Assignment 3.
Part 2.
A).
Three learning experiences which progressed me in satisfying the learning objectives for this course (see Appendix A for the three references).
If the three experiences were to augment an understanding of ‘2.0’ (see Appendix B for the overall objectives of the course), and to deepen an appreciation of not just functionality but capability, what then is 2.0?
What is the functionality? Oberhelman, as quoted by Virkus (2008. pp. 262/263), defines ‘2.0’ as a world wherein, thanks to the enabling technologies, “…site visitors…(may)…comment, collaborate, and edit information…(the)…boundaries between…creator and visitor are blurred”. In Library 2.0 there should be a minimum of separation between the institute and its community, no ‘them’, rather ‘us’; platforms should enable collaboration, conversation, community, co-content-creation.
What are these functions capable of? Pantzar (2000. p. 231), argues that the spread of information facilitated by the ubiquity of technologies is a meaningless exercise if the resultant Information Society (IS) fails to traduce, remediate, vanquish “poverty, unemployment, solitude, anxiety, crime, insecurity, hostility”. As Downes (Virkus. 2008. p. 263), says, ‘2.0’ is a social revolution, not a technological one.
So the technologies are not an end in themselves, they are merely a means to a higher ideal; ‘2.0’ is the collectivised consideration of our obligations to each other as humans and the wherewithal to fulfil them.
All experience is, of course, two dimensional, it is merely an encounter by which familiarity and proficiency from use is made possible. The third dimension is supplied by the experiencee – it is my interpretation, my consideration, my follow-through, how I enact/apply that learnt which transforms the situation, adding another evolved element to an already complex paradigm.
Was an enhanced state of being facilitated by any or all of the three experiences?
Of all three experiences, Facebook perhaps went the furthest. It blurs the boundaries between the parties involved, where, once a connection is made, an individual may follow conversations, contribute their ideas, share photo’s, it is a fraternity of collaboration, directly addressing the issues of solitude, anxiety, hostility. One of its strongest points – where the individual controls their own personal space, what is included and who may access it – is also, potentially, its weakest, in relation to connecting the isolated and disadvantaged; the empowerment of accepting or rejecting others requesting friendship extends to being rejected in turn. This is, of course, more likely to occur between individuals than between an institution and an individual, but the potential psychological damage stemming from only having impersonal friends is very real. A library would do well to remember that the only contact a user may have with another human is via this platform, and so as well as the general information, there should be personalised functions – where reading groups are conducted by real individuals, not just anyone on duty/an automaton.
Second Life differed from Facebook in that, as visual animals, we are extended virtually, we can see representations of each other and connect audibly as well as by text. One problem with Second Life is that we don’t really know who we are in contact with, and so there is a sense of dislocation; with ongoing interaction this as an issue would wane. The real stumbling block was that experience of the site was tempered by the power of the computer an individual has at their command. This represents one of the five elements of the digital divide encapsulated by DiMaggio & Hargittai (West. 2003. pp. 23-24); the computer an individual has access to may not be as powerful as those of the institution – it cannot be presumed that what is possible for one is so for all. Its sole advantage is as a platform for contact, developing a sense of community, allowing conversation; actual preservation of that shared and collaborated so as to allow it to be transposed or re-visited, seems highly problematic.
Twitter was the least interactive of all, it allows individuals to follow, but not to contribute exchangeably, there is no direct conversation, or contact. They may comment via their own account, but this seems wholly inadequate when considered from the ideals of ‘2.0’ as envisaged above. I will admit that I was incapable of making sense of Twitter, and so am not in a strong position to critique it. An advantage it does have over both Facebook and Second Life is that there are no restrictions, everyone has access to everything, nothing to join or be excluded from.
Do these experiences raise the common man, or equip me to be able to? Can the deployment of resources via these platforms/mechanisms serve a library in achieving this? Primarily they are vehicles for socialising, hence their designation ‘Social Media’, and so they are strong in the potential of bringing disparate peoples together, which does increase the quality of life for them, and allow them to grow and learn as people, gaining in proficiencies, thereby confidence, and hopefully thereby opportunities. Consequentially I am advanced by these experiences.
B.
If the three experiences were to augment an understanding of ‘2.0’ (see Appendix B for the overall objectives of the course), and to deepen an appreciation of not just functionality but capability, what then is 2.0?
What is the functionality? Oberhelman, as quoted by Virkus (2008. pp. 262/263), defines ‘2.0’ as a world wherein, thanks to the enabling technologies, “…site visitors…(may)…comment, collaborate, and edit information…(the)…boundaries between…creator and visitor are blurred”. In Library 2.0 there should be a minimum of separation between the institute and its community, no ‘them’, rather ‘us’; platforms should enable collaboration, conversation, community, co-content-creation.
