Pennsylvania Public Libraries and Facebook

Kate Burgdorfer

Social networking sites allow users to create connections and online communities based

on shared interests. Throughout history, libraries have served as gathering places and

community spaces, and online social networking can now serve as an extension of that role.

Social networking has become a mainstream activity and Facebook.com, the world's largest

social network, has become an important cultural force. "Before MySpace and Facebook, there

was no one site that captured the attention of so many people of all ages, and our patrons

overwhelmingly use them."1

Facebook was founded in February 2004 exclusively for Harvard students. Over the

course of a few months, the site grew from Harvard students to include all Ivy League students,

then any college or high school student in the United States. In September 2006, the site opened

to anyone over the age of 13.2 In July 2009, Facebook became the most used site on the Internet,

with users spending an average of 4 hours and 39 minutes on it per month.3 In March 2010,

Facebook became the internet's most trafficked site, when it took 7.07% of the market share for

all U.S. internet visits, beating Google's 7.03%.4 As of July 2010, Facebook had over 500

million active users (users who have logged into the site at least once in a 30-day period)5,

making it the world's largest online social network. The average Facebook user is connected to

80 pages and groups.6 1Milica Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work: From 'Librarian Habilis' to 'Librarian Sapiens',” Computers in Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 16. 2 Facebook, "Press Room: Company Timeline," n.d., http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics#!/press/info.php?timeline (accessed October 30, 2010).3 Emma Barnett, “Americans Spend Most of Web Time on Facebook,” The Telegraph, July 15, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5833400/Americans-spend-most-of-web-time-on-Facebook.html (accessed October 30, 2010).4 Michael Arrington, “Hitwise says Facebook Most Popular U.S. Site,” TechCrunch, March 15, 2010, http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/hitwise-says-facebook-most-popular-u-s-site/ (accessed October 30, 2010).5 Facebook, "Press Room: Company Timeline."6 Facebook, "Statistics," http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed November 24, 2010).

1

Just as libraries have traditionally served as community meeting spaces, libraries also

have a long history of delivering services where patrons need them – through bookmobiles,

through the mail, in jails, and, more recently, in malls and shopping plazas. Farkas noted that

"Just like putting a library branch in a strip mall, creating presence in social networking software

makes the library more visible and more convenient to access."7 In order to create a presence on

Facebook that makes the library more visible and convenient to access, it is important to

understand how the site works.

Facebook’s features are based on the very simple notion that there are people in one's life

that "you'd like to stay in touch and connect with."8 Facebook offers three types of accounts for

users: profiles for individuals; pages for organizations, businesses, celebrities, and bands; and

groups that allow people to form communities around any topic, idea, or event. Profiles are the

basic building blocks of Facebook and are intended for use only by individual people.

Individuals can use their profiles to share information about themselves, make friends, share

photos and links, connect with organizations and groups, and participate in discussions.

Pages and groups are similar to profiles but are intended for use by non-individuals.

Pages are the authorized profiles of organizations, businesses, celebrities, and bands, and they

can only be created by an official representative of the group called an administrator. When an

individual likes a page, a one-way relationship is created, whereby the individual user can see

everything posted by the organization, but the page administrator cannot see the individual's

profile. Pages are indexed by search engines and are visible to anyone on the Internet, even

those who are not registered Facebook users. Groups, on the other hand, can be created and

7 Meredith Farkas, “Going Where Patrons Are: Outreach in MySpace and Facebook,” American Libraries 38, no. 4 (April 2007): 27.8 Facebook.com, "Getting Started: Find Your Friends," http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/help/?guide (accessed October 31, 2010).

2

maintained by anyone on Facebook, and are often quickly and spontaneously created as needed,

then abandoned.

