Conceptualizing Collaboration and Community in Virtual Reference and Social Question and Answer Services

  • 87 views
Uploaded on

Paper presented at CoLIS 2013: 8: International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, August 20, 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Paper presented at CoLIS 2013: 8: International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, August 20, 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
87
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Radford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., Mikitish, S., Alpert, M., Shah, C., & Cooke, N. (2013) Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference and Social Q&A, accepted for presentation at CoLIS 8 Conceptions (approaches, theories, etc.) of Library and Information Science (LIS), August 19-22, 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Radford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., & Shah, C. (2011-2013). Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites. Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Rutgers University, and OCLC. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htmProposes new model for VRS to remain viable in today's economic environmentInvestigate possibility of collaboration between knowledge institutions and Social Q&A (SQA) communityProvide evidence for modeling new library collaborative servicesThree phasesAnalysis of transcripts500 QuestionPoint1000 Yahoo Answers Q & A pairs200 QuestionPoint live chat 200 QuestionPointQwidget session transcriptsTelephone interviews & analysisDesign Sessions (3)Construct design specifications
  • Image: http://www.trimite.com/about/press-releases-images/
  • Image from Microsoft Clip ArtRadford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., Mikitish, S., Alpert, M., Shah, C., & Cooke, N. (2013) Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference and Social Q&A, accepted for presentation at CoLIS 8 Conceptions (approaches, theories, etc.) of Library and Information Science (LIS), August 19-22, 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Page 4
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, Jan – Feb., 1-8.Joint enterprisesCreated & maintained by membersFeature mutual engagementMembers form social entityShared repertoire of resources & sensibilitiesCommunally developed over time
  • Learning as a focusLearn together in the public space (McDermott, 1999, p.34)Depend on interactions between membersVoluntary (Lave & Wenger, 1991)Customizable (Lave & Wenger, 1991)Individual (Lave & Wenger, 1991)Encourage members to help one another to solve problems & develop new approaches or tools (Lave & Wenger, 1991)Share expertise, share weakness (Faraj & Wasko 2001; Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2002)Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice, Paper presented at 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), Athens, Greece, 5-6 April. Faraj, S., & Wasko, M. M. (2001). The web of knowledge: an investigation of knowledge exchange in networks of practice. Retrieved from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Farajwasko.pdfMcDermott, R. (1999) Learning across teams: How to build communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 8, 32–36.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, Jan – Feb., 1-8. 
  • Insufficient time (Correia, Paulos, & Mesquita, 2010)“Information hoarding” (Ardichvili et al., 2002, p. 12)Low levels of collegiality (Smith, Barty, & Stacey, 2005), Shifting group memberships (Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007)Lack of opportunity for building trust ((Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kirkup, 2002; Gibson & Manuel, 2003; Ellis, Oldridge, & Vasconcelos, 2004)Geographical gaps (Gibson & Manuel, 2003; Cramton, 2001)Promotes heterogeneity in groups (Nincic, 2006; Roberts, 2006)Ideas of dominant voicesReinforces habits and conditions of groupsArdichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice, Paper presented at 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), Athens, Greece, 5-6 April.Correia, A. M. R., Paulos, A., & Mesquita, A. (2010). Virtual communities of practice: investigating motivations and constraints in the processes of knowledge creation and transfer. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1), 11-20.Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371.Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 145–186.Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning Papers, 5. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1018066Gibson, C.B., & Manuel, J.A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. In C.B. Gibson & S.G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 59-86). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.Kirkup, G. (2002). Identity, community and distributed learning. In M. Lea, & K. Nicoll, (Eds.), Distributed learning: Social, cultural approaches to practice (pp. 182-195). London: Routledge/Falmer. Nincic, V. (2006). “Why don’t we trade places…”: Some issues relevant for the analysis of diasporic web communities as learning spaces. The international handbook of virtual learning environments (1067-1088). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.Smith, P., Barty, K., & Stacey, E. (2005). Limitations of an established community of practice in developing online innovation, breaking down boundaries: international experience in open, distance and flexible education. Proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference, 1-6, ODLAA, Adelaide.
