LIS 9763

Do libraries have a place within online social networks? I say yes, there is great potential to reach current and potential users in a variety of meaningful ways, but we must tread carefully into this territory. As Roush (2006) illustrates, there are huge numbers of inhabitants in social networks – 95 million MySpace users in 2006…and then came the ridiculously successful advent of Facebook. If all of these people lived in one physical place, they would make up one of the most populated countries on the globe! The fact that these masses of people carry out so many activities in the virtual world signals a huge opportunity for librarians willing to venture into the realm of Web 2.0, but it also points to the need for careful thought into how to make valuable connections with different types of users. If members don’t recognize personal value in having librarians within their space, they will ignore them (wasting the time and effort put into creating and maintaining a profile) or simply leave them behind when the newest social networking site comes along. And if people don’t like what they see the first time a library creates a profile, they are much less likely to pay attention to the next outreach effort.
 
There is also the debate about whether librarians should actively seek out patrons online or stick to creating online environments that attract users to join on their own. This issue has really gotten me thinking and continuously changing my mind over the past 9 weeks, particularly in the case of students and especially since the literature firmly supports both sides of the argument. Mathews (2006) provides a good case for librarians approaching students in his article from Week 3 about blogging. But Mack, Behler, Roberts and Rimland (2007) share research to the opposite effect in their social networking article, saying “While it may be tempting to seek out some of your students and add them as your friends on Facebook, it is our experience that this is not the best approach. It is great to be where our users are, but let them decide when and where they need you.” Obviously, a fine balance is required, and I think that Farkas (2006) offers some good advice in this area. With so many potential users to impress (or alienate), she makes complete sense when she suggests that “before we do anything, we should really get to know our patrons and what their attitudes are with regards to social networking and privacy. We can’t pretend that what works at one library will work at all of them.”
 
As I’ve previously mentioned, I’m a huge proponent of this pragmatic approach to Web 2.0 in general, including Farkas’ (2006) assertion that we should not adopt new technologies at the library simply “because they’re cool and not to serve a specific purpose.” Social software tools should be used to fulfill needs, or enhance services, in ways that cannot otherwise be met with the same degree of efficiency and success by libraries. Staff time and effort are much too precious to be playing around with tools in the absence of a clear game plan. This isn’t to say that experimentation is not acceptable, or in fact essential, but it should whenever possible be supported by both research and strategy, with a backup plan in case things don’t quite go as planned. For example, the Hennepin County Library appears at first glance to have put a little more thought (or perhaps simply staff time) into creating its Facebook profile than the Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County. I particularly like the former’s use of the current and catchy application 25 Things. This library has also added two useful widgets, one that allows people to search the catalogue, and another that lets them chat with a staff member, directly from Facebook. It appears, however, that both libraries have quite a limited amount of staff time for profile maintenance, which has resulted in a small number of posts and comments. Like other social software tools we’ve discussed, social network profiles must be updated regularly, or people won’t make return visits. Despite having initially attracted hundreds of friends, participation is low on these library profiles. So what can be done? I fully agree that knowing who we’re serving, who is most likely to engage with our libraries within a social network, is a key element in establishing a successful and rewarding presence.
 
Because of course there are all types of people within social networks, and some will be more accepting of librarians entering this kind of personal space than others. This becomes more vital a consideration as member demographics expand and a wider variety of people join social networks. Many parents, and sometimes grandparents, are now joining Facebook, and other social networks, not necessarily to keep track of their kids, but because they have found a personal use for these tools – especially as more people from their own generations become members. This undoubtedly begs the question about whether younger generations will stick around in these networks, or find yet another personal space that is more their own – the “repurposing new mediums” Boyd (2006) discusses as so critical to the youth experience. Nonetheless, it is helpful for libraries to know who is liable to access library services through social networks and play off that strength. For example, I really liked the Ann Arbor District Library MySpace Branch but noticed that while it is written in quite a youthful manner, a great number of the comments are being made by adults. Perhaps a separate profile designed with adults in mind would attract even more participation from this user group and open the board for more teen discussion on the original profile? Not that I think that dividing user groups is always the answer, but again, each library is different.
 
This approach has certainly worked at the Ottawa Public Library, where Facebook has been used to host an adult summer reading club. The groups feature was used to create a page for the book club and this ended up attracting a number of people who weren’t regular library visitors but appreciated this new type of access to programs amidst their busy schedules. The OPL has also developed Facebook advocacy groups, such as when it sought community support during budget deliberations that threatened to close a number of branches. It has furthermore built a group dedicated to staff members, past and present, which continues to run very successfully.
 
And remember when Michael Geist started the Fair Copyright for Canada group a couple of years ago? That was pretty fabulous! So while social networking may not be for every library, there are many library related ways that it can be used, and groups that target specific user interests in Facebook is something definitely worth checking out (pun intended!). I also really like when librarians put their personal profiles out there and aren't afraid to share a bit of themselves with patrons, rather than simply creating profiles for the library itself. I've seen the success this more personal approach can bring to library awareness, particularly in the area of teen services. I also realize how much confidence (trust? courage?) it must take to engage with patrons on this level, so kudos to the brave souls moving in this direction!