“Library 2.0” Viewed through the Prism of the French Librarians’ Blogs/La « Bibliothèque 2.0 » vue à travers le prisme des blogs de bibliothécaires français

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a study of French librarians’ non-institutional blogs, which are now acknowledged as a channel of dissemination of professional information. The study has two main objectives: to determine the importance that bloggers give to the concept of “Library 2.0” in their posts and to identify the different types of posts and the different discursive genres that they develop to approach this issue. The analysis shows that this question is addressed from various angles: libraries’ online presence, interaction with users, development of new services, and training for library staff. The analysis also shows that posts belong to different discursive genres such as opinion papers, accounts of initiatives or experimentations, book reviews, or even descriptions of tools.

Résumé

Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude consacrée aux blogs de bibliothécaires français tenus de manière non institutionnelle, qui sont aujourd’hui reconnus comme un moyen de diffusion de l’information professionnelle. L’étude poursuit un double objectif : déterminer l’importance accordée par les blogueurs à la question de la « bibliothèque 2.0 » dans leurs messages publiés et identifier les différents types de messages publiés, les différents genres discursifs qu’ils utilisent pour traiter cette question. L’analyse montre qu’elle est traitée sous différents angles : la présence en ligne des bibliothèques, l’interaction avec les usagers, le développement de nouveaux services et la formation du personnel. Elle montre également que les messages publiés appartiennent à différents genres discursifs tels que le billet de point de vue, le compte-rendu d’initiatives ou d’expérimentations, la note de lecture ou encore le descriptif d’outils.

Introduction

The term “Web 2.0” refers to a set of Web tools that enhance and support user-generated content such as blogs, wikis, videos sharing, and social networking services. These tools, also known as “social media,” allow anyone to create content and disseminate information, and they have gradually erased old boundaries and hierarchies between professionals and amateurs, thus leading to a reconsideration of the monopoly of experts and scientists in the dissemination of information and knowledge (Flichy 2007). Today, one speaks of “Medicine 2.0,” “Journalism 2.0,” “Research 2.0,” “Education 2.0,” or even “Library 2.0” to illustrate not only the fact that social media are used by the stakeholders in these sectors but also the fact that the “audience” contributions are taken into account and even encouraged. The term “Library 2.0” was coined by Michael Casey (2005) on his blog LibraryCrunch in September 2005 to define the possible implementations of Web 2.0 technology in library services. Since then, this Library 2.0 phenomenon has been the subject of many studies and has also been considered by librarians in their personal blogs, which are now acknowledged as a channel of exchange and dissemination of professional information. This study aims to determine the ways in which “Library 2.0” is addressed by personal and non-institutional librarians’ blogs.

Literature Review

Library 2.0

The term “Library 2.0’ does not refer to a new kind of library but, rather, to a new form of services that can be provided by public and academic libraries by using Web 2.0 technology and social media and by promoting a participatory role for users. When it emerged, this topic was quite controversial, especially because of the oxymoron that seemed to constitute the link between the terms “library” and “Web 2.0.” Indeed, as Olivier Le Deuff (2011, 21) has stated, these two terms refer to “two models [that] are conflicting”: libraries are based on authority, whereas the Web 2.0 is based on popularity. However, he adds that “there is no real opposition but rather complementarities.” Over the past decade, many studies have considered these “complementarities” as well as the benefits of implementing Web 2.0 technology in library services. Some of these studies are summarized by Khalid Mahmood and John Richardson (2013). Whether referring to public or academic libraries, they point out the same benefits of using social media: building libraries’ online presence, digital identity, and e-reputation, improving the library’s image, building a new relationship with the users, getting their feedback, enriching catalogues with users’ contributions (tags, views, and comments), and highlighting new acquisitions. However, the use of social media in libraries requires time and specific skills on the part of the staff and raises some security and legal issues (users’ privacy, copyright, and so on). Web 2.0 refers to a set of tools, each with its own usability and functionalities, and, therefore, some studies have focused on a specific tool such as Face-book (Jacobson 2011), Twitter (Stuart 2010), or blogs (Clyde 2004; Maness 2006; Bar-Ilan 2007; McIntyre and Nicolle 2008; Wood 2009). Blogs are both internal and external communication channels, but they also provide a good way for librarians to express their “[o]pinions, insights and information [about] a specific topic or type of library work” (Stephens 2007, 102).

