The International Information & Library Review (2010) 42, 195e207

ava i lab le at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier . com/ locate / i i l r

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries:A reconnaissance of the international landscape*

Manorama Tripathi a,*, Sunil Kumar b

aCentral Library, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Indiab Planning and Development Division, Indira Gandhi National Open University, India

KEYWORDSWeb 2.0;Library services;IM;RSS;Blogs;Podcast;Vodcast

* This is an extended version of th(International Association of Technol2009, held at Leuven, Belgium, 1e4th* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses:manoramatripath

sunilk@ignou.ac.in (S. Kumar).

1057-2317/$ - see front matter ª 201doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.07.005

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconnaissance of major academiclibraries located in Australia, Canada, the U.K. and U.S.A. that have embraced Web 2.0 toolsfor enhancing library services. The research is based on a survey of websites of 277 universitylibraries. The checkpoints used for this evaluative study were given by Nguyen (2008) for eval-uating various Web 2.0 tools. Additional checkpoints were arrived at after visiting and browsingthe various sites. The findings of the study acknowledge the strength of Web 2.0 tools inimproving library services for users. Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Instant Messaging (IM)and blogs are popular in academic libraries. The paper concludes by offering best practicesfor implementing Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries.ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction: paradigm shift in libraries

Earlier academic libraries were “place-based” service-providing institutions and users visited the library to consultthe catalogue and use the physical collection of books,journals, CDs, etc. With the rapid changes in the field ofinformation and communication technologies (ICT), libraryand information centers have been completely trans-formed. Web 2.0 tools have overcome barriers to commu-nication and the distance between the libraries and users(Stuart, 2010). Web 2.0 applications encourage patrons tobe an integral part of the virtual community by sharing their

e paper presented at IATULogical Libraries Association)June, 2009. (Tripathi, 2009).

i2@yahoo.com (M. Tripathi),

0 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

ideas, thoughts, feelings, and other content. They allowpatrons to contribute to the maintenance of catalogues,review resources, locate and share relevant informationwith other patrons and society (Farkas, 2007). Now, patronshave become both consumers of and contributors tolibraries services (Stephens, 2006).

The term “Web 2.0” refers to the second generationdevelopment and design of the web that aims to facilitatecommunication and to secure information sharing, inter-operability and user centered design. Web 2.0 conceptshave led to the development and evolution of web-basedcommunities, hosted services, and applications, such associal-networking sites, video-sharing sites, Wikis, blogs,and folksonomies (King & Brown, 2009; Wikipedia, 2010c).Since these tools have ushered in changes in society ata massive scale, Birdsall (2007) calls it a social revolution.O’Reilly (2005), who introduced the term, has describedthe characteristic feature of Web 2.0. He has referred tothe users as part of the content of the sites; they (users) arecreators and consumers of information. Web 2.0 tools

.

196 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

facilitate sharing, networking and disseminating informa-tion among friends and other professional groups.

Objectives of the study

The objectives of the present study are:

� To identify web tools used by academic libraries� To study the purpose of using these technologies� To examine the characteristic features of the Web 2.0tools used in academic libraries

Use of major Web 2.0 tools in academiclibraries

Library staff use Web 2.0 tools for professional and personaldevelopment; however, this study is confined to under-standing uses of Web 2.0 at the institutional level. Hansonand Cervone (2007) identified Wiki, blog, Really SimpleSyndication (RSS), Instant Messaging (IM) and podcast as theprominent Web 2.0 tools for academic Libraries. Thepresent study has covered all the major tools identified byHanson and Cervone, Casey (2005), Maness (2006), Singerand Sherrill (2007), Macaskill and Owen (2006), andNguyen (2008). In addition to these, it discusses the use ofvodcast because the researchers are working in an open anddistance learning system. The potential of vodcast can beharnessed for providing services to distance learners.

The following segments define and explain the variousWeb 2.0 tools which can be used in academic libraries atthe institutional level.

RSS

Really simple syndication is a family of web formats used topublish information about frequently updated works such asblog entries, news feeds, live audio, and video in the stan-dard formats (Libby, 1999). Wusteman (2004) noted theimportant role of RSS in keeping users updated with thelatest information. RSS feeds update users about the addi-tions or changes which take place on websites of interest,providing updates from one source instead of accessingindividual websites (King & Brown, 2009). Students cansubscribe to those RSS feeds that cater to their academicand research needs. For example, the Library of Universityof Southampton provides news feed on RSS to informstudents about activities and events held in the University.King and Brown noted the similarity in the functioning of RSSand e-mail and predicted the likelihood of increased useand popularity of RSS feeds in the future.

Blogs

A blog is a type of website, usually maintained by an indi-vidual, that contains regular entries of commentary,descriptions of events or other materials such as videos(Wikipedia, 2010a). It is a web page containing brief,chronologically arranged items of information. King andPorter (2007) suggested that blogs in academic librariescould be used for internal communication, to facilitateacademic debate and to communicate with patrons,

promoting new books and providing subject guides, currentawareness and customized catalogue searches. Huwe(2006) highlighted that an element of personal touch canbe introduced in outreach services through the use of Web2.0 tools. In the same study, Huwe studied how blogs can beused for personalizing libraries’ outreach services. McIntyreand Nicolle (2007) emphasized that blogs are equallypopular for internal as well as external communication.Hane (2001) wrote an article, entitled “Blogs are a naturalfor librarians.” Blogs are hosted on public domains, whichare available without charge. The current form of blogginghas emerged as a result of development of web log devel-opment software, which was produced by the Pyra Labs in1999. The Technorati indexed over 133 million blogs in 2008(Winn, 2008). The Technorati (2006) reported that a newblog is created every second and the blogosphere doubles insize every 5.5 months. However, Clyde (2004) reporteda lack of blog use in academic libraries.

Instant messaging

Instant messaging allows online communication betweentwo or more people using text based short messages via theweb in real time. Academic libraries use IM to provide virtualreference services, improve access of other services andprovide the latest information to students (Stephens, 2006).Instant messaging also acts as an additional medium tofacilitate interactions with patrons.

Podcast

The word podcast comes from the amalgamation of thewords iPod and broadcast. However, the “pod” is a bit ofa misnomer as podcasts can also be played on computersand mp3 players. This tool is used to exchange and shareaudio programmes among patrons over the Internet. Kingand Brown (2009) noted that libraries can share pictures,events, and instructions by podcast. Podcast is a catchytool to market library services and attract new users (Lee,2006).

