Evaluative Report: Evaluative Statement
My understanding social networking technologies as developed in INF506.
My understanding of social networking (SN) technologies has grown throughout this subject. Previously, I had used SN purely on a social level. Exploring technologies in the ‘A-Z’ OLJ task, I was able to better understand the benefits (and traps) of utilising SNs within libraries, on a professional level. There are many opportunities available to libraries, most freely available. Such availability helps libraries on tight budgets expand their online presence using these technologies. In particular, it allows libraries to experiment with a variety of technologies to better understand what will suit their patrons. Dependent on the type of service a library wishes to provide, there seems to be a SN platform which can aid the library to achieve its goal (Cooke, 2008). Also, SNs provide a good framework for youth outreach, connecting with younger patrons in a format they are familiar with and often use on a daily basis (Agosto & Abbas, 2009).
My understanding of the concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service.
Whether Library 2.0 is a state of mind, or a strategic concept, the idea of Library 2.0 in action will be different for every library. In the ‘Librarian 2.0’ OLJ task, I discuss what it means to be a librarian enacting methods which may be called Librarian 2.0. I came to the conclusion that being involved in the ‘2.0’ world is an individual decision revolving around continual education in professional development, which involves a veritable minefield of opportunities (Abrams, 2007, p.8). Library 2.0 requires a concerted effort from library management to create time for staff to explore these opportunities so that the whole library service can benefit. Such an effort may need to be recorded in organisational goals and staffs’ personal performance goals, as a part of the library’s strategic planning. It is only by being completely committed to the Library 2.0 journey and the opportunities that it provides that a library will see the residual benefits such a journey can offer.
My critical examination of the features and functionality of various social networking tools to meet the needs of users.
Throughout this course of study I have come at SN from the perspective of a public library beginning its SN journey. I have learned how flexible SN can be in its various platforms to suit the services a library provides. Some may slot into existing services, such as a wiki supporting a book club: rrlbookclub.wetpaint.com (Riverina Regional Library, n.d.), while others present the opportunity to explore new services, such as supporting a photography competition through Flickr: teens.mosmanlibraryblogs.com
/article/304/the-verdict-is-in (Mosman Library, n.d.). In the OLJ task for ‘Librarian 2.0’ I discuss how SNs can aid information professionals in their worklife, helping them provide a better service to the libraries patrons. The important aspect of exploring the features and functionality of SNs is being able to assess what will work in your particular library service. It is important to communicate the advantages and disadvantages of various platforms with both library management and patrons, to discern what will work under a particular library’s specific circumstances.
My evaluation of social networking technologies and software to support informational and collaborative needs of workgroups, communities and organisations.
The OLJ task ‘authentic information’ allowed me to explore the need for effective processes in evaluating information in a digital world. SN seems to create a greater dissemination of information throughout its various channels, but the validity of such messages often needs to be questioned (Wittenberg, 2007, 2). Sources such as Wikipedia which provide information on a large scale can be ‘hit and miss’ in their validity due to the communal nature of the collaboration (Garfinkel, 2008, p. 84). It is up to the individual to assess the information. Academically, we are taught to select reputable sources and it is important that these standards do not depreciate. Yet, the greater provision of messages provided through document sharing services (Google docs) and on platforms such as Twitter, provide a multitude of options when it comes to sharing ideas for professional development as I explored in the ‘Librarian 2.0’ OLJ task. Ultimately it comes down to an individuals assessment of the information, yet on some level, as information professionals we may have a duty to provide guidelines to aid an assessment, which can be provided through reference services.
My understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues.
Exploring the variety of SN technologies in this subject has raised many issues. Not the least of which is how information professionals keep up with the development of technology and plan their involvement in library services and programs. Aspects such as the digital divide become prominent if too many library services are available online, and for smaller libraries, the costs of keeping up with technology that supports some services can become unmanageable. Policies must inform a variety of areas in order to maintain relative control over what can be an unwieldy platform if managed incorrectly. In the ‘A-Z’ OLJ task I explained the importance of planning in implementing SN within a library’s services. Planning policies is no different, giving the whole effort a sense of direction and understanding (Bryson, 2006, p.125). A written policy will enable all library staff to be on an even footing, regardless of their SN experiences. Overall it comes down to being able to effectively communicate between management, staff and patrons the library’s position and policies can direct this communication.
References
Abrams, S. (2007). Web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0: preparing for the 2.0 world. Retrieved from: http://2009.online-information.co.uk/files/freedownloads.new_link1.1080622103251.pdf.
