What is Library 2.0?

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this article is to both theoretically and empirically define the concept of Library
2.0.

Design/methodology/approach Written answers to question “What is Library 2.0?” given by

practitioners and researchers (n=29) interested in Library 2.0 issues were analyzed by using co-word
analysis to map the underlying elements of the concept.

Findings This study resulted in a model of Library 2.0, containing seven building blocks of the
phenomenon: interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0,
social aspects, and technology and tools.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) The model provides a basis for framing Library
2.0 as a research object and to map central themes of future research.

Practical implications (if applicable) A comprehensive model enables both researchers and
practitioners to frame the phenomenon more clearly, evaluate existing and planned services and their
proximity to what is Library 2.0.

Originality/value Unlike earlier proposals for a definition of the notion Library 2.0, the present study
presents an empirical and consensual crowdsourcing approach of defining the concept. Library 2.0
and provides basis for discussing the future evolution of the notion and its implications to library and
information science research and library practises.

Keywords Library 2.0, libraries, co-word analysis, concepts, definitions

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Online activities are a growing part of many people’s lives, both engaging in interactive and
social events on the Web and, increasingly become active partners creating new contents.
Web 2.0 is the unifying term for these kinds of new technologies that enable users to interact
and personalize web sites. Examples include social networking, blogging and wikis. There is a
wide range of literature concerned with exploring the techniques (Miller, 2005; O'Reilly, 2005;
Maness, 2006; Miller, 2006) and there are also a number of examples of how these
techniques have been implemented in library context. Library 2.0 refers to a growing area of
interactive and social tools on the Web with which to create and share dynamic content
(Connor, 2007). There have been a number of suggestions as to what shapes the Library 2.0
phenomenon and the opinions are quite varied. This means there is no definitive definition of
what constitutes the required components shaping Library 2.0. There is a clear need to
establish an agreed definition of Library 2.0 in order to find a deeper stability in the
development of information services connected to social and interactive tools. To this point
little refereed research has been done related to this topic (Anderson, 2007a). The aim of this
article is to both theoretically and empirically define the concept of Library 2.0. We will
1
discuss earlier definitions and suggestions of what Library 2.0 is and also analyze a new
specifically collected set of definitions given by practitioners and researchers interested in
Library 2.0 issues. These definitions have undergone a content analysis giving a clear
definition of what Library 2.0 is in practice. Co-word analysis was chosen as the tool for
analysis as it takes both the frequency of the studied objects and the relationships between the
objects into account. Through this technique we were able to map the thematic contents of the
phenomenon of Library 2.0 and define the underlying elements of the concept.

Background

Libraries have been around for a very long time and are traditionally seen as collections of
information and services. Libraries have always played a significant role, enabling people to
engage with all kinds of information and knowledge resources (Curran et al., 2006). Through
the technological development of electronic resources the means to collect, store, manage,
and use widely distributed knowledge resources have become more effective serving the
library users even better (Griffin, 1998). Modern libraries are therefore being redefined as
places to get wider access to information in many formats and from many sources. The
technological development in libraries has affected both information space and information
practice. Today we talk about libraries without walls being logical extensions to libraries
(Fox and Urs, 2002). An important development in the second half of the 20th century was
the introduction of integrated library systems and online catalogues giving access to
information on library collections from anywhere with an internet connection. The idea of the
library room changed when much of the visibility of the library environment was on the
screen (Wallis, 2007). The distance between author and reader has been shortened while it
gives a more direct involvement in the dissemination of information. Libraries provide access
to an endless variety of information resources and opportunities for interactive
communication. However, the fundamental mission has remained, to facilitate and give
access to information and knowledge, but the processes, tools, and techniques have
undergone big development.
At the same time the fact that the web is accessible from every corner of the world has meant
that users are presented the same interface which is found problematic while it is difficult to
design an interface that suits such a wide range of users (Frias-Martinez et al., 2007).
Therefore the development has also included a shift towards personalization and initiatives
like MyLibrary (Cohen et al., 2000) have emerged. These are a further development of digital
libraries, which define personalized library services to Web users who expect customization
and interactivity. Surprisingly for developers of these services, the adoption rates of these
services have been very low (Gibbons, 2003) and therefore it is important to look deeper into
the barriers to personalized service as this seems to be the future of the digital world. New
trends concerning personalization, self service, and mobility have created a Web environment
that is transforming how users are interacting with information (Benson and Favini, 2006;
Bearman, 2007; Coombs, 2007). The user becomes a partner and a contributor to the work of
the library which means the understanding of users becomes even more important.
One of the focal notions of digital world since 2004 has been Web 2.0, a term popularized by
O’Reilly (2005) for an O’Reilly media web conference and thereafter explored somewhat
further in a series of texts (O´Reilly, 2006a; 2006b; 2008). It is a controversial term laden
with a multitude of different simultaneously similar and contradictory meanings and
implications (Madden and Fox, 2006; Anderson, 2007b). Web 2.0 is about many different
things at the same time: ideas, technologies, behavioural patterns, ideals, goals and cultures.

