The Prevalence and Use of Web 2.0 in Libraries Alton Chua, Dion Goh, Chei Sian Lee Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.

The Prevalence and Use of Web 2.0 in Libraries

Alton Chua, Dion Goh, Chei Sian LeeWee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information

Outline

• Introduction

• Web 2.0

• Methodology

• Major Findings

• Conclusion

Introduction

• Libraries have traditionally played an integral role in promoting literacy and supporting education

• The advent of the digital age yields both opportunities and challenges for libraries– Ubiquitous nature of the Internet– Digitalization of library resources– Popularity of Web 2.0 and user-generated concepts

• Libraries are starting to embrace Web technology to augment their services.

Introduction

• Objective of present study is to study the adoption of Web 2.0 in libraries

• Research questions– To what extent is Web 2.0 prevalent in libraries? – In what ways have Web 2.0 been used in libraries

Overview of Web 2.0

• Web 2.0 represents an emerging suite of applications that are interactive, content-rich and easy-to-use

• They have the potential to promote participatory networking among librarians and users– Communication– Collaboration– Co-creation of content– “Harnessing the collective intelligence”

Web 2.0 Applications

• Web 2.0 applications chosen for analysis: RSS, blogs, wikis, social tagging, instant messaging and social networking services– Pertinent to libraries– Represent new ways for librarians and users to exploit the Web

• RSS– Known as ‘Really Simple Syndication’– Feed users with regularly-changing content without needing

them to visit multiple sites– Could be used to update users on new items in a collection,

services provided and content in subscription databases

Web 2.0 Applications

• Blogs– Hierarchy of text, images and media objects arranged

chronologically– Easily created, updated and maintained without technical

expertise– Give libraries a human voice

• Wikis– Collection of Web pages which allow users to add and edit

content collaboratively– Eliminate cycles of email exchanges– Used as subject guides, policy manuals and resource listings

Web 2.0 Applications

• Social tagging– Allow Web resources to be annotated with user-defined tags– Enable personal access; can be shared with others– Used to facilitate information search and build a community

around libraries’ collections

• Instant messaging– Synchronous communication tools– Provide chat-based reference services

• Social networking services– Connect with users, raise awareness– Examples: Facebook, MySpace

Web 2.0 Applications

Web 2.0 Applications

Information Retrieval

Information Push/Pull

Information Exchange

Instant Messaging

Social NetworkingWikis

Social TaggingRSS Blogs

Web 2.0 ApplicationsWeb 2.0 Applications

Information Retrieval

Information Retrieval

Information Push/Pull

Information Push/Pull

Information Exchange

Information Exchange

Instant Messaging

Social NetworkingWikis

Social TaggingRSS Blogs

Methodology

• Scope– 90 libraries, divided equally between public and academic;

North America, Europe and Asia

• Selection of public libraries– Hennen’s 2006 American Public Library Ratings Report– The European Library – Libraries of Asia Pacific Directory

• Selection of academic libraries– The Times Higher World University Ranking 2007– America’s Best Colleges 2008 – Top 100 Europe Universities 2007 – Top 100 Asia Pacific Universities

MethodologyNorth America Europe Asia

•Baltimore County Public Library•Cincinnati And Hamilton County Public Library•Cuyahoga County Public Library•Denver Public Library •Hennepin County Library•Howard County Library•Johnson County Library•Kenton County Public Library•Madison Public Library•Montgomery County Public Libraries •Multnomah County Library•Pikes Peak Library District •Saint Joseph County Public Library•Salt Lake County Library System•Santa Clara County Library

•Bibliotheque nationale de France•German National Library•National Library of Estonia•National Library of Greece•National Library of Ireland•National Library of Latvia•National Library of Lithuania•National Library of Serbia•National Library of Sweden•National Library of the Czech Republic•National Library of the Netherlands•National Szechenyi Library (Hungary)•Russian State Library•The British Library•The National Library of Finland

•Hong Kong Public Libraries•National Central Library (Taiwan)•National Library & Documentation Centre (Sri Lanka) •National Library Board (Singapore)•National Library of Australia•National Library of Bhutan•National Library of Cambodia•National Library of China•National Library of India•National Library of New Zealand•National Library of Pakistan•National Library of Philippines•National Library of Korea•Sarawak State Library•Tokyo Metropolitan Library

