libraries: usage soars, funding shrinks. American Libraries, 41 no 5(My 2010), 13-14. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44

Introduction:

This article focuses on the nation’s libraries and, as patron usage skyrockets, the funding for these institutions continues to decline. With a decline in employment and the economy, library utilization has increased dramatically. People are coming to the library in order to find information and seek help in both employment and educational areas. However, with an increase in use did not come with an increase in funding. With a growing community demand for services and no money to expand staff, resources or to acquire new materials, public and state libraries are reporting cuts in their funding.

I haven’t nailed down a firm research question, but I want to focus on the lack of funding and how libraries are coping with being understaffed and having to provide more services to more customers.

Problem Statement:

Even though more and more patrons are frequenting libraries, their budgets are being cut, rather than added to. This article explores the numbers behind the cuts and some of the effects it’s having.

Literature Review:

This article draws upon data that is detailed in the 2010 State of America’s Libraries report that was released by the American Library Association. It references other works put out by The National Center for Education Statistics, January 2010 Harris Interactive poll, as well as the USA Patriot Act.

Method:

The population takes into account 223 million Americans and public libraries across the country. The data sources take into account what areas patrons seek help in when they come to a library (or consult a reference desk). It looks into the type of materials that the library spends its budgets on, what items it has let laps, usages over the recent years, as well as the ethnicities that are using the library and how they utilize things differently. The collection came from libraries taking part in the yearly ALA survey.

Caveat:

The most obvious limitation to the report is that it only takes into account data that was from one specific study. While it was compiled by the ALA, who’s exceedingly credible, it does not take into account other perspectives or contributions. That is fine for this particular study, due to the fact that its main focus was, indeed, this specific study.

Innovation of Information: The Catalogue

When we think of the library catalogue, most of us –at least, those of us who were around in those times- think of the card catalogue. However, electronic catalogues have been around since the 1960’s and OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues) since the 1970s. The beauty of OPACs is that they can be accessed anywhere there is a computer with an Internet access, at any time –something that is especially useful for people doing research who want to use the online databases their library subscribes to. The downfall is that they can be quite difficult to use and so were mostly only used by librarians. (Waller 2010)

The current solution is to use overlay programs. In 2006, North Carolina State University and Endeca, a commercial research corporation worked together to develop the first overlay which “ 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” (Emanuel, 2009). This greatly improved upon the problem of the usability of catalogues, but did not completely solve it. So the overlays are being innovated too, in what is referred to as Nextgen catalogues.

The previous search system in online catalogues was more about finding a specific item whereas Nextgen is more about making a general inquiry, getting numerous results, and narrowing it down from there by making more searches within the current results. For some, this can be an exasperating process, but for others it makes searching more familiar as it is reminiscent of the search systems employed by Internet browsers. (Emanuel, 2009)

While Nextgen is a step closer to the ideal catalogue it is only a next step and not the final. As technology continues to advance, we can expect that so, too, will online catalogues. The ability for the innovation of information is limitless.

Sources:

Emanuel, J. (2009, Winter). Next Generation Catalogs: What Do They Do and Why Should We Care?. Accidental Technologist, 49(2), 117-120.

Waller, V. (2010). Accessing the collection of a large public library: an analysis of OPAC use. libres, 20(1), 1-27.

Self-Checkout Machines

The evolution of the library has taken an interesting turn with the introduction of machines that allow patrons to check out their materials for themselves. These machines facilitate the checkout process by providing on-screen or voice instructions to patrons as they check out their items. This allows staff that would normally have been busy checking out items to focus on other tasks, or spend more time with patrons who need more help. Or instead, if the library is facing financial problems, they could have a smaller number of employees staffing the circulation desks, saving them money in labor costs. These machines are designed to be compatible with existing library circulation technologies to alleviate some of the pain of transitioning to the automated system.