2
In practice, Web 2.0 is largely defined by a plethora of services quoted as being Web 2.0
(Anderson, 2007b). Typically quoted technologies include blogs and podcasting, RSS feeds,
wikis, instant messaging, social networks, mashups and social tagging (O´Reilly, 2006a;
Hinchcliffe, 2006; Anderson, 2007b; Hintikka, 2007). Various services such as Del.icio.us,
Flickr, Youtube, MySpace, Facebook, Skype, Wikipedia and Digg have become almost
synonymous to the phenomenon (Anderson, 2007b). Even though the technologies share
characteristics such as focus on individual production and user-generated content, harnessing
the wisdom of crowds, data on massive scale, participatory architecture, network effect and a
degree openness (as connectivity) (Anderson, 2007a), they do not form a coherent group with
same premisory assumptions of human behaviour or computer use. From a technological
perspective, a focal point of Web 2.0 can be seen in promoting the role of data, agents and
connectivity over individual applications.
Libraries and librarians began to discuss Web 2.0 services and their relevance in library
context soon after the term was coined in 2005 (Chad and Miller, 2005). The background of
the discussion can be seen in the context of the availability of new means to be present where
the people are and to act how people have started to act in the work and everyday life
(Farkas, 2007). The existence of Web 2.0 technologies made several librarians ask
themselves, what these technologies could mean and do in the context of libraries and library
services (Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2006) eventually leading to the formulation of a derivative
notion library 2.0 (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007). Another notion underpinning both Web 2.0
and Library 2.0 was the concept Business 2.0 coined in the name of the Business 2.0
magazine. The concept was used to refer to a new, next version, economy (Casey &
Savastinuk, 2-3) in much the same way as Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 refer to novelty in these
two fields.

Definitions of Library 2.0

An established definition of Library 2.0 does not yet exist, despite numerous attempts to
define it. Many views and comments on the notion have been published in blogs, articles and
books. This is a short overview of some of the suggested definitions of Library 2.0.
In the blogs of library and information science professionals, also called the
“biblioblogosphere”, Library 2.0 has been hotly debated. There is some resistance to the
concept; the Wikipedia article on Library 2.0 was even nominated for deletion in 2006. There
are, however, many advocates of Library 2.0 who have tried to find a relevant definition.
Brevik (2006), for example, states that “Library 2.0 is the natural evolution of library services
to a level where the library user is in control of how and when she gets access to the services
she needs and wants”. Fichter (2006) provides the following formula: “Library 2.0 = (books
‘n stuff + people + radical trust) x participation”. Crawford (2006) gathered statements on
Library 2.0 from blogposts and comments and found a total of seven definitions and sixty-
two views. Some bloggers saw Library 2.0 as an evolution; others saw it as a revolution.
Crawford summarizes his work by differentiating Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”, where
library 2.0 includes both new and older software tools that are useful for providing improved
and new library services. “Library 2.0”, however, is a bandwagon and hype.
Casey & Savastinuk (2007, xxii) state that “Participatory service and change are the heart of
Library 2.0, and technology is a tool that can help us get there”. They speak for a broad
definition of the concept including both physical and virtual library services (Casey &
Savastinuk 2006, 2007) and that any definition of Library 2.0 should include three elements.
These elements are Library 2.0 as a model of constant change, giving library users control

