Tom Kwanya

Library 2.0 : revolution or evolution?

Library 2.0 is a controversial concept that stirs debate on many fronts. As the concept continues to arrest the attention of most library users and practitioners, a number of issues relating to its real nature emerge. One of these is the character of change it represents. While many library scholars and practitioners agree that Library 2.0 represents a change, they disagree on the nature of this change. Using a critical review of documentation and arguments on this subject, the authors identify three points of view on this change. Whereas some feel that the change is revolutionary and may drastically transform the profession - including renaming - others see it as an evolution of the current best practices to mould a better, user-centred service using modern technology. Still others see Library 2.0 as neither revolutionary nor evolutionary. This paper seeks to clarify these three points of view on the character of Library 2.0 change in libraries, as institutions, and in librarianship as a profession. It also recommends that while Library 2.0 should be seen as the latest instance in the development of the library and the services it offers, its role in facilitating participatory user-centric services should not be ignored.

Library 2.0 versus other library service models: A critical analysis

Literature on library service models is scarce and exists mainly in non-traditional formats such as blog entries and webpages. Nonetheless, the subject evokes heated debate among librarians with many supporting the model they are using, sometimes without understanding that there are other options which perhaps could be better for their circumstances. Through critical documentary analysis, this study explores the library service models that exist as well as how they compare with each other. The findings have revealed that although there are many library service models, it is not possible to get a clear-cut model which is exclusive of all the others in practice. It is also evident that the models are continuously evolving along general socio-economic and technological development patterns in society. Similarly, the study suggests that none of the models can suit all library service provision contexts. However, it is also apparent that some models may yield more benefits than others to specific library communities at a particular time. In deciding the model to apply, libraries should be careful to accommodate the prevailing characterization of their user communities and their contexts.

Intelligent Libraries and Apomediators: Distinguishing between Library 3.0 and Library 2.0.

Using the ‘point oh’ naming system for developments in librarianship is attracting debate about its appropriateness, basis and syntax and the meaning and potential of Library 2.0. Now a new term, Library 3.0, has emerged. Is there is any significant difference between the two models? Using documentary analysis to explore the terms, the authors conclude that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are different. Whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries guiding library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst those who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. It provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. The authors see the 3.0 library as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.

Library 3.0

Library 3.0 is gaining popularity among research and academic library users faster than had been anticipated. In fact, it is currently deemed one of the most exciting advances in research and academic library development. The increasing popularity of Library 3.0 is attributed partly to its potential to provide an environment conducive to exploration, innovation, inspiration and personalisation. It emphasises context and not just the content of information service provision. Thus, it is anchored in a number of human factors, such as community, relationships, connection, conversation, personalisation, comfort, simplicity, play, progress and passion, which define progressiveness. Significantly, Library 3.0 is not about quick fixes but is a model which enables libraries to grow beyond being book-based and extend the information experience to wherever, however and whenever the users want it.

Mainstreaming Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Response: Traditional ‘Rainmaking’ in Kenya

A number of Kenyan communities practise traditional rainmaking rituals. Although rainmaking processes, materials and participants vary, most communities believe that the tradition enables them to predict, cause, redirect or dispel rainfall. Although some modern scientists have dismissed the practice as irrelevant, irrational and ineffective, others advocate its integration to conventional meteorological approaches. Given the gravity of the impact of climate change in Kenya, most stakeholders concur that mainstreaming rainmaking traditions in the national climate change action plan would result in a better response to the phenomenon.Data for this study was collected through key informant interviews, documentary analysis and participation in stakeholder forum discussions. The author proposes that traditional rainmaking can be mainstreamed in the national climate change response through validation of the tradition through scientific research; integration of traditional rainmaking in modern meteorological processes; integration of traditional rainmaking in meteorological training curricula; commercialisation of the practice; patenting of rainmaking materials and processes; documentation and preservation of traditional rainmaking; and popularisation of the tradition. The author concludes that mainstreaming rainmaking in the climate change action plan has the potential to facilitate a better interpretation of weather patterns leading to equally better coping mechanisms; conservation of natural ecosystems; regulation of exploitation of the natural resources; better understanding of scientific weather forecasts through local contextualisation; and increased community participation in the management of the consequences of climate change. These findings can be used by climate change researchers, ethnographic researchers, governments as well as institutions or individuals managing climate change in Kenya and beyond.

