This is a preprint of a chapter accepted for publication by Facet Publishing.

It has been taken

from the author’s original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive version of this
piece may be found in The Social Future of Academic Libraries: New Perspectives on
Communities, Networks, and Engagement (pp. 3-33), edited by Tim Schlak, Sheila Corrall
and Paul J. Bracke (Facet, London, ISBN 978-1-78330-471-4), which can be purchased from
www.facetpublishing.co.uk/socialfuture (or www.alastore.ala.org/socialfuture for customers
in North America).

The Social Turn in Communities, Professions and the Economy

Sheila Corrall

‘People participate through and within communities: participatory culture

requires us to move beyond a focus on individualized personal expression; it
is about an ethos of “doing it together” in addition to “doing it yourself”’
(Jenkins, Ito & boyd 2016, p. 181)

Introduction

The social life of academic libraries is the product of a dynamic operating environment and
subject to multiple influences, particularly from the higher education sector and institutions
where they reside, but also from their local communities, professional networks, the global
economy and civil society. The argument we advance in this book is that the social changes
taking place in universities and colleges in the 21st century demand a radical rethinking of
the mission and business philosophy of libraries in higher education to shift the focus of
academic librarians from managing collections and delivering services to growing assets,
building networks, cultivating relationships and developing communities. Forward-looking
practitioners have recognised the need for change and have been exploring new roles,
experimenting with new practices and examining their value and impact. But such work is
often performed at the periphery of library life, it takes a long time to move centre-stage
and even longer to become embedded in everyday operations and organisation culture.

We argue that the new social context not only requires us to do new things, it requires new
thinking at every level, including a future-present strategy mindset and the disposition to
consider library-society links simultaneously from outside-in and inside-out perspectives.
We need to understand the social influences that are changing the shape of our institutions
as well as the social impacts that our activities are having on both our local community and
society at large so that we can create shared value through policies and practices that
provide meaningful all-round benefits to all our stakeholders. We have a duty of care to the
people who work in, with and for libraries, to the people we serve directly every day and
also to the whole population now and in the future in the connected global environment.
 2

Our central thesis is that the complex pluralist context of the 21st century necessitates the
use of multiple perspectives to resolve the social problems facing libraries and librarians
today and tomorrow. We contend that intellectual and social capital concepts and theories
offer our profession models and tools that help us see things differently, gain critical insights
and respond to the challenges presented with reflexive engagement and purposeful action.

We therefore begin our inquiry into the social future of academic libraries not with a review
of the past and present library landscape, but with a survey of key ideas, concepts and
theories shaping the way individuals, groups and organisations are behaving, interacting and
relating to others in their personal, social and professional lives, by way of introducing the
‘social turn’ in the world around us. Informed by an environmental scan and
multidisciplinary literature, our focus is the current century, supported by seminal work
from the 1990s and earlier as needed, covering both scholarly and practitioner material.
While libraries are not at the centre of our survey, we connect the narrative to our own field
by showing how the practices described are playing out in libraries and the academy. The
chapter is organised around key themes emerging from the literature, representing distinct
but overlapping trends in thinking and practice.

We start with the culture of participation and ‘online sociality’ emerging in the 1990s that
became a mass movement in the early 2000s with the development of Web 2.0
technologies and social media facilitating disruptive practices such as DIY publishing,
crowdsourcing and ‘working out loud’ (WOL). We next look at how participatory practices
and power shifts have played out in professional domains such as healthcare and journalism
in the ‘apomediated’ 2.0 environment, resulting in blurry boundaries and role ambiguities as
modes of operation evolve and the social responsibilities, obligations and aspirations of
professionals are redefined. We then move to the business world where corporate social
responsibility has been successively reconceptualised as social responsiveness, societal
relationships, social integration and shared value, with ethical obligation, stakeholder
participation and cross-boundary collaboration invoked to support pressure for
sustainability management.

The final part of the chapter brings together threads from disparate discussions to
reconceptualise social roles and responsibilities through a ‘multicapitalist’ lens, synthesising
and extending frameworks developed in recent decades to reform capitalism and promote
sustainability. Building particularly on the work of British environmentalists (Forum for the
Future) and Spanish organisation theorists (Intellectus Forum), we present a composite
relational capital-based model that integrates forward thinking around capitalism,
environmentalism, intangible assets, business ethics and context-based sustainability. The
model encapsulates current arguments for integrating social perspectives into corporate
strategy by viewing ‘resources in action’ through a holistic lens and illuminating the
interconnections and interdependencies between different kinds of capital assets.
Significantly, it sets the concept of social capital in context and reframes all types of
organisations as social enterprises united in a broader view of value creation.
 3

Participatory culture and online sociality

The origins of the current culture of participation go back to the 1980s when home
computers became commonplace and social researchers explored issues such as
contribution, collaboration and collective knowledge. The concept is generally attributed to
American scholar Henry Jenkins, who introduced the term in his 1992 book Textual
poachers, but its realisation in practice is particularly associated with developments in
networking technologies, Internet access and online services over the following decade.
Other seminal work includes Manuel Castells’s (1996) vision of the ‘network society’
transforming work, learning and play through decentralised participatory networks; Howard
Rheingold’s (1987; 1993) concept of The virtual community as an emergent form of ‘online
sociality’ or ‘online socializing’, expanding and changing the notion of ‘community’ to
accommodate ‘webs of personal relationships in cyberspace’; and Tim O’Reilly’s (2005)
conceptualisation of a new generation of interactive collaborative technologies as Web 2.0.

Delwiche and Henderson (2013 pp. 4-7) describe four phases of participatory culture from
the mid-1980s to 2011, each linked with key socio-technical moves and seminal concepts:
• Emergence (1985-1993), with the advent of personal computing and the idea of
individuals as producers (active users) as well as consumers (passive users) of
content/information, later characterised as ‘prosumption’ and ‘produsage’ (Bruns 2013);
• Waking up to the web (1994-1998), with web browsers and Internet search engines,
invention of the wiki, arrival of online shopping, and the evolution of 1960s ‘hacker
culture’ into the Open Source Initiative and collaborative software development
(O’Reilly 1999);
• Push-button publishing (1999-2004), with user-friendly web authoring/publishing,
content hosting via multi-user blogging software and social networking services enabling
people to share, annotate, publish and remix digital media, exemplified by commons-
based peer production models, such as Wikipedia (Benkler 2005);
• Ubiquitous connections (2005-2011), with widespread broadband Internet connectivity,
the launch of video hosting and streaming sites, and mobile/handheld devices enabling
multimedia/cross-media/transmedia publishing, illustrated by Jenkins’s (2010) concept
of transmedia storytelling and Howe’s (2006) notion of ‘crowdsourcing’ as a creative
collaborative low-cost alternative to outsourcing.

Jenkins used the participatory culture label to capture shifts in the contemporary media
environment, particularly changes in interactions among consumers of popular culture,
between consumers and texts (books, films, etc.) and between consumers and producers,
which blurred the boundaries between cultural actors, actions and artefacts, so
‘Consumption becomes production; reading becomes writing; [and] spectator culture
becomes participatory culture’ (Jenkins 2006b, p. 60). For Jenkins (2006a, p. 290),
participatory culture is thus ‘Culture in which... consumers are invited to actively participate
in the creation and circulation of new content’, thereby producing new texts, new cultures
and new communities. He elaborated the concept in a widely cited study on digital media
and learning for the MacArthur Foundation:
 4

‘a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic

engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and
some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most
experienced is passed along to novices’ and ‘in which members believe their
contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one
another’ (Jenkins et al. 2006, p. 3).

An essay originally published in 2000 (Jenkins 2006b) positions the new culture at the
intersection of three key developments:
• new tools and technologies enabling consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and
recirculate media content faster and farther via global networks;
• emerging knowledge subcultures promoting DIY (do-it-yourself) media production and
distribution and influencing consumer use of such tools;
• evolving media economies encouraging the flow of images, ideas and narratives across
multiple channels and demanding more active modes of spectatorship.

Jenkins consistently emphasises that while computer networks and interactive technologies
have enabled the new culture to emerge, it is the changing interactive practices and
particularly the changed relations between consumers and producers that determine the
change in culture, rather than technologies. Media conglomerates continue to be powerful
players in the knowledge economy, but ‘audiences are gaining greater power and autonomy
as they enter into the new knowledge culture. The interactive audience is more than a
marketing concept...’ (Jenkins 2006b, p. 136). Another important dimension is the emphasis
on collective above individual agency, highlighted in his work on media literacies, which are
repeatedly described as ‘social skills and cultural competencies’ (Jenkins 2014; Jenkins et al.
2006, emphasis added).

Participating through projects

Crowdsourcing is the classic example of participatory culture as a transformative practice
rapidly taken up by all kinds of organisations and individuals, notably in museums and
libraries to add value to special collections, reference services and even graphic design
(Carletti et al. 2013; Douglas & Becker 2015; Severson & Sauvé 2019; Stonebraker & Zhang
2016). Howe (2008b, p. 47) originally defined the concept as ‘the act of taking a job once
performed by employees and outsourcing it to a large, undefined group of people via an
open call, generally over the Internet’, while Brabham (2013 p. xix) promotes a problem-
centric conception, defining crowdsourcing as ‘an online, distributed problem-solving and
production model that leverages the collective intelligence of online communities to serve
specific organizational goals’. Brabham (2013 p. xxi) argues crowdsourcing is essentially a
power-sharing model:
‘the locus of control regarding the creative production of goods and ideas
exists between the organization and the public, a shared process of bottom-
up, open creation by the crowd and top-down management by those charged
with serving an organization’s strategic interests’.