The self checkout machines include options for RFID or barcode based checkout systems. This allows libraries to easily add a self checkout machine without having to go through their collections and reconfigure each item to be compatible with the new technology. The machines also include options for RFID and electromagnetic (EM) security gates, as well as devices that will unlock security cases for DVDs, CDs, and other media. The ITG systems even include options for a ”jukebox-style media vault“ for the library's CDs and DVDs that has a built-in mechanism that will dispense an item when requested by a patron. (ITG, 2010) If the library is looking for something a little more flashy, 3M offers a machine called the Library Media Box that is essentially a RedBox-style DVD vending machine that accepts library cards. (3M, 2010)

By implementing a self checkout system, libraries are able to handle increased circulation demands while employing a relatively small staff. For example, the Champaign Public Library in Champaign, Illinois has been able to reduce their circulation staff from “six or seven employees ...to two or three now...even though circulation shot up 50 percent. (Wurth, 2010) By reducing staff while increasing circulation by such a significant margin, the Champaign Public Library has proven the efficacy of the self-checkout systems.

An article entitled “Our Journey Down the Self-Check Road” describes how the Health Services Library at University of Washington has been working on implementing a self-checkout system. They have had some issues in getting the systems set up properly, and with getting staff and patrons used to the new machines, but overall it has been a good thing for the library. At that library, in “the first month it was up and running...patrons used the new self-check kiosk 813 times, which was almost 20% of check-outs for that month.” The general consensus among staff there is that, since the information desk handles both circulation and reference needs, “self-check has become an integral part of our library services and contributes to...better quality information desk service.”

(Whitney, Garrett, 2008)

Of course, every new technology will have its naysayers. “I can't see how this will benefit patrons at all,” says one staffer at a Leicestershire County, as quoted in the an article from The Telegraph dramatically entitled 'End of the Librarian' as Staff Sacked for Automatic Check Out Machines. The issue central to the article, however, is not the technology itself, or any flaws it may have, but rather the loss of the human element. “In some places the library is the only place for social contact for a lot of people,” says the same staffer. The article, however, states that the changes will cause 16 libraries to let go of a total of 19 staff. Unless these libraries are now fully automated (they're not), there will still be staff there for people to interact with. They may have to stroll over to the reference desk to meet them, but they'll be there. However, had Leicestershire County Council not made “[t]he move, aimed at saving tens of thousands of pounds,” the libraries may have had no choice but to close altogether, leaving no staff at all. (Hough, 2009)

Self-checkout systems have great potential to save libraries money, and offer better service to their patrons. By making the most of this technology, a library can streamline their checkout systems, making it easier to circulate a greater number of materials without having to employ more circulation staff. As these technologies continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly become more intuitive and, therefore, more easily used by technology-shy patrons.

Take a look at these companies self-check systems:

ITG

http://www.integratedtek.com/self-checkout.php

LAT

http://www.latcorp.com/

3M

http://www3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/library/-/node_8N0L50HSD8be/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_5N1266QBTNge/gvel_H1MTM5SM4Tgl/theme_us_library_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html

Here's a demonstration of a self-checkout machine in action at a public library!

References

3M (2010). Library Media Box. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SSSSSu7zK1fslxtUO82vlY_Zev7qe17zHvTSevTSeSSSSSS--

3M (2010). Library Self Checkout Systems: Patron Self-Service. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3MLibrarySystems/Home/Products/SelfCheckout/

Hibner, H. (2010). Self-Checkout Station.wmv. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnaMnV66ERs&feature=related

Hough, A. (2009). 'End of the Librarian' as Staff Sacked for Automatic Check Out Machines. The Telegraph. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6239766/End-of-the-librarian-as-staff-sacked-for-automatic-check-out-machines.html

ITG (2010). ITG DiscXpress II. Retrieved November 23, 1020 from http://www.integratedtek.com/self-checkout-dx2.php

ITG (2010). Self-Checkout Solutions from ITG. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.integratedtek.com/self-checkout.php

Whitney, A.; Garrett, A. (2008). Our Journey Down the Self-Check Road. Computers in Libraries. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://csaweb112v.csa.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/ids70/view_record.php?id=2&recnum=0&log=from_res&SID=scquepo5c783cnehad5rjgahf2&mark_id=search:2:0,0,1

Wurth, J. (2010.) Library Self-Checkout, Revised Edition. The News-gazette. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.news-gazette.com/blogs/there-yet/2010-05/library-self-checkout-revised-edition.html

Technological Advancements to the Reference Desk

“The library is no longer simply a physical location and collection of physically owned materials, but an entity that encompasses collections of information resources in various formats – print and electronic – that are accessible to the library’s users.”