Agosto, D. & Abbas, J. (2009). Teens and social networking: how public libraries are responding to the latest online trend. Public Libraries, 48(3), 32-37. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
Bryson, J. (2006). Managing Information Services: a transformational approach. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Cooke, N.A. (2008). Social networking in libraries: new tricks of the trade, part I. Public Services Quarterly, 4(3), 233-246. doi: 10.1080/15228950802129544.
Garfinkel, S.L. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth. Technology Review. (November/December), 84-86.
Mosman Library. (n.d.). Wired for Teens. Retrieved from: http://teens.mosmanlibraryblogs.com.
Riverina Regional Library. (n.d.). RRL bookclub wiki. Retrieved from: http://rrlbookclub.wetpaint.com.
Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0010.101.
Evaluative Report: Reflective Statement
My development as a social networker
On an academic level the experiences within INF506 have enhanced my ability to assess appropriate SNs dependent on the circumstances of implementation. I have been able to examine and critique new technologies as to their ability to aid a library in the services it provides and understand how SNs can be developed to create new programs and services for the library. The previous assessment for this subject enhanced my immersive learning experience on this level.
I also have a greater understanding of the need to plan and develop policies (Bryson, 2006, p.125) to guide information professionals in their SN journey. Indeed, such planning is not only necessary on an organisational level, but also on an individual level. To take advantage of the vast opportunities that are presented within the web 2.0 world, an individual needs focus one’s efforts and informational systems in order to advance themselves.
Throughout this subject I was often overwhelmed, not only by the variety of SNs to explore and monitor, but also the abundance of information available. O’Dell states that “changes in culture, technology and the budgets can stress the strongest library and most enthusiastic librarian” (2010, p.246). Limiting one’s focus, by utilising RSS feeds to monitor select information outlets, and limiting the amount of SN platforms one is involved on I think would help my own personal development on this issue.
One interesting concept this subject has raised for me is the reluctance to accept that the rigours of traditional publishing will ever be diminished by the instantaneous nature that publishing via SN can deliver (I am focusing here on the rise of blogs and popularity of sites such as Wikipedia rather than open access electronic journals). One of the most interesting areas that I studied during the course of study was the concept of authentic information in the digital world and the ability for digital learners to recommend articles based purely on a peer-to-peer review system (Wittenberg, 2007). I believe such developments in assessing the credibility of information needs to be monitored closely in order to retain the generally accepted stringent standards that traditional publishing provides. I hope that my greater awareness of this issue will only aid my development not only as a social networker, but also as an information professional as it will certainly have an impact on the credibility of reference services of the future.
Implications for my development as an information professional
I feel more confident in my ability to assess the features and functions of SNs. The options available are quite varied for the public library and I believe my experiences throughout this subject ensures I am able to recommend a variety of options to my library’s management in order to develop the library’s SN experience.
A report generated by the OCLC in 2008 (p.12) reported the finding that library patrons, on average, do not expect their library to provide an SN service, but it also contended that to engage patrons in SN, libraries had to increase their participation on these platforms. I agree that perhaps a library is not expected to provide such a service (it may be different in the future), but the many benefits that SN is able to deliver the library may sway management to pursuing the cause. Indeed, in my own development as an information professional, I am not expected to further my education, but in many respects the rapidly changing environment ensures that I must.
Many of the SN technologies that have been explored throughout this subject have delivered me the strategies whereby it is possible to keep up-to-date. I now have an idea of the various trends in technology, a broad understanding of what other libraries are doing in their SN and have explored systems such as RSS which will enable me to develop my own feeds aiding in my professional development. Thus, this subject has not only given me an understanding of SN in an academic sense, it has also provided a practical platform which I can use to give myself direction in my professional development when I have finished my formal studies.
As discussed above, I also believe that the nature of information available on the Internet is sure to have an impact on the credibility of reference services for libraries. As such, it is important to me that I ensure I am able to deliver the best service possible with valid and authentic information to the patron I am serving. In order to achieve successful interactions I must ensure that I am well versed in the library’s online resources, as well as any credible resources that are freely available to patrons. This will provide me with the means in order to effectively communicate to patrons how they can access such material (Lorenzo, 2007, p.12), and enable me to locate credible information efficiently and effectively for patrons.
References
Bryson, J. (2006). Managing Information Services: a transformational approach (2nd ed.). England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. (March). Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf.
OCLC. (2008). Users don’t expect social networking from libraries. Research Information, (February/March), 12.
