Conference report: innovation, interaction … and a lot of data: first time reflections on Internet Librarian International, UK 2018
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-11-2018-0072 |
| Pages | 21-22 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Author | Ray Harper |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Library & information services |
Conference report: innovation, interaction ... and
a lot of data: first time reflections on Internet
Librarian International, UK 2018
Ray Harper
In October 2018, I had the opportunity
to attend Day 1 of Internet Librarian
International (ILI) in London. This was
a conference in the 20th year of its
existence, so there was a buzz of
excitement around the conference
venue as delegates compared notes on
how many of the series they had
attended. I attended this as a first-timer
and found it practical and inspiring in
equal measure.
The day began with a keynote by
Dr Katherine Skinner on cultivating
knowledge communities. This outlined a
research project on how library
communities work together (particularly
through the myriad groups and consortia
across the profession). The project and its
key findings are outlined in the freely
available publication Community
Cultivation: A Field Guide. A community
was defined as a collective group
pursuing shared interests and goals and
with a clear governance structure. Dr
Skinner presented a matrix model, which
showed how communities form,
develop and transition. This was a
useful framework for understanding how
organisations experience (and can
manage) significant changes. The major
areas of concern for libraries and
information units are the impact of Brexit
(where the long-term consequences are
extremely unpredictable at this stage) and
succession planning (with many library
leaders approaching retirement age).
AsIwasatILItopresenton
our organization’s attempt at an
online induction, I could not miss the
opportunity to attend Adam Blackwood’s
digital induction session. This covered a
raft of digital tools to engage learners,
including PicSay, Google Expeditions,
My Study Life, ThingLink, Study Stack
and iNigma. An innovative idea which I
would like to try in our library is using
near-field communication stickers on a
poster to signpost users to interactive
elements such as videos. In contrast, a
“low-tech” (but effective) teaching
suggestion was to use a laminated sheet in
lessons where learners place their mobiles
to avoid distractions. The speaker’s
colour-coded QR tie also won plaudits
(though I am not sure I will attempt this in
our library!).
I was naturally attracted to the user
experience track, which began with a
fascinating session on artefacts and
augmented reality (AR) in libraries.
Kate Lomax and Carlos Izsak (from the
company Artefacto) presented various
suggestions around how digital and
physical libraries can blend. For
example, a “chat-bot” can be used as a
“printer buddy” to help students,
enabling them to text a number and
receive an instant response based on key
words and phrases. “Bots” are often
perceived as an evil technology, but the
presenters here showed that this
technology can be harnessed to help
library users. Bruce Massis (from
Columbia State Community College in
the USA) then presented a detailed case
study of using HP Reveal software to
deliver AR in art and poetry exhibitions.
He showcased various examples of
where hovering a mobile phone over an
object would generate a video or sound
relating to the object. This was an
admirable project, but it took a lot of
hard work. Even a relatively short
animation on a bookmark took about
50-60 h to create.
The data and decision-making
session was very popular, with standing
room only! Trevor Hough from Leeds
University presented a project where
the library had compared the coverage
of abstracting and indexing databases to
assess whether they could be purchased
from another supplier. There were
excited Tweets from delegates about the
“vertical lookup” formulae used in the
project, and lots of knowing looks from
fellow librarians when Trevor
mentioned that ISSNs were sometimes
assigned inconsistently to journal titles.
The outcome of the project was that
they did not cancel existing
subscriptions, but at least had a deeper
understanding of the value of their
content compared to other products.
Amy O’Donohoe (from Royal
Holloway University in the UK) then
covered the use of Google apps to
collect and analyse library service data.
The service had a set of legacy data (e.g.
on head count, desk queries and when
shelf tidying was done), but this was
very complex and difficult to analyse.
They needed to rethink how they
entered, stored and analysed their data,
and Google apps offered an ideal
solution. It offers links between
different data sheets, time-stamps for
information being entered and the
ability to create entry forms and data
graphs.
Ithendivertedontothe“inclusionand
inspiration” track for a couple of useful
talks on “makerspaces” and coding clubs.
Randolf Mariano talked through
the introduction of makerspaces in
American spaces across the Philippines,
specifically focussing on up-cycling and
entrepreneurship. This is a concept which
is growing in popularity, particularly when
libraries are trying to do outreach work and
use their physical spaces more effectively.
Kerry Murray (from Norfolk Library
Service in the UK) presented a project
where the library service set up 25 coding
clubs in what is a rural (and sometimes
deprived) area of the UK. These were
after-school clubs for children, who learnt
Scratch and HTML, then Python
languages using the micro:bits tool. The
results were impressive. A follow-up
survey showed a significant increase in
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 2 2019, pp. 21-22, V
CEmerald Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/LHTN-11-2018-0072 21
To continue reading
Request your trial