Facebook was unpopular with libraries and other organizations until the launch of pages

in 2007. Libraries had been attempting to join Facebook since 2006, when the network opened

to anyone with an email address. Initially, libraries created fictional people to act as figureheads

for their library, but these pages were deleted by Facebook because they violated its Terms of

Use.9 Libraries then turned to the Groups feature, but it was not until Pages were created in

November 2007 that libraries were able to establish a genuine presence on the site.10

Status updates are the vehicle by which content is created on Facebook. A status update

is a short post by a user, and it can be anything a user chooses to share with their community –

reports on what they are doing or thinking or reading, where they are, photos, links, anything at

all. Comments and likes are ways for a user's friends to interact with each other and the items

they've posted. A like can serve two functions: a friend can like another friend's status update, or

a user can like a page, which creates a connection between that user and the organization. Users

can also comment on their friends' status updates or other activity.

The news feed is a personalized stream of real-time posts from all a user's connections,

including friends, pages, and groups. The news feed is the home page for Facebook users, and

the site is designed to show new content on the first page users see when they log in. Axelsson

noted that "one of the appeals of Facebook, initially at least, is that every time you log on there's

the feeling that something new has happened since the last time you were there."11 The wall is

the main page of a profile, page, or group, and it contains a complete record of the user's activity,

9 Lori Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries,” Christian Librarian 52, no. 3 (2009): 113. 10 Abimbota Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” Impact: Journal of the Career Development Group 12, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 96.11 Anna-Stina Axelsson, “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook: Do You Have a Facebook?” Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly Theme: Social Technologies, no. 2 (2008): 18.

3

including status updates, comments, photos, and likes. It is also possible for users to post

directly on friends' walls.

Facebook is considered a Web 2.0 platform. Although it has been noted that noted that

"the label 'Web 2.0' is far less important than the concepts, projects, and practices included in its

scope,"12 it is still beneficial to understand the term and the characteristics of its applications.

The term Web 2.0 is commonly attributed to marketing strategist Tim O'Reilly13, who coined the

phrase in a 2005 article titled "What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the

Next Generation of Software."14 O'Reilly studied the businesses that survived the internet

business crash in 2001, and he noted that they valued the collective wisdom of crowds and

encouraged their users to remix data in order to make their applications more useful. This

approach created businesses and sites that got better the more people used them. O'Reilly called

this hallmark of Web 2.0 a state of "perpetual beta," whereby developers continually monitor

user behavior to determine how they are using the application, then adjust the application

accordingly. Abram also observed that Web 2.0 technologies are "complex, constantly in flux,

and really in a Renaissance mode."15 Furner16 later observed that Web 2.0 characteristics

include collaboration, social networking, resource sharing and community building.

12 Bryan Alexander, "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” EDUCAUSE Review 41, no. 2 (April 2006): 8. 13 Laurie Charnigo and Paula Barnett-Ellis, “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on Academic Libraries,” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1 (March 2007): 24; Cheryl Peltier-Davis, “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative Services for Sustainable Libraries,” Computers in Libraries 29, no. 19 (November 2009): 18; Tom Kwanya, Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood, “Library 2.0: Revolution or Evolution?” South African Journal of Library & Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009): 72; Jennifer L. Boxen, “Library 2.0: A Review of the Literature,” Reference Librarian 49, no. 1 (2008): 23.14 Tim O'Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software,” last modified September 30, 2005, http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.15 Stephen Abram, “Social Libraries: The Librarian 2.0 Phenomenon,” Library Resources & Technical Services 52, no. 2 (2008): 20.16 Jonathan Furner, “User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System Evaluation,” International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 37, no. 3 (September 2008): 48.

4

Library 2.0 is an offshoot of Web 2.0, "another conversation"17 whereby patron needs are

re-evaluated in light of the opportunities presented by new Web 2.0 technologies.18 Casey &

Savastinuk claimed that the user-centered change is the center of Library 2.0, and that "Any

service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes

use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service."19

Facebook is an excellent example of a Web 2.0 technology. The site's developers

continually adapt the site to meet the changing needs of its users. Facebook users further

contribute to the site's changing nature with each status update posted or connection made.