3
through participatory, user-driven services and implementing these to improve and reach out
to both present and potential users.
Several definitions use Web 2.0 as a starting point. Habib (2006) defined in his master paper
Library 2.0 as “a subset of library services designed to meet user needs caused by the direct
and peripheral effects of Web 2.0”. Wallis (2007) defines Library 2.0 as the combination of
Web 2.0 and libraries, together with the libraries’ traditions of serving users. Lankes,
Silverstein & Nicholson (2007) defines the concept as an attempt to apply Web 2.0
technologies to the purpose of the library, together with goals for greater community
involvement. They suggest, however, that the term Library 2.0 is limited and would rather see
the term participatory networking being used instead. Stephens (2007), on the other hand,
claims that Library 2.0 is much more than a set of Web 2.0 tools, according to him it is about
applying open participation to library services. His viewpoint is similar to the broad
definition advocated by Casey & Savastinuk (2006, 2007).
One of the more precise definitions comes from Maness (2006): “The application of
interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library
services and collections”. Wide definitions of the concept come from Curran et al (2007),
who summarize Library 2.0 as user-driven and efficient and from Black (2007, 12), who
concludes that Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 “are simply attempts to describe the changes the web
has brought to society”. Shoniwa & Hall (2008) have researched the academic UK librarians’
views on Library 2.0. Their results showed that Library 2.0 is the selective application of
Web 2.0 tools with focus on user service. Among these academic librarians, the perspective
of Library 2.0 as a part of physical services has not been established.
These definitions focus on different parts of Library 2.0. Some chose to focus on Web 2.0
technologies, while others emphasize library services or user participation. A more complete
definition is therefore needed that captures the different components and the essence of
Library 2.0.

Methods

Before a workshop on Library 2.0, organized by researchers at the department of Information

Studies at Åbo Akademi, 29 participants answered freely to an open ended question: What is
Library 2.0? The respondents were given five minutes to answer the question and they were
not allowed to discuss their answers with each other. The content of the workshop did not
affect the answers as they were collected before the workshop started. The participants were
library professionals from Finland with some interest in Library 2.0 because they participated
in the workshop. Seven of the 29 respondents worked at a university library, eight at a library
of a university of applied sciences, 12 worked at a public library, one of the respondents
worked at the National Library of Finland and one worked at the Library of Parliament.
Eleven of the 29 respondents were male. The group was very mixed when it comes to age and
working experience. Some were just in the beginning of their careers while others had
worked in libraries for several years. The answers comprised mainly of short sentences or
bullet points and reflected what Library 2.0 meant to the participants. To prevent the ‘indexer
problem’ (discussed later), four researchers indexed all answers separately. The results of this
indexing were discussed and only those index terms or terms with the same intention that at
least three researchers had used for the same answer were used in the co-word analysis. A
total of 37 index terms were used by at least three researchers and these are the terms used in
the analysis.

4
The BibExcel software (Persson, 2008) was used in the analysis and it was decided that
multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to visualize the data, following the methodology
of earlier informetric studies (i.e. McCain, 1991; McCain, 1998; Ding et al., 2000; Tsay et al.,
2003). Visualising the data with MDS places the used terms in a two-dimensional network
where the relationships between the terms can be read and qualitatively interpreted.
Co-word analysis

Since Derek J. de Solla Price (1963) established the research field of scientometrics by
suggesting that science should be studied with science, there have been many efforts to map
science (Garfield, 1979; Small and Garfield, 1985; Leydesdorff, 1987; Cahlik, 2000; Boyack
et al., 2005). Both co-word analysis and co-citation analysis have been used to create maps of
science, both from slightly different perspectives. Co-citation analysis has focused on
identifying networks and clusters of authors or references, while co-word analysis was
developed to give a more thematic view on science through the content of publications.
Co-word analysis is a content analysis technique that uses both the frequency of objects and
their relationship or existing connections between them (Courtial, 1994; He, 1999). The
connections are extracted from the co-occurrences of pairs of words in e.g. selected texts or
databases indexes and the frequencies of the co-occurrences are used to measure the strength
of these connections. Based on these connections the objects or words are then clustered and
drawn in network maps for more qualitative analysis. Network maps are often used to
visualize large amounts of data and with that, help with the interpretation of the data.
Co-word analysis involves three steps: 1) the extraction of the key words from selected
material, 2) the creation of the co-occurrence matrix and drawing the network maps and 3)
interpreting the network maps and the data they represent (Courtial, 1994; He, 1999). The
first step may be crucial for the outcome, as the indexer may influence the data a lot. When
the indexing is done by the researcher it may be difficult to choose a proper level of
generalization that would still have the fine-grained variations in the key terms. Using several
indexers can resolve this problem, but it is not always possible to use several indexers in
practice. The second step includes creation of the raw co-word matrix and conversion of the
raw data to a correlation matrix. The creation of the matrices and the visualisation of the data
in to network maps are typically done with computer software, like BibExcel (Persson, 2008)
which is especially designed for this purpose. The maps are often drawn with
multidimensional scaling, which is a statistical technique to visualise large data sets in order
to analyse similarities or dissimilarities in the data or even between data sets. Another
possibility is to use some algorithm to calculate the exact positions of the nodes or words in
the map. A frequently used algorithm for visualisation of large data sets is the Kamada-
Kawai (1989) algorithm that treats the links or the connections between the objects as springs
that pull the nodes or words closer to each other as the springs are trying to find a balance in
the system. The last and perhaps most important step is to analyse and interpret the network
maps. Some measurements familiar from social network analysis are sometimes used to aid
in the interpretation. With especially very large network maps measurements like density and
centrality help in interpreting them (He, 1999).

Results

The density of the network map based on the co-word analysis is about 10 percent, which
means that about 10 percent of all possible ties or connections are present in the map. Figure

5
1 shows the network map of the index terms. The index terms are represented as nodes in the
map. The links or ties between the nodes indicate that the terms have a connection; they have
been used to index the same answer and that there therefore exists a connection between
them. Disconnected nodes did not have a strong enough connection with any other terms for
the connection to be visualised in the map. The node or term with the most connections is
interactivity, indicating that it has been used together with many other terms. In a co-word
map like this all connections are reciprocal and the direction of the connections doesn’t
matter. If term A has been used together with term B, then term B has also been used with
term A. Other well connected nodes are participation, users, collaboration, services and
information.

Figure 1. Network map of Library 2.0, based on the co-word analysis

The strength of the connection indicates how often the connected terms have been used
together and is visualised to correspond with the thickness of the lines in the network map.
The index terms interactivity and users have been used together for six times and therefore
have the strongest connection. The next strongest connection, five times, is between the index
terms users and participation. Quite strong connections are visible between interactivity and
participation (four times), interactivity and personalisation (three times) and between
interactivity and user-created (three times). The term interactivity is well connected to
several of the most connected terms, strengthening its position and role in the network map.
Interactivity is also the most frequently used single term. In figure 2 below the size of the
nodes correlate with how often each term has been used in the indexed answers. Interactivity
was indexed as being used in 15 of the 29 answers. The term users was the second most
frequent term, with a frequency of 11 appearances. Participation was used when indexing 8

6
answers. Both web 2 and services were used 6 times each. The other terms were used only
four times or less. Of the 37 index terms, 19 were used only once.