  • A total of 50 interviews have been conducted. This paper covers preliminary results from first 25 interviews.
  • Team of coders.
  • Images from Microsoft Clip ArtTotal phone interviewees25GenderPredominantly female (19, 76%)AgeMost 35-54 (15, 60%)25-34 (20%,n=5)35-44 (24%, n=6)45-54 (32%, n=8)55-64 (24%, n=6)Professional experience11.76 years averageVRS participation1-3 hours/week (8, 32%) or 4-6 hours/week (8, 32%)Type of library employed byPredominantly academic (13, 52%)
  • Image: Connaway, L.S. (2013) NC State University, Hunt Library.VRS (40%, n=10) vsFtF (32%, n=8)Next slides report Likert-style and closed questions, some also from critical incident.Overall reference volume was reported as busy (11, 44%) or extremely busy (8, 32%).
  • Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/28865063@N07/8511906272/Overall reference volume was reported to be increasing by 10 participants (40%).
  • Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominicspics/3386193198/Three-quarters of the librarians defined success as filling the user’s information need, as surmised when he/she expressed satisfaction/thanks during the interaction. a “nice feedback comment at the end” (L32)through emoticons: “There were lots of happy faces, so the user seemed pleased (L24).
  • Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/duaneschoon/4530185934/Participants felt that successful interactions provided an “opportunity to educate the patron” (L30) in their area of expertise, and some mentioned that they: “knew the subject area” (L24), or were familiar with e-resources. “Someone requested specific census information and demographics for a specific country, and I knew where to go and the website for the government census. I felt like because I was familiar with the resource beforehand and show them pretty early on in the chat how to navigate and find what they were looking for. Because it took me less time to locate the information, I was able to spend more time in the teaching” (L3).
  • Image from Microsoft Clip Art“You’ve exhausted the resources that you are aware of and you don't want to be a dead-end for the patron” (L23). When faced with a difficult question outside their expertise, most participants decided to refer the user to a specific librarian, such as “a colleague who knows about gov [sic] docs” (L10), or to another library. Two librarians also referred users to other non-librarian experts, such as a student’s instructor.
  • Difficulties for questions outside participants’ expertise usually involved a lack of content knowledge, or of an e-resource, such as not having a “great facility with…[a] specific school’s website interface” (L28). Legal and medical questions provided the most instances of knowledge outside participants’ expertise, such as: “She needed to know how to perform an artery tap…[so] no matter the searching, I was not going to be confident that my answer was going to be complete” (L15). When faced with a difficult question outside of their expertise, most participants decided to refer the user to a specific librarian, such as “a colleague who knows about gov [sic] docs” (L10), or to another library. Two librarians also referred users to other non-librarian experts, such as a student’s instructor. Other difficulties were a lack of lead time, usually because “the paper was due too soon for me to answer” (L32), or because of the user being unfamiliar with e-resources: “It’s kind of challenging when the students don’t even know how to use the database (L13).
  • Microsoft Clip ArtA majority of participants collaborated more than once a week with e-mail being the most common mode, followed by FtF, chat, and phone. FtF collaboration was seen as easiest in shared physical settings, as one participant commented:“We have a combined public service desk that incorporates degreed librarians, grad students, and student assistants, so the very nature of the configuration of the public service desk is designed to promote collaboration. We are constantly passing questions all over that desk and working together to come up with the best and the speediest answer” (L1).One-third of the time librarians collaborated when they were unable to answer the question, but a slightly higher number collaborated because they wanted to give the user a more comprehensive answer. One respondent explained that he/she referred a census question because it was: “about public health and ethnic groups and on a very small level in New York City. It was the kind of question where I could give an okay answer and I knew this colleague could give a great answer” (L8).
  • Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/susanvg/3382838948/One-third of the time librarians collaborated when they were unable to answer the question, but a slightly higher number collaborated because they wanted to give the user a more comprehensive answer. One respondent explained that he/she referred a census question because it was: “about public health and ethnic groups and on a very small level in New York City. It was the kind of question where I could give an okay answer and I knew this colleague could give a great answer” (L8).
  • Image from Microsoft Clip ArtFacilitators:Perception of other librarians as willing to help was most common facilitator. Second most frequent facilitator knowing who to ask for help.
  • Image from Microsoft Clip ArtOne major barrier to collaboration was in not knowing who to contact or in not feeling that colleagues welcomed collaboration. Although some librarians did perceive that other librarians, either individually or working in a particular place, were unwilling to collaborate, this seemed more the exception than the rule. Barriers to Collaboration“There are librarians who are hostile in body language and sometimes verbally if it interferes with their other duties. They have made it very clear that I should not ask and so I do not.” (L01)
  • When asked to compare, librarians saw VRS as authoritative and objective, more synchronous, and receiving more complex questions. SQA was viewed as asynchronous, less authoritative, having simpler questions, and providing more opinionated answers. By viewing librarians who provide VRS as a CoP, it is easier to understand why many view SQA services as inferior to VRS.
  • Image from http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/74428336_d47a4dabe7.jpgA major finding was that although the librarians viewed VRS as different from and superior to SQA services, they expressed a willingness to consult non-librarian experts.Librarians most often said that they would feel comfortable collaborating with professors, possibly because of a larger proportion of academic library participants, or because being a professor implies subject expertise, although they are not “card-carrying” members of the librarian CoP.One librarian stated: “[It] would be great to contact a history professor for a history question or social scientist for political information” (L16). None of the librarians mentioned doctors or lawyers, even though those were two areas where the participants mentioned lacking expertise. Most gave the impression that having confidence in expertise would involve: “some standards… that help [other experts] to provide that information in a way that librarians are used to providing that information” (L32).
  • When asked, participants identified types of questions appropriate to SQA, including questions that were objective, such as ready reference, fact-based, yes/no questions, or those subjective in nature, based on experience or opinion. Objective questions, with easily verifiable answers, were viewed as appropriate for SQA sites because, as one librarian explained: “there is a danger in that it's not clear that it's someone's opinion and not based on a good source” (L32). Experience-based questions were suitable because participants felt it was clear that the user would understand that the answerer was giving an opinion. As one participant explained: “I think if you're asking for recommendations or looking for suggestions, you know, ‘I'm going on a trip to Cape Cod, where can I have dinner? Where can I go whale watching?’ Those are more personal opinions than trying to come off as an expert. My husband loves Yahoo! Answers. He can stay up all night answering questions. I wonder if he's giving people the right information!” (L25)This suggests that even if the librarian knows the SQA answerer, that is not, in itself, enough to engender confidence that they will provide a quality answer. A few participants also suggested questions on certain topics, such as “everyday type of questions” (L29), popular culture “stuff like Star Wars” (L24), or medical questions were best for SQA.
  • Image from Microsoft Clip Art
  • Knowing who to ask is another major facilitator to collaboration, while unwillingness to collaborate and not knowing who to contact are barriers.
  • Image from Connaway, L.S. (2013) NC State University, Hunt Library.The promise of high-quality, accurate, and effective VRS is considered to be endangered by difficult economic times that continue to negatively impact library funding and consortia. Cyber Synergy researchers hope to alleviate such difficulties, by exploring SQA models, which provide crowd-sourced opportunities, and to provide effective ways to connect users’ subject-related questions to specialists. Findings may result in greater collaboration to optimize use of information service resources, harness the passion of librarians (and other experts) for sharing their talents and subject knowledge, and, ultimately, to enhance the sustainability of VRS.This is our research question (from early slide)In what ways can the Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998, 2004) framework contribute to our understanding of collaboration barriers and opportunities in the VRS environment?