Facebook always has new features to explore – some changes are controversial, but all changes

maintain a high level of interest in the site.20 When Facebook is used by a library, it has great

potential to be a Library 2.0 service, reaching users where they are to create communities and

share resources.

There is not a large body of scholarly literature concerning Library 2.0, since the term

was only introduced within the last five years. There is even less scholarly study of public

libraries' use of Web 2.0 technologies. One notable exception is Rutherford's qualitative research

into how public libraries in New Zealand and the United States are using social software,21 but

that study is limited in scope because the sample contained only seven libraries.

The most common type of scholarly literature on Library 2.0 is the case study. A familiar

feature in popular library journals, case study articles explore how and why a library employed a

17 Abram, "Social Libraries," 21.18 Gobinda Chowdhury, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy, “Public Library 2.0: Towards a New Mission for Public Libraries as a 'Network of Community Knowledge',” Online Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 455.19 Casey and Savastinuk, "Library 2.0," 42.20 Marshall Breeding, “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” Computers in Libraries 27, no. 8 (September 2007): 30-32.  21 Louise L. Rutherford, “Implementing Social Software in Public Libraries: An Exploration of the Issues Confronting Public Library Adopters of Social Software,” Library Hi Tech 26, no. 2 (2008): 184-200.

5

specific technology and what the results were. Popular case study topics include blogs22,

podcasting23, tagging24, and next generation OPACs.25 The second most common type of

scholarly literature on Library 2.0 focuses on the theoretical and philosophical implications of

Web 2.0 on librarianship.26

Facebook is one of the newer Web 2.0 technologies and therefore there is an even more

pronounced lack of scholarly literature about it. Facebook was first developed as a networking

tool for college students, and so the site already boasted a large student population when libraries

began joining in 2007. There is, therefore, a small body of scholarly literature concerning

academic libraries' use of Facebook.27 There is a considerable amount of mainstream writing

available on library blogs about libraries' experiences with Facebook. These provide first-hand

anecdotal accounts of Facebook usage and results. While these articles are not scholarly, peer

reviewed, or subjected to an editorial board, they can be informative when looking for

information regarding the experience libraries are having on Facebook. For this study, these

types of articles were not formally considered.

In 2008, a year after libraries began using Facebook's pages feature to establish a

presence on the site, Rutherford noted that there was still a noticeable gap in Library 2.0

22 Jessica Zellers, "In Blog Heaven: A Painless New Approach to Readers' Advisory," Virginia Libraries 53, no. 3 (July/August/September 2007): 23 – 24.23 Angela L. Jowitt, "Creating Communities with Podcasting," Computers in Libraries 28, no.4 (April 2008): 14-15, 54 – 56.24 Furner, “User Tagging of Library Resources," 47-51. 25 Sharon Q. Yang and Melissa A. Hofmann," The Next Generation Library Catalog: A Comparative Study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager," Information Technology and Libraries 29, no. 3 (September 2010): 141-50.26 Abram, "Social Libraries," 19-22; Mark Alfino and Linda Pierce, “The Social Nature of Information,” Library Trends 49, no. 3 (Winter 2001): 471-485; Chowdhury et al., “Public Library 2.0," 454-460; Tom Kwanya, Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood, "Library 2.0: Revolution or Evolution?" South African Journal of Library & Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009): 70 – 75.27 Laurie Charnigo and Paula Barnett-Ellis, “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on Academic Libraries,” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1 (March 2007): 23-34; Deborah Chiarella, et al. "Use of Facebook in Academic Health Sciences Libraries," Journal of the Medical Library Association 97, no.1 (January 2009): 43 - 46; Kwabena Sekyere, "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries! Is It Really Helping Libraries?" Nebraska Library Association Quarterly 40, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 25 – 27.

6

literature concerning public libraries' use of social technologies,28 like Facebook. While not

exclusively focused on social networking, Lietzau conducted research with a team at the

Colorado State Library's Library Research Service29 and discovered that only about 5% of public

libraries in their random sample of 483 U.S public libraries used social networking sites.

