adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users: a knowledge management...

Adoption of Library 2.0 Functionalities byAcademic Libraries and Users: A KnowledgeManagement Perspectiveby Yong-Mi Kim and June AbbasAvailable online 2 April 2010

This study investigates the adoption ofLibrary 2.0 functionalities by academic

libraries and users through a knowledgemanagement perspective. Based on

randomly selected 230 academic libraryWeb sites and 184 users, the authors found

RSS and blogs are widely adopted byacademic libraries while users widely

utilized the bookmark function.

Yong-Mi Kim, June AbbasSchool of Library and Information Studies,

University of Oklahoma, OK, USA<[email protected]; [email protected]>.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 36, Number 3, pages 211–2

INTRODUCTIONThe library's primary functions are to act as a knowledge repositoryand an agent for the dissemination of knowledge.1 Until recently,however, these roles have been fulfilled with little user involvement.With the advent of Web 2.0, the relationship between the library andusers has dramatically changed. The capabilities of Web 2.0 enableusers to engage the library in two-way communication and knowledgeexchanges. Instead of users physically coming to the library, the librarydelivers services to users via the university library Web site. Users arealso participating in activities that were once the sole purview of thelibrary, such as cataloging via folksonomy, or providing comments onbooks via blogging. The integration and the utilization of Web 2.0technology into library services is referred to as Library 2.0.2

Previous studies have extensively explored how individualcapabilities of Library 2.0, such as blogs or RSS feeds, have beenutilized.3–6 Subsequently, we now have a good understanding ofindividual functionalities and how they are used for a variety ofknowledge management purposes.7 The field, however, is lacking acomprehensive review and comparison of individual functionalitiesholistically that are used the most and least, as well as a succinctoverview of the current state of Library 2.0 in the academic library.This type of review is important because different functionalities aredesigned to achieve different organizational objectives.8 For example,RSS feeds can inform library users about new library activities, whileblogs enable the library to aggregate knowledge from users. Despitewide use of Library 2.0 and its facilitation of knowledge sharing, thereis scant academic research that explains the use of Library 2.0 from atheoretical lens.

The research objectives, therefore, are as follows: first,we identify atheoretical lens to explain the application of Library 2.0 functionalitiesin the library context; second, we comprehensively review academiclibraryWeb sites and examine to what extent the academic library hasappropriated Library 2.0 functionalities; third, we determine to whatextent users have appropriated those functionalities.

The scope of this study is limited to academic libraries within theUnited States. This scope is set as such because academia stimulatesthe creation and transmission of knowledge, and academic librarieshave played a significant role in supporting such activities.

This paper is organized as follows: first, it identifies a theoreticallens to explain the use of Library 2.0 functionalities; second, itexplains the utilization of Library 2.0 functionalities in both theorganizational setting and the academic library context; third, itinvestigates to what extent Library 2.0 functionalities are appropri-ated by both academic libraries and users. In this third section, we alsoexamine whether three different user groups (i.e., (1) undergraduate

18 May 2010 211

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Figure 1Conceptual Model of Library 2.0 Functionalities.

students, (2) master's students, and (3) doctoral students/faculty)appropriate Library 2.0 functionalities differently and whether or notthere are gender differences in their appropriation. It is in the lastsection that we discuss the findings and contributions and identifysome limitations of this study.

THEORETICAL LENSThe term Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle in2004 to describe the use of networks, most notably the Internet andWorld Wide Web (WWW), as a platform where users can use,consume, and remix data from multiple sources, creating “networkeffects through an architecture of participation.”9 With thesecapabilities, Web 2.0 facilitates communication, conversation, infor-mation sharing, and collaboration within the online community.10

From these conceptualizations of Web 2.0, one can collectively viewthe focal role of Web 2.0 from a knowledge management perspective,especially community of practice. This argument in turn leads us toposit that in the age of Library 2.0, the question we should beconcerned with is how libraries create, acquire, and transferknowledge that has been augmented through user interactionsafforded by Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 applications.

“...in the age of Library 2.0, the question weshould be concerned with is how libraries

create, acquire, and transfer knowledge thathas been augmented through user

interactions afforded by Web 2.0 andLibrary 2.0 applications.”

To explain such knowledgemanagement activities on theWeb, weadopt the lens of a community of practice.11 This theoretical lensposits that knowledge is created from the interaction and conversa-tion among community members when they solve issues andproblems.12 People in a community share similar sense-making,worldviews, and know-how because “the processes of developing theknowledge and the community are highly interdependent.”13 Thus,knowledge is embedded in the collective community and sharedthrough collaborative mechanisms that facilitate the exchange ofideas, expertise, and debate of relevant issues.14,15 In this respect,Library 2.0 has enabled and facilitated communities of practice. Morespecifically, participants in the same community share problems,discuss issues, and engage in dialog to develop a shared understand-ing, which becomes an asset of the community.

