Monday, 21 March 2016

The Library Re-Imagined: The Harvard Labrary Experiment

A couple of months ago I was working on a project at work and I came across the Harvard pop-up Labrary. This temporary space was occupied for only a short period of time, from October to December 2012, and was intended as a creative space for design students to create and showcase their work on the future of libraries (Jennifer Koerber, 2012). This project was marketed as an experiment (below you can see one of the logos), and its purpose was described by one student as  “Help[ing] visitors see the Labrary space itself as a designed environment [in order] to encourage a culture of experimentation, openness, and risk” (Koerber, 2012). The “library as lab” theme itself remains popular, recalling the 2016 OLA Super Conference 2016 theme of “Library Lab: The Idea Incubator,” as a recent example.

As Davidson and Layder suggest, one of the reasons laboratory experiments are so highly valued is because the researcher remains in control of his or her environment; they are the designer, manufacturer, and critic (Davidson & Layder, 1994, p. 154). In the case of the Harvard Labrary, students were the designers and the innovators of future libraries, and the experiment was to determine the impact of this pop-up space for both students and the public. No strict methods were used in conducting this experiment, or rather, quasi-experiment, but I think even the choice of the language is significant. One could argue that this experiment was partially to test creative processes and methods in a designed environment while simultaneously observing the verbal and non-verbal communication and interactions taking place within this space (Davidson & Layder, 1994, p. 156).

Using this example, which I soon discovered was actually quite challenging given the very quasi nature of the experiment; I would describe its variables as follows:

Independent variable—How students use the space and what and how they create within it. This remained constant in the sense that this activity was continuous and the crux of the experiment, but each project was unique.
Dependent variable—Visitorship and traffic. This is dependent on the work being created in the space because, without it, the space would not be needed and therefore it would not function in the same way. The experiment might be measured through community engagement and presence.
Controlled variable—Physical space and hours/accessibility. The space itself was to remain constant throughout the experiment with only the designs inside changing. Hours and public access would also remain constant.


These might be a bit of a stretch given the nature of this experiment, but again, I find it interesting how libraries are becoming labraries and how projects are increasingly being packaged as experiments in design and creativity. In the case of the Harvard Labary, this was very much an educational, experimental, undertaking reflective of a period of transformation within the Harvard Library system. Knight argues that one of the main differences between experiments and quasi-experiments is the level of success the researcher has, and while there is no quantitative data indicating the success of the Harvard Labrary, attendance and participation were considered markers of a favourable outcome and worthwhile venture. The Labrary Experiment has not been initiated since 2012, but it represents one of many experiments designed to engage people in thinking about the future of the library and what it means to be a knowledge/information institution.


References:

Davidson, J. O., & Layder, D. (1994). Methods, sex, and madness. London: Routledge.

Koerber, J. (2012). The Harvard Labrary: A Design Experiment in Library Futures. Library Journal. Retrieved 20 March 2016, from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/12/future-of-libraries/the-harvard-labrary-a-design experiment-in-library-futures/#_

Libraries Re-Imagined: Harvard Opens a Pop-Up Labrary in Cambridge. Retrieved 20 March 2016, from http://library.harvard.edu/libraries-re-imagined-harvard-opens-pop-labrary-cambridge

3 comments:

  1. This is interesting!
    I'm wondering how this experiment might translate to a digital or virtual space, such as the github side of the Mozilla Science Lab, which is also a space meant to encourage open (in the sense of open source and open data) and innovative thinking.
    Repetition is a big part of the experiment as method, and it would be interesting to stretch the framework of the Harvard Labrary experiment here to observe other shared spaces aimed at innovation. It might provide some formal insight on the way open spaces are used and how they impact work and creation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a really great point. I'm actually kind of surprised that the Harvard Labrary Experiment wasn't repeated and modified after this initial project since it did seem to be successful. I personally love idea of innovative spaces designed for collaboration and creativity, so it would certainly be interesting to see how this could be replicated or translated, as you say, into a digital or virtual environment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your point about the choice of language. The words 'lab' and 'experiment' have strong connotations. I'm thinking of this in the context of modernizing the image of the library, as you mentioned. The rise of the library as an 'information commons' and collaborative learning space is definitely not insignificant!

    ReplyDelete