social networking tools for academic libraries

http://lis.sagepub.com/Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/1/64The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0961000611434361

2013 45: 64 originally published online 17 February 2012Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceSamuel Kai-Wah Chu and Helen S Du

Social networking tools for academic libraries

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceAdditional services and information for

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 27, 2013Version of Record >>

at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lis.sagepub.com/

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/1/64

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/1/64.full.pdf

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/16/0961000611434361.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

45(1) 64 –75© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0961000611434361lis.sagepub.com

Introduction

The World Wide Web enables people to gain access to infor-mation, create content and disseminate ideas more efficiently. It optimizes the social networks in which individuals are connected through widening communication channels and lowering costs (Barsky and Purdon, 2006). Social networking sites first emerged for Internet users to find long-lost friends and classmates, link with each other and share profiles. An increasing number of individuals have become members of one or more social networking sites leading to soaring mem-bership numbers, largely because these sites are free and easy to use. Lately, these social networking sites have gained a foothold among companies, organizations and even politicians who want to reach out to their target populations (Read, 2006). The wide application of social networking in different contexts appears to have included universities and libraries as well (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). It has been suggested that academic libraries could take the opportunity of using these social net-working tools to disseminate information, market services and promote new releases (Burkhardt, 2010).

This exploratory research aimed to contribute towards understanding academic librarians’ utilizations of social net-working tools. A review of the literature illustrates the

potentials and advantages of applying social networking tools in academic libraries, such as promoting library services and getting in touch with student users. Based on findings from a web-based survey among academic librarians, this study contributes to the literature that illustrates how academic libraries use different social networking tools, leading to rel-evant implications for further usage.

Literature review

What are social networking tools?

Various definitions of social networking websites/tools exist. For instance, Alexander (2006) offered a broad definition: social networking can encompass almost all collaborative environments employing Web 2.0 technologies. The promise

Social networking tools for academic libraries

Samuel Kai-Wah Chu The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Helen S DuMacau University of Science and Technology, Macau

AbstractThis is an exploratory study investigating the use of social networking tools in academic libraries, examining the extent of their use, library staff’s perceptions of their usefulness and challenges, and factors influencing decisions to use or not to use such tools. Invitations to participate in a web-based survey were sent to 140 university libraries from Asia, North America and Europe. Responses were received from 38 libraries (response rate: 27.1%). Twenty-seven libraries (71.1%) used social networking tools, five (13.1%) were potential users and six (15.8%) did not plan to use them at all. Facebook and Twitter were the most commonly adopted tools in university libraries. Most library staff had positive perceptions on the usefulness of social networking tools, but hesitancy among library staff and limited participation of users (i.e. students) were perceived to be hindrances. This study offers insights for academic librarians to make informed decisions in applying social networking tools.

KeywordsAcademic libraries, Facebook, instant messaging, MySpace, Social networking, Twitter

Corresponding author:Samuel Kai-Wah Chu, Division of Information and Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]

434361 LIS45110.1177/0961000611434361Chu and DuJournal of Librarianship and Information Science2012

Article

at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Chu and Du 65

of Web 2.0 technologies is that they foster collaboration among users, which generates new thinking and strategies to meet the demands of the changing society (Chu and Kennedy, 2011; Chu et al., 2011; Glassman and Kang, 2011). Instead of referring to a new technical standard or natural progression in the development of web technologies (Murray, 2008), Web 2.0 provides a new way of using the Internet for interactive purposes (Chu et al., in press; McLean, et al., 2007). These tools include blogs, wikis, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), podcasting, social bookmarking, social net-working, feeds and Google utilities (Churchill, 2007).

In particular, social networking websites allow users to share interests and communicate with others (Boroughs, 2010). Barsky and Purdon (2006) emphasized that social networking websites collect data about members, store and share user profiles. These websites are free and allow users to easily create personal pages filled with content in the form of images, music and videos. Such websites function as a social network because members are able to share web pages with friends and search for new friends who have similar interests. In the social exchange theory, Homans (1974) pro-posed that in real-life social networks, people establish ties with others to exchange valued resources, and relationships formed depend on payoffs to both parties over time.

Boyd and Ellison (2007) described social networking web-sites as systems that allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. It was also noted that these web-sites vary in terms of features and membership. Some websites allow photo/video sharing, while others allow blogging and private messaging. To some extent, blogs have also been regarded as a form of social networking because blogs support the formation of social connections (Taylor-Smith and Lindner, 2009). Wikis, blogs, chat rooms, instant messengers, message boards and social bookmarking are Web 2.0 technol-ogy applications that have been used to facilitate members’ interaction, and thus, have been referred to as social network-ing tools (Jones and Conceicao, 2008). Social networks have been described to possess three functions: (1) allow socializa-tion among individuals, (2) generate participation opportuni-ties, and (3) facilitate decisions (Passy, 2003).