This differs from open-source software production (such as Linux) and commons-based peer
production (like Wikipedia), which are both bottom-up, self-organising/self-governing
 5

processes, where control is distributed among participants in a third model distinct from
firm-based and market-based production. Scholars have categorised crowdsourced projects
according to the functions fulfilled, activities undertaken and participant characteristics.
Howe (2008a) defines four basic types of crowdsourcing based on what the crowd
contributes: crowd wisdom, crowd creation, crowd voting and crowd funding. In contrast,
Brabham (2013 pp. 44-45) proposes a four-way typology that relates the types of tasks
performed to the kinds of problems to be solved:
• knowledge discovery and management – finding and collecting information;
• broadcast search – solving empirical problems;
• peer-vetted creative production – creating and selecting ideas; and
• distributed-human-intelligence tasking – analysing large-scale data.

In the context of e-learning in academic libraries, Stonebraker and Zhang (2016, p. 163)
describe crowdsourcing as ‘an instructional technology that is intentionally designed to be
disruptive to the status quo of reference service’ and suggest four methods for
crowdsourcing (open course, closed course, open expert and closed expert), the choice
depending on library goals for community building and user engagement.

Whatever the focus, crowdsourcing represents a radically new way of working

participatively by moving existing practices of co-operation, aggregation, teamwork and
consensus to an altogether different level. Kelty et al. (2015) used a multidisciplinary
literature review and 102 case studies of contemporary participatory projects enabled by
the Internet and mobile or social media technologies to clarify what ‘participation’ means in
practice. They identified seven distinct aspects of participation, which can be used as a
framework for evaluation and design of participatory initiatives. The key message here is
that ‘participation is not a simple either/or parameter...it is not its presence or absence that
is important, but the configuration of dimensions which render it “participatory”’ (Kelty et
al. 2015, p. 485). Box 1.1 summarises the seven dimensions.

1. Educational dividend – learning gained from participation, particularly learning

how to participate effectively.
2. Decisional involvement – contributing to decision-making and goal-setting in
addition to undertaking tasks.
3. Resource control – participant ownership and use of resources resulting from
their participation.
4. Exit conditions – right to leave a project without penalty and with resources.
5. Effective voice – mechanisms for participants to ‘speak back’ with influence and
without retribution.
6. Visible metrics – transparent demonstration to participants of their contributions
to collective outcomes.
7. Collective experience – affective, communicative capacity, including sociability
and a sense of belonging.

Box 1.1. Seven dimensions of highly participative projects

(adapted from Kelty et al. 2015)
 6

Working out loud

Web 2.0 tools are also shifting the everyday practices of individual workers towards more
interaction and collaboration within and beyond their workplace, enabling people to form
new personal and professional relationships and (perhaps counterintuitively) to become
more productive and innovative as a result of their online socialising. This trend is
exemplified by the Working Out Loud (WOL) movement, also known as narrating or showing
your work, observable work, and making work visible and discoverable (Bozarth 2014;
Margaryan et al. 2015; Stepper 2015; Williams 2010). WOL was originally characterised as a
dual construct, Observable Work + Narrating Your Work, or ‘creating/modifying/storing
your work in places that others can see it, follow it and contribute to it IN PROCESS’ and
‘journaling (blogging, microblogging, etc.) what you are doing in an open way for those
interested to find and follow’ (Williams 2010, para. 3-4). The practice has subsequently been
elaborated and promoted by John Stepper (2016; 2020) via blog posts, free guides, videos
and a book; his concept of WOL circles (small confidential peer-support groups) has been
implemented in more than 60 countries.

Stepper’s (2016) WOL model has five elements, expanding significantly on the simple
formula promoted by Bryce Williams (2010). Visible work remains central to the model, but
a subtle reordering in 2016 placed it below Relationships (building a social network) and
Generosity (framing posts as contributions), shifting the emphasis from sharing work to
developing relationships. The fourth and fifth elements have also evolved from making work
better and making it purposeful to Purposeful discovery and A growth mindset. Stepper
describes how working in ‘a more open, connected way’ helps people feel more
empowered, access more opportunities and become more effective, taking advantage of
feedback given and received, relationships and collaborations formed, and knowledge and
learning gained. He contrasts the self-promotion that often motivates social networking
with the reciprocal altruism that informs his model.

Both Stepper and Bozarth (2014) promote WOL as a practice that benefits both individuals
and organisations. Showing your work (or, more specifically, showing workflow) can create
dialogue and get feedback and help for individuals, saving time and stopping reinvention; it
can improve learning and practice through reflection and explaining to others; establish
credibility/expertise through portfolio building; and ultimately strengthen performance and
enhance careers (Bozarth 2014, pp. 30-49). For organisations, WOL can enhance
communication and break down silos, build trust in leaders and raise worker morale,
preserve institutional knowledge and locate individual talent, increase operational efficiency
and capacity for innovation, improve customer service and public perception, and support
organisational learning, particularly learning from mistakes (Bozarth 2014, pp. 12-29).

In one of the few scholarly studies of WOL, Sergi and Bonneau (2016, p. 379) characterise it
as ‘a communicative practice...that blends talk and text in an interesting way’. Despite
limiting their focus to microblogging (Twitter), their analysis reveals a rich repertoire of
practices, categorised as six distinct multi-faceted forms confirming the methods advocated
by WOL proponents. Box 1.2 presents their six categories with typical practices.
 7

1. Exposing – showing work in progress, including problems and feedback received.

2. Contextualising – supplying background, such as work setting and worker status.
3. Documenting – reporting tasks completed, methods used and plans for projects.
4. Teaching – offering solutions to problems, lessons learned and best practices.
5. Expressing – sharing positive or negative emotions and feelings about work.
6. Thinking reflectively – stepping back and communicating inner reflections-in-
action and reflections-on-action.

Box 1.2. Six forms of Working Out Loud

(adapted from Sergi & Bonneau 2016)

Sergi and Bonneau (2016, pp. 396, 398) demonstrate how even very short posts ‘have the
potential to open up conversations, foster interactions, and establish relations’ and, more
significantly, beyond the specific actions produced by WOL tweets, ‘they also have the
potential to contribute to the performance of two things: the work being accomplished and
the professional identity of the person who is working out loud’. Their conclusion again
places relationships at the centre of emergent work practices, and also highlights the
blurring and merging of the personal, professional and organisational in contemporary
online social interactions:
‘starting from the individualised practice of working out loud...we suggest
that conversations can arise from tweets, that these conversations can create
relationships, and that these personal relationships can evolve into
professional ties, moving from transient and circumstantial interactions to
more formalised collaborative agreements. These agreements can give rise to
projects, and at the moment that such a collaboration (what ‘we’ do
together) becomes a common project (‘it’), we witness the birth of a
temporary or even more permanent organisation’ (Sergi & Bonneau 2016, p.
399).

There are obvious parallels here with the move towards open pedagogy (Hegarty 2015) and
open notebook science (Clinio & Albagli 2017) in higher education, as well as echoes of the
computer-supported cooperative work movement of the 1980s, the communities of
practice concept in the 1990s (Brown & Duguid 1991; Wenger 1999) and related concepts of
faculty learning communities (Cox, 1999) and personal learning networks (Cooke 2012;
Siemens 2005; Warlick 2009) in education, in addition to the open innovation paradigm of
the 2000s (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West 2006). In academic libraries, WOL and
related practices are evident in librarians using blogs, Twitter and other Web 2.0 tools for
online interaction with users and peers to update learning, share knowledge, test ideas and
get feedback on services and research, and to engage in academic/social networking,
professional conversation and political debate (Dalton, Kouke & O'Connor 2016; Jackson-
Brown 2013; Mi 2015; Stranack 2012).

Citizen-practitioners 2.0 and social professionals

The original concept of participation has been developed, reinterpreted and relabelled by
Jenkins and others in various domains, notably politics (civic engagement, open
 8

government, Government 2.0, participatory activism), the arts (collaborative digital poetry,
participatory design), journalism (citizen/open-source/participatory journalism), education
(connected learning, participatory pedagogy), science (citizen/crowd/participatory/open
science, Science 2.0), health (Health/Medicine 2.0, participatory medicine, patient
engagement), business (employee involvement, Enterprise 2.0, participative management,
worker participation) and also libraries (Library 2.0, participatory librarianship). Like Jenkins,
other scholars acknowledge the role of Web 2.0 technologies and tools in facilitating and
accelerating public/community participation, but consider them less significant than the
principles and values they represent, such as collaboration, contribution and co-creation.
Librarians also see technology as ‘a means to an end and not the end in itself’ with
interpersonal attributes (especially facilitation skills) the key competency requirement for
Librarian 2.0 (Lankes, Silverstein & Nicholson 2007; Partridge, Lee & Munro 2010, p. 325).

