April 26

INF506 – Digital Identities

A digital identity is information on and about an entity that computer systems use to represent an external entity (International Standards Organisation, 2011). This external entity may be an individual, organisation or even a device. Whenever you sign up for anything on a computer and/or the Internet – email, social media site, even a simple login – you are contributing to your digital identity. Very often, this online identity might be completely at odds with your actual identity (Cho and Jimerson, 2017).

With the popularity of social media sites and the use of Web 2.0 tools, individuals and organisations are generating more information about themselves more than ever before. Some of this information can be made deliberately public, or kept private from the general public through privacy settings. Regardless though, it can be argued that the hacking of Google+ (Sveen, 2018) and the data ‘sharing’ of social media giants such as Facebook (Confessore, LaForgia, Dance, 2018) illustrates that nothing is ever truly private online.

Cho and Jimerson (2017, p.895) discuss how educators’ online identities (‘me-the-professional’) can differ significantly from their real identities (‘me-the-person’) because of the limitations and nature of online environments. For instance, on Twitter, users create and connect ideas that construct their identity through 140 characters. Furthermore, educators often self-censor online in order to be ‘professional’, i.e. “putting out a positive image” and not being overly critical of the school or others (p. 893). They do this, in additional to not sharing personal or controversial information online, largely because of fear of reprisal and judgement, demonstrating that their online identities often come at the expense of enacting certain dimensions of their personal identity.

This is unlikely to change, particularly when even the NSW Department of Education (2018, p. 6) has said that “staff should be aware that they could be identified as an employee of the department from their online activities”, and for this reason “should not post about their work, colleagues, students or official information”. I have seen this in action myself recently. One of my colleagues has become very vocal online about the current COVID-19 situation and schools. When I asked whether they feared reprisal, they said, “I’m being very careful to not criticise the Department. That could get me fired. Instead, I’m criticising the Government”.

This demonstrates some of what can, and can’t be – without consequence – shared online. Personal information should, as a general rule, always be protected by privacy settings. The murky area, however, is around what employees can and cannot share online. It seems unlikely that there will ever be a reconciliation between our ‘me-the-person’ and ‘me-the-professional’ identities.

 

Reference List

Cho, V., & Jimerson, J. B. (2017). Managing digital identity on Twitter: The case of school administrators. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5), 884–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659295

Confessore, N., LaForgia, M., & Dance G. J. X. (2018). Facebook’s Data Sharing and Privacy Rules: 5 Takeways From Our Investigation. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/facebook-data-sharing-deals.html

International Standards Organisation. (2011). Information technology—Security techniques—A framework for Identity Management—Part 1: Terminology and concepts. ISO. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/05/79/57914.html

NSW Department of Education. (2018). Social Media Policy. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://policies.education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/associated-documents/social-media-procedures.pdf.

Sveen, B. (2018). Google+ social media service to shut down after private data of at least 500,000 users exposed. ABC News. Retrieved from https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/google-social-media-service-shut-down-after-privacy-issue/10354918?pfmredir=sm&sf199623527=1

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT
April 13

INF506 – Librarian 2.0 in Library 2.0

The term ‘Library 2.0’ first appeared in a rather non-descript blog post written by Michael Casey in September 2005. Whether intentional or not, at the time Casey used the term, he did so in an attempt to directly connect ‘Library 2.0’ to the characteristics and technologies of Web 2.0. The hallmarks of Web 2.0 – and by Casey’s unwitting extension, Library 2.0 – are that people use technology tools to widely share their ideas, generate content, and have easier access to collaborative tools.

Burton (2019), Chun (2018), and Dodd (2019), all explore what they believe to be the core knowledge, skills, and attributes of information professionals working within Library 2.0 institutions. Burton argues that amongst those core competencies most valued (and missing) by information professionals are analysis, technology utilisation, communication and project management (2019, p. 43). Chun (2018) poetically discusses the need for LIS employees, specifically teacher librarians, to accept imperfection and be brave in embracing new technology. Meanwhile, Dodd puts forward the idea that employers and managers should be looking at ‘capacities’ of employees, instead of ‘competencies’, which may have an air of “rigid rules and demands from higher-ups” (2019, p. 688).

So what then, do I believe to be the essential knowledge, skills and attributes of information professionals in a Web 2.0 world? I believe that information professionals are expected to be adaptable and fast learners, who are skilled in management, particularly because they often work independently from their peers (Huvila et al., 2013). I believe that information professionals are expected to have the skills to encourage, teach and guide others in information literacy development and the use of Web 2.0 technologies. I also think that in the last 20 decades, librarians have come to see that they need to use these technologies to engage with patrons, interact with professional learning networks, and help others to do the same. Above all though, information professionals must be brave, and open to taking (calculated) risks in their professional lives, as Chun (2018) notes.

As a teacher librarian, I am also reminded that information professionals do a million over things that they are often not credited for. Why? Because they have the capacity. As society evolves — as it has been doing since conception — so must information professionals.

Reference List 

Burton, S. (2019). Future skills for the LIS profession. Online Searcher, 43(2), 42-45.

Casey, M. (2005, September 26). Librarians Without Borders [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://www.librarycrunch.com/2005/09/librarians_without_borders.html.

Chun, T. (2018). “Brave before perfect”: A new approach for future-ready librarians. Teacher Librarian, 45(5), 35-37.

Dodd, J. (2019). Competency or capacity: Measuring librarians’ potential for success. Journal of Library Administration, 59(6), 684-692.

Evolving Librarian [Image]. (n.d.). Newprofessionalsnetwork. https://newprofessionalsnetwork.wordpress.com/tag/librarian-2-0/.

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT