Part 1: Online Learning Journal (OLJ)
Postings from Kathryn’s Blog – INF206 provide
evidence that I have:
- Engaged in the self-paced modules, online readings and online class discussions throughout the session;
- Completed a number of immersive learning activities using a range of social networking tools, and documented reflections and evaluations of these learning experiences throughout the session.
Evaluative statement
An evaluative statement using three (3) experiences documented in my OLJ
as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of this subject.
The abundance of social networking platforms and social media tools (Web
2.0) present many alternate methods for connecting with target audiences online.
However, the mistake many organisations and individuals make is to focus on the
tools rather than the relationships they are meant to foster (Brenner, 2010). Adopting
social media principles around collaboration,
harnessing collective intelligence,
and creating community and content (the 4C’s Social Media Framework – Mishra, 2009) provide the framework for a balanced approach to online engagement. This
approach includes listening to and learning from online conversations to
understand the communities’ information needs, and to gauge where value can best
be added.
Even though the tools are secondary to why we engage in online networked
communities, they are none-the-less essential to the social network’s
functionality. Therefore, selecting appropriate tools relies on a deep
understanding of the audience and their needs, an awareness of available social
media technologies, their capabilities and ‘fit[ness] for purpose’, and the
message being communicated (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Each Web
2.0 tool is tailored to achieve different goals for different audiences at
different levels of interaction around ‘social presence’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). For
example, LinkedIn is geared towards professional networking and business
relationships, whilst Facebook is generally for more casual/personal
interactions.
Of all the Web 2.0 tools evaluated to date (of which there have been
many), RSS feeds, feed readers such as Google Reader
and FeedDemon, and other alert systems like Google Alerts, have proved the most
valuable for keeping abreast of various websites and blogs within communities of
common interest. RSS demonstrates the simple, but powerful functionality (“push”
and “pull”) of social media in sharing and connecting with online content of
greatest interest to individuals and groups, with a heightened focus on
user-centred control (Udell, 2004).
Creating a library blog without offering an RSS feed essentially misses the
point.
How though, does social networking and social media fit with libraries,
particularly academic libraries? O’Reilly’s (2005) Web 2.0
meme map (see Figure 1 below) fundamentally describes the landscape - “the Web
as Platform”. Library 2.0 as a concept, adopts this structure for two-way
engagement with users to facilitate participation and collaboration in
developing and enhancing library services. Farkas (keynote speaker – Building Academic Library 2.0, 2007; 2008) believes Library 2.0 exemplifies much
of what librarians have been doing for decades; monitoring and addressing
change to facilitate information flow. Farkas concludes that Library 2.0 is: 1)
understanding users and non-users, and their changing needs; 2) using new
technologies to take services to where users are, online; 3) trusting and
listening to users, working in partnership to develop library services that
inform community needs in a rapidly changing environment; 4) adopting agile
approaches and a continuous improvement philosophy; 5) keeping abreast of new
technologies and opportunities, and providing avenues for learning (accounting
for new learning styles); and, 6) looking to exemplars from other sectors where
new technologies have been successfully implemented.
Figure I - O'Reilly 2005
The verdict is in, social networking is ubiquitous. Even in academia, students
and researchers (library users and non-users alike) socialise, network
professionally, and undertake many aspects of their study and research online
using a range of social networking and media sharing technologies (Alampi,
2012). To reach these audiences, library administrators and librarians must
accept their place within this space.
Merely being in the space, however, is not enough. Digital
environments provide some unique and challenging issues; risks and
opportunities associated with social and public spaces. Importantly, social media
policies acknowledge and address the underlying issues, and intersect with
other information and related policies to raise awareness and provide clear
guidelines for appropriate behaviour (Kroski, 2009).
Sound social media policy is based on answers to a few
fundamental questions. Why “social media”? What are the objectives (Burkhardt, 2010; Lauby, 2009)?
Who is the audience? What roles and responsibilities need defining? What are
the potential risks and issues? The issues are varied and can be complex,
such as: social, cultural and technological inequity of accessibility (‘digital
divide’ including digital illiteracy, skills development and adoption of new
technologies) (Hunt,
2012; Radovanovic,
2011); legal and ethical requirements around copyright and IP ownership,
privacy, data protection (such as personal data in profiles) and FoI; and educational,
with “generational change” and the online environment’s impact on how we learn (Arendt, 2009). All of these
issues and more require consideration in a social media policy.
With thorough planning; knowledge, skills, attitudes, tools
and technologies, and policy frameworks come together in a collaborative way to
create community, content and a collective intelligence around common
interests. The challenges for libraries and librarians in a socially networked
world are many, but so too are the opportunities. It is a space we ignore at
our peril, but is also a space in which we can lead innovation and change,
whilst reaching out to and advocating for our users and potential users.
References
Alampi, A. (2012, July 24). Social media is more than simply
a marketing tool for academic research. The Guardian Professional: Higher
Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/24/social-media-academic-research-tool
Arendt, A. M. (2009, November). Social media tools and the policies associated with them. In Best Practices in Policy Management Conference 2009. Utah Valley
University. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/anne_arendt/7/
Brenner, M. (2010, September 15). The 4 Cs of social media.
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/michaelbrenner/181159/4-cs-social-media
Burkhardt, A. (2010). Social media: A guide for college and
university libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 71(1),
10-24. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/1/10.full
Farkas, M. (2008, January 24). The essence of Library 2.0?
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/
Hunt, C. (2012, May 2). The new digital divide: Thoughts for
leaders and laggards. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/courtney-hunt/500334/new-digital-divide-thoughts-leaders-and-laggards
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the
world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business
Horizons, 53, 59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kroski, E. (2009). Should your library have a social media
policy? School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6699104.html
Lauby, S. (2009, June 2). 10 must-haves for your social
media policy. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2009/06/02/social-media-policy-musts/
Mishra, G. (2009, May 11). Digital activism & the 4Cs
social media framework. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/05/11/digital-activism-the-4cs-social-media-framework/
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? O'Reilly: Spreading
the Knowledge of Innovators. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Radovanovic, D. (2011, December 14). Digital divide and
social media: Connectivity doesn’t end the digital divide, skills do. [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/14/digital-divide-and-social-media-connectivity-doesnt-end-the-digital-divide-skills-do/
UC Berkley. (2007, November 19). Building academic library 2.0 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI
Udell, J. (2004, May 14). Push me, pull you: Forget the old
rules for how internet content arrives. It’s all about end-user control. [Web
log post]. Retrieved from http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/push-me-pull-you-059
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.