96x48 Powerpoint Poster Template

1


Health Sciences Librarians in Michigan
Connecting to Emerging Web 2.0 Technologies
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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
RESULTS (cont)
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS (cont)

• 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.

Figure 3 Current Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
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
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.
RESULTS
OBJECTIVES

• Respondents (n51) 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.

Fifty nine out of 70 responses were complete and
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).

• 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

• Medical librarians are likely to embrace Web 2.0
• technologies 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

Figure 1 Distribution of Responses by Workplace
METHODOLOGY

• 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 4 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies by Types of
Libraries
Figure 2 Distribution of Responses by Years of
Experience