It should be noted that even though sites such as YouTube and Flickr allow users to construct profiles and share con-nections, they have been identified to be primarily for sharing videos and images, rather than for social networking (Hoffman, 2009). While the use of social media has been suggested to be all about sharing, learning, ability to have conversations and giving (Burkhardt, 2010), sites such as Flickr and YouTube are focused on content sharing with limited social networking potentials. Similarly, Slideshare, Issuu and blogs are also content-sharing tools with limited potential for conversations between users. As such, this study adopted a relatively narrow definition of social networking tools, referring to those that

are not primarily for content sharing (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Burkhardt, 2010; Hoffman, 2009). Nevertheless, tools that do not fall under this narrow definition but were mentioned by participants in this study were reported.

The use of social networking tools in libraries

A study in the mid-2000s indicated that most of the library directors and the general public in the United States did not think that libraries had a role in social networking (De Rosa et al., 2007). The emphasis of libraries on learning was per-ceived to be unsuitable with the nature of social networking, and concerns on inadequate time and resources spent on social networking tools were raised. Nevertheless, the potential of using social networking in libraries has been demonstrated through the use of Facebook and MySpace (Chu and Nalani-Meulemans, 2008). By displaying their status (whether they were online or not), librarians available to address their enquir-ies were easily identified by users. Librarians also found it advantageous when they wished to communicate with col-leagues to answer users’ enquiries, thus providing answers more efficiently. Furthermore, Facebook and MySpace were found to be helpful in enhancing libraries’ social visibility through profiles that showed a uniform identity. It was also found that MySpace allowed different librarians to contribute knowledge and information, maintain a profile together and promote new library collections.

A number of librarians have suggested that Facebook could be a feasible way to deliver library services and com-municate with users (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007). In the case of the Kimbel Library of the Coastal Carolina University, Facebook has been used to provide reference assistance and library tours, and to promote services (Graham et al., 2009). Moreover, this library found out that Facebook unexpectedly helped colleagues to become closer and know each other better personally.

While social networking websites appear to have benefits for libraries, their use has not been pervasive, partly due to librarians’ perceived limitations in their abilities to set up profiles and in time dedicated for maintenance (Hendrix et al., 2009). While the uptake of Facebook by public libraries has also been deterred by council decisions that ban its use (e.g. Lowe, 2008), the public’s lack of interest in libraries’ participation in social networking tools has also been noted to be a discouraging factor in the use of Facebook by public libraries (De Rosa et al., 2007). This seems to be a relevant consideration since participation in social networking web-sites has been found to be dependent on subjective norms and social identity (Cheung and Lee, 2010). When it comes to academic purposes, students have been shown to be not par-ticularly eager to communicate with professors on Facebook or MySpace (Chu and Nalani-Meulemans, 2008) and they preferred email because it is perceived to be more reliable. Students have reported that they felt more comfortable and interested in using social networking tools to communicate



66 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 45(1)

with people whom they regarded as friends, which would not likely include librarians. Some college students have also shown negative feelings about the librarians using Facebook and MySpace as outreach tools since it may infringe on their sense of personal privacy (Connell, 2009). According to Connell’s survey results, if a library wanted to use social network sites effectively, librarians should be cautious in establishing communications and relationships with their student friends and avoid ‘mass friending’.

It appears that the uptake of social networking as tools for libraries needs to be understood further to pave the way for harnessing its potential benefits. A wider perspective in examining social networking tools for librarians would also be useful, since only the use of Facebook and MySpace has been documented. While these sites may have dominance in the United States (Hoffman, 2009) and other western regions, other social networking sites such as Orkut (Asia-Pacific and South America), Bebo (Australia and Europe) and QQ (China) are popular in other regions. In this study, we exam-ined perceptions of the use of social networking tools, of librarians from different geographic regions. We aimed to gain a deeper understanding of librarians’ insights, and at the same time obtain a wider geographic perspective.

Methodology

Objectives

By examining librarians’ insights on the benefits and chal-lenges of using social networking tools in academic libraries across the globe, we expect to aid libraries in making informed decisions on whether they would use particular social networking tools for library services. A descriptive cross-sectional research design was used in implementing a web-based survey to address the following objectives:

• To examine the application of social networking tools in academic libraries in different countries/regions.

• To describe librarians’ perceptions of the usefulness of social networking tools for information/knowledge sharing and enhancement of library services.

• To examine factors that might influence libraries’ deci-sions on using social networking tools.

Instrument

Two sets of survey questionnaires were designed for respond-ents from libraries who have been using social networking tools and those who have not been using them. The question-naires were adapted from a similar instrument that examined the use of wikis among academic libraries (Chu, 2009), but was modified to (1) identify the types of social networking tools that were being used by academic libraries, (2) examine librarians’ opinions on the usefulness of the tools, and (3) determine perceived advantages and disadvantages of using

these tools. Relevant considerations in decisions on using social networking tools, and challenges/difficulties experi-enced with their use were also explored. The instrument was pilot-tested by a panel of three academic librarians, and all items were found to be relevant, clear and understandable (see appendix for sample items).