Knowledge Ambassadors: Enhancing Tacit Knowledge Transfer in Kenyan Universities

Universities in Kenya have invested in library services and resources to support their teaching and learning activities. However, these resources are not used adequately leading some universities to develop partnership programmes with students, known as knowledge ambassadors, to educate their peers about library resources and services available in their institutions. This study sought to describe the concept of knowledge ambassadors from a knowledge management perspective; investigate where and how it has been deployed in universities in Kenya; analyse how effective knowledge ambassador programmes in Kenyan universities have been; identify the challenges affecting its effective use for tacit knowledge creation and sharing; and propose strategies which can be used by academic institutions in Kenya to enhance the effectiveness of their knowledge ambassador programmes.

Indigenous Knowledge and Socioeconomic Development: Indigenous Tourism in Kenya

Indigenous knowledge plays a pivotal socioeconomic development role in indigenous communities. In Kenya, one of the economic sectors where indigenous knowledge can be applied is tourism which is among the country’s major income earners besides tea and horticulture. This study investigated the potential and the actual use of indigenous knowledge in leveraging the other efforts being made to develop and cushion tourism in Kenya.

Apomediated marketplace: effective ba for knowledge sharing and learning among local civil society organizations in developing countries

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play an important role in the socioeconomic development programmes in the developing countries. For instance, donors prefer to channel development funds through CSOs rather than directly to governments. However, the lack of adequate capacity to work with governments, donors and other stakeholders has hampered the ability of local CSOs to deliver effective services. Different approaches, including mentorship and formal training, have been used to try to strengthen the capacity of CSOs, but with little apparent impact. Knowledge needs a facilitative context to be created and shared effectively. The ba concept, originally proposed by Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida in 1921, is a shared context in which knowledge is created, shared and utilized. It encompasses physical, virtual and mental spaces where participants interact. The key focus of any ba is not the individuals in it but their interactions, which lead to information creation, sharing and learning. The apomediated marketplace, as a knowledge ba, is a combination of face-to-face events and a digital interface through which CSOs, as buyers, and capacity-building consultants, as vendors, meet directly to develop partnerships, share knowledge and transact business. As opposed to intermediation, which involves ‘standing between’ the parties, or disintermediation, implying ‘standing aloof’, standing by the participants through apomediation increases the level of social interactions, which in turn enhances the quality of knowledge sharing in the ba. This paper unravels and describes the concept of knowledge marketplace and reports instances of its implementation in developing countries. It also analyzes the mediation techniques applied in existing knowledge marketplaces and their effectiveness in creating a ba suitable for sharing and learning. The study was conducted through exploratory survey. Data was collected through literature searching and analysis. The findings indicate that apomediation facilitates the creation of a safer, more versatile and effective knowledge sharing ba than its alternatives.

Publishing and perishing? Publishing patterns of information science academics in Kenya

This study investigated the publishing patterns of information science academics in Kenya. Using a bibliometric approach, the author conducted an analysis of the quantity, quality and visibility of the publications indexed by Google Scholar. Data for the analysis was collected using Harzing’s “Publish or Perish” software from Google Scholar and presented using VOSviewer software. The findings of the study revealed low quantity, quality and visibility of research publications by information science academics in Kenya. Twenty (22.4%) serving academics are yet to publish any scholarly work. Similarly, 185 (42%) of the published papers have not been cited. This low publishing performance can be attributed to lack of scholarly communication skills; inadequate research funding and facilitation; limited access to scholarly communication channels; and heavy teaching workloads, among other factors. The quantity, quality and visibility of publications by information science academics in Kenya can be enhanced by training the lecturers on scholarly communication; accrediting journals and publishers; increasing research funding; strengthening research collaboration; increasing scholarly forums and platforms; and balancing lecturers’ teaching and research workloads.

Scholarly collaboration amongst researchers in Kenya: a social network analysis

In spite of the general understanding that collaboration and communication between researchers enhance research impact, information on the interactions of researchers in Kenya is unclear. This study investigated the social networks which currently exist amongst researchers in Kenya; their effectiveness; and how to maximise their potential for effective knowledge creation, sharing and learning. The researchers analysed the social networks using co-authorship as the indicator of collaboration among researchers in five leading international and national research institutions in Kenya. The analysis was based on entries in the online version of the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge using UCINET 6 for Windows Version 6.289. A search for the individual case organisations yielded a total of 1,386 documents. An analysis of the results revealed two loosely-knit networks with a density of 0.1026. This is a low social network density which indicates that most of the members are not connected with each other effectively. The low interconnectivity is corroborated by an aggregation analysis using UCINET which showed that the researcher with the highest number of ties has only four ties with the other researchers in the network while the majority had only one or two relationships. This shows that the researchers are not maximising the potential benefits of the interactions within the social network. The Kenyan government, research institutions, sponsors and other stakeholders should mainstream social networking in their research programmes by creating opportunities and means for interaction between researchers.