Furthermore, most of the public libraries in their sample had only the bare minimum web

presence – that is, a web site, an online public access catalog, and online availability of patron

accounts.

The small body of literature on Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 contains two general

considerations for libraries using social networking tools. The first general recommendation is

that Library 2.0 technologies be implemented in accordance with the library's strategic goals and

with the intention of fulfilling the library's mission, not simply for the sake of using something

new.30 Cvetkovic echoed others when she insisted that there is "nothing 'cool' or useful about

having a profile on these sites. It’s what you do with it that matters."31 The second general

recommendation in the literature is to focus on keeping users interested and engaged, because a

disengaged fan base will quickly lose interest.32 Keeping users interested will also help to

encourage them to share the library's information with their friends, which will help expand the

library's reach virally. "It is a truism that the greatest internet success stories don't advertise their

products. Their adoption is driven by 'viral marketing'--that is, recommendations propagating

directly from one user to another."33 To keep users engaged, libraries can post regular status

updates, interact with their patrons via comments, and post about events that are happening or

28 Rutherford, "Building Participative Library Services," 414.29 Zeth Lietzau, "U.S. Public Libraries and Web 2.0: What's Really Happening?" Computers in Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 6 - 10.30 Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 16; Casey and Savastinuk, "Library 2.0," 42. 31 Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 17.32 Joe A. Fernandez, "SWOT Analysis for Social Media in Libraries," Online (Weston, Conn.) 3, no. 5 (September/October 2009): 35-37.33 O'Reilly, "What is Web 2.0.”

7

have happened at the library. Some specific suggestions for using Facebook include using it to

communicate with patrons and friends34 and to market programs, events, and resources.35

Jennings and Price36 urged libraries to use Facebook as a space to provide Reader's Advisory and

to conduct reading challenges and book clubs. Thornton37 recommended humanizing the library's

Facebook presence by posting virtual library tours, photos of librarians doing their jobs, and

comments by librarians.

This study attempted to fill the gap in the scholarly literature about public libraries' actual

Facebook usage. The study explored the extent to which public libraries in Pennsylvania are

currently using Facebook. How many public libraries in Pennsylvania have a Facebook

presence? How are those libraries using Facebook? Is there a connection between the levels of

activity on a Facebook page and library size as calculated by total circulation?

Social networking is a relatively new field of inquiry for library research, and so it is

better suited to a qualitative research methodology. To analyze how libraries in Pennsylvania are

using Facebook, this study utilized a qualitative methodology called comparative analysis. The

data was collected using online data collection, which was imperative not only because Facebook

itself is an online application, but also because the sample included a large number of

geographically dispersed libraries. Online data collection enhances the ability to sample a large

number of geographically dispersed participants in a time- and cost-efficient manner.38

34 Breeding, “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” 31; Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend': Using Facebook in Libraries,” Tennessee Libraries 58, no. 1 (2008): 2; Sekyere, "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries!" 25; Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries," 114.35 Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” 96; Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend,” 2; Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries,” 114.36 Jennings and Price, “'Be My Friend,” 2.37 Thornton, “Facebook for Libraries,” 114.38 Samuel Lefever, Michael Dal, and Asrun Matthiasdottir, "Online Data Collection in Academic Research: Advantages and Limitations," British Journal of Educational Technology 38, no. 4 (July 2007): 575.

8

The study utilized a full sample of Pennsylvania public libraries with Facebook pages.

The sample was drawn by searching for all 629 public libraries in Pennsylvania39 on Facebook

using the site's search feature. In the cases where a library was not found on Facebook, a

secondary search was conducted by examining the library's website for a Facebook profile link.

The final sample, representative of all Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook as of March

2010, contained 184 public libraries or library systems. This study sought information on

Facebook profiles that existed for the library itself, as a whole. Therefore children's, Young

Adult, and other library departments' presences were excluded from the sample.