What are these functions capable of? Pantzar (2000. p. 231), argues that the spread of information facilitated by the ubiquity of technologies is a meaningless exercise if the resultant Information Society (IS) fails to traduce, remediate, vanquish “poverty, unemployment, solitude, anxiety, crime, insecurity, hostility”. As Downes (Virkus. 2008. p. 263), says, ‘2.0’ is a social revolution, not a technological one.
So the technologies are not an end in themselves, they are merely a means to a higher ideal; ‘2.0’ is the collectivised consideration of our obligations to each other as humans and the wherewithal to fulfil them.
All experience is, of course, two dimensional, it is merely an encounter by which familiarity and proficiency from use is made possible. The third dimension is supplied by the experiencee – it is my interpretation, my consideration, my follow-through, how I enact/apply that learnt which transforms the situation, adding another evolved element to an already complex paradigm.
Was an enhanced state of being facilitated by any or all of the three experiences?
Of all three experiences, Facebook perhaps went the furthest. It blurs the boundaries between the parties involved, where, once a connection is made, an individual may follow conversations, contribute their ideas, share photo’s, it is a fraternity of collaboration, directly addressing the issues of solitude, anxiety, hostility. One of its strongest points – where the individual controls their own personal space, what is included and who may access it – is also, potentially, its weakest, in relation to connecting the isolated and disadvantaged; the empowerment of accepting or rejecting others requesting friendship extends to being rejected in turn. This is, of course, more likely to occur between individuals than between an institution and an individual, but the potential psychological damage stemming from only having impersonal friends is very real. A library would do well to remember that the only contact a user may have with another human is via this platform, and so as well as the general information, there should be personalised functions – where reading groups are conducted by real individuals, not just anyone on duty/an automaton.
Second Life differed from Facebook in that, as visual animals, we are extended virtually, we can see representations of each other and connect audibly as well as by text. One problem with Second Life is that we don’t really know who we are in contact with, and so there is a sense of dislocation; with ongoing interaction this as an issue would wane. The real stumbling block was that experience of the site was tempered by the power of the computer an individual has at their command. This represents one of the five elements of the digital divide encapsulated by DiMaggio & Hargittai (West. 2003. pp. 23-24); the computer an individual has access to may not be as powerful as those of the institution – it cannot be presumed that what is possible for one is so for all. Its sole advantage is as a platform for contact, developing a sense of community, allowing conversation; actual preservation of that shared and collaborated so as to allow it to be transposed or re-visited, seems highly problematic.
Twitter was the least interactive of all, it allows individuals to follow, but not to contribute exchangeably, there is no direct conversation, or contact. They may comment via their own account, but this seems wholly inadequate when considered from the ideals of ‘2.0’ as envisaged above. I will admit that I was incapable of making sense of Twitter, and so am not in a strong position to critique it. An advantage it does have over both Facebook and Second Life is that there are no restrictions, everyone has access to everything, nothing to join or be excluded from.
Do these experiences raise the common man, or equip me to be able to? Can the deployment of resources via these platforms/mechanisms serve a library in achieving this? Primarily they are vehicles for socialising, hence their designation ‘Social Media’, and so they are strong in the potential of bringing disparate peoples together, which does increase the quality of life for them, and allow them to grow and learn as people, gaining in proficiencies, thereby confidence, and hopefully thereby opportunities. Consequentially I am advanced by these experiences.
B.
A reflection on my development as a social networker.
Prensky (Quoted by Robinson. 2007. ¶¶2,4), created two distinct categories of individual, the ‘Digital Native’ – those born and bred in a technological environment – and the ‘Digital Immigrant’ – those that hark from an earlier era, and who have acquired through work and study a non-inherent ‘digital literacy’.
It would be presumptuous, especially in consideration of some of the experiences outlined in Part A (above), to identify as a complete example of Prensky’s ‘Immigrant’, who he envisages as a fully functional individual, not ‘acquiring’ but ‘acquired’; I am, by contrast, a work in progress.
Not being born digital means that I have, traditionally, neither resorted to nor automatically incorporated any/all of the social-media mechanisms/platforms (S-MM/P) into what I do or how I do it. I am the reverse of Robinson’s information seeker (2007. ¶ 6), having patience, preferring a linear construct, am quite partial to text – all of which means my technological libido can resist the inherent sexiness that is the speed and ease of S-MM/P.
So any affair will be based on rationality; head, not heart.
My approach, therefore, has been analytical, and somewhat self conscious – INF206 required the inauguration of a Facebook account, but what then was to be done with it? I was dubious: were there merits beyond purely subject related usage? And then fate intervened, and I was taught a lesson – I don’t know and can’t judge without having tried, and this needs to be more than reaction. I shouldn’t wait to have to, I should deliberately and pro-actively expand my horizons, seek answers to questions I don’t know I have, something Foster (2005. ¶ 15) termed ‘Breadth Exploration’. His, and other models of information seeking aren’t merely observations about what we do do, but also about what we ought do, and don’t just refer to forms of information, but also to the platforms/mechanisms by which it is accessed.
