Repository logo

Research Articles (Information Studies)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10413/7230

Browse

Browsing Research Articles (Information Studies) by Author "Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Intelligent libraries and apomediators: distinguishing between Library 3.0 and Library 2.0.
    (SAGE, 2013) Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.; Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.
    Many terms and concepts have appeared in and disappeared from the history of librarianship. Currently, the use of “point oh” naming system to label developments in librarianship is prevalent. Debate on the appropriateness, basis and syntax of this naming system is ongoing. Specifically, the profession has been lately engrossed in discourses in various contexts to unravel the real meaning and potential of Library 2.0. But even before this debate is settled, a new term, Library 3.0, is seeking space in the core librarianship lexicon. This development is causing confusion among librarianship scholars, practitioners and students especially on whether there is any significant difference between the two models. Through documentary analysis, the authors explored the true meanings of these terms and have concluded that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are indeed different. The authors have also concluded that whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries standing by and guiding the library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The authors therefore note that the prospect of the Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst the librarians who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. Similarly, the authors have concluded that Library 3.0 provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. Thus Library 3.0 is generally understood to be an improvement of Library 2.0 tools and techniques. The authors propose that a 3.0 library be perceived as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Library 2.0 principles and Ranganathan's fifth law.
    (UNISA, 2010) Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.; Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.
    Ranganathan’s five laws of library science were first published in 1931. Although initially devised for the Indian context, these laws have been adapted – in form and spirit – by libraries all over the world. With the emergence of new librarianship models such as Library 2.0, most practitioners wonder whether the laws still hold. This study used critical documentary analysis to investigate the relationship between the Library 2.0 principles and Ranganathan’s fifth law. The authors conclude that this law, like the other four, remains applicable in most instances. However, some scenarios require careful consideration and adjustment of the fifth law.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Library 2.0: revolution or evolution?
    (2009) Kwanya, Tom Joseph Mboya.; Stilwell, Christine.; Underwood, Peter Graham.
    Library 2.0 is a controversial concept that stirs debate on many fronts. As the concept continues to arrest the attention of most library users and practitioners, a number of issues relating to its real nature emerge. One of these is the character of change it represents. While many library scholars and practitioners agree that Library 2.0 represents a change, they disagree on the nature of this change. Using a critical review of documentation and arguments on this subject, the authors identify three points of view on this change. Whereas some feel that the change is revolutionary and may drastically transform the profession – including renaming – others see it as an evolution of the current best practices to mould a better, user-centred service using modern technology. Still others see Library 2.0 as neither revolutionary nor evolutionary. This paper seeks to clarify these three points of view on the character of Library 2.0 change in libraries, as institutions, and in librarianship as a profession. It also recommends that while Library 2.0 should be seen as the latest instance in the development of the library and the services it offers, its role in facilitating participatory user-centric services should not be ignored.