Category: INF506 – Social Networking For Information Professionals

Over the course of this semester, my engagement with INF506 has deeply broadened my understanding of social networking and social media, revealing my surface level understanding of the tools social media offers. This has had significant implications for my ongoing study, my personal life, and my continued development as a teacher librarian. 

Prior to commencing my studies in INF506, engagement in social media was a daily occurrence for me. Living in a rural community far from family, friends, and opportunities for professional development, social media engagement is necessary to stay connected to the wider world. For the most part, my involvement was passive – I would post infrequently, but mostly my feed was full of book-related content, holiday and life updates from family and friends and, most importantly, posts on teacher education pages. 

The importance I placed on social media as a professional development tool was evident at the very beginning of INF506 when I posted my initial thoughts about the importance of social media (Coddington, 2023a). In this post, I ruminated on the invaluable nature of social media as a tool to “connect and exchange resources and ideas with colleagues” (Coddington, 2023a, para. 1), and aligned myself entirely with Giannikas’ contention that, in a professional context, social media does indeed foster and facilitate connection, community and collaboration (2020) between individuals in similar professional roles, regardless of the physical distance that separates them. It is clear from the onset I had a firm understanding of the potential and use of social media and social networking to collaborate and professionally develop one’s knowledge and connections.

However, upon reflection of this blog post, my idea of social media for professional use was firmly grounded in my use and understanding of Facebook alone. Prior to engaging with INF506, it is clear I had never considered the use of other social media platforms to socially network for professional development even on a surface level, let alone critically. My engagement in INF506, particularly in the first assessment task where I had to propose and justify a social media strategy, and the Online Learning Journal Task (OLJ) 11 (Coddington, 2023b) , where I explored potential professional social media sites for functionality and issues demonstrate a burgeoning critical knowledge of social media and social networking in a professional sense.  My critical analysis of Reddit and Buzzfeed (Coddington, 2023b) and my analysis of different Twitter/X feeds (Coddington, 2024a), for example, demonstrate this progressive movement beyond surface level appreciation of the professional development opportunities afforded by social media. In the former I discussed issues of algorithms informed by data tracking, and the major follow-on effects of this  – censorship, which occurs on such sites and perpetuates the spread of misinformation and the dismissing of perspectives from minority, disadvantaged groups (Tripodi, 2023). In the latter, I analysed the effectiveness of approaches of two different X feeds, focusing on success, post rate, and appropriateness for intended audiences. Clearly, the critical approach taken with these posts further into the semester and the increased complexity and depth of concepts addressed reflects the development of my professional understanding of social networking as an information professional. 

Despite a casual mention in an early blog post (Coddington, 2023c), what I had not taken into serious consideration yet, however, was another crucial concept and issue associated with social media and social networking: privacy. Reading Douglas’ post on privacy and security concerns in social media (Douglas, 2024) and engaging in unit reading materials, I too found myself reflecting on my personal attitude towards data collection and tracking that occurs through social media. Prior to engaging in INF506 I, like many others, (Crocco et al., 2020) found targeted advertising to be a convenient by-product of harmless data collection. Indeed, I even referred to this tracking as a way to “train the algorithm” (Coddington, 2023b) and failed to address it beyond surface level mentions of student privacy in other posts and comments (Coddington, 2023c; Coddington, 2023d). 

However, after identifying this as an area of knowledge in need of development for professional and personal growth, I compiled a list of resources on privacy and ethical dilemmas with social media (Coddington, 2023e). This identified gap in my knowledge directly informed my approach to assessment task 2. Whilst the first assessment allowed me to explore the positive potential of social media use in schools, the second assignment promoted the critical evaluation of social media in terms of the core issue of privacy violations. The subsequent expansion of my knowledge of personal and professional social media engagement is evidenced in a later blog post, where I explored the personal risks of engaging in social media (Coddington, 2024b). This research prompted me to seriously consider my shadow profile (Tactical Technology Collective, 2024), and has resulted in a number of changes made not only to my privacy settings across a range of platforms, but also to my general browsing habits in personal, academic, and professional contexts. 

Interestingly, from an academic perspective throughout this unit, I found myself reluctant to engage in social media with my fellow students despite my extensive use of the platform in my personal life. This occurred despite my early acknowledgment of the benefits of it, which are well documented (Coddington, 2023a; Ginnikas, 2020). Upon reflection, I attribute this to apprehension about the new communication format. In previous units, emphasis was placed on formal communication through university-regulated channels. Suddenly being provided with the opportunity to communicate casually with my peers, regardless of my acknowledgement of the benefits of it (Coddington, 2023c) was daunting, and as a result I didn’t participate as actively in the INF506 Facebook page as I would have liked. Rather, I was a passive viewer, predominantly silently observing the posts of others and engaging through reactions primarily. 

Overall, the depth of knowledge gained about social media and social networking in INF506 has and will greatly inform my personal, academic, and professional lives. My personal and academic habits have changed, and whilst I am incredibly keen to implement the social media proposal of assessment task one in a real world context, I am also now keenly and critically aware of the privacy concerns associated with such an endeavour, and will be building strategies for mitigation of this into future social media policies I will create out of associated necessity in my professional role (Mon & Koontz, 2020). Given the ever-changing nature of social media and social networking, it is also clear that I will need to keep updated with issues, concerns, and updates in the social networking and social media fields to ensure my professional, academic, and personal engagement stays up to date.

Word count: 1099

Reference List

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2023a, November 16). Social media in professional settings – initial thoughts. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2023/11/16/social-media-in-professional-settings-initial-thoughts/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2023b, December 13). OLJ Task 11: Social news sites. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2023/12/13/olj-task-11-social-news-sites/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2023c, December 2). OLJ Task 2: The influence of technology on society. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2023/12/02/olj-task-2-the-influence-of-technology-on-society/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2023d, December 2). OLJ Task 3: Mobile exploration. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2023/12/02/olj-task-3-mobile-exploration/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2023e, December 6). Resources for a range of topics. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2023/12/06/resources-for-a-range-of-topics/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2024a, January 10). OLJ Task 10: Twitter feeds. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2024/01/10/olj-task-10-twitter-feeds/ 

Coddington, M. [monica.coddington1] (2024b, January 29). AT2 – Privacy and Social Media Use in School Libraries. The Learning of a Teacher Librarian in Training. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/teacherlibrarianintraining/2024/01/29/at2-privacy-and-social-media-use-in-school-libraries/ 

Crocco, M., Segall, A., Halvorsen, A., Stamm, A., & Jacobsen, R. (2020). “It’s not like they’re selling your data to dangerous people”: Internet privacy, teens, and (non-)controversial public issues. Journal of Social Studies Research., 44(1), 21-33.

Douglas, C. [catherine.douglas] (2024, January 24). OLJ Task 14 – Areas of concern – Privacy and security. Catherine’s Comments. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/catdouglas/2024/01/24/olj-task-5-areas-of-concern-privacy-and-security/  

Giannikas, C. (2020). Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-Learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(1) https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss1/3

Mon, L., & Koontz, C. (2020). Ch02. Marketing and Mission, Goals, and Objectives. In Marketing and Social Media. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. 

Tactical Technology Collective. (2024). Me and My Shadow: Take Control of Your Data – What Are Digital Traces? Me and My Shadow. https://myshadow.org/ 

Tripodi, F. (2023). Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia. New media & Society 25(7), 1687-1707. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211023772

The continued rise in popularity of social media (SM) and its evolutionary nature has seen it utilised not only by individuals to socially connect, but also by information organisations to promote their organisation and share relevant information with the community. This trend has extended into the educational sector, with school libraries using SM such as Facebook to communicate with and engage local communities, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022; Rosenberg et al., 2021). School libraries have successfully employed SM to communicate with and engage their audiences: students, parents and community members (Magee et al., 2012; Kingsley, 2018). Beyond posting about new collection items and opening times, Teacher Librarians (TLs) have found much success in posts that highlight student work, achievements, accomplishments and involvement in programs; reminders about club meeting times; and directly communicate with individuals to answer queries and communicate reminders (Harmon & Messina, 2013). However, given the continual development of technology that increasingly interacts with such platforms, and the inherently public nature of such platforms and pages whose intent is to readily engage and communicate with the community, SM usage by school libraries has the potential to pose serious privacy risks and concerns for library users – in this case, students (Rosenberg et al., 2021). 

Privacy concerns are not a new issue for SM platforms. Historically, large SM platforms have faced criticism for infringements of user’s privacy (Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022), violations that continue to occur and are exacerbated by continued rapid technological advancement (Crocco et al., 2020). Indeed, the collection of personal information that is built into the very nature of sites such as Facebook make “privacy” an increasingly incompatible element of the site, where setting up an online identity is a prerequisite for use (Baccarella et al., 2018). Despite claims by some platforms that the collection of data does not occur (Warzel & Thompson, 2019), an examination of social media data policies such as Facebook’s makes it clear that such sites do, indeed, collect, store, and share user data “globally, both internally within the Facebook Companies and externally with our partners” (Tactical Technology Collective, 2018, para. 58). Furthermore, posts made on SM are automatically considered publicly available data, which results in the collection, use and “selling” of data (Crocco et al., 2020), including the analysis of images (Rosenberg et al., 2021). This data can then be used by anyone, regardless of their intent. 

This has considerable implications for students’ online and physical privacy, who are often the focus of school library posts and are some of the most frequent users of SM (Martin et al., 2018). When TLs establish SM pages and ask students and parents to engage with the page they are facilitating this collection of data, as each interaction individuals make on SM platforms, from passive viewing to active engagement, creates “digital traces” of an individual (Tactical Technology Collective, 2024). These traces are collected to create shadow profiles of individuals that are used to monitor, store, and track data about individuals, as well as the individuals themselves (Ravn et al., 2020). Shadow profiles are contributed to if TLs post photographs of individuals, which has the potential to further exacerbate online privacy concerns. Such photos are permanent digital footprints “that can be retrieved later by classmates, teachers […] or the general public.” (Martin et al., 2018, p.215), and can lead to what Ravn et al. (2020) term “creep shots” – the non-consensual sharing of images. Furthermore, the development of facial recognition algorithms, some of which have the potential to predict individual political and sexual orientation, can lead to further exposure of privacy by collecting such images and storing them in shadow profiles, which can further expose individuals to discrimination and stalking online (Rosenberg et al., 2021). This steady build up of digital footprints therefore exposes users to the risk of spear-phishing – fake online accounts, online fraud and scams (Rosenberg et al., 2021).  Clearly, then, the online privacy violations and dangers that arise from simple interactions with SM pages, and through the posting of images of individuals, are significant. 

What is further concerning is the significant exposure of physical privacy, and thus the physical dangers individuals can face through this online privacy violation. This is first made evident when one considers the tracking of information conducted through associated apps, such as Messenger. If students or parents reach out to the school library through such means, the information communicated can be stored by Facebook (Tactical Technology Collective, 2018) and locations tracked through IP tracking extensions such as the “Marauders Map”, which allowed platforms to “map, and thus stalk, the identity, locations, and movements of all individuals in a conversation” (Baccarella et al., 2018, p. 434). Even posting photos celebrating and acknowledging student success and involvement in the library exposes student privacy. In such shots, students are automatically tied to a place, both through their association with the school library post, but also through other identifiable features that image analysis tools can access and store – school logos, identifiable locations, and even student names when identified in posts (Rosenberg et al., 2021). As with all data collected, these images contribute to individuals’ digital footprints, and can be accessed and used by anyone – even those without accounts on the social media platforms used.

These potential breaches of student online and physical privacy therefore have significant implications for TLs seeking to implement SM. First and foremost, given the potential exposure of student privacy through posts, parents should provide permission for images, names and other information to be shared online about their children (NSW Department of Education, 2020; Rosenberg et al., 2021). Extending beyond the NSW Department of Education social media policy (2020), the identification of students in posts through names should be limited to their first names only if required, and portrait style photos that are easily analysed or provide clear identifiable features of individuals should be avoided in order to further prevent violations of student privacy (Rosenberg et al., 2021). At all times, regardless of permissions to post received by parents, TLs must consider student privacy, and such posts should only be made on official SM accounts (NSW Department of Education, 2020). In light of this, TLs should consider making their library SM pages private to control who has access to the information posted (Rosenberg et al., 2021). Whilst this would increase the administrative load of TLs it would be another effective strategy to help mitigate the risks to student privacy that SM platforms inherently pose. 

Word count: 1075

Reference List 

   Baccarella, C., Wagner, T., Kietzmann, J. & McCarthy. (2018). Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal, 36, 431-438.

   Crocco, M., Segall, A., Halvorsen, A., Stamm, A., & Jacobsen, R. (2020). “It’s not like they’re selling your data to dangerous people”: Internet privacy, teens, and (non-)controversial public issues. Journal of Social Studies Research., 44(1), 21-33.

   Harmon, C. & Messina, M. (2013). Using Social Media in Libraries: Best Practices. Scarecrow Press Incorporated. 

   Kimmons, R., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2022). Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition. TechTrends, 66(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0

   Kingsley, I. (2018). Use of social media by Alaskan libraries. PNLA Quarterly, 82(3/4), 62-72.