Figure 2. Network map of Library 2.0 with the node size corresponding to term frequency
Interactivity, users and participation were the most often used single terms. The terms
interactivity and users had the strongest connection between them, followed by the
connection between the terms interactivity and participation and the terms interactivity and
personalisation. The terms interactivity, participation and users are also the most connected
terms to other terms in the map. The terms interactivity, users and participation are clearly
the most important terms by any measure. These are clearly the core of Library 2.0 according
to the respondents.
To be able to determine other important components of Library 2.0, the graph was studied
qualitatively and discussed by the four researchers. The graph was studied for clustering of
adjacent and related terms (Figure 3). In the upper left part of the graph there is some
clustering between the terms personalisation, services, collaboration, communication,
content and librarians. These were considered to be components or building blocks of the
libraries and library services, and hence the cluster was called libraries and library services.
In the centre of the graph, behind and around the core terms of interactivity, users and
participation, terms such as web 2, web, internet and online are visible. This overlapping
cluster was called web and web 2.0. In the lower part of the map are terms that were
considered to represent social aspects of social media and Library 2.0. Terms like sharing,
networking, networks, wisdom of crowds, freedom and openness were considered to represent
more “softer values” instead of the “hard technology”. Although some of the terms are not
directly connected to each other in the graph, they are connected through a link to either

7
participation or interactivity and they also represent very similar aspects. The same goes for
the nodes or terms in the lower right corner of the graph. The term user-created is not directly
connected to the other more technological terms in that area, but a connection exists through
the term interactivity. The terms in this part of the graph were considered to represent
technology and tools. The clusters drawn in figure 3 are overlapping in several places. Many
of the terms could be placed in two or more clusters. The term social software for instance is
in both social aspects and technology, as it clearly is a part of them both.

Figure 3. Qualitative study of the graph and clustering of related terms

By interpreting the network map and clustering terms into somewhat more general,
describing terms or concepts, the seven core components of Library 2.0 were extracted:
interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social
aspects, and technology and tools. These seven building blocks of Library 2.0 are visualised
as circles in our model of Library 2.0 in figure 4.

8
 Figure 4. The building blocks of Library 2.0
Because several terms that could be included in one of the building blocks could also be part
of another, this flexibility was visualised in our model by drawing the blocks to overlap with
each other. For instance, the block users is closely connected with the block participation,
and the block web is closely connected to the block technology, and so on. The term and
block interactivity was considered as the most important component of Library 2.0 by the
respondents and hence it is drawn in the centre of the model with a clear connection to all the
other blocks.

Discussion

In this research co-word analysis was used to study the phenomenon of Library 2.0 and to
map the underlying elements of the concept. This study resulted in a model of Library 2.0,
containing seven building blocks of the phenomenon. The seven building blocks of Library