Transcript

  • 1. CoLIS Copenhagen, Denmark 19-22 August 2013 Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference & Social Q&A Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Mark Alpert Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science Rutgers University, NJ Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC Assistant Professor Rutgers University, NJ Stephanie Mikitish Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ Assistant Professor University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 2. Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual Reference & Social Q&A Sites • Provide evidence for modeling new ways to collaborate in VRS • Collaboration with Social Q&A (SQA) • Three phases • Transcript Analysis • Telephone interviews • 50 librarian interviews, 50 user interviews • Design Sessions • Construct design specifications http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 3. Virtual Reference Services (VRS) & Social Q&A (SQA) • SQA • VRS • Crowd-sourcing • Global reach • Good in lean economic times • Anytime/anywhere access • Social & collaborative • Cooperative services may reduce costs • Anyone can provide answers The world’s libraries. Connected. • Librarians have deep subject expertise
  • 4. Why Cyber Synergy? • Lack of library funding • Service reductions • Some VRS discontinued or endangered • Empirical data needed to explore possibilities to enhance VRS The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 5. Research Questions • How can VRS become more collaborative, within and between libraries, & tap more effectively into librarians’ subject expertise? • What can VRS learn from SQA to better serve users & attract potential users? • How can we design systems & services within & between VRS and SQA for better quality and sustainability? • In what ways can the Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998, 2004) framework contribute to our understanding of collaboration barriers & opportunities in the VRS environment? The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 6. Theoretical Framework: Communities of Practice (CoP) The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 7. Communities of Practice (CoP): “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4) The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 8. Distinct Dimensions of CoP • Joint enterprises • Feature mutual engagement • Shared repertoire of resources & sensibilities The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 9. More Dimensions of CoP • Learning focus • Depend on interactions between members • Voluntary • Customizable • Individual • Encourage members to solve problems & develop new approaches/tools • Share expertise, share weakness (Wenger, 1998, 2004) The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 10. Barriers to CoP • Insufficient time • “Information hoarding” • Low levels of collegiality • Shifting group memberships • Lack trust building opportunities • Geographical gaps • Promotes heterogeneity The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 11. VRS Librarians as CoP • VRS librarians • Shared interest in serving user information needs • Operate within community for sharing information • Hold shared practice through MLIS degree The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 12. Data Collection – Phone Interviews • Phone interviews with 25 VRS librarians • Recruited via professional list-servs, personal contacts, & OCLC’s QuestionPoint (QP) librarian blog • Responses collected with SurveyMonkey • Anonymous The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 13. Interview Questions • Combination of open & closed questions • Topics • Collaboration • Referrals • Comparison of VRS to SQA • Critical incidents (Flanagan, 1954) The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 14. Data Analysis • Descriptive for demographic data & Likert style questions • Line-by-line qualitative analysis to identify: • Recurring themes • Representative quotations • Code book developed • NVivo software The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 15. Results The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 16. Librarian Demographics (N=25) 76%, n=19 11.76 60%, n=15 52%, n=13 The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 17. Participants reported that VRS were slightly busier than FtF services The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 18. 40% reported that overall reference volume was increasing The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 19. Successful Interactions “There were lots of happy faces, so the user seemed pleased.” The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 20. Successful Interactions provided an “opportunity to educate the patron” The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 21. Referrals One-quarter mentioned referring question to another librarian The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 22. Difficulties Barrier to Referrals Lack of lead time, usually because “the paper was due too soon for me to answer.” The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 23. Collaboration • • • The world’s libraries. Connected. Majority collaborated >once a week E-mail most common mode, then FtF FtF easiest in shared physical settings