•California Institute of Tech.•Columbia University•Cornell University•Duke University•Harvard University•Johns Hopkins University•Massachusetts Institute of Tech.•Princeton University•Stanford University•University of California, Berkeley•University of California, LA•University of Chicago•University of Michigan•University of Pennsylvania•Yale University

•Central European University•Imperial College London•INSEAD, Paris•King's College London•London School of Economics•Trinity College Dublin•University College London•University of Bristol•University of Cambridge•University of Copenhagen •University of Edinburgh•University of Geneva•University of Manchester •University of Oslo•University of Oxford

•Australian National University•Chinese University of Hong Kong•HK University of Science & Tech•Indian Institute of Tech, Madras•Kyoto University•Nanyang Technological University•National University of Singapore•Tsinghua University•University of Auckland•University of Hong Kong•University of Malaya•University of Melbourne•University of New South Wales•University of Sydney•University of Tokyo

Methodology• Method of analysis

– Step 1: check for presence/absence of each Web 2.0 applications in the websites

– Step 2: understand how the particular Web 2.0 application found was used.

• Conducted by graduate assistants– Average inter-coder reliability was between 0.74 and 0.95

Major Findings

Region Information Push/Pull

Information Retrieval

Information Exchange

RSS B* W ST IM* SN*

North America

19 23 9 6 28 11

Europe 13 15 3 1 7 2

Asia 10 14 5 1 4 1

Total (N = 90)

42 (47%)

52 (58%)

17 (19%)

8 (9%)

39 (43%)

14 (16%)

Number of websites featuring Web 2.0 Applications by regions

* Statistically significant differences

Major Findings

Number of websites featuring Web 2.0 Applications by library types

Region Information Push/Pull

Information Retrieval

Information Exchange

RSS B W ST* IM SNS

Public 17 23 9 1 20 8

Academic 25 29 8 7 19 6

Total (N = 90)

42 (47%)

52 (58%)

17 (19%)

8 (9%)

39 (43%)

14 (16%)

* Statistically significant differences

Major Findings

• RSS– Communicate news, updates on the collections or new

postings appearing in blogs– E.g. Australian National University Library’s RSS feeds are

linked to the library’s electronic resources that serve to notify users whenever papers or journals of interest emerge

• Blogs– Generate interest in subject-specific topics as well as to

engage users– E.g. The blogs hosted by National Library Board of

Singapore are intended for users to share photographs on local themes such as Singapore landmarks and festivals

Major Findings

• Wikis– Creation of subject guides using either open source wiki

software or by linking to external subject-based wikis – Also, University of Hong Kong Libraries, wikis are used to

archive past questions on a range of topics such as library services and book renewal procedures posted by users.

• Social tagging– Libraries that promote social tagging provide links to

websites such as Connotea, del.icio.us and Digg. – University of Pennsylvania Library which develops its own

social tagging tool known as Penn Tags– Duke University and Stanford University libraries offer

instructions on how to get started with social tagging

Major Findings

• Instant Messaging– Common tools including Yahoo Instant Messenger, MSN

Messenger, ICQ and Skype, as well as custom-built applications such as ChatRef (Harvard) and AskNow (National Library of Australia) are used

– Many public libraries in North America use IM to offer after-class online tutoring services to library members

• Social networking services– Forge personalized connections with their users– British Library uses its Facebook account to share pictures

and video clips– Denver Public Library’s account on MySpace, called Denver

eVolver, has been designed for teenage users

Conclusion

• Prevalence of Web 2.0 application adoption– Blogs, RSS, instant messaging, wikis, social networking

services and finally, social tagging– Libraries in North America lead significantly in the adoption of

blogs, social tagging, instant messaging and social networking services vis-à-vis their European and Asian counterparts

– Public and academic libraries share comparable adoption rates of all Web 2.0 applications except for social tagging

• Use of Web 2.0 applications– Pique users’ interests and enhance their experience with

library services– Different Web 2.0 applications are used to complement each

other to increase the level of user engagement

Conclusion

• Limitation– Only websites in English were analyzed– Only a sample of 6 Web 2.0 applications were selected– Scope of data collection was limited to what is publicly

available – user behavior not studied

• Future reseach– Extend to websites in other languages– Consider other emerging Web 2.0 applications such virtual

worlds plus mobile services– Examine how the implementation of Web 2.0 applications

has changed human dimensions such as perceptions, needs and behaviors

Questions?