The delivery of audio streams by podcast is managedthrough pod-catchers such as iTunes, Armangil or Juice.The standard way of getting audio streams over podcast isby subscribing to the specific podcast. Students can listento lectures through podcast instead of reading in the textformat. Audio streams of lectures and book readings maybe beneficial for students who are visually challenged orhave poor reading and comprehension competencies. Pod-casts are frequently used to broadcast speeches andinterviews of important personalities. Libraries use pod-casts mainly for offering tips, using the audio format.

Vodcast

Wikipedia (2010b) defines the vodcast as a series of digitalmedia files (either audio or video formats) that are releasedepisodically and often downloaded through web syndica-tion. A vodcast mainly is used to deliver videos on demandto patrons over the web. The functioning features andlimitations of vodcast are similar to those of podcast. Thesize of video programmes is comparatively larger than the

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 197

size of audio programmes; therefore, vodcasts need high-speed Internet connectivity. To reduce downloading time,vodcast video clips are typically three to 5 min in duration.Certain information, such as the physical layout of thelibrary, general searching skills, and the self-issuing andreturning of books can be explained effectively throughvisual clips. For example, the Library of University ofLeicester provides video streams over vodcast to explainthe procedure for self-issuing and returning of books. MountAllison University’s Library provides video streams todemonstrate search strategy, plagiarism, and so forth.

Wikis

A Wiki is a website, which facilitates the creation andediting of web pages using a simplified markup language orWYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) based text editor,and is used to create collaborative websites. Anyone witha web browser can edit content of Wikis, which are orga-nized by Wiki software. The first Wiki software was devel-oped by Ward Cunningham. Libraries and academicinstitutions have been using Wikis for group learning, forsharing knowledge, experiences and open source products,and also to provide subject guides (Frumkin, 2005; King &Porter, 2007; Payne, 2008).

Wikis have recently been adopted to support a variety ofcollaborative activities within libraries. Bejune (2007)emphasized the role of Wikis in libraries in extendingcollaboration activities: a) among libraries, b) amonglibrary staff, c) between library staff and patrons, andd) among users. The libraries can encourage patroncontributions in the preparation of dictionaries, encyclo-pedias, books review and instructional resources. InternalWikis can be used by libraries to facilitate communicationamong staff members, distribute documents, communicateabout planning, policy or ICT developments, for details ofspecial projects, and as a helpdesk.

Review of related literature

Definition of Web 2.0

Macaskill and Owen (2006) have defined Web 2.0 tools asa “web-based platform which allows users to gain access,contribute, describe, harvest, tag, annotate and bookmarkweb mediated content in various formats, such as text,video, audio, pictures and graphs.” Stuart (2010) hasdefined Web 2.0 tools as sites which share stuff. Some ofthe Web 2.0 based popular websites are Flicker which canbe used to share Photos, YouTube for sharing videos,Last.fm for sharing audio, and MySpace for sharing textbased information.

Importance of Web 2.0 tools

The Web 2.0 tools have a pervasive impact on society. Theyallow users to create, describe, post, search, collaborate,share and communicate online content in various forms,ranging from music and bookmarks to photographs anddocuments (Macaskill & Owen, 2006; Virkus, 2008). TheHorizon Report (2007) has highlighted that users can create

content via Web 2.0 tools; social networking using mobilephones, etc. will have a considerable influence on highereducation.

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries

Many studies have highlighted how Web 2.0 tools can beused for enhancing library services (Bradley, 2007;Huffman, 2006; King & Porter, 2007). The Libraries andSocial Software in Education (LASSIE) Project Report(2007) provides an overview of social software and howlibraries are influenced by it. The project explored therecent developments in web technology commonly knownas social software or Web 2.0 and how these could beimplemented for providing better library services fordistance learners. The Association of College and ResearchLibraries (a Division of the American Library Association)research committee has highlighted that the Web 2.0 toolsand technologies will offer new opportunities for the designand delivery of library resources and services, but will alsomake more demands on the library staff and system (Tedd,2008). Serantes (2009) has predicted that future Web 2.0compliant libraries would be without books and physicalspace. Stuart (2010) indicated a mixed opinion on the usesof Web 2.0 tools in libraries, noting the promising future forcertain Web 2.0 tools, such as blogs and RSS, and limiteduses of other Web 2.0 tools, such as podcasts and Wikis.

Bradley (2007) has opined that the libraries shouldexplore novel ways of communicating and attracting usersthrough the use of Web 2.0. Miller (2005) advocated the useof Web 2.0 by libraries in order to serve the users betterand attract potential users. Miller further cautions that iflibraries do not use the tools to enhance services, they arelikely to be ignored by users. Web 2.0 is providing engines ofchange for academic libraries. These tools help libraryprofessionals organize their materials, enhance services forusers and improve internal functions. The application ofthese tools also increases demand for services in the virtualenvironment (Kajewski, 2007). These tools can be activelyused for imparting information literacy (Nguyen, 2008). Thelibrary staff should encourage, promote, and educateteachers about the power and pedagogical opportunitiesoffered by Web 2.0 (Cohen, 2008). Web 2.0 in general, andblogs in particular, can be used for marketing libraryservices (Draper & Turnage, 2008).

Chu and Meulemans (2008) have reported that the onlinesocial networking sites are very popular among the students.MySpace and Facebook, two widely adopted socialnetworking sites, can be used in university libraries forimparting library instruction, reference and outreach. TheOCLC study has revealed that 28% of the 6545 online pop-ulation surveyed are active users of social sites (DeRosa,Cantrell, Havens, Hawk, & Jenkins, 2007). The Economist(2008) highlighted that social networking impacts deeply oneducation and indirectly on libraries, as the libraries supporteducation process. Nguyen (2008) has studied the applica-tions of Web 2.0 and their features in 32 Austrasian libraries.

Libraries can use blogs as promotional tools to informclients of changes, additions and other developments inlibrary services and collections (Alcock, 2003;Weaver, 2003).Clyde (2004) studied 55 web logs and found that they were

198 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

used for providing news, information and links to Internetresources for library users. Clyde has highlighted that veryfew libraries provided interactive services and less than halfof them provided RSS feeds. Stephens (2006) stated that thelibrary blog can be used as a tool for getting feedback fromthe users on important aspects and tomaintain transparencyin the organization. Frumkin (2005), Chawner and Lewis(2006), Clyde and Stephens have studied the importanceand application of Wikis in the libraries.