In order to bring coherence to the libraries' use of Facebook amidst its constant state of

change, it was necessary to constrain the data collection of this study to one month – March

2010. Since Facebook is constantly in flux, this study will not fully reflect activity since March

2010. However, it does provide the first look at Facebook activity in Pennsylvania public

libraries.

Profiles were analyzed to determine how many likes or members the library had, as well

as how many status updates the library posted during March 2010. Four specific types of status

updates were tracked: event promotion, book discussion or promotion, link sharing, and photo

sharing. These types of status updates were tracked because the literature suggested these might

be the most useful ways for libraries to use Facebook, and it enables the researcher to determine

how libraries are using the site. The number of likes and comments was also collected.

Tracking these statistics allowed the researcher to gauge the library's level of interactivity with

users.

39 Institute of Museum and Library Services. "Library Statistics," http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/library_list.asp?LibraryName&LibraryID&Address&City&State=PA&Zip&Distance&County&PhoneAreaCode&Phone&Librarytype=BR&ResultSetNumber=1&LibTypes=CE%2CBR&StateSelectedIndex=39 (accessed October 10, 2010).

9

Facebook Usage Category Cut-Offs

based on the number of status updates posted during March 2010

High Use Moderate Use

Low Use Zero Use

Highest number of status updates

65 17 7 0

Lowest number of status updates

19 8 1 0

Average number of status updates

30.9 11.4 3.4 0

Cut-offs were created in order to group the libraries on Facebook into four usage

categories: high use, moderate use, low use, and zero use. These cut-offs were created by the

researcher, based on the data collected for the number of status updates posted by the public

libraries on Facebook during the study month. The high use category contains libraries that

posted nineteen or more status updates during the study month, meaning they posted every 1.6

days at the very least. The average for the high use category was 30.9 status updates, which

would equal almost one per day in March 2010. The moderate use category contains libraries

that posted eight to seventeen status updates during the study month, meaning they posted

anywhere from once every 3.8 days to once every 1.8 days. The average for the moderate use

category was 11.4 status updates, which would equal about one every 2.8 days in March 2010.

The low use category contained libraries that posted one to seven status updates during the study

month, meaning they posted anywhere from once a month to once every 4.4 days. The average

10

for the low use category was 3.4 status updates, which would equal about one every ten days in

March 2010. The zero use category contains libraries that did not post any status updates during

the study month, although some of these libraries had posts by others on their walls during the

study month. These groupings facilitated analysis and comparison of Facebook activity.

According to the data collected for March 2010, out of 629 total public libraries in

Pennsylvania, 184 had a Facebook presence and 445 did not have a Facebook presence. This

means that 29% of Pennsylvania public libraries

are on Facebook, and 71% are not. These

numbers suggest that Facebook is not yet being

used by libraries to the degree that it is being used

in mainstream culture. Perhaps time will change

this situation, as it has only been three years since

pages were made available to organizations like libraries.

Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries with a Facebook presence, 176 of them are

pages and only 7 are groups. This underscores the notion that pages are the most widely used

and most effective method for creating a public library Facebook presence. One of the libraries,

a high use library, is set up as a personal profile, which violates Facebook's Terms of Use and

could be closed at any time.

Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries with a Facebook presence in March 2010, 16

were high users, with nineteen or more status updates posted during the month; 40 were

moderate users, with eight to seventeen status updates during the month; 85 were low users, with

one to seven status updates posted during the month; and 44 libraries had zero use, with no status

11

updates during the month.40 The low

use category contains the highest

number of libraries, so most

Pennsylvania public libraries on

Facebook are posting to their page from

once a month to once every 4.4 days.

Cvetkovic41 has noted that Library 2.0 technologies are very easy to use, and this is often cited as

a positive feature of these tools.

However, it may be one of the reasons why so many of the Pennsylvania public libraries on

Facebook are in the zero and low use categories. Even though more than a quarter of all

Pennsylvania public libraries had a presence on Facebook in March 2010, 129 of those libraries

are in the combined zero and low use categories. Library staff may be taken aback by how much

time and effort it takes to maintain a profile and engage users because the initial set-up is often

so easy. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook, only 76.1% were active during

March 2010, which means that overall 7% of Pennsylvania public libraries were active on

Facebook during March 2010.

