Evaluative report – Part A

An evaluative statement based on three experiences documented in your OLJ as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject.

The first blog post in this subject began by examining Web 2.0 and the emergence of social networking technologies which have helped define a new era of user interaction and engagement on the web (Riddle, 2016a). Cavazza (2016) describes these existing and emerging platforms as an ecosystem comprising of six predominate uses including publishing, sharing, messaging, discussing, collaborating and networking.

Social networking tools are continually evolving and adapting with the emergence of new technologies but can be characterised as dynamic and interactive (Riddle, 2016a) platforms that place the user at the centre and are a distinguishing feature of Web 2.0. A major shift in emphasis in Web 2.0 is the role of the user from passive to active, as reflected in opportunities for interactivity and user-generated content (Schwerdtfeger, 2013, March 17).

The second ¬†blog post ‘What is Web 2.0’ reflected on the global rise of MED’s (mobile electronic devices) and access to the internet which has helped facilitate the adoption and growth of social networking (Riddle, 2016a). The global proliferation of social networking technologies and their adoption has had a profound affect on society in terms of how we socialise, search for information, and organise ourselves. This is evident when we look closely at how various organisations now function.

Library 2.0 represents how libraries and information agencies adopt Web 2.0 technologies and guiding principles. Casey & Savastinuk (2006) state that the heart of this movement is the user-centre concept that defines Web 2.0. O’Connell (2008) expounds this idea in reference to the opportunities Library 2.O offers for flexibility and personalization within information literacy instruction (p. 53).

Frank & Quan (2014) researched how Web 2.0 principles were adopted in the top 100 academic university libraries in the US (p.120). They concluded that they were increasingly utilising social networking tools and Web 2.0 technology and principles for their marketing, services and interactions with patrons (Frank & Quan, 2014, p.131). While these findings are based on a relatively small scale study of libraries and limited to an academic setting, the information is useful in highlighting the dominant trends and application of Web 2.0 (Frank & Quan, 2014, p.131).

Many of Frank & Quan’s (2014, p. 131) findings correlate with the development of Arizona State University’s library 2.0 environment. The library’s integration of Web 2.0 tools are discussed in third web post ‘Arizona State University (ASU) Youtube and Web 2.0 tools’ (Riddle, 2016b) and include Youtube videos, a blog, Twitter and Facebook. The interactivity with a variety of platforms appealing to different users, embraces the principles of Web 2.0. These principles include the ethos of collaboration, conversation, community, and content creation (CSU, 2016).

ASU Library is a good example of how information professionals use social networking tools to meet the information needs of users. The Youtube videos are short and informative. The content markets the libraries’ facilities, events, resources and provides guides and tutorials (Riddle, 2016b). ASU Library use Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for social and educational engagement. One major benefit of these tools is that they provide libraries with an opportunity to respond quickly to users (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p.72) as well as facilitating discussions, sharing ideas and creating a sense of community.

ASU Library’s social accounts are also connected to the wider university and other departments. This collaboration is good practice because it enables ‘cross-pollination’ to happen. When ‘retweets’ , reposts, ‘likes’ and ‘favourites’ occur across different departments on the same campus, it is possible to extend the reach of content (LePage, 2014) and furthermore, can add a sense of community (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p.77).

‘Cross-pollination’ can be successful when an organization collaborate to create a unified voice (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p.71), but policies need to be in place to enable this to happen efficaciously. In the third blog post, the importance of developing a strategy was discussed in relation to being successful on social media platforms (Riddle, 2017). For information professionals working as part of a wider organization, these policies might not currently exist. The faculty at Albertson library were in this position but developed policies based on best practice. They then collaborated with their centralised marketing and communication team so that information was cascaded and shared between departments (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p.73). What the faculty recognised was the need for the educational and technical management of their platforms (Riddle, 2017). This was achieved in part by using Google Drive shared calendar to coordinate contributors, and having regular meetings and discussions. Social media analytics were also used as a way to measure the impact and success of their activity towards their social media goals (Riddle, 2017). Albertson library provided the contributors for their social networks with guidelines and vetted student contributors. This is a valid concern in our increasingly networked world where one tweet can be negatively received because of real or perceived ethical concerns.

 

References

Cavazza, F. (2016). Social media landscape 2016. In Fredcavazza.net. Retrieved from https://fredcavazza.net/2016/04/23/social-media-landscape-2016/

Casey, M. & Savastinuk, L. (2010). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. In Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html(pp. 51-62).London: Facet Publishing.

CSU (2016). What is library 2.0? [INF506 Module 4.2]. Retrieved January 2, 2017, from Charles Sturt University website: https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/displayLearningUnit?course_id=_14531_1&content_id=_1141195_1

Frank, B., & Yan Quan, L. (2014). Web 2.0 applications’ usage and trends in top US academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32(1), 120-138. doi: 10.1108/LHT-07-2013-0093

LePage, E. (2014, October 29). How to create a social media marketing plan in 6 steps. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.hootsuite.com/how-to-create-a-social-media-marketing-plan/

O’Connell, J. (2008). School library 2.0: new skills, new knowledge, new futures. In P. Godwin & J. Parker (Eds.), Information literacy meets Library 2.0 (pp. 51-62). London: Facet Publishing.

Ramsey, E., & Vecchione, A. (2014). Engaging library users through a social media strategy. Journal of Library Innovation, 5(2), 71-82.

Riddle, K. (2016a, December 16). What is Web 2.0?. In Kate loves books. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/kate/2016/11/25/88/

Riddle, K. (2016b, November 25). Arizona State University Youtube and Web 2.0 tools. In Kate loves books. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/kate/2016/12/16/arizona-state-university-web-2-0-tool/

Riddle, K. (2017, January 5). What is Web 2.0?. In Kate loves books. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/kate/2017/01/05/applying-ideas-from-the-literature-to-develop-a-draft-marketing-strategy/

Schwerdtfeger, P. [Patrick Schwerdtfeger]. (2013, March 17). What is Web 2.0? What is social media? What comes next?. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=119&v=iStkxcK6_vY

Leave a Reply