9
2.0 are interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0,
social aspects, and technology and tools. From these building blocks we can empirically
define Library 2.0:
Library 2.0 is a change in interaction between users and libraries in a new
culture of participation catalysed by social web technologies
As we have shown with various measures, interactivity is the most important part of Library
2.0 and it was interactivity that most of the respondents thought about when they were asked
what Library 2.0 is. Interactivity can be interaction between the librarians and the customers
or library users, but also between library staff or between users of the library services. This
interaction enables participation where the users can contribute to the content of libraries and
library services using new ways and new web-based tools or so called Web 2.0 tools. Web
2.0 is sometimes referred to as the social web (O’Reilly, 2005), as the term better describes
what this “new web” is all about. Developments in technology have made the creation of
more user-friendly web services and web-based tools possible. Users do not have to be aware
of the technology anymore, instead they can concentrate on the content and on contributing
by creating new content and editing old content. Web 2.0 is about social aspects on the web
and web-based tools enabling social contacts between users on the web. These tools and this
way of thinking are essential even in Library 2.0.
Earlier definitions and descriptions of Library 2.0 have focused on a number of issues, which
become emphasized also in the present model. Emphases of the existing definitions can be
broadly classified to library, technology, and user centric ones. In contrast, the proposed
model places emphasis on that what essentially resides between these dimensions.
Library centric definitions comprise Brevik (2006), Habib (2006) and Maness (2006). Casey
and Savastinuk (2007) represent a user centric approach to Library 2.0, although they
underline the significance of technology in the process of developing library services. Of the
Web 2.0 definitions of Library 2.0, Stephens (2007) represents a similar user perspective,
which brings Library 2.0 out of the Web to the social and physical world. The most user
centric approach is represented by Curran (2007), who equals Library 2.0 as a user-driven
effort. Crawford (2006) represents in his review of Library 2.0 definitions an essentially
technological point of view although he places emphasis on its use in library contexts. Wallis
(2007) sees Library 2.0 equally technologically as a combination of libraries and technology.
By a specific emphasis on participation as the bridge between users and “books’n stuff”,
Fichter (2006) comes perhaps closest to the present model alongside with Black (2007),
whose definition remains, however, rather unspecific.
The principal strength of the present model is that it represents an understanding of the
Library 2.0 phenomenon and facets deemed to be significant by library professionals working
in both academic libraries and public libraries. Besides the method of formulating the model,
the focus on interaction instead of physical elements of library context has also theoretical
and practical advantages. The multitude of definitions and attempts to define a vague
phenomenon clearly shows that Library 2.0 cannot be a question of libraries, library services,
users, technology or society alone. Even though Web 2.0 is crucial to many Library 2.0 ideas
and ideals, there is a clear tendency not to accept that Library 2.0 would be a solely web
based phenomenon (e.g. Casey and Savastinuk, 2007). The difficulties of establishing a
significant physical elements of Library 2.0 shows that its focal aspect is not the tangible in
technologies, libraries (both as spaces and organizations), librarians’ competence or user-
centrism, but rather in the aspects the tangibles can afford in activity.

10
We have empirically built a model of Library 2.0 which consists of seven building blocks:
interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social
aspects, and technology and tools. None of these can be left away from a Library 2.0
compliant service and all of these should also be incorporated in a definition of Library 2.0,
but different organizations may want to emphasize on different things. For organizations that
wish to emphasize the change in interaction Library 2.0 is about a change in interaction
between users and libraries in a culture of new social participation. For organizations that
wish to emphasize the users and their role Library 2.0 is about users interacting and
participating using social tools in library context. No matter which aspects we may want to
emphasize, it is clear that Library 2.0 is about a change in interaction that has been made
possible by technological developments in user-friendly social aspects in web-based services.

Conclusions

Even though using the concept “Library 2.0” has become rife in professional and academic
library discussion, it lacks a clear definition. It has been an aggregate of ideas, ideologies,
technologies, attitudes and services. Earlier attempts to describe the phenomenon have had
both notable similarities and dissimilarities of emphasis, but there has been no clear
consensus on the central elements of the notion.
Unlike the earlier proposals based on individual views and advocacies, the present study
presents an empirical and consensual crowdsourcing approach of defining the concept.
Responses (n=29) to question “What is Library 2.0?” by Finnish working librarians from
both academic and public libraries were indexed by four researchers and the keywords were
analysed using co-word analysis. The analysis of the occurrence and co-occurrence of
keywords revealed seven focal components of Library 2.0 in a qualitative analysis of the co-
word maps: interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0,
social aspects, and technology and tools. The interactivity component appeared to be the most
central one, which connected most with the rest of the notions, which is reflected in the
model constructed by the authors (Figure 5). It is suggested that none of the components may
be left aside when considering whether a phenomenon belongs to Library 2.0 or not.
The primary implication of the model is that it represents a consensual and empirical
approach to define the notion Library 2.0. A comprehensive model enables both researchers
and practitioners to frame the phenomenon more clearly, evaluate existing and planned
services and their proximity to what is Library 2.0. Further, the model provides a basis for
discussing the future evolution of the notion and its implications to library and information
science research and library practises.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions and to the
Academy of Finland for the financial support to the research project Library 2.0 - a new
participatory context at the Department of Information Studies, Åbo Akademi.