Librarians’ Non-Institutional Blogs

Nolwenn Hénaff (2008) has identified four types of blogs, according to two axes: “expert/amateur” and “profit-making/non-profit-making.” She identifies the “expert profit-making blogs” (for example, corporate blogs promoting products and services), “expert non-profit-making blogs” (for example, researchers’ blogs sharing knowledge and work), “amateur profit-making blogs” (for example, fashion addict bloggers writing sponsored posts and making money with affiliate programs), and “amateur non-profit-making blogs” (for example, botanical enthusiasts blogging to share information and pictures of plants).

In the Biblioblogosphere, there are two types of library blogs: the institutional blogs maintained from a Library 2.0 perspective and non-institutional blogs that are independent from any institution and maintained by librarians in their free time. What is the purpose of creating this second type of blog? According to Dominique Cardon and Hélène Delaunay-Téterel (2006), professional experts or amateurs who start a non-institutional blogging activity about their profession or about their passion seek to interact with people of the same profile, to share information and resources with them, and to gain recognition as specialists. These goals affect the content of the blog posts, which are essentially focused on common interests. Many studies on librarianship and information science blogs have confirmed these findings: librarians’ blogs are library related and act both as a channel for exchange and dissemination of professional information (Bar-Ilan’s 2007; Delhaye and Morin 2007; Aharony 2009a; Aharony 2009b; Stassin and Chaudiron 2011) and as a means for self-presentation and self-promotion (Greenland 2013).

According to Jean-Philippe Cointet and Camille Roth (2009, 1), a specialized blogosphere such as the non-institutional Biblioblogosphere “can be construed as a knowledge network made of bloggers who are interacting through a social network to share exchange or produce information.” These bloggers gather around a common interest and constitute a network of expertise. When the “common interest” is related to the pursuit of the same profession, the network can be perceived as a community of practice (Wenger 1998)—that is, a group of people who share a craft or a profession and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Bloggers develop their practice through a variety of activities, such as problem solving, requests for information, research on recent professional experiences, or even a discussion of developments. The librarians’ non-institutional blogs can therefore be regarded as participating in, and defining, a community of practice since librarians use blogs to communicate with their peers and to share information, resources, views, experiences, and advice about librarianship and socio-technological change.

Problem Statement

Given that librarians’ blogs are library related, it seems a likely hypothesis that they deal with the impact of Web 2.0 in librarianship. It seems interesting to explore how librarians address the “Library 2.0” phenomenon in their non-institutional blogs, what importance they give to it, and what kind of questions and experiences they share. The following questions can be formulated concerning librarians’ non-institutional blogging: What percentage of posts is devoted to “Library 2.0”? How do bloggers deal with this topic? What are the main subjects? What kinds of texts and posts are published? Are some blogs more “Library 2.0 related” than others?

Data and Methodology

Data Collection

Thirty-seven blogs were chosen as a sample (see Appendix A). Nineteen out of the thirty-seven are maintained by academic librarians, and eighteen are maintained by public librarians. The blogs were identified by browsing the application of the Association des Professionels de l’information et de la Documentation.¹ To be selected, the blog has had to be maintained from a non-institutional standpoint, which is usually indicated in the section “about” the blog or in its very first post, and it has also had to have been active during the investigation period (1 January 2010 to 12 December 2012). Both content analysis and discourse analysis were conducted on a total of 2,331 posts published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012.

Content Analysis

The content analysis aimed at identifying the topics raised by the bloggers. The analysis was conducted in two steps. First, each post was categorized according to the most dominant domain identified after reading and/or according to its title and the tags chosen by the author to index it. Second, each Library 2.0-related post was categorized according to the specific issue under consideration (for example, the tool, event, experimentation, and so on). The number of posts dedicated to each topic was scored for each blog to identify its “semantic profile” and also to identify the more “Library 2.0-related” blogs.

