My local library is
Kuring-gai. I looked on their Home Page and found
large icons to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn at the base of the
page. However, when I followed
these, each belonged not solely to the library but to Kuring-gai Council in
general.
When I went to the My Library
page, and scrolled to the very bottom there was a link to a Kuring-gai Library Facebook page. However only 453 people (out of a total
population of 120,978 in the LGA, according to the ABS
) have liked it! Perusing the
Facebook site shows me that there are very few reviews, comments or likes and that
the local community is not engaging with the Library’s Facebook page, despite
the Librarians colourful and interesting posts. There are really no discernible Library 2.0 technologies employed under the given headings:
·
Local Studies;
·
Children’s;
·
Teenage/Youth;
·
Adult Fiction; or
·
Information/Reference.
The library catalogue was updated
in July 2011 to contain interactive links via LibraryThing and Google Books for
catalogue items but to find either you need to locate the individual item on the
catalogue then select it. Once
selected either Google Books or LibraryThing (or both) may come up as a link in
the ‘More Information’ category. This
is not available for every title in the catalogue, and appears to be pot luck
when you select individual items.
See the screen shot of a catalogue item below indicating the
availability of LibraryThing and Google Books for the classic children’s novel
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I think the image the
Library/Council chooses to put on the My Library navigation page tells the
story as to why the poor uptake of Library 2.0. Note the age demographic illustrated in the extracted image below:
The ABS
web page consulted in Exercise 5 also revealed that within the
Sydney SD, the Ku-ring-gai Statistical Local Area has the highest median age at
40.8 years. Ku-ring-gai also had
the highest median age for males (39.5 years) and second highest for females
(41.7 years). I decided to
investigate this further and looked at the more detailed ABS National
Regional Profile: Kuring-gai.
The following table extracts data from this site to summaries the
population by age.
Age Group
|
% of Kuring-gai population per year
|
||
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
|
0-14
|
19.7
|
19.8
|
20.0
|
15-24
|
14.2
|
13.9
|
14.4
|
25-34
|
8.3
|
8.3
|
7.9
|
35-44
|
13.0
|
13.1
|
13.1
|
45-54
|
15.8
|
15.8
|
15.8
|
55-64
|
12.2
|
12.1
|
12.0
|
65-74
|
8.0
|
8.2
|
8.3
|
75-84
|
5.9
|
5.9
|
5.8
|
> 85
|
2.9
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
The table illustrates that
Kuring-gai has a low proportion of the population as young professionals (25-34
years). Living here, I can attest
that once children gain an independent income they often leave to live in the
busier suburbs closer to the city, to work and nightlife (Three early 20's newly minted professionals have left our small cul-de-sac in the last few months for the bright city lights!). They may return later in life when they
are seeking space to raise a family – hence the higher proportion of 0-14 year
olds.
The elderly nature of much of the
population, together with the very low proportion of younger working age people
(ie those more likely to engage with Library 2.0 technologies), and the
conservative nature of the area, means that uptake of Library 2.0 technologies
is likely to be more limited. It
is also a reflection of Council, that in seeking to serve an area with a
population concentrated at both end of the age spectrum (ie young and old but
not middle) they have not embraced those technologies that are most likely to
appeal to those in that middle spectrum.
The references I looked at in Exercise 5 and the Sensis Report data all
point to younger people moving away from Facebook to the more visual Web 2.0
mediums such as Instagram, Snapchat and the like. Perhaps these would be more appropriate Library 2.0
technologies in my local area...