As stated, sharing opinions and insights among the communitymembers and establishing a common understanding within thecommunity are the hallmarks of Web 2.0. Subsequently, it is notsurprising that scholars predominantly view the strategic use ofLibrary andWeb 2.0 from a knowledge management perspective.16–20

Such knowledge sharing and transferring capabilities are especiallycritical in the academic library because academic library users areclaimed to be experts in their areas and create knowledge.

While community of practice assumes that the members in thecommunity contribute knowledge equally; this paper, however,further assumes basing on the capabilities of Library 2.0 that thereare two main sources of knowledge: user-initiated and provider-initiated21, and that these two parties complement the knowledge ofeach other. Among Library 2.0 functionalities, folksonomy, tagging,and bookmarks are good examples of user-initiated knowledgecreation and sharing. On the other hand, RSS and podcast areexamples of library or provider-initiated knowledge. The distinctionof these categorizations is based on which group mainly drivesknowledge creation and sharing.

212 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

THE USE OF LIBRARY 2.0FUNCTIONALITIES IN THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY

Having been acquainted with the knowledge management perspec-tives in the context of Library 2.0, we will now apply those concepts ofLibrary 2.0 to both organizational and academic library settings.Previous studies on Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 show that thosefunctionalities are not mutually exclusive. For example, blogging,wikis, and Twitter can serve knowledge creation by both parties.Recognizing the use of those functionalities by both provider andusers, we placed Library 2.0 functionalities in a continuum rather thana dichotomy. An identification of each functionality in a continuum isbased on previous research on Library 2.0 and Web 2.0.22–25 Fig. 1captures previous research on the role of Library 2.0 functionalities inthe community of practice perspective from the user-initiated andprovider-initiated perspective. The figure shows that folksonomy,tagging, and bookmarking are user-initiated knowledge sharing orcreation functionalities, while the library's involvement is minimal.On the other hand, RSS and podcasts are library-initiated knowledgesharing functionalities.

Fig. 1 shows that personalization, tagging, and folksonomyare in thesame group, and RSS and podcast are in the same group. The discussionof Library 2.0 functionalities in Fig. 1 is offered based on the order in thefigure starting with the user-initiated knowledge perspective.

PersonalizationPersonalization is a broad concept in Web 2.0 that can be

categorized into two types: adaptability and adaptivity.26 The formerenables users to adapt the content layout and navigation supportaccording to their preferences, while the latter is automaticallyadapted by the system to meet users' needs. Adaptivity is commonlyused by e-commerce vendors to recommend products to users oridentify underlying patterns of users' purchasing behaviors. In thispaper, the focus is given to adaptability. The scope of personalizationin Library 2.0 is at present limited to bookmarking and webpagecontent personalization capabilities. These capabilities enable users tocustomize or tailor content or store frequently visited links.27,28

In the academic library setting, MyLibrary or MyResearch is a goodexample of this functionality. At the University of Oklahoma library,the MyLibrary functionality allows users to personalize their libraryhomepage by adding features and links that are most useful to themfor quick and easy access to the information they need. Once usershave created their personalized webpage, they see this informationevery time they log onto the university library system. The underlyinglogic for this service is that users tend to visit a few databasesfrequently for their research. In this regard, personalization serves asknowledge repository of users.

TaggingTagging or categorizing is a way to organize information. For

example, users create a tag (label) for articles (e.g., Library 2.0-related articles, knowledge management-related articles) and storethe selected articles under the chosen category. Users also canprovide a note that will remind them about the content of thearticle, so they can easily locate the information, trace their memory,and remember the content of the article. It is another way ofpersonalizing Web content; however, it differs from bookmarkingbecause bookmarking simply stores links, while tagging lets usersorganize information and provide a small note for their memorytrace. Some Web sites such as Flickr for photos, Technorati for blogs,and del.icio.us for Web sites offer tagging functions. The taggingfunctionality is critical for knowledge repository and trace memorybecause it provides a way to keep track of the platforms visited byknowledge workers.29 Within an organization, this functionalityenables employees to keep track of useful intranet and Internetpages they have consulted and to assign tags to these pages asreminders of content. Employees also could see what otheremployees are tagging and what sites they have visited.30

When users tag in the library setting, they contribute keywordsthat characterize the resource(s) they are tagging. Their tags canrelate to the subject content of the resources, their opinion of aspecific book, or keywords to aid their memory trace. Taggingallows nonexperts to share their perspectives. Within the diverseknowledge community of academia, tags may be contributed bystudents, faculty, or others associated with the university, as well asthose users who visit the library's online public access catalog(OPAC). This rich combination of shared knowledge in the form oftags results in a folksonomy, or a set of terms, that can then be usedby the knowledge community to describe the resources in thelibrary. The value of folksonomies is described next, but currentdiscussion relates to the logic of using tags and folksonomies withinlibrary OPAC records and the process for doing so.31–33 Subsequent-ly, knowledge creation and sharing are mainly initiated by the usercommunity. Recognizing the importance of the knowledge repos-itory and sharing capabilities of this functionality, academic librariesincreasingly adopt this functionality. For example, 76% of academiclibrary sites (13 out of 17 total academic library sites) provided usertagging.34 An example of an academic library that provides taggingfunctionality on its site is the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Tagsproject, which allows students and faculty to add tags to libraryresources, which can be viewed by other users when they searchthe library OPAC.

