Evaluative Report

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