Transcript B08 - Being There is Not Enough

Being There is Not Enough:
A Study of the Effectiveness of
Web 2.0 Use in Academic
Libraries
Jia Mi
Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian, The College of New Jersey
VALE Conference , January 5, 2011
Web 2.0
Web 2.0
1994: Mosaic Netscape 0.9 released
1995: Wikis were invented
1997: Blogs were invented (‘Weblog’ coined
by Jorn Barger)
1998: Google opened in a garage
1999: RSS were invented
2001: Google bought Deja.com’s 500 million
Usenet (established 1980) messages
2004: Flickr founded
2005:YouTube founded
What is Web 2.0
Coined in 2004 by Dale Dougherty, Tim O’Reilly
and John Batelle of O’Reilly Media
Participatory – ‘collective intelligence’
Interactive
Instantaneous
‘From a medium to a platform’
From ‘read-only’ to ‘read-write’
Online collaboration
Social Media
***users as a part of the content of the sites; they
are creators and consumers of information
What is Web 2.0

With Web 2.0, “libraries become socialized
institutions. Active participation on the
part of users is seen as essential to the
process of research and learning”—(Laura
Cohen, 2007)

“Web 2.0 is all about harnessing collective
intelligence…” It is based on “managing,
understanding, and responding to massive
amounts of user generated data in real
time.” — (O’Reilly, 2005)
Web 2.0
Enables users to engage the library in
two-way communication and
knowledge exchange
 Facilitates participation,
communication, conversation, and
collaboration

Library 2.0
A response to Web 2.0
Term coined in 2005 blog by Michael E.
Casey
‘User-centric’
Technology driven
Appropriateness
94.6% of students use university or library
Website
90.3% use social networking
89.9% use course management systems
Only 27.8% use social networking for
academic use
Smith, S.D., Salaway, G., and Caruso, J.B. (2009), The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students
and Information Technology, 2009. EDUCAUSE, Boulder, CO. Available at
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215
Study: Adoption of Library 2.0 by Academic
Libraries & Users (USA)
Yong-Mi, K., & Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of Library 2.0 Functionalities by Academic Libraries
and Users: A Knowledge Management Perspective. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3),
211-218.
Study: Adoption of Library 2.0 by Academic
Libraries & Users (International landscape)
Tripathi, M., & Kumar, S. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of
the international landscape. International Information & Library Review, 42(3), 195-207.
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries
Web 2.0 adoption in New Jersey Academic Libraries
2010 (N=52)
40
38
35
30
25
20
17
14
15
9
10
6
5
0
Web 2.0
13
4
3
2
9
5
2
3
1
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: IM
Chat Reference Display
10
Chat Window/Widget
11
IM
Link Hidden
17
Link Visible
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Promoting IM/Chat Reference
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Blogs





Most academic libraries using their blogs as
bulletin boards, news and events, newsletters, list
of new books, new databases and services,
announcements about workshops and exhibitions,
Library instructions, and subject guides
Only one out of 17 blogs received comments on
a regular basis
In most cases, users are receiving library blogs in
exactly the same way they once received paper
newsletters: as passive consumers
Most blogs are hidden, or deeply buried on their
libraries’ websites
At the time of sampling , 39% of the libraries’
blogs had not been updated within the last month
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Blogs
Course Assignment Help
83,555 hits
since June
2008
UMDNJ Endnote Blog
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Blogs
Blog
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Facebook
Facebook in NJ Academic Libraries 2010
900
788
800
700
600
500
400
327
300
200
100
0
86
26
129
27
108
91
323
199
137
154
38
74
11
41
151
127
127
66
202
156
65
Jan-10
0
Dec-10
Issues with Facebok
Most academic libraries are using facebook to
market themselves and their services and to
make announcements
 Most include library /librarians information,
photos of staff members and interesting aspects
of the collections
 Still serves as a tool to push information to the
users. No interactions from users
 According to 2006 survey conducted by Charnigo
and Barnett-Ellis (2007) gathered responses from
126 academic librarians, most of the librarians felt
that Facebook was a distraction and did not have
much academic merit

Facebook: Starbucks
Great videos, varied content, and
has active engagement with the
fans.
 Status updates--provide two-way
communication between
company and fan
 The content is varied, fun, and
interesting

◦ share videos, blog posts about all
aspects of coffee
◦ including how to grow coffee
beans, articles about Starbucks
and Starbucks employees.

