INF506 – Assessment 3 – Part 2 – Evaluative Statement & Reflection

Part 2A – Evaluative Statement

In the past several years, there has been a distinct shift away from the traditional concept of a library as a brick-and-mortar building towards a more permeating presence, with many libraries striving to meet both existing and potential users where they already are: online (Mathews, 2007). In fact, according to We Are Social’s Digital 2020 report, over 3.8 billion people worldwide use social media, and on average, spend a total of 144 minutes on these platforms each and every day. Most of this activity is done using untethered mobile technology, with 32.9 million mobile phone connections in Australia alone (We are Social, 2020b). With such trends realised, there can be little doubt as to why subjects such as INF506: Social Networking for Information Professionals exist and why this particular subject sets out to give information professionals a firm grasp of the theoretical and practical application of social networking within libraries.

Online social networking has provided new and exciting opportunities for both libraries and information professionals and is often undertaken for two primary purposes. The first of these is professional learning. Leveraging Web 2.0 technologies, social media sites use algorithms and other data to identify and connect users with previously unknown, but otherwise like-minded individuals and organisations. Typically known as Professional Learning Networks (PLNs), these sets of connections are always based on common ground, such as shared interests, skills, and/or a profession. Although the success of a PLN depends on individuals being willing to contribute, these networks often serve a great space of collaboration, encouraging users to build knowledge together, whilst also learning at their own pace (Richardson & Mancabelli, 2011). Some great examples of PLNs can be found on Twitter, a microblogging platform. Twitter is one of my preferred PLN sites because users typically use the hashtag symbol (#) before a relevant keyword or phrase to categorise each tweet and make it discoverable in a Twitter search. By clicking a hashtagged word in a message, I can see other users’ tweets on the same topic, which allows me to very easily locate potential people to add to my PLN.

An example of using a hashtag to search, identify and connect with similarly interested users

The second purpose for cultivating an online presence is the increased visibility of the library to users. Information professionals can leverage social networking sites as a marketing tool for the services available to users at their library. The possible convenience and simplicity of using social media also allows libraries to quickly spread information, and communicate library-hosted events and activities to patrons (Chu & Du, 2012). An example of such an organisation is @galstonhslibrary on Instagram. Their feed consists of a series of engaging images that promotes the collection, services, and upcoming events that the school library offers to their users. This account was one of many that I used as inspiration for the creation of my own school library Instagram as part of Assessment 2. I ultimately picked Instagram as the platform for my theoretical account because I liked the visual component of the content, particularly because it felt more informal, which given my target audience of teenagers, was the desired outcome.

@galstonhslibrary’s Instagram feed

For all the opportunities it provides, using social networking in a professional context is not without potential challenges and issues. Since with Web 2.0, users are both consumers and producers of content, users should practice media ethics (Lee, 2010). Many organisations do not always think to properly train staff in using specific social media platforms effectively and ethically before launching accounts on these platforms (Potter, 2012). Furthermore, the ongoing management of an online account is a considerable time investment, as information professionals must not only create content to regularly post, but also engage with users online (Mathews, 2007). There is also the continual threat of loss of privacy and identity online, particularly given social media networks are constantly tweaking their privacy settings. Although measures can be put in place to mitigate the risk to users, the hacking of Google (Sveen, 2018) and data ‘sharing’ of social media giants such as Facebook (Confessore, LaForgia & Dance, 2018) illustrates that nothing is ever truly private online.

This being said, individuals and individuals acting on behalf of organisations must always comport themselves online in a manner that does not contradict the user agreement of that specific social media site, or if relevant, the organisation’s code of conduct and/or social media policy. It is recommended that before embarking on establishing a social media presence for any organisation, there is a clear and approved social media policy in place that governs behaviour online and protects employees and/or the organisation. By creating policies, planning for preservation, understanding user needs, defining tasks, and assigning workloads, libraries and information professionals will be better prepared and ready to act should any issues or risks concerning social networking arise (Zhixian, 2017).

In conclusion, INF506 has been an exploration of the possibilities and challenges of social media tools in a library setting and has personally pushed me to look beyond social media as a being solely about social participation, and more as a platform that can be used expand my professional learning network.

Word Count: 783

References

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

Chu, S. K. W. & Du, H. S. (2012). Social networking tools for academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(1), 64-75. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1177/0961000611434361.