Academic Library 2.0 is essentially open, interactive, convergent and collaborative in

addition to being participatory and dynamic – not only user-centred, but distinctively ‘user
originated, socially rich, multimedia enabled and communally innovative’ (Maness 2006; Xu,
Ouyang & Chu 2009, p. 328). For example, library services could be originated from users in
an environment where library users ‘answer reference questions with self-created wiki
entries’, utilising collective intelligence (Xu, Ouyang & Chu 2009, p. 328). In practice, libraries
have deployed a range of locally-built, community-sourced and proprietary systems to
facilitate user-friendly crowdsourced reference services, including the CrowdAsk system
developed at Purdue University and Q&A sites like Quora and StackExchange, as well as
existing institutional systems such as Sharepoint or Piazza, which can be embedded in a
course management system/virtual learning environment (Stonebraker & Zhang 2016).
Significantly, Maness (2006, Library 2.0, para. 4) argues, ‘as communities change, libraries …
must allow users to change the library’. The participatory library is thus ‘much more than a
place, [it] is a community of users working together’ (Stonebraker & Zhang 2016, p. 163).

Commentators also highlight the different levels of participation (and power) represented
by variant uses of the ‘participatory’ label within and across domains, and the varying
meanings given to ‘participation’ and other terms. As Kelty et al. (2015, pp. 474-475)
observe, ‘In some cases the concept of participation is confounded with democracy or
democratization, and in places it is used interchangeably with cooperation, collaboration,
engagement, or access’. Outing (2005) describes 11 ‘layers’ of citizen journalism,
representing varying levels of editorial control over content, while Ferguson (2007, pp. 8-9)
elaborates four levels of empowerment for e-patients (Accepting, Informed, Involved and
In-Control) based on patient attitudes towards their physicians and the severity of their
condition, with the latter tending to drive networked patients from medical passivity to
medical autonomy.

Fumagalli et al. (2015, pp. 384-385) discuss the multiple and overlapping meanings of
terminology in participatory medicine, describing the ‘explosion of terms’ – empowerment,
engagement, enablement, involvement and activation, as well as participation – variously
treated as synonyms, antonyms or unrelated concepts. Thus patient empowerment can be
interpreted as a process, an emergent state, or a participative behaviour. Their concept map
clarifies distinctions and relationships between terms, which they also summarise in a
composite definition of empowerment potentially transferable to other areas:
 9

Patient empowerment is the acquisition of motivation (self-awareness and

attitude through engagement) and ability (skills and knowledge through
enablement) that patients might use to be involved or participate in decision-
making, thus creating an opportunity for higher levels of power in their
relationship with professionals (Fumagalli et al. 2015, p. 390, emphasis
added).

Eysenbach (2008) elaborates five major aspects of the Web 2.0 environment in medicine
and health care generalisable to other domains: social networking, collaboration,
participation, apomediation and openness (contrasted with traditional ‘hierarchical, closed
structures’). Apomediation is a key feature, representing a ‘third way’ between human
intermediation and disintermediation that provides guidance for users via ‘networked
collaborative filtering processes’ from agents (people or tools) operating in stand-by mode,
rather than gatekeepers/middlemen standing between information and consumer. Specific
issues arising include: the autonomy, empowerment, and emancipation of information
seekers; the shift in information behaviour from consumption to prosumption/co-
production, from simple to complex (individual and group) interactions, and from upstream
(top-down) to downstream (bottom-up) filtering as quality assurance; also the shift to more
informal learning through participation, application and information production, with
implications for cognitive load and information literacy.

In the library world, Kwanya, Stilwell and Underwood (2015) identify apomediation as a
defining characteristic of Library 3.0, an evolution of Library 2.0 that is also characterised as
intelligent, organised, federated and personalised. Table 1.1 draws selectively on their
comprehensive comparison of evolving library service models to illustrate the trajectory of
successive generations of web-based library models, showing how conceptions of the
participatory library based on the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ (collective intelligence) are moving
towards a more nuanced understanding of user-led service based on the ‘wisdom of the
expert’ (selective intelligence), where experienced/expert users, professional/technical
expertise and intelligent systems/agents can be brought into play and ‘provide cues and
meta-information which enable information users to navigate the infosphere and locate
credible information’ (Kwanya, Stilwell & Underwood 2015, p. 76).

Apomediation has potential to empower information users without totally disempowering

information professionals: users are in control of their information choices, they can opt to
use systems designed by professionals to offer ‘expert’ guidance at the ‘point of failure’, but
crucially apomediaries have no direct power over the information or its use by individuals.

Democratising the professions

Just as the roles of citizens are changing in relation to their health, news-gathering, scientific
research and other domains, so too are the roles and responsibilities of professionals in
domains where members of the public are engaging and participating in their work. Terms
such as civic, democratic, public and social journalists are used to signal new professional
practices associated with the participatory journalism movement (Dzur 2002; Hedman &
Djerf-Pierre 2013; Singer 2012a; Voakes 1999). While later discussions emphasise the use of
social media, earlier contributions predate Web 2.0 and focus on changing conceptions of
journalism’s role in society, particularly in relation to their local communities.
Table 1.1. Evolving features of participatory library models
(adapted from Kwanya, Stilwell & Underwood 2015, p. 81)

Library 0.0 Library 1.0 Library 2.0 Library 3.0

Oral ‘web’ Read-only web Social web Semantic web
Network of persons Network of webpages Network of links Network of data
Custodian mediation Intermediation Disintermediation Apomediation
Individual intelligence Professional intelligence Collective intelligence Selective intelligence
Sacrosanct environment Sacred environment Communal environment Personalised environment
Just-in-case acquisition Just-in-case acquisition Just-in-time acquisition Just-for-you acquisition
Paper-based materials Hybrid libraries Electronic resources Digital artefacts
Page thumbing Web crawling Dumb searching Smart searching

Voakes (1999, p. 757) characterises civic journalism as ‘bound up with the public life of a community’ with ‘an obligation to engage citizens
with their communities’, manifest in four emergent practices: reinvigoration of public life, information for public judgement, facilitation of
public discourse, and attention to citizens’ concerns. Dzur (2002, p. 316) similarly sees a rethinking of ‘what counts as news’ with a shift to
longer-term issues (such as the environment) and the promotion of community dialogue. Observing that ‘Public journalism departs from
traditional reporting practices by advocating public listening in newsgathering, by producing purposeful news and by encouraging public
debate’, he also refers to ‘joint ownership of the newsmaking, newsgathering and reporting process’, with news becoming a ‘co-creation of
journalists and the people’ as citizens engage with members of the press during focus groups or community meetings and also ‘make news
through interviews and contributions to informational commons pages’ (Dzur 2002, pp. 315, 318). Singer (2012a, p. 3) describes social
journalism as ‘a form of the craft that is more self-consciously open and participatory’ and as ‘work done by journalists within the social
network that constitutes the contemporary media universe’ – work taking place on and around websites, blogs and social networking
platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Hedman and Djerf-Pierre (2013) use the term social journalist specifically for one who uses
social media, emphasising the increased audience interaction, collaboration and
transparency/openness facilitated by the new tools, while also noting their extensive use for
traditional tasks of environmental scanning and information gathering. The continuous
blurring of boundaries resulting from social media is a key theme, including blurring of
professional/public and personal/private lives, and blurring of lines between producers and
consumers of media content, generating questions about professional identities and
relationships, and ‘an increased demand for professional journalism to relate not only to
audience participation and citizen journalism but also to publicly justify itself, its norms and
its practices relative to the “nonprofessionals” and the general public’ (Hedman & Djerf-
Pierre 2013, p. 371).

Singer (2012b) characterises the challenges as social pressures coming simultaneously from
two directions: ‘outside-in’ pressures when everyone outside the newsroom is potentially
both a source of information and a contributor/producer/publisher of news, views, photos,
etc. (user-generated content); and ‘inside-out’ pressures where journalists are expected to
reach out and socialise with the public in a way that is both personally engaging and
professionally acceptable. Both types of pressure have resulted in news organisations
issuing expanded guidance to deal with ethical and legal concerns surrounding the new
ways of working. Significantly, the ‘outside-in and inside-out’ characterisation of the
paradigm shift for professional practice here is now gaining traction in the library world
(Dahl 2018; Dempsey 2012; 2016; Ovenden 2018).

Gruen, Pearson and Brennan (2004) use the term ‘physician-citizen’ to signal a rethinking of
the public roles and professional obligations of medical practitioners beyond their regular
practice settings, emphasising their responsibility to raise public awareness about
socioeconomic issues affecting people’s health and work with others to solve problems in
their communities, arguing that engagement, advocacy, participation, outreach and
collective action must become mainstream activities for physicians. Following an open-
ended definition of physicians’ public roles as ‘advocacy for and participation in improving
the aspects of communities that affect the health of individuals’ (Gruen, Pearson & Brennan
2004, p. 94), they provide a more nuanced discussion of how such roles could be realised in
practice, supported by a conceptual model differentiating professional obligations and
professional aspirations in relation to environmental influences on health. A survey
confirmed the importance of three evolving public roles – community participation,
collective advocacy and (to a lesser extent) political involvement – with broad consensus on
the scope and limits of responsibilities (Gruen, Campbell & Blumenthal, 2006).