(Kovacs, 2007, p. 1)

Patron’s reference queries are not solely responded by them approaching a librarian at a reference desk. There have been technological advancements that have changed the way reference questions can be asked and answered. This blog focuses on the technological changes in reference librarianship. Virtual reference: chat, instant messaging (IM) and text messaging (SMS) and Roving and Mobile reference outside the library will be the focus.

VIRTUAL REFERENCE

“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.” (ALA Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services 2008). To this definition, we can also include text messaging (SMS). Virtual reference is a useful to patrons who cannot or do not want to come into the library. “The problem is that virtual reference lacks the advantage of the face-to-face interview where the user’s tone of voice, facial expressions and body language help the librarian to judge whether he or she is communicating well with the user.” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 25). Some types of this reference, however, still provide librarians with ways of conducting the reference interview. “Chat, IM (Instant Messaging) reference, and now SMS (text messaging) have considerable potential for the reference interview because they are done in real time.” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 25). Let’s take a closer look at these services…

CHAT REFERENCE

This form of virtual reference can provide 24 hour a day access to patrons with questions. “The advantage of chat reference is that the reference interview can be used successfully in this format.” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 25). During the chat session, librarians can provide URLs and co-browse as they provide assistance. Users can also receive a transcript of the query session.

While chat has its benefits, the cost-effectiveness of chat reference services can vary drastically from institution to institution (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 355). Necessary software packages can …“easily cost $2,000-$6,000 per "seat" and, after you add set-up fees and the like, software costs for a single library can run as high as $10,000-$20,000 depending on the product and the con- figuration.” (Arret & Coffman, Part 1, 2004, p 46). That does not take into account any hardware upgrades that could be needed and the time and effort it takes to train staff to use the technology. Given that “… most libraries dedicate a separate staff member or members for virtual reference questions during every hour their chat service is open.” libraries can incur costs staffing the chat terminal (Arret & Coffman, Part 1, 2004, p 46). Given the average rate of six questions per day, the cost per question is quite high (Arret & Coffman, Part 2, 2004, p 53).  This problem has can be alleviated when libraries form collaboratives and barter time. An example of this would be Maryland AskUsNow! “…a 24/7 live online interactive service for the residents and students of the state of Maryland.” (Maryland AskUsNow!, 2010).

IM & SMS

Due to nature of software, instant messaging (IM) and text messaging (SMS) are faster than chat. Patrons find asking queries in these formats convenient, fast and anonymous. The types of questions asked during these types of reference services are “…usually ready reference questions, directions, policy information, or URLs.”. It can be hard to tell when query is complete and the librarian may not have contact information to follow up.  IM and SMS software include Altarama, AIM and “Text a Librarian” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 26).

ROVING AND MOBILE SERVICES

Roving and mobile services have allowed librarians to reach patrons outside the library with the help of laptops and electronic resources. For roving services outside the library, reference librarians carry wireless laptops and tablet PCs in order to make use of electronic databases and online resources. Librarians at Harvard University rove the undergraduate student center. At the University of Montana, librarians are “roving around student dormitories and the student union.”  Mobile services allow librarians to set up reference centers outside the library – usually in high volume areas of pedestrian traffic. This has been done at Simon Fraser University where the Bennett Library provides two of these “service stations” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 355).

THE FUTURE OF REFERENCE

Cassell and Hiremath (2009, p. 426) believe that “Most library reference work will be transacted virtually in the future.” They project that librarians will spend their time developing tutorials, providing resource utilization instruction, maintaining the library’s website, and planning outreach services in both physical and virtual locations. This is because “Reference in the future will be less attached to a particular location no matter what type of library, but its focus will be user centered.” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 426) Similarly, James Rettig recommends that for success in the future, libraries act in response to users’ call for “immediacy, interactivity, personalization, and mobility”. (2003, p. 19) For this to take place libraries must keep their technology current and continue to develop personalized services for users. “Reference service will be integrated and seamless such that it will be provided to match the user’s needs no matter where he or she enters the library’s sphere.” (Cassell and Hiremath, 2009, p. 427)


REFERENCES

American Library Association. (2008). Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services. Retrieved November 21, 2010 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/virtrefguidelines.cfm

Arret, L. & Coffman, S. (2004). To chat or not to chat — taking another look at virtual reference, part I. Searcher, 12(7), 38-46.

