Microsoft Word - December_ITAL_zak_final.docx


Do	
  You	
  Believe	
  in	
  Magic?	
  	
  
Exploring	
  the	
  Conceptualization	
  of	
  
Augmented	
  Reality	
  and	
  its	
  Implications	
  
for	
  the	
  User	
  in	
  the	
  Field	
  of	
  Library	
  and	
  
Information	
  Science	
  

	
  
	
  

Elizabeth	
  Zak	
  
	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
  	
   	
   	
  
	
  

23	
  

ABSTRACT	
  

Augmented	
  reality	
  (AR)	
  technology	
  has	
  implications	
  for	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  library	
  and	
  
information	
  science	
  (LIS)	
  serves	
  users	
  and	
  organizes	
  information.	
  Through	
  content	
  analysis,	
  the	
  
author	
  examined	
  how	
  AR	
  is	
  conceptualized	
  within	
  a	
  sample	
  of	
  LIS	
  literature	
  from	
  the	
  Library,	
  
Information	
  Science	
  and	
  Technology	
  Abstracts	
  (LISTA)	
  database	
  and	
  Google	
  Blogs	
  postings.	
  The	
  
author	
  also	
  examined	
  whether	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory	
  (RCT)	
  and	
  the	
  digital-­‐age	
  principles	
  of	
  
interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access	
  are	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  discussion	
  of	
  this	
  technology.	
  The	
  analysis	
  of	
  
data	
  led	
  to	
  the	
  identification	
  of	
  14	
  categories	
  comprising	
  132	
  total	
  codes	
  across	
  sources	
  within	
  the	
  
data	
  set.	
  The	
  analysis	
  indicates	
  that	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR,	
  while	
  inconsistent,	
  suggests	
  
expectations	
  that	
  the	
  technology	
  will	
  enhance	
  the	
  user	
  experience.	
  This	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  future	
  
examinations	
  of	
  user	
  behavior,	
  response,	
  and	
  observation	
  of	
  technologies	
  like	
  AR.	
  

INTRODUCTION	
  

It	
  seems	
  an	
  understatement	
  to	
  say	
  digital	
  technology	
  is	
  changing	
  quickly.	
  Cell	
  phones	
  are	
  like	
  
small	
  computers	
  in	
  our	
  pockets;	
  we	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  far	
  greater	
  computing	
  resources	
  in	
  “the	
  cloud”	
  
than	
  we	
  did	
  just	
  five	
  years	
  ago,	
  and	
  computers	
  are	
  processing	
  at	
  speeds	
  once	
  only	
  a	
  fantasy.	
  This	
  
digital	
  revolution	
  includes	
  the	
  continued	
  development	
  of	
  augmented	
  reality	
  (AR)	
  applications.	
  At	
  
its	
  simplest,	
  AR	
  is	
  a	
  blending	
  of	
  the	
  physical	
  environment	
  with	
  digital	
  elements.	
  

As	
  with	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  latest	
  technologies,	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  interdisciplinary.	
  Professionals	
  
in	
  the	
  fields	
  of	
  computer	
  science,	
  psychology,	
  and	
  philosophy	
  seem	
  to	
  direct	
  the	
  discussion	
  on	
  the	
  
development	
  and	
  application	
  of	
  AR	
  technology,	
  as	
  evidenced	
  by	
  the	
  volume	
  of	
  literature	
  when	
  
searching	
  these	
  subject	
  databases	
  for	
  articles	
  pertaining	
  to	
  AR.	
  The	
  field	
  of	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  
science	
  (LIS)	
  seems	
  largely	
  absent	
  from	
  the	
  conversation.	
  

While	
  elements	
  of	
  AR,	
  such	
  as	
  global	
  positioning	
  systems	
  (GPS),	
  quick	
  response	
  (QR)	
  codes,	
  and	
  
virtual	
  reality	
  are	
  not	
  uncommon	
  in	
  LIS	
  literature,	
  rarely	
  are	
  these	
  topics	
  defined	
  as	
  AR.	
  
Information	
  theory,	
  information	
  behavior,	
  knowledge	
  management,	
  information	
  architecture,	
  and	
  
digital	
  literacy	
  (to	
  name	
  only	
  a	
  few)	
  are	
  key	
  areas	
  of	
  study	
  within	
  LIS,	
  which	
  can	
  be	
  central	
  in	
  	
  

	
  
Elizabeth	
  Zak	
  (ezak@dom.edu),	
  is	
  adjunct	
  instructor	
  at	
  Dominican	
  University,	
  River	
  Forest,	
  
Illinois.	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   24	
  

developing	
  and	
  exploring	
  AR.	
  

The	
  focus	
  on	
  and	
  the	
  definitions	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  within	
  LIS	
  provide	
  a	
  much	
  different	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  
human	
  aspect	
  of	
  engaging	
  with	
  digital	
  information	
  than	
  is	
  found	
  within	
  computer	
  science.	
  

Literature	
  on	
  human-­‐computer	
  interaction	
  focuses	
  more	
  on	
  the	
  user	
  as	
  a	
  piece	
  of	
  the	
  system,	
  with	
  
a	
  shift	
  only	
  recently	
  toward	
  acknowledging	
  this	
  misdirected	
  focus.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8	
  Libraries	
  and	
  
information	
  agencies	
  have	
  the	
  tools	
  and	
  skills—with	
  regard	
  to	
  user	
  interaction	
  with	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  
information—to	
  help	
  answer	
  questions	
  relating	
  to	
  how	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  a	
  technology	
  like	
  
AR	
  influences	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  technology.	
  

Augmented	
  Reality	
  (AR)	
  Defined	
  

What	
  is	
  AR,	
  really?	
  Ronald	
  Azuma,	
  a	
  pioneer	
  and	
  innovator	
  in	
  the	
  research	
  and	
  creation	
  of	
  AR	
  
applications,	
  describes	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  supplement	
  to	
  reality.9	
  It	
  combines	
  the	
  real	
  and	
  the	
  virtual,	
  aligning	
  
the	
  virtual	
  with	
  the	
  real	
  environment.10	
  AR	
  is	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  mixed	
  reality	
  continuum,	
  and	
  “the	
  
technology	
  depends	
  on	
  our	
  ability	
  to	
  make	
  coherent	
  space	
  from	
  sensory	
  information.”11	
  This	
  
coherent	
  space	
  is	
  dependent	
  on	
  several	
  variables,	
  one	
  of	
  which	
  is	
  AR’s	
  real-­‐time	
  interactivity.	
  AR	
  
applications	
  cannot	
  experience	
  any	
  delays	
  in	
  response	
  time;	
  if	
  the	
  real	
  and	
  virtual	
  are	
  misaligned,	
  
it	
  impedes	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  reality.	
  AR	
  needs	
  to	
  happen	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  speed	
  as	
  real	
  life—virtual	
  actions	
  
coinciding	
  with	
  human	
  actions,	
  and	
  variable	
  across	
  users.	
  

Some	
  also	
  view	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  media	
  experience,	
  adding	
  to	
  the	
  growing	
  list	
  of	
  digital	
  literacies.	
  
“While	
  the	
  pure	
  technology	
  provides	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  features	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  exploited,	
  the	
  features	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  
technology	
  will	
  develop	
  into	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  particular	
  forms	
  within	
  a	
  particular	
  historical	
  and	
  
cultural	
  setting.”12	
  This	
  includes	
  “remediating”	
  existing	
  media,	
  such	
  as	
  film	
  or	
  stage	
  productions,	
  
with	
  AR	
  components.	
  

As	
  a	
  result,	
  AR	
  is	
  contextual	
  and	
  reliant	
  on	
  each	
  personal	
  experience,	
  but	
  it	
  also	
  borrows	
  from	
  
earlier	
  forms	
  of	
  media	
  within	
  those	
  contexts	
  and	
  experiences.	
  For	
  this	
  reason,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  
examine	
  just	
  how	
  those	
  within	
  LIS	
  are	
  constructing	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  concept.	
  The	
  rapid	
  pace	
  at	
  which	
  AR	
  is	
  
evolving	
  and	
  gaining	
  in	
  popularity	
  suggests	
  those	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS	
  will	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  aware	
  of	
  
new	
  applications	
  for	
  the	
  technology	
  as	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  users	
  may	
  come	
  to	
  expect	
  access	
  to	
  and	
  
knowledge	
  of	
  this	
  technology.	
  

Much	
  of	
  the	
  literature	
  also	
  references	
  AR	
  as	
  being	
  an	
  enhancement.	
  But	
  what,	
  exactly,	
  is	
  AR	
  
enhancing?	
  The	
  answer	
  includes	
  our	
  senses	
  and	
  perceptions,13	
  software,14	
  our	
  emotions	
  and	
  
feelings,15	
  and	
  question-­‐answering	
  programs.16	
  Authors	
  use	
  the	
  term	
  enhancement	
  with	
  no	
  
explanation	
  of	
  how	
  it	
  is	
  defined	
  in	
  each	
  piece	
  of	
  literature.	
  Some	
  assume	
  more	
  is	
  always	
  better.	
  
Missing	
  is	
  the	
  voice	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  or	
  consumer,	
  whom	
  authors	
  refer	
  to	
  as	
  a	
  subject	
  or	
  wearer.	
  The	
  
irony	
  is	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  users	
  are	
  the	
  ones	
  creating,	
  building,	
  and	
  populating	
  these	
  AR	
  worlds.	
  I	
  
propose	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS	
  is	
  in	
  a	
  prime	
  position	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  missing	
  piece	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  and	
  
discourse	
  of	
  AR.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   25	
  

Many	
  of	
  the	
  technological	
  enhancements	
  authors	
  describe	
  in	
  the	
  AR	
  literature	
  connect	
  to	
  the	
  
development	
  of	
  knowledge,	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  main	
  goals	
  of	
  computing.17	
  There	
  are	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  settings	
  in	
  
which	
  some	
  expect	
  AR	
  to	
  create	
  new	
  routes	
  to	
  knowledge.	
  Within	
  a	
  library	
  setting,	
  AR	
  can	
  
improve	
  library	
  instruction,18	
  provide	
  information	
  retrieval	
  about	
  shelved	
  books	
  through	
  
recognition	
  applications,19	
  reconstruct	
  and	
  restore	
  artifacts,20	
  and	
  deliver	
  services	
  at	
  point	
  of	
  need	
  
through	
  QR	
  codes.21	
  Others	
  view	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  technological	
  breakthrough	
  with	
  extreme	
  potential	
  in	
  
medical	
  fields,	
  such	
  as	
  non-­‐invasive	
  surgical	
  visualization,	
  which	
  can	
  display	
  the	
  organs	
  through	
  
sensors	
  placed	
  on	
  the	
  body,	
  helping	
  medical	
  practitioners	
  and	
  students	
  to	
  understand	
  internal	
  
body	
  functions.22	
  

AR	
  is	
  also	
  said	
  to	
  perform	
  some	
  of	
  its	
  “enhancements”	
  in	
  the	
  classroom.23	
  Augmented	
  books	
  are	
  
growing	
  in	
  number	
  and	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  enhance	
  collaboration	
  and	
  interactivity	
  between	
  students.	
  
Some	
  allow	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  person	
  to	
  explore	
  the	
  same	
  content	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  or	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  
classroom	
  through	
  mobile	
  technology;	
  others	
  give	
  students	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  rotate,	
  tilt,	
  and	
  
manipulate	
  viewing	
  angles	
  of	
  various	
  objects.24	
  	
  	
  

AR	
  technology	
  within	
  art	
  education	
  is	
  said	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  positive	
  impact	
  on	
  student	
  motivation.25	
  In	
  a	
  
2010	
  study,	
  reference	
  librarians	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Manitoba	
  were	
  given	
  smartphones	
  and	
  asked	
  
to	
  create	
  innovative	
  projects.	
  What	
  they	
  came	
  up	
  with	
  resulted	
  in	
  a	
  public	
  art	
  project	
  using	
  social	
  
networks,	
  GPS	
  software,	
  and	
  AR	
  technology	
  that	
  allowed	
  users	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  art	
  pieces	
  
through	
  QR	
  codes.26	
  Again	
  and	
  again,	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  mobility	
  of	
  AR	
  applications	
  
are	
  highlighted	
  as	
  efficient	
  and	
  motivating	
  factors	
  in	
  education	
  and	
  learning.27,28,29,30	
  

Organizations	
  are	
  also	
  testing	
  AR	
  applications	
  for	
  general	
  public	
  use.	
  Museums	
  and	
  galleries	
  
contain	
  AR	
  virtual	
  displays	
  of	
  artifacts	
  and	
  historic	
  scenes,	
  personalizing	
  interactive	
  experiences	
  
and	
  providing	
  multiple	
  perspectives	
  of	
  events	
  and	
  artifacts.31	
  The	
  Natural	
  History	
  Museum	
  in	
  
London,	
  for	
  example,	
  created	
  the	
  Attenborough	
  Studio	
  in	
  2009	
  for	
  live	
  events	
  and	
  the	
  viewing	
  of	
  
AR	
  enhanced	
  films.32	
  AR	
  tours	
  are	
  also	
  offered	
  on	
  historic	
  places	
  and	
  spaces.	
  Augmented	
  reality	
  is	
  
already	
  in	
  use	
  as	
  a	
  tour	
  guide	
  application,33	
  to	
  supplement	
  paper	
  maps,34	
  and	
  even	
  to	
  reconstruct	
  
damaged	
  historic	
  sites.35	
  AR	
  is	
  essentially	
  a	
  mutable	
  form	
  of	
  displaying	
  what	
  are	
  typically	
  static	
  
objects	
  and	
  ideas.	
  

The	
  use	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  integrative.	
  It	
  can	
  saturate	
  real	
  landscapes,	
  places,	
  and	
  spaces	
  with	
  virtual	
  
characteristics;	
  it	
  can	
  add	
  to	
  or	
  hide	
  objects	
  in	
  the	
  environment.36	
  Manipulation	
  of	
  the	
  
environment	
  promotes	
  “immersive	
  experiences,”37	
  multifaceted	
  for	
  different	
  people	
  interacting	
  
with	
  AR.38	
  Virtual	
  experiences	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  enhance	
  the	
  real-­‐life	
  experiences	
  of	
  the	
  user.	
  Spaces	
  
can	
  become	
  layered,	
  or	
  scaffold,	
  not	
  only	
  through	
  depth	
  perception	
  or	
  AR	
  software,	
  but	
  also	
  
through	
  the	
  user’s	
  contextual	
  life	
  experiences.39	
  

With	
  growing	
  widespread	
  use,	
  it	
  is	
  imperative	
  for	
  those	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS	
  to	
  understand	
  this	
  
technology	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  is	
  used.	
  How	
  will	
  these	
  applications	
  be	
  archived?	
  Will	
  institutions	
  and	
  
organizations	
  collaborate	
  with	
  users	
  in	
  creating	
  these	
  applications?	
  Will	
  users	
  expect	
  librarians	
  
and	
  other	
  knowledge	
  workers	
  to	
  help	
  them	
  understand	
  and	
  use	
  the	
  technology?	
  Will	
  libraries	
  and	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   26	
  

other	
  institutions	
  use	
  the	
  technology,	
  and	
  if	
  so,	
  in	
  what	
  capacity?	
  These	
  are	
  just	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
questions	
  LIS	
  professionals	
  should	
  be	
  asking	
  to	
  ensure	
  they	
  are	
  meeting	
  user	
  needs	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  
technology	
  and	
  the	
  access	
  of	
  information	
  through	
  technology.	
  This	
  study	
  provides	
  a	
  base	
  for	
  
considering	
  these	
  questions,	
  and	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  AR,	
  by	
  situating	
  the	
  concept	
  and	
  expectations	
  of	
  AR	
  
within	
  the	
  field	
  and	
  aligning	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  with	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory.	
  

The	
  User	
  Within	
  AR	
  and	
  LIS	
  

The	
  use	
  of	
  AR	
  can	
  bring	
  with	
  it	
  an	
  altering	
  of	
  emotional	
  and	
  psychological	
  experiences.	
  Pederson	
  
argues	
  AR	
  applications	
  should	
  be	
  “human-­‐centric”.40	
  Because	
  human	
  beings	
  “instrumentalize”	
  
technology	
  such	
  as	
  AR,	
  the	
  technology	
  itself	
  should	
  accommodate	
  the	
  human	
  needs	
  for	
  AR	
  tools.41	
  
For	
  AR	
  applications	
  to	
  be	
  successful,	
  they	
  must	
  display	
  the	
  human	
  characteristics	
  encompassing	
  
reactions	
  to	
  one	
  another	
  and	
  the	
  environment.42	
  Applications	
  blurring	
  the	
  lines	
  between	
  the	
  real	
  
and	
  the	
  virtual,	
  and	
  engaging	
  the	
  person	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  play	
  on	
  perception,	
  are	
  capable	
  of	
  changing	
  
the	
  real-­‐life	
  perceptions	
  and	
  expectations	
  of	
  the	
  user.	
  AR	
  can	
  be	
  either	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  escapism	
  for	
  brief	
  
moments	
  or	
  an	
  escape	
  from	
  what	
  we	
  know	
  of	
  as	
  real-­‐life	
  for	
  good.43	
  

What	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  assumes	
  is	
  the	
  desire	
  for	
  AR	
  applications.	
  Lacking	
  is	
  surveys	
  of	
  user	
  
desire	
  for	
  AR,	
  or	
  examination	
  of	
  potential	
  negative	
  consequences.	
  A	
  user-­‐focus	
  is	
  central	
  to	
  LIS	
  
and	
  the	
  values	
  of	
  librarianship.	
  Within	
  all	
  these	
  potential	
  uses,	
  what	
  is	
  not	
  being	
  discussed	
  is	
  how	
  
creators	
  of	
  AR	
  applications	
  organize,	
  categorize	
  and	
  choose	
  the	
  information	
  contained	
  within	
  
these	
  applications.	
  Much	
  of	
  the	
  discussion	
  surrounding	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  AR	
  use	
  is	
  left	
  to	
  those	
  in	
  
fields	
  of	
  philosophy	
  and	
  psychology,	
  dealing	
  in	
  abstraction.	
  The	
  research	
  and	
  marketing	
  of	
  AR	
  
applications	
  promote	
  passive	
  acceptance	
  of	
  AR	
  technologies.44	
  There	
  comes	
  a	
  point	
  when	
  AR	
  
researchers	
  must	
  ask,	
  to	
  what	
  extent	
  are	
  potential	
  users	
  aware	
  of	
  and	
  desirous	
  of	
  AR	
  applications?	
  