FolksonomyFolksonomy is a collective set of tags. It is the opposite of a

taxonomy, which is an up-front categorization scheme developed byan expert, while folksonomy is developed by users. Since it is built bynonexperts, it could become redundant, yet it still offers advantages;since it emerges from users, it reflects practical usages (community ofpractice) rather than the ones that were planned in advance, whichcan be distant from users.35 Folksonomies emerge naturally, meaningusers provide their own vocabulary and meanings used within thecommunity; subsequently, the categorization makes more sense tothe users within the community. While some problems such asredundancy have been noted, 36 this functionality has been valuableas a knowledge sharing function initiated by users.

WikisWikis have long been used as a user-initiated knowledge sharing

tool and yet, organizations commonly reserve the right to edit orremove information.37–39 This functionality is important becausevirtual forms of collaboration are critical for knowledge sharing and

coordination in the knowledge society.40 Studies have shown thatwikis facilitate “personal learning and reflection, support group-levelknowledge sharing, help people to locate knowledge, and serve as acommunity memory that is easily accessible anytime and any-where”.41 Because users voluntarily contribute their expertise, wikisalso are known as peer-based or user-based knowledge repositorysystems as opposed to expert-based42; subsequently, wiki content isoften viewed as a community asset rather than individually ownedintellectual property. Scholars argue that knowledge sharing andcreation is more efficient in wikis than in expert-based systemsbecause users understand each other and share common problemsand languages within the community.43 In other words, peers arecognitively “closer” to the intended users and therefore better able tounderstand their perspective and needs.

In the academic library setting, wikis facilitate knowledgesharing, collaborative authoring, and online discussion.44 Althoughsome academic libraries make little use of this function,45 theoverall use of this functionality in the academic library setting hasincreased46; however, it is primarily used between librarianswithin and across libraries.47 More specifically, Bejune found that45.7% of the surveyed libraries have used wikis for collaborationacross libraries, 31% have used them among library staff, 14.3%have been used among library staff and patrons, and only 8.6% ofthe surveyed libraries used wikis for collaboration among patrons.Wikis have the great potential to leverage knowledge creation andsharing in the library context. For example, the Ohio UniversityLibrary made a collection of business information resourceseditable by both patrons and librarians. This research portalenhanced collaboration between librarians and patrons as well asamong patrons.48 An example of collaboration among patrons isColumbia University Library's wiki that offers student-developedprojects on social justice movements. Students interview socialmovement-related experts and movement participants and thenreport the findings on the library wiki. This project aims toencourage students to discover knowledge on social movementsand share it with the community.

BlogA blog is “a personal webpage kept by the author in reverse

chronological diary form. It is a ‘log on the Web’ and a ‘log of theWeb.’”49 This functionality is widely used by business organizations tobuild a community of practice where knowledge sharing activity isessential.50 For example e-commerce organizations have activelyemployed this functionality to acquire knowledge from users and giveusers knowledge (e.g., product information) from the blog posts.News organizations seek opinions or reports from their viewers.Subsequently, it has served as a knowledge sharing, help seeking,teaching, and learning functionality.51 It also strengthens rela-tionships with organizational members by providing socializingspace that stimulates innovative ideas in the business organizationsetting.52

In the academic library setting, blogs havemany potential uses. Forexample, it could be used to post general news, book reviews, or act asa liaison for promoting library resources.53 In the last example, eachblog post has a title of location, genre, or both and includes a blogcategory label (e.g., juvenile books, curriculum textbooks, education,etc.), so posted information can be easily found.54 Carnegie MellonUniversity Library offers various topics on its blog such as currenteconomic issues and policies, including tax policy and the housingbubble, amongmany others, and invites users to offer their insights. Inthe blog, users post concerns, problems, or their insights into theproblems. The problem solving is often based on classical economictheory or on users' street knowledge that can be helpful to thebloggers. Such knowledge sharing is valuable to the communitybecause people in the same community may face unique housing or

May 2010 213

economic problems; subsequently, information on the blog may bemore useful than other information that deals with a macro view ofthe problems.

TwitterTwitter allows users to share their thoughts instantly with

everyone in the Twitter network, as long as entries are 140 charactersor less. The word limit forces authors to compress and summarizetheir thoughts. For the reader, it reduces information overloadbecause the essence of information can be quickly scanned. On theother hand, since it is compressed, complicated subject matter maynot be efficiently transferred using this functionality.

