Cited as: Chu, S.K.W. & Du, H. (2013). Social Networking Tools for Academic Libraries. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 45(1), 64-75.
Social Networking Tools for Academic Libraries
Samuel Kai-Wah Chu 1
Helen Du 2
1 Division of Information and Technology Studies
Faculty of Education,
The University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
E-mail:
2 Department of Computing
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hung Hom, Hong Kong
E-mail:
Social Networking Tools for Academic Libraries
Abstract
This is an exploratory study investigating the use of social networking tools in academic libraries. The major areas examined include the extent of use of social networking tools, library staff’s perceptions of their usefulness, and perceived challenges in using them. Considerations that influenced decisions to use or not to use social networking tools were also examined. Invitations to participate in a web-based survey were sent to the libraries of 140 universities from Asia, North America and Europe. Responses were received from 38 libraries, yielding a response rate of 27.1%. Twenty-seven libraries (71.1%) used social networking tools, five (13.1%) were potential users who planned to use these tools and six (15.8%) did not plan to use these tools at all. Facebook and Twitter were the most commonly adopted tools in university libraries. Most library staff had generally positive perceptions on the usefulness of social networking tools, but hesitancy among some library staff and limited participation of library users (i.e., students) were perceived to be hindrances. The findings of this study offer insights for academic librarians to use as basis for informed decisions in applying social networking tools.
Keyword(s): social networking, academic libraries, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging
Introduction
The World Wide Web enables people to gain access to information, 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 membership 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 networking 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 networking 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 relevant 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 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, Chan, and Tiwari in press; 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, Kwan, and Warning in press; McLean, Richards and Wardman 2007). These tools include blogs, wikis, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), podcasting, social bookmarking, social networking, feeds and Google utilities (Churchill 2007).
In particular, social networking websites allow users to share interests and communicate with others (Buroughs 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) proposed 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 websites 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 websites 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 technology applications that have been used to facilitate members’ interaction, and thus, have been referred to as social networking tools (Jones and Conceicao 2008). Social networks have been described to possess three functions: (1) allow socialization among individuals, (2) generate participation opportunities, 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 connections, 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 mid 2000s indicated that most of the library directors and the general public from 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 perceived 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 are online or not), available librarians were easily identified by users to address their enquiries. Librarians also found it advantageous when they wished to communicate with colleagues to answer users’ enquiries, thus providing answers to users’ enquiries 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 communicate with users (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis 2007). In the case of Kimbel Library of the Coastal Carolina University, Facebook has been used to provide reference assistance and library tours, and promoting services (Graham, Faix, and Hartman 2009). Moreover, this library found out that Facebook unexpectedly helped colleagues become closer and to personally know each other better.
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 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 websites 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 particularly 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 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 would want 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 examined perceptions on 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 challenges 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’ decisions on using social networking tools.
Instrument
Two sets of survey questionnaires were designed for respondents from libraries who have been using social networking tools and those who have not been using them. The questionnaires 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 experiences with the use of social networking tools 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 networking 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 considered 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 associated with using social networking tools, and to allow participants 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 libraries) 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 networking 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 distribution 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 sampling 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%).
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
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, Faix, and Hartman 2009), and our findings indicate that it has continued to be the social networking tool of choice by librarians. Facebook has been shown to be the most popular social networking site among students (Dwyer, Hiltz, and Passerini 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).