(PDF) A Robot in the Library

University of Southern Denmark A Robot in the Library Vlachos, Evgenios; Faber, Anne; Holck, Jakob Povl Published in: Culture and Computing DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-50267-6_24 Publication date: 2020 Document version: Accepted manuscript Citation for pulished version (APA): Vlachos, E., Faber, A., & Holck, J. P. (2020). A Robot in the Library. In M. Rauterberg (Ed.), Culture and Computing: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, C&C 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020 (pp. 312-322). Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 12215 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50267-6_24 Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal Terms of use This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply: • You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim. Please direct all enquiries to

Download date: 31. May. 2022 A Robot in the Library Evgenios Vlachos[0000-0001-8235-0423] ( ) , Anne Faber Hansen[0000-0003-3347-8169] and Jakob Povl Holck[0000-0001-6388-2002] University Library of Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense, Denmark

Abstract. If robots are to be beneficial and appealing within an international li- brary setting, useful to patrons and cooperative with library personnel, then li- brary culture becomes an important issue. Human-robot interaction designers need to consider technological factors, the library culture, as well as expectations from users to develop a solution that could withstand the fall of time and not atone when enthusiasm is lost. We reviewed the recent literature and performed qualitative analyses of our findings to explore the tasks that are proven to have been robotized in a library, and to investigate current cultural and technological barriers that would decrease acceptance rates of robots in a library. Search of Scopus, Web of Science, IEEEXplore, and LISTA databases was conducted com- plemented with Google searches. Articles with scientific content were included if they described the use of a robot in a library setting, were written in English, and were published within 2016-2018. We identified 1037 references and after title, abstract and full-text screening according to the eligibility criteria we in- cluded 18 records in our analysis. We summarize the main roles of library robots as: robots for navigation, book location and placement; robots as information desks; and robots in education. Barriers towards robotic acceptance was found to be: anxiety and fear among librarians of being replaced by robots; the lack of resources (time, money, space) for maintaining a robot and the cost of organiza- tional restructuring; maintaining the enthusiasm around it over time; and the pa- trons’ need for human contact. Keywords: Robot, Library, Literature search, Technological benefits, Cultural barriers. 1 Introduction In many parts of society, robots have been found to be able to replace physically de- manding, dangerous, or repetitious human routines. The development within the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to hold the potential for more and more complex robotic task solutions which may not only mimic human, or “natural” movement, but also human decision making. In the library field, we are not quite there yet. 2 Some of the larger libraries around the world already have automated storage and retrieval systems (ASRS). This, for instance, applies to the Joe and Rika Mansueto Li- brary at the University of Chicago [1] that introduced an ASRS capable of shelving 3.5 million volumes underground by size rather than classification, and the Bodleian Li- braries’ book storage facility at the University of Oxford [2] using an ASRS holding 8 million items. In a world that produces 2.5 quintillion bytes of data every day according to IBM consumer Products1, vast amounts of information – and consequently huge quantities of printed material – are produced every single day. Automated library sys- tems come in handy as part of manageable logistics solutions at larger libraries, whether the materials to be handled are books, or collections. Naturally, the ASRS facilities are an example of a controlled environment where the library users are completely absent and where only maintenance personnel will come close to the moving parts of the sys- tem. Smaller libraries don’t have the need for ASRS but could -in theory- have other tasks robotized. Perhaps, a socially assistive robot (SAR) [3-5] designed to move au- tonomously among humans and capable of socially interacting with them could poten- tially have the skills to respond to the dynamic environment of a library. To find out whether a robot could provide valuable assistance at any given library, one would have to initially look at the different routines and tasks at the library in ques- tion – and break every library task down into simple movements, or operations that a robot with the current technology would be expected to be able to execute. The handling and