University libraries are actively adopting this functionality. Forexample, the Yale University Science Libraries announce workshopson library resources, provide links to online archives, and give tips onsending text messages to a librarian.55 MIT libraries also provide ashort announcement regarding workshops, classes, study groupinformation, etc., via Twitter, and users can post, too.

RSSRSS feeds are formatted summary information sources accessed

via dedicated URLs. RSS feeds enable users to subscribe to specificWeb sites to receive information regularly without visiting theactual Web page.56,57 Using this function, multiple informationsources are aggregated into one page so users can scan informationand select articles of interest for more detail, alleviating informa-tion overload. The items from each feed are continually updated,although the feed URL remains the same. This functionalitycontributes to knowledge transfer by providing up-to-date infor-mation to users. In an organizational context, users can subscribeto work-related information and constantly receive customized,up-to-date information.

In the academic library, users can subscribe to academic publish-ers' digital libraries that offer an RSS feed for each journal andreporting summaries of each new issue as it becomes available,thereby staying current with emerging knowledge in the field.58 TheUniversity of Tennessee at Knoxville Library used this functionality toprovide patrons a rare digital copy of a Union soldier's Civil War diary.The New Humanities Virtual Browsery has been using this feature inconjunction with other Library 2.0 functionalities to highlight newbooks; it combines an RSS feed, the ability to comment on books, linksto book reviews and available information, and links to other books bythe same author.59 This service enables users to reduce anyunnecessary steps it takes to access relevant databases. CornellUniversity offers MyUpdates, which is a tool to help scholars stayinformed of new resources provided by the library.60

PodcastPodcasts use the RSS feed method, but go a step further by

adding audio and video files available on the Internet.61 A podcast isoften stored in MP3 format, which provides users access to soundfiles or music recordings on demand. Once the podcasts have beenpublished to the Internet, users can download them to their MP3players.62 Like RSS feeds, users subscribe to podcasts throughaggregators that automatically receive the most recent podcasts.Podcasts have a wide appeal, particularly with undergraduate and

TablePercentage of the Adoption of Library 2.0

Personalization

Bookmark Content Tagging Folksonomy

22% 30% 12% 13%


master's students who are digital natives; subsequently, librarieshave great potential to reach these populations.63 For example, theUniversity of Oklahoma Library's podcast topics include how thelibrary can assist students and how to utilize library resources toprepare for research papers. In this podcast collection, there are alsolibrary tours and library instruction tutorials. Also, the library offerslectures such as “Charles Darwin and the History Science Collec-tions” via podcasts, and interested patrons can listen or seek outmore information. It is an excellent way to share knowledgeand inform users about library services, resources, and researchopportunities.

THE ADOPTION OF LIBRARY 2.0BY THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY AND USERS

In the previous section, we reviewed various Library 2.0 functional-ities from the user-initiated and library-initiated knowledge manage-ment perspective. In this section, we now examine the following: first,the extent to which academic libraries have adopted Web 2.0functionalities; second, the extent to which users have adoptedlibrary 2.0 functionalities; and third, whether such adoptions differamong categories of users.

The Adoption of Library 2.0 by the Academic LibraryBefore reporting the adoption of Library 2.0 functionalities, it is a

natural step to first report the survey method used in the study. Theadoption of Library 2.0 functionalities was based on the academiclibrary list available on the Yahoo Web site (http://dir.yahoo.com/reference/libraries), which listed 459 libraries. Using a randomsampling frame, every other university on the list was selected,resulting in 230 libraries as a sample. To identify the availability ofLibrary 2.0 functionalities on the Web sites, we visited the Web sitesfor themain and branch libraries within each university in our sample.Because we do not hold a valid library account for all libraries, wesearched those functionalities that are only publicly available. Thismethod is valid because the majority of academic libraries provideLibrary 2.0 information without requiring a library account. Forexample, RSS feeds, wikis, blogs, Twitter accounts, and podcasts areavailable to viewers without a library account. Subsequently, thisresearch method offers a good overview of the current adoption ofLibrary 2.0 functionalities in academic libraries. Table 1 shows thecurrent adoption rate of Library 2.0 features in academic librariessampled.

“...the most widely used Library 2.0functionalities are RSS feeds and blogs.Seventy-three percent of the surveyed

academic libraries are using RSS feeds and65% have adopted blogs.”

As shown in Table 1, the most widely used Library 2.0functionalities are RSS feeds and blogs. Seventy-three percent ofthe surveyed academic libraries are using RSS feeds and 65% have

1among Academic Libraries (N=230)

Wiki Blog Twitter RSS Podcast

20% 65% 15% 73% 27%

http://dir.yahoo.com/reference/libraries

http://dir.yahoo.com/reference/libraries

Table 3Respondents by Gender

Male Female Total

73 (40%) 110 (60%) 183 (100%)

adopted blogs. As we discussed earlier, an RSS feed is a library-initiated knowledge management tool used to inform users aboutlibrary news, such as changed library hours, new books, and/orspecial events. By subscribing to this functionality, users canbe informed about library activities without visiting the librarywebpage. A blog is the second most adopted user-initiatedknowledge function in Library 2.0. Academic library blogs enableusers to comment on books or issues, making communication atwo-way exchange. Podcasting is also a popularly used functionality(27%). Tagging and folksonomy, on the other hand, are the leastutilized functionalities.

