uk academic libraries on twitter: what are they doing and does it work? michael o’hagan
TRANSCRIPT
UK ACADEMIC LIBRARIES ON TWITTER:WHAT ARE THEY DOING AND DOES IT WORK?
Michael O’Hagan
Overview
Research warrant: why study Twitter?
Research questions.
Overview of research approach.
Discussion of results.
Conclusions and implications for libraries using Twitter.
Disclaimer!
Limitations of this type of study:
Purely a content and statistical analysis of available data.
Only measuring visible interaction ignores other kinds of value.
Differences in institutional characteristics, student populations, etc.
Your library’s (positive!) experience is what really matters…
…though some extra thoughts and ideas never hurt.
Why study Twitter?
An abundance of literature on using Twitter for organisational benefit in for-profit and not-for-profit sectors…
…extols the virtues of Twitter as a marketing and stakeholder engagement tool.
Why study Twitter?
Libraries are getting stuck in as well…
Why study Twitter?
Existing studies: Anecdotal reports of success. Generally focus on a single institution. Little in-depth quantitative/qualitative analysis.
In particular, no studies: Examine specifically UK academic libraries. Provide an analysis of follower interaction with content.
And: Concerns about privacy and forced use (JISC report, 2009). “I’m honestly kinda creeped out.” – response of a US student
to being retweeted.
Why study Twitter?
Controversial
viewpoints
Few in-depth
studies+
There’s a dissertation in this ...
Research questions
For what purposes do UK academic libraries use Twitter?
…how do the trends observed relate to the ideas in the literature?
How, and to what extent, is Twitter used as a conversation tool between libraries and their followers?
…and are they happy about it?
What trends exist in follower retweeting dynamics and how is this affected by use of the tools available on Twitter?
…can any suggestions for good practice be made?
Research approach
Content analysis coupled with statistical analysis…
Sampling: Stratified sample of UK higher education institutions. 2 x one-week periods of activity selected.
Harvest: 440 tweets from 23 academic libraries. Tweet content. Associated statistics (retweets, pictures, links, etc.)
Research approach
Content analysis coupled with statistical analysis...
Coding: Developed schemes using a combination of existing
literature and induction. Schemes to code content of the tweets and accounts
interacting with them.
Analysis: Excel Pivot Tables. Statistical tests where appropriate.
RQ1 – Purpose
Provide news or information; 254; 58%
Retweet another user's content; 90; 20%
Talk directly to another user; 85; 19%
Personal/casual aside; 8; 2% Attempt to elicit a response
1%
Use of Twitter by UK academic libraries
Library related, 214, 84%
External news, 32, 13%
Internal organisation re-lated, 5, 2% Other/unknown; 3; 1%
News or information tweets
RQ1 – Purpose
Scope for increased focus on other academic-related information for users: Would demonstrate the library is in touch with wider issues. Marketing/branding value of retweets by related organisations.
News about the library
Collections 74
Services 62
Events 52
General/other 26
Why are parent organisations and academic staff not tweeting about their libraries? Or are libraries just not retweeting this content?
News or information tweets
Library related, 18, 20%
Non-library related, 61, 68%
Casual aside, 8, 9%
Praise of the library; 3; 3%
Retweet another user’s content
RQ1 – Purpose
Origin of library-related retweets
Internal organisation 5
Internal librarian 4
External account 9
Library users, 46, 52%
Internal organisa-tions, 2, 2%
Librarians, 6, 7%
Other / un-known, 35, 39%
Who are libraries talkingto on Twitter?
Library-related questions, 26, 30%
Non library-related questions, 4, 5%
Complaints about library services, 19, 22%
Non-direct men-tions, 10, 12%
Other, 27, 31%
Tweets prompting libraries to mention a follower dir-
ectly
RQ2 – Conversation
Users are actively engaging with the library presence on twitter to ask questions or moan! Opportunities to deliver information literacy advice, market resources. Respond to issues that matter.
RQ2 – Conversation
Who are libraries talking to on Twitter?
Bedfo
rdsh
ire
Brune
l
Cambr
idge
Durha
m
East
Ang
lia
Hudde
rsfie
ld
Liver
pool
J.M.
Manch
este
r Met
Ports
mou
th
Queen
Mar
y
Roeha
mpt
on
Sena
te H
ouse
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Direct mentions received and replied to per 100 followers
Can this be explained… By marketing strategy? By resourcing of the service?
RQ2 – Conversation
“Listening in” to followers… Only 10 directed tweets found not prompted by a direct
mention:
Need to: Adopt a better “who-to-follow” strategy. Develop techniques to discover relevant tweets.
Not prompted by direct mention
Answer question 1
Respond to complaint 5
Other 4
RQ3 – Retweeting
Securing retweets is identified as beneficial throughout the literature: Shows you’ve been read. Increases the audience of tweets across social networks. Acts as an endorsement of content or service.
RQ3 – Retweeting
Promising evidence that content is valued by users. Good to see internal organisations retweeting library
content.
Library users, 17, 13%
Internal organi-sations, 53, 39%
Internal librarians, 9, 7%
External ac-counts, 27, 20%
Other/ unknown, 29, 21%
Accounts retweeting library content
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Retweet likelihood
No RT
One RT
Link No link
54
21
145
130
No retweetsRetweet(s)
RQ3 – Retweeting
Hashtag No hashtag0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6 69
29 246
Picture No picture
8
67
11
264
Effect of a range of Twitter features on retweet propensity:
Include more pictures and links!
Conclusions and implications
Demonstrable success in the following areas:
Providing library-related information.
Opportunity for library and users to engage in dialogue: Evidence: 46 tweets (approx. 1 in 10) represent
conversations with library users.
Opportunity for parent organisation to demonstrate the relevance and importance of the library: Evidence: 39% retweets from internal organisations.
Conclusions and implications
But to improve...
Increased focus required on information relevant to users other than library-related: Evidence: only 2% of tweets about institutional (non-library)
news.
Better techniques to “listen in” to Twitter are needed: Evidence: only ten non direct-mention tweets were replied
to by libraries.
Strategies should be developed to better encourage organisations and faculties to engage with the library on Twitter: Evidence: few tweets from internal organisations and none
from faculty members retweeted.
Thank you for your attention
Acknowledgements
Dr Robert Stephens
Alena Ptak-Danchak Music Faculty Library staff
Questions?