The Internet has made a massive impact on modern life.It is free in many places and offers easy to use services thatare available on an anywhere anytime basis to those notseparated by the digital divide. Some companies, likeGoogle and Amazon, have exposed the downside of libraryservices available in a physical building for limited hours.The users find retrieving information from the Interneteasier than visiting a library. The overwhelming success ofInternet services indicates that libraries have to evolve andchange to meet the needs of modern users. The applicationof Web 2.0 tools can easily help libraries to survive andflourish in the Internet age. The application of Web 2.0 inlibraries and information centres is popularly known asLibrary 2.0 (Miller, 2005; Notess, 2006). Library 2.0 isa concept that operates to meet the rising and changingexpectations of users. It envisions that the libraries shouldbe available at the point of need and integrated withservices from beyond the library, for example throughportals and within virtual learning environments. It seeks toensure that library services and resources are accessible toone and all with no hassle or restrictions (Chad & Miller,2005). Serantes (2009) has predicted that Web 2.0compliant libraries (or Library 2.0) in the future would bewithout books and physical space.

Debate regarding Web 2.0

There is another school of thought which asserts that Web2.0 is not any advancement in technology. Miller (2005)opined that people are hyping Web 2.0 and Davis (2005)has referred to Web 2.0 as an attitude, not a technology.Franklin and Van Hamelin (2007) called it a technologychange. Berners-Lee (2006) described Web 2.0 tools asa piece of jargon, difficult to understand. He further criti-cized Web 2.0 by stating “nobody really knows what itmeans.If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and Wikis, then that ispeople to people. But that was what the web was supposedto be all along.” Bray (2005), another Internet guru, is alsodisappointed with Web 2.0 tools. He expressed unhappi-ness, when he stated “I just wanted to say how much I havecome to dislike this web 2.0 faux-me-me. It’s not onlyvacuous marketing hype, it cannot possible be right.”

The literature review reveals that the use of Web 2.0 inlibraries is increasing at an astonishing pace. Some of theexperts have also asserted that that it is more of a socialphenomenon than a major stride in technology. Tools likeblogs, RSS feeds, and IM are used by the libraries verycommonly; whereas, the use of Wikis has yet to pick up.These tools may be used by libraries for personalizingoutreach services. The application of these tools may helplibraries offer their resources and services to the users ina proactive manner.

Research methodology

The researchers relied upon the survey method for col-lecting data for this study. The survey based researchmethodology is most appropriate when investigators do nothave direct access to subjects of the survey and/or the sizeof the sample is large. Both these factors were applicable inthe present study. The method of convenience samplingwas used in this study. This sampling method is based on thenon-probabilistic sampling technique, where subjects areselected in an unstructured manner from the populationframe. The part of the population that is close to the handsof the investigators is selected. This sampling method isoften used during preliminary research efforts to get a grossestimate of the results, without incurring the cost or timerequired to select a random sample.

The present paper investigated use of Web 2.0 inlibraries of higher education institutions across differentsocial and educational cultures. The researchers referred tomultiple databases which had information about academiclibraries to minimize bias due to non-random selection ofsubjects in the convenience sampling technique.

The libraries of the universities which are listed at thefollowing sites were surveyed for the present study:

� The University of Wolverhampton maintains a direc-tory of the universities situated in the United Kingdom.The directory reflects information about 82 universi-ties. There are 282 higher education institutions/universities in the U.K. (Universities U.K., 2010).Information about physical and academic strengths ofeach individual university is reflected in the directory.The directory has a page devoted to every university.Each web page provides a link to the home page of thatuniversity. This list is available at http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/ukinfo/

� The University of Texas maintains a directory ofuniversities situated in the United States of America.The directory reflects information about 151 universi-ties. There are 4339 degree granting institutions in theU.S.A.; however, 1135 institutions have less than 500students enrolled (National Center for EducationStatistics, 2009). The list is updated frequently tocover the status in terms of number of universities. Thelist is available at http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state/

� The Network of Universities of Canada aims to provideinformation about Universities situated in Canada forstudents to compare academic standards beforeapplying for the admission. The network reflectsinformation about 37 prominent Canadian universities,out of a total of 95 universities in Canada (Associationof Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2010). The listis available at http://university-canada.net/

� The researchers also investigated uses of Web 2.0 toolsin 7 out of forty universities in Australia (AustralianVice-Chancellors’ Committee Report, 2003).

The investigators examined the use of Web 2.0 tools in277 universities, which were randomly selected. The fourresources used to collect the study sample providedinformation about universities situated in the U.K.,

Table 1 Number of Libraries Included in the Study, byCountry.

Name of the country Number oflibraries

% Of totalsample

United Kingdom (UK) 82 29.6United States ofAmerica (USA)

151 54.5

Canada 37 13.4Australia 07 2.5

Total 277 100

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 199

U.S.A., Canada and Australia. The selection of universitiesfrom four countries ensured coverage of diverse socio-economic and educational environments and minimizedsample bias, which might have crept in due to the adop-tion of convenience sampling. The academic libraries ofthe four countries included in the survey are summarizedin Table 1.

The methodology of content analysis has been usedin the present work

Content analysis is a research tool used to determine thepresence of certain words or concepts within texts or setsof texts. The researchers quantify and analyze the pres-ence, meanings and relationships of such words andconcepts, then make inferences about the messages withinthe texts. Content analysis is a methodology in the socialsciences for studying the content of communication. Babbie(2004) defined it as “the study of recorded humancommunications, such as books, websites, paintings andlaws” (p. 333).

Development and use of research instrument

Although the research literature is full of articles andresearch papers which concentrate on the use of Web 2.0tools in libraries, a review of the literature has notrevealed the availability of a complete set of parametersor standards for evaluating Web 2.0 tools. The parametersused in this study are based on checkpoints proposed byMcIntyre and Nicolle (2007) for evaluating the use ofpodcasts in libraries and checkpoints proposed by Nguyen(2008) for evaluating the use of various Web 2.0 tools inuniversities situated in Australia. Nguyen had used 95checkpoints covering the use of RSS, blogs, podcasts, IMand Wikis. The checkpoints are in dichotomous form,expressing the presence or absence of specific uses in thelibraries. Checkpoints from both the previous studies weremerged and similar checkpoints were placed together toeliminate redundancy. In this study, the researchers

Application index of web 2:0 tools in x university’s library

ZNo of checkpoints with Yes answer in x university’s library

No of checkpoints�100

added some checkpoints after browsing the websites ofvarious academic libraries and discussing this additionwith professionals from the library science discipline. Wehad informally invited all of our colleagues to makesuggestions and contribute in improving upon the check-points; they were also informed that their contributionwas completely voluntary in nature. Finally, four of ourcolleagues agreed to contribute in the improvement ofcheckpoints. The researchers finalized 70 checkpoints tounderstand the uses of Web 2.0 tools in libraries (seeTable 2). Thus, this study defined a new set of checkpointsas a result of merging checkpoints designed by McIntyreand Nicole, Nguyen, and inputs from the experts in thelibrary science discipline.

