For my final assignment, I had the great fortune of working with two wonderful partners, Bokshim Fox and Therese Walker. Both were very involved in the project, and we gave it a wonderful effort. I think the results are in the paper.
Here is the final assignment for your viewing pleasure:
Comparing Libraries’ Technologies
Bokshim Fox, Therese Walker, John Wilson
Valdosta State University
Technology is changing and developing at light-speed, and libraries are as much affected by this as other organizations. As librarians, it is our role to remain current and knowledgeable of the direction technology is moving. Web 2.0 and the realm of social media have impacted greatly the way libraries communicate and interact with their patrons. While all libraries do not use all forms of social media, from the interviews that proceed, it is apparent that most libraries integrate some form of Web 2.0 into their daily plan. The following interviews demonstrate, in-depth, the use of Web/Library 2.0 and social media. The libraries in which librarians were interviewed were: Georgia Southwestern State University's James Earl Carter Library, a small academic library that services a campus of around 3,000 faculty/staff/students; Valdosta State University’s Odum Library; and the Lake Blackshear Regional Library (LBRL), located in Americus, GA.
Web 2.0/Library 2.0 Technologies Used
Not surprisingly, all three libraries that were questioned about Web 2.0—VSU’s Odum Library, GSW’s James Earl Carter Library and Lake Blackshear Regional Library— use Facebook as a tool of communication with their patrons and communities. What is surprising is that only the Odum Library takes advantage of further free technologies as a means of marketing. In addition to Facebook, VSU’s Library also uses Flicker, Youtube, and Twitter. While all three libraries use at least one form of Web 2.0 technology, two of the three libraries interviewed—Lake Blackshear and Odum—barely discussed Library 2.0 technologies. The James Earl Carter Library uses GIL-Find (VuFind overlay over Voyager OPAC) and Odum rarely uses them because they can be costly.
Web 3.0/Library 3.0 Technologies Used
It is interesting to note that only the public library, Lake Blackshear, uses Web 3.0 technologies. According to Assistant Library Director Valerie Blanchard, “We do use Web 3.0 and since we have much control over how we use it, it helps us a little with damage.” VSU and GSW do not use Web 3.0 technologies. According to Librarian Gretchen Smith, chair of the GSW Library’s Internet Committee, “I think it is too early to really be worried about Web 3.0 since Web 2.0 is still a work in progress. I don’t think Web 3.0 has yet to be clearly defined.” VSU Librarian Michael Holt also discussed Web 3.0 technologies, saying, “We’re not quite there yet. I’m lucky to bring some librarians into the Web 2.0 loop, and until Web 3.0 reaches the masses, we won’t delve into those waters.”
How They Follow Trends in Library Technologies
All three libraries questioned had similar answers as to how they follow trends in library technologies. All three mentioned blogs were an extremely important way to keep up with the latest developments. GSW Librarian Gretchen Smith mentioned several she uses to keep up to date on technology: David Lee King, Musings about Librarianship, Tame the Web, Ubiquitous Librarian, thewikiman, and ALA Tech Source. Smith also mentioned she discovers new information through Facebook updates from library friends. Lake Blackshear relies on blogs, websites and trade publications. VSU, like Lake Blackshear, also favors journals. Librarian Michael Holt says, “I’m responsible for the Web 2.0 services we use, so I stay on top of things by reading journals and blogs constantly.”
Usage Statistics
Both GSW and Lake Blackshear only use Facebook for tracking usage statistics. According to Librarian Gretchen Smith, “The library has a Facebook page, but it is not heavily used, mainly because we don’t actively update it.” Only VSU goes beyond Facebook. Librarian Michael Holt discussed various methods of tracking the Odum Library’s statistics. “Most of the social media sites we use keep track of statistics for us – Facebook does definitely. But for those that don’t, I use Google analytics to track the stats. Our statistics are good – we find that the social media sites are quite popular and used fairly routinely.”
Justifying the Allocation of Resources for Virtual Presence
Receiving the most varied responses of all the questions, each librarian offered a unique reason to the question of justifying the allocation of resources for virtual presence. According to VSU Librarian Michael Holt, ““Well, really there’s no cost to justify with most Web 2.0 items. Most services are free. And besides, the small amount of time needed by staff members to keep the sites current is small. To quantify the time spent by staff would be in the single percents in terms of time. The way I look at it is, social media is low-cost and high reward. It’s not really resource intensive.” Lake Blackshear’s Assistant Director Valerie Blanchard offered a dramatically different response to Holt’s, stating, “We have very limited services of this nature due to a lack of patron demand.” GSW’s Librarian Gretchen Smith also responded very differently than Holt, saying, “We don’t regularly update the Library Facebook page. I think part of the reason why is the fact that we don’t have someone who can take on the responsibility because we all have so much other stuff to do.”
Patron/Student Response to Technologies and What Seems to be the Most Popular
Another question that received contrasting responses from the librarians was, how have patrons/students (depending on kind of library) responded to the various technologies used and have you noticed some items to be more popular/effective than others? At Valdosta, Librarian Michael Holt says, ““We’ve noticed that our students use Twitter far more than anything else. We have some interactions through Facebook, but mostly it’s not interactive. When we’ve conducted study groups to find out more about preferences, students tell us they like receiving information from the library through social media, but are not keen on interacting with us.” According to GSW Librarian Gretchen Smith, “The most positive feedback has come from the GIL-Find interface. Students typically like the interface better than the traditional OPAC and like the extra features like faceted searching, text a call number, and citation information. Lake Blackshear Assistant Director Valerie Blanchard stressed eBooks. “Folks love the eBooks, and we have a fair number of Like’s on Facebook, even though I only post there occasionally.”
How often do you help with GADD?
When asked the question, “how often do you help with GADD?,” VSU and Lake Blackshear offered almost identical responses. Assistant Dean Valerie Blanchard said, “Main users are folks getting Kindles, Nooks, and iPads for Christmas or from their families. I have to help quite a bit as staff members are still resistant to learning how to use these devices.” Odum Librarian Michael Holt offered a very similar response. “We find that many of our students are familiar with eBooks and e-readers, but we’re certainly glad to assist however we can.” GSW, on the other hand, took a directly opposite approach to the question. “For budgetary reasons, we do not have an e-reader program of any kind,” said Librarian Gretchen Smith.
In conclusion, while the three libraries highlighted in this paper differ in their uses of Web/Library 2.0 and social media, the fact that there is a presence in all three is telling. Based on the interviews, Web 3.0 is already being used in some institutions and it is just a matter of time before it will be found in all. As with social media, it takes longer for some organizations to integrate the newest technology. Based on the findings above, the world continues to race rapidly into a more technologically advanced world, and librarians are at the forefront of keeping their patrons educated and informed.