   Magee, R., Naughton, R., O’Gan, P., Forte, A., & Agosto, D. (2012). Social Media Practices and Support in U.S. Public Libraries and School Library Media Centres. American Society for Information Science and Technology. Meeting. Proceedings of the … ASIST Annual Meeting, 49(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901334

   Martin, F., Wang, C., Petty, T., Wang, W. & Wilkins, P. (2018). Middle School Students’ Social Media Use. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 213-224. 

   NSW Department of Education (2020). Social media policy. Implementation procedures – August 2020. NSW Government.

   Ravn, S., Barnwell, A. & Neves, B. (2020). What Is “Publicly Available Data”? Exploring Blurred Public-Private Boundaries and Ethical Practices Through a Case Study on Instagram. Journal of EMpirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(1-2), 40-45. DOI:10.1177/1556264619850736

   Rosenberg, J. M., Burchfield, M., Borchers, C., Gibbons, B., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2021). Social media and students’ privacy: What schools and districts should know. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(2), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211051145

   Tactical Technology Collective. (2018). Facebook’s Data Policy. Me and My Shadow. https://myshadow.org/lost-in-small-print/facebooks-data-policy#0 

   Tactical Technology Collective. (2024). Me and My Shadow: Take Control of Your Data – What Are Digital Traces? Me and My Shadow. https://myshadow.org/ 

   Warzel, C., & Thompson, S. A. (2019, April 10). Tech companies say they care. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/opinion/tech-companies-privacy.html. 

The Washing Post X (previously known as Twitter) feed is a saturated with a plethora of posts about politics, sports, social media/technology, and the odd advertisement thrown in, just to name a small few. This hugely diverse range of posts offer minimal information in the posts, prompting viewer to click on the post to be directed to fuller articles that give more information, with a catch – users must pay for the access. They also occur in rapid fire succession, with multiple posts going up within a one hour period, all offering articles on wildly different topics from seemlingly pro-Trump propaganda and reporting to the apparent boom of the tourism/golf/beer industry thanks to “women”. One might be prompted to ask when perusing this account who the target audience is, and with such a huge onslaught of content offered by the hour on an incredibly diverse range of topics, the answer seems simple: everyone.

Perhaps this accounts for their 20 million follow count. Providing content that is of interest to the broadest range of demographics seems sure to end in some measure of success, and it certainly appears as though the Washington Post X page has a multitude of writing teams dedicated to writing content that appeals to certain demographics: Sport fanatics, pro-trump republicans, women, people influenced in the work of over-50 social media influencers, and those who want to know what the US is and isn’t doing in the Gaza/Israeli conflict overseas, just to name a few. If their goal is to generate clicks on articles, then they will certainly be achieving it with such huge numbers of posts vs. followers.

In contrast, the ALIANational X page has a very different approach. With 11.7 thousand followers, their target audience appears to be those interested specifically in the Australian Library and Information Association, with the content posted relating directly to libraries and the association. Their focus is rather on diseminating and providing access to resources, inviting viewers to seminars, chats and other professional learning that might interest them, alerting viewers to writing and publication opportunities, and offering a range of other services. Their content is not hidden behind a paywall, as is the case with the Washington Post X feed, and their intent appears to be to inform and provide to their audience, rather than entice for paid clicks.

If one were to measure the success of both pages based on number of followers, the Washington Post page would be the most successful. If one were to measure the success of both pages based on the number of views per post, the Washing Post page would be the most successful.

However, the ALIA page, with their lower interactions and follows, is considered more successful here. For strengths, their target audience is more specific, and the content posted more aligned with their target audience in mind. Their content matches their purpose, and is not hidden behind a pay wall. They could however find more opportunities to reach more users. Perhaps some paid boosting would increase their post views to match Washington Post levels, which would open more opportunities for more users to be effectively reached. Of course, they are operating in a very niche market, with only those interested in Australian library information being likely to access their page, which is a threat to page growth to consider.

Using Social News Sites Professionally – Functionality and Issues

Buzzfeed and Reddit are two social news sites which operate on the social promotion of posts amongst users. On Buzzfeed, the most popular articles will initially appear to new users. From there, the articles one clicks on informs the algorithm of user interests, and more relevant articles that align more closely with user interests will begin to appear. Reddit works in a similar fashion, however there is a modicum of user choice able to be weilded on Reddit. One can choose to follow particular subreddits (sub), which typically only allow posts that fit the theme or topic of the sub to be posted. Once posted, users give posts and even comments that they like an “upvote”, and those that they don’t like a “downvote”. This system determines which articles appear first on subs, which even have a function to sort posts by “most upvotes”. More interactive than Buzzfeed, users can comment freely on posts, however human and robot (bot) moderators will often step in to remove comments that either dereail the post content or do not meet sub comment standards. Eventually, Reddit will also learn user preferences and interests, and will recommend other subs that are similar or relevant to their current interests for them to follow.

