Reading Sinclair’s Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative Learning this week was inspiring – I’m very keen on the idea that form should mimic content, and this definitely seems to be the case in libraries as well. With all the talk of going 2.0 with library services and promoting interactivity and exchange with patrons, there seems to be comparatively little literature about going 2.0 with the library as a space itself in order to promote this same collaborative effort that the technology we’re promoting allows (though there does seem to have been a recent conference on the subject promoting its ideals). This doesn’t mean that these changes aren’t happening though.
Sinclair argues that there are five characteristics that a Commons 2.0 should exhibit; it should be open, free, comfortable, inspirational and practical. One can see why the argument has been posed, given the general stereotype of the library as being a place for quiet (or very quiet) introspection and individual scholarship. In promoting 2.0 qualities in the physical environments of our libraries (and classrooms?) we can dispell this myth and hopefully engender the kind of productive exchange that we see going on online. With library stats going down, Sinclair’s suggestions for more interactive and inspiring spaces seem to be not only useful but essential in providing best service in a changing sociocultural landscape.
His article got me thinking about UBC’s own Irving K. Barber centre in a new light as well. Though the library itself is set to the right of the main entrance, when thinking about the middle territory of the building as an extension of the library proper, it seemed to exhibit many of the qualities that Sinclair was extolling. With computer terminals set openly only a few metres from the cafeteria, the comfortable couches that are available on every floor, the accessibility to unused classrooms for study groups and the electrical sockets, well, everywhere for plugging in laptops to take advantage of UBC’s wireless (among other features), Barber really does seem to meet every criteria of Commons 2.0. What’s more, it’s incredibly effective as well. Just try finding a seat on any floor during peak school hours – they’re all occupied by individuals and groups capitalizing on the openness of the space. This also makes me wonder about the kinds of surveys that we conduct, in that when we question undergrads as to whether or not they actively use the library, if they consider use of the space just outside it as well in their answer. I’m curious if the statistics would go dramatically up if the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre was renamed the Irving K. Barber Library, and labeled as such on the front doors of the building.
Barber aside, Sinclair is really writing about being proactive in the way we see libraries and the services that we provide – his descriptions challenge long-held notions of what a library was, versus what it could (and should) be in order to promote the ideals of lifelong learning. That he suggests having visitors participate in the redesigning of these spaces is also highly useful, in that patrons whose input was used would likely take greater advantage of a space that matches their physical as well as information needs. The changes that we make have to go from being reactive to proactive.
The closing caveat to his argument is well founded though, in that redesign costs money. With libraries losing funding practically the world over, it’s easy to look at Sinclair’s ideas as idealism. This said, attempting a redesign that actually addresses the needs of the patron may be one of the key features of the library’s continued dominance (or even survival) as a resource centre – the question maybe becomes not “can we afford to?” but “can we afford not to?” Even being a graduate student I can admit that I’d rather access my online articles from a couch in a comfortable coffee shop than in an isolated cubicle tucked away in the stacks. And this is the rub: With more and more resources going online, we need to rope patrons in in less conventional (yet in the case of Commons 2.0, utterly reasonable) ways, and making the library an interactive and collaborative learning environment seems to be a highly practical means of doing so.
Categories: