Running head: MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 1

Modulating Social Space

Optimizing the Connective Potential of Libraries
Steven Kemple
Kent State University
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 2

Abstract
A cross-disciplinary discussion of Web 2.0 in libraries suggests a theoretical
framework for the kinds of social engagement synonymous with Web 2.0
technology. Conceptualizing libraries as interactive media permits Library
2.0 entry into the same wider discourse surrounding the shifting dynamics of
media. This discussion will begin with a comparative look at critical
arguments by Geoffrey Nunberg (2006) and John Buschman (2007),
identifying themes relevant to contemporary discourse on social media,
followed by an investigation into the relationship libraries, media, and
societal spaces. Finally, the discussion will turn toward an epistemological
foundation of Library 2.0, affirming that libraries exist for and because of
people.
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 3

Modulating Social Space

Optimizing the Connective Potential of Libraries
Introduction
Much of the conversation regarding Web 2.0 in libraries, aptly “Library
2.0,” (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006; Crawford, 2006) emphasizes the
integration of particular technologies into existing practices. This literature
gives special attention to practical concerns, seldom venturing toward
theoretical implications (Kim & Abbas, 2010; Murray, 2010). While
undeniably valuable, this pragmatic discourse falls short of realizing the
larger picture, wherein Web 2.0 is greater than the sum of its virtual parts.
Having less to do with technology than with people, Web 2.0, and
consequently Library 2.0, are foremost social phenomena (Black, 2007;
Murray 2010; Shirky, 2008). Beneath its digital surface, “Library 2.0 is
human” (Stephens, 2007, p. xvii). This approach permits a cross-disciplinary
discussion of Web 2.0 in libraries, suggesting a conceptual framework for the
kinds of social engagement synonymous with Web 2.0 technology.
Conceptualizing libraries as interactive media permits Library 2.0 entry into
the same wider discourse surrounding the shifting dynamics of media.
Space, Media, and the Public Sphere
First published in 1996, “Farewell to the Information Age” (2006) by
Geoffrey Nunberg criticizes the tectonic shifts brought about by the Internet.
At the core of Nunberg's argument is an observed symbiosis between media
(as experienced forms of information) and the public institutions that contain
them (pp. 517-518). Information, he posits, relies on a distinction between
public and private, which the Internet ostensibly blurs. In his view, the
resulting forms of discourse hearken a past “when the sense of the public
was mediated through a series of transitive personal relationships” (p. 521).
John Buschman (2007) presents a criticism of librarianship in many
ways analogous to, and an extension of, Nunberg's argument. He applies
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas's concept of the public sphere to
libraries' role in a democratic society. The public sphere, he explains, is the
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 4

space between the private and the state (p. 39); most importantly, it is a
space tempered by public discourse and is the origin of non-governmental
opinion (p. 40). Buschman suggests libraries not only embody this concept,
but collectively serve as “the concrete place of the democratic public
sphere” (p. 47). Turning to critique, he questions the “individualist/
consumer ... models of [deriving libraries'] value” (p. 175). Tracing their
ideological roots to Reagan era government information policy, he suggests
such valuation is detrimental to libraries' ability to embody the public sphere:
“Librarianship enacts its democratic purpose through democratic process—
its fundamental basis (fiscally and socially) is in the public realm—not the
private good” (p. 175). Similar to Nunberg, Buschman sees “postmodern
technology” and its inherent modes of communication as not only
representative of the economic model, but as actively aiding in its task of
dismantling the public sphere (p. 161).
Both Nunberg and Buschman describe a syllogistic relationship
between kinds of media and kinds of societal spaces. For Buschman,
communication is the basis of the public sphere as well as the creation of
knowledge (p. 47). Both arguments, however, rest on the assumption that
media is, or ought to be, mono-directional. But media has changed; this is
the operative notion of Web 2.0., wherein “media is the connective tissue of
society” (Shirky, 2010, The Connective Tissue of Society, para. 7).
From Passive to Participatory
In Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age
(2010), Clay Shirky describes a shift from two available modes of
communication—one public and mono-directional, the other private and
bidirectional—to three. The new third option he characterizes as “two-way
media that operates on a scale from private to public” (The Connective
Tissue of Society, para. 12). This he sees as the direct result of opportunities
afforded by Web 2.0 technology; essentially the same observations Nunberg
made fourteen years prior but to dramatically different ends: Shirky argues
such technologies serve merely as a means to harness surplus of free time
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 5