The proposed checkpoints were pilot tested to ascertainreliability through an inter-rater reliability test. Tworesearch assistants were asked to collect information onthe checkpoints from twenty universities during the pilottest. The outcomes of both of surveys were compared toexamine the consistency and reliability of checkpoints. Thiscomparison helped in removing ambiguities in the check-points. The final list of checkpoints used in this study ispresented in the Appendix. Each checkpoint was indichotomous form with values reflecting either presence orabsence of specific functions of Web 2.0 tools in the library.Excel and SPSS (Software Package for Social Sciences) wereused for coding and analyzing the data.

Data analysis and interpretation

The researchers accessed the websites of all the academiclibraries selected for the study to examine the uses ofWeb 2.0tools. Sometimes, a direct hyperlink to Web 2.0 tools was notavailable on the home pages of the libraries; then the Googlesearch engine was used to discover links to Web 2.0 tools onlibraries’ websites. Data about the uses ofWeb 2.0 tools werecollected along the prescribed checkpoints. Each checkpointwas allotted a value 1 or 0 according to yes or no answer. Thevalues were entered in Excel spreadsheets. The “applicationindex” of each librarywas calculated by the following formula

An application index indicates the degree of adoption ofWeb 2.0 applications in a specific library (Nguyen, 2008,p. 640). The high value of the application index reflectshigh implementation and adoption of Web 2.0 tools.

Use of Web 2.0 tools

Table 3 shows that IM is the most popular Web 2.0 tool inacademic libraries and its adoption ranged from seven to73% in the libraries surveyed. Instant messaging allowspatrons to communicate with one another using short textmessages and provides virtual reference services to thepatrons. It is popular because it induces interactivity in the

Table 2 Number of checkpoints.

Web 2.0 tools Numbers of checkpoints

RSS 12Blog 18Podcast 10Vodcast 4IM 8Wikis 18

Total 70

200 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

real time mode and users get their queries responded toimmediately.

Blogs, the second most popular Web 2.0 tool, are used by26e43% of the surveyed libraries. Uses of blogs are gainingpopularity as these are very easy to maintain and do notrequire much time and effort. Blogs are more popular at anindividual level rather than at the institutional level. TheRSS tool is used by 22e62% of the surveyed libraries.Stephens (2006) claims that the popularity of RSS may bedue to its clear functions, simplicity and ease of use.Nguyen (2008) predicted that RSS would be the mostpowerful tool of Web 2.0.

Wiki use ranges from zero to about 7% of the librariesand, as social networking sites, Wikis offer services equiv-alent to blogs. According to Wikipedia (2010d), socialnetworking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Orkut havebeen joined by 23.5 million, 25.3 million, and 67 millionusers respectively. Library professionals should tap thepotential of Wikis by creating Wiki accounts for the library.Wikis can be used by libraries for publicizing the collectionand distributing knowledge resources and open sourcesoftware.

Podcasts and vodcasts are rarely used in academiclibraries, with their use ranging from zero to 14%.

Use of RSSTable 4 shows that approximately 19e62% of academiclibraries use RSS to provide general and university news.Seventeen to 62% of the libraries use RSS to convey newsand events relevant to the library. Approximately, 10e19%

Table 3 Use of Web 2.0 tools.

Country RSS Blog Po

Australia No 2 3 1% 28.6 42.9 14

Canada No 23 16 5% 62.2 43.2 13

UK No 29 21 5% 35.4 25.6 6

USA No 33 52 10% 21.9 34.4 6

Use of Web 2.0 across thesurveyed universities

No 87 92 21% 31.4 33.2 7

of libraries use it for announcing schedules of workshopsand exhibitions organized by the university. Eleven to 54%use RSS for providing information about books added to thecollection. Eleven to 35% use RSS feeds to convey infor-mation about e-journals.

For instance, Concordia University’s library provides anRSS feed on the latest knowledge resources acquired by thelibrary. The feeds are clarified on the basis of disciplines tomake the access convenient. Thomson Rivers University’slibrary enlists RSS feeds to convey information about theonline databases that are subscribed to by the library. Thelibraries of University of Lincoln and Southborough Univer-sity provide RSS feeds about general and university news,library news and announcements of scheduled universityevents. Table 4 shows that libraries have used RSS forseveral purposes, including to convey news, provide infor-mation about new arrivals, and communicate the scheduleof various library activities.

Steps taken to improve the accessibility of RSSTable 5 shows that 19.6% of the libraries surveyed haveprovided instructions on how to use RSS and 19.5% haveprovided links to RSS from their homepage to download RSSfeeds. Approximately, 24% of the universities have classi-fied the RSS feed to make the access of RSS convenient.Eighteen percent of libraries have made RSS feeds search-able so that patrons can have direct access to informationof interest. For example, the libraries at University ofDerby, University of Dundee, and University of Liverpoolhave explained the concept of RSS and provided instruc-tions about how to subscribe to and download RSS feeds.

Use of blogsTable 6 shows that 13e26% of the libraries use blogs toconvey general information about libraries; five to 21% oflibraries use it to convey research tips; one to 22% of thelibraries use blogs to inform about new books added to thecollection and zero to 20% of libraries provide book reviewsof popular titles on blogs.

Many (24e43%) use blogs to list new databasessubscribed by them; 21e43% of the libraries use blogs toinform students about the downtime of servers/databases;20e43% of the libraries announce hours of operation and

dcast IM Vodcast Wiki Number ofUniversities

4 1 0 7.3 57.1 14.3 0

27 0 1 37.5 73.0 0 2.7

6 4 5 82.1 7.3 4.9 6.1

84 1 11 151.6 55.6 0.7 7.3

121 6 17 277.6 43.7 2.2 6.1

Table 4 Use of RSS.

Country GN LN LB LE WE IR HC LI Number ofUniversities

Australia No 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 7% 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada No 23 23 20 13 7 0 1 5 37% 62.2 62.2 54.1 35.1 18.9 0.0 2.7 13.5

UK No 24 23 9 12 8 4 0 6 82% 29.3 28.0 11.0 14.6 9.8 4.9 0.0 7.3

USA No 28 26 23 17 19 3 1 4 151% 18.5 17.2 15.2 11.3 12.6 2.0 0.7 2.6

Use of RSS across thesurveyed universities

No 77 74 54 43 35 7 2 15 277% 27.8 26.7 19.5 15.5 12.6 2.5 0.7 5.4

Note. GN Z General News and University News; LN Z Library News and Events; LB Z List of New Books; LE Z List of E-Journals;WEZ Announcements about Workshops and Exhibitions; IRZ RSS for Addition to Institutional Repository; HCZ Help for Catalog Search;LI Z Library Instructions.