circulation of materials is one thing. But there are many other traditional librarian tasks to consider like the acquisition of materials that are to be cataloged, classification of materials, replacement of materials to more modern ones as part of the overall maintenance, and bibliographical support of researchers and students to name a few. Some academic libraries also provide bibliometric analyses at multiple levels and guid- ance on how to achieve scientific impact, anti-plagiarism support as well as information on research data management. According to the rankings Frey and Osborne[6] have developed showcasing the job occupations and their probability of computerization, the profession of the librarian has a probability of 65% of being automated. The increasing technicalization of libraries is leading to a wide cultural diversification of patrons, library personnel and services. If a robot is to be usable, useful, and appealing to such a wide range of users, culture be- comes an important issue. The aim of this work is twofold. We explore the recent literature and perform qual- itative analyses of our findings to examine in practice the task areas that are proven to have been robotized in a library setting, and to investigate current cultural and tech- nological barriers that would decrease acceptance rates of robots in the library of the future. In the following sections we will describe our method and search strategy, pre- sent our results and discuss our findings. 1 IBM Consumer Products Industry Blog, https://www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-on-business/con- sumer-products/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-data-created-every-day-how-does-cpg-retail-man- age-it/, last accessed 2020/01/21. 3 2 Method 2.1 Search strategy A systematic literature search was performed [7], including the following bibliograph- ical databases in order to maximize inclusion and to represent both robotic and infor- mation science literature: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), IEEE Xplore Digital Library (IEEE) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA). The search query was composed of two components: the intervention (robot) and the context (li- brary) taking into consideration of course the defined keywords as described in specific for each of the chosen databases. Free-text terms for the intervention search included: “robot*”, “social* robot*”, “personalis* robot*”, “assistive robot*”, and “artificial in- telligence”, while for the context search terms like “information specialist*”, “li- brar*”and “librarian*” were included. The search was conducted in January 2019. 2.2 Study selection and inclusion criteria Three reviewers independently screened the articles in a three-step process: first the title, then the abstract, and finally the full-text. An article was considered eligible if it described the use of a robot in a library setting. The studies were grouped together depending on the purpose the robot served in the library, and the grouping was done retrospectively and independently of the original articles. In particular, articles were included if they had scientific content; were published within 2016, 2017 and 2018; and if they were written in English. 3 Results The initial search resulted in 1037 references: 571 from IEEE, 171 from LISTA, 99 from Scopus, 195 from WoS, and 1 from individual Google searches. After removal of duplicates, articles with no scientific content or irrelevant content, and after screening on title and abstract level 58 publications remained to be assessed for eligibility. A schematic flowchart of included references is shown in figure 1. A tricky part in the screening of articles was that many studies were referring to “software libraries”, which are collections of data and programming code used to develop programs and applica- tions. Hence, the high number of articles with no content. Articles with no scientific content, essays, debate articles, newspaper articles, or with irrelevant contents were excluded from the final search result, leaving 18 articles for the analysis. Table 1 below outlines the purpose the robot served, the benefits of the library by implementing a robotic solution, and the cultural and technological barriers reported. 4 Fig. 1. Schematic flowchart of the review process, search method and results. 