The	
  notion	
  of	
  people	
  as	
  users	
  is	
  quite	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  contextualization	
  of	
  human	
  as	
  subject	
  in	
  this	
  
scientific	
  literature,	
  different	
  from	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  user	
  in	
  LIS.	
  In	
  computer-­‐science	
  literature,	
  users	
  
are	
  those	
  reacting	
  to	
  AR	
  and	
  providing	
  AR	
  researchers	
  with	
  content	
  for	
  AR	
  modification	
  as	
  
evaluators	
  of	
  the	
  technology.	
  Within	
  computer-­‐science	
  literature,	
  there	
  is	
  much	
  talk	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  
satisfaction	
  with	
  tested	
  AR	
  applications;45	
  there	
  also	
  much	
  talk	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  position	
  within	
  the	
  AR	
  
frame/environment.46	
  Similar	
  is	
  the	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  and	
  the	
  physical	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  AR	
  
application,	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  user	
  responds	
  to	
  the	
  AR	
  functions.47	
  User	
  and	
  subject	
  are	
  terms	
  used	
  
interchangeably	
  in	
  the	
  scientific	
  literature.	
  These	
  terms	
  are	
  largely	
  undefined,	
  indicating	
  little	
  
regard	
  for	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  human	
  outside	
  of	
  objectification	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  working	
  in	
  the	
  AR	
  environment.	
  

Within	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS,	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  takes	
  on	
  different	
  characteristics:	
  users	
  are	
  clearly	
  
patrons,	
  human	
  beings,	
  for	
  which	
  LIS	
  provides	
  a	
  service.	
  Kuhlthau	
  focuses	
  on	
  user-­‐centric	
  
treatment	
  of	
  information	
  services	
  with	
  her	
  Information	
  Search	
  Process	
  model.48	
  Chatman’s	
  
theories	
  of	
  Information	
  Poverty	
  and	
  Life	
  in	
  the	
  Round	
  both	
  center	
  on	
  the	
  information-­‐seeking	
  
behaviors	
  of	
  ordinary	
  people	
  with	
  everyday	
  needs.49	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   27	
  

Library	
  anxiety,	
  as	
  developed	
  by	
  Mellon,	
  pivots	
  on	
  the	
  emotions	
  and	
  psychological	
  responses	
  of	
  
information-­‐seekers,	
  or	
  users.50	
  There	
  are	
  many	
  more	
  theories	
  and	
  models	
  demonstrating	
  this	
  
user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  in	
  LIS.	
  Case	
  points	
  to	
  Dervin’s	
  1976	
  article	
  “Strategies	
  for	
  Dealing	
  with	
  Human	
  
Information	
  Needs:	
  Information	
  or	
  Communication?”	
  as	
  an	
  exemplar	
  of	
  the	
  shift	
  in	
  thinking	
  about	
  
the	
  role	
  and	
  needs	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  in	
  LIS.51	
  Dervin	
  pointed	
  to	
  assumptions	
  in	
  research	
  on	
  information-­‐
seeking,	
  such	
  as	
  more	
  information	
  as	
  better,	
  and	
  relevant	
  information	
  existing	
  for	
  every	
  need.	
  It	
  is	
  
important	
  to	
  note	
  whether	
  there	
  are	
  assumptions	
  now	
  being	
  made	
  in	
  LIS	
  literature	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  
user	
  interaction	
  with	
  AR	
  and	
  how	
  best	
  to	
  understand	
  user-­‐centered	
  design	
  of	
  AR	
  applications.	
  

Bowler	
  et	
  al.	
  define	
  user-­‐centered	
  design	
  as	
  “[reflecting]	
  the	
  user,	
  typically	
  from	
  a	
  cognitive,	
  
affective	
  or	
  behavioral	
  point	
  of	
  view,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  social,	
  organizational,	
  and	
  cultural	
  contexts	
  in	
  
which	
  users	
  function.”52	
  These	
  points	
  of	
  view—the	
  cognitive,	
  social,	
  behavioral,	
  and	
  the	
  like—all	
  
synchronize	
  within	
  AR	
  applications.	
  Bowler	
  et	
  al.	
  state,	
  “With	
  the	
  increased	
  use	
  of	
  digital,	
  
networked	
  information	
  tools	
  in	
  daily	
  practice	
  and	
  the	
  emergence	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  library	
  and	
  archive,	
  
it	
  is	
  impossible	
  to	
  separate	
  the	
  service	
  from	
  the	
  system.	
  In	
  this	
  context,	
  understanding	
  the	
  user	
  
becomes	
  more	
  critical	
  than	
  ever.”53	
  With	
  the	
  advent	
  of	
  AR	
  and	
  its	
  dependence	
  on	
  user	
  interaction,	
  
it	
  is	
  imperative	
  to	
  continue	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user.	
  

O’Brien	
  and	
  Toms	
  further	
  the	
  discussion	
  by	
  trying	
  to	
  define	
  user	
  engagement	
  with	
  technology.	
  The	
  
authors	
  define	
  engagement	
  as	
  a	
  process,	
  composed	
  of	
  three	
  states:	
  a	
  point	
  of	
  engagement,	
  a	
  period	
  
of	
  engagement	
  and	
  then	
  finally	
  disengagement.54	
  Attention	
  to	
  user	
  needs	
  and	
  behavior	
  as	
  an	
  
individualized	
  process	
  is	
  evident	
  across	
  LIS	
  literature.	
  Shu	
  suggests	
  user	
  engagement	
  in	
  website	
  
design	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  strengthening	
  user	
  relationships	
  with	
  organizations	
  through	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  Web	
  
2.0	
  [interactive	
  internet	
  applications].55	
  Idoughi,	
  Seffah,	
  and	
  Kolski	
  recommend	
  integrating	
  
“personae,”	
  or	
  perceived	
  personality	
  types	
  and	
  characteristics,	
  into	
  user-­‐design	
  to	
  address	
  
challenges	
  in	
  creating	
  software	
  offering	
  highly	
  personalized	
  services.56	
  Pang	
  and	
  Schauder	
  take	
  a	
  
community-­‐based	
  approach	
  to	
  systems	
  design,	
  particularly	
  in	
  libraries	
  and	
  museums	
  and	
  
encourage	
  system	
  designers	
  to	
  draw	
  on	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  relationships	
  and	
  interaction	
  within	
  different	
  
communities	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  gain	
  insight	
  into	
  more	
  user-­‐centric	
  design	
  methods.57	
  

A	
  user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  has	
  extended	
  itself	
  to	
  catalog	
  design58	
  and	
  information-­‐retrieval	
  systems	
  
design.59	
  It	
  has	
  been	
  applied	
  as	
  a	
  learning	
  approach	
  to	
  organizational	
  culture	
  within	
  libraries.60	
  
Scholarly	
  research	
  within	
  the	
  library	
  is	
  said	
  also	
  to	
  have	
  benefitted	
  because	
  a	
  user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  
informs	
  how	
  different	
  types	
  of	
  users	
  interact	
  with	
  information	
  within	
  the	
  library.61	
  Through	
  an	
  
analysis	
  of	
  user	
  language,	
  user-­‐centricity	
  is	
  also	
  applied	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  identify	
  strategies	
  for	
  
creating	
  language	
  tools	
  for	
  web	
  searching.62	
  Such	
  studies	
  are	
  representative	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  a	
  user-­‐
centric	
  paradigm	
  proliferates	
  within	
  LIS.	
  

These	
  models	
  and	
  studies	
  highlight	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  perspective	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  user	
  
engages	
  with	
  information	
  at	
  various	
  levels.	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory	
  (RCT),	
  developed	
  by	
  Eliza	
  
Dresang	
  in	
  1999,	
  goes	
  one	
  step	
  further	
  and	
  adds	
  another	
  element	
  to	
  the	
  user-­‐information	
  
interaction:	
  the	
  user’s	
  interaction	
  with	
  other	
  users	
  and	
  the	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  interactive	
  applications	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   28	
  

and	
  digital	
  technologies	
  in	
  which	
  information	
  is	
  becoming	
  embedded.	
  This	
  element	
  is	
  mirrored	
  in	
  
such	
  applications	
  as	
  Twitter	
  and	
  Foursquare,	
  which	
  allow	
  digital	
  overlays	
  of	
  information	
  to	
  see	
  if	
  
there	
  are	
  individuals	
  “near	
  you”	
  also	
  logged	
  on	
  to	
  these	
  networking	
  applications.	
  

The	
  highly	
  complex	
  AR	
  applications	
  call	
  for	
  a	
  highly	
  complex	
  view	
  of	
  human	
  interaction	
  with	
  those	
  
applications.	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory	
  helps	
  to	
  explicate	
  the	
  characteristics	
  of	
  human	
  expectations	
  
and	
  interactions	
  with	
  information	
  in	
  digital	
  formats.	
  Coupled	
  with	
  an	
  examination	
  of	
  AR	
  discourse	
  
within	
  LIS	
  literature,	
  RCT	
  helps	
  clarify	
  how	
  people,	
  or	
  users,	
  are	
  approaching	
  the	
  changing	
  
information	
  landscape.	
  

RESEARCH	
  APPROACH	
  

This	
  study	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  user-­‐centric	
  paradigm	
  prevalent	
  in	
  LIS,	
  seeking	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  
relationship	
  between	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  an	
  emerging	
  technology	
  and	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user.	
  
The	
  research	
  questions	
  guiding	
  this	
  study	
  are	
  the	
  following:	
  

• How	
  is	
  augmented	
  reality	
  (AR)	
  conceptualized	
  in	
  LIS?	
  
• What	
  is	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  AR	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  conceptualized	
  in	
  LIS?	
  	
  

The	
  aim	
  is	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  a	
  specifically	
  LIS	
  user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  can	
  apply	
  to	
  the	
  
conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  and	
  its	
  use	
  within	
  libraries	
  and	
  cultural	
  heritage	
  institutions.	
  

The	
  model	
  for	
  this	
  study	
  is	
  Clement	
  and	
  Levine,	
  which	
  examined	
  how	
  pre-­‐1978	
  dissertations	
  were	
  
published	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  copyright	
  was	
  for	
  those	
  dissertations.	
  The	
  unit	
  of	
  sampling	
  in	
  
their	
  study	
  was	
  the	
  written	
  message,	
  “defined	
  as	
  a	
  complete	
  statement	
  or	
  series	
  of	
  statements	
  
with	
  a	
  distinct	
  start	
  and	
  end.”	
  Each	
  message	
  under	
  investigation	
  required	
  author-­‐specified	
  
semantic	
  concepts.	
  The	
  researchers	
  then	
  selected	
  recording	
  units,	
  what	
  they	
  describe	
  as	
  “explicit	
  
assertions”	
  pertaining	
  to	
  the	
  publication	
  of	
  dissertations.	
  The	
  authors	
  delineated	
  explicit	
  
assertions	
  as	
  taking	
  several	
  forms,	
  from	
  a	
  phrase	
  within	
  a	
  sentence	
  to	
  a	
  multipage	
  argument.63	
  

For	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  I	
  investigated	
  written	
  messages	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  journals	
  and	
  blog	
  
posts	
  I	
  chose	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  links	
  to	
  other	
  webpages	
  or	
  blog	
  posts	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  initial	
  data	
  set.	
  The	
  
semantic	
  concept	
  is	
  the	
  term	
  augmented	
  reality.	
  The	
  recording	
  unit	
  is	
  any	
  explicit	
  assertions	
  made	
  
regarding	
  augmented	
  reality	
  using	
  the	
  same	
  range	
  of	
  form	
  as	
  Clement	
  and	
  Levine.64	
  

In	
  this	
  study,	
  I	
  allied	
  content	
  analysis	
  with	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory	
  (RCT).	
  RCT	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access,	
  which	
  are	
  all	
  dependent	
  on	
  measures	
  of	
  
human	
  connections	
  through	
  various	
  forms	
  of	
  media.	
  The	
  characteristics	
  of	
  these	
  principles	
  are	
  as	
  
follows:	
  

• Interactivity	
  refers	
  to	
  dynamic,	
  user-­‐initiated,	
  nonlinear,	
  nonsequential,	
  complex	
  
information	
  behavior,	
  and	
  representation.	
  	
  	
  

• Connectivity	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  community	
  or	
  construction	
  of	
  social	
  worlds	
  that	
  emerge	
  
from	
  changing	
  perspectives	
  and	
  expanded	
  associations.	
  	
  	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   29	
  

• Access	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  breaking	
  of	
  long-­‐standing	
  information	
  barriers,	
  bringing	
  entrée	
  to	
  a	
  
wide	
  diversity	
  of	
  opinion	
  and	
  opportunity.65	
  

Content	
  analysis	
  of	
  LIS	
  literature	
  related	
  to	
  AR	
  through	
  the	
  RCT	
  framework	
  allowed	
  me	
  to	
  find	
  
connections	
  between	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  a	
  technology	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  
functions	
  within	
  a	
  given	
  academic	
  community.	
  During	
  the	
  data	
  analysis,	
  I	
  assessed	
  whether	
  the	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access	
  are	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  descriptors	
  of	
  AR.	
  
Understanding	
  how	
  AR	
  is	
  brought	
  into	
  the	
  discourse	
  of	
  LIS	
  in	
  LIS	
  literature	
  helps	
  describe	
  the	
  
ways	
  an	
  emerging	
  technology	
  is	
  developed	
  as	
  a	
  concept	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  through	
  an	
  examination	
  of	
  
how	
  researchers	
  and	
  practitioners	
  perceive	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  AR.	
  

Data	
  collected	
  from	
  searches	
  of	
  Google	
  Blogs	
  and	
  the	
  Library,	
  Information	
  Science	
  and	
  Technology	
  
Abstracts	
  with	
  Full	
  Text	
  (LISTA)	
  database	
  aided	
  in	
  understanding	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  and	
  
the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  conceptualization.	
  All	
  the	
  searches	
  took	
  place	
  over	
  three	
  
months,	
  December	
  2012	
  to	
  February	
  2013,	
  and	
  all	
  searches	
  centered	
  on	
  the	
  search	
  term	
  
“augmented	
  reality”	
  (the	
  term	
  was	
  enclosed	
  in	
  quotation	
  marks	
  in	
  the	
  search	
  box).	
  

Through	
  purposeful	
  criterion	
  sampling,	
  all	
  search	
  results	
  including	
  the	
  term	
  “augmented	
  reality”	
  
are	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  initial	
  list	
  of	
  data	
  for	
  analysis.	
  I	
  chose	
  the	
  Google	
  Blogs	
  search	
  engine	
  because	
  
of	
  its	
  popularity,	
  familiarity,	
  ease	
  of	
  use,	
  and	
  variety	
  of	
  viewpoints.	
  Blogs	
  are	
  an	
  important	
  source	
  
of	
  data	
  because	
  they	
  continue	
  to	
  increase	
  in	
  popularity	
  across	
  disciplines,	
  including	
  LIS,	
  and	
  serve	
  
as	
  a	
  way	
  for	
  people	
  to	
  communicate	
  with	
  one	
  another	
  and	
  exchange	
  information.66	
  The	
  LISTA	
  
database	
  is	
  easy	
  to	
  access;	
  provided	
  free	
  to	
  libraries;	
  familiar	
  to	
  students,	
  faculty,	
  and	
  
professionals	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS;	
  and	
  covers	
  a	
  broad	
  spectrum	
  of	
  general	
  and	
  specialized	
  journals.	
  
Together,	
  search	
  results	
  comprise	
  both	
  academic	
  and	
  popular,	
  or	
  mainstream,	
  sources.	
  

Google	
  Blogs	
  

I	
  first	
  gathered	
  data	
  from	
  searches	
  of	
  Google	
  Blogs.	
  I	
  conducted	
  two	
  separate	
  searches	
  of	
  the	
  
search	
  term	
  “augmented	
  reality.”	
  The	
  first	
  was	
  in	
  December	
  2012	
  and	
  the	
  second	
  was	
  in	
  February	
  
2013.	
  The	
  first	
  search	
  yielded	
  373	
  results	
  and	
  the	
  second	
  yielded	
  376.	
  I	
  used	
  the	
  advanced	
  search	
  
function	
  to	
  limit	
  the	
  search	
  to	
  blog	
  postings	
  between	
  June	
  2012	
  and	
  December	
  2012.	
  The	
  second	
  
search	
  is	
  limited	
  to	
  June	
  2012	
  to	
  February	
  2013.	
  Blog	
  postings	
  excluded	
  from	
  the	
  final	
  body	
  of	
  
data	
  for	
  analysis	
  include	
  foreign-­‐language	
  entries,	
  duplicate	
  items,	
  video-­‐only	
  postings,	
  and	
  
advertisements,	
  resulting	
  in	
  a	
  final	
  data	
  set	
  of	
  300	
  postings.	
  