The Adoption of Library 2.0 by UsersThis section explores the extent to which users engage the

functionalities of Library 2.0 available on library Web sites. To answerthis question, respondents from two universities located in theMidwest area were asked to complete the survey. The subjects wererecruited from different disciplines in order to enhance the general-ization of the findings (120 participants from social sciences includinglibrary studies, psychology, human relations; 39 participants fromengineering; and 25 participants from business). A questionnaire wasdistributed in classrooms, via the Web, and via phone calls. To ensuresincerity of responses, some class instructors offered extra credit forstudents who completed the survey. Other instructors used the onlinequestionnaire as an example of an Internet-based survey for theirresearch methods class. Phone calls were made to faculty members toencourage them to participate in the study. The questionnaire wasdistributed in March 2009 and completed by May 2009. A total of 184responses were collected.

The libraries at these two universities offer RSS feeds, podcasts,and bookmarking. Blogging is also offered by these universitylibraries; however, this functionality is used only for internal purposesor to communicate with librarians at other universities, and, as aresult, this functionality is excluded from the analysis.

First, we offer descriptive statistics for university library users andthen analyze how different groups (e.g., undergraduate, master'sstudent, doctoral student/faculty) and both genders use Library 2.0functionalities. Table 2 provides information on user adoption ofLibrary 2.0 functionalities. Users are categorized into three groups: (1)undergraduate students, (2) master's students, and (3) doctoralstudents/faculty. Doctoral students/faculty members are combinedbecause the roles of both groups are similar: research and teaching.Table 3 shows the gender distribution of the respondents.

As shown in Table 4, although 73% of the surveyed academiclibraries offer RSS feeds, only 10.8% of the survey users use thisfunctionality. Similarly, 27% of the selected university librariesprovide podcasts, but only 4.3% of users utilize this functionality.Interestingly, only 22% of the surveyed academic libraries offer abookmark function, and yet 42.5% of the users have utilized thisfunctionality. Subsequently, one can draw a conclusion that theimplementation of Library 2.0 functionalities and the utilization ofthose functions are not well matched.

Table 5 contains the ANOVA findings that show the use of theLibrary 2.0 functionalities across groups. Findings indicate that theadoptions of RSS feeds and bookmarking are very different acrossgroups, and yet the utilization of podcasts is not different acrossgroups. Table 5 also shows the three group comparison (i.e.,

Table 2Respondents by Status

Undergraduate Master's Doctoral/faculty Total

38 (21%) 89 (49%) 56 (30%) 183 (100%)

Table 4Adoption of Library 2.0 by Users (N=183)

RSS Bookmark Podcast

10.8% 42.5% 4.3%

undergraduate, master's student, and doctoral student/facultygroups).

Table 5 shows the variance differences within the same categoryand between groups (i.e., across the three categories). The signifi-cance of the F-value in RSS indicates that the variance of “betweengroups (the three groups)” is larger than the value of “within groups.”In other words, a significant t-value represents the adoption of RSSacross the three groups (undergraduate, master's student, anddoctoral students/faculty) are significantly different. Following thesame interpretation, the use of bookmarking across the three groupsis also different, but this is not the case with podcasting. Based onTable 5, we now understand that each group of undergraduatestudents, master's students, and doctoral students/faculty adopt RSSand bookmarking differently. Since the adoption of RSS feeds andbookmarking by different groups varies significantly, it deservesfurther exploration: how do these groups differ? Table 6 providesmore specific information.

As shown in Table 6, the doctoral student/faculty member grouputilized the RSS feed function at a much higher rate than that ofundergraduate (P = 0.041) and master's students (P = 0.048), andthe use of RSS between master's student and undergraduate is notso different (P = 0.728). On the other hand, the master's studentgroup used bookmarking more actively than all groups of under-graduate students (P = 0. 039). The comparisons between doctoralstudent/faculty group and undergraduate student group (P =0.524) and between doctoral student/faculty groups and master'sstudent group (P = 0.119) are not significant. Consequently, onecan conclude from Table 6 that the use of bookmarking issignificantly different between master's student group and under-graduate student group.