Close-ended questions were used with response choices that were based on the operational definition of social net-working tools adopted in this study (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Burkhardt, 2010; Hoffman, 2009). Tools such as YouTube and Flickr were not included, but instant messaging was con-sidered as a social networking tool since it allows two or more users to chat simultaneously and share contents. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess respondents’ perceptions on the usefulness of social networking for information and knowledge sharing. Open-ended questions were also included to obtain information on purposes and other insights associ-ated with using social networking tools, and to allow partici-pants to indicate other resources, which they might have considered as social networking tools.

Sampling and procedures

The sampling focused on university libraries and was based on the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. From the top 600 universities listed on THE, 70 Asian universities were first identified and were matched with 70 western (North America and Europe) universities that were generally in the same ranking range. Altogether 140 university libraries were identified and invited via email to participate in the study. A response rate of 27% (38 librar-ies) was obtained, where each participant library provided a contact person to represent the institution. Upon submission of signed consent forms, contact persons were asked to respond to a web-based survey, available via SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/).

Findings

Location of users and types of social networking tools

From the 38 respondents, 27 (71.1%) were using social net-working tools for academic library work; 5 (13.1%) planned to use these tools in the future; and 6 (15.8%) had no plans to use these tools. Figure 1 summarizes the geographic dis-tribution of the respondent libraries that have been using social networking tools. The locations include: United Kingdom (30%), United States (18%), Hong Kong (15%), China (7%), Canada (4%), Singapore (7%), Taiwan (7%), Korea (4%), Germany (4%) and Japan (4%). Since the sam-pling frame was based on the THE world rankings, countries with more universities in the higher ranks appears to have greater participation. Western libraries also had a slightly higher response rate (30%) than the Asian libraries (22.86%).



Chu and Du 67

Facebook (62.9%) and Twitter (62.9%) were found to be the two most commonly reported tools by the respondent libraries, and both fall within the operational definition of social networking tools in this study. A number of studies have previously reported the use of Facebook in libraries (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Graham et al., 2009), and our findings indicate that it has continued to be the social networking tool of choice for librarians. Facebook has been shown to be the most popular social networking site among students (Dwyer et al., 2007; Stutzman, 2006), and this is perhaps a consideration for libraries that aim to reach more users. Instant messaging, such as MSN and QQ (44.4%), and LinkedIn (3.7%) were also reportedly used by the libraries (see Figure 2).

Respondents reported other tools being used that they considered as social networking. As shown in Figure 2, these tools included blogs (25.9%), wikis (18.5%), YouTube

(11.1%), Flickr (14.8%), Slideshare (7.4%), Issuu (3.7%) and Delicious (3.7%). However, these tools are known to be primarily for sharing information, photos and videos, rather than for setting up networks and connections.

Table 1 shows that different departments within the respondent libraries used different social networking tools. Information service departments reportedly used all identi-fied tools for handling real-time enquiries from users and for enhancing internal information and knowledge exchange among colleagues. Public service departments generally used Facebook and Twitter, while technical service departments were found to utilize tools that fell under the broader defini-tion of social networking tools. Nearly all departments reported the use of Twitter.

The length of time that social networking tools have been used by the respondents varied from 1.5 to 4 years. Facebook, instant messaging and blogs have been used for the longest time (4 years); YouTube came next (3 years); wikis and Slideshare came third (2.5 years); Twitter ranked fourth (1.5 years); and Flickr the last (1.5 years). While Twitter is a rela-tively new tool, it appears to have caught up with Facebook in terms of popularity.

The duration of use of social networking tools by respond-ent libraries generally relates to the launch dates of these tools. As shown in Figure 3, instant messaging like MSN Messenger (News Press Release: Microsoft Launches MSN Messenger Service, 1999) and blogs (Blood, 2000) were developed in the 1990s and thus have been used by libraries for the longest time. YouTube emerged in 2005 (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), and respondent libraries reported having used it for a considerable amount of time (three years). Slideshare and Twitter were launched in 2006 (Arrington, 2006; Boyd and Ellison, 2007) and hence have been used for relatively shorter periods of time. Facebook became accessible rather late in the timeline (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), but some respondents reported using it for four years (as long as instant messaging and blogs). This is perhaps a reflection of the general popularity of Facebook among students. Wikis came out in 1995 (Cunningham, 2003) and Flickr in 2004 (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), but both have been used for a relatively shorter time. Delicious came out in 2003 (Surowiecki, 2006) and Issuu in 2006 (Lowensohn, 2008), but both tools have reportedly been used by only one or two respondents.

