Library 2

Library 2.0 in Academic libraries
The academic libraries play a certain role in giving reliable knowledge by aiding in learning, teaching, and research activities of the higher education institutions. Library and information services today are going through a transition in the new age society. Technologies take part in our lives today, transformed the way people access, and consume information. In response, to these changes, libraries are making moves and efforts to meet the diversifying needs and expectations of the users by adopting new tools and technology (Santosh, 2017).
As the academic institution change, libraries do not only change with them, instead they allow user- participation or collaboration. It will find ways to allow users to seek, find, and utilize the information they needed. Library 2.0 concepts creates opportunities for libraries to provide content and services to their communities of users.
According to Barker (2008), Library 2.0 explores its implications in relation to future development of Online Public Access Catalog to make it more responsive to the needs of the students and extending the library’s influence beyond its walls. Weblogs and wikis considered as an example for a variety of different educational, instructional, promotional and access for information purposes within libraries. In reference work, instant messaging was been applied to meet the desired assistance of the users. MySpace and Facebook are one of the examples of social networking systems that can be explored as tools for outreach programs and information literacy courses.
Library 2.0 became a trend for the libraries in adopting new web services using technology. Tripathi ; Kumar (2010) conducted survey about the 277 university library websites in Canada, Australia, UK and USA. The result was found that instant messaging became the popular Library 2.0 tool used in 43.7 percent of libraries. Other tools like blogs got 33.2% and RSS resulted 31.4%.
Harinarayana ; Raju (2010) conducted an international study which they select 100 universities from the lists of world university rankings. Among these universities, fifty-seven universities were offering at least one Library 2.0 service. The study revealed that RSS and Instant Messaging were used by thirty-seven libraries. Blogs were offered by 15 libraries and the least used technologies are podcast, vidcast, and wiki.

Library 2.0 Services

Zheng ; Wang (2009) emphasized that the heart of Library 2.0 is the user-centered transformation of library services, which means the first step toward a successful Library 2.0 program is investigation of users’ needs of services derived from Library 2.0.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Library conducted a research on Programming Library 2.0 that users need”. The 2.0 tools that was being used by this library to promote library services that allows user-interaction are: (1) YouTube to show library publicity. (2) Flickr to deliver propaganda pictures and resource navigation. (3) Podcasts to give media on library services. (4) Fanfou to be modified as Library Fanfou. (5) Facebook to be used for reference service and discipline teams; (6) eSurveys to be applied to user investigations; and (7)LinkedIn/Plaxo to extend library services(Zheng & Wang, 2009 ).
Library 2.0 is considered a new model for library service that needs user-participation for the creation of either physical or virtual services they want. It can improve librarian’s service and user’s interaction. This model reflects a transition within the library world in delivering services to users. Library 2.0 accommodations perpetually reevaluate to accommodate library users well. Proponent of this model are sure that this can avail in superseding traditional, one-directional accommodations that is practiced by the libraries for centuries.
However, Casey (2006) suggested that libraries, e.g. public libraries, are at a crossroads where the elements of Library 2.0 have applicable value within the society, both in technology and non-technology based services. Furthermore, he emphasized the need of a library to adopt a strategic change that promotes a user-participation.
Hence, through Library 2.0 concept, sharing between users and libraries continually evolves at constant and rapid basis. In information science viewpoint, Library 2.0 tools include these categories: information acquisition for gathering information from sources external to library (e.g. blogs, wikis); information dissemination for distributing information by libraries to users (e.g. RSS); information organization to facilitate representation of content and subsequent search and retrieval (e.g. social tagging); and information sharing to enable bilateral flow of information between libraries and their users (e.g. instant messaging and social networking services) (Chua & Goh, 2010).

Frequency of Usage

Maness (2006) highlights that there is paradigm shift for librarianship as Library 2.0 demands libraries to focus less on secured inventory systems and more on collaborative discovery systems. Librarians will create an environment and plays a role that allows users to interact and make content for themselves. Library 2.0 where sharing is a custom, gives chances to users to utilize information as a community rather than individual.
For the past decades, Library 2.0 was commonly discussed in librarians’ conferences, also in professional journals and meetings. According to Miller (2005), Library 2.0 has brought about “a freeing of data, allowing it to be exposed, discovered and manipulated in a variety of ways”. Library 2.0 is participative. Unlike the traditional web, which is one-sided from the content provider to the user, Library 2.0 allows the users to share information and personal views and reviews. Kim ; Abbas (2010) surveyed 230 academic libraries worldwide. That results were found RSS (73 percent), blog (65 percent), personalized content (30 percent), podcast (27 percent), bookmark (22 percent), wiki (20 percent), Twitter (15 percent), folksonomy (13 percent) and tagging (12 percent).

Reasons of Using Library 2.0

In the second half of the 20th century, the introduction of improved library systems and online library catalogues is an essential development that gives access to information on library collections from anywhere through internet (Wallis, 2007). Library 2.0 referred to us as an area of interactive and social tools in web with which we discover dynamic contents (Connor, 2007).
Library 2.0 creates a short distance between the author and the reader since it bridges a more direct involvement in information dissemination. The fundamental mission of this concept has remained, to give access to information and facilitate the users, but the processes, and techniques undergone effective progress. The development includes a shift towards personalization and initiatives like MyLibrary (Cohen, 2000) have emerged; these are one of the developments in digitized libraries, which introduces personalized library services to Web communities who like interactivity and user-participation.
Joint (2009) conducted a study at University of Strathclyde Library regarding the adoption of Library 2.0 in their services. Although this virtual reference service ran quite successful for two years, in the end the decision was to curtail the experiment. The reasons for doing this shed some light on the nature of using Library 2.0 services within library environment. Firstly, running such a service in addition to the existing services is onerous. The hope for this service is to upgrade the traditional face-to-face reference work. Secondly, they encounter significant difficulties in incorporating web content from proprietarily information systems within the co-browse window. Lastly, as the importance of distinct Library 2.0 technologies started to emerge from 2004 onwards, with proliferating discrete applications growing up, it became apparent that virtual reference was only one of a number of social networking innovations that were crowding the horizon.

A study of Casey(2007) stated that the new trend of OPAC or the Library catalogue include the attributes of Library 2.0 tools. However, there are key requirements needed and this includes customization, user-participation, maximum usability and significantly enhanced discovery. With this, users can navigate more to connect with other sources of information based on the features of searched results. For instance, the National Library of Singapore created a wiki-like platform to have collaboration and for answering any queries of the users.
Librarians need to apply the changing roles and understand the sapience of the users. Library 2.0 models can avail the librarians in engendering and distributing content of information more effectively. This model sanctions user communities to participate in creating the content with the librarians. MySpace, Facebook, and other social media tools help users to connect and engage in the discussions with other users.
Challenges Encountered in Using Library 2.0 Services
Library 1.0 is a one-directional service; on the other hand, Library 2.0 aims to give the information through internet and encouraging users to give their own feedback. A physical or virtual service that successfully reaches users, that is evaluated frequently, and makes use of user’s input is called Library 2.0 (Sevastinuk & Casey, 2006). Kelly et.al. (2009) asserted in adopting Library 2.0 model, there are lots of barriers encountered this includes: sustainability risks, digital preservation risks, user disinterestedness, and accessibility issues. Kelly also highlighted the need to raise awareness to ensure the effectively towards the users.

Librarians as well as the information managers are conducting observations to these technological changes to some extent, particularly using RSS feeds and reading blogs (Chawner, 2008). Librarians can create interaction to the users through the emerging features of Library 2.0 applications, like messaging, blogging, video streaming and social tagging (Chua & Goh, 2010). In accepting the concept of library 2.0 the focus has been transferred from library collections or resources to patrons (Yang, et.al., 2008).

Arif & Mahmood (2010) had explored the adoption of Library 2.0 changes in libraries in Pakistan. Their study comprised library professional from academic, special, and public libraries in the four provinces of the country. The survey has a total of 210 library professionals who responded. It was been administered on April-June 2009. The findings revealed that internet skills was been considered as the main factor affecting the adoption of Library 2.0 technologies. Half of the respondents (116) employed Library 2.0 in providing library services to the users. Instant messaging (IM) followed by social networking is the most used Library 2.0 technology. About half of the respondents are using Blogs, electronic groups and wikis. Forty-five of the respondents used RSS feeds, while only three of them use podcasting services. Unavailability of computers, lack of computer literacy, internet facilities were the main barriers in adopting the technologies of Library 2.0 in libraries. Arif & Mahmood (2010) had suggested tht conducting training programs can enable the librarians and libraries to cope up with the emerging trends.
A study conducted on selected African institution stressed the needs of social media strategy, the appointing of social media librarians, and the librarian’s development towards affective use of Library 2.0 tools in applying to academic institution (O wasu-Ansah, 2015).
Moreover, Cao (2009) revealed lack of awareness, lack of user-participation, and lack of technology staff are issues related to the adoption of Library tools in Chinese libraries and stated the need for a systematic training. The perception of some library professionals about the applications of Library 2.0 was not vivid, for instance, Instant Messaging which can be used to provide online reference in libraries. Another, RSS was used for selective dissemination of information (SDI) by some library professionals but awareness and usage of it in Libraries of Pakistan was significantly low (Shafique ; Riedling, 2013).