Table 7 shows the use of Library 2.0 functionalities by gender. Maleusers are much more likely to utilize RSS feeds than their femalecounterparts (P = 0.061). Again, “within groups” indicate thevariance of within male group or within female group, and “betweengroups” represents the comparison between male and female groups.The significant value of RSS indicates that male users are more likelyto adopt RSS than female participants. However, the use of book-marking and podcasts shows no difference between genders.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper introduced a theoretical lens to explain the use of Library2.0 and then reviewed and compared academic library and userutilization of Library 2.0 features. In this section, we will discuss theimplications of the findings, their contribution to the field, and alsoprovide some limitations we encountered during the study.

First, the adoption rate greatly differs for each Library 2.0application. Some of the library-initiated knowledge transferfunctions (e.g., RSS feeds, podcast) are widely adopted amongacademic libraries, while some of the user-initiated functions (e.g.,

May 2010 215

Table 5ANOVA Results for Group Comparison Across Three Groups (N=183)

Functionality SS df MS F P

RSS Between groups 0.510 2 0.255 2.773 0.066 ⁎

Within groups 14.717 181 0.092

Bookmark Between groups 1.204 2 0.602 2.486 0.086 ⁎


Podcast Between groups 0.019 2 0.010 0.229 0.796


SS, sum of square; MS, mean of square; df, degree of freedom.⁎ Pb0.1.

Tagging, Wiki, etc.) are at a burgeoning stage. While it is imperativeto integrate newer technologies and leverage such capabilities, itis also essential for academic libraries to be more attentive to users'needs and meet their requirements. For example, 73% of theacademic libraries have RSS feeds, but only 10% of the surveyedusers utilized this functionality. Also, the availability of podcastamong the surveyed libraries is 27%, while the adoption of podcastby users is only 4.3%, which is a big gap. It may be because it iseasier for libraries to transfer information to users, but not the otherway around; subsequently, library-initiated functionalities tend tobe higher than that of user-initiated knowledge functions. Althoughthe blogging function enables users to participate in knowledgesharing to a certain extent, the adoption of user-initiated knowledgecreation spaces such as tagging, folksonomy, bookmark, and wiki arevery low. This level of adoption/use related to user-initiatedfunctions such as folksonomy, wiki, and tagging could be attributedto the user's hesitation to contribute, believing their contributionsmay not be consistent with the views of the experts'. In addition,these user-initiated knowledge creation spaces also may not beadvertised to the users as a means that they can contribute theirknowledge within the library community. Nonetheless, libraries mayneed to consider ways to minimize those problems and identifyefficient ways to leverage knowledge creation and sharing fromusers. At a minimum, university libraries may need to further offerpersonalization functions (e.g., personalization and bookmark)because these functions are appreciated and utilized most by

TableUtilization of Web 2.0 Functionalities A

Functionality Base group Compar

RSS Doctoral students/faculty Under

Maste

Master's student Under

Bookmark Doctoral students/faculty Under

Maste


Podcast Doctoral students/faculty Under

Maste


1=undergraduate group; 2=master's student group; 3=doctoral student/faculty gUndergraduate student group, n = 38; master' student group, n = 90; doctoral stude⁎⁎ Pb0.05.


users; at the same time, those functions unlike folksonomy willnot create any confusion among users. This is an important issuebecause users greatly appreciate user-initiated functionalities.Technology is a great means to deliver library services, and yetthe value of such efforts can be further enhanced if academiclibraries explore what kind of functionalities users employ the mostand offer them.

“...73% of the academic libraries haveRSS feeds, but only 10% of the surveyedusers utilized this functionality. Also, theavailability of podcast among the surveyed

libraries is 27%, while the adoption ofpodcast by users is only 4.3%”

Next, the findings related to different groups of users as well asgender-specific use are interesting. RSS feeds and bookmarkfunctions are highly utilized among undergraduate students, whichsupport the idea that undergraduate students grow with technologyand appreciate such services.64 The utilization of libraries byundergraduate students' has long been one of the major concernsfor academia.65 Use of these tools for outreach may be an efficient

6cross the Three Groups (N=183)

ing group Mean difference (SD) P

graduate 0.131 (0.063) 0.041 ⁎⁎

r's 0.109 (0.055) 0.048 ⁎⁎

graduate 0.021 (0.061) 0.728

graduate −0.066 (0.103) 0.524

r's 0.139 (0.089) 0.119

graduate −0.205 (0.099) 0.039 ⁎⁎

graduate 0.029 (0.043) 0.500

r's 0.011 (0.037) 0.765

graduate 0.018 (0.041) 0.664

roup.nt/faculty group, n = 56.

Table 7Use of Library 2.0 Functionalities by Gender (N=183)

Functionality SS df MS F P

RSS Between groups 0.340 1 0.340 3.552 0.061 ⁎


Bookmark Between groups 0.021 1 0.021 0.086 0.770


Podcast Between groups 0.013 1 0.013 0.308 0.580


0=female, 1=male. SS, sum of square; MS, mean of square; df, degree of freedom.⁎ Pb0.1.

way for academic libraries to engage with undergraduate studentsin order to inform them about services and resources provided bythe library.