The Gruen, Pearson and Brennan (2004, p. 95) model arguably has applicability beyond the
medical profession as a way of conceptualising possible boundaries for the social
responsibilities of professionals assuming expanded public roles in a modern participatory
civil society. Figure 1.1 adapts their model with minor amendments to wording: the shaded
areas represent core/central professional obligations and the unshaded areas are
designated professional aspirations, as areas of concern or social goals that form part of a
larger public agenda to be pursued with other citizens. However, realisation of the model
depends on promotion of ‘the skills and attitudes of good citizenship’ in professional
education (and practice).
 12

Figure 1.1. Environmental influences on professional social responsibilities

(adapted from Gruen, Pearson & Brennan 2004, p. 95)

Building on his earlier discussion of public/democratic journalism, Dzur (2004, p. 6) applies

the term democratic professional to other professions (doctors, lawyers and teachers) that
have recognised their civic roles and their ‘democratic responsibilities – to enable rather
than disable citizen participation within their spheres of professional authority’. His
conception of democratic professionalism emphasises the political dividends of a shift from
task-monopoly to task-sharing through lay participation that moves beyond raising public
awareness to facilitating citizen engagement, public competence and political socialisation.
More controversially, Dzur (2004, p. 12) also suggests the label democratic professional
‘might also characterize citizens who participate in previously expert or professionally
dominated domains’, taking the sharing of knowledge, authority and power to another level
and highlighting further blurring of boundaries between citizen practitioners and
civic/public professionals. While Gruen et al. (2004; 2006) emphasise collective
advocacy/action for public purposes through professional organisations, Dzur’s (2004)
model involves citizens directly in collective deliberation, decision-making and action –
professionals working not only for citizens, but with citizens.

Dzur (2018) argues that in our complex, fast-paced society, the traditional ‘social trustee’
model of managerial, paternalistic, technocratic professionalism needs to evolve into a
more collaborative working relationship with society, which combines and blends the
specialist expertise of professionals with the knowledge and agency of citizens to help lay
people manage their personal and collective affairs. He criticises the anti-professionialism
represented by the ‘radical critique’ of professional power from the 1960s that challenged
technocratic monopolies without advancing viable alternatives, advocating instead a
constructive power-sharing model of ‘democratic professionalism oriented toward public
capability’, whereby professionals ‘aim to understand the world of the patient, the offender,
the client, the student, and the citizen on their terms – and then work collaboratively on
common problems’ (Dzur 2018, p. 15).

Dzur’s (2018) model represents a middle ground between the traditional and radical
positions, reinterpreting the social roles and responsibilities of professionals by widening
 13

access to specialist knowledge and participation in knowledge creation, but also requiring a
radical shift to a co-operation and partnership model predicated on exchange of ideas and
co-direction of services. Like Gruen, Pearson and Brennan (2004), Dzur (2018, p. 68) flags
the need to reform professional education to incorporate the ‘different modes of task-
sharing, collaboration, coownership and democratic divisions of labor’ that characterise the
daily work of innovative practitioners in the field, echoing Singer (2012b) in suggesting the
need for ‘in-reach’ of ideas and best practices from the community into the university, in
contrast to existing ‘public outreach’ models that assume knowledge flows in the opposite
direction.

Dzur (2019) has also discussed how his model could be enacted in universities, by adopting
a more participatory culture where administrators share power with faculty and faculty
involve students in co-producing their own education as democratic professionals. There
are parallels here with the emergent ‘students as partners’ movement in higher education
and academic libraries (see Chapter 3), which advocates the sharing of tasks, knowledge and
power with students across multiple domains (Healey, Flint & Harrington 2016; Salisbury,
Dollinger & Vanderlelie 2020). Saltmarsh (2017, p. 4) links democratic professionalism in
higher education to the renewed outward-looking focus on community engagement, which
he sees as part of a larger pervasive collaborative turn in society, representing a disruptive
shift in both practice and thinking that acknowledges the new realities of the 21st century
and ‘runs counter to the dominant culture of the academy which privileges specialized
expertise above all else’. Earlier, in academic librarianship, Shuler (1996, p. 424) uses the
emergent principles of public/civic journalism to provide a blueprint for reinventing
government information librarians as civic librarians, while Kelley (2008) describes how
exploring social software gave her a new professional identity as a social librarian.

Such language is more often used in public libraries, although the Web/Library 2.0/3.0 has
arguably moved the whole profession closer to a social democratic model. However, in
Kenya, library researchers have adopted the term citizen librarian for ‘the involvement of
ordinary library users to create, review and share library services and content’ and ‘to
perform roles which were conventionally reserved for librarians’, facilitated by the use of
‘citizen (social) media’ (Gikunju, Nyamato-Kwenda & Kwanya 2019, pp. 109, 111). They
anchor their concept of citizen librarianship in the involvement of non-experts/lay-people in
citizen science and citizen journalism, but also link it to the Library 2.0 paradigm, though
their survey found limited engagement with these practices among university libraries.

Corporate responsibility and sustainable development

The idea that businesses and other private-sector organisations have ‘an obligation to
be socially responsible’ and ‘provide “service” beyond profits’ or more specifically ‘to
work for social betterment’ (Frederick 1994, p. 151) has been accepted for more than 50
years and formally acknowledged in the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR),
although understandings of what that means in practice have expanded in line with
changes in social values and priorities. In the second half of the 20th century, thinking
and practice around CSR evolved from vague notions of public purpose, good citizenship
and the like to more active interpretations of the concept as corporate social
 14

responsiveness (Ackerman 1973) or ‘the capacity of a corporation to respond to social

pressures’, thus moving from a philosophical ideal to a managerial requirement, in
particular ‘the ability to manage the company’s relations with various social groups’
(Frederick 1994, p. 156).

Key drivers here included significant social legislation of the 1970s in the USA (and in the
UK and other countries) covering areas such as equal employment opportunities,
occupational health and safety, and environmental protection, in turn a response to
efforts of social activist groups in the 1960s (Carroll 1991). Related movements in
management and organisation behaviour include business ethics (De George 1987) and
stakeholder analysis/management as the role of stakeholders in decision making shifted
from influence towards participation (Freeman & Reed, 1983). Other terms in the
literature of the period include corporate social policy and corporate social performance
(CSP). Wood (1991, p. 691) suggests CSP ‘can provide a coherent framework for the field
of business and society’ by synthesising apparently competing ideas and perspectives
into a definition that integrates different dimensions of organisational behaviour and
also illustrates how CSR/CSP is essentially about social relationships:
‘a business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility,
processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable
outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships’ (Wood 1991, p.
693, emphasis added).

Frederick (2018, p. 9) defines five ‘distinct, though overlapping CSR meanings’ as

evolutionary stages or phases, in which the focus shifted in turn from balancing profits
with philanthropy (1950s-1960s) through responding to social demands (1960s-1970s),
fostering an ethical culture (1980s-1990s), achieving planetary sustainability (1990s-
2000s) and adapting to contemporary global challenges (2000s-). Note that the new
focal concerns represent additions not replacements for managerial attention as the
social agenda for organisations of all sizes and types evolved during the late 20th and
early 21st century. The terms ‘corporate citizenship’, ‘global (corporate) citizenship’,
‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ have been used increasingly since the
1990s, along with and in preference to CSR, signalling a strategic shift to longer-term
social concerns and community relations/integration (Carroll & Brown, 2018).

A related theme here is recognising the need to make social concerns an integral and
central part of business thinking and decisions on both operations and strategy, rather
than an optional add-on, a trend exemplified in recent variants of CSR that focus on
improving the social conditions in which an organisation operates, such as creating
shared value (CSV) from corporate social integration (CSI) (Porter & Kramer 2006; 2011)
and corporate sustainability management (CSM) using context-based performance
assessment (McElroy & van Engelen 2012; McElroy, Jorna & van Engelen 2008).

Integrating social perspectives

Carroll’s (1991, p. 42) layered pyramid model is an early example of the more holistic
and inclusive view of social responsibilities that evolved from the 1990s. His pyramid
provides a four-part perspective on societal expectations of business that integrates four
 15

different but related types of responsibilities or aspects of performance, representing

the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations of business to society. Figure
1.2 presents his model with some elaboration of wording to improve clarity.

Figure 1.2 Four components of corporate social responsibility

(adapted from Carroll 1991, p. 42)

Carroll (1991, p. 42) notes overlaps and tensions among these obligations, especially
between the basic requirement for business success/economic performance and
discretionary options for social initiatives/philanthropic activities, but argues such are
‘organizational realities’; firms should ‘focus on the total pyramid as a unified whole’
and strive to simultaneously fulfil all their responsibilities. His accompanying
Stakeholder/Responsibility Matrix translates this pyramid into a practical decision-
support tool for managers to consider their relationships and responsibilities towards
key segments of society (individuals and groups), showing how the stakeholder concept
‘personalizes social or societal responsibilities by delineating the specific groups or persons
business should consider in its CSR orientation’ (Carroll 1991, p. 43). With nine rows
representing owners, customers, employees, community, competitors, suppliers, social
activist groups, public at large and others, and four columns for the specified
responsibilities, the matrix has 36 data cells ‘to organize a manager’s thoughts and ideas
about what the firm ought to be doing in an economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
sense with respect to its identified stakeholder groups’ (Carroll 1991, p. 44).