My Facebook page was discovered by a friend who then recommended both me to others, and them to me. Now I follow their comments, add my own, and am able to participate in a growing network that, viewed from the perspective of an institution wishing to both inform and engage, is obviously attractive, and worthy of emulation – not just to inform and engage the customer base, but also the staff; it’s another forum for communities of practice to share and record their tacit and explicit knowledge; a construct should reflect practice, “it is better to evaluate how people share information naturally and then build a system to support those activities” (Lindval, Rus & Jammalamadabba & Thakker quoted in Smuts, van der Merwe, Loock & Kotze. 2009. p. 73).
By way of parenthesis, before commencing as a Distance Education (DE) student at CSU, I not only didn’t have an email account, I never used the internet; now I have both and email regularly (with 56 on my mail list).
Some of the platforms explored left a trail of, if not discontent, then certainly disengagement: Twitter was an unruly, unbroken horse, which remains untamed – its seeming want of obvious functionality coupled with the knowledge that millions utilise it in ways that satisfies their information needs, does nothing for the self-esteem.
What does it say of an aspirant information professional that they were apparently incapable of fathoming the dark recesses of a technology as ubiquitous as it is popular? It reminds us that even heroes can have feet of clay; the important aspect is that the clay feet are recognised by the self, and that there are attempts made to remedy the fault; and in enrolling in this subject we have evidence that such introspection, pragmatism, and propensity to take action are present.
Whilst an information professional ought be on top of their game, it is important that they never become complacent in their knowledge or proficiencies, like Socrates, they must be mindful that they know that they don’t know (Ehrenberg. 2002. p. 382). It is a willingness to pursue the unknown, to be prepared to ever travel the road of life-long learning that is perhaps a more meretricious characteristic that any individual, including one that seeks to be a guide for others, ought foster. The blinkers of self belief are of benefit to no-one.
How then have I developed as a social networker? As one born ‘undigital’, the path has been – and continues, though hopefully diminishing – somewhat tortuous, prone to setback, of giving up through want of both familiarity and also of seeing the point. But I do see the point, am more familiar, and, day by day, am ever more intrinsically bound; I am vulnerable to those seductive charms after all.
Appendix A.
Facebook. Monday January 24, 2011. 4:07 pm.
Prensky (Quoted by Robinson. 2007. ¶¶2,4), created two distinct categories of individual, the ‘Digital Native’ – those born and bred in a technological environment – and the ‘Digital Immigrant’ – those that hark from an earlier era, and who have acquired through work and study a non-inherent ‘digital literacy’.
It would be presumptuous, especially in consideration of some of the experiences outlined in Part A (above), to identify as a complete example of Prensky’s ‘Immigrant’, who he envisages as a fully functional individual, not ‘acquiring’ but ‘acquired’; I am, by contrast, a work in progress.
Not being born digital means that I have, traditionally, neither resorted to nor automatically incorporated any/all of the social-media mechanisms/platforms (S-MM/P) into what I do or how I do it. I am the reverse of Robinson’s information seeker (2007. ¶ 6), having patience, preferring a linear construct, am quite partial to text – all of which means my technological libido can resist the inherent sexiness that is the speed and ease of S-MM/P.
So any affair will be based on rationality; head, not heart.
My approach, therefore, has been analytical, and somewhat self conscious – INF206 required the inauguration of a Facebook account, but what then was to be done with it? I was dubious: were there merits beyond purely subject related usage? And then fate intervened, and I was taught a lesson – I don’t know and can’t judge without having tried, and this needs to be more than reaction. I shouldn’t wait to have to, I should deliberately and pro-actively expand my horizons, seek answers to questions I don’t know I have, something Foster (2005. ¶ 15) termed ‘Breadth Exploration’. His, and other models of information seeking aren’t merely observations about what we do do, but also about what we ought do, and don’t just refer to forms of information, but also to the platforms/mechanisms by which it is accessed.
My Facebook page was discovered by a friend who then recommended both me to others, and them to me. Now I follow their comments, add my own, and am able to participate in a growing network that, viewed from the perspective of an institution wishing to both inform and engage, is obviously attractive, and worthy of emulation – not just to inform and engage the customer base, but also the staff; it’s another forum for communities of practice to share and record their tacit and explicit knowledge; a construct should reflect practice, “it is better to evaluate how people share information naturally and then build a system to support those activities” (Lindval, Rus & Jammalamadabba & Thakker quoted in Smuts, van der Merwe, Loock & Kotze. 2009. p. 73).