McAndrew, F. T. & Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook Use. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28(6), 2359-2365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.007

Richardson, W. & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal Learning Networks: Using the power of connections to transform education. Hawker Brownlow Education.

Lee, A. L. (2010). Media Education: Definitions, Approaches and Development around the Globe. New Horizons In Education, 58(3), 1-13.

Mathews, B. (2007). Chapter 7: Online social networking. In N. Courtney (Ed.), Library 2.0 and beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow’s user (pp. 75-91). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Potter, N. (2012). The Library Marketing Toolkit. London, UK: Facet Publishing.

Richardson, W. & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal Learning Networks: Using the power of connections to transform education. Melbourne, Victoria: Hawker Browlea Education.

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

We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 – Global Overview. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion-people-use-social-media

We Are Social. (2020b). Digital 2020 – Australia. Retrieved May 17, 2020 from https://wearesocial.com/au/digital-2020-australia.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Part 2B – Reflective Statement

In my introductory blog post for INF506, I wrote that by engaging in this subject, I hoped to gain a better understanding of how participatory Web 2.0 technologies had transformed libraries by changing the way users consumed, shared and created information (Milliken, 2020a). I also noted that I was approaching this subject as someone who already regularly uses a variety of social media platforms to meet both my personal and professional needs. If I’m being entirely honest though, I didn’t really expect to learn anything new in INF506. Born in 1994, I have grown up alongside the Internet and do not remember information services – or really, life – before Web 2.0. Perhaps conceitedly, I consider myself a digital native. As such, I definitely wondered what, if anything, INF506 could teach me considering I am an established social networker and fledgling information professional, hence why I simply stated that I hoped to gain a “better understanding” of Web 2.0 throughout this subject. Oh, how pride cometh before the fall.

Figure 1

From the very beginning, INF506 has made me rethink the technology tools that are already at my fingertips, as well to question and reflect upon how I can make these tools work for me within my specific context as an information professional employed in a high school library. Module 1 was brief but introduced me to the idea that social media platforms were about more than just connecting with family and friends, and also had the benefit of being a place in which individuals could learn collaboratively for the purpose of enhancing professional practice (Gerts, 2020a). As a result, in the past 3 months, I have become more active on Twitter, my chosen platform for my Professional Learning Network [PLN]. Using this platform, I have been identifying resources relevant to and users who share my passion for school libraries. Figure 1 shows an exchange I had on Twitter with another member of my PLN regarding a possible resource that could be used in the library (Milliken, 2020b).

Module 2 asked us to think about how society and information services have been influenced and changed because of developments and trends in participatory Web 2.0 technologies (Gerts, 2020b). I reflected upon these changes and how libraries were responding to them in my second post, The Influence of Technology on Society (Milliken, 2020c). This module and subsequent OLJ entry really made me think about how hypocritical I was being when it came to libraries and Web 2.0. I talked the talk about libraries needing to embrace the future, lest they become irrelevant, but I wasn’t yet walking the walk in my own library.

Module 3 focused on a variety of social media platforms and assessment tools, and how organisations were using these to further their reach and connect with users (Gerts, 2020c). In my third blog entry, I discussed what constituted an effective social media presence by contrasting ALA and ALIA’s twitter accounts (Milliken, 2020d). The outcome of my analysis really highlighted the importance of using #hashtags.

Module 4 combined theory with practice to look at the processes involved in embracing Library 2.0 (and Librarian 2.0) to implement social media at an organisation (Gerts, 2020d). Module 5 meanwhile honed in on the importance of social media strategies and policies in an organisation, particularly when it comes to avoiding issues surrounding social networking (Gerts, 2020e). These modules and their various components formed the groundwork on which I based much of Assessment 2. Using all the knowledge I had culminated through my engagement with INF506, I created a prototype Instagram account for my high school library, which I had already wanted to — in real life — create. Using Assessment 2 as a ‘trial run’ was a valuable learning experience because it made me think about my patrons and what I hoped to achieve in establishing an online community for them, as well as what was involved in the ongoing management of this community. Whereas I may have otherwise rushed into it in real life, I have instead taken the time to develop a strategy, and familiarise myself with my organisation’s social media policy… all as part of an assessment that I already had to do! Talk about serendipity.