O’Dell, S. (2010). Opportunities and obligations for libraries in a social networking age: a survey of web 2.0 networking sites, Journal of Library Administration, 50(3), 237-251. doi: 10.1080/01930821003634989.
Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0010.101
OLJ Task 4 -- Authentic information
OLJ Task 4: Based on three readings related to finding authentic information within a socially networked world, identify two essential take-home messages that you believe will inform your work as an information professional.
The three reading I used to complete this task are: Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth; Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture; Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment.
The two take-home messages that can help inform my work as an information professional concern the need to provide adequate spaces for patrons in their information discovery and content creation, and secondly, to continue to educate both staff and patrons regarding reference tools available in the library, but also providing guidelines as to the appropriate sources of information and guidance in content creation.
The blogging phenomenon has shifted the tables slightly, by introducing the concept of content creation where patrons go from passive consumers to active participants. The library should be able to take advantage of patrons ability to create information to add value to the library experience, but should also be able to inform them and educate them about the different types of digital information that are available and the information’s value (Wittenberg, n.d., 9).
In addition to this, the library should be able to provide patrons an easily accessible space where they can share information. By utilising a service such as a Delicious page (http://delicious.com/), the library will not only be able to provide patrons with reputable sources, but it will also be an outlet where patrons can share online resources with each other. As such, the library is not only providing a key service to patrons, but is also able to monitor and direct the types of information patrons are seeking out. There is the ability for the library to provide links to a variety of topics, adding and enhancing the online profile of the library, while providing an avenue for online references.
A plan to evaluate the education of library staff and patrons regarding their knowledge of online reference tools may also be advisable. According to Lorenzo (2007, p.12), it is not enough to simply be able to provide the services to patrons, staff must be able to use them, explain them and market them to the appropriate patrons. To do this, staff need to keep informed about the reference services their library offers. Communicating the benefits of these tools to patrons will become so much easier once staff themselves are informed. The library may generate user-driven guidelines regarding the types of information, how to use it and what information is be suitable for different needs. Understanding how patrons use information and moulding the types of information they select should help the library (and myself as an information professional) in its endeavors.
References
Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. (March). Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf
Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0010.101
The three reading I used to complete this task are: Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth; Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture; Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment.
The two take-home messages that can help inform my work as an information professional concern the need to provide adequate spaces for patrons in their information discovery and content creation, and secondly, to continue to educate both staff and patrons regarding reference tools available in the library, but also providing guidelines as to the appropriate sources of information and guidance in content creation.
The blogging phenomenon has shifted the tables slightly, by introducing the concept of content creation where patrons go from passive consumers to active participants. The library should be able to take advantage of patrons ability to create information to add value to the library experience, but should also be able to inform them and educate them about the different types of digital information that are available and the information’s value (Wittenberg, n.d., 9).
In addition to this, the library should be able to provide patrons an easily accessible space where they can share information. By utilising a service such as a Delicious page (http://delicious.com/), the library will not only be able to provide patrons with reputable sources, but it will also be an outlet where patrons can share online resources with each other. As such, the library is not only providing a key service to patrons, but is also able to monitor and direct the types of information patrons are seeking out. There is the ability for the library to provide links to a variety of topics, adding and enhancing the online profile of the library, while providing an avenue for online references.
A plan to evaluate the education of library staff and patrons regarding their knowledge of online reference tools may also be advisable. According to Lorenzo (2007, p.12), it is not enough to simply be able to provide the services to patrons, staff must be able to use them, explain them and market them to the appropriate patrons. To do this, staff need to keep informed about the reference services their library offers. Communicating the benefits of these tools to patrons will become so much easier once staff themselves are informed. The library may generate user-driven guidelines regarding the types of information, how to use it and what information is be suitable for different needs. Understanding how patrons use information and moulding the types of information they select should help the library (and myself as an information professional) in its endeavors.
References
Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. (March). Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf
Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi: 10.3998/3336451.0010.101
OLJ Task 3 -- Librarian 2.0
Librarian 2.0 -- Define what you believe to be the essential knowledge, skills and attributes of an information professional in a web 2.0 world
An information professional engaged in librarian 2.0, is in a constant process of re-education. While this may sound a confusing prospect, the information professional will have the systems to deal with the chaos of the constant influx of new material, information and technologies.
The information professional is also involved in a process of discerning what is the most important new information/technology/ideas to his/herself and the library right now. Primarily this process involves being engaged and open to these new ideas – what Laura Cohen (2006) in her manifesto terms being an “active participant”. To me, this is an important part of what librarian 2.0 is all about. It is not simply using the ‘latest and greatest’ web 2.0 technologies available, but questioning their worth to the library service at the time. It is a process of experimentation (Harvey, 2009), with the knowledge that it is ok if something just doesn’t fit for your library.
