How well does Arizona State University (ASU) use Web 2.0 tools to achieve the 4Cs of social media?
Firstly, I wanted to find out more about what the 4Cs of social media were. The Module 3 notes list collaboration, conversation, community and content creation (CSU, 2012). However, I found that content creation was called co-creation in Mootee’s (2008) article. While very similar in meaning, co-creation seems to epitomize the collaborative nature of Web 2.0 more; and Gates (2009) simply uses content.
Conversations: ASU libraries promote conversations in a diverse number of ways. The library channel page (ASU LIbraries, n.d.) allows comments to announcements. In the ‘Get Help’ tab, a few options such as ‘Ask a Librarian’, ‘Report technical problems’ and a ‘suggestion box’ all provide appropriate places for users to contact library staff. Of particular note is the suggestion box, where you can read other user’s feedback and the library’s response to the issue. This ‘open book’ attitude facilitates future genuine communication and ‘establishes trust with users’ (Schrier, 2011). Conversations are also promoted in Facebook and Twitter.
Content Creation: ASU libraries‘ content creation appears to be only one way. Content is created by library staff for library users, including the creation of a number of informative YouTube clips that students can access regarding the libraries’ facilities and spaces. There appears to be little content creation stored from the library users, except for feedback comments. Additionally, through Twitter students have the option of replying to the tweets. The Flickr account appears to be staff producing the content as well.
Connections: While there are tabs for Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Vimeo and YouTube indicating a range of formats for making connections, the website appears to limit the student connection to responses to formally created library content only. Although it is noted that responses from the library is timely and open to all readers. Facebook in particular just provides another avenue to connect with staff.
Collaboration:There is little evidence of collaboration between users and library staff except through conversations and complaints through a variety of methods.
ASU libraries could better address the 4Cs of Web 2.0 by allowing greater input from users. Acknowledging that as a university library, the focus is on assisting users to locate information, there is a significant lack of assistance in creating information. Is this a reflection on the university not being able to move away from its traditional function as a repository of knowledge that is delivered to students? Library staff need to find alternative ways for users to collaborate and create content that doesn’t devalue or diminish the excellent sources of information already provided.
ASU LIbraries. (2012). Fact sheet 2012. Retrieved from http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/96525/content/fact-sheet-2012.pdf
ASU libraries. (n.d.) The library channel: News, events, announcements. In ASU: Arizona State University. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from http://lib.asu.edu/librarychannel/
Charles Sturt University (CSU). (2012). Module 3: Library 2.0 and participatory library services [INF506 201290 Modules]. Retrieved from Charles Sturt University website: http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF506_201290_W_D/page/84cf677e-ec91-4f08-8080-0f7dd953df21
Gates, J. (2009). The 4Cs of web 2.0 and storytelling. In The learning evolution. Retrieved from http://learnev.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/4-cs-of-web-20-and-storytelling.html
Mootee, I. (2008). Web 2.0 and the 4 Cs. In Future lab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.net/blogs/marketing-strategy-innovation/2007/10/web_20_and_the_4_cs.html
Schrier, R.A. (2011). Digital librarianship & social media: The digital library as conversation facilitator, D-Lib Magazine, 17(7/8) July/August 2011. Retrieved from http://dlib.org/dlib/july11/schrier/07schrier.html