Others argue that concerns around balance and tension between the profit motive and
social good arise from a failure to think strategically about the interdependence of
business and society, and from the common disconnect between CSR initiatives and
company strategies and operations. Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 84) describe how an
organisation should ‘integrate a social perspective into the core frameworks it already
uses to understand competition and guide its business strategy’, which will in turn bring
 16

a strategic perspective to its social activities. Referencing the familiar inside-

out/outside-in dichotomy, they explain the need to consider business-society links from
both directions – both the social impact of their business operations (inside-out
linkages) and the social influences or constraints on their business competitiveness
(outside-in linkages). Thus business decisions, social policies and operating practices
should all be guided by the principle of creating shared value (‘a meaningful benefit for
society that is also valuable to the business’), by ‘making social impact integral to the
overall strategy’ (Porter & Kramer 2006, pp. 84, 90).

Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 92) contrast traditional responsive CSR based on damage
control or public relations with their model of strategic CSR aimed at creating shared
value, concluding that ‘NGOs, governments and companies must stop thinking in terms of
“corporate social responsibility” and start thinking in terms of “corporate social
integration”’. They later argue ‘Creating shared value (CSV) should supersede corporate
social responsibility (CSR)’: CSR and CSV both assume legal compliance and ethical
standards, but CSV presents social agenda as integral and essential to competitiveness
and profitability, instead of separate and discretionary (Porter & Kramer 2011, p. 76).

Shared value is defined in business terms as ‘policies and operating practices that enhance
the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social
conditions in the communities in which it operates’, but Porter and Kramer (2011, pp. 66,
67, 72) emphasise its principles ‘apply equally to governments and nonprofit organizations’
and the concept blurs the boundary and distinction between for-profit and non-profit
organisations, giving rise to new kinds of ‘hybrid enterprises’. Three distinct but mutually
reinforcing strategies create the ‘virtuous circle’ of shared value: reconceiving products
and markets to create societal benefits; redefining productivity and costs in an
organisation’s activities; and building support and capabilities in the local community.
However, collaboration among all stakeholders, particularly the ability and willingness to
engage in ‘new and heightened forms of collaboration’ across profit/non-profit
boundaries emerges as the key to linking economic development with social progress.

There are parallels here between the social integration model (Porter & Kramer (2006;
2011) and recent calls for higher education institutions to ‘integrate social responsibility
principles into their teaching and research activities as well as into their management and
community engagement activities’ (Larrán Jorge & Andrades Peña 2017, p. 303; Symaco &
Tee 2019). University social responsibility has taken various forms, ranging from knowledge
transfer/exchange and collaborative capacity-building for socio-economic development to
community engagement contributing to civic education and democratic participation, as
well as responsible management of environmental impact through sustainability strategies
(Barth, 2013; Chile & Black 2015; Davis 2009; Kalar & Antoncic 2015; Shiel et al. 2016).
Academic libraries are involved in university knowledge exchange and community building,
supporting technology transfer/commercialisation, community research partnerships,
service/community-based learning and socially-inclusive employment (Elliott et al. 2017;
Hernandez & Knight 2010; Sidorko & Yang 2011; Wiggins, Derickson & Jenkins 2020).

Libraries are also contributing to institutional economic, social, environmental and cultural
sustainability strategies. Sustainability is an aspect of social responsibility where they are
 17

not just supporting institutional strategies, but proactive partners in advancing campus and
community agenda. With ‘a moral imperative … to become sustainable organizations’
(Jankowska & Marcum 2010, p. 167), they aspire to be ‘an exemplar of “sustainability in
action” for the university’ (Brodie 2012, p. 6) and understand ‘environmental stewardship is
an expression of community engagement’ and ‘a social choice with economic ramifications’
(Reynolds 2012, pp. 19, 36). Thus, Concordia University Library is a neighbourhood library
and meeting place for local residents, as well as providing teaching facilities, reading rooms,
private study, collaborative learning and social spaces for students and faculty (Reynolds
2012). The green library movement has evolved from environmental management of
buildings and operations, through sustainability strategies for collections and services,
towards integrated frameworks for evaluation and assessment that promise a richer picture
of their economic, social and other contributions beyond their institutions, for example by
using relevant United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to frame a blend of
quantitative and qualitative indicators (Missingham 2021).

Prioritising the environment

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, led by Norwegian
prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland) put sustainable development on global agenda in
the late 1980s, defining the concept as ‘development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’ (United Nations 1987, p. 43) and advocating the wholesale integration of
environmental thinking into social, political and economic activities. British
environmental consultant John Elkington turned sustainability into a business issue by
formulating the ‘triple bottom line’ accounting, auditing and reporting framework,
elaborated in his book, Cannibals with forks, and characterised as ’focusing on economic
prosperity, environmental quality, and – the element which business had preferred to
overlook – social justice’ (Elkington 1997, p. 70).

While the WCED definition is widely cited, the report and related documentation were
criticised for being vague about both the concept of sustainability and policies to
accomplish it; triple bottom line (TBL, also known as 3BL) brought focus and structure,
as well as using the familiar (financial) bottom-line metaphor to encourage managers to
extend their measurement systems to non-financial performance. More significantly, as
well as extending the scope for strategic performance assessment to the impacts and
outcomes of organisational activities on the economy, society and the environment,
Elkington (1997; 1998) was an early advocate of what was later described as ‘the
capitals-based theory of sustainability performance’, ‘the capital theory approach to
sustainability’, ‘multiple capital theory’ and ‘multiple capitals-based frameworks’
(McElroy, Jorna & van Engelen 2008, p. 223; McElroy & van Engelen 2012, p. 32; McElroy
& Thomas 2015, p. 425; UNEP 2015, p. 52):
‘sustainable capitalism will need...new views of what is meant by social
equity, environmental justice and business ethics. This will require a much
better understanding not only of financial and physical forms of capital,
but also of natural, human, and social capital’ (Elkington 1997, p. 72).
 18

Elkington (1997; 1998) here exemplifies the shift from monocapitalism (the traditional
focus on economic capital, historically limited to financial and physical forms of capital
(the latter including machinery and plant) to multicapitalist thinking, ‘a kind of pluralistic
form of capital management instead of the traditional monistic one’ (McElroy & van Engelen
2012, p. 52), by specifying human or intellectual capital, critical and renewable natural
capital and social capital as other key areas for businesses to measure and manage.
While the corporate world had begun to view non-tangible entities (such as knowledge,
brands and reputation) as business assets, the breakthrough here was including the
natural environment as a capital asset. TBL is often referenced as the ‘3Ps’ (people,
planet and profits), which has given widespread recognition to the basic idea, but has
resulted in superficial interpretation and frequent dilution of the concept by journalists
and managers failing to appreciate the third P is about tracking economic value added
(or destroyed), not just financial performance (Elkington 2018).

British environmentalist Jonathon Porritt (2005) followed Elkington’s 3Ps/3BL with his
Five Capitals Framework, elaborated in the book Capitalism as if the world matters as a
‘hypothetical model of sustainable capitalism’. His five forms basically follow Elkington,
but he replaces ‘physical capital’ with ‘manufactured capital’. Defining capital as ‘a stock
of anything that has the capacity to generate a flow of benefits which are valued by
humans’, Porritt (2005 pp. 112, 113) acknowledges the discomfort of many
environmentalists with the ‘terminological reduction’ of natural resources, human
capabilities and social relationships to the language of capitalism as yet more evidence
of ‘the inexorable commodification of our world’, but argues compellingly that adopting
(and adapting) some of the insights, tools and drivers of capitalism – a strategy of reform
from within – is the only viable option:
‘any genuinely sustainable variant of capitalism...will need to work within
the conceptual and linguistic conventions that people are now so familiar
with. The concept of capital serves not only to explain the productive
power of capitalism; it also provides the clearest means of explaining the
conditions for its sustainability’.

There have been several efforts to move sustainability management from concept to
implementation by developing tools to improve how organisations report their social,
ecological and economic impacts. A review by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP 2015) supports the trend towards context-based and multi-capital
approaches, best exemplified by the MultiCapital Scorecard (MCS) developed by McElroy
and Thomas (2015, p. 434; 2016) as ‘a capital- and context-based integrated
measurement and reporting system’ that is a stakeholder-based multiple capital system,
not shareholder-based financial-capital-centric. McElroy and Thomas (2015, p. 426) argue
that without integrated measurement and reporting, ‘there can be no integrated thinking
and management’ as advocated by contemporary strategists; their system claims to be the
first ‘fully operationalized triple bottom line method’ (McElroy & Thomas 2016, p. 7).

In the library sector, there are a few examples of multicapital measurement tools that
combine tangible and intangible assets, including a multidimensional framework developed
at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa (van Deventer & Snyman
2004) and the more expansive Value Scorecard developed at the University of York in the
 19

UK (Town 2018), but neither model explicitly covers library performance across all three
dimensions of the environmental agenda (economic, social and environmental/ecological).

Reframing capitalism for social development

Conceptions of the social roles and responsibilities of individuals and organisations have
expanded to integrate social stewardship with social activism, social justice, social
diversity and global citizenship, while striving to balance the economic operations of
corporations and the social aspirations of communities. Commentators have recognised
the need to rethink established capitalist models in response to the social, economic,
environmental and political challenges of the 21st century: Porter and Kramer (2011, p.
77) discuss how to ‘reinvent capitalism’, calling for ‘a more sophisticated form...imbued
with a social purpose’ based on ‘a deeper understanding of...economic value creation’ and
strategies that take account of social and environmental concerns in their economic
thinking. Other proposals include conscious capitalism (O’Toole & Vogel 2011) and moral
capitalism (Young 2003), in addition to the sustainable capitalism advocated by
Elkington (1997), Porritt (2005) and Zohar and Marshall (2004).