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 201

holidays through blogs; and zero to 8% disseminate infor-mation about employment and careers. Thus, blogs areused to convey a wide range of information. The success ofblogs in academic libraries can be understood by thecoverage of their contents (Maxymuk, 2005).

The numbers of blogs maintained by libraries are notconsistent across academic libraries. Certain universitiesare managing with one blog, whereas others have morethan one blog. The number of blogs is influenced by theactivities in a discipline and the number of studentsenrolled in that discipline. The activities in disciplines withlow enrollment are often merged into a single blog. Thosedisciplines with high enrollments are maintained through anindividual blog. For example, the Bath University Libraryhas separate blogs to disseminate specific information tostudents and faculty members. The University maintainseight blogs: Web Services, Director of Studies, Division forLife Long Learning, Moodle service updates, Heat 3 Project,Audience Response System, MBA Careers for Alumni, andBUCS Windows Team.

Brescia University’s library blog provides informationabout new books, book reviews, and databases which havebeen acquired by the library. The blog of the GracelandUniversity’s library imparts research tips and informationabout the downtime of servers and databases. The blog ofUniversity of Bolton’s library offers advice on a wide rangeof student support issues, employment and careers,personal well-being and mental health.

Table 5 Steps taken to improve the accessibility of RSS(n Z 277).

Steps to improve access of RSS % Of libraries

Instructions given to use RSS 19.5Links available on library’s homepageof to download RSS feeds

19.5

Feeds have been classified 23.8Items are searchable 18.1

Accessibility of blogsClyde (2004) advised that access to blogs could be improvedby improving their appearance, making access of contentconvenient through search tools, and providing links toblogs through the home pages of universities and libraries.

Table 7 shows that 11.2% of the libraries have giveninstructions about how to use blogs; 20.8% of them includedates and times of postings; and 20.3% of libraries’ blogshave archived entries of the blogs. Entries in 19.9% of theblogs can be browsed by topic. A significant number of blogs(16.9%) have archived entries that are less than a year old,implying that the most of the libraries have only recentlystarted using blogs. For example, the libraries of ClarkUniversity, Cornell University, and Morehead State Univer-sity have been archiving blog entries since 2007. Seventeenpercent of the libraries have provided links to blogs on theirhomepages. The blogs of 11.7% of the libraries have links tolibrary catalogues. The Falvey Memorial Library of VillanovaUniversity has a blog where entries are classified andarranged under different categories so that students canbrowse according to their preferences. The same blogprovides a link to the library’s home page and catalogue.

Nature of accessibility of blogsThe data reveals (see Table 8) that blogs of 24.6% of thelibraries are accessible to everyone; however, 1.4% of thelibraries’ blogs have restricted entry, meaning access isrestricted to students and faculty of the university. To gainaccess to these restricted blogs, users need to entera username and password, which are allotted by theuniversity. For example, the blogs for the libraries ofUniversity College Plymouth and the University College ofSt. Mark and St. John restrict entry to the blogs. Most of theblogs permit reading permission to public; however, writingrights are confined to enrolled students and faculty.

Frequency of updating of information on blogsThe researchers note that lack of timely updating discouragesthe use of blogs in academic libraries. At the timeof sampling,only 13.6% of libraries’ blogs had been updatedwithin the last

Table 6 Use of blogs.

Country GI RT NB BR IL ND DS HO IE Number ofuniversities

Australia No 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 0 7% 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 42.9 42.9 42.9 0.0

Canada No 7 5 6 2 0 13 13 12 3 37% 18.9 13.5 16.2 5.4 0.0 35.1 35.1 32.4 8.1

UK No 11 4 1 1 0 20 17 16 2 82% 13.4 4.9 1.2 1.2 0.0 24.4 20.7 19.5 2.4

USA No 39 31 33 29 16 45 35 33 11 151% 25.8 20.5 21.9 19.2 10.6 29.8 23.2 21.9 7.3

Use of blogs acrosslibraries surveyed

No 58 41 41 32 16 81 68 64 16 277% 14.4 10.2 10.2 7.9 4.0 20.1 16.9 15.9 4.0

Note. GI Z General Information; RT Z Research Tips; NB Z New Books; BR Z Book Reviews; IL Z Information Literacy; ND Z NewDatabases; DS Z Downtime of Servers/Databases; HO Z Hours of Operation/Holidays, IE Z Information about Employment & Careers.

202 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

week. Blog entries should be updated frequently so thatstudents realize that the blog is active and alive.

Use of podcastThe use of podcast in this study has not been classified onthe basis of library location (by country) as its use has beenfound low among universities. Table 9 highlights the typespopular podcast audio feeds. Podcasts are mainly used toimprove searching skills, provide guidance in locatingresources, and instruction in how to use library facilities.The Utah Valley University’s library maintains the Libcast,a podcast that highlights events, services and resources ofthe library. Approximately 3% of libraries use podcasts todeliver the speeches of important people. For example thelibrary of the University of Derby uses podcasts to deliverspeeches of leading public figures.

Steps taken to improve access to podcastsTable 10 shows that 9.2% of the libraries have providedinstructions about how to use podcasts; 6.8% of the librarieshave provided RSS feeds about scheduled lectures andother audio streams over the podcasts; and 5.8% of librariesoffer transcripts of the important audio streams broad-casted over podcast. Some examples are:

� Southern Wesleyan University’s library uses podcasts todeliver speeches from chapels and various other eventsand offers instructions about how to download audiostreams using the iTunes platform.

Table 7 Steps taken to improve access of blogs (nZ 277).

Steps taken to improve access of blogs % Of libraries

Instructions given how to use blogs 11.2Dates and times stamps on postings 20.8Archives for the entries of blogs 20.3Latest postings are within the last week 13.6Entries are brows able by topics 19.9Archive entries are up to 1 year old 16.9Blog links to Library’s home page 17.1Blog links to Library catalogue 11.7

� The Library of University of South Dakota provides RSSfeeds to convey the schedule of podcast broadcasts.

� The Library of University of Aberdeen published fouraudio streams by podcast within the last year, whichcoincided with the schedule of important events in theuniversity calendar. They have provided instructionsabout how to subscribe to the podcast through iTunes.

� Ball State University’s Library has provided an expla-nation about the functioning of the podcast.

� The Library of Royal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyUniversity has been offering transcripts for all audiostreams through podcast.

Only few audio/video streams are made available overpodcast and vodcast; therefore, the listing of these audio/video streams is neither indexed nor made searchable.