References

11
Allen, M. (2008), “Web 2.0: An argument against convergence”, First Monday, Vol. 13 No. 3,
available at http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2139/1946
(accessed 26 May 2008).
Anderson, P. (2007a), “All that glisters is not gold - Web 2.0 and the librarian”, Journal of
Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 195-198.
Anderson, P. (2007b), “What is web 2.0? ideas, technologies and implications for education”, JISC
Technology and Standards Watch, February 2007, available at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf (accessed 26 May 2008).
Bearman, D. (2007), “Digital libraries”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol.
41, pp. 223-272.
Benson, A. and Favini, R. (2006), “Evolving the Web, evolving librarian”, Library Hi Tech News,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 18-21.
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. Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user, Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited.
Brevik, T. (2006), “Library 2.0 = My library?”, available at
http://lib1point5.wordpress.com/2006/04/12/library-20-mylibrary/ (accessed 21 April 2008).
Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R. and Börner, K. (2005), ”Mapping the backbone of science”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 351-374.

Cahlik, T. (2000), “Comparison of the maps of science”, Scientometrics, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 373-387.

Casey, M. E. and Savastinuk, L. C. (2006), “Library 2.0”, Library Journal (September 1), available at
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html (accessed 26 May 2008).
Casey, M. E. and Savastinuk, L. C. (2007), Library 2.0. A guide to participatory library service,
Medford (NJ): Information Today, Inc.
Chad, K., and Miller, P. (2005), “Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0”, White Paper, Talis,
Birmingham, November 2005, available at
http://www.talis.com/applications/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf (accessed
26 May 2008).
Cohen, S., Fereira, J., Horne, A., Kibbee, B., Mistlebauer, H. and Smith, A. (2000), “MyLibrary:
personalized electronic services in the Cornell University Library”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 6 No.
4, available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april00/mistlebauer/04mistlebauer.html (accessed 26
May 2008).
Connor, E. (2007), “Medical librarian 2.0”, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1.
Coombs, K. A. (2007), “Building a library Web site on the pillars of Web 2.0”, Computers in
Libraries, Vol. 27 No. 1.
Courtial, J.P. (1994), “A coword analysis of scientometrics”, Scientometrics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 251-
260.

Crawford, W. (2006), “Library 2.0 and ‘library 2.0’”, Cites & Insights, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-32.
Curran, K., Murray, M., Norrby, D. S. and Christian, M. (2006), “Involving the user Through Library
2.0”, New Review of Information Networking, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47 – 59.
Derek J. de Solla Price (1963), Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G.G. and Foo, S. (2000), “Journal as markers of intellectual space: journal
cocitation analysis of information retrieval area, 1987-1997”. Scientometrics, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp.
55-73.

12
Farkas, M. G. (2007), Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and
community online. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Fichter, D. (2006), “Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and Radical Trust: A First Take”, available at
http://library2.usask.ca/~fichter/blog_on_the_side/2006/04/web-2.html (accessed 21 April
2008).
Fox, E. A. and Urs, S. R. (2002), ”Digital libraries”, Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 36, pp. 503-589.
Frias-Martinez, E., Chen, S. Y. and Liu, X. (2007), ”Automatic cognitive style identification of digital
library users for personalization”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 237-251.
Garfield, E. (1979), “Mapping the structure of science”, in Garfield, E., Citation Indexing: Its Theory
and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY, pp. 98-
147.

