sample of academic writing

Melody Dworak April 13, 2012 Master’s Poster Speech

How do you design a digital research project that has substantial labor needs with few staff members to fulfill them? Related to the field of computer-‐supported cooperative work, crowdsourcing has become a way to leverage contributions from the public to create a more substantial collection of information. The promise of crowdsourcing has created larger questions for researchers and system designers: How do we design systems to facilitate contributions from the crowd? What motivations can system designers tap to engage people in crowdsourcing projects? I analyzed 26 digital research projects that were sourcing contributions from the crowd to discover what approaches designers took to build systems and motivate contributors. I coded them according to elements of machine labor and human labor in an iterative process that revealed that motivations behind contributing were at the heart of system design issues. The coding decisions were my own, not based on existing content analysis models. Some systems relied heavily on machine labor—or algorithms written by programmers—to entice contributors and maintain their engagement. Other systems relied heavily on manual labor by staff members to process contributions and maintain progress. Unsurprisingly, systems motivating contributors through gaming required the most programming, and thus formed the smallest category due to the higher need for programming skills. It is also not surprising that nearly all projects marketed themselves to potential contributors as a way their efforts could benefit the greater good. The interesting lesson here falls in the middle, where learning motivates people to continue contributing. Learning is an outcome that can be produced at all points along this labor spectrum. This is exploratory research. Future progress requires having multiple coders to determine inter-‐coder reliability. That stage of research could form more concrete crowdsourcing models to assist digital research project designers in planning and building their systems.

Melody Dworak SLIS Master’s Candidate

The Public As Collaborator:

Crowdsourcing Models for Digital Research Initiatives

Digital research projects often seek out large-‐scale data sets but have a small budget

to achieve them. In their pursuit of using technology to discover something new, some

scholars have turned to crowdsourcing strategies, where the efforts of individual volunteers

can contribute to collective, significant data outcomes. How can examples of successful

crowdsourcing projects inform future digital research initiatives? By looking at current

examples of digital research projects using crowdsourcing, this research proposes new

models for amassing data through the assistance of engaged publics. Inspired by the

problems posed by building a large-‐scale database of metadata from mid-‐20th century

small-‐press ephemera, this inquiry explores what outreach strategies work for different

kinds of projects and with which publics. This research performs a qualitative content

analysis of more than thirty digital research initiatives that rely on crowdsourcing

strategies to amass data. Through their project websites, the initiatives were coded to

determine the factors that motivated contributors and the electronic interfaces employed

for digital delivery. The models created from this research fall along a spectrum with

minimal requirements for technology and programming capacity to deploy strategies at one

end and sophisticated requirements at the other. Motivational factors discovered include

competition and reward systems inspired by games, personal contributions to discovery

and historical narratives, and the pure entertainment of interest-‐driven learning. By

identifying strategies that can inform approaches to scaling up digital research initiatives,

these models provide a guide for scholars with boundless ideas and limited budgets.

Dworak 1 Literature Review

Literature Review Use & Users Melody Dworak March 20, 2012

Finding Without Seeking, Or, I’ll Take Some Empathy with that Information, Please:

A Review of the Literature Review on Online Social Support Networks

for Parents of Children with Special Health Care Needs

Introduction

As online social networking sites reach their golden age, people turn to them

to both actively seek and passively find information to enhance their individualized

experiences. People who have experiences that are uncommon in their real world

communities can gain benefits by turning to online communities to build weak ties

and share information. Some parents of children with special health care needs may

be required to stay at home more to care for their children, and online social

networking sites and personal blogs may connect them to others who share their

experiences. Besides such physical isolation, it may not be as easy for parents of

children with disabilities to find parents with similar experiences in their real world

community, as only about six percent of the U.S. population have disabilities.

In order to study how parents of children with disabilities find information

through informal online social networks, the author conducted a review of the

relevant literature such a study must form a foundation on. The author located key

findings in three areas of research: literature on the information behavior and needs

of parents of children with disabilities; literature on the new frontier of online social

network analysis and social media; and literature on health-‐related online support


groups, whether those groups were formed by formal organizations or blossomed

organically. At the center of these overlapping areas lies the heart of this study’s

primary concern.