Sustainable capitalism and CSV/CSI (Porter & Kramer 2006; 2011) start from different
premises, speak to different constituencies and propose different frameworks, but both
point towards a future path for organisations based on the judicious combination and
strategic integration of outside-in and inside-out connections and dependencies. Several
authors (Elkington 1997; Porritt 2005; Young 2003) have elaborated their vision for
corporate reform in capital-based models or frameworks informed by the resource-
based view (RBV) of the firm from the 1980s (Grant 1991) and the intellectual capital
(IC) perspective of the 1990s (Peppard & Rylander 2001) with its focus on ‘resources in
action’ and the contribution of intangible assets such as professional competence,
business processes and stakeholder relationships to value creation.

IC models came from the corporate sector, but their holistic view of organisations
(typically concentrating on human, structural and relational assets) also supports
integrated reporting, performance appraisal and strategy development for start-ups,
non-profits and public bodies, particularly as the public sector has become more
innovative and IC frameworks have evolved to reflect contemporary management
concerns (Mouritsen et al. 2004; Ramírez, 2010). Katsikas, Rossi and Orelli (2017, p. 7)
argue that ‘in public organizations the recognition and communication of intangible assets
is pivotal’ in the context of new business models based on stakeholder engagement and
citizen participation as co-producers in service delivery and co-creators of public value.
Conceptions of public value have also evolved in line with integrated thinking and social
needs: Benington (2009, p. 237) extends his definition beyond economic value to ecological
value, political value, and social and cultural value as significant aspects and underlines the
vital role of collaborative networks in value creation.

In the early 2000s, the Intellectus Model of IC from Spain introduced an explicit focus on
social capital by separating the relational capital component into business/market
relationships and social relationships, the latter including the environment (Bueno,
 20

Salmador & Rodríguez 2004). The latest version of their model adds an entrepreneurship
and innovation capital component, combining and integrating the creative capabilities
represented by the intangible assets in different capital elements, in order to improve
the practical relevance of the model as a strategic management tool (Bueno, Merino &
Murcia 2016). Zohar and Marshall (2004, p. 41) take the broadening of capital to another
level, advocating reform based on a wider and deeper commitment to society that has both
social and moral dimensions, represented by spiritual capital, which comprises ‘our shared
meaning, our shared purpose, our shared vision of what most deeply matters in life – and
how these are implemented in our lives and in our behavioral strategies’ and is ‘increased
by drawing on the resources of the human spirit’.

To round out and wrap up this discussion, we provide an enriched multicapital relational
model that synthesises theories, concepts and ideas from key thinkers in business,
economics, ethics and politics to provide a transdisciplinary perspective on the tangible
resources and intangible assets that represent ‘vital capitals’ (McElroy & Thomas 2015)
for mobilisation and deployment to create value for stakeholders (Peppard & Rylander
2001). Figure 1.3 displays our model, which promotes holistic thinking about the range
of internal and external resources organisations and communities draw on, develop,
combine, organise, distribute and deploy in their operational activities to support their
strategic vision. The model indicates how intellectual and physical resources interact to
create value and illustrates the fundamental role of human interactions and social
relationships in resource renewal and depletion.

Figure 1.3 A multicapital perspective on asset management

The proposed model also places social capital in its strategic and operational context,
showing how it is derived from human and moral capital, then in turn feeds forward into
entrepreneurship and innovation capital, as well as feeding back to enhance human and
moral assets in a system of reciprocal flows. The bidirectional arrows indicate how
different forms of capital have the potential to feed off each other to a greater or lesser
extent depending on levels of capital available; so, for example, if an organisation’s
 21

stated values of social responsibility and sustainability are not shared by all members of
the organisation that will reduce the ability to use its moral capital assets to enhance
human capital and influence organisation behaviour.

The model combines elements from the Intellectus Model (Bueno, Merino & Murcia
2016) and the Five Capitals Framework (Porritt 2005), adopting the latter’s concentric
circles design and his distinction between primary and derived capitals, but with a modified
layout and extended scope brining in other related capitals to give a fuller picture of salient
resources requiring responsible management for sustainable development. In particular,
our conception is augmented by critical insights into relationships between social capital,
moral capital and physical/manufactured capital provided by scholars like Alejo Sison
(2003) and Xiaoxi Wang (2015), who argue that morality is a sufficiently distinct and
significant aspect of human capital to justify its own place in any capital-based typology.

Several scholars observe that while emotional, moral and spiritual capacities are vital
human qualities, contemporary models of intellectual assets tend to focus on ‘harder’
measurable dimensions of human capital, such as knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA),
often ignoring ‘softer’ aspects like values, beliefs and attitudes (VBA). Such reductionist
thinking fails to appreciate how the spiritual capital of individuals generates social
capital for organisations and how moral development contributes to workforce
productivity, product quality and economic growth (Stokes, Baker & Lichy 2016; Wódka
2017). Wang (2015, pp. 56-57) presents moral capital as ‘a kind of “spiritual capital” or
“knowledge capital”’ that overlaps with both human capital and physical (manufactured)
capital as ‘the spiritual aspect of human capital and the spiritual element of physical capital’
or ‘the spirtual factor of production’, explaining how the value-orientation of workers
contributes to human-centred design, manufacture, distribution, sales and consumption of
products and services.

Sison (2003, p. viii) concentrates on the contribution of moral capital to social capital,
illustrating its crucial role in business transactions by showing how social capital
represented by extensive networks of influence and high levels of trust can be exploited for
criminal gain as well as social benefit and is thus ‘morally ambivalent in its uses and effects’,
drawing an important distinction here between trust and trustworthiness. Arguing that
‘business ethics needs to be institutionalized in such a way that it permeates even
apparently isolated individual practices’ by ‘integrating moral value operatively into
corporate culture’, Sison (2003, p. ix) explains how moral capital elevates business ethics
beyond superficial compliance with codes of conduct to a deeper commitment to a set of
values. Moral capital thus provides the missing link in capitals-based strategies for
sustainable development and is another ‘vital capital’ for individuals, organisations and
communities to cultivate in the participatory collaborative culture of the 21st century.

Conclusion

Participation has become the watchword of the digital world with participatory principles,
processes, policies and programs spreading to all areas of our personal, social, professional
and organisational lives as formal procedures or de facto practices, enabled by web-based
 22

interactive technologies. Participatory culture and the prevalence of related concepts such
as access, agency, collaboration, community, engagement and empowerment are the result
of both bottom-up pressures from community groups, social networks and activist
movements and top-down factors that include global commitments to environmental
management, sustainable development and social equity. The online world of the 21st
century has given us novel vocabulary such as produsage, crowdsourcing and apomediation;
it has made work, learning and everyday tasks more co-operative, open and reflective, and
is blurring private-public, personal-professional, patient-practitioner and layperson-expert
boundaries.

The creative potential and productive capacity represented by social interactions and
collaborative networks is universally acknowledged, with the result that building and
nurturing positive relationships is now recognised as a critical factor for business and
professional success. Scholars and practitioners are accordingly incorporating social
perspectives and relational strategies into their business models and reporting templates,
notably by expanding capital-based frameworks to include environmental and social issues.
The changes outlined here are impacting every aspect of our individual and collective lives,
and have significant implications for education, professions and organisations of all kinds.
We have already noted how some of the practices discussed here are being adopted in or
adapted for higher education and academic libraries, evident in the use of blogging,
crowdsourcing and learning communities/networks, and are also generating new
conceptions of practitioners as civic, democratic or social professionals who exchange
knowledge and share tasks with others via more open and collaborative ways of working.
The following chapters provide a closer look at how the environmental developments and
social trends presented here are playing out in the HE sector and academic library
community.

References

Ackerman, R.W., (1973). How companies respond to social demands. Harvard Business
Review. 51(4), 88-98.
Barth, M., (2013). Many roads lead to sustainability: a process-oriented analysis of change in
higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 14(2),
160-175. doi:10.1108/14676371311312879
Benington, J., (2009). Creating the public in order to create public value? International
Journal of Public Administration. 32(3-4), 232-249. doi:10.1080/01900690902749578
Benkler, Y., (2005). Common wisdom: peer production of educational materials. Logan, UT:
COSL Press. http://www.benkler.org/Common_Wisdom.pdf
Bozarth, J., (2014). Show your work: the payoffs and how-to’s of working out loud. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Brabham, D.C., (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brodie, M., (2012). Building the sustainable library at Macquarie University. Australian
Academic & Research Libraries. 43(1), 4-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2012.10722250
 23