Library,	
  Information	
  Science	
  and	
  Technology	
  Abstracts	
  with	
  Full	
  Text	
  (LISTA)	
  

After	
  completing	
  my	
  search	
  of	
  Google	
  Blogs,	
  I	
  gathered	
  data	
  from	
  LISTA	
  database	
  searches.	
  I	
  
searched	
  the	
  database	
  once	
  a	
  month	
  for	
  three	
  months,	
  from	
  December	
  2012	
  to	
  February	
  2013.	
  I	
  
divided	
  each	
  monthly	
  search	
  into	
  three	
  search	
  types:	
  first	
  by	
  author-­‐supplied	
  keyword,	
  second	
  by	
  
subject	
  terms,	
  and	
  third	
  by	
  all-­‐text,	
  resulting	
  in	
  nine	
  searches.	
  I	
  did	
  this	
  to	
  determine	
  whether	
  the	
  
results	
  would	
  differ	
  across	
  each	
  search	
  specification.	
  I	
  then	
  cross-­‐referenced	
  these	
  lists	
  and	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   30	
  

removed	
  duplicate	
  and	
  foreign-­‐language	
  results	
  to	
  compile	
  one	
  complete	
  data	
  set	
  of	
  160	
  articles.	
  
Recording	
  units	
  from	
  the	
  articles,	
  blog,	
  or	
  social	
  media	
  postings	
  I	
  collected	
  from	
  these	
  searches	
  
include	
  explicit	
  assertions	
  concerning	
  AR	
  I	
  then	
  coded.	
  For	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  this	
  exploratory	
  study,	
  
I	
  developed	
  codes	
  inductively	
  rather	
  than	
  approaching	
  the	
  data	
  with	
  a	
  predetermined	
  set	
  of	
  codes,	
  
as	
  inductive	
  codes	
  arise	
  from	
  the	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  coded	
  data.67	
  An	
  example	
  of	
  an	
  assertion	
  in	
  
the	
  dataset	
  includes	
  the	
  following,	
  taken	
  from	
  an	
  article	
  in	
  my	
  pilot	
  study:	
  	
  

AR	
  is	
  a	
  very	
  efficient	
  technology	
  for	
  both	
  higher	
  education	
  such	
  as	
  universities	
  and	
  colleges.	
  
Students	
  in	
  both	
  schools	
  can	
  improve	
  their	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills,	
  especially	
  on	
  complex	
  
theories	
  or	
  mechanisms	
  of	
  systems	
  or	
  machinery.68	
  

I	
  categorized	
  these	
  assertions	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  themes	
  or	
  codes	
  with	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  embedded.	
  	
  
For	
  instance,	
  in	
  the	
  assertion	
  above,	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  AR	
  is	
  efficient	
  and	
  capable	
  of	
  improving	
  or	
  
adding	
  to	
  knowledge	
  and	
  skills	
  could	
  be	
  categorized	
  within	
  similar	
  assertions	
  about	
  the	
  value	
  or	
  
purpose	
  of	
  AR.	
  After	
  I	
  organized	
  the	
  codes	
  and	
  categories,	
  I	
  determined	
  which,	
  if	
  any,	
  of	
  these	
  
codes	
  coincide	
  with	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  principles	
  of	
  RCT	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access.	
  

I	
  developed	
  132	
  codes.	
  A	
  further	
  reduction	
  of	
  codes	
  is	
  not	
  feasible	
  given	
  the	
  myriad	
  ways	
  AR	
  is	
  
defined	
  across	
  sources	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  set,	
  which	
  underscores	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  consensus	
  on	
  just	
  how	
  AR	
  is	
  
truly	
  understood.	
  I	
  went	
  through	
  the	
  codes	
  and	
  grouped	
  them	
  according	
  to	
  similarities	
  and	
  
overarching	
  themes	
  labeled	
  as	
  categories.	
  The	
  132	
  codes	
  make	
  up	
  14	
  categories,	
  listed	
  in	
  table	
  1.	
  

How	
  is	
  AR	
  conceptualized	
  in	
  LIS?	
  

The	
  LISTA	
  database	
  includes	
  more	
  than	
  560	
  journals	
  from	
  LIS	
  and	
  related	
  information-­‐science	
  
fields	
  such	
  as	
  communication	
  and	
  museum	
  studies.	
  Of	
  the	
  77	
  LISTA	
  sources	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  
set	
  for	
  this	
  study,	
  46	
  sources	
  are	
  peer-­‐reviewed;	
  31	
  are	
  not.	
  Of	
  those	
  journals	
  not	
  peer-­‐reviewed,	
  
all	
  of	
  them	
  focus	
  specifically	
  on	
  issues	
  in	
  the	
  media,	
  technology,	
  education	
  or	
  libraries.	
  Based	
  on	
  
my	
  analysis,	
  the	
  categories	
  or	
  overarching	
  themes	
  most	
  prominent	
  in	
  the	
  LISTA	
  data	
  set	
  are	
  “AR	
  
as	
  a	
  new	
  direction,”	
  “AR	
  as	
  informational,”	
  and	
  “AR	
  as	
  an	
  enhancement.”	
  

Taken	
  together,	
  these	
  categories	
  suggest	
  AR	
  can	
  deliver	
  information	
  and	
  the	
  user	
  can	
  interact	
  with	
  
information	
  through	
  an	
  enhanced	
  experience,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  in	
  technology.	
  Individually,	
  
these	
  categories	
  are	
  loaded	
  with	
  implications	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  codes	
  each	
  category	
  encompasses.	
  The	
  
category	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  itself	
  includes	
  twenty-­‐five	
  codes.	
  The	
  codes	
  include	
  assertions	
  of	
  
“AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  normal,	
  providing	
  opportunities”	
  for	
  those	
  willing	
  to	
  implement	
  the	
  technology	
  
because	
  of	
  its	
  “potential,	
  versatile”	
  (yet	
  debatable)	
  range	
  of	
  uses	
  from	
  the	
  business	
  sector	
  to	
  
education.	
  

	
   	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   31	
  

	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   A	
  New	
  Direction	
   Acting	
  Upon	
  reality	
   Conditioning	
  the	
  Environment	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   A	
  New	
  World	
   Blurs	
  Line	
  Between	
  Real	
  &	
  Virtual	
   Control	
  Environment	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   New	
  Direction	
   Distinction	
  Between	
  Real	
  &	
  Virtual	
   Creating	
  Environment	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   New	
  Normal	
   Layered	
  Reality	
   Increases	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  Environment	
  
	
  	
   Relevant	
   Overlay	
  Worlds	
   Contextual	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Unstoppable	
   Integrated	
   Omnipotent	
  Presence	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Important	
   Embellishment	
  

	
  
	
  	
  

	
  	
   Raising	
  Expectations	
   Improves	
  Reality	
   Used	
  as	
  a	
  Tool	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Popular	
   Bringing	
  to	
  Life	
   Discovery	
  Tool	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Trend	
   Used	
  to	
  Simulate	
   Educational	
  Tool	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Versatile	
   Unifying	
   Marketing	
  Tool	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Has	
  Potential	
   Crossing	
  Boundaries	
   Utility	
  for	
  Library	
  Operations	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Needs	
  Further	
  Development	
   Intelligent	
   Utility	
  for	
  Library	
  Operations	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Under-­‐Utilized	
   Transferring	
  Intelligence	
   Library	
  Instruction	
  Aid	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Unfamiliar	
   Making	
  Meaning	
   Mobile	
  Learning	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Promising	
   Multimedia	
  Display	
   Reading	
  Aid	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Searching	
   Generates	
  Media	
   Increases	
  Motivation	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Opportunity	
  for	
  Leadership	
   Visual	
  as	
  Better	
  than	
  Textual	
   Promote	
  Libraries	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Provides	
  Opportunity	
   An	
  Experience	
   Prompts	
  Action	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Background	
  

	
   	
  
	
  	
  

	
  	
   Debatable	
   A	
  Modifier	
   Impacting	
  Economics	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Familiar	
   Catalyst	
  for	
  Change	
   Economic	
  Barriers	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Skepticism	
  &	
  Understanding	
   Changing	
  Network	
  Structure	
   Economic	
  Growth	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Entertaining	
  Over	
  Practical	
   Eliminates	
  Objects	
   Low	
  Cost	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Ill-­‐defined	
   Potential	
  for	
  Eliminating	
  People	
   Reducing	
  Costs	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Redefined	
   Transformative	
   Business	
  Model	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Valuable	
   Revolutionary	
   Retail	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
  
Problem	
  Solver	
   Measurable	
   	
  	
  

	
  	
   Obtainable	
   Restorative	
   Niche	
  Market	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Access*	
   Capable	
  of	
  Injury	
   Gimmick	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Questionable	
  Access	
   Safety	
  

	
  
	
  	
  

	
  	
   Democratization	
   Disruptive	
   Progressive	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Relative	
  Ease	
  of	
  use	
   Innovative	
   Eighth	
  Mass	
  Medium	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Simplicity	
   Influential	
   Occurs	
  in	
  Phases	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Requiring	
  knowledge	
   Powerful	
   Part	
  of	
  a	
  Continuum	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
   	
   	
  
	
  	
  

	
  	
   Characterized	
  by	
  Empty	
  Descriptors	
   Confrontational	
   Involving	
  Imagination	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Amazing	
   Challenging	
  Perceptions	
   Envisioning	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Cool	
   Challenging	
  	
   Science	
  Fiction	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Exciting	
   Therapeutic	
   The	
  Future	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Fun	
   Utilizes	
  Mobile	
  Devices	
  

	
  
	
  	
  

	
  	
   Unique	
   Wearable	
   An	
  Enhancement	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Awkward	
  

	
  
Enhance	
  Communication	
   	
  	
  

	
  	
   Unpredictable	
   Informational	
   Enhance	
  User	
  Experience	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Entrancing	
   Changing	
  Definitions	
  of	
  Personal	
  Information	
   Enhance	
  Reality	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Phenomenon	
   Delivering	
  Information	
   Enhancing	
  Learning	
  and	
  Training	
  
	
  	
   Magic	
   Defining	
  Relevant	
  Information	
   Enhancing	
  the	
  Library	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
  
Helps	
  Gather	
  Information	
   Enriching	
   	
  	
  

	
  	
   Evoking	
  Legal	
  Questions	
   Presenting	
  Location-­‐Based	
  Information	
   Engaging	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Beginning	
  Litigation	
   Speed	
  of	
  Information	
  Delivery	
   Interactivity*	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Marketing	
  Disputes	
   Superimposes	
  Information	
   Building	
  Relationships	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   Privacy	
  Concerns	
   Providing	
  Services	
  to	
  User	
   Collaboration	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
   	
  
Connectivity*	
   	
  	
  

	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
  

Table	
  1.	
  Codes	
  Grouped	
  by	
  Category.	
  	
  
*	
  Denotes	
  principles	
  of	
  Radical	
  Change	
  Theory	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   32	
  

	
  

While	
  the	
  technology	
  still	
  needs	
  development	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  user	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  technology,	
  a	
  clear	
  
definition	
  of	
  the	
  technology,	
  and	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  its	
  full	
  range	
  of	
  uses,	
  some	
  view	
  it	
  as	
  a	
  trend	
  
that	
  raises	
  the	
  bar	
  of	
  technological	
  expectations.	
  When	
  viewed	
  as	
  a	
  growing	
  trend,	
  AR	
  is	
  creating	
  a	
  
new	
  world	
  or	
  platform	
  for	
  information	
  delivery.	
  

Furthermore,	
  in	
  the	
  LISTA	
  sources	
  AR	
  is	
  also	
  viewed	
  as	
  informational.	
  This	
  category	
  comprises	
  
eight	
  codes,	
  all	
  of	
  which	
  refer	
  to	
  the	
  capability	
  of	
  AR	
  to	
  deliver,	
  gather,	
  define,	
  present,	
  and	
  
superimpose	
  information	
  rapidly.	
  In	
  this	
  context	
  for	
  LIS,	
  AR	
  is	
  another	
  format	
  for	
  providing	
  the	
  
user	
  with	
  information	
  tailored	
  to	
  specific	
  user	
  needs.	
  The	
  ways	
  AR	
  can	
  provide	
  users	
  with	
  
information	
  are	
  nestled	
  in	
  the	
  view	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  an	
  enhancement.	
  

Within	
  this	
  category,	
  AR	
  is	
  described	
  as	
  an	
  enhancement	
  of	
  reality,	
  communication,	
  experiences,	
  
and	
  learning.	
  Under	
  this	
  category	
  there	
  is	
  little	
  AR	
  will	
  not	
  enhance.	
  The	
  enhancement	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  
experience	
  is	
  directly	
  tied	
  to	
  the	
  informational	
  quality	
  of	
  AR.	
  This	
  enhancement	
  rests	
  on	
  the	
  
engaging	
  interactive	
  qualities	
  of	
  AR	
  fostering	
  relationships	
  and	
  collaboration	
  through	
  the	
  property	
  
of	
  connectivity.	
  Under	
  this	
  definition,	
  the	
  digital	
  information	
  AR	
  displays	
  or	
  “creates”	
  is	
  the	
  
enhancement	
  of	
  the	
  experience.	
  

Sources	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  also	
  suggest	
  AR	
  enhances	
  the	
  learning	
  experience	
  through	
  the	
  digital	
  
images	
  or	
  objects	
  presented	
  to	
  the	
  user	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  the	
  “original	
  materials.”	
  The	
  
connection	
  of	
  AR	
  to	
  the	
  Internet	
  and	
  sources	
  therein	
  also	
  gives	
  users	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  connect	
  and	
  
collaborate	
  with	
  one	
  another.	
  The	
  enhanced	
  experiences	
  provided	
  by	
  way	
  of	
  AR	
  foster	
  
connections	
  between	
  users	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  librarians	
  and	
  the	
  creators	
  of	
  AR	
  applications	
  themselves.	
  
Authors	
  within	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  expect	
  connecting	
  with	
  others	
  and	
  building	
  relationships	
  will	
  make	
  
user	
  experiences	
  much	
  richer	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  user	
  interacts	
  with	
  information	
  and	
  in	
  what	
  way	
  
information	
  is	
  presented	
  to	
  the	
  user.	
  

The	
  Google	
  Blogs	
  search	
  was	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  LIS-­‐specific	
  blogs,	
  as	
  the	
  search	
  function	
  is	
  limited	
  in	
  
definable	
  search	
  parameters.	
  Of	
  the	
  300	
  blog	
  posts	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  set,	
  only	
  four	
  actually	
  include	
  the	
  
term	
  library	
  or	
  refer	
  to	
  AR	
  applications	
  within	
  libraries.	
  One	
  blog	
  post	
  alludes	
  to	
  archiving	
  but	
  
does	
  not	
  explicitly	
  mention	
  a	
  library	
  setting.	
  These	
  blog	
  postings	
  code	
  for	
  versatility,	
  utility,	
  
interactivity,	
  discovery	
  tool,	
  an	
  experience,	
  a	
  library	
  instruction	
  aid,	
  promoting	
  and	
  enhancing	
  the	
  
library,	
  access,	
  and	
  providing	
  services	
  to	
  users.	
  While	
  not	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  codes	
  are	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  three	
  
dominant	
  categories	
  coding	
  for	
  the	
  LISTA	
  sources,	
  they	
  do	
  reflect	
  the	
  utilitarian	
  quality	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  
provider	
  of	
  information	
  at	
  its	
  most	
  basic.	
  For	
  example,	
  AR	
  is	
  in	
  one	
  source	
  a	
  versatile	
  tool	
  
enhancing	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  library	
  experience,	
  a	
  view	
  shared	
  with	
  the	
  aforementioned	
  LISTA	
  
excerpts,	
  from	
  the	
  ways	
  services	
  are	
  provided	
  for	
  the	
  user	
  to	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  interactivity	
  the	
  patron	
  
has	
  with	
  relevant	
  information	
  within	
  the	
  library,	
  such	
  as	
  finding	
  specific	
  book	
  locations	
  or	
  
accessing	
  information	
  about	
  the	
  services	
  the	
  library	
  offers.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   33	
  

Archiving	
  information	
  displayed	
  through	
  AR	
  applications	
  poses	
  a	
  challenge	
  and	
  is	
  a	
  necessary	
  
consideration	
  for	
  those	
  interested	
  in	
  archiving	
  information.	
  Truly,	
  AR	
  has	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  change	
  
archiving	
  platforms	
  and	
  access	
  to	
  those	
  platforms.	
  The	
  archiving	
  of	
  information	
  presented	
  via	
  AR	
  
is	
  a	
  concern	
  for	
  those	
  implementing	
  AR	
  for	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  purposes.	
  Presenting	
  even	
  library	
  hours	
  or	
  
wayfinding	
  information	
  for	
  a	
  user	
  through	
  AR	
  also	
  raises	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  how	
  information	
  will	
  be	
  
accessed,	
  for	
  how	
  long,	
  and	
  in	
  what	
  form	
  it	
  will	
  exist	
  once	
  it	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  needed,	
  updated,	
  or	
  
changed.	
  

The	
  coded	
  data	
  suggests	
  AR	
  is	
  conceptualized	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  development	
  in	
  digital	
  technology	
  worth	
  
paying	
  attention	
  to,	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  now,	
  but	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  approached	
  with	
  some	
  caution;	
  users	
  or	
  
those	
  looking	
  to	
  implement	
  AR	
  should	
  be	
  careful	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  functionality	
  and	
  implications	
  
of	
  using	
  AR	
  prior	
  to	
  adapting	
  the	
  technology.	
  As	
  reflected	
  in	
  the	
  sources,	
  books	
  and	
  physical	
  
spaces	
  are	
  potential	
  areas	
  for	
  AR	
  application	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  are	
  already	
  overlaid	
  with	
  AR	
  and	
  
are	
  enhancing	
  user	
  experiences.	
  As	
  a	
  whole,	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  a	
  technology	
  with	
  great	
  
potential	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  way	
  users	
  interact	
  with	
  information	
  because	
  of	
  its	
  versatility,	
  mobility,	
  and	
  
direct	
  interaction	
  with	
  the	
  user’s	
  immediate	
  environment.	
  