Information Behavior and Needs of Parents

Parents want to learn from other parents. Adults without children may

appear as less trustworthy information sources due to their lack of personal

experience and ability to verify the accuracy of advice. Several studies confirm that

parents of children with disabilities want to hear from other parents of children

with disabilities, making such like-‐experienced individuals more trustworthy

sources of information and potentially rich sources for empathy. Mackintosh’s 2005

study on the information sources of parents of children with autism found that

parents believed that the best sources were other parents, and that individuals with

lower incomes and socio-‐economic status had fewer information resources.

Mackintosh’s study identified websites as a source of information but did not

identify social media sites explicitly. Statically published websites provide a

controlled flow of information, whereas social media sites provide a space for

Informa(on Behavior and Needs of Parents

of Children with Disabili(es

Online Social Networks

Health-‐Related Online Support

Groups


dynamic interaction and exchange of information in a many-‐to-‐many forum.

Mackintosh’s study also found misinformation was a concern of such parent-‐to-‐

parent exchange of information, with no mediation from authoritative health

information professionals.

Pain (1999) found that personal communication is the preferred method for

information-‐gathering parents of children with disabilities, with one parent stating,

“There was no substitute for real people, written information is nice to have as a

comfort factor, but you really get your information from people, talking face to face

with them” (p. 303). Pain concluded the purposes for information, regardless of

source, were the following: “to enhance management of the child,” where certain

information improves working with the child on a day-‐to-‐day basis (1999, p. 305);

“to help parents cope emotionally,” where empathy from other parents adds

comfort to a diagnosis from an authoritative source; and “to access benefits and

services,” where information shared leads to new opportunities (1999, p. 308).

How do these preferences transform in a world where more and more

personal communication becomes computer-‐mediated? Huber et al. (2005) and

Tillisch (2007) both found the Internet cited as the most common information

source for parents of children with disabilities. Tillisch’s survey of 1,000 parents

found support groups rivaled the Internet for most-‐used sources of information,

with Huber adding that information seeking is greatest at the time of diagnosis.

Personal communication through online social networking may be the next fruitful

place to study information behavior of parents of children with special health care

needs.


Analyzing Computer-Mediated Online Social Networks

As more parents seek information online to help them manage day-‐to-‐day

needs of their child with disabilities, cope emotionally, and find services, the scale of

computer-‐mediated communication and information is growing rapidly. No longer

does the computer-‐mediated role of information provider rest squarely on the

bandwidth of static, one-‐way communicating websites. With the birth of a new

genre, Web 2.0 and social media, online social networking sites such as Twitter

(launched 2006) and Facebook (launched 2004 and opening to the public in 2006)

have spurred computer-‐mediated communication and information sharing into a

new era. Facebook has more than 845 million user accounts (Protalinski, 2012), and

Twitter has more than 300 million user accounts (Taylor, 2011). The people behind

those accounts may not all be active users, but the data amassing on social media

servers is enough for the Library of Congress to enter into an agreement with

Twitter executives to create an archive of all public tweets (Raymond, 2010). Such is

the value of that publicly contributed data—a status update being a unit of data—to

the future of research. Researchers have already begun to conduct empirical studies

on the large-‐scale datasets these online social networking sites can provide. Dodds

et al. (2011) used more than 46 billion words comprising roughly five percent of

tweets posted between September 9, 2008, and September 18, 2011, to determine

the happiest days of the seven-‐day week were Friday through Sunday, the happiest

hour, between 5 and 6 a.m.

Researchers of social networks are also turning their attention to the data

available on social media sites. Huberman et al. (2009) cautions that counting the


mere number of friends and followers does not give an accurate portrayal of

influence, a much-‐debated term among online social networking researchers.

Huberman et al. believes networks hidden among networks can be found by

studying who talks to whom, a metric not easily discoverable through public profiles

alone. Burgess (2009) argues that online social networks can be leveraged to

empower women in learning environments, emphasizing that networking

function—linking people together—to build social capital that facilitates access to

information and resources. Burgess warns against believing online networks escape

established privilege structures, cautioning those wanting to turn to a digital

environment to be mindful of how power reinvents itself online.

Scholars researching information behavior and cultural communication

patterns find the data embedded in online social networking sites to be rich and

informative, as well. Lerman and Ghosh’s study (2010) tracked how information

spreads through Twitter and Digg. Digg, a user-‐submitted news aggregator, became

the “denser” platform for these researchers due to the ease of tracking comments

and measuring popularity of submissions. Digg users vote on stories by clicking a

thumbs-‐up icon or thumbs-‐down icon so visitors to the website can see how each

submission ranks in popularity. Lerman and Ghosh found that network structure

affects the dynamics of how the information flows from one person to the next. Digg

makes following the popularity of posts on the Wild West of Twitter seem like

herding and wrangling cats.

But those retweets can be wrangled. boyd et al. (2010) argue retweeting—

where a post by one Twitter user is seen by another Twitter user and reposted to


the latter user’s profile—can be studied as a conversational practice. The

researchers found that Twitter users retweet posts for specific purposes. The

retweet shows engagement in a conversation and shares information among the

listeners. A retweet in and of itself sends the message that the user is listening. boyd

et al. found the other two purposes for retweeting a post are to indicate agreement

publicly (or publicly to one’s approved list of followers if that user has a private

account) and to validate others’ thoughts. This study of retweeting as a

conversational practice demonstrates that attribution, relationship-‐building, and

community appreciation are important aspects of participating in online social

networks.

Chen (2011) came to a similar conclusion that retweeting acts to mediate

relationships on Twitter. Chen found that the more hours users spent on Twitter,

the greater the need those users had to connect with others. Chen confirmed this

need for “we-‐ness” by participants in online social networks, and that the more

active users were, the more likely they were to also feel connected. Chen’s study

focused on uses and gratification theory (U&G) to explore Twitter users’ need to

connect with others. Psychological needs direct communication goals, according to

Chen’s explanation of U&G theory, which requires purposeful decisions on

participating with communication media. Chen states (2011, p. 757),

U&G focuses on social and psychological needs, which generate

expectations that lead to different patterns of media use to gratify

these needs (Katz et al., 1974). It is important to note that Internet

communication has in some ways nullified the traditional sender-‐


receiver model, which makes using U&G even more relevant to online

media (Ko, 2000). People online can choose what media they want to

use (Singer, 1998) with a simple click of the mouse. They can both

send and receive messages simultaneously through media such as

Twitter.

Which parents of children with disabilities are turning to strangers in online social

networks to satisfy their information, emotional, and psychological needs?

The Beating Heart of It

The third area of literature that informs a study on online social support

networks and information uses by parents of children with disabilities is literature

on health-‐related online support groups. This area does not strictly cover online

social network or the information behavior and needs of parents of children with

disabilities but overlaps them both. This area of research covers any number of

computer-‐mediated communication vehicles (email lists, chat rooms, online

discussion forums, wikis, blogs, or the online social networking sites that have

already been discussed) and different mental or physical special health needs.

Miller (2006) conducted a study on social networking sites focused on

mental health issues like RealMentalHealth.com (now HealthyPlace.com), and found

anonymity and connections with other mothers were among the sites’ benefits.

Miller also stressed that the information on such sites were not a substitute for

professional help; the need to be adept at computers was another limitation. Baum

(2004) focused on Internet Parent Support Groups (IPSGs) and found several

outcomes that affect the well-‐being of care providers of children with special health


care needs. Those benefits included finding people with similar challenges; finding

information and guidance; experiencing anonymity; helping others; venting; and

finding hope, gratitude, and experiencing a change in perspective. Baum’s study

found parents who participated in IPSGs felt empowered, and these parents strongly

recommended the approach to other parents and care givers of children with

special health care needs. The participants in Baum’s study were mostly female and,

like Miller, Baum found that some needed to adapt to computers but such a learning

curve was not impossible to overcome. Trust was also a critical aspect in successful

IPSG experiences. Although ninety percent of Baum’s participants in the study

recommended joining an IPSG as soon as possible, Baum warns against problems

with relying on them exclusively.