Module 6 left the unit open-ended, and had me looking toward the future (Gerts, 2020f). I considered this future in my final OLJ entry, The Future of Teacher Librarians (Milliken, 2020e). As an information professional, I am uniquely positioned to assist teachers and help students be prepared to be competent and active citizens in an increasingly digital society. This being said, there is definite need for increased collaboration between teachers and teacher librarians in digital literacy instruction, and that it is only through this collaboration that authentic and meaningful learning can take place.

As INF506 draws to a close, I feel empowered to put the knowledge and tools I’ve encountered throughout this subject into use. It’s time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and I am excited for the future.

Word Count: 802

References

Gerts, C. (2020). Module 1: Introduction to the Subject [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264901_1&mode=reset

Gerts, C. (2020b). Module 2: Information and society [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264902_1&mode=reset.

Gerts, C. (2020c). Module 3: Social Media tools and platforms [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264903_1&mode=reset.

Gerts, C. (2020d). Module 4: Social media and your organisation [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264904_1&mode=reset.

Gerts, C. (2020e). Module 5: The role of social media policies [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264905_1&mode=reset.

Gerts, C. (2020f). Module 6: On to the future [Module notes]. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_44362_1&content_id=_3264906_1&mode=reset

Milliken, K. (2020a, March 11). INF506: Assessment 1 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readminder/2020/03/11/inf506-assessment-1/.

Milliken, K. [@ilykcake]. (2020b, April 27). Can’t wait! #edchat #writing #writingcommunity https://twitter.com/yvetteposh/status/1254567025130668037. [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ilykcake/status/1254619204348592128.

Milliken, K. (2020c, March 20). INF506: The Influence of Technology on Society [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readminder/2020/03/20/inf506-the-influence-of-technology-on-society/.

Milliken, K. (2020d, March 30). INF506: ALIA versus ALA [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readminder/2020/03/30/inf506-alia-versus-ala/.

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT

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

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.

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT

March 30

INF506 – ALIA versus ALA

Both @ALIANational and @ALALibrary are Twitter accounts run by and representative of Australia and America’s Library Association bodies, respectively. As such, they have a lot in common, from the content they produce to the audience they attempt to appeal to.

A brief perusal of the contents of their tweets reveals that the content they ‘tweet’ or ‘retweet’ is related, and can be generally organised into three broad categories:

1. Content relating to the continued running and public actions of the Association, including announcements about upcoming conferences and professional development opportunities; official recommendations or statements to other national and/or state bodies; and business deals/agreements.
  
  The American Library Association (ALA) Executive Board released the recommendation for libraries to leave Wi-Fi on during closures. Read the entire statement below. https://t.co/Q8apcXXU4M
  
  — American Library Association (@ALALibrary) March 23, 2020
2. Content for and relevant to the work of information professionals, particularly those employed in libraries. These are often retweets, rather than original content produced by the Association.
  
  The Public Library Data Alliance is seeking applications from librarians, library data analysts, researchers, state data coordinators and others interested in public library data collection and use. Apply by April 10. https://t.co/8t8kI941zt
  
  — American Library Association (@ALALibrary) March 9, 2020
3. Content for members of the public who are interested in the broad related ‘fields’ of the Association, i.e. libraries, books, authors, and increasingly — technology.
  
  Announcing a special online event on Wednesday 1 April at 7.30pm! Join our special guest speaker, positive psychologist Dr Lea Waters, for a timely presentation on taking a strength-based approach to COVID-19. Register now for your chance to participate: https://t.co/NE9VcVcW7O pic.twitter.com/IeSiRdU2Uf
  
  — Geelong Libraries (@geelonglibrary) March 30, 2020

In tweeting (and retweeting) such content, ALIA and ALA are first and foremost attempting to reach their primary target audience, who consist of individuals employed in the information industry and other related fields, i.e. public/academic librarians, archivists, museum curators, publishers, etc. These individuals may be paying members of the Association, or conversely, have a vested interest in the work of the respective Association. To a lesser extent, these tweets are meant to appeal to members of the general public. These individuals may be regular patrons of libraries or have a broad interest in the work of the Association.

The appeal of these accounts — and the clear discrepancy between the success of each Association — is evidenced in the amount of ‘followers’ for each account, as well the engagement expressed through ‘hearts’, retweets and discussion/comment on each tweet.

