Adventures in Library 2.0

As I look back at my three months in LIS 768 I am so glad that I signed up for this course.  My interest in Library 2.0 was sparked last year (Feb 2008) when Michael came to my library and did a version of his “Hyperlinked Library” presentation for our staff in-service day.  What I took away from that initial presentation and from my further discoveries in LIS 768 is that all of library services, technology oriented or not, should be directed by and for our users. 

First, I feel that the assignments in this course challenged my preconceptions about Library 2.0 and my work on the group project and my final paper opened my eyes to a demographic of library users (teens/young adults) that I have overlooked in previous my coursework.  Second, I feel that the content of the class fits well with the format/scheduling of course.  I really enjoyed immersing myself in L2.0 technologies with my fellow classmates and then have a few weeks to explore and discover for myself. I am grateful to my classmates and to our professor for their visibility on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking technologies. Their presence online helped ease the potential for “disconnectedness” during the weeks when we did not meet.  Third, I enjoyed the variety of reading over the course of the semester.  I particularly enjoyed the context book assignment as it got away from reading the standard LIS textbook. I agree with many of my classmates in that Tribes (at least sections of) Born Digital should be required reading and worked into class discussion and blogging.  Also, I really enjoyed blogging this semester.  As someone who is relatively new to blogging I enjoyed writing my own posts as much as I enjoyed reading my classmates’ posts.  Lastly, I feel that this course has provided me with training for the profession of library science, rather than just looking at the profession as just another“ job.” In particular, I think this class looks at the many aspects that make libraries great (the people, connections, and the sharing of ideas) and some areas were there is still much work to be done.

During the past few weeks I have spent a lot time experimenting and engaging with a lot of Web 2.0 and monitoring their applications, particularly in my brand monitoring report. But, I also spent some time thinking about the idea of participatory service in libraries.

In their book, Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service, Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk describe the participatory web as seeking “to harness the power of its users in order to enhance content” (59).  Taking the idea of the participatory web and applying it to libraries, Casey and Savastinuk argue, “Users and their knowledge have the ability to reshape library services, but libraries must first change the way they craft their services and tools so that users have a clear avenue on which to communicate and participate.”  In my reading of Born Digital by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser use the phrase “participatory culture” or “a culture in which people are encouraged to share their innovations and creativity” which has overtones of Casey and Savastinuk’s definition of participatory service.  In addition to this definition Palfrey and Gasser provide five keys points about participatory culture made by Henry Jenkins, codirector of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program, his points are as follows:

1. There are relatively low barriers to artistic expressions and civic engagement
2. There is strong support for creating and sharing what you create with others
3. There is some kind of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experiences gets passed along to newbies and novices
4. Members feel that their contributions matter
5. Members feel some degree of social connection with each other, at least to the degree to which they care about what other people think about what they have created.

While these ideas are not written specifically for creating participatory services for teens in libraries, Jenkins’ second point is most applicable to creating participatory cultures this unique group of digital natives.

In order for a participatory culture to flourish in libraries, there has to been as desire to create and share content, in both real time and the virtual world.   In terms of teens as content creators on the web, a November 2005 the Pew Internet & American Life Project report entitled “Teen Content Creators and Consumers,” which suggests, “some 57% of online teens create content for the internet…these content creators report having done one or more of the following activities: create a blog, create or work on a personal webpage; create of work on a webpage…share original content such as artwork, photos, stories, or videos online; or remix content found online into a new creation” (1).  We see that the desire is there and libraries are picking up on this trend and encouraging teens to be content creators and controllers of that content in the virtual world as well as in the library.  A November 2007 issue of American Libraries magazine featured “What It Means to Be Born Digital” in their “Tech News” column and highlighted Hennepin Public Library (Minnesota) MySpace page for teens. According to the article, the page has “1,000 friends that include YA authors, it features an events blog, 24/7 reference, a libray materials search engine, a library materials search engine, links to homework resources, and even an advice page…(28). In the same article, librarians from Evanston Public Library (Illinois) took advice about implementing chat reference after the teen advisory board suggested that they’d prefer to instant message a librarian, rather than call the reference desk (28).  These are just two examples of how libraries are giving teens control over their content and making them participants in their library services and culture. 