Purposes of using social networking tools

Social networking tools that were within this study’s opera-tional definition were reportedly used for marketing and publicity, enhancing reference services and knowledge shar-ing among staff (see Table 2). It was found that Facebook and Twitter have been used for marketing among the respond-ents, while an earlier study had reported that libraries were indifferent towards marketing through Facebook (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007).

Figure 1. Location of libraries who have been using social networking tools (n = 27)

Figure 2. Social networking tools used by various librariesNote: Items marked with an asterisk (*) fall within the narrow definition of social networking tools used in this study.




Instant messaging was reportedly used for handling enquiry-related services and internal staff communication. This tool has been shown to enhance users’ social presence and to facilitate a sense of connection, which was not provided by emails and conventional Web 1.0 websites (Boulos and Wheelert, 2007). Wikis were also reportedly used to handle enquiries and frequently asked questions (FAQ), which is consistent with earlier findings by Chu (2009) that wikis have enabled communication between librarians and users. Wikis have also been used to create, capture, share and transfer knowledge (Chu, 2008).

Perceived benefits from using social networking tools in the library

A 5-point Likert scale was used to examine the participants’ perceptions of the benefits associated with social networking tools in libraries. Those who responded to the questionnaire items all selected either a rating of 1 (not helpful at all) or 5 (very helpful). As such, the responses are presented here in terms of the number of participants who selected each of the two extreme response choices (see Figure 4). Overall, par-ticipants perceived social networking tools to be very helpful

Table 1. Tools used by various departments

Social networking tools

Departments Facebook* Instant Messaging* Twitter* Blogs Flickr Wikis YouTube

Public Services Academic Liaison ✓ ✓ ✓

Academic Support ✓ ✓ Audio-visual ✓ Archives ✓ ✓ ✓ Circulations ✓ ✓ Communications ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Customer Services ✓ ✓ General Service ✓ Information Services ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Public Relations ✓ ✓ Reference ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ User Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Technical Services Cataloging ✓ Equipment Management ✓ I.T. Services ✓ ✓ ✓

*Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) fall into the narrower definition of social networking tools.

Figure 3. Launch dates of various social networking tools



Chu and Du 69

in terms of information sharing, knowledge sharing, enhanc-ing reference services and promoting library services. Only one respondent indicated the tools were not helpful at all. This finding implies a shift in attitudes of libraries towards social networking tools, which was previously found to be indifferent (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007).

That social networking tools were helpful in promoting library services was consistent with the finding that the two most reported purposes for which libraries used social net-working tools were promotion of library events

(e.g. exhibitions, competitions, talks, seminars, workshops, tutorials, training courses) and dissemination of news (e.g. events alert, library updates). Figure 5 shows the reported purposes for using social networking tools, which included the following: to offer library resources (including answer enquiries, catalogue search), to release information about new collections and lists, to convey general library informa-tion and to offer online resources.

Benefits associated with use of social networking tools were also reported to include the quick spread of information with simple steps; communication and promotion; enhanced interaction between library and students; and access to stu-dents’ comments and suggestions. Engagement and feedback from library users were reportedly encouraged (R15, R26), and students managed to keep up-to-date with news and information from the library despite infrequent actual visits to the library (R17). Library staff also found that social net-working tools provided access to students’ ideas and sug-gestions (R17, R24), thus implying that the tools served a role in public relations by allowing the transmission of ‘quick and direct information’ (R12).

Social networking tools were also reported to aid library staff in keeping up-to-date with resources and activities in their profession (R19), and in finding opportunities to learn

Table 2. The purposes of using social networking tools

Social networking tools

Purposes Facebook* Instant Messaging* LinkedIn* Twitter* Blogs Flickr Wikis YouTube

InformationInformation sharing ✓ ✓✓✓ ✓

Links sharing Photo sharing Sharing library videos (instructions/guides) ✓

Video sharing ✓ ✓

Marketing and publicityPublicity ✓ ✓ Public Relations ✓ Marketing ✓ ✓ News dissemination ✓ ✓ Calendar ✓ Course information ✓ Library notices ✓ List of current and new library collections ✓ Enquiry-related servicesEnquiry services ✓ ✓ ✓ FAQ ✓ Interaction with students ✓ ✓ Online reference services ✓ Online help services ✓ ✓ Librarian communication and staff developmentConnection with other librarians ✓ Monitoring publications and conferences ✓ Staff communication ✓ ✓ ✓

*Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) fall into the narrower definition of social networking tools used in this study.

Figure 4. Respondent librarians’ perceptions of the benefits of using social networking tools




new technology (R23). It was also reported that Twitter was useful in maintaining updates for students who were active Twitter users, and little time was required to do so (R26). It was also suggested that ‘students trusted the library more’ because the latter was keeping up with the pace of technology (R16).