The librarian 2.0 is also a patron-centred individual who strives to enhance the patron’s library experience wherever possible. To do so, as Abram (2007, p.8) suggests, they must work at knowing and understanding their clientele. It is a process of planning and evaluation with the patron as a consultant. The information professional must be able to provide opportunities for the library to learn more about its clients through a variety of outlets (surveys, focus groups, online polls, Facebook) in order to validate the services that the library offers.
Finally, coupling those two aspects together (discovering new information and technology and being patron-centred), librarian 2.0 is about reaching out to the community – often through technology. It is about being where the patrons (or prospective patrons) are, and not always waiting for them to come to us. Looking at the various ways the library can connect with patrons (website, radio, television, text message, email, You Tube, Facebook), and using technology as an advantage of the library (instead of it being the ‘death’) are good ways to achieve this.
References
Abram, S. (2007). Web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 world. Online Information 2007 Conference. Retrieved from: http://2009.online-information.co.uk/files/freedownloads
.new_link1.1080622103251.pdf.
Cohen, L. (2006). A Librarian’s 2.0 manifesto [You Tube broadcast]. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZblrRs3fkSU.
Harvey, M. (2009). What does it mean to be a Science Librarian 2.0? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Summer). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/09-summer/article2.html.
An information professional engaged in librarian 2.0, is in a constant process of re-education. While this may sound a confusing prospect, the information professional will have the systems to deal with the chaos of the constant influx of new material, information and technologies.
The information professional is also involved in a process of discerning what is the most important new information/technology/ideas to his/herself and the library right now. Primarily this process involves being engaged and open to these new ideas – what Laura Cohen (2006) in her manifesto terms being an “active participant”. To me, this is an important part of what librarian 2.0 is all about. It is not simply using the ‘latest and greatest’ web 2.0 technologies available, but questioning their worth to the library service at the time. It is a process of experimentation (Harvey, 2009), with the knowledge that it is ok if something just doesn’t fit for your library.
The librarian 2.0 is also a patron-centred individual who strives to enhance the patron’s library experience wherever possible. To do so, as Abram (2007, p.8) suggests, they must work at knowing and understanding their clientele. It is a process of planning and evaluation with the patron as a consultant. The information professional must be able to provide opportunities for the library to learn more about its clients through a variety of outlets (surveys, focus groups, online polls, Facebook) in order to validate the services that the library offers.
Finally, coupling those two aspects together (discovering new information and technology and being patron-centred), librarian 2.0 is about reaching out to the community – often through technology. It is about being where the patrons (or prospective patrons) are, and not always waiting for them to come to us. Looking at the various ways the library can connect with patrons (website, radio, television, text message, email, You Tube, Facebook), and using technology as an advantage of the library (instead of it being the ‘death’) are good ways to achieve this.
References
Abram, S. (2007). Web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 world. Online Information 2007 Conference. Retrieved from: http://2009.online-information.co.uk/files/freedownloads
.new_link1.1080622103251.pdf.
Cohen, L. (2006). A Librarian’s 2.0 manifesto [You Tube broadcast]. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZblrRs3fkSU.
Harvey, M. (2009). What does it mean to be a Science Librarian 2.0? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Summer). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/09-summer/article2.html.
OLJ Task 2 -- A-Z of social networking
OLJ Task: Select 5 letters from the list [http://socialnetworkinglibrarian.com/2010/01/22/a-to-z-of-social-networking-for-libraries] and consider how these may be applied to a library to help it embrace a library 2.0 ethos.
D- Direction- What are you planning to accomplish for your library with social networking?
F-Facebook, having a presence on facebook with a fan page or a group is a must. Facebook is so popular now that it is expected.
J-Joomla- an open source web design program that can make editing your library website and adding in social networking features much easier.
T-Text messaging- Is your library using it yet?
Y- Youth- using social networking allows you to connect on a deeper level with young people.
The five letters I have chosen form what I consider to be the foundation of building a library 2.0 ethos.
Firstly, Direction, because without planning there will be no goals or evaluation, making any attempt to introduce Web 2.0 concepts haphazard at best. Direction will give something to aim towards, and grow upon. It will also help the library identify not only the most cost effective methods of web 2.0 for the library, but, importantly, what methods are right for them (Bryson, 2006, p.84).
