Monthly Archives: February 2015

My previous post on this blog was in response to a presentation of the work of Ellison, Weber, and Gibbs, and this post revolves around another aspect of that presentation, specifically Weber’s discussion of enterprise social media in the organizational context. Enterprise social media is used in some organizations to enable or encourage collaboration among geographically dispersed individuals and, as Weber notes, provides employees with new affordances, such as high degrees of visibility, association, persistence, and editability. In particular, Weber introduces a case study that explores the use of enterprise social media among the sales department at IBM.

I have to admit that I had some issues with the case study that was presented. One thing that I found troubling was that the response rate to the survey distributed at IBM was only around 37%. I am aware that response rates for this type of work are often low, but it seems as if this would still be a potential problem, if only for the fact that those who did take the time to respond may have done so because they have strong opinions, either positive or negative, in regards to this topic. If this is the case, then the survey results may primarily reflect opinions that fall on extreme ends of the spectrum and not capture the average employees experiences with this tool. In addition, the experiences of enterprise social media at IBM may not be representative of the average workplace. For one thing, IBM is a tech company; given the nature of the company, IBM employees may be more likely to be comfortable using social media in the workplace and perhaps may be more willing to use this tool to its full potential by, for instance, collaborating with their coworkers online.

Despite the issues I had with the case study, I still think that enterprise social media has the potential to be an incredibly useful tool for librarians and other information professionals. During the presentation, Weber notes that enterprise systems allow for the identification of experts and expertise on company networks, support knowledge-seeking, provide socializing and support, and allow groups or teams to share content and work collaboratively. All of these uses could prove very valuable across a wide range of professions, including librarianship. As providers of information, the use of enterprise social media among librarians may be particularly beneficial in terms of the critiquing, recommending, and sharing insights about information resources. And when faced with a particularly challenging question that has been posed by a patron, a librarian could crowdsource answers from other librarians over the enterprise network. In my previous blog post, I discussed how librarians are valuable additions to social media networks because of their aptitude when it comes to providing information; imagine having a whole network of librarians available to answer your question! As well, depending on a librarian’s role and the size of the library, librarianship may be solitary work. Enterprise social media allows the potential of increased collaboration on projects. As Ellison notes, social media is also a context that can be very supportive of relationship initiation and development. Because of this, an enterprise social media network would be especially useful to librarians who have just entered the profession. It can be a way to make contacts in the field and ease the transition from library student to librarian.

In my experience, librarians are already creating their own online networks to gain support and share knowledge. A quick google search on this topic found plenty of evidence to support this, including lists (which can be found here and here) of the best social media groups for librarians. Clearly social media is a tool that is already being explored by librarians, and so I see the implementation of enterprise social media as a natural progression of this phenomenon. This is a tool I would like to see put to good use in the future.

After watching Ellison, Weber, & Gibbs presentation on “The role of social media for knowledge-sharing and collaboration in distributed teams” (which you can view above) for LIBR 559, I began to think about some of the research they shared in this presentation and how it may apply to libraries and the role of information professionals. Although libraries are not specifically mentioned in this presentation, I can see how some of their findings could translate to a library context. There are a number of concepts and ideas that are broached in this presentation, but I will just focus on a couple of aspects of their work that are of particular interest to me and will post my responses to this presentation in two separate blog posts (in the hopes of avoiding a big wall of text).

One concept that is mentioned a number of times throughout the presentation is ‘social capital.’ In the context of Ellison, Weber, and Gibbs’ work, social capital is defined as the “benefits we get from our social connections.” Ellison goes on to discuss the idea of ‘bridging social capital;’ this “is linked to ‘weak ties,’ loose connections who may provide useful, novel information or new perspectives for one another.” Information professionals, whose job entails linking people to the information and resources they need, are uniquely qualified in this area.

It seems that at the moment, many librarians and other information professionals are carving out a niche in social media, and may be wondering how they can provide effective service to the public online. By understanding how people use social media to obtain information, librarians may be able to take advantage of the phenomenon of users mining their network for information through asking questions. However, for this to be effective, the public also needs to be made aware of how librarians can be of assistance in this way. Librarians can provide users with resources and information online as needed, much like they do within the library. This would also be a great way to promote libraries and perhaps create a renewed interest among patrons who have drifted away from the library over the years. For some people, reaching out to librarians over social media is a much less daunting task than entering a library and speaking to someone behind a reference desk. However, once people connect with librarians online (provided they have a positive experience doing so), they may be more inclined to use library services in-person. In this regard, social media use among librarians in a professional capacity may be classified as a form of community outreach and could be a way to reach out to certain user groups. And how amazing would it be if everyone had a local librarian in their social media network?

Sandy Ellis’ A History of Collaboration, a Future in Crowdsourcing: Positive Impacts of Cooperation on British Librarianship really gave me a new perspective on the possibilities for crowdsourcing in libraries. Prior to reading Ellis’ work, I admit that I had not given crowdsourcing much thought, at least not in terms of its potential positive implications for libraries; I had associated crowdsourcing with projects such as Wikipedia and had never considered how crowdsourcing is already being used in many libraries and similar institutions. For the purposes of the article, Ellis provides her own definition for ‘crowdsourcing’ in which she notes that crowdsourcing projects are “not confined to the Internet” (Ellis 3). This came as a revelation to me, as I had always considered crowdsourcing to be an online phenomenon. Ellis also gives several examples of crowdsourcing projects (such as The Sounds of the UK and the Ancient Lives project). A few quick web searches and the LIBR 559 thread on Connect that was dedicated to Ellis’ article (and the topic of crowdsourcing more generally) turned up many more examples of crowdsourcing in libraries. I even thought of one example myself – The Human Library project.

Ellis’ discussion of the benefits of crowdsourcing projects was what really piqued my interest. For me, the sense of ownership that can develop from collaborating on such projects is an important feature. I believe in a community-led approach for libraries, and this approach places a strong emphasis on values that intersect with those of crowdsourcing projects. Community-led libraries promote collaboration, community engagement, a sense of community pride and ownership, and they strive for inclusive services. A crowdsourcing project that is based on a foundation of social inclusion may be the ideal project for a community-led library to embark upon.

Although perhaps a little farfetched, the first thing that came to mind was the possibilities for crowdsourcing cataloguing as a way of improving library usability. Rather than basing the cataloguing of books on a system that appears to be confusing for many library users, patrons/project participants would be able to decide where a particular book should be shelved, and perhaps even how the subjects are organized within the library. While I admittedly don’t know how practical such a project would be at the present time, this is something I would like to see in the libraries of the future. And I do think that this is a possibility given the popularity of sites such as Goodreads and LibraryThing, in which individuals outside the profession of librarianship are already gaining experience with social cataloguing. It is not improbable to think that patrons may be able to create a better system of cataloguing than already exists, and Surowiekci (qtd. in Ellis) states “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.”

Perhaps what’s most appealing about having a catalogue created by users is that it means fewer barriers for socially excluded individuals who wish to use their local library. The Community-Led Libraries Toolkit states:

For many socially excluded people, the library mystifies the acquisition of information. Specially designed software for our catalogues, the Dewey Decimal system, and our subject headings are all examples of the ways the library distances itself from the community. Most disturbing, however, is that many socially excluded people believe they are required to know and understand these “codes” before they can use the library (pg. 21).

Many people, especially those involved in librarianship, see libraries as very inclusive and accepting places, and this view may make it difficult to understand how standard libraries policies and practices may be barriers to use for certain people. Exploring the possibilities for crowdsourcing may be exactly what’s needed for libraries to become more inclusive and collaborative institutions with users who feel a sense of responsibility and ownership.