There is no correlation between library size, as indicated by the number of cataloged

items, and Facebook usage category. Libraries in the high usage category averaged 381,091

cataloged items. Libraries in the moderate usage category averaged of 101,065 cataloged items.

Libraries in the low usage category averaged of 50,881 cataloged items. Libraries in the zero

usage category averaged 122,806 cataloged items.

40 Of the libraries with zero use, some had higher use in the months following March 2010. There is an ebb and flow to Facebook posting, as many accounts showed little or no activity during the snapshot month of this study, March 2010, but have had an increase in activity since.41 Cvetkovic, “Making Web 2.0 Work," 16.

12

Four types of status updates were tracked in order to ascertain how Pennsylvania public

libraries are using Facebook. The most common type of status update was the event promotion

type, which the researcher defined as a status update that promoted library events and programs

before or after they occurred. More than half of all the status updates posted by libraries in the

sample were event promotion (59%). The high use libraries posted 54% event promotion

updates; the moderate use libraries posted 59% event promotion updates, and the low use

libraries posted 39% event promotion updates.

Axelsson cautioned that libraries should humanize their social networking presences: "If

we want to use social community sites in a library context then we can’t be overly cautious.

People want to establish contact with other people – not with buildings."42 Using photos is an

easy way to humanize a library's presence by showcasing the people who work at the library.

However, 97% of Pennsylvania public libraries use a Facebook profile photo of a building, sign,

or logo, and only 3% use profile pictures that contain a human (and not always a contemporary

human – one profile uses a photo of long deceased Andrew Carnegie). Sharing photos in status

updates and wall posts is a more widely used method for humanizing the library. Of all the status

updates posted by Pennsylvania public libraries during March 2010, 19% contained photos.

Moderate and low use libraries posted the highest number of photos, each using photos in 24%

of their status updates. High use libraries posted photos less often, as only 11% of the updates

from these libraries contained photos.

Promoting books and sharing resources are traditional library roles. However, this role

does not seem to be a high priority for those Pennsylvania public libraries using Facebook. Only

10% of all status updates posted by the entire sample during the study month were about books.

The researcher defined these status updates as those that promoted new books, incited discussion

42 Axelsson, “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook," 19.

13

about books, or mentioned a book in any way. The researcher discovered after data collection

was complete that some libraries utilize their page's discussion board to discuss books, rather

than their status updates, so discussion about books may be more prevalent than this research

shows. As a way to track resource sharing, the researcher tracked link sharing status updates,

which she defined as those that included a link to any site other than Facebook or the library's

own website. Link sharing status updates comprised 10% of all status updates by Pennsylvania

public libraries. High use libraries posted 10% link sharing status updates, moderate use libraries

posted 11% link sharing status updates, and low use libraries posted 8% link sharing status

updates.

If the libraries are publishing this content via their status updates, are their friends paying

attention to them? A news feed can be a very busy place if a profile is connected to a lot of

profiles, pages, and groups. According to Facebook, the average user is connected to 80 pages

and groups,43 in addition to the individual profiles they are connected to. Tracking the number of

likes during the study month is one indicator of the degree to which libraries are connecting with

their friends. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on Facebook, over half (100) of those

libraries did not receive a single like during March 2010, and 42 of those were zero use libraries.

Of those libraries with the ten highest number of likes,44 8 of the 10 most liked libraries are

moderate or high use libraries. One moderate use library with 26 likes received over half of

them on a single post regarding the commencement of a new library building project.

The number of comments on a library's Facebook page is another indicator of the degree

to which libraries are connecting with their friends. Of the 184 Pennsylvania public libraries on

Facebook, again over half (116) of those libraries did not receive a single comment during March

43 Facebook, "Statistics."44 The 10 libraries with the highest number of likes had 115, 55, 29, 26, 21, 21, 21, 20, 18, and 17 likes.