Discourse Analysis

Most studies devoted to librarians’ non-institutional blogs focus on the content of the posts but not on the type of posts—that is, on their discursive genre. However, two studies examined the discursive genre in other kinds of blogs, even though they were not devoted to library and information science blogs (Orban de Xivry, Matagne, and Klein 2007; Lehti 2011). Anne-Claire Orban de Xivry, Julie Matagne, and Annabelle Klein focused on the position held by the blogger within his post and the role that he gives to readers. The authors of this study identify four types of posts:

• • the “diary” in which the blogger talks about himself (his feelings and moods) and readers are also invited to talk about themselves;

• • the “testimony” in which the blogger talks about himself and readers are not expected to talk;

• • the “provocative post” in which the blogger expresses his point of view and readers are clearly invited to express their opinions and to enter into a debate; and

• • the “informative post” in which the blogger shares information or resources about a specific topic and does not expect readers to react.

Lehti focused on French politicians’ blogs and identified four quite similar types of posts:

• • the “diary” in which politicians deal with their everyday professional life and the activities in which they are involved;

• • the “scrapbook,” which is a report of news published on the web;

• • the “notice-board,” which is a notice of participatory events and future projects; and

• • the essay (or polemic) in which politicians express their point of view on political or economic issues.

These typologies were very helpful but not sufficient for the purposes of this study. Thus, the Jean-Michel Adam’s (1992) textual classification was also used to categorize every post according to its “discursive genre.” Adam identifies eight types of texts:

• • the “narrative” text in which the writer’s main aim is to tell a story (for example, a tale or a novel) or to talk about events;

• • the “argumentative” text in which the writer defends his point of view and tries to convince or persuade the reader (for example, an editorial or an essay);

• • the “descriptive” text, which aims at describing a person or a thing (for example, a portrait or a landscape);

• • the “informative” or “explicative” text, which aims at informing (for example, news in brief) or making something understood (for example, a scientific paper);

• • the “prescriptive” text, which aims at giving the means to take action (for example, instructions for use or a recipe);

• • the “conversational” text, which aims at reporting words (for example, a dialogue or an interview);

• • the “predictive” text, which aims at predicting what would happen (for example, a horoscope or a prophecy);

• • the “rhetorical” text in which the writer creates an esthetic effect or plays with words (for example, poems or songs).

According to these typologies, “diary” and “testimony” blog posts are primarily narrative. The “informative post,” “scrapbook,” and “notice board” posts are explicative, and the “provocative post” and “essay” are argumentative. To identify the types of texts written by the library and information science bloggers and to develop a typology of their posts, discourse analysis was conducted. It was based on linguistic characteristics found in the posts such as tonality, use of personal pronouns, dynamic or stative verbs, and stylistic devices. All of the posts, whatever the topic dealt with, were analyzed. However, only the results taken from the Library 2.0-related posts will be presented and illustrated by examples.

Findings

Major Topics

Content analysis identified twelve major topics recurring every month in librarians’ blogs and constituting 67.73 percent of the total number of posts (1,579 posts out of 2,331). Table 1 presents the number of posts related to each topic, distinguishing posts written by public librarians and those written by academic librarians.

Four topics occurred mainly in academic librarians’ blogs (semantic web, open access, augmented reality, and digital library); other topics, such as “Library 2.0,” which is the focus of this study, are discussed both in academic and public librarians’ blogs.

Library 2.0-Related Posts

Library 2.0-related posts constituted 9 percent of the corpus (209 posts out of 2,331) and are addressed from different angles: libraries’ online presence and digital identity, the relevance of different 2.0 tools, interaction with library users, the development of new services and new forms of information mediation, and training of library staff. These posts are not written in the same way and belong to different discursive genres as the discourse analysis shows (see table 2).

Table 1.

