Do Libraries Matter?

And now for the librarian component of my "The Commuting Librarian" blog:

Chad, Ken. & Miller, Paul. (2005). "Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0. (A Talis white paper). " [version 1.0] http://www.talis.com/ November 2005.

Chad and Miller wrote this article as a “white paper” in promotion of Talis, a software company in the United Kingdom. A “white paper” is an article designed to promote a specific company's products in relation to a particular issue. As a white paper, the article is not an example of objective scholarship and should not be taken as such. Miller notes, “The white paper was very much intended as a point-in-time view of an emerging trend. It was intended to stimulate discussion…. As such, it was not written in the manner of an academic piece [and] it never pretended to be”(Miller, email correspondence Oct. 21, 2007).

Chad and Miller strongly argue that libraries do matter, they have “unique value”(Chad and Miller 5), but “libraries do have to change quite dramatically” (Chad and Miller 5) in order to remain relevant. They suggest the model of Library 2.0 as a means for libraries to retain their value to an internet savvy culture. Chad and Miller present a very persuasive argument for the need for Library 2.0 and their suggestions for how to implement Library 2.0 are engaging. However this white paper leaves a number of questions regarding risks, costs and practical implementation. Chad and Miller do not provide concrete examples of the use of Library 2.0, however the paper was written in 2005 when the concept of Library 2.0 was in its infancy. “Do Libraries Matter?” is somewhat successful as a white paper as it does succeed in selling the concept of Library 2.0. However it leaves too many questions unanswered in order to convincingly sell their product. This paper has not been cited frequently in academic literature, however the fact that it is a white paper and has been cited is telling of its value. Rather than selling a specific product, the article is most valuable in its contribution to the discussion and development of the Library 2.0 model.