Buzzfeed would be potentially benefical in a professional way if one was able to “train” the algorithm to only show work-related content. For example, a Teacher Librarian might search for and only engage with articles regarding books, libraries, trending titles, etc. However, a quick search for the broad term “books” revealed only one semi-relevant article “Only Book I’ve Ever Called Out Of Work to Read” – 14 Of The Best Books That People Have Ever Read (Cotton, 2024). The rest of the articles readily visible were advertisements, things you should “treat yourself to” on Amazon, quizzes to find out what Percy Jackson character you’re most like, and articles on a viral TikTok videos about why a middle aged woman doesn’t take advice from men. It took much more scrolling and searching to find book-related content. Clearly, then, Buzzfeed prioritises some content over others regardless of your search term, favouring more popular articles over relevant ones.

Issues with Reddit revolve around the social determining of post visibility. Upvoting and downvoting has the potential to ensure the most popular and relevant posts remain at the top of a sub. However, they also have the potential to hide more relevant posts. Downvoting can work to effectively censor posts that a redditor base big enough might decide is not worthy of engagement, or is something that they disagree with enmasse. Whilst this can be useful to remove less relevant posts, the potential for censorship is high and should be taken into considered when using the platform.

Censorship is therefore large issue for both sites when one considers the type of content posted. Posts and articles are not only made by employees or experts. Anyone can comment and post, and anyone can downvote on Reddit. This lack of regulation allows for misinformation to potentially be published and readily engaged with, with users potentially trusting the source and taking the misinformation as factual. This further has significant implications for minority and disadvantaged groups (such as women and LGBTIQIA+ individuals), who research has shown are more likely to be censored online and have relevant information published about them online deleted at higher rates than less disadvantaged groups (typical males) (Tripodi, 2023). This means that perspectives from advantaged groups have the potential to be prioritised on these sites. Censorship and the perpetuation of misinformation by non-experts and advantaged groups are therefore significant issues users must take into consideration when using these sites, whether it be for personal or professional matters.

Word count: 624

Reference List 

Cotton, E. (2024). “Only Book I’ve Ever Called Out Of Work To Read” – 14 Of The Best Books That People Have Ever Read. Buzzfeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/elizabeth_cotton/best-books-to-read

Tripodi, F. (2023). Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia. New media & Society 25(7), 1687-1707. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211023772

Cultural Diversity

• Carlson, B., & Kennedy, T. (2021). Us mob online: The perils of identifying as indigenous on social media. Genealogy, 5(2), 52.
• Dargin, J. S., Fan, C., & Mostafavi, A. (2021). Vulnerable populations and social media use in disasters: Uncovering the digital divide in three major U.S. hurricanes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 54, 102043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102043
• Dekker, K., & Mullan, K. (2021). Cohesive diverse suburbs in Australia: A case study of policy processes and social media in Footscray. Urban Policy and Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2021.1974829
• Mphahlele, M. I., Mokwena, S. N., & Ilorah, A. (2021). The impact of digital divide for first-year students in adoption of social media for learning in South Africa. South African Journal of Information Management, 23(1). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v23i1.1344

Privacy

• Deloitte Centre for Technology, Media and Telecommunications (2023). Data privacy and security worries are on the rise, while trust is down. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/telecommunications/connectivity-mobile-trends-survey.html#explore
• Crocco, M. S., Segall, A., Halvorsen, A.-L., Stamm, A., & Jacobsen, R. (2020). “It’s not like they’re selling your data to dangerous people”: Internet privacy, teens, and (non-)controversial public issues. Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(1), 21-33.
• Marino, B. (2021). Privacy concerns and the prevalence of third-party tracking cookies on ARL library homepages. Reference Services Review, 49(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2021-0009
  Me and my shadow. (n.d.). Take control of your data. https://myshadow.org/