What	
  Is	
  the	
  Role	
  of	
  the	
  User	
  in	
  Relation	
  to	
  AR	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  Conceptualized	
  in	
  LIS?	
  

The	
  user	
  is	
  the	
  foundation	
  of	
  AR,	
  giving	
  the	
  technology	
  its	
  functionality	
  or	
  prompting	
  action.	
  
Whether	
  conceptualized	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction,	
  an	
  information	
  source	
  or	
  provider,	
  or	
  an	
  
enhancement,	
  AR	
  is	
  essentially	
  static	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  user	
  prompting	
  the	
  AR	
  application	
  to	
  “act.”	
  
Without	
  action	
  on	
  the	
  user’s	
  part,	
  the	
  information	
  stored	
  within	
  AR	
  applications	
  is	
  inert.	
  The	
  goal	
  
of	
  AR	
  is	
  to	
  present	
  information	
  in	
  digital	
  form	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  surroundings,	
  
environment,	
  or	
  reality.	
  

Codes	
  describing	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction,	
  new	
  world,	
  or	
  new	
  normal	
  solidify	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  AR	
  is	
  a	
  new	
  
technological	
  development	
  poised	
  to	
  redefine	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  information	
  landscape	
  but	
  also	
  the	
  
ways	
  users	
  interact	
  with	
  technology	
  and	
  information.	
  Furthermore,	
  references	
  to	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  
seemingly	
  unstoppable	
  popular	
  trend	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  perceived	
  usefulness	
  and	
  importance	
  of	
  AR	
  in	
  
the	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  user,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  seen	
  to	
  raise	
  expectations	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  how	
  users	
  access	
  information.	
  One	
  
blog	
  source	
  writes,	
  “You	
  may	
  have	
  heard	
  about	
  augmented	
  reality	
  before.	
  If	
  you	
  haven’t,	
  you’ll	
  be	
  
hearing	
  a	
  lot	
  about	
  it	
  from	
  now	
  on,	
  with	
  the	
  smartphone	
  and	
  tablet	
  revolution	
  now	
  in	
  full-­‐
swing.”69	
  The	
  “revolution”	
  surrounding	
  smartphones	
  and	
  tablets	
  alludes	
  to	
  the	
  increase	
  in	
  their	
  
use	
  and	
  sales,	
  making	
  these	
  devices	
  staples	
  in	
  everyday	
  life.	
  This	
  idea	
  is	
  parallel	
  to	
  user	
  
expectations	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  online	
  resources,	
  as	
  many	
  users	
  rely	
  on	
  information	
  accessed	
  through	
  the	
  
Internet.70,71,72,73	
  The	
  implication	
  is	
  once	
  AR	
  applications	
  gain	
  more	
  widespread	
  use,	
  the	
  user	
  will	
  
come	
  to	
  expect	
  access	
  to	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  information	
  through	
  those	
  AR	
  applications.	
  

Because	
  AR	
  is	
  still	
  met	
  with	
  skepticism,	
  and	
  for	
  some	
  is	
  still	
  in	
  need	
  of	
  further	
  development,	
  the	
  
technology	
  provides	
  opportunities	
  for	
  librarians	
  and	
  their	
  staff	
  as	
  those	
  implementing	
  and	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   34	
  

providing	
  AR-­‐based	
  services	
  to	
  forge	
  new	
  paths	
  in	
  AR	
  application,	
  becoming	
  users	
  of	
  the	
  
technology	
  “behind-­‐the-­‐scenes.”	
  The	
  following	
  excerpt	
  from	
  a	
  LISTA	
  source	
  highlights	
  this	
  view:	
  

Technological	
  advances	
  are	
  beginning	
  to	
  fundamentally	
  change	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  library	
  users	
  
interact	
  with	
  digital	
  information,	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  therefore	
  essential	
  that	
  librarians	
  become	
  engaged	
  
with	
  the	
  relevant	
  technology	
  and	
  leverage	
  their	
  role	
  as	
  teachers	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  help	
  ensure	
  their	
  
continued	
  relevance	
  in	
  the	
  lives	
  of	
  clients	
  in	
  the	
  twenty-­‐first	
  century.74	
  

Within	
  this	
  statement,	
  librarians	
  are	
  learning	
  and	
  teaching	
  about	
  new	
  technology.	
  Maintaining	
  
“relevance	
  in	
  the	
  lives	
  of	
  clients”	
  suggests	
  as	
  the	
  technology	
  grows,	
  implementers	
  of	
  the	
  
technology	
  need	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  technology.	
  As	
  reflected	
  in	
  this	
  excerpt,	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  end	
  is	
  the	
  
user	
  (or	
  client)	
  of	
  the	
  AR	
  application	
  after	
  it	
  is	
  created	
  and	
  implemented.	
  The	
  user	
  has	
  the	
  
opportunity	
  not	
  only	
  to	
  access	
  and	
  experience	
  information	
  in	
  new	
  ways	
  but	
  also	
  to	
  help	
  build	
  and	
  
contribute	
  to	
  the	
  creation	
  and	
  streamlining	
  of	
  the	
  AR	
  application	
  through	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  response	
  to	
  
the	
  application’s	
  functionality.	
  

The	
  user	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  also	
  central	
  to	
  the	
  view	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  informational.	
  In	
  a	
  simplistic	
  way,	
  AR	
  is	
  dormant	
  
and	
  incapable	
  of	
  providing,	
  delivering,	
  searching	
  for,	
  superimposing,	
  or	
  really	
  doing	
  much	
  of	
  
anything	
  with	
  information	
  without	
  user	
  actions.	
  In	
  most	
  cases	
  with	
  AR,	
  users	
  must	
  have	
  some	
  type	
  
of	
  mobile	
  device	
  to	
  prompt	
  what	
  is	
  often	
  described	
  as	
  an	
  AR	
  experience.	
  Information	
  provided	
  via	
  
AR	
  applications	
  is	
  unlike	
  the	
  physical	
  format	
  of	
  a	
  book,	
  newspaper,	
  magazine,	
  or	
  other	
  object.	
  
These	
  physical	
  objects	
  exist	
  in	
  libraries	
  and	
  the	
  like,	
  residing	
  on	
  shelves	
  and	
  taking	
  up	
  physical	
  
space	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  location	
  or	
  presence	
  of	
  a	
  user.	
  By	
  contrast,	
  the	
  information	
  embedded	
  
within	
  an	
  AR	
  application	
  is	
  only	
  viewable	
  and	
  unlocked	
  when	
  the	
  user	
  prompts	
  action	
  through	
  the	
  
viewfinder	
  of	
  a	
  smartphone,	
  tablet,	
  or	
  other	
  mobile	
  device.	
  The	
  technology	
  is	
  described	
  as	
  a	
  
catchall	
  or	
  endless	
  repository	
  for	
  interactive	
  information	
  for	
  the	
  user,	
  at	
  the	
  user’s	
  fingertips.	
  

Likewise,	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  enhancement	
  is	
  also	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  user,	
  
though	
  this	
  assertion	
  is	
  implicit	
  in	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  coded	
  passages.	
  Without	
  user	
  interaction	
  
prompting	
  the	
  AR	
  application	
  to	
  overlay	
  information	
  onto	
  the	
  real	
  environment,	
  AR	
  is	
  incapable	
  of	
  
enhancing	
  experiences,	
  libraries,	
  communication,	
  or	
  reality	
  itself.	
  Enhancement,	
  or	
  improvement,	
  
suggests	
  something	
  or	
  someone	
  is	
  acted	
  on	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  is	
  beneficial,	
  intensified,	
  or	
  embedded	
  
with	
  a	
  stronger	
  sense	
  of	
  value.	
  

Much	
  like	
  the	
  informational	
  quality	
  of	
  AR,	
  without	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  mobile	
  device	
  handled	
  by	
  the	
  user,	
  
AR	
  is	
  dormant	
  and	
  nonexistent,	
  unable	
  to	
  enhance	
  the	
  environment	
  or	
  other	
  aspect	
  of	
  physical	
  life.	
  
Without	
  a	
  user	
  within	
  a	
  specific	
  context,	
  there	
  is	
  not	
  much	
  for	
  AR	
  to	
  enhance	
  because	
  it	
  exists	
  as	
  
merely	
  a	
  “marker,”	
  tucking	
  away	
  the	
  desired	
  information,	
  awaiting	
  a	
  user	
  to	
  come	
  along	
  and	
  point	
  
a	
  mobile	
  device	
  in	
  its	
  direction.	
  As	
  blogger	
  David	
  Meyer	
  put	
  it,	
  AR	
  “requires	
  the	
  active	
  
participation	
  of	
  the	
  consumer—you	
  do	
  not	
  by	
  default	
  wander	
  around	
  with	
  your	
  phone	
  held	
  out	
  in	
  
front	
  of	
  you.”75	
  	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   35	
  

This	
  implicit	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  is	
  buried	
  under	
  language	
  suggesting	
  AR	
  is	
  actually	
  capable	
  of	
  acting	
  
on	
  the	
  user	
  and	
  the	
  user’s	
  reality,	
  giving	
  AR	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  agency.	
  For	
  example,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
enhancement,	
  while	
  the	
  user	
  is	
  the	
  “activator”	
  of	
  the	
  AR	
  experience,	
  AR	
  is	
  often	
  described	
  as	
  
making,	
  creating,	
  challenging,	
  improving,	
  producing,	
  delivering,	
  solving	
  problems,	
  and	
  even	
  
bringing	
  some	
  object	
  to	
  life,	
  thus	
  prompting	
  this	
  “enhancement.”	
  Such	
  verbs	
  give	
  AR	
  an	
  active	
  
quality,	
  as	
  if	
  it	
  is	
  itself	
  alive	
  and	
  present	
  in	
  creating	
  or	
  prompting	
  change.	
  This	
  is	
  best	
  exemplified	
  
by	
  the	
  categories	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  acting	
  upon	
  reality,	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  modifier	
  and	
  AR	
  as	
  conditioning	
  the	
  
environment.	
  

The	
  perceived	
  quality	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  acting	
  on	
  reality	
  is	
  what	
  often	
  drives	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  a	
  catalyst	
  for	
  
change,	
  conditioning	
  the	
  environment	
  by	
  either	
  controlling	
  the	
  present	
  environment	
  or	
  creating	
  a	
  
new	
  one.	
  The	
  transformative	
  characteristic	
  of	
  AR	
  reshapes	
  and	
  redefines	
  the	
  user	
  experience	
  
precisely	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  AR	
  inserts	
  digital	
  objects	
  into	
  the	
  real-­‐world	
  environment.	
  For	
  this	
  
reason,	
  AR	
  is	
  often	
  described	
  through	
  invoking	
  imagination	
  and	
  with	
  words	
  like	
  cool,	
  amazing,	
  fun,	
  
and	
  exciting,	
  or	
  other	
  empty	
  descriptors;	
  AR	
  truly	
  enhances	
  user	
  interaction	
  with	
  the	
  surrounding	
  
world	
  with	
  what	
  is	
  perceived	
  as	
  a	
  “wow”	
  factor,	
  so	
  much	
  so	
  that	
  codes	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  even	
  reflect	
  
legal	
  and	
  economic	
  implications	
  of	
  the	
  technology.	
  But,	
  while	
  AR	
  is	
  a	
  catalyst	
  for	
  change	
  and	
  acts	
  
on	
  the	
  environment	
  and	
  reality,	
  those	
  changes	
  and	
  actions	
  are	
  only	
  seen	
  through	
  the	
  viewfinder	
  of	
  
a	
  mobile	
  device	
  ultimately	
  in	
  the	
  hands	
  of	
  the	
  user.	
  

RADICAL	
  CHANGE	
  THEORY	
  

Dresang	
  founded	
  RCT	
  on	
  what	
  she	
  identified	
  as	
  the	
  three	
  digital-­‐age	
  principles	
  of	
  interactivity,	
  
connectivity,	
  and	
  access,	
  which	
  describe	
  how	
  “the	
  digital	
  environment	
  has	
  influenced	
  some	
  
nondigitized	
  media	
  to	
  take	
  on	
  digital	
  principles.”	
  Essentially,	
  Dresang’s	
  theory	
  is	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  
explain	
  information	
  resources	
  and	
  behaviors.	
  Within	
  the	
  digital-­‐age	
  principles,	
  the	
  user	
  takes	
  on	
  
the	
  role	
  of	
  initiator.	
  While	
  flexible	
  in	
  allowing	
  user	
  initiation,	
  the	
  digital	
  applications	
  are	
  inert	
  
without	
  the	
  user;	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  information	
  is	
  unavailable	
  without	
  user	
  action	
  to	
  put	
  the	
  digital	
  
environment	
  into	
  motion.	
  The	
  digital	
  environment	
  within	
  AR,	
  as	
  described	
  by	
  sources	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  
set,	
  is	
  an	
  overlay	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  onto	
  the	
  real	
  world.	
  RCT	
  suggests	
  the	
  “digital	
  environment	
  extends	
  
far	
  beyond	
  the	
  digital	
  resources	
  themselves.”	
  The	
  extension	
  beyond	
  the	
  digital	
  resources	
  is	
  evident	
  
in	
  AR	
  as	
  it	
  combines	
  the	
  real	
  and	
  physical	
  with	
  the	
  virtual.76	
  

Based	
  on	
  these	
  principles	
  and	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  the	
  digital	
  extends	
  beyond	
  the	
  resources	
  themselves,	
  
the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  reflects	
  the	
  characteristics	
  of	
  RCT	
  in	
  explaining	
  information	
  behavior	
  
and	
  representations	
  in	
  the	
  AR	
  “environment.”	
  Interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access	
  are	
  essential	
  
parts	
  of	
  AR.	
  When	
  each	
  principle	
  is	
  examined	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  the	
  coded	
  data,	
  a	
  picture	
  
appears	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  an	
  exemplar	
  of	
  RCT.	
  

Interactivity	
  and	
  connectivity	
  emerged	
  as	
  coded	
  assertions	
  within	
  the	
  data.	
  These	
  codes	
  fall	
  under	
  
the	
  category	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  an	
  enhancement.	
  As	
  stated,	
  AR	
  is	
  expected	
  by	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  voices	
  within	
  my	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   36	
  

data	
  set	
  to	
  influence	
  or	
  enhance	
  almost	
  every	
  aspect	
  of	
  our	
  lives,	
  and	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  enhancement	
  is	
  
due	
  to	
  the	
  properties	
  of	
  interactivity	
  and	
  connectivity	
  exhibited	
  by	
  AR.	
  	
  

As	
  defined	
  by	
  Dresang,	
  interactivity	
  refers	
  to	
  dynamic,	
  user-­‐controlled,	
  nonlinear,	
  nonsequential	
  
information	
  behavior	
  and	
  representation.77	
  Speaking	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  user-­‐controlled,	
  
nonlinear,	
  and	
  nonsequential	
  information	
  behavior	
  and	
  representation	
  is	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  agency	
  that	
  
AR	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  give	
  users	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  how	
  they	
  view	
  and	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  digital	
  overlays	
  of	
  
information.	
  

The	
  control	
  the	
  user	
  has	
  on	
  the	
  AR	
  experience	
  and	
  the	
  information	
  with	
  which	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  comes	
  in	
  
contact	
  stems	
  from	
  the	
  functionality	
  of	
  AR	
  often	
  relying	
  on	
  tracking	
  a	
  user’s	
  location.	
  Presenting	
  a	
  
user	
  with	
  information	
  based	
  on	
  location	
  is	
  not	
  only	
  user-­‐controlled	
  but	
  nonlinear	
  and	
  
nonsequential,	
  since	
  the	
  application	
  has	
  no	
  predetermined	
  set	
  of	
  boundaries	
  the	
  way	
  a	
  physical	
  
map	
  might	
  have.	
  People	
  do	
  not	
  typically	
  travel	
  through	
  the	
  day	
  in	
  a	
  linear	
  fashion	
  with	
  a	
  
predetermined	
  sequence	
  of	
  action.	
  As	
  one	
  blogger	
  notes,	
  AR	
  is	
  “helping	
  to	
  erase	
  that	
  line	
  between	
  
your	
  real	
  life	
  and	
  how	
  you	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  web.”	
  78	
  

AR	
  is	
  further	
  tied	
  to	
  the	
  principle	
  of	
  interactivity	
  as	
  defined	
  within	
  RCT	
  precisely	
  because	
  of	
  its	
  
mobility	
  and	
  formatting,	
  namely,	
  because	
  of	
  mobile	
  devices.	
  A	
  source	
  within	
  the	
  LISTA	
  data	
  set	
  
includes	
  the	
  following	
  assertion:	
  

	
   The	
  AR	
  paradigm	
  opens	
  innovative	
  interaction	
  facilities	
  to	
  users:	
  human	
  natural	
  
	
   familiarity	
  with	
  the	
  physical	
  environment	
  and	
  physical	
  objects	
  defines	
  the	
  basic	
  
	
   principles	
  for	
  exchanging	
  data	
  between	
  the	
  virtual	
  and	
  the	
  real	
  world,	
  thus	
  allowing	
  
	
   gestures,	
  body	
  language,	
  movement,	
  gaze	
  and	
  physical	
  awareness	
  to	
  trigger	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  
	
   AR	
  space.79	
  	
  

Gestures,	
  body	
  language,	
  movement,	
  gaze,	
  and	
  physical	
  awareness	
  are	
  all	
  unpredictable	
  actions.	
  