  • 24. Reasons for Collaboration • Unable to answer question • Give user more comprehensive answer The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 25. Facilitators to Collaboration • Perceive other librarians as willing to help • Know who to ask for help The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 26. Barriers to Collaboration “There are librarians who are hostile in body language and sometimes verbally if it interferes with their other duties. They have made it very clear that I should not ask and so I do not.” The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 27. VRS & SQA Compared VRS SQA More synchronous Asynchronous Authoritative Less authoritative Complex questions Simpler questions Objective More opinionated answers The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 28. Collaboration with Subject Experts The world’s libraries. Connected. Librarians expressed a willingness to consult non-librarian experts, particularly professors
  • 29. Questions Appropriate for SQA • • • Objective, ready reference, fact-based Yes/no questions Questions based on experience or opinion The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 30. Conclusion The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 31. Difficult Questions • Usually refer to another librarian • Factors in addressing/referring difficult questions • Content knowledge • Shared professional standards • Technological familiarity The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 32. Collaboration • Believe other librarians are willing to collaborate • Shared professional ideals and expertise • Seen as value-added service • FtF enables collaboration The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 33. SQA & Collaboration • Librarians view SQA as: • Less authoritative • Less complex • Less objective • Analysis of data from • Not against collaborating with experts • Willing to expand CoP to other experts if demonstrate • Professional expertise • Extensive knowledge • Demonstrate professional expertise or extensive knowledge The world’s libraries. Connected. • Remaining librarian interviews • 50 VRS/SQA user interviews • 3 expert design sessions
  • 34. VRS librarians constitute a CoP in approach to referrals & collaboration The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 35. Next Steps • Analysis of data from • Remaining librarian interviews • 50 VRS/SQA user interviews • 3 expert design sessions The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 36. References Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice, Paper presented at 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), Athens, Greece, 5-6 April. Correia, A. M. R., Paulos, A., & Mesquita, A. (2010). Virtual communities of practice: investigating motivations and constraints in the processes of knowledge creation and transfer. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1), 11-20. Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 145–186. Faraj, S., & Wasko, M. M. (2001). The web of knowledge: an investigation of knowledge exchange in networks of practice. Retrieved from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Farajwasko.pdf Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning Papers, 5. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1018066 Gibson, C.B., & Manuel, J.A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. In C.B. Gibson & S.G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 59-86). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons. Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815. Kirkup, G. (2002). Identity, community and distributed learning. In M. Lea, & K. Nicoll, (Eds.), Distributed learning: Social, cultural approaches to practice (pp. 182-195). London: Routledge/Falmer. The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 37. References Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McDermott, R. (1999) Learning across teams: How to build communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 8, 32–36. Nincic, V. (2006). “Why don’t we trade places…”: Some issues relevant for the analysis of diasporic web communities as learning spaces. The international handbook of virtual learning environments (1067-1088). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Radford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., & Shah, C. (2011-2013). Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites. Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Rutgers University, and OCLC. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm Ranganathan, S.R. (1957). The Five Laws of Library Science. Madras: Madras Library Association; London: G. Blunt and Sons. Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639. Smith, P., Barty, K., & Stacey, E. (2005). Limitations of an established community of practice in developing online innovation, breaking down boundaries: international experience in open, distance and flexible education. Proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference, 16, ODLAA, Adelaide. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, Jan – Feb., 1-8. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 38. Cyber Synergy Grant •Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual Reference and Social Q & A Sites • $250,000.00 grant funded by IMLS, OCLC, and Rutgers University • Co-PIs • Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC • Chirag Shah, Rutgers University The world’s libraries. Connected.
  • 39. Questions? Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Mark Alpert Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science Rutgers University, NJ mradford@rutgers.edu @MarieLRadford Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ mark.alpert@rutgers.edu Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC connawal@oclc.org @LynnConnaway Associate Professor Rutgers University, NJ chirags@rutgers.edu Stephanie Mikitish Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ mikitish@eden.rutgers.edu Assistant Professor University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign nacooke@illinois.edu The world’s libraries. Connected.