By way of parenthesis, before commencing as a Distance Education (DE) student at CSU, I not only didn’t have an email account, I never used the internet; now I have both and email regularly (with 56 on my mail list).
Some of the platforms explored left a trail of, if not discontent, then certainly disengagement: Twitter was an unruly, unbroken horse, which remains untamed – its seeming want of obvious functionality coupled with the knowledge that millions utilise it in ways that satisfies their information needs, does nothing for the self-esteem.
What does it say of an aspirant information professional that they were apparently incapable of fathoming the dark recesses of a technology as ubiquitous as it is popular? It reminds us that even heroes can have feet of clay; the important aspect is that the clay feet are recognised by the self, and that there are attempts made to remedy the fault; and in enrolling in this subject we have evidence that such introspection, pragmatism, and propensity to take action are present.
Whilst an information professional ought be on top of their game, it is important that they never become complacent in their knowledge or proficiencies, like Socrates, they must be mindful that they know that they don’t know (Ehrenberg. 2002. p. 382). It is a willingness to pursue the unknown, to be prepared to ever travel the road of life-long learning that is perhaps a more meretricious characteristic that any individual, including one that seeks to be a guide for others, ought foster. The blinkers of self belief are of benefit to no-one.
How then have I developed as a social networker? As one born ‘undigital’, the path has been – and continues, though hopefully diminishing – somewhat tortuous, prone to setback, of giving up through want of both familiarity and also of seeing the point. But I do see the point, am more familiar, and, day by day, am ever more intrinsically bound; I am vulnerable to those seductive charms after all.
Appendix A.
Facebook. Monday January 24, 2011. 4:07 pm.
Immersive Learning. Second Life. Monday January 24, 2011. 3:31 pm.
Twitter. Friday January 28, 2011. 2:20 pm.
Appendix B.
• Learning objectives
- demonstrate an understanding of social networking technologies;
- demonstrate an understanding of concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service;
- be able to critically examine the features and functionality of various social networking tools to meet the information needs of users;
- be able to evaluate social networking technologies to support informational and collaborative needs of workgroups, communities and organisations; and
- demonstrate an understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical, and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues.
Bibliography
Ehrenberg, V. (2002). Solon to Socrates (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. pp. 505.
Foster, A.E. (2005). A non-linear model of information seeking behaviour. Information Research, 10(2) paper 222. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper222.html
Hay, L. (2010). Learning objectives. [INF206 Subject Overview] Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF206_201090_W_D/page/3b127e66-5255-47de-8006-d36684bde1e4
Pantzar, E. (2000). Knowledge and wisdom in the information society [Electronic version]. foresight 2(2). 230-236.
Robinson, M. (2007). Digital nature and digital nurture; libraries, learning and the digital native [Electronic version]. Library Management 29(1/2), 67-76.
Smuts, H., van der Merwe, A., Loock, M. & Kotze, P. (2009). A framework and methodology for knowledge management system implementation [Electronic version]. SAICIT ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists. 70-79.
Virkus, S. (2008). Use of web 2.0 technologies in library information science: experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia [Electronic version]. Program: electronic library and information systems. 42(3), 262-274.
West, D. (2003). Is computer access enough? A multilevel analysis of the barriers to engagement [Electronic version]. Southern Review, 36(1), 22 – 33.
• Learning objectives
- demonstrate an understanding of social networking technologies;
- demonstrate an understanding of concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service;
- be able to critically examine the features and functionality of various social networking tools to meet the information needs of users;
- be able to evaluate social networking technologies to support informational and collaborative needs of workgroups, communities and organisations; and
- demonstrate an understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical, and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues.
Bibliography
Ehrenberg, V. (2002). Solon to Socrates (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. pp. 505.
Foster, A.E. (2005). A non-linear model of information seeking behaviour. Information Research, 10(2) paper 222. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper222.html
Hay, L. (2010). Learning objectives. [INF206 Subject Overview] Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF206_201090_W_D/page/3b127e66-5255-47de-8006-d36684bde1e4
Pantzar, E. (2000). Knowledge and wisdom in the information society [Electronic version]. foresight 2(2). 230-236.
Robinson, M. (2007). Digital nature and digital nurture; libraries, learning and the digital native [Electronic version]. Library Management 29(1/2), 67-76.
Smuts, H., van der Merwe, A., Loock, M. & Kotze, P. (2009). A framework and methodology for knowledge management system implementation [Electronic version]. SAICIT ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists. 70-79.
Virkus, S. (2008). Use of web 2.0 technologies in library information science: experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia [Electronic version]. Program: electronic library and information systems. 42(3), 262-274.
West, D. (2003). Is computer access enough? A multilevel analysis of the barriers to engagement [Electronic version]. Southern Review, 36(1), 22 – 33.