Use of vodcastsApproximately 2% of the libraries use vodcasts to provide1) guidance about gaining access to e-resources, databasesand e-books and 2) video instruction about how to use thelibrary catalogue. About 1% use vodcasts to conveyinstructions about how to access resources from outside ofthe campus and slightly more use vodcasts to explain theprocedure for the self-issuing and returning of books.

The production of audio/video programmes is complex,expensive and time consuming, requiring studio and stafftrained in the production of audio/video programmes. Thesize of audio/video streams is large and downloading theseresources over the Internet takes a lot of time. Patronsneed high-speed Internet connectivity to get audio/videostreams. These may be the possible reasons for the low useof podcast/vodcast in academic institutions (Table 11).

Table 8 Nature of accessibility of blogs (n Z 277).

Nature of access to blogs % Of libraries

Blog is accessible to all 24.6Blog is accessible to registered users 1.4Blog is not under use 74.0

Table 9 Popular podcast feeds (n Z 277).

Use of podcast % Of libraries

Library orientation tours 3.9General searching skills 4.4Searching library catalogues 3.8Guidance to locate resources 4.4Guidance to use library facilities 3.9Information literacy tutorials 0.7Interviews/speeches of importantpersonalities/presidents

2.9

Table 11 Popular video vodcast streams (n Z 277).

Use of vodcast % Of libraries

Guidance to access e-resources,databases, e-books

1.9

Guidance to access catalogue 1.9Guidance to access electronicresources from off campus

1.0

Guidance to self issuing andreturning of books

1.4

Table 12 Use of instant messaging (n Z 277).

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 203

Use of IMAs Table 12 indicates, IM is used by libraries to providea range of reference services, such as text-based and voicechat, and advice about using the library, such as theacquisition of resources and interlibrary loan, photocopyingfacilities, etc. The libraries use various platforms tomediate the delivery of IM based services such as Meebo,AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc.

Steps taken to improve access to IMAs Table 13 indicates, many libraries offer instructions onhow to use IM and nearly a quarter offer IM for more than8 h per day. The sample is dominated by academic libraries,situated in universities/colleges offering undergraduateand master level courses. Some libraries specify the kind ofquestions that can be asked via IM and indicate the timesduring which IM can be used. Certain libraries make IMservices available 24/7 by using a consortium or providingcollaborative reference services.

Use of WikisWikis are mainly used in academic libraries to supplementresources relevant to the curriculum of the courses.Approximately 1% of libraries use Wikis to offer trainingresources and to provide lists of resources (see Table 14).Wiki accounts, when planned with a specific purpose andthe right features, are expected to grow in popularity inacademic libraries. Table 15 lists the small number of stepsthat have been taken to increase the use of Wikis in thevery few libraries that are beginning to use them.

Results and discussion

The study covered the libraries of 277 universities. Therewas considerable variation in the use of Web 2.0 tools. It isfound that 211 libraries (76.2%) had adopted at least one of

Table 10 Steps taken to improve access to podcasts(n Z 277).

Steps to improve access to the podcast % Of libraries

Instructions given to use podcast 9.2RSS feeds available for Podcast 6.8Transcripts of audio streams 5.8Links of podcast from homepageof the library/university

9.4

the Web 2.0 tools, whereas 66 of them (23.8%) did not useany of the Web 2.0 tools.

Good practices for integrating Web 2.0 tools inlibrary services

1. Web 2.0 tools, such as blogs, RSS, social networkingsites and Wikis, should be used with well-definedpurposes and standard norms. This step will improvethe reliability of Web 2.0 tools and improve theparticipation of patrons in activities of libraries.

2. Libraries may use podcasts and/or vodcasts wheneverlearning is based on audio or visual clues. Visual clips ofthe latest events may be provided as feeds over pod-cast. This step helps in marketing the libraries andimproves their credibility in society.

3. Libraries should create blogs in order to cater to theneeds of specific groups of patrons. However, thenumber of blogs should not be too high or else it willlead to scattering the users across the blogs with verylow number of participants in each blog. The librariescan use blogs for announcing new developments andevents. The blogs should be accessible to all, butcomment may be added by authorized students only.

4. Libraries may publish guidelines for using various Web2.0 tools. Students may be asked to respect intellectualproperty rights when referring to knowledge resourcesowned by others. Knowledge resources should beproperly cited and credited. Students should also avoidposting any confidential information.

5. Visual clips, explaining various procedures and func-tions of the library, may be provide as vodcasts. Thedelivery of audio or video clips requires high-speedInternet connectivity. Audio/video clips of short size

Uses of Instant Message % Of libraries

Reference service 43.0Advice on library services 41.5Procedure for acquisition ofknowledge resources

37.5

Others services offered by library 9.4Instructions to use IM 30.3Exchange of short messagesamong students through chat

36.8

Voice chat 13.1

Table 13 Steps taken to improve access to IM (n Z 277).

Steps taken to improve access of IM % Of libraries

Instruction on the uses of IM facility 30.3Facilitate interactivity among studentsthrough IM. Services are made availablefor more than 8 h

23.5

Link to IM from home page ofuniversity/library

28.7

Table 15 Steps taken to increase the use of wikis(n Z 277).

Steps to improve access of wikis % Of libraries

Instructions given on how to use wikis 1.4Library designs its own wiki 1.4Allows users to edit an existing page 0.7Provide tools to format text and images 1.4Enable users to upload files 1.4The users can recall, reedit andrestore previous contents

1.4

Provide RSS feeds for new andupdated information

1.4

Provide keyword search engine 1.4Link to library’s home page 1.8Access is restricted to registered users 1.4Have statement about copyright andcontents ownership

0.7

Is social bookmarking available 1.4

204 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

can be easily delivered by podcast/vodcast. The lengthof single audio/video clips is usually 3e5 min.

6. Lectures and demonstrations can be provided on pod-cast, so that students who have missed the lecture canwatch at their convenience. In this context, theexample of podcast use by University of Aberdeen’sLibrary is worth mentioning. People who are not formalstudents of the university can also benefit from thesefeeds.

7. Web 2.0 tools are a new concept. In the initial phase oftheir studies, students should be trained to use variousWeb 2.0 tools. Small training modules should be used asthe starting point. The Chartered Institute of Libraryand Informational Professionals (CILIP) runs two cour-ses on Web 2.0 tools (i.e., Web 2.0 Nuts and Bolts andWeb 2.0: Building on the Basics). (Tedd, 2008)

8. Web 2.0 tools are community based learning applica-tions; therefore, the support and participation ofpatrons is critical to the success of Web 2.0 tools.Students and faculty members should be taught toincorporate these tools in order to form an intellectualvirtual community.