Arret, L. & Coffman, S. (2004). To chat or not to chat; taking yet another look at virtual reference. Searcher, 12(8), 49-56.

Cassell, K. A. and Hiremath, U. (2009). Reference and information services in the 21st century: An introduction. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Kovacs, D. (2007). The virtual reference handbook: Interview and information delivery techniques for the chat and e-mail environments. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Maryland AskUsNow! (2010). About the service.  Retrieved November 21, 2010 from http://www.askusnow.info/about/

Rettig, J. (2003). Technology, cluelessness, anthropology and the memex: The future of academic reference service. Reference Service Review 31(1), 17-21.

Electronic Readers in a Library Setting: The Future or the End?

Libraries have been constantly battling the development of technology for centuries. From the development of the printing press to digital content, audio books, music, and now eBooks. Libraries have always had a hard time keeping up with technology, whether it is budget driven, licensing issues, or just plain nepotism, they have had their work cut out for them in keeping patrons happy. With the advent of eReaders and eBooks, libraries are on the verge of losing patrons. “Consumers are already being led toward convergence of media by vendors catering to their disposable incomes; libraries are still offering patrons the digital equivalent of 8-track tapes. We either press now to make sure libraries have a seat at the table, or start making peace with being shut out entirely” (Hadro, 2010).

With the negative parties harping on the disadvantages libraries are going to have if they don’t “keep up” and the fact that they don’t feel eReaders will have their mark on many libraries radar, it can make for an overwhelming argument. Luckily, there are those out there that disagree with the naysayers and are making strides in incorporating digital books in patron friendly ways.

Jason Griffey, head of library information technology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga saw the potential of eBooks instantly. In his vision, an academic library could start streaming instructional videos and screen casts out to set-top boxes in a computer or media lab, as well as directly to students in their dorm rooms. A joint effort by the library and academic computing could create a college-specific “cloud space” where students could store e-textbooks (and other curricular resources) linked directly to annotations and indexed lecture notes and recordings. All items could be linked to a school's course management systems and library research guides, equally accessible via an eReaders device as on a desktop. (Hadro, 2010)

Another major player is Overdrive. Overdrive is one of the only major distributors of eBooks to libraries (including the New York Public Library). OverDrive’s advantage is that libraries will have access to a catalog of 350,000 digital titles, including the largest collection of iPod®-compatible audio books for libraries. If you have access to a library that has Overdrive, you're in luck. With a valid library card, you can download Overdrive's application onto your Blackberry, iPhone, Android, or your computer, and upon registration, browse, check out and enjoy a plethora of titles! (“Overdrive Advantage,” 2010)

OverDrive’s advantage for libraries and their patrons include:

· reduced waiting lists on popular audio books, eBooks and more.

· a custom collection of titles developed specifically for your community (i.e. Specialty Libraries, Youth and Teen Services, or Academic Libraries).

· continued access to titles you share with other libraries through interlibrary loan.

(“Overdrive Advantage,” 2010)

For a Demonstration of OverDrive, visit www.overdrive.com/products/dlr/demos/salesdemo.htm

While there are arguments for both sides of the adoption of eBooks and eReaders into library settings, the truth is that we don't know how the argument will turn out. Some libraries have made strides to incorporate digital books into their catalogs, others have yet to even show the slightest hint of doing so. What it may come down to is budgeting constraints, staffing expertise, and whether or not patrons show the desire to embrace new technology. Would you rather cuddle up with a paperback, or be able to pull out your Kindle, iPad or Nook in the middle of public transportation and read your latest checked out novel? That could very well be the question that dictates how firmly the library setting embraces eBooks, only time will tell.

References:

Hadro, Josh. (2010, February 15). In front of (e)readers. Library Journal, Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6718546.html

Overdrive advantage. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.overdrive.com/products/dlr/advantage.asp

Library vs. Internet

In my search to pinpoint HOW the internet has impacted libraries, I have had some interesting revelations about libraries, our society, and the use of the internet as a comprehensive tool for research and learning.

Since its inception, the internet has increased levels of access to information and people have become more and more accustomed to finding information on their own. The question has been posed: Is there a future for libraries? Will society still need them?(Svanhild, 2005)
In answering this question it is important to identify the role of public libraries in society, as well as distinguish what the internet is and is not.