Potential dangers include misinformation, expression of intense feelings that

could overwhelm those struggling with pain and fear, different needs related

to different stages of adaptation, untrained people who may offer therapy or

untested products, and occasional pressure to adopt excessive or distorted

group beliefs. (p. 388)

With these warnings taken to heart, Baum found clear support for connecting with

other parents of children with disabilities in an online environment.

Margarlit and Rashkind (2009) performed a content analysis on reactions of

mothers of children with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder as they mourned the potential closing of a website that facilitated online

community support. Their analysis also found the interactions through the site

empowered mothers through information seeking and community support. The


analysis in this study found the mothers believed the following was facilitated

through this site: information shared was valid and reliable, information could be

adapted more easily to their needs, current information and research could be

translated into a format accessible to them, information was validated by personal

experience, and information could provide different perspectives. Their statements

expressed that they benefited from the online community through emotional

support, empathy, companionship and prevention of loneliness, immediate support

and help, privacy and safety, and through the withholding of judgment. The findings

from this area of literature support the need for more research on the use of online

social support networks for parents of children with special health care needs.

Conclusion

These studies overlap around the topic of using an online social network like

Twitter to organically create a community where parents of children with

disabilities may share their information as well as their empathy. No studies were

found to address this subject directly, suggesting a gap in the literature worthy of

study. By gleaning these key findings from the three areas—literature on the

information behavior and needs of parents of children with disabilities; literature on

the new frontier of online social network analysis and social media; and literature

on health-‐related online support groups—such a study could begin to discover how

parents of children with special health care needs find serendipitous information

and build weak ties through social media.


Works Cited

Baum, L. S. (2004). Internet Parent Support Groups for Primary Caregivers of a Child

with Special Health Care Needs. Pediatric Nursing, 30(5), 381-‐401.

boyd, d., Golder, S. & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects

of retweeting on Twitter.” HICSS-‐43. IEEE: Kauai, HI, January 6.

Briceño, A. C., Gospodarowicz, M., & Jadad, A. R. (2008). Fighting cancer with the

internet and social networking. The Lancet Oncology, 9(11), 1037-‐1038.

doi:10.1016/S1470-‐2045(08)70275-‐4

Burgess, K. R. (2009). Social networking technologies as vehicles of support for

women in learning communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 2009(122), 63-‐71. doi:10.1002/ace.335

Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active

Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human

Behavior, 27(2), 755-‐762. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023

Dodds, P. S., Harris, K. D., Kloumann, I. M., Bliss, C. A., & Danforth, C. M. (2011).

Temporal Patterns of Happiness and Information in a Global Social Network:

Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS ONE, 6(12).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026752

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Fang, W. (2009). Social networks that matter:

Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1-‐5). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewA

rticle/2317/2063


Lamberg, L. (2003). Online Empathy for Mood Disorders Patients Turn to Internet

Support Groups. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,

289(23), 3073-‐3077. doi:10.1001/jama.289.23.3073

Lerman, K., & Ghosh, R. (2010). Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the

Spread of News on Digg and Twitter Social Networks. arXiv:1003.2664.

Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2664

Mackintosh, V. H., Myers, B. J., & Goin-‐Kochel, R. P. (2006). Sources of Information

and Support Used by Parents of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Journal On Developmental Disabilities, 12(1), 41-‐52.

Margalit, M., & Raskind, M. H. (2009). Mothers of Children with LD and ADHD:

Empowerment through Online Communication. Journal of Special Education

Technology, 24(1). Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ861045

Miller, J. (2006). Finding Support Online: Parents are Finding Comfort and Support

in Virtual Hugs. Exceptional Parent, 36(10), 42-‐44.

Pain, H. (1999). Coping with a child with disabilities from the parents’ perspective:

the function of information. Child: Care, Health and Development, 25(4), 299-‐

313. doi:10.1046/j.1365-‐2214.1999.00132.x

Protalinski, E. (2012, February 1). Facebook has over 845 million users | ZDNet.

Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-‐has-‐over-‐

845-‐million-‐users/8332

Raymond, Matt. (2010, April 14). Library to acquire ENTIRE Twitter archive -‐-‐ ALL

public tweets, ever, since March 2006! Details to follow. @librarycongress.


microblog, . Retrieved March 19, 2012, from

https://twitter.com/#!/librarycongress/status/12169442690

Taylor, C. (2011, June 27). Social networking “utopia” isn’t coming. CNN. Retrieved

from http://articles.cnn.com/2011-‐06-‐

27/tech/limits.social.networking.taylor_1_twitter-‐users-‐facebook-‐friends-‐

connections?_s=PM:TECH

Tillisch, D. (2007). New Research Provides a Snapshot of Parents with Children Who

Have Special Needs. Exceptional Parent, 37(11), 43-‐44.

Literacy & Learning Midterm 1 Dworak

Literacy & Learning Midterm

November 3, 2011

Melody Dworak

Guiding quote for my term thus far:

The inclination to learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such

that all will learn in the process of living is the finest product of schooling.

—John Dewey in Democracy and Education

Question 1: Among other things, literacy is about social power. Being literate allows people to exercise control and direction over their lives. From the readings this semester, provide an explanation for how that power/literacy connection works. In what ways might libraries and librarians modify their practice to address the concerns that this connection raises?

Literacy’s connection to power has firm historical foundations. Wysocki and

Johnson-‐Eilola elaborate on how the dominant group oppresses the languages and

literacy behaviors of the subordinate, using the rejection of their dominant belief

system as a blessing to slaughter. Their inclusion of the story of Atahaualpa

dropping the Bible to the ground in front of a Spanish missionary, which give the

Spanish a holy order to massacre the Incans, shows this (p. 357). Pawley explains in

the early U.S. colonial period, both boys and girls were taught to read, but only boys

were taught to write (p. 438). Street elaborates, “…it becomes apparent that literacy

can no longer be ,addressed as a neutral technology, as in the reductionist

‘autonomous’ model, but is already a social and ideological practice involving

fundamental aspects of epistemology, power, and politics: the acquisition of literacy

involves challenges to dominant discourses (Lewis), shifts in what constitutes the

agenda of proper literacy (VV einstein-‐Shr; Carmetti; Shuman) and struggles for

power and position (Rockhilt Probst). In this sense, then, literacy practices are

saturated with ideology” (p. 435).

In the present day, we see struggles of power and class play out in

standardized testing data. The No Child Left Behind Act (reauthorization of the


Elementary and Secondary Education Act under President George W. Bush)

mandated disaggregating of NAEP data, which gathers test scores to focus on the

literacy and math achievements, to specifically focus on achievements at the Fourth

and Eighth grade levels—the interims of which are believed to be critical growth

stages. Disaggregating test data was imperative so that schools could no longer hide

non-‐achieving students under an average. It was intended to “shine the light” on

racial disparities in education and in this way became a late-‐20th-‐century Civil

Rights struggle. Brown and Black children are consistently “left behind” their White

peers, and many have pointed to the lack of education as a determining factor in

who will spend time in prison. Davidson and Goldberg state, “Seventy-‐five percent

of those imprisoned tend to be illiterate, earning under $10,000 per year at the time

of arrest” (p. 21). Being convicted of a felony is directly related to one’s

disenfranchisement. What makes this relationship between literacy and power an

extremely troublesome, moral issue is the idea that descendant of slaves are at great

risk being un-‐emancipated, and that the U.S. system of education might be playing a

role in that.

How might school libraries and teacher-‐librarians re-‐imagine their own role

in this mess? The readings from this semester suggest two potential options:

promote learner agency through subverting not-‐learning and binding together with

the learner in the contact zone. According to Kohl, “Not-‐learning and unlearning are

both central techniques that support changes of consciousness and help people

develop positive ways of thinking and speaking in opposition to dominant forms of

oppression. Not-‐learning in particular requires a strong will and an ability to take

the kinds of pressure exerted by people whose power you choose to question” (p.

23). This is a kind of agency for not-‐learners, but not the kind that will allow them to

thrive in the current education system. Teacher-‐librarians cannot take the

traditional authority/subordinate strategies traditionally found in education.

Instead they must re-‐examine motives for not learning and be creative in subverting

the subverter. Kohl did this by manipulating the situation and being shaped by the


not-‐learner’s challenges to be more flexible to the not-‐learner’s needs. They grew to

become allies, bound together in the pursuit of mutual learning.

