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

This is interesting!
ReplyDeleteI'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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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