yielded during the past century. The more meaningful shift, he suggests, lies
in the use of that free time—from passive consumption to participative
creation. Here his reasoning runs parallel to Buschman's: “A society where
everyone has some kind of access to the public sphere is a different kind of
society than one where citizens approach media as mere consumers”
(Shirky, 2010, Paradox of Revolution, para. 7).
This parallel places libraries squarely in the domain of social media.
Just as the tools comprising social media are defined by uses and users
(Shirky, 2008, “New Leverage,” para. 7) so too are libraries (Buschman,
2007, p. 47). In fact, user-centrality is among the hallmark principles of
Library 2.0, (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007, pp. 23-33). How can Web 2.0 inform
what constitutes use?
Speaking of Participation...
In “Participatory Networks: The Library as Conversation” (2007)
authors Lankes, Silverstein, Nicholson, and Marshall posit, through the
theoretical lens of Conversation Theory, that libraries are in the business of
people talking to each other (p. 2). The authors suggest, through numerous
examples, that all aspects of library services may be viewed as serving to
facilitate conversations. They point out that conversations “can also take
place over centuries, with the participants changing ... and the conversation
being recorded in ... artifacts, books, pictures, and digital files” (p. 3). This
view is consistent with descriptions of Web 2.0 in that it models the library as
a mutable interactive social space wherein knowledge is the aggregation of
collective cognition. It is also consistent with Buschman's notion of libraries
actuating the public sphere, further grounding the ideals of Web 2.0 in the
traditions of librarianship.
Lankes, et al.'s argument further provides a conceptual framework for
Library 2.0. Suggesting that libraries serve as loci for social knowledge
formation entails a view wherein library services are described as the
optimization of a “rich knowledge environment” (p. 4). An implication of this
service model, in further alignment with Buschman (2007) and Shirky (2010),
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 6

follows: taken as interactive systems having variable environmental quality

dimensions, it follows that these dimensions can be optimized to encourage
conversation, creativity, and collaboration. In the superbly titled “Up, Up,
Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, A, B, Select, Start: Learning From Games and
Gamers in Library 2.0,” David Ward (2007) draws a similar conclusion:
“Libraries, which share many of [the] same goals in the creation of their own
social spaces and research environments, must in a sense become good
game designers” (p. 116).
Modulating Information Space
In “Fostering Social Creativtiy by Increasing Social Capital” (2004),
Fischer, Scharff, & Ye employ the concept of social capital toward designing
sociotechnical environments so as to optimize conversation, creativity, and
collaboration. A concise definition of social capital comes from Fukuyama
(2001), who writes: “An instantiated informal norm that promotes
cooperation between two or more individuals.” (p. 7). Fischer, Scharff, & Ye
look at several “social capital-sensitive systems” (p. 360), such as open
source development and distance-learning environments, to discuss
environmental qualities that encourage self-motivated collaboration. Based
on their observations, they posit a conceptual model readily adapted to the
library environment. In this model, the information repository is flanked by a
thin input filter—allowing the easy addition of information to the repository—
and a thick output filter—providing “information contextualized to the task at
hand and the background knowledge of individual users” (p. 390). This
model is characterized by group ownership, active information consumption
(i.e. information consumers are also information producers), functional
fluidity (i.e. the system may be appropriated for a variety of purposes), and
distributed responsibility (i.e. change through many small contributions by
consumer-producers) (pp. 389-391). They also find that such systems are
neither totally centralized nor totally de-centrallized (p. 390), and that the
perceived benefits (i.e. social capital) must outweigh the contributions (p.
392). The network itself must also utilize the same qualities that also tend to
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 7

bind individuals into social groups, namely “the motivation and trust among
members of a community, and the shared understanding and interests that
binds communities together” (p. 393).
Fischer, Scharff, & Ye acknowledge the same epistemological
foundation purported by Lankes, et al. (2007) and Buschman (2007), and
that is an essential component of Web 2.0 and thus Library 2.0. That
foundation is embodied in the notion of collective intelligence, which
suggests that people know more together than they do on their own. In
Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder, David
Weinberg (2007) writes, “knowledge isn't in our heads: It is between us” (p.
147).
Collectivist Kool-Aid?
As to be expected, this is not a universally accepted view of
knowledge. In The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our
Culture, Andrew Keen (2007) argues that crowds are not wise, equivocating
participatory culture as mob rule. His criticism is fundamentally similar to
Nunberg's (2006), in that he suggests an abandonment of quality and
coherence by inverting the directions of media. He too invokes Habermas's
concept of the public sphere, essentially suggesting the result of the internet
is one inhabited by anarchy and empty of authority.
David Weinberger (2007) outlines a compelling response to this
argument, suggesting that authority has always been achieved through
group knowledge. Of Wikipedia, he writes: “Conversation improves expertise
by exposing weakness, introducing new viewpoints, and pushing ideas into
accessible form” (p. 145). This turns out to be supportive of, rather than
contradictory to, the public sphere.
Conclusion
As stated previously, by conceptualizing the library as an interactive
system having variable quality dimensions, it follows that these quality
dimensions can be modulated so as to enhance its connective capacity.
According to Fischer, Scharff, & Ye (2004), “A sociotechnical perspective is
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 8

