Categories
Info Tech

Social Networking and Special Library Collections

I find it fascinating that social networking services have become synonymous with online social media platforms. I also find it particularly interesting that so many libraries have been so quick to create their own personal profile pages.

The use of social networking services for libraries, as with other Web 2.0 technologies, has been a contentious issue among librarians. The Librarian in Black offers some helpful pointers on how to leverage social media tools to increase interactivity and visibility of libraries among their communities. However, the Other Librarian states that some insist that “the culture of Libraries clashes with the culture of Facebook” and that if a librarian is going to use Facebook effectively, they will need to build a rapport with members of their community. Meredith Farkas has reminded users that social networking profiles are a two-way communication medium and that profiles can be an effective portal to library information and services. According to a survey of libraries’ uses of Web 2.0 tools in the ALA’s 2010 State of America’s Libraries Report, the greatest uses of social media include: promoting general library services, marketing specific programs/services, quick updates to users, reaching a new audience, and issuing press releases. The report concludes that the “increase in social networking suggests a set of skills that librarians should possess as social networking-literate information professionals capable of implementing library services and using information at social networking sites” and that these skills include “interacting with patrons within the sites, understanding and articulating the nature of social networking sites and their potential roles related to library services, creating presences and content, evaluating and applying information, and being able to help patrons acquire and apply these skills.”

These discussions are all well and good, but what about special collection, libraries? How are they utilizing social networking profiles, and are these profiles effective? According to Amelia Abreu’s “Creating a Community for the Cultural Record: Using Social Software in Special Collections” presentation, the archivist states that “Social software tools have the potential to document institutional knowledge and improve word of mouth referrals by establishing new channels of communication between users.”

Let’s take a look at a few Facebook library profiles pages of (yes, you guessed it) three different libraries: the New York State Library, the San Francisco History Center/Book Arts & Special Collections, and the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library at Duke University. Here are the corresponding Facebook pages:

New York State Library: Special Collections
New York State Library: Special Collections
San Francisco Public Library: History Center
San Francisco Public Library: History Center
Duke University Library: Special Collections
Duke University Library: Special Collections

The first thing to note is that all three libraries provide a Facebook link from their main library information page, and all three Facebook profiles appear to update regularly and have a fair amount of followers. All three profiles offer descriptions of the library in the “General Information” or “Description” area, however the SFPL History Center has considerably less descriptive content. Additionally, none of these libraries delineate the purpose of their Facebook profile.

The SFPL History Center’s profile primarily features historic photos, whereas the NYSL’s profile includes some historic ephemera photos, and some general library photos that feature what sort of information services they offer. The NYSL’s profile also features a plug-in library catalog search bar, and a plug-in sample of their digital collections. The RBMSCL at Duke University also features a some photos from the collection as well as miscellaneous general library photos. There does appear to be a bit more interactivity on the RBMSCL page, but all three seem to be using their Facebook profiles for similar purposes, mainly to market library related information on their network.

I’ll admit that I was interested in viewing Special Library Collections’ profiles to get a sense of whether or not they are effective. Regarding their overall content, I think that all three sites could better utilize the “Events” page, the SFPL History Center could include more information for users, and it’s unclear as to whether or not having a search or digital collection plug-in feature at the NYSL would be useful for users. As a patron, I would much rather go to the NYSL main page in order to better explore the libraries resources. However, all that being said, all three libraries do feature organizational updates and news of a local or historical interest. As a library professional in special collections, I could see a good deal of benefit to networking between organizational profiles, however as a patron, I don’t think that I would really consider using the social media profile service unless I was conducting regular research.

As Terra B. Jacobson concluded in her article on “Facebook as a Library Tool: Perceived vs Actual Use,” from her study it was “found that Facebook would be a better tool for ‘active libraries,’ or libraries that host a lot of events, exhibits, workshops and other activities as its top use is for announcements and marketing. Also, librarians should not get too attached to Facebook, as there is always the next tool or social networking site that people are using. Web 2.0 applications move quickly and the Internet is constantly changing, be prepared to leave your hard work behind to jump to the next tool.”

Categories
Info Tech

Web 2.0 Technologies in California Public Libraries

The status of libraries in California has been pretty grim over the last decade. Budget cuts, the rising recession and unemployment rate have had a tremendous impact on state, county, and city libraries in California. A recent article in Education-Portal.com, “Libraries in Crisis: What Budget Cuts Mean for CA Libraries” by Meghan Driscoll summarizes that “Since the early 2000s, over 75% of funds for the programs listed above have been eliminated. This latest round of cuts will mean yet another loss of library staff, a potentially deep reduction in library hours and limited availability of books and other materials.” According to a Library Journal article by Michael Kelley the budget cuts will lead to a collapse of a 30-year-old resource-sharing network, such as interlibrary loan services. Whether or not such decisions constitute a “shock and awe” budgetary approach, the goal of which “is to inspire middle class voters to come out in June to vote for a revenue-raising ballot proposal,” as Driscoll states, is ultimately beside the point. What does matter is how California’s libraries will be able to maintain certain levels of services.

Some of you may recall an earlier 2004 California public library crisis, the closure of the Salinas public libraries. Here is an American Library article by Pamela A. Goodes and an ALA 2004 press release that presents a refresher. Lots of changes have happened to the Salinas Public Libraries since 2005. With the help from private contributions and the passage of a local tax measure, the library now features a Digital Arts Lab (as of 2007), a Bookmobile (as of 2009), as well as a new and improved web interface. Whether or not the state of California will rally to the aid of libraries, schools, and universities, is a discussion that is beyond the scope of this entry. However, as a former Californian, I find the issue of what sorts of services are available or provided through local libraries to be of particular interest.

