Research paper sample PDF

Preview

Summary

David Lobel...

Description

Since the creation of the Internet, alternatives to traditional libraries such as e-books, search engines, and digital libraries have grown in popularity; concerns have been raised due the possibility of private companies monopolizing the industry in the future and replacing libraries. One of the alternatives seen to be a major threat by some scholars is the Google Book Project. The project pretends to digitize millions of books and make them available online through a subscription. The project already has partnerships with many well recognized institutions such as Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, and Stanford. This paper will analyze different studies and show why these online services cannot replace libraries, that there is still a preference for print books over online alternatives, and that online resources, instead of taking the place of libraries, could complement them and help in their transition to the digital era. The Google Book project seems like a great platform that will change the industry of books. Nevertheless, scholars question if Google will have the capacity to accomplish commercial and educational purposes. Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg, who is a professor of linguistics at UC Berkley, has found problems in the scanning process and the classification of books used by Google. For instance, a Mae West biography is catalogued under “religion”; this is only one of the many cases of wrong classification found in the year 1899 (Dougherty, 2010). Nunberg relates these mistakes to the Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system employed by Google, which differs from the Library Congress system (Dougherty, 2010). The library system is composed of 200,000 headings while BISAC only counts with 3000 (Dougherty, 2010). This fact clearly illustrates one of the many areas in conflict due to scholarly and commercial goals. Another important issue, and possibly the one that cause more controversy, was the fact that Google pretended to create the Books Right Registry to collect and distribute revenues, but an agency in charge of that already existed. Moreover, some of the intentions of Google were not well seen; for instance, Google intends to charge users for “orphan books” (books whose copyright ownership is

unknown). Scholars argue those works belong to the community, hence they should be available for free (Dougherty, 2010). The Google Book Project is not the first one of its type; similar projects have been developed before, and none of them have replaced the function of libraries. Even if these projects could equate or surpass the academic sources offered by libraries, they cannot replace them as the common place of access for information. Some of the predecessors of the Google Book Project include: JSTOR, Project Muse, and the Internet Archive (Dougherty, 2010). JSTOR was founded in 1995, Project Muse in 1993, and the Internet archive in 1996. JSTOR counts for more than one thousand academic journals, project Muse more than 400 hundred titles and Journals, while the Internet archive has more than 1.6 million titles and other resources such as images, audios, and web pages (Dougherty, 2010). Unlike the Google Book Project, the focus of these three projects is purely academic and is non-profitable. Even though these projects are a great contribution to the scholar community, libraries still maintain their place as the major source for academic information. While these other projects are not as ambitious as the Google Project, they show how libraries’ position cannot be substituted by a web source. Libraries are more than a simple set of academic resources. Libraries are a place where information is seen as a shared good for society and not a commodity. Libraries are a common place where instruction about research and critical thinking are taught; therefore, libraries are a symbol of knowledge and education (Lilburn, 2012). Another reason why libraries cannot be replaced by the Internet is that people still prefer print books over e-books; different studies have shown evidence to support this idea. A study in 2007 by the Southwest Baptist University surveyed members of the academic community. The study shows preference of print books over e-books in three different categories asked: research, textbooks, and recreational reading (Hoseth & Mclure, 2012). Although the population clearly recognize the advantages of e-books such as their portability, availability, and the ease to navigate

through them. Most of the users have issues with reading online; the main problem with e-books is that users have reported to have perceived discomfort and eyestrain while reading online. Other minor issues are associated with the restrictions to download books to read them without an Internet connection (Hoseth & Mclure, 2012). Levine Clark’s study found that only 7.7 percent of 1100 e-book readers were used to read an entire electronic book, and Noorhidawati and Gibb’s study reports that the usage given to e-books was linked with finding specific information and references to complete academic tasks such as research and projects (Hoseth & Mclure, 2012). On the other hand, a study by the Colorado State University noted some of the advantages and uses given to print books. The participants of the study point out that they feel more connected to the text when reading directly from a book; others commented they use their books as references and tend to fold, highlight and write on them. Finally, an interesting remark by one of the students was that he perceived his book collection to be part of his identity (Hoseth & Mclure, 2012). Furthermore, respondents showed a preference for print materials, especially when intending to read the entire book (Hoseth & Mclure, 2012). Libraries provide many good services, yet they need to improve in certain areas, especially those related to the web. A study by Punjabi University shows the functionality of online public access catalogs (OPAC) is outdated and illustrated the expectations that users had about OPAC (Kumar, 2012). In the study, it was analyzed how students tend to search in OPAC and how they react when the search is not successful. It was found that 58 percent of the 305 student participants searched in OPAC the same way that they would in a commercial search engine, such as google or yahoo (Kumar, 2012). Another interesting finding was that when the search failed, more than 68 percent of the students tended to think the item was not available in the library (Kumar, 2012). After the failed search, even though the majority of the students tended to look for help, it was reported that only 18.8 percent asked for help from the library staff while 42 percent

abandoned the OPAC search (Kumar, 2012). This study provides good insights of what students expect from OPAC: a more simple and friendly-user tool. Another area of improvement for libraries is the instruction about the functions they have, their services, and their resources. As is illustrated in the study by the Punjabi University, many students do not know that librarians can help with the search process nor do they know the advantages of OPAC, such as advanced search and access to bibliographic databases. Thus, it is important to market the resources available (Zanghi-La Placa, 2012). Finally, as previously mentioned, libraries’ function as the common place of access information, and the advantages perceived in print books will not be replaced, but certainly, actions to improve the weak areas mentioned before are necessary. First, libraries should recognize the features commercial engines have, and bring that to their own scholarly engine searches. Additionally, they should keep collaborating with private initiatives, like the Google Books Project, since they can provide interesting assets to libraries in exchange; for example, each public library will receive a computer with full access to the Google Book Project because of the coordinated work done (Cohen, 2009). Second, libraries need to improve their web pages and make them more interactive; likewise, they need to create quality content. For example, Zanghi-LaPlaca (2012) suggests that in order to design and create webpages, librarians, publishers, and library vendors should look for the recommendations and feedback of students. In conclusion, libraries’ role cannot be overtaken neither by the Google Book Project, nor by the new online resources available. Nevertheless, it is important that libraries evolve with new technologies and trends. Libraries need to work to improve their online services; they need to collaborate with the different partners to create content adapted to the new generations, but at the same time, they need to maintain the standards that have raised them as a symbol of a common place for access to information.

References Cohen, N. (2009, February 1). Some fear Google’s power in Digital Books. New York Times. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2019 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html Dougherty, W. C (2010). The Google Books Project: Will it Make Libraries obsolete? Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 86-89. Hoseth, A., & McLure, M. (2012) Perspectives on e-books from instructors and students in the social sciences. Reference & Users Services Quarterly, 51(3), 278-288. Kumar, S. (2012). Impact of internet search engines on OPAC users: a study of Punjabi University, Patiala (India). Program: Electronic Library & Information systems, 46(1) 56-70. Lilburn, J. (2012). Commercial social media and the erosion of the commons: Implications for academic libraries. Portal: Libraries & The academy, 12(2), 139-153. Zanghi-LaPlaca, J. (2012). Online Research without E-Reference: What is Missing from Digital Libraries?. In S. Polanka (Ed.), E-Reference Context and Discoverability in Libraries: Issues and Concepts (pp. 74-82). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-161350-308-9. ch007...