Blogging Off

Part A

Social networking and Web 2.0 technologies are not something I engaged with before undertaking this subject. However, in my studies I came across an idea often expressed: “The librarian has been moving away from the ‘gatekeeper of knowledge’ for a very long time now” (Bradley, 2007, p. 8). The terms Web 2.0, participatory library service and Library 2.0 were present in every area of my studies. It became clear that I needed to change my attitude towards social networking and Web 2.0 technologies if I was to be effective in my future profession.

Unfortunately, I was a victim of a self imposed digital divide – OLJ 3 – where social networking and Web 2.0 were concerned. “Commonly, the digital divide is defined as the gap between those who do and do not have access to computers and the Internet” (van Dijk, 2006, p. 178). I lacked motivation which is one aspect of the larger access divide (Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide, 2003; van Dijk, 2005). Learning in this subject reinforced what other subjects had already taught me: libraries and librarians are imperative in addressing the inequities of the digital world beyond providing free access to it. They offer programs based on client needs and today’s need will include Web 2.0 technologies.

Of the readings in the digital divide area for this subject, the one concerning the need to participate in the networked society spoke most to me (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson & Weigel 2006). They were talking about the foundations for digital citizenship (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, Digital citizenship, 2008). “Digital citizenship is the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, Digital citizenship, 2008). Technology moves so fast and for many the library is their technology lifeline. It made sense to learn about the technologies so that I could help those who needed it in my future profession.

But it is more than helping others engage with the technologies for their own uses. My own learning for Library 2.0 initiatives was just as vital. My blog post on ASU – OLJ 2 – showed me what a library leveraging Web 2.0 technologies could achieve. I judged them as successful not by Web 2.0 standards but by Library 2.0 standards. A Library 2.0 service is any service that: successfully reaches users, is frequently evaluated, makes use of customer input and perhaps most importantly is physical or virtual (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006).

I think that failing an institution like ASU that has shown what can be done with these technologies because they have not done enough to allow content creation for their users would be insulting. I think the underlying principles of the 4Cs are one a library should have in mind when trying to improve services but it shouldn’t be the measuring stick. Phil Bradley makes a good case for doing away with all the measuring sticks and monikers: “My personal view is that a library or information centre is in the business of ensuring that its users are served as quickly and effectively as possible, using the most appropriate tools ... there are lots of resources now available that can assist in this process, and I am less concerned with the specific terminology than in what these resources actually are, and how (and if) they can be used” (Bradley, 2007, p. 193).

So, what are some of the technologies that will provide better services? In my studies I found that RSS – OLJ 1 – was a useful tool that could be utilised in many ways within the library. I was not familiar with what RSS was before undertaking this course. I had seen the icon on websites but did not know what it did. RSS or Really Simple Syndication is an XML application which allows for the aggregation of subscribed content distributed as a list of headlines, update notices and occasionally full-text content (Bansode & Dahibhate, 2009). The only requirements for RSS in XML are a syntactic tag for a title, a link (URL) and a description (Tennant, 2003).

In library world, RSS is used as a portal, a way of evaluation and recommendation of websites, filtering and customisation of information delivery and as a way of reviewing information in a succinct format (Bansode & Dahibhate, 2009). But I saw a more personal use. There is far more information out there today than any one person can keep abreast of without the help of an RSS feed (Tennant, 2003). A new librarian could make use of RSS to keep themselves up-to-date with innovative and successful library services whether Web 2.0 based or not.

These three examples show my achievement of the outcomes of the course most noticeably: effective use and evaluation of social networking tools and environments (OLJ 1); understanding of theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service (OLJ 2); and understanding of a range of issues that exist in a socially networked world (OLJ 3).

Part B

Despite still holding the position that social networking is not something I have the inclination for in my personal life, I have grown in knowledge and skills as a social networker throughout this course. Professionally, I see social networking and Web 2.0 technologies in an entirely different light. They can be used to market the library and its services (Khan & Bhatti, 2012) and are integral parts of library 2.0 initiatives and participative library services (Bradley, 2007). Where I don’t see them as personally useful, I see them as professionally vital.

Library 2.0 goes beyond just the technological but still Web 2.0 technologies are a large part of innovative and participative library service (Blakesley, 2011). These technologies can help us reshape and improve services in all types of libraries. “Regardless of budget, library type, infrastructure, or staffing, there are still opportunities for us to wisely and creatively enhance our services and collections as Web 2.0 developments continue to reshape the environment in which we work, teach, and learn” (Blakesley, 2011, p. 101). Library catalogues are no longer just inventories of resources; the better ones are “social spaces, and an online community” (Tarulli, 2012, p. 1). Thus, learning the tools is an important first step to a change from the old ways of libraries being simply gatekeepers of knowledge (Bradley, 2007).

