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.