Two respondents reported no benefits accrued from using social networking tools, primarily because students did not use the tools. One other respondent was doubtful about the benefits, while two others were unclear since there were no formal ways to assess the benefits. One respondent said no major benefits have been observed, but was hopeful and optimistic that once a large number of students had become attracted to use them, considerable benefits would eventually be seen.

The cost of using social networking tools was perceived to range from minimal to almost none (18/21, 66.7% of respondents). The main source of cost was perceived to be the extra time spent by staff on learning and administering social networking tools. Monetary training cost was minimal, and the technologies were acquired free. Furthermore, the cost was perceived to be only in the initial stages as ‘time had to be spent on monitoring during the initial launch of the social networking services, but in the long run, management required little time’ (R9). As such, the same percentage of respondents (66.7%) was certain the benefits outweighed the costs, given that they invested almost next to nothing in using and maintaining these tools. Earlier, Boulos and Wheelert (2007) had pointed out the inexpensive development costs had made the use of these social networking tools worthwhile. It was pointed out by one of the participants in this study that whether or not the benefits outweighed the costs depended on the needs and the expertise of the library (R3).

Challenges in implementing social networking tools in libraries

A number of challenges in using social networking tools in libraries were identified, the most pressing of which appears

to be limitations associated with inadequate time. This may be problematic since using social networking tools has not been given priority due to insufficient time to learn how to use them (R15). Another participant noted that these tools were very technical; the limited time they had did not allow them to learn about, explore and implement social networking tools in the library (R18). There had been some amount of difficulty in administration as well. For instance, since the threads and newsfeeds on Twitter needed personal care, the library staff users were hardly able to monitor them (R12). Generally, moni-toring the social networking tools was perceived to require additional time and manpower in the library (R16). One chal-lenge that needs to be addressed is finding a way of using these tools without using up too much time (R23, R24).

Associated with the limited time available to learn how to use social networking tools, inadequate mastery of tech-nology was also perceived to be a challenge. Social network-ing tools were perceived to be developing quickly, and library users might not be able to keep up (R17). While additional time had to be spent on mastering the technology (R23, R24), updating the tools regularly can also be time-consuming (R26). Besides time, the ‘aging and shrinking staff’ of the library also found it difficult to follow the technological innovations of the tools (R18). Furthermore, some difficulty was perceived in ‘understanding how each tool worked and how to align it to their specific business model’ (R3). The process of determining which tool users might welcome more was perceived to be challenging as a consequence of the continuous evolution of social media (R19, R23). Such concern has been identified in an earlier study, where libraries found it difficult to identify the popular sites as the tools continue to evolve (Chu and Nalani-Meulemans, 2008).

There had also been limited engagement by library staff in social networking tools, primarily because they found these tools difficult to understand (R6, R7, R21). Some departments were more willing to use these tools, while other departments were hesitant, leading to a lack of consensus (R25). The reluctance of staff to use social networking tools

Figure 5. Purposes of libraries in using social networking tools



Chu and Du 71

was also linked to the difficulty in determining who might ‘the future users be’ (R5). On the other hand, attracting users to make use of social networking platforms offered by the libraries was also reported to be difficult (R10). It was noted that students hardly contributed to social networking tools by the libraries and did not like using them (R13, R14). Besides the above difficulties, achieving a balance in tone when communicating with students (informal yet present-able) was also found difficult (R19).

Training offered by the libraries on the use of social networking tools and their content

Clearly, some amount of training for library staff may allevi-ate the sense of inadequate mastery of technology. However, the majority of the respondent libraries (16/26, 62%) did not offer training, while only a few decided that training was necessary (10/26, 38%). Out of the 10 libraries that offered training, nine indicated that training was mandatory for all library staff while one other library offered training on a ‘need basis’. The respondent from this library further reported that so far, the staff users learned to use the tools intuitively. Varied responses were obtained as far as the responsibility for training provision. On some occasions, staff that had social networking website accounts was asked to deliver the training (R7). In other situations, IT staff provided training (R21), while communication officers had also been involved in the provision of training (R26, R5). Training contents included Web 2.0 and social networking tools in general (R13, R19, R24) and raising the awareness of social network-ing tools (R26). Training in the use of specific tools was also given, such as the use of Twitter (R7).

Adopting other and/or abandoning social networking tools

Nearly half (13/27) of the respondents were open to any new tool that could be useful to the library for promoting and enhancing services. Some responses were more specific, men-tioning tools such as blogs would be adopted if the shortage in personnel was addressed (R3, R8). Another participant noted that they would be interested in using Renren.com (a Chinese equivalent of Facebook) to promote library resources, services and updates, gather feedback and communicate with students (R16). Meebo was also identified as a chat tool that could be integrated into a library website to help answer enquiries.