Also, our findings are consistent with existing studies that malesare more computer savvy than their female counterparts66; subse-quently, male users are likely to utilize technology more. Someevidence to this effect was evidenced in their adoption of RSS feed.This finding proposes that adding Library 2.0 may encourage malestudents to engage more with library resources; however, it posesanother challenge for academic librarians on how to facilitate moreuse of Library 2.0 technologies by female students.

Second, contributions of this paper are threefold. First, it uses atheoretical lens to explain the use of Library 2.0. Although scholarshave been urged to explain the use of Library 2.0 functionalitythrough a theoretical lens,67 there is little research investigating theuse of Library 2.0 from a theoretical lens. It is the first small step insignifying the importance of a theoretical lens in the investigationof the use of Library 2.0. Second, this study compares variousLibrary 2.0 functionalities. While there are numerous papersdevoted to individual facets of Library 2.0 functionalities, therehas not been comprehensive research comparing the extent towhich the academic library has adopted each functionality.Subsequently, we have not had a good understanding about theextent to which academic libraries have adopted these functional-ities and which functionalities are most or least utilized. Third, thisstudy investigated the rate users adopt Library 2.0 functionalities.Academic libraries have invested in resources to offer variousservices to users; but more importantly, we need to determinewhether users utilize such functionalities. If so, who are thoseusers? This study attempts to address whether academic librariesmeet users' needs.

Lastly, it should also be noted that this research has limitations.Since it surveyed users from only two universities, the users may notaccurately represent the whole population. Also, due to the fact thatwe do not have complete access to each library's Web site, all thelibrary functionalities discussed in this paper were not evaluated. Forfuture research, a broad study should include university libraries thatoffer the full range of Library 2.0 functionalities and report anadoption rate, as well as expanding the study to include a larger userpopulation.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Joseph Branin, “Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries,”Journal of Library Administration 39 (2004): 41–56.

2.Michael Casey & Laura Savastinuk, “Library 2.0: Service for theNext Generation Library,” Library Journal 131 (September 2006):40–42.

3. June Abbas, “Social Software Use in Libraries,” Handbook ofResearch on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration

Software: Concepts and Trends, edited by Dr. Dumova & Dr. Fiordo(IGI Global, expected July 2009).

4.Matthew Bejune, “Wikis in Libraries,” Information Technology inLibraries 26 (September 2007): 26–38.

5. Samuel Chu Kai-Wah, “Using Wikis in Academic Libraries,” Journalof Academic Librarianship 35 (2009): 170–176.

6. John Cronin, “Upgrading to Web 2.0: An Experiential Project toBuild a MarketingWiki,” Journal of Marketing Education 31 (2009):66–75.

7. Christian Wagner & Narasimha Bolloju, “Supporting KnowledgeManagement in Organizations with Conversational Technologies:Discussion Forums, Weblogs, and Wikis,” Journal of DatabaseManagement 16 (2005): i–viii.

8. Ibid.9. TimO'Reilly, “Web2.0: CompactDefinition?”Available: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html.

10.Michael Stephens & Maria Collins, “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and theHyperlinked Library,” Serials Review 33 (2007): 253–256.

11. John Brown & Paul Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Com-munities of Practice,” Organization Science 2 (1991): 40–57.

12. John Brown & Paul Duguid, “Organizing Knowledge,” CaliforniaManagement Review 40 (1998): 90–111.

13. Brown & Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Communities ofPractice,” p. 96.

14.Miia Kosonen & Aino Kiantoz, “Applying Wikis to ManagingKnowledge—A Socio-Technical Approach,” Knowledge and ProcessManagement 16 (2009): 23–29.

15.Molly Wasko & Samer Faraj, “It is What One Does: Why PeopleParticipate and Help Others in Electronic Communities ofPractice,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 (2000):155–173.

16.Wagner & Bolloju, “Supporting Knowledge in Organizations withConversational Technologies.”

17.Dov Te'eni, “Comment: The Wiki Way in a Hurry—The ICISAnecdote,” MIS Quarterly 33 (2009): 20–22.

18. Kosonen & Kianto, “Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge.”19. Chin-Lung Hsu & Judy Chuan-Chuan Lin, “Acceptance of Blog

Usage: The Roles of Technology Acceptance, Social Influence andKnowledge Sharing Motivation,” Information & Management 45(2008): 65–74.

20.William R. King, “IT Strategy and Innovation: Recent Innovations inKnowledge Management,” Information Systems Management 24(2007): 91–93.

21. Yong-Mi Kim & Suliman Hawamdeh, “Leveraging CustomerKnowledge: A Comparative Study of ECRM Functionality and itsUse in E-Commerce Websites,” International Journal of ElectronicCustomer Relationship Management 1 (2008): 327–340.