As I was thinking about these ideas a quote from an article stuck out in my mind, which states, “the virtual community can often work in concert with face-to-face interaction such as discussions or programs the library might provide. Being able to offer both, especially to people of a generation comfortable with finding their friends and development their likes and dislikes through a virtual community, is a great library service” (Czarnecki, Kelly. “The Real and the Virtual Intersecting Communities at the Library.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools 15, no. 3 (2008): 11-3).

I am not sure how these ideas will fit into my paper, but as my group project deadline approaches I wanted to share some of the ideas I had while working on my project and that might be applicable for paper. I will be thinking more about this quote and others in the coming weeks.

Articles/Books mentioned in this post:

Casey, Michael E. and Laura C. Savastinuk. Library 2.0: Guide to Participatory Library Service. Medford: Information Today, 2007.

Czarnecki, Kelly. “The Real and the Virtual Intersecting Communities at the Library.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools 15, no. 3 (2008): 11-3).

Palfrey, John and Urs Gassler. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008.

“What It Means to Be Born Digital.” American Libraries 38, no. 10(2007): 28.

This week I want to share some of my ideas about Seth Godin’s Tribes and how I could use his writing to argue for teens as emerging library leaders. More specifically, ways in which libraries can identify the unique abilities of these digital natives and harness their skills and energy to create the next generation of library leaders and create opportunities for participatory service.  Looking at my notes from reading Tribes, a section I highlighted seemed to fit this situation. On page 25, Godin offers us solutions to “help increase the effectiveness of the tribe and its members.” They are as follows:

• “Transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change”
• “Providing tools to allow members to tighten their communications”
• “Leverage the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members”

 While Godin’s statements are broad generalizations, they can be applied to this unique group of library users.  First, in order to “transform the shared interest into a…desire for change,” librarians/library staff need to start with the teens that are already coming into the library. Some libraries (I have specific examples for my paper) are instituting Teen Advisory Boards as a way to hear from teens about programming ideas, collection development suggestions, etc.

Second, in order to “provide the tools for communication,” we need to hone in on the tools teens want to use, not what adult librarians/library staff use. I found an interesting finding in the Pew/Internet study on Teens and Social Media (December 2007), which states that “despite the power that e-mail holds among adults as a major mode of personal and professional communication, it is not a particularly important part of the communication arsenal of today’s teens. Only 14% of all teens report sending e-mails to their friends everyday, making it the least popular form of daily social communication on the list we queried”(this list included landline phone conversation, cell phone conversation, spending time in person, instant messaging, text messaging, sending messages via social networking, and email).  This statistic is important for us, because it identifies one area where digital immigrants may need to get out of their email comfort zone and open up other mediums of communication that are more recognizable to today’s digital natives.

Lastly, Godin suggests that “leveraging the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members” is the final way to increase effectiveness of the tribe.  This third step is the last phase for molding teens into library leaders. Once you’ve established an open dialogue, an agreed upon mode of communication, and a series of activities and programs, libraries can get other members of the library tribe on board by fostering and creating connections across demographic lines.

 A final thought. In the January/February 2008 edition of Public Libraries entitled “Teens – Perpetual Problem or Golden Opportunity” in which Nanci Milone Hill gathers essays from public librarians with ideas for serving teens in their communities.  One of the contributors, Nikki Ehlers, Director, Humboldt Public Library, Humboldt, Iowa made a statement that really hit home with me and I think echoes Godin’s thoughts about maximizing the effectiveness of one’s tribe. Ehler’s writes, “We welcome teens and we let them know they are valued. We give them a place to gather, a place to feel comfortable. We listen to them. We solict their ideas.  In return, they enhance out library with their vitality and energy” (p. 27).

 Articles/Books mentioned in this post:

 Godin, Seth. Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us. New York: Penguin, 2008.

 Hill, Nanci Milone. “Teens – Perpetual Problem of Golden Opportunity?” Public Libraries 47, no. 1 (2008): 24-32. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.

 ”Teens and Social Media: The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as they embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media” (Pew/Internet December 19, 2007) http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf 

In an earlier post (Post #4 – Paper Topic Exploration) I was thinking about the question of “How can libraries create an environment that can foster potential library leaders and harness the power of the ones we already have, while keeping the ideas of participatory service in mind.” Since then, my group has been working on a teen blog for our group project, which has inspired me to write a paper about cultivating teens to be library leaders.

As a user of social networking tools, like Facebook and Twitter, I am always eager to take a new tool for a test drive.  For instance, for my Reader’s Advisory class this semester, we were encouraged to set up a GoodReads or Shelfari account as a way to share what we are reading, what we’ve read, and what we plan to read with classmates, friends, and other network members, which I will also discuss in this post. 

To complete this week’s module I created a profile and library with LibraryThing.  LibraryThing is “…an online service to help people catalog their books easily. You can access your catalog from anywhere—even on your mobile phone. Because everyone catalogs together, LibraryThing also connects people with the same books, comes up with suggestions for what to read next, and so forth.” (Taken from the LibraryThing About Page)  For this exercise, I cataloged 8 random titles from my personal book collection, giving them starred ratings and tagging them in ways unique to each item’s genre, content, and appeal.  

While I found this process to be helpful for cataloging and organizing my personal items and reading reviews, for me LibraryThing did not have the same social network “feel” as Facebook, Twitter, or Shelfari. Despite the great features, I didn’t quite feel like I was part of a “network,” like I did when I first started on Facebook. Granted, I do not have any “friends” on LibraryThing yet, but I feel like something like LibraryThing is more of a personal tool, rather than a social networking channel. When it comes to sharing my reading tastes and getting suggestions for further reading, I look for recommendations based on a variety of titles I’ve read, rather than  relying on the titles I currently own.  As an individual who barrows more books than I buy, LibraryThing seems limiting, in terms of social networking because once I’ve cataloged my collection, I wouldn’t revisit the site until I’ve made another purchase. With Shelfari, I find myself constantly adding titles of books I see or read reviews about, that I would like to read later, just as I am habitually updating my status on Facebook or Twitter.  Shelfari helps me catalog and check track of everything I want to read, not just what I have read. Although my network on Shelfari is not quite as developed as my Facebook or Twitter networks, I feel a stronger network connection, because I am sharing all my past, current, and soon-to-be reads.

Regardless of my preference for Shelfari, Smith’s Building Blocks of Social Sites can be applied to social book/reading sites like Shelfari and LibraryThing.

Identity—a way of uniquely identifying people in the system 

·      Individuals can create profiles that highlight reading interests, favorite authors, and titles.

Presence—a way of knowing who is online, available, or otherwise nearby 

·      Although friends cannot “chat” or “tweet” like you can when using Facebook or Twitter, individuals can seek out friends or develop new relationships based on shared interest.

Relationships—a way of describing how two users in the system are related  

·      Users can see who their friends are, search for friends, or invite others to join the group. In Shelfari, users can search for readers who are reading the same books as a way to make connections. In LibraryThing, users can connect based on similar personal collections.

Conversations—a way of talking to other people through the system 

·      Users can communicate through books reviews or posting questions to readers about a particular book.

Groups—a way of forming communities of interest 

·      Users can join groups based on a particular book, series, or author.

Reputation—a way of knowing the status of other people in the system (Who’s a good citizen? Who can be trusted?) 

·      Users can see how many books fellow users have read, reviewed, or own. 

        Sharing—a way of sharing things that are meaningful to participants 

o     Users can share reviews, ideas, or make further reading suggestions

 Find Me Online!

LibraryThing Profile

LibraryThing Library

Shelfari Profile

My first experience with virtual communities was in 1996-97 when my parents first made the Internet available to me in our home.  Like a lot of folks at the time we were using America Online to connect to the web. I can still hear the “You’ve Got Mail” message, after the screeching of our modem as it slowly connected to the World Wide Web. Shortly thereafter I began to use the AOL Instant Message feature to chat with friends and family, but never in a chat room or any type of “open” forum.  Since the days of AOL Instant Messaging, I have used and still use Facebook, BlackBoard, and a staff Wiki at the library where I currently work.  As I was writing this post I realized that all my participation in Virtual Communities has been (and still is) limited to those communities that are “closed” organizations.  In other words, communities that are password protected or with members with whom I choose to have an “interaction.”  With the exception of Facebook, the extent of my membership in virtual communities has been defined by either my coursework or job.  In these types of communities the behavior expressed by members are related to a specific task, whether it be work or school, and not really a medium for expressing personal interests or hobbies.  