Topics addressed from librarians’ blogs

In opinion papers, bloggers reflect on one aspect of “Library 2.0”: they give their point of view, express their personal opinion, and ask readers about their opinion (“What do you think?”). They raise questions about the best way of managing social media, which contents to deliver, the editorial line to adopt, the services to promote, or even which strategy to follow. The pros and the cons of establishing a Facebook page or Twitter account and the animation and administration of these tools are also discussed. Some bloggers point out what the web and social media can bring to libraries, while others reflect on what librarians and their specific skills can bring to the web and to net surfers. They share their concerns about the future of their profession and its ability to adapt to the digital environment.

Table 2.

Discursive genres in the librarians’ blog

The emblematic opinion paper published during the period under study was a post entitled “Grand Corps Malade,” which was written by Daniel Bourrion (2011a) on his blog. The blogger reproaches training institutions for ignoring ongoing changes and for “preparing for the future . . . with 19th century logic.” He points out the widening gap between training courses and the reality on the ground and denounces the resistance to social media of some academic library leaders and their refusal to occupy the digital spaces where users are to be found, thus increasing the distance from them. This post is polemic or even provocative (“they do not know that a mouse is not only a rodent,” and “they are living in another world, a dead world”), and the readers’ comments are numerous (approximately 150). Some readers agree with him (“I would just like to highlight that Daniel Bourrion perceived and expressed a real and deep uneasiness that affects an entire year-class”), and some disagree (“all the librarians are overwhelmed (except you and three of your buddies). And why is that? The reason for this delay is so easy to find and can be summed up in just six lines: because everyone sucks except you”), others are quite divided over this issue (“I agree with your assessment, things aren’t moving fast . . . But we mustn’t lose hope and give up. . . . We have to keep sharing ideas and developing thinking. . . . We have to take examinations allowing us to rise in the hierarchy”).

Resistance to social media by library leadership also occurs in some public libraries as mentioned in another opinion paper written by Lionel Dujol (2011) entitled La bibliothèque apprivoisée: “I am frequently questioned by colleagues who have experienced first-hand that management refuse to accept users’ contributions on the institutional website or simply on the Library blog.” In this post, the blogger also pointed out the passivity of some librarians as well as their skepticism about the possibility of creating new relationships with users and making them participate. He reproaches these librarians for complaining about “the lack of participation of users while they never engage themselves in an [online] conversation.” The immobility of some libraries seems to be attributed sometimes to management, sometimes to the staff itself, and sometimes to both at the same time. This problem gives some bloggers the feeling of being a lone voice crying in the wilderness, leading them to close down their blog. For example, Daniel Bourrion (2011b), in his final post declares that he is “fed up with the entire profession, its silence, its immobility, its tepidity . . . fed up with seeing that [they] are slowly killing [them]selves.”

On a more optimistic note, bloggers often give accounts of recent initiatives or experimentations carried out at their own workplace, such as the embedding of social cataloging web applications on the Toulouse Library catalogue (Babelio, Libfly, and Librarything), the introduction of a “question and answer” service on Facebook by the Bibliothèque Publique d’Information in Paris, the establishment of a Facebook page by Reims University and the Nancy University Libraries, the music streaming service experimentation in the Alsace libraries, and so on. The various steps followed, the difficulties experienced, the solutions found, the background, and the purposes of the experimentation are reported.

Bloggers regularly announce upcoming events (conferences, seminars, workshops, and so on) dedicated to “Library 2.0” or to the impact of Web 2.0 within libraries, particularly if they are also participants. These events are then reported or reviewed on their blogs. Bloggers’ presentations on these events are also later reported, and slideshows are posted on the blog. Similarly, upcoming publications of books, papers, or journals are announced. Bloggers’ book reviews are posted. The review is a critical analysis of a book, a study, or a paper, but sometimes such posts are similar to a simple summary.

From a content-curation perspective, bloggers select and report all of the news related to Library 2.0 that they find interesting and recommend for reading. These posts usually take the form of a list of hypertext links referring to the new contents. Sometimes the posts contain only one link pointing toward one resource (text, audio, and video), sometimes the links are commented upon or accompanied by notes written by bloggers. When a text is in English, some bloggers translate it into French. But these translations are infrequent.