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science.
2(1), 40-57. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
Bruns, A., (2013). From prosumption to produsage. In: R. Towse and C. Handke, eds.
Handbook on the digital creative economy Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. pp. 67-78.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05db/154e87113915d0d6475e42ba31c1dda31259
.pdf
Bueno, E., Salmador, M.P. and Rodríguez, Ó., (2004). The role of social capital in today's
economy: empirical evidence and proposal of a new model of intellectual
capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 5(4), 556-574.
doi:10.1108/14691930410567013
Bueno E., Merino C. and Murcia C., (2016). Intellectual capital as a strategic model to create
innovation in new technology based firms. In: K. North and G. Varvakis, eds.
Competitive strategies for small and medium enterprises: increasing crisis resilience,
agility and innovation in turbulent times. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 93-105.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27303-7_6.
Carletti, L., Giannachi, G., Price, D., McAuley, D. and Benford, S., (2013). Digital humanities
and crowdsourcing: an exploration. In: MW2013: Museums and the Web, April 17-
20, Portland, OR. https://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/digital-
humanities-and-crowdsourcing-an-exploration-4/
Carroll, A.B., (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. 34(4), 39-48.
doi:10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Carroll, A.B. and Brown, J.A., (2018). Corporate social responsibility: a review of current
concepts, research, and issues. In: J. Weber and D.M. Wasieleski, eds. Corporate
social responsibility. Bingley, UK: Emerald. pp. 39-69. doi:10.1108/S2514-
175920180000002002
Castells, M., (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. eds., (2006). Open innovation: researching a
new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chile, L.M. and Black, X.M., (2015). University–community engagement: case study of
university social responsibility. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. 10(3), 234-
253. doi:10.1177/1746197915607278
Clinio, A. and Albagli, S., (2017). Open notebook science as an emerging epistemic culture
within the open science movement. Revue Française des Sciences de l’information et
de la communication, 11. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3186
Cooke, N.A., (2012). Professional development 2.0 for librarians: developing an online
personal learning network (PLN). Library Hi Tech News. 29(3), 1-9.
doi:10.1108/07419051211241840
Cox, M.D., (1999). Peer consultation and faculty learning communities. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning. 79, 39-49. doi:10.1002/tl.7905
Dahl, M., (2018). Inside-out library services. In: G.J. Fowler and S.S. Hines, eds. Challenging
the “Jacks of all trades but masters of none” librarian syndrome. Advances in Library
Administration and Organization, 39. Bingley, UK: Emerald. pp. 15-34.
doi:10.1108/S0732-067120180000039003
 24

Dalton, M., Kouker, A. and O'Connor, M., (2016). Many voices: building a biblioblogosphere
in Ireland. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 22(2-3), 148-159.
doi:10.1080/13614533.2016.1155998
Davis, S.F., (2009). Knowledge exchange: capacity building in a small university. Education +
Training. 51(8/9), 682-695. doi:10.1108/00400910911005235
De George, R.T. (1987). The status of business ethics: Past and future. Journal of Business
Ethics. 6(3), 201-211. doi:10.1007/BF00382865
Delwiche, A. and Henderson, J.J., (2013). Introduction: what is participatory culture? In: A.
Delwiche and J.J. Henderson, eds. The participatory cultures handbook. New York:
Routledge. pp. 3-9. doi:10.4324/9780203117927
Dempsey, L., (2012). Libraries and the informational future: some notes. Information
Services & Use. 32(3-4), 203-214. doi:10.3233/ISU-2012-0670
Dempsey, L., (2016). Library collections in the life of the user: two directions. LIBER
Quarterly. 26(4), 338-359. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10170
Douglas, V.A. and Becker, A.A., (2015). Encouraging better graphic design in libraries: a
creative commons crowdsourcing approach. Journal of Library Administration. 55(6),
459-472. doi:10.1080/01930826.2015.1054765
Dzur, A., (2019). Conclusion: sources of democratic professionalism in the university. In: N.V.
Longo and T.J. Shaffer, eds. Creating space for democracy: a primer on dialogue and
deliberation in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. pp. 285-294.
Dzur, A.W., (2002). Public journalism and deliberative democracy. Polity. 34(3), 313-336.
doi:10.1086/POLv34n3ms3235394
Dzur, A.W., (2004). Democratic professionalism: sharing authority in civic life. The Good
Society. 13(1), 6-14. doi:10.1353/gso.2004.0026
Dzur, A.W., (2018). Rebuilding public institutions together: professionals and citizens in a
participatory democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
doi:10.7591/j.ctt20d89c6
Elkington, J., (1997). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Oxford: Capstone.
Elkington, J., (1998). Accounting for the triple bottom line. Measuring Business
Excellence. 2(3), 18-22. doi: 10.1108/eb025539
Elkington, J., (2018). 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time
to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. 25 June 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-
ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it
Elliott, C., Dewland, J., Martin, J.R., Kramer, S. and Jackson, J.J., (2017). Collaborate and
innovate: the impact of academic librarians on the commercialization of university
technology. Journal of Library Administration. 57(1), 36-48
doi:10.1080/01930826.2016.1215674
Eysenbach, G., (2008). Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation,
apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 10(3), e22.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1030
Ferguson, T., (2007). e-Patients: how they can help us heal heath care. White paper. Nutting
Lake, MA: Society of Participatory Medicine. https://participatorymedicine.org/e-
Patient_White_Paper_with_Afterword.pdf
Frederick, W.C., (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business-and-society
thought. Business & Society. 33(2), 150-164. doi:10.1177/000765039403300202
 25

Frederick, W.C., (2018). Corporate social responsibility: from founders to millennials. In: J.
Weber and D.M. Wasieleski, eds. Corporate social responsibility Bingley, UK:
Emerald. pp. 3-38. doi:10.1108/S2514-175920180000002001
Freeman, R.E. and Reed, D.L., (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on
corporate governance. California Management Review. 25(3), 88-106.
doi:10.2307/41165018
Fumagalli, L.P., Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E. and Masella, C., (2015). Patient empowerment and
its neighbours: clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships. Health
Policy. 119(3), 384-394. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.017
Gikunju, M., Nyamato-Kwenda, R. and Kwanya, T., (2019). A review of citizen librarianship in
academic libraries in Kenya. In: T. Kwanya, J. Kiplang’at, J. Wamukoya and D.
Njiraine, eds. Digital technologies for information and knowledge management
Nairobi, Kenya: Technical University of Kenya. pp. 109-117.
http://repository.tukenya.ac.ke/handle/123456789/1757
Grant, R.M., (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review. 33(3), 114-135.
doi:10.2307/41166664
Gruen, R.L., Campbell, E.G. and Blumenthal, D., (2006). Public roles of US physicians:
community participation, political involvement, and collective advocacy. Journal of
the American Medical Association. 296(20), 2467-2475.
doi:10.1001/jama.296.20.2467
Gruen, R.L., Pearson, S.D. and Brennan, T.A., (2004). Physician-citizens – public roles and
professional obligations. Journal of the American Medical Association. 291(1), 94-98.
doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.94
Healey, M., Flint, A. and Harrington, K., (2016). Students as partners: reflections on a
conceptual model. Teaching & Learning Inquiry. 4(2), 8-20.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.3
Hedman, U. and Djerf-Pierre, M., (2013). The social journalist: embracing the social media
life or creating a new digital divide? Digital Journalism. 1(3), 368-385.
doi:10.1080/21670811.2013.776804
Hegarty, B., (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: a model for using open educational
resources. Educational Technology. 55(4), 3-13.
Hernandez, M. and Knight, L.A., (2010). Reinventing the box: faculty-librarian collaborative
efforts to foster service learning for political engagement. Journal for Civic
Commitment. 14(Special issue). https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cop-
facarticles/825
Howe , J., (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired. 14(6).
https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
Howe, J., (2008a). Crowdsourcing: how the power of the crowd is driving the future of
business. New York: Crown Business.
Howe, J., (2008b). The wisdom of the crowd resides in how the crowd is used. Nieman
Report. 62(4), 47-50. https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-wisdom-of-the-crowd-
resides-in-how-the-crowd-is-used/
Jackson-Brown, G.M., (2013). Content analysis study of librarian blogs: professional
development and other uses. First Monday. 18(2).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i2.4343
 26

Jankowska, M.A. and Marcum, J.W., (2010). Sustainability challenge for academic libraries:
planning for the future. College & Research Libraries. 71(2), 160-170.
https://doi.org/10.5860/0710160
Jenkins, H., (1992). Textual poachers: television fans and participatory culture. New York:
Routledge.
Jenkins, H., (2006a). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Jenkins, H., (2006b). Interactive audiences? The collective intelligence of media fans. In: H.
Jenkins, Fans, bloggers, and gamers: exploring participatory culture. New York: New
York University Press. pp. 134-151.
Jenkins, H., (2010). Transmedia storytelling and entertainment: an annotated syllabus.
Continuum. 24(6), 943-958. doi:10.1080/10304312.2010.510599
Jenkins, H., (2014). Rethinking ‘rethinking convergence/culture’. Cultural Studies. 28(2), 267-
297. doi:10.1080/09502386.2013.801579
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J. and Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. White
paper. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF.
Jenkins, H., Ito, M. and boyd, d., (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era: a
conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kalar, B. and Antoncic, B., (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and
technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation. 36-37,
1-11. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.002
Katsikas, E., Rossi, F.M. and Orelli, R.L., (2017). Towards integrated reporting: accounting
change in the public sector. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kelley, J., (2008). The making of a social librarian: how blogs, wikis and Facebook have
changed one librarian and her job. In: PCA/ACA 2008: Joint Conference of the
National Popular Culture and American Culture Associations, March 19-22, San
Francisco, CA. https://dc.cod.edu/librarypub/2
Kelty, C. et al., (2015). Seven dimensions of contemporary participation
disentangled. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology. 66(3), 474-488. doi:10.1002/asi.23202
Kwanya, T., Stilwell, C. and Underwood, P., (2015). Library 3.0: intelligent libraries and
apomediation. Waltham, MA: Chandos.
Lankes, R.D., Silverstein, J. and Nicholson, S., (2007). Participatory networks: the library as
conversation. Information Technology and Libraries. 26(4), 17-33.
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v26i4.3267
Larrán Jorge, M. and Andrades Peña, F.J., (2017). Analysing the literature on university social
responsibility: a review of selected higher education journals. Higher Education
Quarterly. 71(4), 302-319. doi:10.1111/hequ.12122
Maness, J.M., (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries.
Webology. 3(2). https://www.webology.org/data-
cms/articles/20200515033842pma25.pdf
Margaryan, A., Boursinou, E., Lukic, D. and de Zwart, H., (2015). Narrating Your Work: an
approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice. 13(4), 391-400. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.58
 27