A brief analysis of the engagement on ALIA’s last 10 tweets reveals that they received, on average, only 0.5 comments, 3.8 retweets, and 6.6 likes, per tweet. In these 10 tweets, the most popular one was a retweet from Yarra Plenty Library, which offered to print and post essential documents free of charge (2020, March 30). The people who liked this tweet were mostly librarians employed in the Melbourne area, as evidenced by bios.

Meanwhile, data from ALA’s previous 10 tweets revealed that they received, on average, 0.9 comments, 19.2 retweets, and 43.5 likes, per tweet. Their most popular tweet was a link to a NY Times article about how artists were responding to school closures, which received more than 130 likes and 62 retweets (2020, March 28).

The discrepancy in this engagement could be explained by any number of things. It could be simply because ALA reaches a much wider audience (205.8K followers) compared to ALIA’s (10.9K). I also observed that ALA used #hashtags more frequently than ALIA, meaning that interested people following particular hashtags were more likely to find ALA’s tweets than ALIA’s. What is interesting to note is that ALIA has tweeted a lot more frequently than ALA, with 29.1K tweets compared to 24.2K respectively.

Overall though, ALA far outperforms ALIA, reaching a wider audience and demonstrating more user engagement. It also proves that sometimes it’s quality (i.e. hashtags) over quantity.

Reference List

American Library Association [@ALALibrary]. (2020, March 28). School closings are a drastic change for kids at this challenging time, so authors are stepping up on social media to keep them engaged [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ALALibrary/status/1243692027897880577.

Yarra Plenty Library [YarraPlentyLib]. (2020, March 30). Printing and posting services [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/YarraPlentyLib/status/1244451232283906048?s=20.

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT

March 20

INF506 – The Influence of Technology on Society

Although many people have attempted to outline the ways in which society is changing because of technology, few summarise it as succinctly as David Wiley (2008), who outlines five significant shifts in our society because of Web 2.0, namely a movement from:

Analog to digital forms
Tethered to mobile technologies
Isolated to connected experiences
Generic to personal user networks
Closed systems to open systems of information

All of these shifts have presented unprecedented challenges — as well as unique opportunities — for organisations wishing to remain relevant and fulfil their purposes in an increasingly online world.

First, analog to digital forms. In the most obvious example of this, paper as a physical format is quickly giving way to digital documents which are easier to search, copy, share and organise. For organisations, this may mean adapting not how they offer their services, but also potentially what they offer. For instance, many libraries have begun cultivating digital collections of e-books and audiobooks, offering these to patrons as an alternative to physical books.

Second, society is no longer tethered to desks and landlines to work, but can now enjoy the benefits of mobile technologies from anywhere. In fact, 5.19 billion people globally use mobile phones, with mobile phones accounting for 53.3% of all web traffic (We Are Social, 2020). EDUCAUSE argued in their 2020 report that although mobile learning had existed for over 10 years, the ‘future’ of this trend was to focus on connectivity and convenience (p. 21). This is of particular relevance to organisations, as they must consider how people are consuming content, and therefore make their content mobile-friendly.

Third, isolated to connected experiences. Using social media and Web 2.0 technologies, organisations are no longer isolated but instead, belong to connected and global networks. For organisations, this is an opportunity to exploit their potential connectivity and market themselves to a much wider audience, as well as using their audience (through social media, reviews etc.) to market them.

(Visualising the Networked World, n.d.)

Fourth, generic to personal networks. The world of social media and social networks has opened the possibilities for finding individuals and organisations who share the same interests and goals. For organisations, there is also the potential of communicating with individuals on a person-by-person basis through Web 2.0 technologies, thus cultivating relationships with users to create a more personal user experience.

Fifth, closed systems to open systems. Technology has quite literally opened the world in which we live in, becoming an indispensable part of our lives. If organisations fail to acknowledge this and tap into the potential that this new world offers, they risk becoming irrelevant and failing at their purpose.

Reference List

EDUCAUSE (2019). Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. Retrieved March 16, 2020 from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2019/4/2019-horizon-report.

Visualising the Networked World [Graphic]. (n.d.). Connected World. Retrieved from https://connectedworld.com/visualizing-the-networked-world/.

We Are Social (2020). Digital 2020 – Global Digital Overview. Retrieved March 23, 2020 from https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion-people-use-social-media.

Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.768

Category: INF506 | LEAVE A COMMENT