5 Table 1. Purpose, benefits and barriers on the use of robots in libraries. Ref. Purpose Benefits Barriers [8] Pick-and-place in- Avoid tedious and time-consuming None mentioned. telligent robot us- tasks. ing an arm con- nected to the li- brary database. [9] Self-navigating Finding books autonomously, saving None mentioned. book finder robot. time, and ideal for libraries with not enough personnel. [10] Library manage- Lessen curator inconvenience. None mentioned. ment robotic sys- tem – pick-and- place. [11] Robotic assistance High efficiency, shorter time of book Patron’s unfamiliarity with ro- for children in locating, user friendly, providing in- bots. Robotic “strong guidance” book locating. teresting navigation experience in the could “limit children’s opportuni- library. ties of wondering and free brows- ing”. The child users projected their expectations of human li- brarians onto the robots and ex- pected them to have the same in- telligence and professional skills. [12] Makerspace: ro- Library events – building, inventing, Coding and programming vs. botics. sharing and learning. building a robot? Funding and staff time? [13] Guiding robot, Interactive guidance at the university None mentioned. mascot of the uni- library, acceptance of robots. versity. [14] Intelligent agents Free librarian time and enable in- Understanding what intelligent to assist librarians creased reference support or even off- agents are, and their uses, is im- and enable users’ hours support for users portant for libraries for keeping better access to up with the ever-changing tech- their information. nology landscape. [15] To gain insight Increased patron engagement and Ethical, privacy, and cost effec- into the infor- learning. Software senses the emo- tiveness issues are at the top in a mation-seeking tions of a user and provides appropri- list of concerns. behaviors of pa- ate response. To combine with for ex- trons and to un- ample an android robot acting as a derstand their per- team-mate in a learning situation. ception of the li- brary via affective computing. [16] Autonomous Monitor book locations throughout None mentioned. Book Location the library, automatically detect book Management in misplacements, and by camera help big libraries. Ro- the loaner to locate the book. bot on wheels. [17] Mobile humanoid Interactive guidance and support at How to maintain the enthusiasm? library assistant. the library. 6 [18] Mobile library as- With the increasing number of books, None mentioned. sistant to search, magazines and journals, running of li- locate and notify brary manually is a laborious and the user to collect time-consuming task. Also, some the book. books might get overlooked by the human eye. Good substitute for the manual work done by the users. [19] Automatic shelf- Finding miss-shelved and lying-down Potential threat to replacing the li- scanning and self- books, liberating librarians from in- brarian. navigating book tensively manual labor. finder robot. [20] Telepresence ro- Library tours, and online conversa- Potential threat to the librarians’ bot for remote tions with encounters, fostering com- job situation. People’s fear of the navigation and munication within the libraries. robots turning evil. Technopho- meetings. bia, a sense of being monitored, or unfamiliarity with the intended purpose of the robot. [21] Recognize and Guide library users to a reference suit- The state of library development manipulate books, able source when a librarian is not in the use of AI in the field of localize itself and available. public, technical, and navigate using management services. RFID tags. [22] Enhance library Complement librarians' work and alle- Should academic law librarians services and help viate some of the burdens placed on consider using agent systems with improve students' librarians that will allow them to fo- the ever-changing legal environ- information cus on more complex and time-con- ment and budgetary constraints literacy skills. suming obligations. that plague many of our libraries? [23] Placement of an Students majoring in different fields, The very disruptive nature of any AI lab in the li- from philosophy to computer science new technology could be viewed brary. and biomedical engineering, will visit as a threat to many institutions, the lab and use it to brainstorm about including the mission of the li- important social and ethical issues to- brary. day and create cutting edge projects. [24] Introduce young Libraries hold a unique position in our None mentioned. children to pro- communities as informal learning gramming logic platforms, and are perfectly posi- with the help of tioned to bring our communities to- robots. gether. Robots are a great visual ex- pression of writing a set of code to perform a task and make for a very in- teractive coding experience. [25] Help bring tech- The TechMobile is a fully-equipped None mentioned. nology fluency by computer lab on wheels, offered as a coding with mobile outreach service of the library LEGO robotics to people of all ages and abilities courses to resi- throughout the City of San Francisco dents through dig- for their recreational, educational and ital literacy train- lifelong learning needs. Mobile Out- ings. reach brings the library to you! 7 4 Discussion 4.1 Task areas and benefits The articles collected constitute different approaches to – and views on – the use of robots in a library setting and have the potential of revealing world trends in the adap- tation of robot technologies in libraries. Reading through our results in Table 1, we could identify three major task areas which will be further discussed in the subsections below: • robots for navigation, book location and placement [8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 21]; • robots serving as an information desk [13, 14, 17, 18, 20]; and • robots in education [12, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Article [15] describes many adoption cases of robots in the libraries and does not fit into these areas, as it examines mainly artificial agents analyzing the information-seek- ing behavior of patrons for law libraries. Robots for navigation, book location and placement The automation aspect clearly plays an important part: If librarians/library staff can avoid tedious and time-consuming tasks – like detecting book displacements, putting books back on their shelves, finding lying-down books, or helping the loaners to locate their books – then they can spend their time doing more complex assignments [8, 9, 13, 16, 19, 21]. This is recommended for small libraries or libraries short of personnel and especially with a focus on high-volume repeatable assignments [10] while offering an “interesting navigation experience” [11]. Robots serving as an information desk With the use of robots as information providers, the notion of high efficiency in a busy environment is stressed, complimented with the very modern experience per se of hav- ing robot technology in the library. The latter is described with buzz phrases like “in- teractive guidance” [13], or “a robot using intelligent agent-based software” [14]. These phrases imply, generally speaking, that robots are a futuristic experience and – depending on their type and functions of course – that they will engage the patrons in a welcoming, intelligent and creative way, adding value to the library activities as a whole [17]. Robots in this task area could act as telepresence robots for remote naviga- tion and virtual meetings [20], as assistants to search, locate and notify the user to col- lect a book [18], or even as a university mascot [13]. Robots in education Many libraries today host creative, interdisciplinary, informal makerspaces [12], artifi- cial intelligent and robotic labs [23, 24], or even have computer labs on wheels [25] with the purpose of educating and bringing robotic fluency to the public they serve. There is a plethora of benefits in having an AI or robotic lab in the library [12, 23, 24, 25]: it offers students of various levels the opportunity to learn robotics through tutori- als and workshops; students majoring in different fields can brainstorm together; 8 librarians can benefit as AI can make library collections FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) in new ways; and introduce young children to programming logic and coding with robotics. Intelligent personalized courses [22] with the assistance of intelligent agents can also help students improve their information literacy skills by making them more active participants in the learning process. 4.2 Cultural and technological barriers By “cultural barriers” we understand ideas, customs and behavior among both library staff and patrons that may complicate, or even prevent the adaptation of a new mindset and, subsequently, a new way of doing things, a culture shift – in this case concerning the integration and use of robots in the library. Depending on the perspective of library management and on the library resources at hand, one could speculate that tedious and time-consuming tasks would always be best handled by a robot. Nevertheless, we need to be reminded that the authors of the re- viewed articles are mainly engineers who have come up with a robot solution to a li- brary problem without necessarily considering the robot’s impact on both the library patrons and the library services. Also, one would not expect the engineers to include harsh criticism of their own solution in their own publication – especially not, if the presented robot technology is supposed to be introduced to the market for library sup- plies and equipment. Therefore, author bias affected eight articles [8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, 24, 25] which had neither barrier nor limitation mentioned. The remaining ten articles from Table 1 indicate several cultural barriers for such an endeavor. Most likely, some of the library’s patrons will be quite stressed or afraid when in- teracting with robots. As reported in [11], robots caused anxiety and fear to children users as children were unsure of how to communicate within this unfamiliar environ- ment. Children at a certain age could expect a robot to act as a human librarian and would possibly be very disappointed by a lesser performance [11, 22]. Also, it could be uncomfortable for patrons as well as library staff to be monitored by a robot [20] that may store personal data concerning human emotions and behavior [15]. Another cultural barrier reported is the library staff’s need to familiarize itself with the robots in order to gain the best out of them [12] and be able to keep-up with such disruptive technologies [12, 14]. The many choices upon creating a makerspace and having to deal with coding, programming, and even building