14

2010, and 41 of those were zero use libraries. Of those libraries with the ten highest number of

comments,45 6 are high use libraries, 2 are moderate use libraries, and 2 are low use libraries.

Libraries should constantly strive to stay relevant and accessible via a variety of methods,

and Facebook is one method46 currently being used by about a quarter of all Pennsylvania public

libraries. The most popular way to use Facebook is to market events and programs through

status updates. In addition to manually posting status updates, it is possible to add an RSS feed

of a library's website or blog to a Facebook page so when the website or blog is updated, it

automatically shows up on the Facebook page and in the users' news feeds, putting the content

right where patrons are.47 "The point is that the access to the library takes place at the point of

the conversation."48

Since the researcher has finished her study, Facebook added a new and controversial

feature called Community Pages. Community pages are not created by anyone and cannot be

edited by anyone. Rather, they are container profiles that hold all status updates from all

Facebook users about a particular topic – like cooking - or about a particular organization – like

your library. Community pages also display applicable Wikipedia articles.49 These new pages

are controversial because they are a type of profile that cannot be controlled in any way by the

organization they represent.

This study provides the first look at Facebook activity in Pennsylvania public libraries.

There are many areas for further research that could tell us more about how these libraries are

using Facebook. These areas for further research include: How much time and staff go into

45 The 10 libraries with the most number of comments had 64, 56, 23, 20, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 14 , and 6 comments.46 Alayo, “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook,” 97.47 Thornton, "Facebook for Libraries," 114.48 Lankes, et al., "Participatory Networks," 28.49 Facebook, "Community Pages and Profile Connections: Can I Edit the Content on a Community Page?" http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=17112 (accessed November 23, 2010).

15

maintaining the Facebook presence? What other Web 2.0 technologies are these libraries using?

How are these libraries using Facebook's integrated chat feature?

16

Bibliography

Abram, Stephen. “Social Libraries: The Librarian 2.0 Phenomenon.” Library Resources &

Technical Services 52, no. 2 (2008): 19-22.

Alexander, Bryan. “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?”

EDUCAUSE Review 41, no. 2 (April 2006): 32-44.  

Alayo, Abimbota. “The Presence of Libraries on Facebook.” Impact: Journal of the Career

Development Group 12, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 96 - 97.  

Alfino, Mark, and Linda Pierce. “The Social Nature of Information.” Library Trends 49, no. 3

(Winter 2001): 471-485.  

Arrington, Michael. “Hitwise Says Facebook Most Popular U.S. Site.” TechCrunch, March 15,

2010. http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/hitwise-says-facebook-most-popular-u-s-site/

(accessed October 30, 2010).

Axelsson, Anna-Stina. “Libraries, Social Community Sites and Facebook: Do You Have a

Facebook?.” Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, Theme: Social Technologies, no. 2

(2008): 17-18.  

Barnett, Emma. “Americans Spend Most of Web Time on Facebook.” The Telegraph, July 15,

2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5833400/Americans-spend-most-

of-web-time-on-Facebook.html (accessed October 30, 2010).

Breeding, Marshall. “Libraries Face Online Social Networks,” Computers in Libraries 27, no. 8

(September 2007): 30-32.

Casey, Michael E. and Laura C. Savastinuk. "Library 2.0." Library Journal (1976) 131, no. 14

(September 2006): 40-42.

17

Charnigo, Laurie, and Paula Barnett-Ellis. “Checking Out Facebook.com: The Impact of a

Digital Trend on Academic Libraries.” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 1

(March 2007): 23-34.  

Chiarella, Deborah, Linda Hasman, Dean Hendrix, Sharon Murphy, and Michelle L. Zafron.

"Use of Facebook in Academic Health Sciences Libraries." Journal of the Medical

Library Association 97, no. 1 (January 2009): 43 – 46.

