Well, here we are at Thing 23 and it's time for some reflection.
How did I/ the Library get here? What have I got out of this? What will I/ we take from this experience?
Web 1.0+
I suppose I first became exposed to Web 2.0 technologies around 2006/07. Things started appearing in the media and my own journalistic endeavour (SCONUL Focus) started running stories on social networking tools. Issue 40 (Spring 2007) featured podcasting and by Spring 2008 we were running a themed issue on Web 2.0 and libraries.
At Warwick we ran a staff training afternoon introducing some of the tools in September 2007 (urging colleagues to give them a go) and in November several of us ventured down to the Institute of Minerals and Mining in London to attend a sharing of good practice day on blogging and other activities, from Paul Williams and other enthusiasts. In December of that year the Library was visited by colleagues from McMaster University, where Jeff Trzeciak had led a programme of staff development for his entire workforce on Web 2.0 developments.
At the time it seemed to me that some tools had mileage for us, whilst others were far more questionable. Facebook already seemed like a force to be reckoned with and was starting to prove slightly popular with students. We were a bit afraid of appearing like a dad at a disco by getting involved but - with the support of the Students' Union Education Officer - we entered the dance floor. As it was untested, we decided not to spend too much time on it but put something up with content from our Web site, making it more accessible to students who prefer Facebook to Firefox, to see what would happen. The project was pretty low key ...but we - and our 2,500 fans - have never looked back.
At Warwick we ran a staff training afternoon introducing some of the tools in September 2007 (urging colleagues to give them a go) and in November several of us ventured down to the Institute of Minerals and Mining in London to attend a sharing of good practice day on blogging and other activities, from Paul Williams and other enthusiasts. In December of that year the Library was visited by colleagues from McMaster University, where Jeff Trzeciak had led a programme of staff development for his entire workforce on Web 2.0 developments.
At the time it seemed to me that some tools had mileage for us, whilst others were far more questionable. Facebook already seemed like a force to be reckoned with and was starting to prove slightly popular with students. We were a bit afraid of appearing like a dad at a disco by getting involved but - with the support of the Students' Union Education Officer - we entered the dance floor. As it was untested, we decided not to spend too much time on it but put something up with content from our Web site, making it more accessible to students who prefer Facebook to Firefox, to see what would happen. The project was pretty low key ...but we - and our 2,500 fans - have never looked back.
Other tools looked like they might have some potential for us (blogging, for example). Others looked a bit 'King's New Clothes' (Second Life) so we did not rush into them.
I suppose we had a pretty healthy attitude towards Web 2.0.
How can we learn all these Things?
But it is probably fair to say that - for us as a Library and more widely - it wasn't everyone who was getting involved with Web 2.0. I don't want to use the word 'geek' ...but it was often the geeks in the media who were promoting it. It was the experts, or at least the very interested, who seemed to be using Web 2.0.
It didn't feel like it was for everyone.
But it could be. Nay (to quote Frankie Howerd), it should be.
Nay - it is not 'elitist networking'. Nay - it is not 'boffin networking'. Thrice nay - it is not 'geek networking'. It is social networking.
So how could we get more staff more involved? Despite the big push at McMaster, I had seen little in the LIS press about training programmes for staff. The http://www.sconul.ac.uk/publications/newsletter/46/15.pdf looked fun but quite staff intensive to me. So we were a bit stuck.
Then 23 Things appeared.
I think I first became aware of the 23 Things approach when I was offered articles for SCONUL Focus about the programme from Ciara McCaffrey, a colleague I knew from another course I was undertaking, and one Emma Cragg from Oxford. When Emma came to work for us I found out much more about the programme and what it could offer us here at Warwick.
It didn't feel like it was for everyone.
But it could be. Nay (to quote Frankie Howerd), it should be.
Nay - it is not 'elitist networking'. Nay - it is not 'boffin networking'. Thrice nay - it is not 'geek networking'. It is social networking.
So how could we get more staff more involved? Despite the big push at McMaster, I had seen little in the LIS press about training programmes for staff. The http://www.sconul.ac.uk/publications/newsletter/46/15.pdf looked fun but quite staff intensive to me. So we were a bit stuck.
Then 23 Things appeared.