For the sake of brevity, I shall only recount about two of the tools I improved my knowledge and skills with over the course of my study.

For my first example I shall use blogs as they are the tool I have gained the most experience. In this blog I developed a voice (Bradley, 2007), a mild exaggeration of my own, taking the stance that most would be more edutainment posts as I worked my way through modules. However, this was not the only voice represented as I employed a standard academic voice for the three posts necessary for this assessment.

Like all Web 2.0 technology there is some technical knowhow necessary to create a blog. Although blogs are supposed to simplify writing in HTML (Bradley, 2007), I found that I had to do a bit of learning about HTML just to ensure that background colours did not change on me in many post. Still, I found blogs to be an effective tool which only requires basic skill with HTML and can see their many uses in my future profession.

Blogs have applications in promotion and publicity (Bradley, 2007). They can promote hours, new resources and library events while encouraging debate and interaction, creating virtual exhibitions and involving staff and users (Bradley, 2007). However, we should ensure that we are engaging in legitimate conversation and not just pushing information if we want to maximise their potential (Tarulli, 2012).

I found that the same issue inherent in creating a library blog is that which is inherent in all other library use of social networking tools: policy. “Organizations are made up of individuals and groups of people with different values and interests. Policy making is one mechanism to ensure that these individual interests are managed for the greater good, and to ensure that individuals within the organization are moving forward in the same direction” (Bryson, 2006, p. 125). Always, a blog represents someone’s voice and in the library that voice should align itself with the parent organisation and be subject to policies created by that organisation.

My second example to show learning in this subject comes from researching for my assessment on folksonomies. I have a strong preference for the folksonomy offered by LibraryThing to library OPACs and have taken to using it when searching for something to read. It is due to this preference that I created my other major assessment around folksonomies and how they can improve the OPAC. At the outset, I knew that incorporating folksonomy into the OPAC improved discoverability and encouraged participatory library service (Mendez, Quinonez-Skinner, & Skaggs, 2009). What I did not know was the technical side of folksonomies and the problems inherent in the incorporation into traditional library systems especially where subject indexing was concerned (Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006; Spiteri, 2007). I was not aware of the impact of uncontrolled tagging behaviour (Cantador, Konstas, & Jose, 2011; Peters, 2009). I was also not aware that there were shortcuts to the necessary data necessary for a fully realised folksonomy (Pirmann, 2012; Hider, 2012). Through my research into folksonomies, I now have a better understanding of all the issues that must be considered before their incorporation into the OPAC and how best to make such endeavours successful.

Through my engaging with blog while working through the modules and my own research necessary for the completion of my case study into folksonomies and the OPAC, I feel that I have succeeded in meeting all the outcomes for the subject. Moreover, I think that I have gained a more positive attitude around the platforms and tools ... at least in a professional sense.

Works Cited

Bansode, S., & Dahibhate, N. B. (2009). RSS applications in libraries and information centres. Library Philosophy and Practice.

Blakesley, E. (2011). Introduction: Library 2.0. Public Services Quarterly, 99-101.

Bradley, P. (2007). How to use Web 2.0 in your library. London: Facet.

Bryson, J. (2006). Managing information services: A transformational approach (2nd ed.). Burlington: Ashgate.

Cantador, I., Konstas, I., & Jose, J. M. (2011). Categorising social tags to improve folksonomy-based recommendations. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(1), 1-15.

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. London: Facet.

Jenkins, H. C. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved May 2013, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Khan, S. A., & Bhatti, R. (2012). Application of social media in marketing of library and information services: A case study from Pakistan. Webology, 9(1).

Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291-300.

Mendez, L. H., Quinonez-Skinner, J., & Skaggs, D. (2009). Subjecting the catalog to tagging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 30-41.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Prss.

Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. (P. Becker, Trans.) Berlin: De Gruyter.

Pirmann, C. (2012). Tags in the catalogue: Insights from a usability study of LibraryThing for Libraries. Library Trends, 61(1), 234-247.

Spiteri, L. F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 13-25.

Tarulli, L. (2012). The library catalogue as social space: Promoting patron driven collections, online communities, and enhanced reference and readers' services. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.

Tennant, R. (2003). Feed your head. Library Journal, 128(9), 30.

van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.