Facebook will help to strengthen the online presence of the library and give it a great platform to connect with users. Online platforms such as Facebook give libraries an opportunity to meet users where they are (Keith in Topper, 2007, p.380)
Joomla might be an option for the library to upgrade their website. The current website is restricted due to the layout and functionality of council’s website, so an open source program would add flexibility without the cost (Helinsky, 2008, p.71). It has been said that in today’s world it is the customers that set the rules (Stone & Jacobs, 2008, p.339). An attractive site would more easily engage users and educate them about the services the library offers, with the aim of drawing them into the library. A bonus would be if the site was easy for staff to update and add to it when necessary.
The library is connected to the ‘library elf’ platform for reminders and has recently introduced the capability to email patrons. Enabling the system to text message patrons will be the next step. It connects the library to users in a simple way, and it creates an excellent and cost effective platform for marketing (Circle, 2009, p.28).
Youth are a big topic of conversation around my public library at the moment. It is expected that if the library can build up a rapport with youth based on a mutual respect that the young adult population will begin to utilise the library’s resources more regularly. According to Agosto and Abbas (2009, p.34), there are three major benefits to getting involved in social networking with youth. Firstly, it broadens the outreach for youth services and programs. Secondly, it enables the library to be actively involved in promoting healthy social development (self expression, self directed learning and technical literacy are all included here). And, finally, it creates opportunities to become involved in teaching youth how to interact safely online.
References
Agosto, D. & Abbas, J. (2009). Teens and social networking: how public libraries are responding to the latest online trend. Public Libraries, 48(3), 32-37. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
Bryson, J. (2006). Managing Information Services: a transformational approach (2nd ed.).
Circle, A. (2009). Marketing trends to watch. Library Journal, 1 October. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6698259.html.
Helinsky, Z. (2008). A Short-cut to Marketing the Library.
Stone, B. & Jacobs, R. (2008). Successful Direct Marketing Methods (8th ed.).
Topper, E.F. (2007). Social networking in libraries. New Library World, 108 (7/8), 378-380.
doi: 10.1108/03074800710763662.
OLJ Task 1 -- RSS feeds
OLJ Task: Find two additional examples pf ‘RSS in action’, and develop a post on how RSS can enhance a library or information service’s ability to meet the information needs of its users.
RSS feeds market libraries by the feed being directly sent to patrons who have actively signed up to it. As an opt-in service it is an efficient method for the library to get the information out to the public in a simple way. If the library has blogs or podcasts that are targeted towards particular patron groups, RSS feeds can link them directly to the information the patron is interested in.
RSS has the ability to enhance a library or information service in many ways. It can help keep librarians informed and on trend, as a form of professional development (Breedling, 2009, p.30). Many libraries, librarians and information experts blog. RSS feeds can aid the professional to deal with the vast amounts of new information available on a daily basis (Holzner, 2006, p.xiii). By signing up to the sites or topics that one is most interested in, it saves the librarian time in information retrieval.
RSS active blogs such as Nicole Engard’s ‘What I learned today…’ (http://www.web2learning.net/) are an effective tool for sharing information peer-to-peer. Networking in this way allows information to flow across libraries and across boarders, aiding in the dissemination of new ideas and technology. A more informed librarian might lead to more informed patrons.
RSS feeds are also a form of “micromarketing” (Circle, 2009, p.28), or niche marketing (appealing to smaller audiences) opening up a different form of communication with patrons who want to know what the library has to say, and what information it offers. It can help librarians by deliberately filtering the information that is of most interest to the user (whether it be the librarians themselves, or patrons). Instead of sifting through many databases, searches can be set up with feeds to notify if an appropriate article is available. Such tools are time effective, and can lead to more efficient methods of information discovery.
For example, the Parliamentary Library (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/rssinfo.htm) offers RSS feeds on many documents. It is easy to see how useful such a tool may be for departmental staffers, media researchers and politicians themselves in keeping track of events that occur. It makes for a very efficient tool, being able to access up-to-date information and get it sent to you as soon as it becomes available. This example in particular highlights the creation of an RSS feed that has been created to serve a particular market, and is likely to have a great impact on the market it serves due to its instantaneous nature and ease of use.
References
Breedling, M. (2009). Social networking strategies for professionals. The Systems Librarian, October, 29-31. Retrieved from www.infotoday.com.
Circle, A. (2009). Marketing trends to watch. Library Journal, 1 October. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6698259.html.
Holzner, S. (2006). Secrets of RSS. Retrieved from Safari Books Online.
Parliamentary Library. (2008). RSS Feeds. Retrieved 18 April from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/rssinfo.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)