First let’s look at libraries; libraries are reflections of the societies in which they are embedded. There is no one correct mission for a library and history has seen the library perform many functions. The various missions of libraries highlight their adaptability and their capacity to serve different and multiple purposes. Historically, there is an ebb and flow of the mission of libraries: missions begin, disappear for a while, only to return in another time and place. (Haycock & Sheldon, 2008)

To some extent, libraries represent a cultural exclamation point: evidence that a society has matured beyond substance and social simplicity (Haycoc., et al, 2008). This lends to the thought that libraries are a living, changing organism rather than a static, stagnant institution comprised of antiquated ideals.

If history has shown that the role of the library is reinvented as society needs, then right now libraries are being reinvented by the impact of technology. However, would it not also be correct to say that technology is being influenced by libraries? Should it also be stated that libraries have the distinct advantage to be a driving force in the shape of future technologies and how they are being utilized?

The following article outlines instances where librarians have been impacted by technology (specifically the internet (Block, 2003)):

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct03/block.shtml

The article brings to light an interesting perspective that even though a great tool has been unleashed into the world, librarians are still necessary to help harness it and provide means for users to utilized it to the fullest potential. And really, that is the key isn’t it? We cannot forget that the internet is a tool, and one that requires learning and skill which is where the ability to adapt and reinvent comes into effect in regards to the longevity and necessity of libraries.
This article provides some thoughts on internet vs. library use for education and research (Herring, 2008):

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/resources/slctdarticles/10reasonswhy.cfm

Because the internet is still such a vast unchartered territory of uncategorized information, I feel that librarians are in the distinct and enviable position to be at the forefront of shaping the way that the internet is utilized for the purpose of research and education. However, library directors and governments need to be on board with these changes and be willing to offer the services necessary to keep up with the demands and needs of the community if the internet is to be offered as a viable and useful tool.

Some ways that libraries will need to adapt are as follows:

· Provide internet workstations with appropriate access to the internet
· Hire staff who are well versed in internet research to answer questions
· Hire staff who are able to maintain equipment
· Provide programs and services that utilize internet capability while driving interest in library resources (ebook clubs)
· Utilize internet for community outreach (blogs, facebook, twitter)
· Provide support services and education programs for people to learn how to use the internet effectively

Additionally, library associations can be a part of the driving force behind internet usage on a national and international scale. By upholding the key values as stated in the ALA Core Values, ALA Code of Ethics, and ALA Library Bill of Rights (Haycock 2008):

· Belief in intellectual Freedom
· Belief in service and the public good
· Belief in education
· Belief in the value of the past: preservation

Is there a future for libraries? Will our society need them? The answer is a resounding YES because the mission of libraries will change with the course and influx of new technologies based on the needs of the societies they serve.


References:

Block, M. (October 2003). How librarians can manage the unintended consequences of the internet. Searcher, 11(9). Retrieved November 24, 2010, from http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct03/block.shtml

Haycock, K., Sheldon, B.E., (2008). The Portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

Herring, M., (2008). 10 reasons why the internet is no substitute for a library. American Libraries. Retrieved November 24, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/alaonline/resources/slctdarticles/10reasonswhy.cfm

Svanhild, A. (2005.) The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(4), 205-211.

Technology and digitization practices in libraries: continued progress and challenges

(University of Michigan)

Digital technology is moving at a rapid pace. According to the Information Data Corporation, the amount of information that is created, captured, or replicated in digital form in 2011 will be 10 times greater than that produced in 2006 (Levi, 2008). Desktop computers were only available as early as 1981, yet almost 28 years later, "computers and the Internet are as ubiquitous as motorized vehicles traveling from one destination to the next" (Kirchhoff, 2008). 

Libraries have responded to the digital technology challenge with progress and innovation, but universal standards and guidelines; proper staffing and funding; and widespread collaborative measures to ensure long-term program success linger behind (IMLS, 2006). For many libraries, this reality has slowed the pace to keep up with technology, largely in the form of digitization of resources, despite their best intentions to meet the demands of information seekers who have now come to expect libraries to provide the same level of access to these resources as search engines and informational websites.

The following research looks at results of a significant 2006 technology and digitization survey as an overview of the research conducted in this relatively new environment and its growing number of users; third-party organizations working collaboratively with libraries to assist with digitization of library resources and digital preservation; and the steps that the Library of Congress have taken in developing universal standards and guidelines for digitization. 