McElroy, M.W. and Thomas, M.P., (2015). The multicapital scorecard. Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 6(3), 425-438. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-04-
2015-0025
McElroy, M.W. and Thomas, M.P., (2016). The multicapital scorecard: rethinking
organizational performance. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
McElroy, M.W. and van Engelen, J.M.L., (2012). Corporate sustainability management: the
art and science of managing non-financial performance. Abingdon, UK: Earthscan
McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J. and van Engelen, J.M.L., (2008). Sustainability quotients and the
social footprint. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management. 15(4), 223-234. doi:10.1002/csr.164
Mi, M. (2015). Expanding librarian roles through a librarian initiated and facilitated faculty
learning community. Journal of Library Administration. 55(1), 24-40.
doi:10.1080/01930826.2014.978683
Missingham, R., (2021). A new lens for evaluation – assessing academic libraries using the
UN Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Library Administration. 61(3), 386-
401. doi:10.1080/01930826.2021.1883376
Mouritsen, J., Thorbjørnsen, S., Bukh, P.N. and Johansen, M.R., (2004). Intellectual capital
and new public management: reintroducing enterprise. The Learning
Organization. 11(4/5), 380-392. doi:10.1108/09696470410538279 .
O’Reilly, T., (1999). Lessons from open-source software development. Communications of
the ACM. 42(4), 32-37. doi:10.1145/299157.299164
O’Reilly, T., (2005). What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a//web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
O'Toole, J. and Vogel, D., (2011). Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism. California
Management Review. 53(3), 60-76. doi:10.1525/cmr.2011.53.3.60
Outing, S., (2005). The 11 layers of citizen journalism. Poynter Online. 31 May 2005.
https://www.poynter.org/archive/2005/the-11-layers-of-citizen-journalism/
Ovenden, R., (2018). Outside in: the role of the university library in open science. Wonkhe.
12 June 2018. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/outside-in-the-role-of-the-university-
library-in-open-science/
Partridge, H., Lee, J. and Munro, C., (2010). Becoming “Librarian 2.0”: the skills, knowledge,
and attributes required by library and information science professionals in a Web 2.0
world (and beyond). Library Trends. 59(1-2), 315-335.
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/18735
Peppard, J. and Rylander, A., (2001). Using an intellectual capital perspective to design and
implement a growth strategy: the case of APiON. European Management
Journal. 19(5), 510-525. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(01)00065-2
Porritt, J., (2005). Capitalism as if the world matters. London: Earthscan.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M., (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 84(12), 78-
92.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., (2011). Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism –
and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Revie., 89(1-2), 62-
77.
 28

Ramírez, Y., (2010). Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector. Journal of
Intellectual Capital. 11(2), 248-264. doi:10.1108/14691931011039705
Reynolds, K.M. (2012). Building a green community at Concordia University Library. In: M.
Antonelli and M. McCullough, eds. Greening libraries. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice
Press. pp. 17-40.
Rheingold, H., (1987). Virtual communities – exchanging ideas through computer bulletin
boards. Whole Earth Review. 57(Winter). [Reprinted Journal for Virtual Worlds
Research. 1(1).] https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v1i1.293
Rheingold, H., (1993). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. https://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/
Salisbury, F., Dollinger, M. and Vanderlelie, J., (2020). Students as partners in the academic
library: co-designing for transformation. New Review of Academic
Librarianship. 26(2-4), 304-321. doi:10.1080/13614533.2020.1780275
Saltmarsh J., (2017). A collaborative turn: trends and directions in community
engagement. In: J. Sachs and L. Clark, eds. Learning through community
engagement. Singapore: Springer. pp. 3-15. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0999-0_1
Sergi, V. and Bonneau, C., (2016). Making mundane work visible on social media: a CCO
investigation of working out loud on Twitter. Communication Research and
Practice. 2(3), 378-406. doi:10.1080/22041451.2016.1217384
Severson, S. and Sauvé, J.-S., (2019). Crowding the library: how and why libraries are using
crowdsourcing to engage the public. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library
and Information Practice and Research. 14(1).
https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v14i1.4632
Shiel, C., Leal Filho, W., do Paço, A. and Brandli, L., (2016). Evaluating the engagement of
universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local
communities. Evaluation and Program Planning. 54, 123-134.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.006
Shuler, J.A., (1996). Civic librarianship: possible new role for depository libraries in the next
century? Journal of Government Information. 23(4), 419-425. doi:10.1016/1352-
0237(96)00022-6
Sidorko, P.E. and Yang, T.T., (2011). Knowledge exchange and community engagement: an
academic library perspective. Library Management. 32(6-7), 385-397.
doi:10.1108/01435121111158538
Siemens, G., (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning. 2(1), article 1.
http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Singer, J.B., (2012a). The ethics of social journalism. Australian Journalism Review. 34(1), 3-
16.
Singer, J.B., (2012b). Social journalism: outside-in and inside-out. Rhodes Journalism Review.
32, 36-39. http://www.rjr.ru.ac.za/no32.html
Sison, A.J.G., (2003). The moral capital of leaders: why virtue matters. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Stepper, J., (2015). Working out loud: for a better career and life. New York: Ikigai Press.
Stepper, J., (2016). The 5 elements of working out loud (revisited). Working Out Loud. 2
March 2016. https://workingoutloud.com/blog/the-5-elements-of-working-out-
loud-revisited
 29

Stepper, J. (2020). Working out loud: a 12-week method to build new connections, a better
career, and a more fulfilling life. rev. ed. Vancouver, Canada: Page Two Books.
Stokes, P., Baker, C. and Lichy, J., (2016). The role of embedded individual values, belief and
attitudes and spiritual capital in shaping everyday postsecular organizational
culture. European Management Review. 13(1), 37-51. doi:10.1111/emre.12065
Stonebraker, I. and Zhang, T., (2016). Participatory culture and e-learning: using
crowdsourcing as a catalyst for online student engagement. In: S. Rice and M.N.
Gregor, eds. E-learning and the academic library: essays on innovative initiatives.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland. pp. 159-173.
Stranack, K., (2012). The connected librarian: using social media for “do it yourself”
professional development. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and
Information Practice and Research. 7(1).
https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v7i1.1924
Symaco, L.P. and Tee, M.Y., (2019). Social responsibility and engagement in higher
education: case of the ASEAN. International Journal of Educational Development. 66,
184-192. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.10.001
Town, S., (2018). The value scorecard. Information and Learning Science. 119(1/2), 25-38.
doi:10.1108/ILS-10-2017-0098
UNEP., (2015). Raising the bar – advancing environmental disclosure in sustainability
reporting. Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme, Division of
Technology, Industry and Economics.
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/raising-bar-advancing-
environmental-disclosure-sustainability-reportingUnited Nations (1987)
United Nations., (1987). Our common future: World Commission on Environment and
Development (Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Deventer, M.J. and Snyman, R.(M.M.M.) (2004). Measuring for sustainability: a multi-
dimensional measurement framework for library and information services. Libr.,
54(1), 1-8. doi:10.1515/LIBR.2004.1
Voakes, P.S., (1999). Civic duties: newspaper journalists’ views on public journalism.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 76(4), 756-774.
Wang, X., (2015). On moral capital. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-
45544-9
Warlick, D. (2009). Grow your personal learning network: new technologies can keep you
connected and help you manage information overload. Learning & Leading with
Technology. 36(6), 12-16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ831435.pdf
Wenger, E., (1999). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, B., Derickson, K.D. and Jenkins, G.S., (2020). Resourcing community partnerships
through academic libraries. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement. 24(3), 115-124.
https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/2063
Williams, B., (2010). When will we work out loud? Soon! TheBrycesWrite. 29 November
2010. https://thebryceswrite.com/2010/11/29/when-will-we-work-out-loud-soon/
Wódka, M., (2017). Social and economic significance of moral capital. Annales: Etyka w Życiu
Gospodarczym. 20(4), 65-75. doi:10.18778/1899-2226.20.4.05
Wood, D.J., (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review. 16(4), 691-718. doi:10.2307/258977
 30

Xu, C., Ouyang, F. and Chu, H., (2009). The academic library meets Web 2.0: applications and
implications. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 35(4), 324-331.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.003
Young, S., (2003). Moral capitalism: reconciling private interest with the public good. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler.
Zohar, D. and Marshall, I., (2004). Spiritual capital: wealth we can live by. London:
Bloomsbury.