The quality status update content
has led to a very engaged fan
base, with every update receiving
thousands of comments.
Facebook: Lands’ End
•300,000 fans in
May 2010,
506,324 in Dec.
2010
•Posts are from
fans
•“outside story”
let fans post
photos and
stories
Facebook: See’s Candies
• 76,000 fans in
May 2010,
•192,229 fans
in Dec 2010
•All posts are
from See’s
•Good example
of interactive
communication
Facebook: JSTOR
• Searchable by
Google
• 57,000 fans in
May 2010,
76,174 in Dec
2010
• Driven by user
posts
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Twitter
Twitter in New Jersey Academic Libraries 2010
450
418
400
361
350
346
315
300
250
200
150
Series1
121
100
50
0
38
55
7
24
Web 2.0 Use in New Jersey
Academic Libraries: Twitter



Academic libraries are embracing the use of
Twitter, but the majority seems to view the
medium as simply another way to transmit
library news items to the communities
Used to tell users about events such as
readings, lectures, and book sales, newly
available resources, or changes in hours
5 out of the 9 libraries who adopted Twitter
do not promote their Twitter accounts on
their websites at all – There seems to be a
disconnect in the realm of promoting or
marketing this new technology itself
Twitter
Effective Use of Web 2.0
Academic libraries are not using Web 2.0
tools to their full potential or in ways that
actively invite our undergraduates patrons
to interact with us in these new spaces
 Libraries seem to recognize that Web 2.0
tools offer us new ways of reaching
patrons, but we are using these tools in
the same old ways

Effective use of Web 2.0

Blogs, Facebook, and Twitter invite
interaction, personality, and innovation.Yet
academic libraries persist in using them to
post library hours, changes in service, and
event times.
Effective Use of Web 2.0

Libraries are still focus on “implementing”
a blog or “getting” a Facebook account,
rather than enabling the changing forms
of communication and collaboration

Libraries will become increasingly
disconnected from our patrons if we
persist in adopting new technologies, only
to repeatedly return to outdated modes
and methods of communication
Stick to the Mission
Libraries are vital institutions – but not to
everyone, everyday
Most of the information found on Google
can NOT be found in the Library
Most of the information found in the
library can NOT be found on Google -at least not now
Libraries are Different
Libraries are institutional, not individuals
Library information is selective, not
exhaustive
Libraries are NOT part of students’ social
networks
Libraries are NOT necessarily part of
faculties’ academic networks
Low use of social networking features
initiated by libraries vs. high use of similar
features in social networking, e.g.,
LibraryThing
Effective Use of Web 2.0

Web 2.0 tools, such as blogs, RSS, social
networking sites, should be used with welldefined purposes

Libraries should create blogs in order to cater to
the needs of specific groups of patrons

Web 2.0 tools are community based learning
applications. The support of participation of
patrons is critical to the success of Web 2.0 tools.
Students and faculty members should be taught
to incorporate these tools in order to form an
intellectual community
But If There Were Library III…
User and service focused
Uses technology
Moves beyond its walls to take service to its
clients
Partners with others
Access more important than ownership
Leads rather than follows
Finds a way to index and connect to all the
new information that the Web enables us to
acquire
Brainstorming Web 2.0
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
DoubleClick

Google AdSense
Ofoto

Flickr
Akamai

BitTorrent
mp3.com

Napster
Britannica Online

Wikipedia
personal websites

blogging
evite

upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation

search engine optimization
page views

cost per click
screen scraping

web services
publishing

participation
content management systems

wikis
directories (taxonomy)

tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness

syndication
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Brainstorming Library III
Library II
Library III
Proprietary OPACS

Open OPACS
WorldCat

Google Search
NetLibrary

Library publishing
Google Books

Hathi Trust
Text Scanning

‘Smart’ digital texts
‘e-book readers’

Smart phones
Independent OPACS

Linked, Active OPACS
PDF

POD (print on demand)
LC Subjects

Full-text Indexing
Web Browsing

Web Archiving
Stand-alone repositories

Linked and shared repositories
Facebook links

Course Management Software links
Popularity Stars

Citation links
Call Numbers

Look-up Table, Descriptive Text
Thank You !
Jia Mi
Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian, The College of New Jersey
[email protected]
Or contact me on: