Adopters of Web 2.0 technologies can be judged of their
effectiveness against the philosophical 4C principles that underlie: collaboration, conversation, community and
content creation. The Arizona State University (ASU) Library could be
argued to be an example of a library that aspires to successfully leverage Web
2.0 technologies but have they realised this when measured against the philosophical
underlying 4C’s?
Collaboration – to collaborate, as defined in its broadest sense, is to
“Work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort” (Farlex, 2013). By
this definition, ASU makes attempts to collaborate with its users to build better
library services. The video Library
Minute: The Social Connection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohyqXAhLgsM)
is about library seeking to collaborate with its
users through the various channels it has for communication. Though in a Web
2.0 sense this is not what is meant by collaboration, it is still admirable.
Conversation – to converse, as it would be most appropriate in Web 2.0
usage, is “interchange of thoughts and feelings; conversation” (Farlex, 2013).
The Library Minute: The Social Connection
is all about trying to engage the users in conversation to improve library
service. Furthermore, the channels they provide on their website (http://lib.asu.edu/librarychannel/)
to facilitate this conversation are numerous: facebook, twitter and ask-a-librarian.
Moreover, they offer other one way channels of communication (YouTube, flickr,
vimeo and the online suggestion box) for those who prefer this type of
communication to achieve similar ends.
Community – in the Web 2.0 sense encourages “Sharing, participation
and fellowship” (Farlex, 2013). I would argue that videos posted on
Fun Things to Do at the Library (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOsiYx9orK8)
and Exhibits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAPIimv6MY)
are an attempt by ASU to create a sense of community. Furthermore, ASU’s social
networking platforms keep their community informed of events of interest held
by the library that would serve to strengthen the bonds of community between
the library and its users. Though, these are not community in the Web 2.0 sense
they are still good library practice.
Content Creation
– this is where ASU truly stumbles in meeting the 4C’s in the slightest. ASU
does not offer a way for its users to be content creators. Though they do
encourage open access through the ASU Digital
Repository (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO38zHPhNQI&list=PLCA6A813AA9C9A574).
However, the success of a library should not be measured
against Web 2.0 criteria: Library 2.0 criteria provide a much better measure.
Casey and Savastinuk (2006) ask “What makes a service Library 2.0?” (para.20). It
is any service that: successfully reaches users, is frequently evaluated, makes
use of customer input and perhaps most importantly is physical or virtual
(Casey and Savastinuk, 2006). By that
standard ASU may not be flawlessly Web 2.0 yet but they are a good example of a
Library 2.0 institution. They are where their users want and need them like
being available 24/7 on mobile devices (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ1ZjStKny0),
inviting study spaces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_SGY8niCY)
and they offer a range of technologies that improve the catalogue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Row35FdVA&list=PLCA6A813AA9C9A574
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNe6yBSaORc).
And isn’t all that improvement more important in the end?
Bibliography
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
Farlex. (2013). Collaborate.
Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collaborate
Farlex. (2013). Community.
Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/community
Farlex. (2013). Converse.
Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/converse
No comments:
Post a Comment