A number of respondents noted that some tools had been, or would be, abandoned in the future. One library had used Second Life for some time, but it was too time-consuming to be continued (R11). It was also reported that a library blog was stopped because students did not like using it and pre-ferred using the utilities in the university portal (R14). Another library intended to stop using Facebook and Twitter because student interest in them was low (R15). Adoption of new technology has been found to depend on the match

of available technology and the task on hand, personal experi-ences, preferences, cost and accessibility (Chung and Hossain, 2010). In this current study, libraries who planned to adopt or abandon certain social networking tools indicated that they assessed the tools based on their beliefs and experi-ences (e.g. whether they were effective in promoting library services), time requirements and operating costs.

Librarians’ definitions of social networking tools

Some respondents in this study regarded tools such as blogs, Delicious, Flickr, Issuu, Slideshare, wikis and YouTube as social networking tools, which are not within our definition. It seems that a number of respondents defined social network-ing tools as those that allowed some degree of interaction among users. For instance, blogs were considered social networking tools because these updated users about new library collections and resources and allowed comments to be posted (R10). Wikis were considered social networking tools because they provided a platform for users to participate in discussions (R13, R21). Sharing photos and videos was also considered a form of interaction among users and librar-ians (R4, R23, R27).

Instant messaging falls within the narrow definition of social networking tools. However, a number of respondents suggested that this was not a social networking tool since this kind of communication involved only two individuals (R9, R16, R23). But in fact, instant messaging can involve more than two individuals. This indicates the need to help librarians maximize the usefulness of online tools by learning the utilities offered by the particular tools.

Libraries that were not using any social networking tools

Of the respondent libraries 11 were not using any social net-working tools at the time of the survey, and five (45%) of them indicated plans to adopt such tools in the future. One respondent reported that Facebook and Twitter were going to be used in their library within six months, mainly for dis-seminating library information updates. Another respondent envisioned more and more students would use social network-ing tools, but was uncertain whether students would like to see the library join the trend. Hence, this respondent library might conduct a survey among students to gather feedback about the plan. Time and manpower costs had been considered in order to update information and monitor incoming mes-sages. Fulk et al. (1990) pointed out that whether or not one will use information and communication technologies is largely dependent on the attitudes, comments and behaviors of colleagues. While this appears to be true for the participants in this study, one more factor seemed to have been considered by the respondents: response from potential users. This factor appears to be critical for libraries to decide whether or not to adopt the use of social networking tools.




Discussion

Utilities offered by social networking tools have been sug-gested to be useful for academic libraries, and this study examined librarians’ perceptions on the use of such tools. Through librarians’ insights, this study was able to determine the benefits and advantages associated with using social networking tools in libraries. As expected, these tools were reported to facilitate information and knowledge sharing, service enhancement and promotion, interaction with student library users, at minimal costs. Equally important to under-standing the use of social networking in libraries is the iden-tification of challenges and difficulties that were experienced by current and past users. These include limited time resources, inadequate mastery of technology and inconsistent responses from both library staff and users. These insights have been summarized in Table 3.

Some respondents appeared to have gained substantial familiarity with the tools they were using, probably as a con-sequence of the length of time such tools have been in use. It was also apparent that social networking tools were more successfully used when purposes were clearly identified prior to actual usage. Responses to the open-ended questions showed that library staff has been able to establish a degree of engage-ment with their colleagues. However, library users (i.e. stu-dents) were reported to have limited involvement in the social networking platforms offered by the libraries. This has also been identified as a factor that influenced the decision of a number of respondent libraries to continue or abandon a tool.

While previous studies on libraries’ use of social network-ing have focused on Facebook and MySpace (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Connell, 2009), this study identified other applications that are being used in the Asian region. Respondents in China reported social networking sites such as QQ and Renren.com. The globalization trends of higher education have indicated consistent increases in cross-national student mobility (International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), 2009), and students from central Asia (China) make up the second most mobile group (United

Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2006). Western universities make up the destina-tions of Chinese students, and the findings of this study imply that libraries of the destination universities might do well to consider these alternative social networking tools.

Findings of this current study indicate a change in librar-ians’ regard of social networking tools, which appears to be moving towards a favorable trend. This might be related to the increasing popularity of social networking in society in general. Nevertheless, it appears that in this study, posi-tive experiences and substantial familiarity with social networking tools reinforced the intentions of existing users to continue utilizing them. On the other hand, those who were still in the planning stage of using social networking platforms were influenced by the expected responses and involvement of library users. They indicated greater pos-sibility of adopting the tools if responses from students were positive.