For	
  these	
  actions	
  to	
  “trigger	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  AR	
  space,”	
  there	
  must	
  certainly	
  be	
  a	
  high	
  degree	
  of	
  
nonlinear	
  and	
  nonsequential	
  information	
  behavior	
  and	
  representations	
  taking	
  place;	
  it	
  is	
  highly	
  
unlikely	
  user	
  gestures	
  and	
  the	
  like	
  could	
  exist	
  on	
  a	
  linear	
  continuum	
  of	
  action.	
  

Further,	
  within	
  RCT,	
  connectivity	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  community	
  or	
  construction	
  of	
  social	
  
worlds	
  emerging	
  from	
  changing	
  perspectives	
  and	
  expanded	
  associations	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  and	
  in	
  
resources.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  coded	
  data	
  in	
  this	
  study,	
  the	
  code	
  of	
  connectivity	
  reflects	
  this	
  idea	
  of	
  
creating	
  community	
  and	
  social	
  worlds	
  through	
  the	
  capability	
  of	
  AR	
  to	
  connect	
  users	
  to	
  various	
  
forms	
  of	
  social	
  media,	
  to	
  one	
  another,	
  and	
  to	
  various	
  resources.	
  Users	
  make	
  connections	
  through	
  
games,	
  location	
  awareness,	
  and	
  applications	
  allowing	
  for	
  the	
  sharing	
  of	
  information	
  from	
  user	
  to	
  
user.	
  Social	
  networking	
  figures	
  prominently	
  in	
  AR	
  technology.	
  Users	
  can	
  upload	
  overlays	
  of	
  digital	
  
information	
  captured	
  on	
  a	
  smartphone	
  to	
  various	
  social	
  networking	
  sites.	
  Additionally,	
  the	
  ability	
  
of	
  AR	
  to	
  overlay	
  digital	
  information	
  onto	
  the	
  real	
  world,	
  and	
  the	
  customizable	
  experiences	
  this	
  
creates,	
  aids	
  in	
  connectivity.	
  AR	
  creates	
  a	
  virtual	
  world	
  wherein	
  users	
  can	
  engage	
  with	
  one	
  
another	
  across	
  applications;	
  while	
  physically	
  in	
  different	
  places,	
  they	
  can	
  share	
  experiences	
  or	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   37	
  

even	
  simple	
  conversations.	
  Connectivity	
  through	
  AR	
  is	
  possible	
  in	
  all	
  aspects	
  of	
  life	
  as	
  many	
  
sources	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  allude	
  to	
  working,	
  playing,	
  and	
  learning.	
  

To	
  interact	
  and	
  connect	
  with	
  one	
  another,	
  users	
  must	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  AR	
  space.	
  The	
  principle	
  of	
  
access	
  within	
  RCT	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  breaking	
  of	
  long-­‐standing	
  information	
  barriers,	
  allowing	
  
exposure	
  and	
  access	
  to	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  differing	
  perspectives	
  and	
  opportunities.	
  The	
  concept	
  of	
  
access	
  (both	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  and	
  is	
  not	
  accessible)	
  does	
  appear	
  in	
  the	
  coded	
  data.	
  Note	
  access	
  
and	
  accessibility	
  within	
  this	
  study	
  refer	
  to	
  the	
  opportunity	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  system	
  or	
  service,	
  and	
  
is	
  not	
  referring	
  to	
  access	
  and	
  accessibility	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  used	
  within	
  discourse	
  pertaining	
  to	
  disabilities.	
  

The	
  use	
  of	
  AR	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  smartphones	
  is	
  a	
  basic	
  way	
  of	
  interpreting	
  access	
  as	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  
RCT	
  and	
  AR.	
  The	
  mobility	
  of	
  smartphones	
  and	
  tablets	
  allows	
  users	
  to	
  access	
  AR	
  across	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  
locations,	
  and	
  each	
  user’s	
  smartphone	
  or	
  tablet	
  is	
  uniquely	
  tailored	
  to	
  the	
  user’s	
  interests	
  and	
  
desires	
  through	
  differing	
  collections	
  of	
  applications	
  and	
  software.	
  Smartphones	
  and	
  tablets	
  are	
  
comparatively	
  low-­‐cost	
  options	
  for	
  accessing	
  and	
  sharing	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  Internet	
  and	
  AR	
  
applications.	
  Their	
  use	
  is	
  on	
  the	
  rise	
  because	
  they	
  are	
  often	
  much	
  cheaper	
  to	
  obtain	
  than	
  
computers.80,81,82	
  The	
  fusion	
  of	
  AR	
  with	
  mobile	
  devices	
  suggests	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  accessing	
  
information	
  in	
  real	
  time	
  in	
  any	
  place	
  through	
  these	
  technologies	
  working	
  in	
  tandem	
  with	
  one	
  
another.	
  By	
  its	
  very	
  nature,	
  AR	
  offers	
  access	
  to	
  “differing	
  perspectives	
  and	
  opportunities”	
  as	
  it	
  
presents	
  the	
  user	
  with	
  information	
  in	
  atypical	
  formats	
  in	
  places	
  and	
  spaces	
  once	
  static,	
  or	
  lacking	
  
in	
  digital	
  overlays.	
  

AR	
  is	
  not	
  bounded	
  by	
  physical	
  location;	
  rather,	
  it	
  depends	
  on	
  and	
  varies	
  with	
  your	
  physical	
  
location.	
  The	
  idea	
  that	
  users	
  can	
  access	
  AR	
  wherever	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  Internet	
  connection	
  means	
  the	
  
only	
  real	
  barrier	
  to	
  accessing	
  AR	
  is	
  the	
  same	
  barrier	
  existing	
  regarding	
  a	
  web	
  connection	
  for	
  the	
  
user,	
  something	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  source	
  within	
  the	
  LISTA	
  data	
  set	
  alludes	
  to	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  
divide,	
  cautioning	
  that	
  AR	
  should	
  be	
  used	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  traditional	
  formats	
  of	
  information	
  
instead	
  of	
  in	
  lieu	
  of	
  them.	
  For	
  example,	
  libraries	
  should	
  not	
  replace	
  traditional	
  signage	
  with	
  
information	
  only	
  embedded	
  within	
  AR	
  applications.	
  However,	
  as	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  organizations,	
  
institutions,	
  and	
  businesses	
  use	
  AR	
  and	
  provide	
  users	
  with	
  access	
  rather	
  than	
  relying	
  on	
  the	
  user	
  
to	
  conjure	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  Internet	
  connection,	
  more	
  barriers	
  to	
  AR	
  will	
  fall.	
  	
  

However,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  not	
  all	
  AR	
  applications	
  actually	
  do	
  require	
  Internet	
  access.	
  
Mobile	
  device	
  applications	
  can	
  work	
  off	
  of	
  markers	
  and	
  triggers	
  in	
  the	
  physical	
  environment,	
  not	
  
web-­‐based	
  anchors.	
  For	
  example,	
  a	
  cookbook	
  can	
  include	
  a	
  marker	
  next	
  to	
  a	
  recipe	
  that	
  when	
  
scanned	
  displays	
  an	
  image	
  of	
  the	
  finished	
  dish.	
  Access	
  to	
  AR	
  applications	
  without	
  a	
  web	
  
connection	
  opens	
  a	
  wealth	
  of	
  information	
  to	
  individuals	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  web.	
  Not	
  all	
  
AR	
  applications	
  link	
  to	
  web-­‐based	
  information,	
  and	
  this	
  widens	
  the	
  pool	
  of	
  users	
  engaging	
  with	
  
information	
  through	
  those	
  AR	
  applications.	
  Moreover,	
  relative	
  ease	
  of	
  use	
  and	
  low	
  initial	
  cost	
  to	
  
create	
  AR	
  applications	
  also	
  allow	
  users	
  to	
  become	
  content	
  creators,	
  as	
  exemplified	
  by	
  an	
  AR	
  
application	
  allowing	
  an	
  artist	
  to	
  create	
  virtual	
  graffiti	
  in	
  public	
  spaces.	
  Users	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  display	
  
and	
  access	
  information	
  otherwise	
  invisible.	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   38	
  

It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  the	
  differing	
  views	
  suggesting	
  AR	
  does	
  and	
  does	
  not	
  require	
  Internet	
  access	
  
to	
  function.	
  Such	
  a	
  discrepancy	
  points	
  further	
  to	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  loosely	
  defined	
  concept.	
  From	
  a	
  technical	
  
standpoint,	
  AR	
  does	
  not	
  require	
  an	
  Internet	
  connection,	
  but	
  the	
  Internet	
  does	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  
repository	
  for	
  information,	
  and	
  many	
  see	
  AR	
  as	
  providing	
  a	
  bridge	
  to	
  that	
  information,	
  be	
  it	
  a	
  
company	
  wanting	
  to	
  give	
  consumers	
  access	
  to	
  product	
  lines	
  or	
  a	
  library	
  creating	
  an	
  AR	
  application	
  
linking	
  to	
  web-­‐based	
  databases	
  and	
  services.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  RCT,	
  the	
  principle	
  of	
  access	
  does	
  take	
  
into	
  account	
  digital	
  information	
  as	
  able	
  to	
  both	
  provide	
  and	
  inhibit	
  access,	
  as	
  some	
  users	
  may	
  not	
  
have	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  often	
  costly	
  hardware	
  allowing	
  access	
  to	
  digitally	
  formatted	
  information.	
  What	
  
is	
  important	
  to	
  highlight	
  about	
  the	
  principle	
  of	
  access	
  is	
  the	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  voices	
  and	
  the	
  
increased	
  array	
  of	
  digital	
  information	
  available,	
  which,	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  AR	
  provides.	
  Any	
  
object	
  associated	
  in	
  some	
  way	
  with	
  a	
  monetary	
  cost	
  or	
  technical	
  savvy	
  always	
  has	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  
leave	
  some	
  users	
  in	
  the	
  dark.	
  

Interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access	
  are	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  within	
  the	
  LIS	
  
literature	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  popular	
  media	
  blogs.	
  The	
  user	
  is	
  central	
  to	
  both	
  RCT	
  and	
  this	
  
conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  technology	
  with	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  way	
  users	
  interact	
  
with	
  information	
  and	
  with	
  one	
  another.	
  The	
  goal	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  to	
  present	
  information	
  in	
  digital	
  form	
  
within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  surroundings,	
  environment,	
  or	
  reality.	
  RCT	
  is	
  a	
  theory	
  seeking	
  to	
  
understand	
  changes	
  in	
  information	
  behavior	
  and	
  representations,	
  and	
  AR	
  is	
  an	
  exemplar	
  of	
  the	
  
myriad	
  changes,	
  or	
  the	
  evolution,	
  of	
  the	
  digital-­‐information	
  environment.	
  

IMPLICATIONS	
  FOR	
  THEORY	
  

This	
  study	
  has	
  several	
  implications	
  for	
  theory	
  within	
  LIS.	
  These	
  include	
  the	
  extension	
  of	
  RCT	
  or	
  
creation	
  of	
  new	
  theories	
  born	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  age,	
  the	
  understanding	
  that	
  a	
  user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  is	
  
essential	
  to	
  theory	
  within	
  the	
  digital	
  age,	
  and	
  the	
  realization	
  that	
  AR	
  opens	
  new	
  areas	
  of	
  research	
  
in	
  what	
  is	
  considered	
  an	
  enhancement	
  of	
  information.	
  While	
  this	
  study	
  sought	
  to	
  test	
  RCT	
  in	
  
relation	
  to	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR,	
  it	
  also	
  provides	
  a	
  framework	
  for	
  future	
  studies.	
  The	
  results	
  
of	
  this	
  study	
  also	
  suggest	
  AR	
  opens	
  more	
  areas	
  to	
  explore	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS	
  to	
  create	
  new	
  
theories	
  or	
  to	
  add	
  to	
  RCT	
  as	
  a	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  information	
  behavior	
  
and	
  representations	
  in	
  the	
  digital-­‐information	
  environment.	
  

When	
  Dresang	
  initially	
  formulated	
  RCT,	
  she	
  focused	
  on	
  youth	
  information	
  seeking	
  behaviors.83	
  
Few	
  scholars	
  have	
  used	
  the	
  theory,	
  but	
  those	
  that	
  have	
  explore	
  education,84	
  literacy,85	
  	
  
communication	
  and	
  writing86	
  as	
  related	
  to	
  changing	
  technologies.	
  These	
  previous	
  studies,	
  as	
  well	
  
as	
  this	
  study,	
  highlight	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  this	
  theory	
  in	
  examining	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  digital-­‐
information	
  landscape	
  on	
  information-­‐seeking	
  and	
  user	
  understanding	
  of	
  and	
  reaction	
  to	
  digital	
  
information.	
  RCT	
  is	
  viable	
  beyond	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  youth	
  information	
  seeking	
  and	
  is	
  highly	
  relevant	
  to	
  
today’s	
  world.	
  	
  

RCT	
  developed	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  influences	
  traditional	
  and	
  new	
  media.	
  AR	
  is	
  itself	
  
often	
  described	
  as	
  an	
  environment,	
  a	
  digital	
  environment,	
  which	
  is	
  precisely	
  the	
  focus	
  of	
  RCT.	
  If	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   39	
  

AR	
  is	
  in	
  fact	
  a	
  “new	
  normal,”	
  as	
  some	
  describe,	
  our	
  information	
  landscape	
  is	
  moving	
  in	
  a	
  direction	
  
where	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  access,	
  and	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  are	
  central	
  to	
  any	
  discussion	
  of	
  
how	
  information	
  is	
  organized,	
  distributed,	
  formatted,	
  and	
  presented.	
  

Researchers	
  can	
  begin	
  by	
  adapting	
  traditional	
  LIS	
  theories	
  to	
  the	
  digital	
  age.	
  For	
  example,	
  Wilson	
  
revised	
  his	
  oft-­‐cited	
  original	
  general	
  model	
  of	
  information-­‐seeking	
  behavior	
  in	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  
understand	
  the	
  totality	
  of	
  information	
  behavior	
  by	
  linking	
  theory	
  to	
  action	
  and	
  understanding	
  
what	
  prompts	
  and	
  hinders	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  search	
  for	
  information.87	
  Researchers	
  can	
  begin	
  to	
  
reevaluate	
  the	
  model	
  to	
  determine	
  whether	
  it	
  helps	
  to	
  explain	
  information	
  behavior	
  within	
  the	
  AR	
  
environment,or	
  whether	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  model	
  can	
  be	
  further	
  developed	
  or	
  revised.	
  Wilson’s	
  
model’s	
  focus	
  on	
  human	
  behavior	
  parallels	
  the	
  focus	
  on	
  human	
  behavior	
  within	
  the	
  AR	
  
environment.	
  

Other	
  theories	
  within	
  LIS	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  adapted	
  to	
  the	
  AR	
  environment,	
  such	
  as	
  Erdelez’s	
  
Information	
  Encountering	
  (IE).	
  Erdelez’s	
  theory	
  focuses	
  on	
  a	
  “memorable	
  experience	
  of	
  
unexpected	
  discovery	
  of	
  useful	
  or	
  interesting	
  information”	
  situated	
  within	
  three	
  elements:	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  user,	
  characteristics	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  environment,	
  and	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  the	
  encountered	
  information.	
  Erdelez	
  further	
  describes	
  categories	
  of	
  
information	
  users:	
  superencounterers,	
  encounterers,	
  occasional	
  encounterers,	
  and	
  
nonencounterers.	
  While	
  Erdelez	
  has	
  since	
  taken	
  the	
  web	
  and	
  the	
  Internet	
  into	
  account	
  as	
  
information	
  environments,	
  this	
  theory	
  could	
  further	
  be	
  remodeled	
  to	
  include	
  the	
  AR	
  
environment.88	
  

Wilson’s	
  model	
  and	
  Erdelez’s	
  theory	
  are	
  just	
  two	
  examples	
  of	
  theories	
  within	
  LIS	
  lending	
  
themselves	
  to	
  further	
  exploration	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  of	
  AR	
  within	
  LIS.	
  Bates’	
  model	
  of	
  information	
  search	
  
and	
  retrieval,	
  known	
  as	
  berrypicking,	
  which	
  centers	
  on	
  the	
  changing	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  search	
  query	
  
through	
  the	
  search	
  process,	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  amended	
  to	
  include	
  information	
  search	
  and	
  retrieval	
  
within	
  the	
  AR	
  environment.89	
  Bates’	
  model	
  suggests	
  as	
  users	
  seek	
  and	
  find	
  information,	
  the	
  
information	
  search	
  shifts	
  from	
  source	
  to	
  source.	
  The	
  berrypicking	
  model	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  updated	
  or	
  
expounded	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  AR	
  because	
  of	
  AR’s	
  multidimensional	
  display	
  of	
  information—a	
  
relatively	
  new	
  phenomenon	
  for	
  the	
  average	
  user—to	
  understand	
  whether	
  the	
  same	
  shift	
  in	
  
information	
  queries	
  occurs	
  and	
  what	
  new	
  paths	
  to	
  information	
  users	
  are	
  taking	
  within	
  the	
  AR	
  
environment.	
  

This	
  study	
  suggests	
  a	
  user-­‐centric	
  focus	
  is	
  essential	
  to	
  any	
  theories	
  in	
  LIS	
  developed	
  within	
  or	
  
extended	
  to	
  the	
  digital	
  age.	
  The	
  user	
  is	
  vital	
  to	
  making	
  AR	
  technology	
  functional,	
  as	
  demonstrated	
  
in	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  in	
  this	
  study.	
  The	
  personalization,	
  individualization,	
  and	
  mobility	
  of	
  
digital	
  technology	
  like	
  AR	
  suggest	
  theories	
  related	
  to	
  information	
  behavior	
  within	
  this	
  
environment	
  must	
  account	
  for	
  user	
  interaction.	
  Information	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  contained	
  within	
  static	
  
formats.	
  Geotagging	
  or	
  geospatial	
  awareness	
  and	
  social	
  networking	
  are	
  prime	
  examples	
  of	
  the	
  
reliance	
  of	
  digital	
  technology	
  on	
  user	
  interaction.	
  Without	
  addressing	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  in	
  the	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   40	
  

functionality	
  of	
  digital	
  technology	
  in	
  any	
  context,	
  theoretical	
  frameworks	
  attempting	
  to	
  address	
  
information	
  seeking	
  and	
  behavior	
  in	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  will	
  be	
  limited.	
  

