Librarians’ Preference of Virtual Meeting Platforms

Abstract

Virtual participation in professional organization and other committee meetings outside of one’s home institution continues to increase as time and money for travel to these events decreases. As the profession moves into a model of increased virtual communication, questions arise as to the best platform and tools to be used for the most effective method of communication. This study seeks to determine which platforms are currently being used, which platforms are preferred by organizers and participants and which platforms will best serve the needs of the committee. Results of this study on preferences for virtual platforms can help individuals and organizations make decisions on the best tools for this method of communication. Introduction The ability to communicate with colleagues has changed drastically with the advent of new technologies. Meetings that were once only held face to face can now include members from different locations and time zones. While teleconferencing allowed for communication across locations and time zones, videoconferencing and web conferencing have provided for more robust interactions with images of attendees and features such as document and screen sharing. Current conferencing platforms provide as close to a face to face experience as technologically possible. The videoconferencing platforms of today are quite different than the first one, dubbed the Picturephone, introduced at the 1964 World’s Fair by the AT&T Corporation (Sprey 42). Affordability and practicality limited the widespread distribution of this technology, which did eventually become more affordable and more widely used during the 1980’s. During the 1990’s, videoconferencing became even more affordable and widely used, especially with the introduction of desktop video systems (Sprey 42). The 2000’s show even greater adoptions of these technologies as meetings go beyond desktops to mobile devices and applications. Videoconferencing can be broadly defined by as “two or more remote locations engaging in face to face communications” (Sprey 41). While this definition reflects the technology of the time the article was written, it still applies to today’s internet videoconferencing, or web conferencing. The videoconferencing platforms reviewed in this study all provide the ability to have more than two remote locations connect with face to face communications. Many of these platforms provide additional features which include the ability to share screens and collaborate on documents. These platforms provide a great opportunity for libraries to collaborate and communicate, especially in regards to group and committee work outside one’s institution. Decreased travel funds, scheduling and time away from the office all contribute to a need to strengthen virtual participation in library organization committees. As co-chairs of a committee which traditionally met in person at conference, the authors sought alternatives to this due to their own travel limitations as well as those of the other committee members. In using a specific means of virtual communication (Google Hangouts), the authors began to wonder what other tools were being used to meet virtually and whether there was a strong preference of virtual communication within the profession. Identifying what platforms are being used for professional communication that does not take place face-to-face is important in determining whether the current tools are meeting the needs of the groups and committees. This study seeks to identify preferences and perhaps even determine, or at least suggest consistency of use within the profession. With so many platforms available, this study seeks to identify those which will be most useful and valuable to librarians in their library committee work. The results of this study might suggest that library organizations should consider focusing on specific virtual platforms in order to accommodate a variety of needs for committee work.