IMLS technology and digitization
 
In 2001, the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS) conducted the first-ever survey on the use of technology and digitization in museums, public libraries, academic libraries, and state library administrative agencies. The study identified that most of these institutions were using some technology to automate operations and support programming, and engaged in digitization planning and activities to increase access to collections. 

In 2004, the institute conducted a second, more exhaustive survey among the same four groups, adding one new entity—archives. The goal was to delve deeper into the previous research, learning more about how these institutions use technology and digitize library collections.

Digitization assessment 

The IMLS survey described digitization as the use of computers (hardware and software) to use and manage information in digital format; automated systems to support services; Internet and other network connections; Web sites and Web-based services; office productivity applications like word processing and e-mail; staff to support these activities; and the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections on-site and virtually. (IMLS, 2006, p. 12)

• Digitization activities in all surveyed entities have increased since 2001, with state library administrative agencies leading the way.
• Most institutions do not have digitization policies and standards.
• Insufficient funding and staff time, and other pressing priorities hinder digitization progress. (Volunteers are heavily used in museums and archives.) 
• Collaborative digitization efforts are growing, but are not widespread. (Most state library administrative agencies provide funding or services to other institutions, including supporting cooperative digitization projects and supporting statewide digitization projects)
•  Most survey institutions do not assess visitor needs for digitized collections and services. (State library administrative agencies provide the highest level of assessment among all groups.) (IMLS, 2006, p. 8)

Drum scanner digitizing area map. (Stefan Kühn/Wikimedia Commons)

Technology assessment 

The 2006 survey described technology as the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representation so they can be view via computer and other devices. The results of the survey revealed the following assessment: 

• Implementation and use of technology in all surveyed entities have increased since 2001, the year of the first study.
• Office technologies (e-mail, office productivity software, desktop computers) are pervasive in all surveyed entities, though small museums and public libraries still lag behind medium and large institutions.
• Internet connectivity through broadband connections is pervasive among all surveyed entities.
• Libraries and museum promote services and activities on the web to provide enhanced public service. (Examples include online catalogs, websites, and the use of popular social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, and blogs).
• Insufficient funding and staff time impede implementation of technology. (Many institutions lack number of skilled staff to accomplish objectives.)
• Assessment of visitor needs is strongest (almost 50%) among academic and state library administrative agencies and weakest (25% or less) among public libraries, archives, and museums  (IMLS, 2006, p. 13).

Challenges  

The research revealed critical challenges in the following areas in all libraries surveyed: 

• Born digital items. Items without print counterparts are defined as being born digital. Serial publications are available today in both print and electronic versions, but content may be different in each format (Hughes, 2002). Other examples of born digital content include e-journals and the vast published content found on blogs, websites, wikis, among many other social networking platforms. Few of these publishing outlets have established guidelines for archiving and preservation.
• No policies. While libraries collectively understand the importance of digitizing collections in order to preserve and promote access to collections, many institutions don't have policies in place for digitization activities. The survey showed that digitization activities have increased among all types of libraries, but fewer than half had policies on all aspects of digitization. (IMLS, 2006).
• Funding. Lack of funding, lack of staffing, and other pressing priorities continue to be barriers to long-term digitization of collections (IMLS, 2006). 
• Partnerships. While collaborative digitization efforts are underway, they are not yet widespread (IMLS, 2006).      

Why digitize?

Digital preservation is the series of management policies and activities necessary to ensure the enduring usability, authenticity, discoverability, and accessibility of content over the very long term (Kirchhoff, 2008, p. 288). The urgency to adopt digital preservation in library environments has been a consistent rallying cry among information technology experts. According to Kirchhoff (2008), the loss of potentially valuable content from the web during its infancy in the early-1990s is a significant concern. When the first full-text search engine, Web Crawler, debuted in 1994, it indexed approximately 72,000 pages. But none of the top 25 pages listed at that time exists today; digital preservation is needed to ensure that future scholars will be able to access and build upon today's research and science.
 
The key goals of digital preservation are defined as follows:

• usability - the intellectual content of the item must remain usable via the delivery mechanism of current technology;
• authenticity - the provenance of the content must be proven and the content an authentic replica of the original;
• discoverability - the content must have logical bibliographic metadata so that the content can be found by end-users through time; and
• accessibility - the content must be available for use to the appropriate community (Kirchhoff, 2008, p.288).
  