22. Kosonen & Kianto, “Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge.”23. King, “IT Strategy and Innovation.”

May 2010 217

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html

24. S.Y. Cheing, D. Xue, & P. Gu, “Parameter Design Considering theImpact of Design Changes on Downstream Processes Based Uponthe Taguchi Method,” Journal of Engineering Design 19 (2008):299–319.

25. Andrew P. McAfee, “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of EmergentCollaboration,” MIT Sloan Management Review 47 (2006): 20–28.

26. Enrique Frias-Martinez, Sherry Y. Chen, & Xiaohui Liu, “Evaluationof a Personalized Digital Library Based on Cognitive Styles:Adaptivity Vs. Adaptability,” International Journal of InformationManagement 29 (2009): 48–56.

27. Suzanne Cohen, John Fereira, Angela Horne, Bob Kibbee, HollyMistlebauer, & Adam Smith, “MyLibrary: Personalized ElectronicServices in the Cornell University Library,” D-Lib Magazine 6 (April2000).

28. KenWinter, “MyLibrary Can Help Your Library,” American Libraries(August 1999): 65–67.

29.McAfee, “Enterprise 2.0.”30. Ibid.31. June Abbas, Oliver Chen, & Edward Lomax, “Who is Tagging

Information?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology,Milwaukee, WI (November 2007).

32. Louise F. Spiteri, “The Use of Folksonomies in Public LibraryCatalogs,” The Serials Librarian 51 (2006): 75–89.

33. Louise F. Spiteri, “The Structure and Form of Folksonomy Tags: TheRoad to the Public Library Catalog,” Information Technology andLibraries 26 (2007): 13–25.

34. Abbas, Chen, & Lomax, “Social Software.”35.McAfee, “Enterprise 2.0.”36. Spiteri, “The Structure and Form of Folksonomy Tags.”37. Kosonen & Kianto, “Applying Wikis.”38. Christian Wagner, “Wiki: A Technology for Conversational

Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration,” Communi-cations of the Association for Information Systems 13 (2004):265–289.

39. ChristianWagner &AnnMajchrzak, “Enabling Customer-CentricityUsingWikis and theWikiWay,” Journal of Management InformationSystems 23 (2006–7): 17–43.

40. Kosonen & Kianto, “Applying Wikis.”41. Ibid. p. 2342. King, “IT Strategy and Innovation.”43. Ibid.44. Chu Kai-Wah, “Using Wikis in Academic Libraries.”


45. Sarah Ann Long, “Exploring the Wiki World: The New Face ofCollaboration,” New Library World 157 (2006): 157–159.

46. Brenda Chawner & Paul H. Lewis, “WikiWikiWebs: New Ways toCommunicate in a Web Environment,” Information Technology andLibraries (March 2006): 33–43.

47. Bejune, “Wikis in Libraries.”48. Chu Kai-Wah, “Using Wikis in Academic Libraries.”49.Wagner & Bolloju, “Supporting Knowledge Management in

Organizations with Conversational Technologies.”50. Cheing, Xue & Gu, “Parameter Design.”51. Ibid.52. Ibid.53. Diane L. Schrecker, “Using Blogs in Academic Libraries,” New

Library World 109 (2008): 117–129.54. Ibid.55. SarahMilstein, “Twitter for Libraries (and Librarians),” Computer in

Libraries (May 2009): 17–18.56. Yu Cong & Hui Du, “Web Syndication Using RSS,” Journal of

Accountancy 205 (2008): 48–52.57. Greg R. Notess, “RSS, Aggregators, and Reading the Blog Fantastic,”

Online 26 (2002): 52–54.58. Phil J. Britt, “RSS Investors—There's Gold in Supporting Them Their

Standards,” EContent 28 (September 2005): 8.59. R. David Lankes, “Joanne Silverstein, & Scott Nicholson, “Partici-

patory Networks: The Library as Conversation,” InformationTechnology and Libraries 26 (2007): 17–33.

60. Cohen, Fereira, Horne, Kibbee, Mistlebauer, & Smith, “MyLibrary.”61. R. Balleste, J. Rosenberg, & L. Smith-Butler, “Podcasting, Vodcasting,

and Law Libraries,” AALL Spectrum 10 (2006): 8–10.62. Deborah Lee, “iPod, You-Pod, We-Pod: Podcasting and Marketing

Library Services,” Library Administration &Management 20 (2006):206–208.

63. Ibid.64. Ibid65. B. Fister, J. Gilbert, &A. Fry, “Aggregated InterdisciplinaryDatabases

and the Needs of Undergraduate Researchers,” portal: Libraries andthe Academy 8 (3) (2008): 273–292.

66. V. Venkatesh & M.G. Morris, “Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask forDirection? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in TechnologyAcceptance and Usage Behavior,” MIS Quarterly 24 (1) (2000):115–139.

67. Ann Majchrzak, “Comment: Where is the Theory in Wikis?,” MISQuarterly 33 (2009): 18–20.

adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users: a knowledge management...

Documents