Additionally,	
  should	
  AR	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  in	
  accessing,	
  organizing,	
  delivering,	
  and	
  
obtaining	
  information,	
  it	
  further	
  opens	
  new	
  areas	
  of	
  theoretical	
  research.	
  Since	
  AR	
  is	
  considered	
  
an	
  enhancement	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  experience,	
  it	
  is	
  incumbent	
  on	
  researchers	
  to	
  determine	
  just	
  
how	
  “enhancement”	
  is	
  defined	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  AR	
  and	
  how	
  that	
  translates	
  to	
  the	
  user	
  experience.	
  
Researchers	
  can	
  strive	
  to	
  apply	
  and	
  understand	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  an	
  enhancement	
  in	
  relation	
  not	
  
only	
  to	
  the	
  enhancement	
  of	
  information	
  but	
  also	
  to	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  accessing,	
  organizing,	
  
delivering,	
  and	
  obtaining	
  information.	
  The	
  digital-­‐age	
  principles	
  outlined	
  by	
  Dresang	
  in	
  RCT	
  are	
  
just	
  one	
  example	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  on	
  the	
  user’s	
  interaction	
  with	
  
information	
  and	
  in	
  what	
  ways	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  creates	
  enhancements.	
  

By	
  itself,	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  AR	
  technology	
  raises	
  more	
  questions	
  than	
  it	
  answers.	
  The	
  study	
  of	
  AR	
  
technology	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  more	
  diverse	
  theoretical	
  frameworks	
  seeking	
  to	
  answer	
  not	
  only	
  
practical	
  questions	
  but	
  also	
  those	
  more	
  philosophical	
  in	
  nature,	
  working	
  toward	
  an	
  understanding	
  
of	
  how	
  the	
  digital-­‐information	
  environment	
  influences	
  everyday	
  life	
  as	
  it	
  evolves	
  and	
  changes	
  at	
  a	
  
rapid	
  pace.	
  

IMPLICATIONS	
  FOR	
  PRACTICE	
  

This	
  study	
  can	
  inform	
  several	
  aspects	
  of	
  practice.	
  I	
  expound	
  on	
  three	
  possibilities:	
  the	
  clear	
  
definition	
  of	
  technologies	
  like	
  AR	
  to	
  create	
  an	
  awareness	
  and	
  understanding	
  of	
  those	
  technologies,	
  
development	
  of	
  best	
  practices,	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  user	
  collaboration	
  in	
  the	
  design	
  and	
  
functionality	
  of	
  AR	
  and	
  similar	
  technologies.	
  The	
  implications	
  for	
  practice	
  concern	
  both	
  the	
  user	
  
and	
  the	
  provider	
  of	
  information	
  services.	
  

This	
  study	
  provides	
  perspective,	
  or	
  a	
  starting	
  point,	
  from	
  which	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS	
  can	
  begin	
  to	
  
analyze	
  the	
  use	
  and	
  implementation	
  of	
  AR	
  technology.	
  By	
  taking	
  a	
  step	
  back	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  
current	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR,	
  practitioners	
  within	
  LIS	
  can	
  begin	
  to	
  seek	
  consensus,	
  identify	
  
best	
  practices,	
  maintain	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  technology	
  is	
  used	
  and	
  think	
  realistically	
  about	
  
what	
  factors	
  contribute	
  to	
  successful	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  technology	
  in	
  a	
  given	
  institution.	
  As	
  
identified	
  in	
  the	
  study,	
  AR	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction.	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  for	
  those	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  to	
  
understand	
  this	
  perspective	
  and	
  to	
  go	
  on	
  to	
  identify	
  what	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  in	
  information	
  gathering,	
  
organization,	
  and	
  seeking	
  implies	
  for	
  the	
  field	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  and	
  for	
  users.	
  

As	
  a	
  field,	
  LIS	
  can	
  begin	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  broader	
  discussion	
  on	
  what	
  exactly	
  AR	
  can	
  provide	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  
can	
  benefit	
  user	
  services.	
  Such	
  a	
  discussion	
  can	
  help	
  practitioners	
  make	
  sense	
  of	
  how	
  this	
  
technology	
  can	
  work	
  with	
  traditional	
  sources	
  of	
  information.	
  AR	
  can	
  be	
  integrated	
  with	
  the	
  
traditional	
  rather	
  than	
  act	
  as	
  a	
  replacement	
  for	
  the	
  traditional.	
  This	
  broader	
  discussion	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  
a	
  consensus	
  on	
  how	
  best	
  to	
  define	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  and	
  concept.	
  Within	
  this	
  study,	
  it	
  is	
  evident	
  AR	
  is	
  
described	
  in	
  myriad	
  ways,	
  so	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  reflect	
  on	
  those	
  descriptions,	
  understand	
  what	
  the	
  
issues	
  are	
  surrounding	
  the	
  technology,	
  and	
  collaboratively	
  seek	
  and	
  identify	
  best	
  practices.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   41	
  

Furthermore,	
  by	
  identifying	
  best	
  practices,	
  practitioners	
  can	
  begin	
  to	
  pinpoint	
  what	
  applications	
  
of	
  AR	
  are	
  successful	
  within	
  an	
  institution	
  and	
  for	
  users,	
  and	
  why	
  those	
  applications	
  are	
  successful	
  
for	
  specific	
  purposes.	
  In	
  doing	
  so,	
  practitioners	
  can	
  build	
  AR	
  applications	
  around	
  the	
  needs	
  and	
  
mission	
  of	
  the	
  institution	
  rather	
  than	
  simply	
  flock	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  new	
  technology.	
  It	
  is	
  therefore	
  critical	
  
for	
  practitioners	
  to	
  think	
  realistically	
  about	
  AR	
  implementation.	
  Adopting	
  such	
  a	
  technology	
  will	
  
only	
  be	
  beneficial	
  once	
  practitioners	
  in	
  the	
  library	
  understand	
  its	
  full	
  impact.	
  Experience	
  with	
  
technology	
  and	
  programming,	
  knowledge	
  of	
  AR	
  functionality,	
  versatility,	
  and	
  cost	
  are	
  important	
  
factors	
  to	
  consider	
  when	
  contemplating	
  how	
  an	
  institution	
  can	
  benefit	
  from	
  AR,	
  if	
  at	
  all.	
  

Similarly,	
  publishers	
  are	
  using	
  AR	
  to	
  supplement	
  traditional	
  printed	
  books.	
  Educators	
  are	
  using	
  
AR	
  books	
  in	
  the	
  classroom	
  and	
  supplementing	
  traditional	
  course	
  instruction	
  with	
  these	
  books.	
  
Such	
  books	
  allow	
  for	
  3D	
  rendering	
  of	
  models	
  for	
  study,	
  such	
  as	
  planets,	
  molecular	
  structures,	
  and	
  
various	
  other	
  objects.	
  Those	
  within	
  LIS	
  have	
  a	
  strong	
  connection	
  to	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  education,	
  and	
  AR	
  
books	
  may	
  become	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  library	
  collection	
  as	
  they	
  become	
  more	
  popular	
  among	
  educators.	
  
Practitioners	
  in	
  LIS	
  through	
  collaboration	
  with	
  educators	
  will	
  then	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  aware	
  of	
  these	
  
books,	
  their	
  functionality,	
  and	
  how	
  to	
  help	
  users	
  access	
  the	
  content	
  lying	
  dormant	
  until	
  “activated”	
  
by	
  a	
  smartphone	
  or	
  tablet.	
  This	
  raises	
  the	
  question	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  smartphones,	
  tablets	
  or	
  other	
  
devices	
  that	
  can	
  scan	
  the	
  environment	
  will	
  become	
  commonplace	
  in	
  the	
  library	
  to	
  provide	
  full	
  
access	
  to	
  users.	
  	
  

User	
  collaboration	
  also	
  becomes	
  central	
  to	
  understanding	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  AR	
  on	
  practice.	
  User	
  
collaboration	
  in	
  design	
  is	
  important	
  because	
  AR	
  technology	
  is	
  largely	
  dependent	
  on	
  user	
  context.	
  
As	
  the	
  data	
  suggests,	
  AR	
  is	
  considered	
  an	
  enhancement—of	
  the	
  environment,	
  of	
  information,	
  and	
  
of	
  the	
  user	
  experience.	
  Prior	
  to	
  implementation,	
  it	
  is	
  critical	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  AR	
  enhances	
  the	
  
user	
  experience	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  perception	
  is	
  among	
  users.	
  User	
  surveys	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  tailored	
  AR	
  
applications	
  for	
  a	
  given	
  library	
  or	
  cultural	
  institution	
  community	
  should	
  there	
  be	
  a	
  need	
  or	
  desire	
  
for	
  AR	
  applications	
  identified	
  among	
  users.	
  Coupled	
  with	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  user	
  collaboration	
  in	
  design	
  is	
  
also	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  reevaluate	
  the	
  physical	
  spaces	
  of	
  libraries	
  and	
  similar	
  institutions.	
  Because	
  AR	
  
creates	
  an	
  overlay	
  of	
  digital	
  information	
  on	
  the	
  physical	
  environment,	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  necessary	
  for	
  
practitioners	
  to	
  identify	
  what	
  areas	
  of	
  the	
  library	
  or	
  institution	
  lend	
  themselves	
  to	
  digital	
  overlays,	
  
what	
  types	
  of	
  information	
  users	
  are	
  accessing	
  through	
  AR	
  applications,	
  and	
  whether	
  the	
  library	
  
space	
  is	
  configured	
  to	
  allow	
  for	
  navigating	
  space	
  via	
  AR.	
  

Practitioners	
  can	
  also	
  begin	
  to	
  survey	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  RCT	
  in	
  understanding	
  user	
  information-­‐seeking	
  
behavior.	
  By	
  acknowledging	
  this	
  theory	
  as	
  an	
  outline	
  of	
  our	
  digital-­‐information	
  environment,	
  
practitioners	
  can	
  be	
  mindful	
  of	
  user	
  expectations	
  and	
  behaviors	
  as	
  they	
  differ	
  from	
  traditional	
  
information	
  representations	
  and	
  methods	
  of	
  information	
  retrieval.	
  As	
  AR	
  creates	
  an	
  environment	
  
or	
  experience	
  for	
  the	
  user,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  for	
  practitioners	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  this	
  
technology	
  is	
  moving	
  forward	
  and	
  what	
  effect	
  it	
  has	
  on	
  the	
  sea	
  change	
  occurring	
  in	
  user	
  
acquisition	
  of	
  information.	
  RCT	
  is	
  a	
  framework	
  providing	
  practitioners	
  the	
  lens	
  through	
  which	
  to	
  
make	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  sea	
  change	
  and	
  predict	
  what	
  might	
  be	
  on	
  the	
  horizon.	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   42	
  

LIMITATIONS	
  AND	
  FUTURE	
  APPLICATION	
  

This	
  study	
  is	
  just	
  one	
  step	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  understanding	
  how	
  new	
  technology	
  is	
  conceptualized	
  
and	
  what	
  effect	
  that	
  conceptualization	
  has	
  on	
  implementation.	
  Should	
  AR	
  continue	
  to	
  grow	
  in	
  
popularity,	
  this	
  study	
  can	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  model	
  for	
  future	
  research	
  seeking	
  to	
  understand	
  concepts	
  
misinterpreted,	
  misunderstood,	
  or	
  undergoing	
  concrete	
  development.	
  Utilizing	
  the	
  explicit	
  
assertion	
  as	
  a	
  unit	
  of	
  analysis	
  coupled	
  with	
  RCT	
  can	
  aid	
  in	
  investigations	
  of	
  other	
  digital	
  
technologies,	
  both	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  implementation	
  and	
  end	
  use.	
  	
  

The	
  data	
  set	
  and	
  the	
  time	
  period	
  during	
  which	
  the	
  searches	
  of	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  took	
  place	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  
highlight	
  two	
  of	
  the	
  study’s	
  limitations.	
  Further	
  studies	
  can	
  focus	
  on	
  a	
  wider	
  range	
  of	
  sources	
  not	
  
limited	
  to	
  one	
  database	
  or	
  blog	
  search	
  type	
  and	
  extend	
  over	
  a	
  longer	
  period	
  of	
  time.	
  These	
  
limitations	
  have	
  potentially	
  excluded	
  other	
  voices,	
  perspectives,	
  and	
  definitions	
  of	
  AR,	
  and	
  the	
  
time	
  element	
  may	
  exclude	
  new	
  applications	
  or	
  uses	
  of	
  AR	
  currently	
  being	
  implemented.	
  	
  

Limitations	
  in	
  data	
  analysis	
  also	
  exist.	
  Content	
  analysis	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  many	
  research	
  methods	
  
researchers	
  can	
  employ	
  to	
  explore	
  this	
  topic.	
  Ethnographic	
  research	
  and	
  user	
  interviews	
  can	
  lead	
  
to	
  a	
  deeper	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  users	
  perceive	
  AR	
  and	
  information-­‐seeking	
  or	
  behavior	
  within	
  
the	
  AR	
  environment.	
  Such	
  qualitative	
  studies	
  can	
  provide	
  insight	
  to	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  user	
  lacking	
  in	
  
this	
  study.	
  Moreover,	
  this	
  researcher’s	
  own	
  admitted	
  bias	
  against	
  the	
  steadfast	
  use	
  of	
  digital	
  
technologies	
  prior	
  to	
  in-­‐depth	
  understanding	
  is	
  what	
  prompted	
  the	
  qualitative	
  inquiry	
  guiding	
  the	
  
study.	
  Quantitative	
  methods	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  track	
  the	
  popularity	
  or	
  perceptions	
  of	
  AR	
  through	
  
close-­‐ended	
  questionnaires	
  or	
  surveys	
  of	
  both	
  users	
  and	
  practitioners	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS.	
  Citation	
  
tracking	
  could	
  further	
  reveal	
  in	
  what	
  subfields	
  of	
  LIS	
  the	
  conversation	
  surrounding	
  AR	
  is	
  taking	
  
place,	
  and	
  may	
  also	
  uncover	
  whether	
  any	
  one	
  researcher	
  or	
  group	
  of	
  researchers	
  is	
  leading	
  the	
  
conversation.	
  	
  

Future	
  studies	
  can	
  examine	
  and	
  expand	
  on	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  this	
  study.	
  Rather	
  than	
  focusing	
  on	
  
conceptualization	
  only,	
  researchers	
  can	
  study	
  which	
  professional	
  fields	
  dominate	
  the	
  conversation	
  
surrounding	
  AR	
  and	
  what	
  areas	
  of	
  popular	
  culture	
  dominate	
  the	
  conversation	
  or	
  influence	
  
understanding	
  of	
  AR.	
  Similarly,	
  other	
  studies	
  can	
  address	
  the	
  specificity	
  of	
  each	
  source	
  making	
  
explicit	
  assertions	
  about	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  technology.	
  While	
  qualitative	
  in	
  nature,	
  the	
  study	
  is	
  limited	
  
because	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  examine	
  quantitative	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  articles	
  or	
  blog	
  posts	
  alluding	
  
to	
  AR	
  over	
  an	
  extended	
  period	
  of	
  time.	
  Such	
  studies	
  might	
  unravel	
  why	
  AR	
  is	
  progressing	
  as	
  it	
  is,	
  
and	
  may	
  identify	
  potential	
  problems	
  or	
  differences	
  in	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  these	
  perspectives	
  on	
  the	
  
use	
  of	
  AR.	
  

The	
  study	
  of	
  AR	
  also	
  widens	
  the	
  spectrum	
  of	
  user	
  studies.	
  Augmented	
  reality	
  open	
  a	
  whole	
  new	
  
area	
  of	
  user	
  interaction	
  with	
  information	
  extending	
  beyond	
  the	
  screen.	
  With	
  the	
  advent	
  of	
  
products	
  like	
  Google	
  Glass	
  and	
  applications	
  overlaying	
  digital	
  information	
  at	
  the	
  click	
  of	
  a	
  button	
  
in	
  an	
  endless	
  array	
  of	
  contexts	
  and	
  environments,	
  AR	
  brings	
  information-­‐seeking	
  further	
  into	
  a	
  
world	
  of	
  instability	
  and	
  unpredictability.	
  The	
  complex	
  nature	
  of	
  individual	
  people	
  is	
  now	
  being	
  
coupled	
  with	
  a	
  highly	
  individualized	
  complex	
  technology.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   43	
  

The	
  functionality	
  of	
  AR	
  prompts	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  archival	
  studies	
  related	
  to	
  this	
  technology.	
  The	
  
mobile	
  aspect	
  of	
  AR,	
  the	
  highly	
  personalized	
  content	
  and	
  the	
  intangible	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  
stored	
  within	
  AR	
  applications	
  highlights	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  an	
  examination	
  of	
  how	
  such	
  information	
  can	
  
actually	
  exist	
  within	
  an	
  archive	
  and	
  be	
  made	
  accessible,	
  or	
  whether	
  such	
  information	
  even	
  should	
  
exist	
  within	
  an	
  archive.	
  Such	
  a	
  question	
  for	
  those	
  within	
  LIS	
  also	
  suggests	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  a	
  realistic	
  
perspective	
  on	
  technology	
  like	
  AR—the	
  next	
  step,	
  or	
  reaction	
  to	
  such	
  technology,	
  is	
  often	
  
unrecognizable	
  and	
  unidentifiable	
  until	
  the	
  concept	
  itself	
  is	
  dissected	
  and	
  each	
  part	
  is	
  interpreted	
  
and	
  understood.	
  