9. The libraries and information centers should createflyers and bookmarks that contain brief informationabout blogs, RSS and Wikis used in the library. Theseflyers should be distributed during orientation classesand informal visits to various departments. The libraryshould provide links to Web 2.0 tools from universityand library homepages. A brief introduction of activi-ties offered using Web 2.0 tools and any updates shouldbe placed on the library’s website or communicateddirectly to students through flyers.

10. Libraries may create a Wiki account, where studentsand teachers can create content, providing users withan opportunity to contribute in the virtual communitythrough Wiki. Henderson State University’s library hascreated a Wiki account, which includes “StudentDiscussion” and “Staff” sub accounts.

Table 14 Use of Wikis (n Z 277).

Uses of Wikis % Of libraries

As subject guides 1.4Project planning 0.4Policy manuals 0.7Resource listings 0.7Training resources 1.1Others knowledge resources 1.4

11. Wikis may be developed as subject guides. Wikis mayoffer guidance and explain general search tips abouthow to locate articles or books from the library. AirUniversity’s Library has used Wikis to provide coursesupport for research seminars. For example, it hascreated an “Alexander the Great” Wiki which lists theimportant websites and books from the library’scollection that are relevant to the topic.

12. The library should provide RSS feeds to communicateabout scheduled podcasts/vodcasts and events of theuniversity, as well as new books that are added to thecollection.

Scope for further research

More rigorous research should be undertaken on thefollowing aspects of Web 2.0 tools and libraries:

� To find out how these tools are being used by theacademic libraries in the developing countries.

� To determine the use of Web 2.0 tools in open univer-sities and how these have enhanced library services.

� To study users’ feedback on these Web 2.0 tools,including whether they feel more drawn towards thelibraries because of the application of these tools andthe enhanced services that the tools offer.

Conclusion

Earlier libraries were places to visit and collect informa-tion; now, with the implementation of Web 2.0 tools, theyhave transformed into places which can be visited fromremote locations with information being not only collected,but contributed, too. Web 2.0 tools can take the services oflibraries beyond their walls by connecting common indi-viduals as consumers and contributors to libraries.Academic libraries may reach a new generation of userswho are not formal teachers and students of the institu-tions. Thus, applications of Web 2.0 tools may bring changein the relationship between users and libraries by improving

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 205

the involvement of users in the activities of libraries.Wiegand (2003) has sought a change in focus for the libraryscience research agenda, moving from study of the patronsin the life of the library to study of the library in the lives ofthe patrons.

There must be content and purpose in using Web 2.0tools. The sophistication of the technology should not takeprecedence over its pedagogical relevance. The judicioususe of these tools can lead to transformation of librariesinto active knowledge hubs. Library professionals must useWeb 2.0 tools to offer traditional services in an innovativemanner and address the information requirements of thetechno-savvy users.

AppendixCheckpoints used to understand utilization of web2.0 in academic libraries:

I. Route map to fill the checkpoints

A. Does the Library use any type of web 2.0 technologies?If not, Please skip the entire survey.

B. Does the Library use RSS? If not please skip checkpointsfrom 8 to 19

C. Does the Library use blogs? If not please skip check-points from 20 to 37

D. Does the Library use podcasts? If not please skipcheckpoints from 38 to 47

E. Does the library use vodcast? If not please skip check-points from 48 to 51

F. Does the Library use IM? If not please skip checkpointsfrom 52 to 59

G. Does the Library use Wikis? If not please skip check-points from 60 to 77.

II. Checkpoints used

RSS use:1. General news/University news2. Library news and events3. List of new books4. List of e- journals and e-resources databases5. Announcements about workshops and exhibitions6. Usage of RSS for listing of resources in additions to

Institutional Repository7. Help for catalog search8. Library instructions9. Instructions given to use RSS

10. Links on library’s web site/pages to download RSS11. Entries are classified to make access easy12. Items in RSS are searchable

Blog use:13. Blog accessible to all by default14. General information15. Research tips16. List of new books17. Book reviews/discussions18. Information literacy19. List of e-resources and databases

20. Down time of servers/databases21. Hours of operation, holidays22. Information about employment and careers23. Instructions given to use blogs24. Dates and time of postings of blog entries25. Archives for the blog; if not skip next checkpoint26. Archival entries are up to 1 year old27. The latest postings are within the last week28. Entries are brows able by topics29. Blog links to Library’s homepage30. Blog links to Library catalogue

Podcast use:31. Library orientation tours32. General searching skills33. Searching Library catalogues34. Guidance to use resources35. Guidance to use other library facilities36. Information literacy tutorials37. Interviews/speeches of head of institutions38. Instructions given to use podcasts39. RSS feeds available for podcasts40. Transcripts available for podcasts

Use of vodcast:41. Guidance to use e-resources: databases and e-books42. Guidance to access catalogue43. Guidance to access electronic resources from off

campus44. Explained procedure for self issuing and returning

Use of IM:45. Reference services46. Advice on Library services47. Guidance to access resources48. Others (date and time about upcoming events:

lectures, free trial access, issues not cover in otheritems, etc.)

49. Instructions to use IM50. Library offers text based chat51. Library offers voice chat52. Instant Messaging services are available for more than 8 h

Use of Wikis:53. As subject guides54. Project planning55. Policy manuals56. Listings of resource57. Training resources58. Others (information about writing styles, plagiarism

and such issues not covered in other items)59. Instructions given to use Wikis60. Library designs its own Wiki61. Allows users to edit contents of Wiki62. Provide tools to format text and images63. Enable users to upload files64. Users can recall earlier page on wikis65. Provide RSS feeds for new and updated information on

Wiki66. Provide keyword search engine67. Link to Library home page

206 M. Tripathi, S. Kumar

68. Requires users to register69. Have statement about copyright and content ownership70. Is social book marking available?

References

Alcock, M. (2003). Blogs e what are they and how do we use them?Quill, 103(8).

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2010). Cana-dian universities. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from. http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/index_e.html.

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2003). Highlights of thekey statistics. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from. http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/documents/publications/stats/Highlights.pdf.

Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Bejune, M. M. (2007). Wikis in libraries. Information Technologyand Libraries, 26(3), 27e39.

Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Developer Works interviews. Retrieved May8, 2010, from. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html.

Birdsall, F. W. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2). Retrieved January 10, 2010, from. www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html.

Bradley, P. (2007). How to use web 2.0 in your library. London:Facet.

Bray, T. (2005).Not 2.0 [Weblog post]. RetrievedMay 10, 2010, from.http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/08/04/Web-2.0.