important because new media, technology, approaches to collaboration, and

communities must coevolve in order to foster a richer form of collaboration”
(p. 394). This rests on the notion that knowledge is made by people talking
to each other (Lankes, et al., 2007, p. 2), illustrating a cross-disciplinary
framework compatible with the notion that libraries serve the public good.
By creating environments with rich potential for many forms of conversation
and discourse, libraries serve this public good by facilitating conversation,
the precursor to a democratic society (Buschman, 2007, p. 47). That is to
say: Library 2.0 exists for and as a result of interactions between human
beings.
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 9

References
Black, E. L. (2007). Web 2.0 and library 2.0: What librarians need to know. In
Courtney, N. (Ed.), Library 2.0 and beyond (pp. 1-14), Westport, Conn.:
Libraries Unlimited.
Breeding, M. (2010). Taking the social web to the next level. Computers in
Libraries, 30(7). Retrieved from http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-
displaytext.pl?RC=15053.
Buschman, J. (2007). Dismantling the public sphere: Situating and sustaining
librarianship in the age of the new public philosophy. Westport, Conn:
Libraries Unlimited.
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., (2006, September 1). Library 2.0: Service
for the next generation library. Library Journal, 131, 40-42. Retrieved
from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html.
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., (2007) Library 2.0: A guide to participatory
library service. Medford, N.J.: Information Today, Inc.
Castronova, E. (2010). Social networking: When the crowd isn't wise, trust
your librarian. Information Outlook, 14(3), 18-20. Retrieved from
http://www.sla.org/io/2010/04/860.cfm.
Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and 'library 2.0'. Cites & Insights, 6(2), 1-32.
Retrieved from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf.
Dillon, D. (2008). A world infinite and accessible: Digital ubiquity, the
adaptable library, and the end of information. Journal of Library
Administration, 48(1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/01930820802035034.
Fischer, G., Scharff, E., & Ye, Y. (2004). Fostering social creativity by
increasing social capital. In Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (Eds.), Social
capital and information technology (pp. 355-399), Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Fukyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third
World Quarterly, 22(1), 7-20.
Keen, A. (2007) The cult of the amateur: How today's internet is killing our
culture. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday/Currency
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 10

Kim, Y., & Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by

academic libraries and users: A knowledge management perspective.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 211-218.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003.
Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J., & Nicholson, S. (2007). Participatory networks:
The library as conversation. Information Technology and Libraries,
26(4), 17-33. Retrieved from
http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/Publications/Journals/COLISFinal-v7.pdf.
Luo, L. (2009). Web 2.0 integration in information literacy instruction: An
overview. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1), 32-40.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.11.004.
Murray, A. (2010). A mutable cloud: Fostering community through cloud
computing. Library Leadership & Management, 24(2), 58-64. Retrieved
from http://llama.metapress.com/content/g04207405833417n/.
Nunberg, G. (2006). Farewell to the information age. In Finkelstein, D. &
McCleery B. (Eds.), The Book History Reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 509-540).
New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without
organizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press. Retrieved from
http://itunes.apple.com/.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a
connective age. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press. Retrieved from
http://itunes.apple.com/.
Stephens, M. (2007). Foreword. In Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C., Library
2.0: A guide to participatory library service (pp. xv-xvii), Medford, N.J.:
Information Today, Inc.
Ward, D. (2007). Up, up, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start:
Learning from games and gamers in library 2.0. In Courtney, N. (Ed.),
Library 2.0 and beyond (pp. 105-118), Westport, Conn.: Libraries
Unlimited.
MODULATING SOCIAL SPACE 11

Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new

digital disorder. New York, N.Y.: Times Books.