CONCLUSION	
  

In	
  this	
  study,	
  I	
  used	
  content	
  analysis	
  to	
  explore	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  AR	
  technology	
  within	
  the	
  
field	
  of	
  LIS.	
  The	
  model	
  for	
  this	
  study	
  is	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Clement	
  and	
  Levine	
  and	
  their	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  explicit	
  
assertion	
  as	
  a	
  unit	
  of	
  analysis.90	
  I	
  coded	
  and	
  examined	
  explicit	
  assertions	
  pertaining	
  to	
  AR	
  in	
  LIS	
  
literature	
  and	
  Google	
  Blogs	
  to	
  determine	
  how	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  understood.	
  Analysis	
  shows	
  AR	
  
is	
  most	
  prominently	
  conceptualized	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  in	
  technology	
  and	
  media	
  consumption	
  
acting	
  on	
  reality	
  and	
  as	
  enhancing	
  reality	
  and	
  interaction	
  with	
  information.	
  

AR	
  is	
  basically	
  a	
  technology	
  allowing	
  for	
  digital	
  information	
  to	
  be	
  superimposed	
  on	
  the	
  real	
  world.	
  
But	
  beyond	
  that,	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  technology	
  changing	
  the	
  way	
  users	
  interact	
  with	
  information,	
  and	
  it	
  has	
  the	
  
potential	
  to	
  continue	
  changing	
  how	
  we	
  literally	
  see	
  information.	
  The	
  data	
  set	
  suggests	
  those	
  
within	
  LIS	
  conceptualize	
  AR	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  development	
  in	
  digital	
  technology	
  worth	
  paying	
  attention	
  to,	
  
at	
  least	
  for	
  now,	
  but	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  approached	
  with	
  some	
  caution	
  to	
  be	
  fully	
  understood	
  prior	
  to	
  
implementation	
  in	
  case	
  its	
  popularity	
  and	
  growth	
  is	
  fleeting.	
  As	
  reflected	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  set,	
  books	
  and	
  
physical	
  spaces	
  are	
  potential	
  areas	
  for	
  AR	
  application,	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  are	
  already	
  overlaid	
  with	
  
AR	
  and	
  enhancing	
  user	
  experiences.	
  As	
  a	
  whole,	
  AR	
  is	
  conceptualized	
  as	
  a	
  technology	
  with	
  great	
  
potential	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  way	
  users	
  interact	
  with	
  information	
  because	
  of	
  its	
  versatility,	
  mobility,	
  and	
  
direct	
  interaction	
  with	
  the	
  user’s	
  immediate	
  environment.	
  

Within	
  this	
  conceptualization,	
  the	
  user	
  is	
  central	
  to	
  igniting	
  the	
  functionality	
  of	
  AR.	
  Whether	
  
conceptualized	
  as	
  a	
  new	
  direction,	
  an	
  information	
  source	
  or	
  provider,	
  or	
  an	
  enhancement,	
  AR	
  is	
  
essentially	
  static	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  user	
  prompting	
  the	
  AR	
  application	
  to	
  “act.”	
  The	
  goal	
  of	
  AR	
  is	
  to	
  
present	
  information	
  in	
  digital	
  form	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  user’s	
  surroundings,	
  environment,	
  or	
  
reality.	
  As	
  a	
  field	
  dedicated	
  to	
  user	
  services	
  in	
  regard	
  to	
  information-­‐seeking,	
  it	
  is	
  imperative	
  to	
  
understand	
  the	
  potential	
  impact	
  this	
  technology	
  has	
  had	
  or	
  will	
  have	
  on	
  everyday	
  life.	
  

RCT	
  is	
  a	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  aiding	
  in	
  the	
  exploration	
  of	
  the	
  potential	
  impact	
  of	
  AR.	
  Born	
  out	
  of	
  
a	
  desire	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  the	
  digital	
  age	
  on	
  the	
  traditional	
  or	
  “analog”	
  media	
  with	
  
which	
  we	
  engage,	
  RCT	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  few	
  theories	
  resting	
  entirely	
  on	
  the	
  characteristics	
  driving	
  our	
  
digital-­‐information	
  environment,	
  outlined	
  specifically	
  as	
  interactivity,	
  connectivity,	
  and	
  access.	
  
Utilizing	
  this	
  theory	
  as	
  a	
  lens	
  for	
  future	
  research	
  regarding	
  digital	
  information	
  is	
  a	
  natural	
  next	
  
step	
  in	
  theory	
  exploration	
  and	
  development.	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   44	
  

Together,	
  AR	
  and	
  RCT	
  accentuate	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  how	
  we	
  consume	
  and	
  display	
  information.	
  From	
  
storytelling	
  to	
  printed	
  pages	
  to	
  electronic	
  devices,	
  our	
  engagement	
  with	
  information	
  will	
  never	
  be	
  
the	
  same	
  again.	
  As	
  we	
  move	
  forward,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  continue	
  to	
  ask	
  new	
  questions,	
  seek	
  new	
  
explanations,	
  and	
  try	
  to	
  formulate	
  the	
  most	
  appropriate	
  answers	
  for	
  the	
  contexts	
  in	
  which	
  we	
  all	
  
deal	
  with	
  information,	
  be	
  it	
  gathering,	
  organizing,	
  seeking,	
  or	
  understanding.	
  This	
  study	
  is	
  one	
  
piece	
  in	
  a	
  puzzle,	
  and	
  it	
  prompts	
  more	
  questions	
  than	
  it	
  provides	
  answers.	
  AR	
  can	
  and	
  should	
  be	
  
studied	
  from	
  every	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  LIS,	
  if	
  it	
  is	
  in	
  fact	
  a	
  new	
  direction	
  toward	
  our	
  new	
  normal.	
  

REFERENCES	
  

	
  
1.	
  	
   Nathan	
  Crilly,	
  “The	
  Design	
  Stance	
  in	
  User-­‐System	
  Interaction,”	
  Design	
  Issues	
  27,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2011):	
  

16–29.	
  

2.	
  	
   Pelle	
  Ehn,	
  “The	
  End	
  of	
  the	
  User—The	
  Computer	
  as	
  a	
  Thing,”	
  in	
  End-­‐User	
  Development,	
  ed.	
  Y.	
  
Dittrich,	
  M.	
  Burnett,	
  A.	
  Morch	
  and	
  D.	
  Redmiles	
  (Berlin,	
  Germany:	
  Springer,	
  2009),	
  8–8.	
  

3.	
  	
   Daniel	
  Fallman,	
  “The	
  New	
  Good:	
  Exploring	
  the	
  Potential	
  of	
  Philosophy	
  of	
  Technology	
  to	
  
Contribute	
  to	
  Human-­‐Computer	
  Interaction.”	
  Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  the	
  SIGCHI	
  Conference	
  on	
  
Human	
  Factors	
  in	
  Computing	
  Systems,	
  Vancouver,	
  British	
  Columbia,	
  May	
  2011).	
  

4.	
  	
   Bruce	
  M.	
  Hanington,	
  “Relevant	
  and	
  Rigorous:	
  Human-­‐Centered	
  Research	
  and	
  Design	
  	
  
Education,”	
  Design	
  Issues	
  26,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2010):	
  18–26.	
  

5.	
  	
   Manuel	
  Imaz	
  and	
  David	
  Benyon,	
  Designing	
  with	
  Blends:	
  Conceptual	
  Foundations	
  of	
  Human-­‐
Computer	
  Interaction	
  and	
  Software	
  Engineering	
  (Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  MIT	
  Press,	
  2007).	
  

6.	
  	
   Laura	
  Manzari	
  and	
  Jeremiah	
  Trinidad-­‐Christensen,	
  “User-­‐Centered	
  Design	
  of	
  a	
  Web	
  Site	
  for	
  
Library	
  and	
  Information	
  Science	
  Students:	
  Heuristic	
  Evaluation	
  and	
  Usability	
  Testing,”	
  
Information	
  Technology	
  &	
  Libraries	
  25,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2006):	
  163–69.	
  

7.	
  	
   Yoram	
  Moses	
  and	
  Marcia	
  K.	
  Shamo,	
  “A	
  Knowledge-­‐Based	
  Treatment	
  of	
  Human-­‐Automation	
  
Systems,”	
  (2013),	
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2191.	
  

8.	
  	
   Marc	
  Steen,	
  “Human-­‐Centered	
  Design	
  as	
  a	
  Fragile	
  Encounter,”	
  Design	
  Issues	
  28,	
  no.	
  1	
  (2012):	
  
72–80.	
  

9.	
  	
   Ronald	
  T.	
  Azuma,	
  “A	
  Survey	
  of	
  Augmented	
  Reality,”	
  Presence:	
  Teleoperators	
  and	
  Virtual	
  
Environments	
  6,	
  no.	
  4	
  (1997):	
  355.	
  

10.	
  	
  Antti	
  Aaltonen	
  and	
  Juha	
  Lehikoinen,	
  “Exploring	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Visualizations,”	
  
Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  AVI	
  ’06:	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  Working	
  Conference	
  on	
  Advanced	
  Visual	
  
Interfaces	
  (2006):	
  453–56,	
  http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1133357.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   45	
  

	
  
11.	
  	
  Peter	
  Anders,	
  “Designing	
  Mixed	
  Reality:	
  Perception,	
  Projects	
  and	
  Practice,”	
  Technoetic	
  Arts:	
  A	
  

Journal	
  of	
  Speculative	
  Research	
  6,	
  no.	
  1	
  (2008):	
  19–29,	
  	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/tear.6.1.19_1.	
  

12.	
  	
  Blair	
  MacIntyre,	
  Jay	
  David	
  Bolter,	
  Emmanuel	
  Moreno,	
  and	
  Brendan	
  Hanigan,	
  “Augmented	
  
Reality	
  as	
  a	
  New	
  Media	
  Experience,”	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  IEEE	
  and	
  ACM	
  International	
  
Symposium	
  on	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  (New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  2001),	
  197-­‐206,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISAR.2001.970538.	
  

13.	
  	
   Aaltonen	
  and	
  Lehikoinen,	
  “Exploring	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Visualizations.”	
  

14.	
  	
  Benjamin	
  Avery	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Evaluation	
  of	
  User	
  Satisfaction	
  and	
  Learnability	
  For	
  Outdoor	
  
Augmented	
  Reality	
  Gaming”	
  User	
  Interfaces	
  2006:	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  Seventh	
  Australasian	
  User	
  
Interface	
  Conference—Volume	
  50	
  (Darlinghurst,	
  Australia:	
  Australian	
  Computer	
  Society,	
  
2006),	
  17–24.	
  

15.	
  	
  Oliver	
  Bimber,	
  L.	
  Miguel	
  Encarnacao,	
  and	
  Dieter	
  Schmalstieg,	
  “The	
  Virtual	
  Showcase	
  as	
  a	
  New	
  
Platform	
  for	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Digital	
  Storytelling”	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  EGVE	
  ’03:	
  Proceedings	
  
of	
  the	
  Workshop	
  on	
  Virtual	
  Environments	
  (New	
  York:	
  ACM,	
  2003),	
  87–95,	
  
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=769964.	
  

16.	
  	
  Push	
  Singh,	
  Barbara	
  Barry	
  and	
  H.	
  Liu,	
  “Teaching	
  Machines	
  About	
  Everyday	
  Life,”	
  BT	
  
Technology	
  Journal	
  22,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2004):	
  211–26.	
  

17.	
  	
  Alan	
  M.	
  Turing,	
  “Computing	
  Machinery	
  and	
  Intelligence,”	
  Creative	
  Computing	
  6,	
  no.	
  1	
  (1950):	
  
44–53.	
  

18.	
  	
  Chih-­‐Ming	
  Chen	
  and	
  Yen-­‐Nung	
  Tsai,	
  “Interactive	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  System	
  for	
  Enhancing	
  
Library	
  Instruction	
  in	
  Elementary	
  Schools,”	
  Computers	
  and	
  Education	
  59,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2012):	
  638–
52.	
  

19.	
  	
  David	
  Chen	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Mobile	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  for	
  Books	
  on	
  a	
  Shelf.”	
  Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  2011	
  
IEEE	
  International	
  	
  Conference	
  on	
  Multimedia	
  and	
  Expo	
  (ICME),	
  Barcelona,	
  Spain,	
  July	
  2011,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2011.6012171.	
  

20.	
  	
  Giovanni	
  Saggio	
  and	
  Davide	
  Borra,	
  “Augmented	
  Reality	
  for	
  Restoration/Reconstruction	
  of	
  
Artefacts	
  with	
  Artistic	
  or	
  Historical	
  Value”	
  (informally	
  published	
  manuscript,	
  University	
  of	
  
Rome,	
  Italy,	
  2012),	
  http://tainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/handle/123456789/29953.	
  

21.	
  	
  Andre	
  Walsh,	
  “QR	
  Codes—Using	
  Mobile	
  Phones	
  to	
  Deliver	
  Library	
  Instruction	
  and	
  Help	
  at	
  the	
  
Point	
  of	
  Need,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  Information	
  Literacy	
  4,	
  no.	
  1	
  (2010):	
  55–63.	
  

22.	
  	
  Azuma,	
  “A	
  Survey	
  of	
  Augmented	
  Reality.”	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   46	
  

	
  
23.	
  	
  Telmo	
  Zarraonandia	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Augmented	
  Lectures	
  around	
  the	
  Corner?”	
  British	
  Journal	
  of	
  

Educational	
  Technology	
  42,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2011):	
  E76–E78.	
  

24.	
  	
  Mark	
  Billinghurst	
  and	
  Andreas	
  Duenser,	
  “Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  the	
  Classroom,”	
  Computer	
  45,	
  
no.	
  7	
  (2012):	
  56–63.	
  

25.	
  	
  Angela	
  Di	
  Serio,	
  Maria	
  Blanca	
  Ibanez,	
  and	
  Carlos	
  Delgado	
  Kloos,	
  “Impact	
  of	
  an	
  Augmented	
  
Reality	
  System	
  on	
  Students’	
  Motivation	
  for	
  a	
  Visual	
  Art	
  Course,”	
  Computers	
  and	
  Education	
  68	
  
(2013):	
  586–96.	
  

26.	
  	
  Liv	
  Valmestad,	
  “Q(a)r(t)	
  Code	
  Public	
  Art	
  Project:	
  A	
  Convergence	
  of	
  Media	
  and	
  Mobile	
  
Technology,”	
  Art	
  Documentation:	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  Art	
  Libraries	
  Society	
  of	
  North	
  America	
  30,	
  no.	
  2	
  
(2011):	
  70–73.	
  

27.	
  	
  Claudio	
  Kirner	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Design	
  of	
  a	
  Cognitive	
  Artifact	
  Based	
  on	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  to	
  Support	
  
Multiple	
  Learning	
  Approaches,”	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  World	
  Conference	
  on	
  Educational	
  Multimedia,	
  
Hypermedia	
  and	
  Telecommunications	
  (Denver,	
  CO:	
  June	
  2006).	
  

28.	
  	
  Deborah	
  Lee,	
  “The	
  2011	
  Horizon	
  Report:	
  Emerging	
  Technologies,”	
  Mississippi	
  Libraries	
  75,	
  no.	
  
1	
  (2012):	
  7–8.	
  

29.	
  	
  George	
  Margetis	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Augmented	
  Interaction	
  with	
  Physical	
  Books	
  in	
  an	
  Ambient	
  Intelligence	
  
Learning	
  Environment,”	
  Multimedia	
  Tools	
  and	
  Applications	
  67,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2013):	
  473–95,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11042-­‐011-­‐0976-­‐x.	
  

30.	
  	
  Stefaan	
  Ternier	
  and	
  Fred	
  De	
  Vries,	
  “Mobile	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  Higher	
  Education.”	
  Paper	
  
presented	
  at	
  the	
  Learning	
  in	
  Context	
  ’12	
  Workshop,	
  Brussels,	
  Belgium,	
  March	
  2012,	
  	
  
http://hdl.handle.net/1820/4219.	
  

31.	
  	
  Bimber,	
  Encarnacao,	
  and	
  Schmalstieg,	
  “The	
  Virtual	
  Showcase	
  as	
  a	
  New	
  Platform	
  for	
  
Augmented	
  Reality	
  Digital	
  Storytelling.”	
  

32.	
  	
  Alisa	
  Barry	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  a	
  Public	
  Space:	
  The	
  Natural	
  History	
  Museum,	
  
London,”	
  Computer,	
  45,	
  no.	
  7	
  (2012):	
  42–47,	
  	
  
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MC.2012.106.	
  

33.	
  	
  David	
  Marimon	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Mobiar:	
  Tourist	
  Experiences	
  Through	
  Mobile	
  Augmented	
  Reality.”	
  
Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  the	
  Networked	
  and	
  Electronic	
  Media	
  Summit,	
  Barcelona,	
  Spain,	
  2012.	
  

34.	
  	
  Ann	
  Morrison	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Collaborative	
  Use	
  of	
  Mobile	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  with	
  Paper	
  Maps,”	
  
Computers	
  and	
  Graphics	
  35,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2011):	
  789–99.	
  

35.	
  	
  Yetao	
  Huang	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Iterative	
  Design	
  of	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Device	
  in	
  Yuanmingyuan	
  for	
  Public	
  
Use,”	
  Vrcai	
  ’11:	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  the	
  10th	
  International	
  Conference	
  on	
  Virtual	
  Reality	
  Continuum	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   47	
  

	
  
and	
  its	
  Applications	
  in	
  Industry,	
  Hong	
  Kong,	
  2011	
  (New	
  York:	
  ACM,	
  2011),	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2087756.2087847.	
  

36.	
  	
  Azuma,	
  “A	
  Survey	
  of	
  Augmented	
  Reality.”	
  