Chowdhury, Gobinda, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy. “Public Library 2.0: Towards a

New Mission for Public Libraries as a 'Network of Community Knowledge'.” Online

Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 454-460.  

Cvetkovic, Milica. “Making Web 2.0 Work: From "Librarian Habilis" to 'Librarian Sapiens'.”

Computers in Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 14-17.  

Facebook. "Statistics." http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed November

24, 2010).

Facebook. ""Community Pages and Profile Connections: Can I Edit the Content on a Community

Page?" http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=17112 (accessed November 10, 2010).

Farkas, Meredith. “Going Where Patrons Are: Outreach in MySpace and Facebook.” American

Libraries 38, no. 4 (April 2007): 27.

Fernandez, Joe A. "SWOT Analysis for Social Media in Libraries." Online (Weston,Conn.) 33,

no. 5 (September/October 2009): 35-37.

Furner, Jonathan. “User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System

Evaluation.” International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 37, no. 3 (September

2008): 47-51.  

Institute of Museum and Library Services. "Library Statistics,"

http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/library_list.asp?

18

LibraryName&LibraryID&Address&City&State=PA&Zip&Distance&County&PhoneAr

eaCode&Phone&Librarytype=BR&ResultSetNumber=1&LibTypes=CE

%2CBR&StateSelectedIndex=39 (accessed October 10, 2010).

Jennings, Susan, and Jamie Price. “'Be My Friend': Using Facebook in Libraries.” Tennessee

Libraries 58, no. 1 (2008): 1-3.

Jowitt, Angela L. "Creating Communities with Podcasting." Computers in Libraries 28, no. 4

(April 2008): 14-15, 54-56.

Kwanya, Tom, Christine Stilwell, and Peter G. Underwood. "Library 2.0: Revolution or

Evolution?" South African Journal of Library & Information Science 75, no. 1 (2009):

70 – 75.

Lankes, David R., Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson. “Participatory Networks: The Library

as Conversation.” Information Technology & Libraries 26, no. 4 (December 2007): 17-

33.

Lefever, Samuel, Dal, Michael, and Matthiasdottir, Asrun. "Online Data Collection in Academic

Research: Advantages and Limitations." British Journal of Educational Technology 38,

no. 4 (July 2007): 574 - 582.

Lietzau, Zeth, "U.S. Public Libraries and Web 2.0: What's Really Happening?" Computers in

Libraries 29, no. 9 (October 2009): 6 - 10.

O'Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation

of Software,” September 30, 2005. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

(accessed October 30, 2010).

19

Peltier-Davis, Cheryl. “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative

Services for Sustainable Libraries.” Computers in Libraries 29, no. 19 (November 2009):

16-21.  

Rutherford, Louise L. “Building Participative Library Services: The Impact of Social Software

Use in Public Libraries.” Library Hi Tech 26, no. 3 (2008): 411-423.  

Rutherford, Louise L. “Implementing Social Software in Public Libraries: An Exploration of the

Issues Confronting Public Library Adopters of Social Software.” Library Hi Tech 26, no.

2 (2008): 184-200.

Sekyere, Kwabena. "Too Much Hullabaloo About Facebook in Libraries! Is It Really Helping

Libraries?" Nebraska Library Association Quarterly 40, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 25 - 27.

Sodt, Jill M., and Terri Pederson Summey. “Beyond the Library's Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools

to Reach Out to All Users.” Journal of Library Administration 49 (2009): 97-109.  

Thornton, Lori. “Facebook for Libraries.” Christian Librarian 52, no. 3 (2009): 112-115.  

Yang, Sharon Q., and Melissa A. Hofmann. "The Next Generation Library Catalog: A

Comparative Study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager." Information

Technology and Libraries 29, no. 3 (September 2010): 141-50.

Zellers, Jessica. "In Blog Heaven: A Painless New Approach to Readers' Advisory." Virginia

Libraries 53, no. 3 (July/August/September 2007): 23 – 24.

20