Being bound together through mutual learning is the condition of the contact

zone. The contact zone is “...social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple

with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as

colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the

world today” (Wolff, p. 4). But each interlocutor is affected by the experiences of the

contact zone. If individuals walk away untouched, they’re burying something deep

within themselves. Teacher-‐librarians can learn to recognize the literate arts of the

contact zone—transculturation, autoethnography, critique, collaboration,

bilingualism, mediation, vernacular expression, parody, denunciation, and

imaginary dialogue (p. 11)—to meet learners up close and in the middle, rather than

be separated by the distance that planes of power enforce.


Question 5: Research in Library and Information Science is traditionally based on a “techno-‐managerial” model. How would you describe that model in practice? The techno-‐managerial model tends to obscure many of the issues related to literacy. How have the readings illustrated this problem? In what ways might libraries and librarians modify their practice if they began to base their knowledge on alternative research paradigms?

Two scholars inform our understanding of the “techno-‐managerial” model of

library practice: Prior and Pawley. We see the techno-‐managerial model in Prior’s

description of structuralism. Structuralism develops the observational perspective,

where scholars can transcend out of the swamp and peer down from the mountain

top. Prior states the structuralist purpose is to create a hierarchy of pieces, which

Pawley describes as “decontextualization.” Prior also points to the rule-‐based

outcomes of the structuralist agenda. And we all know how traditional library

science practice loves rules. One may quickly imagine the following signs being

posted around a library, past or present: “No Talking”; “No Food”; “No Beverages.”

What’s from stopping them from posting a “No Patrons” sign?

Pawley elaborates on the techno-‐managerial model through a discussion of

the relationship between decontextualization and commodification of information.

Libraries once classified books according to their “truthiness”—providing the

preeminent position to those tomes associated with God and the dominant belief

structure. As societies evolved, information became valuable. Decontextualizing

information allowed its pieces to be allocated a certain price based on its place in

the hierarchy of knowledge. Pawley states that the commodification of information

gave libraries a purpose, and organizing those pieces by the alphabet rather than

pious prominence resulted. It was almost a natural evolution.

Stoddard and Lee speak of the librarian as a custodian, a “protector of books”

(p. 9). An authoritarian role such as this facilitates the storage of knowledge in tidy

boxes, it does nothing to facilitate literacy. Pawley links this to the Procrustean

model of having one box that each individual, no matter the culture or background,

must fit into—colloquially known as “forcing a square peg into a round hole.”

Pawley’s Procrustean model has more dire consequences than the more common


idiom, however. In Pawley’s imagery, learners lose pieces of themselves through

violent and harmful means.

Holland and Haraway inform our understanding of what cultural identities

might be cut away through this techno-‐managerial model, and how librarians might

adapt their thinking to promote a more culturally open and communally driven

practice. Holland states, “From a Bakhtinian-‐socio-‐historic perspective, persons

develop through and around the cultural forms by which they are identified, and

identify themselves, in the context of their affiliation or disaffiliation with those

associated with those forms and practices” (p. 33). Rather than forcing learners and

their needs to fit inside a box, this statement gives hope for a more collectively

driven approach. Haraway recognizes the role of situated knowledges and our

construction of knowledge through our identities, which we can apply to the

librarian-‐learner relationship. “Situated knowledge require that the object of

knowledge be pictured as an actor and agent, not a screen or a ground or a resource,

never finally as slave to the master that closes off the dialetic in his unique agency

and authorship” (p. 198). Pawley agrees with this ideal of learner as consumer and

producer, and that librarians can recognize this and strike a balance to supplement

their traditional techno-‐managerial model.

An example that displays such efforts may be seen in the efforts of the Read

Write Library, formerly called the Chicago Underground Library. This is an effort for

a library to go beyond the edgy strategy of accepting folksonomies into its

taxonomical system: It’s working to gather community-‐created and curated

collections within its own digital library (readwritelibrary.org). This initiative is still

in development, but it’s a system with much vision for a library to engage its

community in shaping the identity of its place. This solicitation of collection

materials from the community gives that community direct ownership over its

knowledge.

sample of academic writing

Documents