As with electronic documents stored on media that are no longer accessible on evolving hardware devices, digital-born documents, such as e-journals, may suffer a similar fate if standards to preserve them are not developed and implemented.

Library of Congress creates list of challenges
 
The National Digital Library Program at the Library of Congress has identified ten challenges that must be met if large and effective digital libraries are to be created during the 21st century.  In some cases, a technology solution to the challenge may not exist, but collaborative efforts among library professionals may assist institutions such as the Library of Congress in formulating policy on important issues. The challenges are grouped under the following broad categories: building the resource, interoperability, intellectual property, providing effective access, and sustaining the resource. (Library of Congress, n.d.). 

• Building the resource refers to the design and development of effective search and retrieval systems that compensate for abbreviated or incomplete cataloging or descriptive information. 
• Interoperability describes the protocols and standards to facilitate the assembly of distributed digital materials.
• Intellectual property looks at the legal concerns associated with access, copying, and dissemination of physical and digital materials.
• Effective access integrates access to both digital and physical materials in search queries, and makes information useful to different communities of users and for different purposes.
• Sustaining the resource explores the costs for production and maintenance of digital materials (Library of Congress, n.d.).

Great Hall of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (Wikimedia Commons)

Portico, Google to the rescue? 

Some academic and archival libraries have turned to Portico, a non-profit digital preservation service. Serving libraries and the publishers, Portico seeks to preserve scholarly literature published in electronic form and to ensure that these materials remain available to future generations of scholars, researchers, and students. Recognizing that the preservation of digital resources important to libraries requires an array of technological and organizational approaches, the service assists with preservation planning, inventory management, processing of resources, and monitoring—removing much of the technical grunt work for libraries (Fenton, 2008). Since June 2008, Portico has preserved more than 7.4 million articles or about 77.8 million files, with the capacity to process approximately 60,000 articles per day, or one to two million articles per month (Kirchhoff, 2008). One of Portico’s main strategies harnesses collaborative solutions, as it believes the responsibility of preservation should be distributed among a qualified network of organizations committed to digital preservation (Fenton, 2008).

In 2004, Google launched an ambition project to digitally scan from book collections of five major research libraries and make them accessible online. Google partnered with libraries at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford Universities; University of Michigan; and New York Public Library. Initial library reaction ranged from enthusiasm to dread: While some see Google involvement as accelerating an inevitable transformation to an increasingly digital environment, others question the commercial nature of the enterprise and the quality and usefulness of search results. (American Libraries, 2004). While reactions may be mixed, Google's profound influence and impact on information management remains undeniable with strong implications for libraries struggling to keep up with fluid, technological innovation.

Conclusion

The results of 2006 IMLS survey underscores the growing need for more librarians to pursue careers in library technology and digitization to further develop uniform standards and guidelines. As people continue to embrace the web as their principle means of retrieving information, the demand to efficiently locate and view archives and digital collections will intensify. The proliferation of born-digital content found in social network platforms poses a unique challenge for librarians, as traditional search engines and databases have only started to unearth the wealth of content (ranging from election analysis to scholarly writings) lurking in these unconventional places. Fortunately, libraries are moving forward in right direction, as the IMLS survey suggests. Collaborative efforts through the Library of Congress and third-party partnerships with electronic archiving service Portico and information powerhouse Google may be the trend towards further progress and consistency in digitization policy.


References

Fenton, E. (2008). Responding to the preservation challenge: Portico, an electronic archiving service. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 31-40. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Hughes, J. (2002). Issues and concerns with the archiving of electronic journals. Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3/4), 113-136. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). (2002). Status of technology and digitization in the nation's museums and libraries, 2002 report. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig02/2002Report.pdf 

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2006). Status of technology and digitization in the nation's museums and libraries. (2006). Retrieved October 20, 2010 from http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf 

Kirchhoff, A. (2008). Digital preservation: challenges and implementation. Learned Publishing, 21(4), 285-294. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Levi, Y. (2008). Digital preservation: an ever-growing challenge. Information Today. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Library of Congress. (n.d.). Challenges to building an effective digital library. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/dli2/html/cbedl.html