robots, may end up being a turnoff for library personnel. In many cases, and depending on the robot type and model, gaining the necessary robotics’ skills [21] will be time-consuming. Technopho- bia [20] could in this case be seen as an example of a nonreceptive culture among li- brarians who may, or may not, have been part of the decision-making concerning ac- quiring a robot. In addition, the robot would demand working hours for its’ operation, maintenance and administration that could act as a cultural barrier, if the library staff is unfamiliar with such technology, and economical barrier in case the library struggles with budgetary constraints [22]. Another barrier reported is the maintenance of patron’s enthusiasm with the same robot after a couple of years [17], meaning that library per- sonnel should come up with new ideas and tasks perfectly executed to maintain interest. 9 As shown in the articles [11, 15], robots and their corresponding computing technol- ogies may come with severe limitations when compared to the capacity of a librarian. If a robot must work among the library patrons and employees, the robot must be com- pletely safe with no risk of inflicting damage to humans, or to the library interior. Maintenance and development costs should be at a minimum and transparent for the library management [15]. Without any doubt, there is another important human factor to consider: In many libraries around the world, you will see shelving and book picking routines as tasks that are providing job opportunities for students and young people, modified duty work or flexible positions for people with disabilities and are engaging senior citizens at librar- ies in volunteer work. It goes without saying that a robot for shelving and shelf scans [19] would deprive the opportunity of creating job positions that are proven to be ben- eficial to society. As stated in [18], robots will “prove as a very good substitute for the manual work”, and such statements is natural to invoke emotions of fear for librarians. Fear, of course, can generate resistance [20]. From a union perspective, one should consider whether the introduction of a robot would de facto lead to unemployment for members of the library staff, or disrupt employment contracts, and current work de- scriptions [20]. The library management should consider whether personnel to be re- placed by a robot could easily be transferred to other duties, or retrained – and if not, what would be the consequences. From a psychological perspective, depending on the employee(s) in question, all sorts of negative emotional reactions could occur, possibly inflecting on the work environment in general [20, 23]. Another issue to be of some concern is – in addition to the arguments listed above – that especially students who gain work experience at a university library may, later, choose educational pathways that would eventually lead them back to the library world, even to a position at the very same library. From a recruiting perspective, this is of great importance to both the library management, and to the young employee. If student workers at the library were to be replaced by robots it would destroy the potential of this type of future recruitment. However, we should be reminded that “we do not have libraries just to create jobs for librarians” [26]. Furthermore, people with positive ex- periences from library work as mentioned above will tend to act as ambassadors for the library in question. At the present stage of robot technology, this is not likely to occur. Robots cannot speak fondly of libraries, unless they are programmed to do so, or are in fact operated by a human (telepresence robotics). Robots could definitely assist librarians in their tasks, but librarians’ tasks could never be automatized to the fullest degree [24, 27]. Librarians, first and foremost, are considered as intermediaries of communities as well as trustworthy, and humane advis- ers, they have to put up with people who are rude, or angry – even with people who are crying. Lastly, some patrons still prefer the “traditional” face-to-face-talk [20]. 5 Conclusion The adaptation of robot technology in a library may be furthered by inherent library needs, local/national and international trends, patron demands, and staff/management 10 demands. Currently, libraries with positive attitudes to new technologies and even prior experience with robotics seem to be inclined to invest in robots that could: autono- mously navigate, locate and place books; serve as information desks; assist in the edu- cation of students and the patrons. Obstacles towards a robotic adaptation proved to be stress and fear among the library staff of being gradually replaced by robots, an unsat- isfying level of robotic functionality and/or a simple reluctance to implement new and advanced library task solutions that, in turn, would demand retraining the library staff and perhaps even an organizational restructuring. The general lack of resources (staff time, money, space) would of course present an obstacle, as well as the cost of main- taining the patron’s enthusiasm with robots in the long term. Finally, the smartness of robots has to be weighed up against the need for human contact – especially, regarding elderly people and young children. References 1. The Joe and Rika Mansueto Library, https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/man- sueto/tech/asrs, last accessed 2020/01/21. 