Limitations and further studies

While the findings of this study offer a view on the insights of representatives of academic libraries, it is acknowledged that limited generalizations can be made due to the rela-tively small sample size. This study aimed to provide a broad perspective by seeking the participation of academic libraries from different regions, but an alternative approach that might reveal a deeper understanding of social network-ing as used by libraries would be to involve more staff members from a few selected libraries. Further studies might also consider involving students in order to have a grasp of the perceptions and needs of the user groups. This study was also focused on academic libraries, and it would be interesting to explore if similar experiences with social networking might have occurred in libraries of a non-academic nature.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that social networking tools were being used by a number of academic libraries. The benefits of using these tools are perceived to outweigh the costs, which were reported to be minimal, if not none. Social networking tools were perceived to be helpful in promoting library services and interacting with students. Moreover, the tools were also reported to be helpful for internal staff communication. However, the implementation of these tools by library staff was found to be challenged by limited time and perceived inadequacy of the staff to keep pace with the development of technology. Provision of training for staff users was found to be inadequate, and this indicates a component that needs to be addressed by organizations that intend to launch social networking plat-forms effectively.

Table 3. Benefits and challenges associated with using social networking tools

Benefits/advantages Challenges

Promotes library servicesDisseminates news quicklyEnhances interactions with usersReaches out and engages usersHelps gather users’ feedbackEnhances reference servicesEnhances internal staff communicationMinimal acquisition costs

Requires time and manpower costsDemands mastery of new and evolving technologyNeeds to attract users to take part in different platformsReluctant staffRelatively unengaged users



Chu and Du 73

A number of libraries which have not been using these tools indicated plans to adopt them in the future, depending on the response of library patrons. The findings of this study offer insights on librarians’ experiences in using social net-working tools, which may provide a useful basis for library staff and professionals who are considering the possibility of embracing social networking as a part of their system. The phenomenon of social networking tools is likely to continue evolving rapidly. As this occurs, libraries make up one group that may benefit from utilizing these tools in an evolving manner as well. Findings of this study suggest that factors related to time pressure and competencies of staff need to be addressed in order to encourage libraries to take advantage of benefits offered by these web technologies.

Funding

This research is supported by the CRCG Small Project Funding from The University of Hong Kong.

References

Alexander B (2006) A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review 41(2): 32–44.

Arrington M (2006) Introducing slideshare: PowerPoint + YouTube. Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2006/10/04/introducing-slideshare-power-point-youtube/ (accessed 28 October 2010).

Barsky E and Purdon M (2006) Introducing Web 2.0: Social net-working and social bookmarking for health librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 27(3): 65–67.

Blood R (2000) Weblogs: A history and perspective. Available at: http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html (accessed 6 January 2012).

Boroughs B (2010) Social networking websites and voter turnout. PhD Dissertation, Public Policy and Policy Management, Georgetown University, Georgetown, DC, USA.

Boulos MNK and Wheelert S (2007) The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal 24(1): 2–23.

Boyd DM and Ellison NB (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210–230.

Burkhardt A (2010) Social media: A guide for college and university libraries. College & Research Libraries News 71(1): 10–24.

Charnigo L and Barnett-Ellis P (2007) Checking out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries 26(1): 23–34.

Cheung CMK and Lee MKO (2010) A theoretical model of inten-tional social action in online social networks. Decision Support Systems 49(1): 24–30.

Chu M and Nalani-Meulemans Y (2008) The problems and poten-tial of MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 13(1): 69–85.

Chu SKW (2008) TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review 32(6): 745–758.

Chu SKW (2009) Using wikis in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 35(2): 170–176.

Chu SKW and Kennedy D (2011) Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review 35(4): 581–597.

Chu SKW, Chan CKK and Tiwari AFY (2011) Using blogs to support learning during internship. Computers & Education 58(3): 989–1000.

Chu SKW, Kwan ACM and Warning P (in press) Blogging for information management, learning, and social support during internship. Journal of Educational Technology & Society.

Chung KSK and Hossain L (2010) Towards a social network model for understanding information and communication technology use for general practitioners in rural Australia. Computers in Human Behavior 26(4): 562–571.

Churchill D (2007) Web 2.0 and possibilities for educational applications. Educational Technology 47(2): 24–29.

Connell RS (2009) Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: A survey of student opinion. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 9(1): 25–36.

Cunningham W (2003) Correspondence on the etymology of Wiki. Available at: http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html (accessed 28 October 2010).

De Rosa C, Cantrell J, Havens A et al. (2007) Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC mem-bership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.

Dwyer C, Hiltz S and Passerini K (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007), Keystone, CL, 10–12 August 2007. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/index.2.html (accessed 6 January 2012).

Fulk J, Schmitz J and Steinfield C (1990) A social influence model of technology use. In: Fulk J and Steinfield C (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 117–140.

Glassman M and Kang MJ (2011) The logic of wikis: The possi-bilities of the Web 2.0 classroom. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 6(1): 93–112.

Graham JM, Faix A and Hartman L (2009) Crashing the Facebook party: One library’s experiences in the students’ domain. Library Review 58(3): 228–236.

