Health Sciences Librarians in Michigan: Connecting to Emerging Web 2.0 Technologies

INTRODUCTION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS RESULTS (cont)

Web 2.0 technologies are changing the way information is disseminated and the way knowledge, explicit or tacit, is captured, constructed, and organized. It is important for health information professionals to become aware of the increasing role of these technologies in disseminating new information, sharing knowledge, and fostering communities of practice

Medical librarians are likely to embrace Web 2.0technologies that can be put to use in providing library services, although they face challenges and barriers in using these tools.

They strongly agreed on the benefits of training on Web 2.0 tools and indicated that hands-on training is the preferred venue for learning about the 2.0 tools.

Future implications for the professional organizations:

Members’ training needs should be considered in providing learning opportunities for them.

Strategies could be created to help medical librarians overcome barriers in applying the Web 2.0 tools in their practice

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted to investigate

how medical librarians used Web 2.0 technologies;

how they adopted them for their library practice;

what barriers they faced in using the technologies;

what needs they had in applying the technologies in practice.

OBJECTIVES

Participants: A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit

participants from the membership of Michigan Health Sciences Library Association (MHSLA), Metropolitan Detroit Medical Library Group, and other MHSLA-affiliated local groups

Instrumentation:

A survey questionnaire which comprised 16 items of close- and open-ended questions was designed and an online version was created using SurveyMonkey.

Figure 3: Current Use of Web 2.0 Technologies

RESULTS (cont)

RESULTS

The questionnaire was piloted and revisions were made. The survey was conducted during a period of three weeks between January and February, 2008. The questionnaire was sent to members by e-mail through the listservs of the two organizations. Two subsequent reminders were sent out by e-mail to increase the response rate. Results were downloaded and exported to MS Excel for data analysis.

Figure 4: Use of Web 2.0 Technologies by Types of Libraries

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Figure 2: Distribution of Responses by Years of Experience

Librarians learned about Web 2.0 through conferences and networking, but listservs, newsletters and journals are still important sources

Barriers to using Web 2.0 tools include lack of training, time, and lack of ideas for using the tools to provide library services.

Institutions block access to Web 2.0 tools, most often media sharing and social networking sites.

Over 80% would benefit from training; hands-on training in a computer lab is preferred. The area of most interest is media production and sharing.

22.00%

3.40% 1.70%

5.10%

67.80%

Hospital

Academic

Public

ConsumerHealth

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

<5 6 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30 >30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90Podcasting

Blog

Wiki

Media sharing

Second Life

Soc netw orks

Soc bookmarks

RSS/New s

Web office applications

none

Figure 1: Distribution of Responses by Workplace

Fifty nine out of 70 responses were completeand used for data analysis. The majority of responses (67.8%) were from hospitals (Figure 1). There were more responses from the group with the working experience between 6-12 years than other groups (Figure 2). Blogs, wikis, and RSS Feed were used more than other Web 2.0 tools (Figure 3-4).

Respondents (n=51) reported that they used Web 2.0 technologies to keep abreast of developments in the profession (86.3%), collaborate with colleagues (66.7%), share ideas and knowledge (43.1%), and for other purposes.

Out of 52 responses, 58.9 % respondents used blogs, 44% RSS Feed, at least daily or weekly. A majority of respondents felt most uncomfortable with Second Life, social bookmarking, and podcasting. Most of them never used these tools.

A few had experience developing content with the tools.

Misa Mi, MLIS, AHIP, Library Services, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI; Sandra Swanson, MLS, Amos Crist Health Sciences Libraries, Mercy General Health Partners, Muskegon, MI; Marie-Lise Shams, MLIS, AHIP, Dental Library, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Po

dca

stin

g

Blo

g

Wik

i

Me

dia

sha

rin

g

Se

con

d L

ife

So

cN

etw

ork

s

So

cB

oo

kma

rks

RS

S/N

ew

s

We

b o

ffice

ap

plic

atio

ns

No

ne

Hospital

Academic

Other