Let’s take a comparative look at a few libraries that feature Web 2.0 services: the San Francisco Public Library, the San Jose Public Library, and  the Los Angeles Public Library. Here are some screen shots of their homepages:

 

San Francisco Public Library : Homepage
San Francisco Public Library : Homepage
The circles represent the dispersed access points for various Web 2.0 services: mobile services, social networking and microblogging services, and e-library services (which include podcasting, vodcasting, as well as eBooks, eAudiobooks, and eMusic).
Los Angeles Public Library : Homepage
Los Angeles Public Library : Homepage

Access points to mobile services and e-Media, such as LAPL podcasts and vodcasts. It’s interesting to note that social media applications are not accessible anywhere on the main page.

San Jose Public Library : Homepage
San Jose Public Library : Homepage

All Web 2.0 applications are accessible from the icons at the bottom of the page. Out of the three public libraries, this interface features the best and most straight forward access points.

Here is a comparative breakdown of the different services that each public library offers:

San Francisco Public Library Los Angeles Public Library San Jose Public Library
RSS feeds RSS feeds RSS feeds
IM service IM service IM service
Mobile interface Mobile search application Mobile search application
Podcasts Podcasts Podcasts
Vodcasts Vodcasts Vodcasts
Blogs Blogs
Facebook Facebook
Twitter Twitter
Delicious Flickr
LibraryThing
GoodReads

Couple of contrasting points worth mentioning. One point is the surprising lack of social media software utilized at the Los Angeles Public Library. Out of all Web 2.0 features offered, the mobile search application was the most prominent and easiest to find, with podcasts and vodcasts following second. RSS feeds could only be found after a thorough website search. The San Jose Public Library on the other hand had RSS feeds for practically everything, and nearly all Web 2.0 services are accessible from the Get Updates page. Additionally, between the three library sites, the San Francisco Public Library utilized more social bookmarking tools geared for reader advisory services. A last point of interest, is the technology service focus of the San Jose Public Library, exemplified by the device format listing on the FAQs About Digital Content page:

 

Device/Format Chart for Digital Content
Device/Format Chart for Digital Content

 

Let’s take a closer look at podcasts and vodcasts, since all three libraries utilizes these services. The SFPL offers very limited podcasting in comparison to the SJPL and the LAPL. SFPL podcasting spans from 2007-2009, featuring local readings, spoken word, discussions, and performances. SJPL podcasts span from 2010-2011 and are mainly composed of poetry readings and staff pick recommendations. The LAPL features three different podcast programs, Children’s podcasts from 2008-2009, interviews and talks on Richard Neutra the architect, and the ALOUD at Central Library speaker series. The ALOUD series has been a part of the LAPL since 1993 and features “leading figures in the worlds of literature, the arts and ideas. These dynamic programs are designed to contribute to an informed, engaged, and democratic community and to foster life-long learning in a welcoming environment. The great majority of ALOUD programs are presented free of charge to the people of Los Angeles” (from ALOUD at Fora.tv). Between the three libraries, the LAPL offers a strong variety of podcast topics, spanning over a 10+ year period. The utilization of vodcasts also offer an interesting comparison. The SFPL, again seems to offer surprisingly little in terms of diverse topics and readings. SJPL, on the other hand, has a wide variety of vodcasts centered on community events, story times, staff picks, library tours, and overall community participation all featured on the library’s blip.tv channel. Again, the LAPL’s vodcasting exclusively features ALOUD talks, lectures, and discussions.

The use of podcasting and vodcasting offers an interesting snapshot of how each library frames their services. The lack of user-centered social media services at the LAPL and the overall top-down podcast and vodcast programing, frames the LAPL as a kind of cultural mecca. The SJPL on the other hand, utilizes vodcasting as an archival and broadcasting tool for community events and participation, offering a very clear picture of the kind of communities these libraries serve. The SFPL seems to be situated somewhere in-between, offering some forms of top-down programming but with some awareness of the importance of having some user-centered services, albeit with inconsistent application. However, it is important to keep in mind that these differences may have more to do with funding and budgetary constraints, rather than mere variations in community or user orientation.

Between these three libraries, I would probably be more inclined to use the SJPL vodcasting services if I were a new local patron wanting to get a sense of my local community, and the LAPL podcasting and vodcasting for cultural enrichment. For SFPL, I might be inclined to utilize their social media applications for reader advisory purposes, but I would be less drawn to their limited podcast and vodcast programming. I do think that the SFPL and LAPL could learn from SJPL website interface, user-centered focus, and overall usability regarding Web 2.0 applications and I think that the SFPL would benefit from re-evaluating their social media strategies, goals and purposes in support of local communities, local writers and authors, or local issues within California generally.

…and on that note, I’d like to end with a reference to a SFPL video talk with Stacy Alderich, California’s State Librarian, and her discussion of the California budget crisis and where libraries are heading. What I find particularly interesting is her focus on technology trends rather than on the overall statewide trend of slashing funding for public services and the plateaued unemployment rate. Again, it does seem as though California has been facing larger structural issues that go beyond the question of “How can we offer the same level of services for less?”

OK, I’m off of my soap box.

 

Spam prevention powered by Akismet