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

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 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

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

Methodology North AmericaEuropeAsia 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 RegionInformation Push/Pull Information Retrieval Information Exchange RSSB*WSTIM*SN* North America Europe Asia 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 RegionInformation Push/Pull Information Retrieval Information Exchange RSSBWST*IMSNS Public Academic 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?