Hendrix D, Chiarella D, Hasman L, et al. (2009) Use of Facebook in academic health sciences libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association 97(1): 44–47.

Hoffman ES (2009) Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning. In: Technology, Colleges and Community (TCC) Worldwide Online Conference, Honolulu, HI, 14–16 April 2009, pp.92–100. Available at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/evaluating-social-networking-tools-distance-learning-1/ (accessed 16 January 2012).

Homans G (1974) Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.




International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) (2009) Global Trends in Higher Education, Adult and Distance Learning. ICDE Environmental Scan. Available at: http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/Reports/FINALICDEEN VIRNOMENTALSCAN05.02.pdf (accessed 6 January 2012).

Jones BE and Conceicao SCO (2008) Can social networking tools foster informal learning? In: 24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI, 8–10 August, 2008.

Lowe S (2008) MySpace, Facebook banned at library. Southbend Tribune, 15 March 2008.

Lowensohn J (2008) Issuu is like Scribd’s hotter cousin. Available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9864405-2.html (accessed 28 October, 2010).

McLean R, Richards BH and Wardman JI (2007) The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: Dar-wikinian evoluation or folksonomic revolution? Medical Jour-nal of Australia 187(3): 174–177.

Murray P (2008) Web 2.0 and social technologies: What might they offer for the future of health informatics? Available at: http://hcro.enigma.co.nz/website/index.cfm?fuseaction=articledisplay&FeatureID=010608 (accessed 20 November 2008).

Microsoft News Center (1999) News Press Release: Microsoft Launches MSN Messenger Service. Available at: http://www.

microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/jul99/messagingpr.mspx (accessed 6 January 2012).

Passy F (2003) Networks matter. But how? In: Diani M and McAdam D (eds) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 21–48.

Read B (2006) To the chagrin of its clientele, Facebook expands its membership. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53(5): A35.

Stutzman F (2006) An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. International Digital and Media Arts Journal 3(1): 10–18.

Surowiecki J (2006) Technolgy Review.Young innovators under 35: Joshua Schachter 32. Available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=432 (accessed 28 October 2010).

Taylor-Smith E and Lindner R (2009) Using social networking tools to promote e-participation initiatives. In: Prosser A and Parycek P (eds) Proceedings of EDEM 2009 Conference on Electronic Democracy, Vienna, 7–8 September 2009, 115–121. Available at: http://itc.napier.ac.uk/ITC/Documents/eDem09_SN-workshop_huwy.pdf (accessed 16 January 2012).

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2006) Global Educational Digest. Montreal: UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. Available at: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ged06-en.pdf (accessed 6 January 2012).

Appendix 1

Sample questions from the survey for academic libraries that were currently using social networking tools.

Purpose: This research tries to find out the application of social networking tools in academic libraries in different countries/regions.

Q1a. What kinds of social networking tools do various departments of your library use? What are their purposes and for how long have the departments been using them?

Potential Tools for Social Networking The purposes Department(s) Length of time in use

Facebook MySpace Twitter Instant Messaging (QQ, MSN, etc.) Hi5 Friendster Bebo Orkut LinkedIn Others

Q1b. Do you think some of the above are not social networking tools? If yes, please list them and explain.



Chu and Du 75

Author biographies

Samuel Kai-Wah Chu is an Associate Professor (Division of Information and Technology Studies) and the Deputy Director (Centre for Information Technology in Education) in the Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong. His research interests include information seeking, Web 2.0 for teaching and learning, inquiry-based learning, and knowledge management. He is the Asia Regional Editor for Journal of Information & Knowledge

Management and is an editorial advisory board member for Online Information Review and School Libraries Worldwide.

Helen S Du is an Assistant Professor at Macau University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management and Administration. Her research has examined the use of Web 2.0 tools, particularly blogs and social networking, in teaching and learning. Other research interests include the use of digital technologies to enhance business communication and management decision support.

Q2. What are the reasons/benefits for using social networking tools in your library? (Please check all that apply and indicate the level of its helpfulness)

Not helpful at all very helpful

□ Tofacilitateinformationsharing 1 2 3 4 5 □ Tofacilitateknowledgesharing 1 2 3 4 5 □ Toenhancereferenceservices 1 2 3 4 5 □ Tohelppromotinglibraryservices 1 2 3 4 5

Q3a. What kinds of services does your library provide through social networking tools?

Q5. What are the challenges and difficulties for implementing social networking tools in your library?

Q8. Does your library offer any in-house training on the use of social networking tools?

□ No □ Yes

• Who are the targeted trainees?

• Who deliver the training? • What are the contents of the training? • Would you please provide the training materials by attachment for our analysis?

Q11. Do you have any additional information or comments about the applications of social networking tools in your library?

Staff - What kind of staff?

Any others?