Web 2.0 tools are presented by bloggers, particularly those that are considered useful for Library 2.0 service, for new acquisitions policy, or for digital information mediation service. Their features, functionalities, and relevance are discussed. The synthesis related to a given subject provides a definition or a synthetic presentation of a term or concept, and it retraces the history of a tool or technology. Sometimes bloggers post pictures that they want to share with readers, which may include pictures of landscapes, buildings (library, museum), or even art objects.

Library 2.0-Related Blogs and Bloggers

The topic “Library 2.0” is not tackled by all bloggers: twenty-eight out of thirty-six bloggers write about this issue. Moreover, bloggers who discuss the question of “Library 2.0” do not give it the same importance. Therefore, some are more Library 2.0 related than others (see table 3).

Table 3.

Library 2.0-related blogs

Three blogs alone have written 57.61 percent of the Library 2.0-related posts: Bibliobsession, Des Bibliothèques 2.0, and Vagabondages. However, two others can also be classified as Library 2.0 related: Face Ecran and XG_BlogNotes. Their authors do not publish often, but the few posts they write mostly deal with Library 2.0 or the impact of Web 2.0 on libraries.

The study also pointed out that Bibliobsession and XG_BlogNotes focus mainly on the new forms and new devices of information mediation, on the issues and difficulties relating to their implementation, on the role of libraries, and on librarians in the digital era. They also propose definitions of the concept of “digital information mediation.” According to Silvère Mercier (2010) on his blog Bibliobsession, digital information mediation is “an approach aiming at implementing devices that enhance access—organized or accidental—appropriation and dissemination of information,” which is “at the heart of the LIS professions, somewhere between information retrieval assistance, content management and dissemination, [online] communities development.” Xavier Galaup (2012a) of XG_BlogNotes, who recently coordinated a collective work entitled “Médiation Documentaire Numérique” explains: “[I]t is a question of transposing online [our activity] of information mediation, that is to say all the means that we implement to facilitate the meeting between the reader and the documents that may be of interest to him or to offer him new horizons” (Galaup 2012b). Vagabondages and Des Bibliothèques are more oriented toward social media experimentations and usage statistics as well as the users, the “fans,” and the “followers” profiles, while Face Ecran (now closed) shares questions and concerns about the future of libraries and librarians in a polemic way, as mentioned earlier.

Discussion and Conclusion

The links created by bloggers, the issues they focus on, and the types of posts they write clearly prove their ambition to share expertise, know-how, and good practices and to collectively reflect on the changes associated with the advent of digital technologies and Web 2.0 in library and information science. The Biblioblogosphere offers good examples of experimenting with social media within both public and academic libraries. It opens a window on the world of the library and provides an overview of the current issues and concerns that affect the profession. Some blogger librarians who dare to express their personal opinions do so at their own risk. The non-institutional nature of blogs definitely encourages them to take a public stance. Some bloggers do not hesitate to share their perception of how Web 2.0 affects libraries and librarians, denouncing the dysfunctions that affect the entire profession. Nonetheless, the analysis of different blog posts shows that both academic and public libraries are currently going through a deep crisis. This is due to the fact that librarians continually have to adjust their information mediation tasks to the digital environment and to perform new activities for which they are not adequately trained. However, some bloggers seem very hopeful and optimistic. They believe that libraries can successfully make this transition and emphasize that “it is a key step in [their] development” (Oggidoc 2011) and that they “have all the necessary strengths and resources required to play the [Library 2.0] card” (Galaup 2012a). They also do not hesitate to encourage their colleagues to involve themselves in these fundamental changes: “Come on, Librarians! A little more effort to reposition the Library and its ancestral tasks for today” (Queyraud 2012).

The advent of Web 2.0 is not the only reason for the malaise that has overcome the profession. Indeed, content analysis shows that other forms of innovation in the public and academic library sphere are currently calling into question and redefining librarians’ missions: the semantic web, ebooks, augmented reality, digitization, digital libraries, learning centres, or even the library as a third place. These topics should also be examined in further studies. Last but not least, the permanent monitoring of a non-institutional professional blogosphere can be a useful way for researchers to keep abreast of current professional debates and to identify opinion leaders.