Casey, M. (2005). Working towards a definition of Library 2.0.LibraryCrunch Blog. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from. http://www.librarycrunch.com/2005/10/working_towards_a_definition_o.html.

Chad, K., & Miller, P. (2005). Do libraries matter? The rise ofLibrary 2.0. (A white paper). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from.http://www.talis.com/applications/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf.

Chawner, B., & Lewis, P. H. (2006). Wikiwikiwebs: new ways tocommunicate in a web environment. Information Technologyand Libraries, 25(1), 33e43.

Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. N. (2008). The problems and potential ofMySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. InternetReference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69e85.

Clyde, L. A. (2004). Library weblogs. Library Management, 25(4e5), 183e189.

Cohen, S. F. (2008). Taking 2.0 to the faculty: why, who and how.College and Research Libraries News, 69(8), 472e475.

Davis, I. (2005). Talis, Web 2.0 and all that. Retrieved June 9, 2010,from. http://blog.iandavis.com/2005/07/talis-web-20-and-all-that.

DeRosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., & Jenkins, L. (2007).Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world: A report tothe OCLC membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC. Retrieved June 9,2010, from. http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf.

Draper, L., & Turnage, M. (2008). Blogmania: blog use inacademic libraries. Internet Reference Service Quarterly, 13(1), 15e55.

Economist. (2008, January 24). Debate. Retrieved from. www.economist.com/debate.

Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: Building collab-oration, communication and community online. Newark, NJ:Information Today.

Franklin, T., & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content forlearning and teaching in higher education. Bristol: JISC.Retrieved June 10, 2010, from. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/

documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf.

Frumkin, J. (2005). The wiki and the digital library. OCLC Systemsand Services, 21(1), 18e22.

Hane, P. J. (2001). Blogs are a natural for librarians. Newslink, 24.Retrieved May 8, 2010, from. http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbReader.asp?ArticleIdZ18945.

Hanson, K., & Cervone, H. F. (2007). Using interactive technologiesin libraries. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Horizon Report (2007). The New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSELearning Initiative. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf

Huffman, K. (2006). Web2.0: beyond the concept: practical ways toimplement RSS, podcast and wikis. Education Libraries, 29(1),12e19.

Huwe,T. K. (2006, NovembereDecember). Social networkingmixes thehipwiththeproven.Computers inLibraries.RetrievedJune7,2010,from. http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/4100525-1.html.

Kajewski, M. A. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our servicedelivery models. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420e429.

King, D. L., & Brown, S. W. (2009). Emerging trends, 2.0, andlibraries. The Serials Librarian, 56(1e4), 32e43.

King, D. L., & Porter, M. (2007). Collaborating with wikis. PublicLibraries, 46(2), 32e35.

Lee, D. (2006). Ipod, you-pod, we-pod: podcasting and marketinglibrary services. Library Administrator and Management, 20,206e208, 4.

Libby, D. (1999). RSS 0.91 specification, revision 3. Retrieved May5, 2010, from. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-0-9-1-netscape.

Libraries and Social Software in Education (LASSIE). (2007). Librariesand social software in education project document. RetrievedJune 10, 2010, from. http://clt.lse.ac.uk/Projects/LASSIE.php.

Macaskill, W., & Owen, D. (2006). Web 2.0 to go. Proceedings ofLIANZA Conference 2006, Wellington.

Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implica-tions for libraries. Webology, 3(2). Retrieved May 5, 2010, from.www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html 5th May 2010.

Maxymuk, J. (2005). Bits and bytes blogs: whose space? Bottomline. Managing Library Finances, 18(1), 43e45.

McIntyre, A., & Nicolle, J. (2007). Biblioblogging: Blogs for librarycommunication. Proceedings of LIANZA Conference 2007,Wellington.

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: building the new library. Ariadne, 45.Available at www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/intr.html.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of educa-tional statistics. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_234.asp.

Nguyen, L. C. (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 inAustralasian University libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26(4),630e653.

Notess, G. R. (2006). The terrible twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0 andmore. Online, 30(3), 40e42.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0?. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from.http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

Payne, J. (2008). Using wikis and blogs to improve collaborationand knowledge sharing. Strategic HR Review, 7(3), 5e12.

Serantes, L. C. (2009). Untangling the relationship betweenlibraries, young adults and Web 2.0: the necessity of a criticalperspective. Library Review, 58(3), 237e251.

Singer, M. A., & Sherrill, K. (2007). Social software, Web2.0, libraryand you: a practical guide for using technology @ your library.Indiana Libraries, 26(3), 48e52.

Stephens, M. (2006). Exploring Web 2.0 and libraries. LibraryTechnology Reports, 42(4), 8e14.

Stuart, D. (2010). What are libraries doing on Twitter? ExploringTechnology Resources for Information Professionals, 34(1),45e47, Retrieved June 1, 2010, from. http://www.infotoday.com/Online/jan10/index.shtml.

Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries 207

Technorati. (2006, April). State of the blogosphere. Part 1: bloggrowth. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from. www.technorati.com/weblog/2005/08/34.html.

Tedd, L. A. (2008). Editorial. Program, 42(3), 213e214.Tripathi, M. (2009, June). Use of Web2.0 tools by academic

libraries. Paper presented at the International Association ofTechnological Libraries Association (IATUL) conference, Leuven,Belgium. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/2009/Tripathi-text.pdf

Universities U.K.. (2010). The higher education sector and UKuniversities. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/UKHESector/FAQs/Pages/About-HE-Sector-and-Universities.aspx.

Virkus, S. (2008). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education:experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: ElectronicLibrary & Information Systems, 42(3), 262e274.

Weaver, B. (2003, September). Weaver’s web. InCite. RetrievedJune 10, 2010, from. www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2003/09/weaver.html.

Wiegand, W. A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: whatAmerican studies can teach the LIS community about thelibrary in the life of the users. The Library Quarterly, 73(4),369e382.

Wikipedia. (2010a). Definition of blog. Retrieved June 10, 2010,from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog.

Wikipedia. (2010b). Definition of vodcast. Retrieved June 10, 2010,from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodcast.

Wikipedia. (2010c). Definition of Web 2.0. Retrieved June 10, 2010,from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0.

Wikipedia. (2010d). List of social networking websites. RetrievedJune 10, 2010, from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites.

Winn, P. (2008). State of the blogosphere: Introduction 2008.Retrieved December 12, 2009, from. http://technorati.com/blogging/article/state-of-the-blogosphere-introduction/.

Wusteman, J. (2004). RSS: the latest feed. Library Hi Tech, 22(4),404e413.