2. Bodleian's Book Storage Facility, https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bod- ley/news/2015/oct-19, last accessed 2020/01/21. 3. Breazeal, C.: Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 34(2), pp. 181–186. IEEE (2004). 4. Tan, Z. H., Thomsen, N. B., Duan, X., Vlachos, E., Shepstone, S. E., Rasmussen, M. H., Højvang, J. L.: iSocioBot: a multimodal interactive social robot. Interna- tional Journal of Social Robotics, 10(1), pp.5-19. Springer (2018). 5. Vlachos, E., Schärfe, H.: Social robots as persuasive agents. In: International Con- ference on Social Computing and Social Media, pp. 277-284. Springer, Cham (2014). 6. Frey, C. B., Osborne, M. A.: The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change (114), pp.254- 280 (2017). 7. Bartels, E. M. : How to perform a systematic search. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology (27), pp. 295–306 (2013). 8. Pujari, T. S., Deosarkar, S. B.: Design of intelligent and robotic library system. In: 2017 2nd IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics, Infor- mation & Communication Technology (RTEICT), pp. 1903-1908. IEEE (2017). 9. Rashid, M. R., Uzzaman, N., Hossain, S., Shuvra, N. K. D.: Development of a self- navigating algorithm for library book finder robot. In: 2017 3rd International Con- ference on Electrical Information and Communication Technology (EICT), pp. 1- 6. IEEE (2017). 10. Angal, Y., Gade, A.: Development of library management robotic system. In: 2017 International Conference on Data Management, Analytics and Innovation (ICDMAI), pp. 254-258. IEEE (2017). 11. Lin, W., Yueh, H. P.: Evaluating Children's Performance and Perception of Robotic Assistance in Library Book Locating. In: 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1185-1189. IEEE (2018). 11 12. Kroski, E. (Ed.): The makerspace librarian's sourcebook. Facet Publishing (2017). 13. Tanaka, M., Okada, K., Wada, M.: Guiding robot at entrance hall of university library. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan (ICCE-TW), pp. 269-270. IEEE (2017). 14. Herron, J.: Intelligent agents for the library. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 14 (3-4), pp139-144. Taylor & Francis (2017). 15. Brigham, T. J.: Merging Technology and Emotions: Introduction to Affective Computing. Medical reference services quarterly 36 (4), pp. 399-407. Taylor & Francis (2017). 16. Pham, H., Giordano, A., Miller, L., Giannitti, J., Mena, M., DiNardi, A.: A Ubiq- uitous Approach for Automated Library Book Location Management. In: Proceed- ings of the 2018 International Conference on Computing and Big Data, pp. 78-82. ACM (2018). 17. Stahl, B., Mohnke, J., Seeliger, F.: Roboter ante portas? About the deployment of a humanoid robot into a library. In: Proceedings of the IATUL conferences, paper 6 (2018). 18. Animireddy, S. P., Singh, K. P., Natarajan, V.: Robotic Library Assistant. In: 2018 Second International Conference on Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies (ICICCT), pp. 1443-1447. IEEE (2018). 19. Liu, J., Zhu, F., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Pan, Q., Chen, L.: RF-scanner: Shelf scanning with robot-assisted RFID systems. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2017-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 1-9). IEEE (2017). 20. Guth, L., Vander Meer, P. F.: Telepresence robotics in an academic library: A study of exposure and adaptation among patrons and employees. Library Hi Tech, 35 (3), p. 408-420. Emerald (2017). 21. Asemi, A., Asemi, A.: Artificial Intelligence (AI) application in Library Systems in Iran: A taxonomy study. Library Philosophy and Practice (2018). 22. Talley, N. B.: Imagining the use of intelligent agents and artificial intelligence in academic law libraries. Law Libr. J. (108), pp. 383-401 (2016). 23. Massis, B.: Artificial intelligence arrives in the library. Information and Learning Science, 119(7/8), pp. 456-459. Emerald (2018). 24. Prato, S. C.: Beyond the computer age: a best practices intro for implementing li- brary coding programs. Children and Libraries, 15(1), pp. 19-21. Association for Library Service to Children (2017). 25. The TechMobile, https://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000795701, last accessed 2020 /01/13. 26. Calvert, P.: Robots, the quiet workers, are you ready to take over? Public Library Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 167-172. Routledge (2017) 27. Vlachos, E., Faber Hansen, A. Holck, J.P.: The essence of being a librarian in dis- ruptive times. In: IFLA WLIC 2019 - Athens, Greece - Libraries: dialogue for change, Session 113c - IFLA Poster Session (2019).