I think I first became aware of the 23 Things approach when I was offered articles for SCONUL Focus about the programme from Ciara McCaffrey, a colleague I knew from another course I was undertaking, and one Emma Cragg from Oxford. When Emma came to work for us I found out much more about the programme and what it could offer us here at Warwick.
Although I felt hugely positive about the 23 Things approach I did have some reservations. Access to computers for training (for some staff) and finding the time (for all staff) and were my two biggest concerns.
I must admit, I asked Emma how we could build on the Oxford programme, iron out any problems encountered there, and make it an even better 23 Things for Warwick. We decided to run it in the Spring Term in the first instance as this would be the 'quieter' term for some staff in terms of outward-facing activities. The Things would be simpler, with more complex tools spread out over two Things. We would also factor in more 'free' weeks to provide (much needed) catch up times. There would also be lots of surgery or one-to-one support offered (again, much needed by some of us).
It was anticipated that staff should spend about one hour or 1-2 hours per week on the programme, depending on their pre-knowledge and ability to pick up new techniques.
Delicious
So how did it work for me? What did I enjoy most?
...and this:
I think the world should also be taking more notice of this:
...this:
...and especially this:
But I digress.
- For a start, it was good to have a structured course to complete. If that had not been the case I would never have forced myself to try out all the tools covered.
- The Things were mercifully small. I must admit, I skimmed and often did the minimum required to tick off a Thing, but they really were quite manageable. Splitting more difficult tasks into two or more Things was a good idea.
- The support from Emma and the team was invaluable. I popped to a couple of the 'drop ins' but also found the guys useful if I 'phoned them or dropped in to their offices when it wasn't a formal 'drop in' session.
- It was reassuring that I had used quite a lot of the tools already. I use Flickr and YouTube (as a user rather than contributor) all the time. I had viewed SlideShare before and have had bursts of activity on Delicious. I knew I had an iGoogle account (set up years ago and seldom used) so it was good to re-discover that. I had also shared documents on a previous course and arranged meetings with the tools we used. So I realised I wasn't such a Web 2.0 novice after all.
- I definitely learnt I should perhaps use some of these tools a bit more often!
- I learnt lots of new stuff. I suppose I do have to learn lots of new things in my job anyway but education feels like a real treat nowadays so actually setting an hour aside to specifically expand my horizons was great.
- I enjoyed some elements a lot. I enjoy writing blog postings (a bit like writing Editorial columns for SCONUL Focus ...though this entry feels more like an article). I think Twitter is a good discipline (communicate effectively in 140 characters) and a good excuse to save time ('I can't write much here...'). I also got a strange buzz out of editing something on Wikipedia and being part of that massive community. It was good to dig out my 'Julian Opie' picture of Ant to appear as 'Librarian Boy' in his various media guises. It was good to be creative.
- On a more frivolous note, I also enjoyed the Friday afternoon blog postings, where I shared my fine taste in music with an unsuspecting world. Highlights so far have included this:
...and this:
I think the world should also be taking more notice of this:
...this:
...and especially this:
But I digress.
Less tasty
Anything I didn't like?
The only thing was the time commitment and the fact that I could not devote as much time to the Things as I would have liked. Too many of my blog entries were posted late on a Friday, showing this was crammed in before catching the bus/train/bike home. As I said, I also skimmed, so did not use the tools as fully as I would really have liked.
But this isn't a 23 Things issue, it is an Antony having 5,000,023 things on the go issue...
Web 2.0+
So what next?
For me, the Things I enjoyed most were blogging and Tweeting. I need to try to keep up with both of these ...but I wouldn't wait too eagerly for each Tweet.
For the Library, I hope we can - as planned - reflect on this at the next Staff Day. It would be good to get various people to talk about how it was for them to encourage others to take part. I know Emma and the team are looking at a tweaked programme for the summer and I hope this will reach staff who have not been able to do (or keep up with) Things this time.
For the Library's offering, I think there is scope for rolling this out. Friends of mine have asked 'is this just a librarian thing?' when I talk about 23 Things. Well, it needn't be. It is an information management thing. Jess has already run some sessions on Web 2.0 aimed at the students. Why shouldn't we be running a Number of Things for our students, academics and other users?
The amount of things we could do is limitless ...well, certainly more than 23.