Although I contribute heavily within these communities (Facebook, Blackboard, Staff Wiki), my participation in “open” forums has been minimal.  For instance, I enjoy reading people’s comments to stories at The Chicago Tribune online, but when it comes to posting my own comment I am, according to The Art of Building Virtual Communities article, a “lurker,” I “pay attention to the activity of the group,” but rarely make any contribution of my own. Despite my many hobbies and interests, I have never had the desire to find others like me (or find my Tribe) on the web.  One of the reasons I decided to take Library 2.0 was learn ways that I could increase my personal presence on the web. According to Derek Wenmoth’s phases as discussed in The Art of Building Virtual Communities article, I would classify myself as a consumer of virtual communities, insofar as “I read and explore the posts of others…[and] can be [a] very active participant in an online community – just not yet visible to others.” 

Love it or hate it Library 2.0 has changed the way librarians think about library service. Those who are reluctant of Library 2.0 may be afraid that it will be all technology all the time, but in actuality one of the fundamental principles of Library 2.0 recommends only as much technology (if any at all) as our users demand. For me, is the heart of Library 2.0, creating an open and ongoing dialogue with our users, staff, and community to better understand what is worth our time, our patron’s time, and precious library dollars.

We have talked about the “core values of librarianship” in our introductory courses (701 in particular) and I think that Library 2.0 takes those same ideals, but reconfigures them by striving for a user-centered, rather than a library or librarian-centered experience.

 A focus on service has always been a central part of librarianship, but the critical part of Library 2.0 suggests that our service to patrons should be directed by the user, switching the focus from just offering good service and expanding our definition to include to participatory service, a service model described by Casey and Savastinuk as one in “which both users and nonusers can participate in the service creation process” (p.62) Ultimately, what Library 2.0 and participatory service suggests is putting our users in the drivers seat and the librarian becomes the navigator.

This is not stay librarians should stop developing collections, scheduling programming, and making reading suggestions. But, allowing our users to comment on their favorite books, instead of always hearing from us, offering comic book and graphic novel clubs, instead of the usual book group for teens, or providing gaming at the library whether it be monopoly or rock band to patrons of all ages helps us connect with patrons on their terms and allows patrons a level of autonomy in their library experience. 

Honestly, I have never been a fan of the name “Library 2.0.” In fact, I think libraries have gone through many more “upgrades” that the 2.0 would suggest. But, name aside I think that we are going to see the principles of Library 2.0 interwoven with the core values of librarianship and that we are taking one of our most essential core values – service – and reconfiguring and redefining it to better serve our patrons wherever they may be.

 A final thought, as I finished writing this post I began reading Tribes by Seth Godin. From the onset Godin suggests, “The real power of tribes [people connected to each other through a common idea] has nothing to do with the Internet and everything to do with people” (p.6).  The same logic could be applied to Library 2.0, insofar as the strength of Library 2.0 has little to do with the Internet but rather the relationships we cultivate with our library tribe of patrons, staff, and community.

Greetings Fellow Bloggers!

My name is Joanna and I am a Graduate student in the field of Library and Information Science at Dominican University.  This is my first Blog and I am looking forward to sharing my thoughts and hearing from you about Library 2.0 technologies and other topics related to libraries.  I am familiar with some of the Library 2.0 technologies and I am looking forward to learning from my fellow classmates and co-workers.

Currently, I am enrolled in Library 2.0 (LIS 768) and Readers’ Advisory Services (LIS 763), which are my ninth and tenth courses in the GSLIS program.   I work part-time in the Circulation Department at a local public library and hope to land a job in the public sector working as a reference librarian.  What I like most about my work in libraries thus far are the interactions I am able to have with our patrons, listening to their comments and hearing what they have to say about our library services and libraries in general. 

In my free time I enjoy reading (of course!) and spending time with my husband, Joe. We love to travel and explore libraries, museums, and historical sites. 

I am looking forward to this course and an exciting semester as I revisit some of my favorite technologies and explore those that are still unknown to me. Stay tunned…