Misinformation

• Hernández-Martín, A., Martín-del-Pozo, M., & Iglesias-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Pre-adolescents’ digital competences in the area of safety. Does frequency of social media use mean safer and more knowledgeable digital usage? Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1043-1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10302-4
• Komendantova, N., Ekenberg, L., Svahn, M., Larsson, A., Shah, S. I. H., Glinos, M., Koulolias, V., & Danielson, M. (2021). A value-driven approach to addressing misinformation in social media. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-12.
• Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Farkas, J. (2021). Racism, hate speech, and social media: A systematic review and critique. Television & New Media, 22(2), 205-224.
• Rampersad, G., & Althiyabi, T. (2020). Fake news: Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
• Tripodi, F. (2023). Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia. New media & Society 25(7), 1687-1707. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211023772

Personal/Professional Boundaries

• Aitchison, G., & Meckled-Garcia, S. (2021). Against online public shaming: Ethical problems with mass social media. Social Theory & Practice, 47(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20201117109
• Meeks, L. (2018). Tweeted, deleted: theoretical, methodological, and ethical considerations for examining politicians’ deleted tweets. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1257041
• Meese, J., & Hagedorn, J. (2019). Mundane content on social media: Creation, circulation, and the copyright problem. Social Media + Society, 5(2). doi:10.1177/2056305119839190
• Monks, H., Barnes, A., Cross, D., & McKee, H. (2019). A qualitative exploration of electronic image sharing among young people: Navigating the issues of conformity, trust, intention, and reputation. Health Education & Behavior, 46(2_suppl), 106S-113S. doi:10.1177/1090198119873921

Oliver as a Library management system has the capacity to act as a social platform, Moving it beyond just a cataloguing and catalogue exploration tool. This is primarily seen with the option to post and share reviews about books and other resources that users have written, which is a growing feature of the platform. This social function allows users to assess based on other’s reviews whether they think a resource will be an appropriate choice for them, assisting them in their use of the library system and collection. As a web-based platform, Oliver functions incredibly well, and the mobile access provides “enhanced user oriented servives” and “experiences” (Obinyan, 2020, p. 371.). As a platform to inform users of other library information, however, it is not the most effective platform. Likewise, the access to the platform via smaller smart devices, such as moblie phones, has abysmal functionality that must be addressed before users may effectively use it not only as a catalogue tool, but also as a social tool. Simply put, the platform is not designed or suited to smart phone use, and when accessed in such a manner the social aspects of the site become inaccessible, thereby rendering them useless. This lack of functionality is in direct detriment to libraries who implement Oliver as a Library Management system, as users are often in favour of accessing such resources from moblie phone (Obinyan, 2020).

Facebook and Instagram, on the other hand, may offer a range of other positive attributes for libraries whilst also being accessible by mobile devices, rather than just operating as a web based information service (Obinyam, 2020). With specific sites designed for both mobile use through an app, and web-based browsing supported on computers, Facebook and Instagram are more effectively supported for user access. Operating as a social platform, whilst they do not provide direct access to Library Management Systems, they can be linked to them, and offer further social opportunities that libraries may to exploit to the benefit of their users. Announcements may be made about events and collection items, and opening times and contact information may be shared and made readily accessible to users. Whilst not offering all the library-specific functionality of a designated library website or Library Management System, where users may peruse the collection or access current and previously borrowed items in their accounts, they can still provide stable links to these services, thereby enhancing user experience and access to the library. It is clear that Libary Management Systems such as Oliver have a long way to go in terms of mobile technology accessiblity and functionality if they too would like to reap the rewards of larger social sites such as Facebook and Instagram, with their priority being the creation and disemination of a user friendly app that allows for all of these functions to occur in one place.

Word count: 506

Reference List

Obinyan, O. O. (2020). Application of mobile technologies in library service delivery. In A. Tella (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Digital Devices for Inclusivity and Engagement in Libraries (pp. 371-381). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9034-7.ch019

“Social media enables connectivity, interaction and collaboration.”

Social media enables connection beyond the ties of friendship, family, and acquaintences. As an English/HSIE Teacher and Teacher Librarian, I personally so far have found immense use for social media sites in my professional career. In fact, I frequently find them more useful than websites set up by the Department of Education. Well-managed social media platforms are a platform for professional questions, discussions, debates, collaboration, the sharing of resources and ideas, and more. They have become, over time, a kind of “digital faculty” or staffroom – an invaluable resource to connect and exchange resources and ideas with colleagues, particularly for those such as myself who live in rural and remote locations where one or two people make up a whole subject faculty. They do, therefore indeed, “enable connectivity, interaction and collaboration” (Giannikas, 2020) by individuals in the profession.

It is a resource that I, personally, would be professionally lost and disadvantaged without.

Word count: 179

Reference List 

Giannikas, C. (2020). Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-Learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(1) https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss1/3