37.	
  	
  Selim	
  Balcisoy	
  and	
  Daniel	
  Thalmann,	
  “Interaction	
  between	
  Real	
  and	
  Virtual	
  Humans	
  in	
  
Augmented	
  Reality.”	
  Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  Computer	
  Animation,	
  Geneva,	
  Switzerland,	
  1997,	
  
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=791510.	
  

38.	
  	
  Enylton	
  Machado	
  Coelho,	
  Blair	
  MacIntyre,	
  and	
  Simon	
  J.	
  Julier,	
  “Supporting	
  Interaction	
  in	
  
Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  the	
  Presence	
  of	
  Uncertain	
  Spatial	
  Knowledge.”	
  Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  the	
  
Eighteenth	
  Annual	
  ACM	
  Symposium	
  on	
  User	
  Interface	
  Software	
  and	
  Technology,	
  Seattle,	
  WA,	
  
October	
  23–27,	
  2005,	
  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.91.4041.	
  

39.	
  	
  Brian	
  X.	
  Chen,	
  “If	
  You’re	
  Not	
  Seeing	
  Data,	
  You’re	
  Not	
  Seeing,”	
  Wired	
  (blog),	
  August	
  25,	
  2009,	
  
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/augmented-­‐reality/	
  .	
  

40.	
  	
  Isabel	
  Pedersen,	
  “A	
  Semiotics	
  of	
  Human	
  Actions	
  for	
  Wearable	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Interfaces,”	
  
Semiotica	
  155,	
  no.	
  1–4	
  (2005):	
  183–200.	
  

41.	
  	
  Ibid.	
  

42.	
  	
  Balcisoy	
  and	
  Thalmann,	
  “Interaction	
  Between	
  Real	
  and	
  Virtual	
  Humans	
  in	
  Augmented	
  
Reality.”	
  

43.	
  	
  Ray	
  Kurzweil,	
  “Robots	
  ’R’	
  Us,”	
  Popular	
  Science	
  269,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2006):	
  54–57.	
  

44.	
  	
  Chen,	
  “If	
  You’re	
  Not	
  Seeing	
  Data,	
  You’re	
  Not	
  Seeing.”	
  	
  

45.	
  	
  Avery	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Evaluation	
  of	
  User	
  Satisfaction	
  and	
  Learnability	
  For	
  Outdoor	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  
Gaming.”	
  

46.	
  	
  Gerhard	
  Reitmayr	
  and	
  Dieter	
  Schmalstieg,	
  “Location	
  Based	
  Applications	
  for	
  Mobile	
  
Augmented	
  Reality”	
  Paper	
  presented	
  at	
  the	
  Fourth	
  Australian	
  User	
  Interface	
  Conference	
  on	
  
User	
  Interfaces,	
  Adelaide,	
  Austrialia,	
  2003.	
  

47.	
  	
  Coelho,	
  MacIntyre	
  and	
  Julier,	
  “Supporting	
  Interaction	
  in	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  the	
  Presence	
  of	
  
Uncertain	
  Spatial	
  Knowledge.”	
  

48.	
  	
  Carol	
  C.	
  Kuhlthau,	
  Seeking	
  Meaning:	
  A	
  Process	
  Approach	
  to	
  Library	
  and	
  Information	
  Services	
  
(Westport,	
  CT:	
  Libraries	
  Unlimited,	
  2004).	
  

49.	
  	
  Crystal	
  Fulton,	
  “Chatman’s	
  Life	
  in	
  the	
  Round,”	
  in	
  Theories	
  of	
  Information	
  Behavior,	
  ed.	
  Karen	
  E.	
  
Fisher,	
  Sanda	
  Erdelez,	
  and	
  Lynne	
  McKechnie	
  (Medford,	
  NJ:	
  Information	
  Today,	
  2009),	
  79–82.	
  

50.	
  	
  Constance	
  A.	
  Mellon,	
  “Library	
  Anxiety:	
  A	
  Grounded	
  Theory	
  and	
  Its	
  Development,”	
  College	
  &	
  
Research	
  Libraries	
  47	
  (1986),	
  160–65.	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   48	
  

	
  
51.	
  	
  Donald	
  O.	
  Case,	
  Looking	
  for	
  Information:	
  A	
  Survey	
  of	
  Research	
  on	
  Information	
  Seeking,	
  Needs	
  

and	
  Behavior	
  (New	
  York:	
  Academic	
  Press,	
  2008).	
  

52.	
  	
  Leanne	
  Bowler	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Issues	
  in	
  User-­‐Centered	
  Design	
  in	
  US,”	
  Library	
  Trends	
  59,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2011):	
  
721–52.	
  

53.	
  	
  Ibid.	
  

54.	
  	
  Heather	
  L.	
  O’Brien	
  and	
  Elaine	
  G.	
  Toms,	
  “What	
  is	
  User	
  Engagement?	
  A	
  Conceptual	
  Framework	
  
for	
  Defining	
  User	
  Engagement	
  with	
  Technology,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Society	
  For	
  
Information	
  Science	
  &	
  Technology	
  59,	
  no.	
  6	
  (2008):	
  938–55.	
  

55.	
  	
  Liu	
  Shu,	
  “Engaging	
  Users:	
  The	
  Future	
  of	
  Academic	
  Library	
  Web	
  Sites,”	
  College	
  &	
  Research	
  
Libraries	
  69,	
  no.	
  1	
  (2008):	
  6–27.	
  

56.	
  	
  Djilali	
  Idoughi,	
  Ahmed	
  Seffah,	
  and	
  Christophe	
  Kolski,	
  “Adding	
  User	
  Experience	
  into	
  the	
  
Interactive	
  Service	
  Design	
  Loop:	
  A	
  Persona-­‐Based	
  Approach,”	
  Behaviour	
  &	
  Information	
  
Technology	
  31,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2012):	
  287–303.	
  

57.	
  	
  Natalie	
  Pang	
  and	
  Don	
  Schauder,	
  “The	
  Culture	
  of	
  Information	
  Systems	
  in	
  Knowledge-­‐Creating	
  
Contexts:	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  User-­‐Centred	
  Design,”	
  Informing	
  Science	
  10	
  (January	
  2007):	
  203–35.	
  	
  

58.	
  	
  Michelle	
  L.	
  Young,	
  Annette	
  Bailey,	
  and	
  Leslie	
  O’Brien,	
  “Designing	
  a	
  User-­‐Centric	
  Catalog	
  
Interface:	
  A	
  Discussion	
  of	
  the	
  Implementation	
  Process	
  for	
  Virginia	
  Tech’s	
  Integrated	
  Library	
  
System,”	
  Virginia	
  Libraries	
  53,	
  no.	
  4	
  (2007):	
  11–15.	
  

59.	
  	
  Shawn	
  R.	
  Wolfe	
  and	
  Yi	
  Zhang,	
  “User-­‐Centric	
  Multi-­‐Criteria	
  Information	
  Retrieval”	
  (paper	
  
presented	
  at	
  the	
  32nd	
  International	
  ACM	
  SIGIR	
  Conference	
  on	
  Research	
  and	
  Development	
  in	
  
Information	
  Retrieval,	
  Boston,	
  July	
  19–23,	
  2009).	
  

60.	
  	
  Mary	
  M.	
  Somerville	
  and	
  Mary	
  Nino,	
  “Collaborative	
  Co-­‐Design:	
  A	
  User-­‐Centric	
  Approach	
  for	
  
Advancement	
  of	
  Organizational	
  Learning,”	
  Performance	
  Measurement	
  &	
  Metrics	
  8,	
  no.	
  3	
  
(2007):	
  180–88.	
  

61.	
  	
  Tamar	
  Sadeh,	
  “User-­‐Centric	
  Solutions	
  for	
  Scholarly	
  Research	
  in	
  the	
  Library,”	
  Liber	
  Quarterly:	
  
The	
  Journal	
  of	
  European	
  Research	
  Libraries	
  17,	
  no.	
  1–4	
  (2007):	
  253–68.	
  

62.	
  	
  Bettina	
  Berendt	
  and	
  Anett	
  Kralisch,	
  “A	
  User-­‐Centric	
  Approach	
  to	
  Identifying	
  Best	
  Deployment	
  
Strategies	
  for	
  Language	
  Tools:	
  The	
  Impact	
  of	
  Content	
  and	
  Access	
  Language	
  on	
  Web	
  User	
  
Behaviour	
  and	
  Attitudes,”	
  Information	
  Retrieval	
  12,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2009):	
  380–99.	
  

63.	
  	
  Gail	
  Clement	
  and	
  Melissa	
  Levine,	
  “Copyright	
  and	
  Publication	
  Status	
  of	
  Pre-­‐1978	
  Dissertations:	
  
A	
  Content	
  Analysis	
  Approach,”	
  portal:	
  Libraries	
  and	
  the	
  Academy	
  11,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2011):	
  813–29,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0032.	
  	
  

64.	
  	
  Ibid.	
  



	
  

INFORMATION	
  TECHNOLOGY	
  AND	
  LIBRARIES	
  |	
  DECEMBER	
  2014	
   49	
  

	
  
65.	
  	
  Eliza	
  T.	
  Dresang,	
  “Radical	
  Change,”	
  in	
  Theories	
  of	
  Information	
  Behavior,	
  ed.	
  Karen	
  E.	
  Fisher,	
  

Sanda	
  Erdelez,	
  and	
  Lynne	
  McKechnie	
  (Medford,	
  NJ:	
  Information	
  Today,	
  2009),	
  298–302.	
  

66.	
  	
  Grace	
  M.	
  Jackson-­‐Brown,	
  “Content	
  Analysis	
  Study	
  of	
  Librarian	
  Blogs:	
  Professional	
  
Development	
  and	
  Other	
  Uses,”	
  First	
  Monday	
  18,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2013):	
  2.	
  

67	
  	
   Dahlia	
  K.	
  Remler	
  and	
  Gregg	
  G.	
  Van	
  Ryzin,	
  Research	
  Methods	
  in	
  Practice:	
  Strategies	
  for	
  
Description	
  and	
  Causation	
  (Los	
  Angeles:	
  Sage,	
  2011).	
  

68.	
  	
  Kangdon	
  Lee,	
  “Augmented	
  Reality	
  in	
  Education	
  and	
  Training,”	
  Techtrends:	
  Linking	
  Research	
  
and	
  Practice	
  To	
  Improve	
  Learning	
  56,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2012):	
  13–21.	
  

69.	
  	
  YFS	
  Magazine,	
  “Interview:	
  Gravity	
  Jack	
  CEO,	
  Luke	
  Richey	
  Talks	
  Industry	
  Leadership,	
  
Augmented	
  Reality	
  and	
  Why	
  Cash	
  Isn’t	
  King,”	
  Yfsmagazine.com	
  (blog),	
  December	
  19,	
  2012,	
  
http://yfsentrepreneur.com/2012/12/19/interview-­‐gravity-­‐jack-­‐ceo-­‐luke-­‐richey-­‐talks-­‐
industry-­‐leadership-­‐augmented-­‐reality-­‐and-­‐why-­‐cash-­‐isnt-­‐king/	
  .	
  

70.	
  	
  Carol	
  Pitts	
  Diedrichs,	
  “Discovery	
  and	
  Delivery:	
  Making	
  it	
  Work	
  for	
  Users,”	
  Serials	
  Librarian	
  56,	
  
no.	
  1–4	
  (2009):	
  79–93.	
  

71.	
  	
  Baker	
  Evans,	
  “The	
  Ubiquity	
  of	
  Mobile	
  Devices	
  in	
  Universities—Usage	
  and	
  Expectations,”	
  
Serials	
  24	
  (2011):	
  S11–S16.	
  

72.	
  	
  Andrew	
  J.	
  Flanagin	
  and	
  Miriam	
  J.	
  Metzger,	
  “Perceptions	
  of	
  Internet	
  Information	
  Credibility,”	
  
Journalism	
  and	
  Mass	
  Communication	
  Quarterly	
  77,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2000):	
  515–40.	
  

73.	
  	
  Ronald	
  M.	
  Solorzano,	
  “Adding	
  Value	
  at	
  the	
  Desk:	
  How	
  Technology	
  and	
  User	
  Expectations	
  are	
  
Changing	
  Reference	
  Work,”	
  Reference	
  Librarian	
  54,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2013):	
  89–102,	
  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2013.755398.	
  

74.	
  	
  Robin	
  Canuel,	
  Chad	
  Crichton,	
  and	
  Maria	
  Savova,	
  “Tablets	
  as	
  Powerful	
  Tools	
  for	
  University	
  
Research,”	
  Library	
  Technology	
  Reports	
  48,	
  no.	
  8	
  (2012):	
  35–41.	
  

75.	
  	
  David	
  Meyer,	
  “Telefonica	
  Bets	
  on	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  with	
  Aurasma	
  Tie-­‐In,”	
  Gigaom	
  (blog),	
  
September	
  17,	
  2012,	
  http://gigaom.com/2012/09/17/telefonica-­‐bets-­‐on-­‐augmented-­‐reality-­‐
with-­‐aurasma-­‐tie-­‐in.	
  

76.	
  	
  Eliza	
  T.	
  Dresang,	
  “The	
  Information-­‐Seeking	
  Behavior	
  of	
  Youth	
  in	
  the	
  Digital	
  Environment,”	
  
Library	
  Trends	
  54,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2005):	
  178–96.	
  

77.	
  	
  Ibid.	
  

78.	
  	
  Dave	
  Rodgerson,	
  “Experiments	
  in	
  Augmented	
  Reality	
  Hint	
  at	
  its	
  Potential	
  for	
  Retailers,”	
  Future	
  
of	
  Retail	
  Alliance	
  (blog),	
  October	
  5,	
  2012,	
  http://www.joinfora.com/experiments-­‐in-­‐
augmented-­‐reality-­‐hint-­‐at-­‐its-­‐potential-­‐for-­‐retailers/.	
  	
  



	
  

DO	
  YOU	
  BELIEVE	
  IN	
  MAGIC?	
  |	
  ZAK	
   	
   	
   50	
  

	
  
79.	
  	
  Wolfgang	
  Narzt	
  et	
  al.,	
  “Augmented	
  Reality	
  Navigation	
  Systems,”	
  Universal	
  Access	
  in	
  the	
  

Information	
  Society	
  4,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2005):	
  177–87.	
  

80.	
  	
  Mito	
  Akiyoshi	
  and	
  Hiroshi	
  Ono,	
  “The	
  Diffusion	
  of	
  Mobile	
  Internet	
  in	
  Japan,”	
  Information	
  
Society	
  24,	
  no.	
  5	
  (2008):	
  292–303,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240802356067.	
  

81.	
  	
  Jeffrey	
  James,	
  “Institutional	
  and	
  Societal	
  Innovations	
  in	
  Information	
  Technology	
  for	
  
Developing	
  Countries,”	
  Information	
  Development	
  28,	
  no.	
  3	
  (2012):	
  183–88.	
  	
  

82.	
  	
  Andromeda	
  Yelton,	
  “Dispatches	
  from	
  the	
  Field.	
  Bridging	
  the	
  Digital	
  Gap,”	
  American	
  Libraries	
  
43,	
  no.	
  1/2	
  (2012):	
  30,	
  http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/bridging-­‐digital-­‐
divide-­‐mobile-­‐services.	
  	
  

83.	
  	
  Dresang,	
  “The	
  Information-­‐Seeking	
  Behavior	
  of	
  Youth	
  in	
  the	
  Digital	
  Environment.”	
  

84.	
  	
  Marta	
  J.	
  Abele,	
  “Responses	
  to	
  Radical	
  Change:	
  Children’s	
  Books	
  by	
  Preservice	
  Teachers”	
  
(doctoral	
  dissertation,	
  Capella	
  University,	
  Minneapolis,	
  Minnesota,	
  2003).	
  	
  

85.	
  	
  Jacqueline	
  N.	
  Glasgow,	
  “Radical	
  Change	
  in	
  Young	
  Adult	
  Literature	
  Informs	
  the	
  Multigenre	
  
Paper,”	
  The	
  English	
  Journal	
  92,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2002):	
  41-­‐51,	
  http://www.jstor.org/stable/822225.	
  	
  

86.	
  	
  Sylvia	
  Pantaleo,	
  “Readers	
  and	
  Writers	
  as	
  Intertexts:	
  Exploring	
  the	
  Intertextualities	
  in	
  Student	
  
Writing,”	
  Australian	
  Journal	
  Of	
  Language	
  and	
  Literacy	
  29,	
  no.	
  2	
  (2006):	
  163–81,	
  
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=157093987891049;res=IELHSS.	
  	
  

87.	
  	
  Tom	
  D.	
  Wilson,	
  “Information	
  Behavior:	
  An	
  Interdisciplinary	
  Perspective,”	
  Information	
  
Processing	
  &	
  Management	
  33,	
  no.	
  4	
  (1997):	
  551–72.	
  

88.	
  	
  Sanda	
  Erdelez,	
  “Information	
  Encountering:	
  It’s	
  More	
  than	
  Just	
  Bumping	
  into	
  Information,”	
  
Bulletin	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Society	
  for	
  Information	
  Science	
  &	
  Technology	
  25,	
  no.	
  3	
  (1999):	
  25–29,	
  
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-­‐99/erdelez.html.	
  

89.	
  	
  Marcia	
  J.	
  Bates,	
  “The	
  Design	
  of	
  Browsing	
  and	
  Berrypicking	
  Techniques	
  for	
  the	
  Online	
  Search	
  
Interface,”	
  Online	
  Review	
  13,	
  no.	
  5	
  (1989):	
  407–24.	
  

90.	
  	
  Clement	
  and	
  Levine,	
  “Copyright	
  and	
  Publication	
  Status	
  of	
  Pre-­‐1978	
  Dissertations.”