Gibbons, S. (2003), “Building upon the MyLibrary concept to better meet the information needs of
college students”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 3.
Griffin, S. M. (1998), “NSF/DARPA/NASA Digital libraries initiative: a program manager's
perspective”, D-Lib Magazine, July/August, available at
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/07griffin.html (accessed 26 May 2008).
Habib, M. C. (2006), Toward Academic Library 2.0: Development and Application of a Library 2.0
Methodology, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, available at http://etd.ils.unc.edu/dspace/handle/1901/356 (accessed 26 May 2008).
He, Q. (1999), “Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis”, Library Trends, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp.
133-159.

Hinchcliffe, D. (2006), “The state of web 2.0”, Social Computing Magazine Weblog, available at
http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm (accessed 26 May 2008).
Hintikka, K. A. (2007), Web 2.0 - johdatus internetin uusiin liiketoimintamahdollisuuksiin, Tieke,
Helsinki, available at http://www.tieke.fi/mp/db/file_library/x/IMG/20815/file/julkaisu_28.pdf
(accessed 26 May 2008).
Kamada, T. and Kawai, S. (1989), “An Algorithm for Drawing General undirected Graphs”,
Information Processing Letters, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 7-15.

Karlsen, S. I. (2006), “The public library: a new version”, Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly,
Vol. 3, pp. 4-7.
Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J. and Nicholson, S. (2007), “Participatory networks: The library as
conversation”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 17-33.
Leydesdorff, L. (1987), “Various methods for the mapping of science”, Scientometrics, Vol. 11, pp.
291-320.

Madden, M., and Fox, S. (2006), “Riding the waves of ¨web 2.0¨ more than a buzzword, but still not
easily defined”, Pew Internet Project, available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf (accessed 26 May 2008).
Maness, J. M. (2006), “Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries”, Webology, Vol.
3 No. 2, available at http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html (accessed 26 May 2008).
McCain, K.W. (1991), “Mapping economics through the journal literature: an experiment in journal
cocitation analysis”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 290-296.

13
McCain, K.W. (1998), “Neural networks research in context: a longitudinal journal cocitation analysis
of an emerging interdisciplinary field”, Scientometrics, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 389-410.

Miller, P. (2005), “Web 2.0: Building the new library”, Ariadne, Vol. 45, available at
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/ (accessed 26 May 2008).
Miller, P. (2006), “Coming together around Library 2.0: a focus for discussion and a call to arms”, D-
Lib Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/miller/04miller.html
(accessed 26 May 2008).
O´Reilly, T. (2005), “What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software”, available at http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html (accessed 26 May 2008).
O´Reilly, T. (2006a), “Levels of the game: The hierarchy of web 2.0 applications”, available at
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels-of-the-gamethe-hierarc.html (accessed 26 May
2008).
O´Reilly, T. (2006b), “Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again”, available at
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact-definition-tryi.html (accessed 26
May 2008).
O´Reilly, T. (2008), “Nice take on web 2.0 expo from information week”, available at
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/04/web-20-expo-preview.html (accessed 26 May 2008).
Persson, O. (2006), “BibExcel - a bibliometric toolbox”, available at
http://www.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/ (accessed 8 May 2008).

Shoniwa, P. and Hall, H. (2008), “Library 2.0 and UK academic libraries: drivers and impacts”, New
Review of Information Networking, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 69-79.
Small, H. and Garfield, E. (1985), “The geography of science: disciplinary and national mappings”,
Journal of Information Science, Vol. 11, pp. 147-159.

Stephens, M. (2006), “Web 2.0 for libraries: Best practices for social software”, Library Technology
Reports, Vol. 42 No. 4.
Stephens, M. (2007), “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the Hyperlinked Library”, Serials Review, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 253-256.
Tsay, M.-Y., Xu, H. and Wu, C.-W. (2003), “Journal co-citation analysis of semiconductor literature”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 7-25.

Wallis, R. (2007), “Web 2.0 to Library 2.0 – From debate to reality”, New Review of Information
Networking, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53 – 64.

14