Article

Information Development
2014, Vol. 30(2) 159–171
Academic librarians and their social ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
media presence: a story of DOI: 10.1177/0266666913481689
idv.sagepub.com
motivations and deterrents

Niusha Zohoorian-Fooladi
University of Malaya

A Abrizah
University of Malaya

Abstract
Despite the widespread use of social media by students and their increased use in higher education, very little
empirical evidence is available concerning the prevalence of use among academic librarians. The objectives of
this study are: a) to identify the prevalence of social media used in Malaysian academic libraries; b) to examine
the reasons for creating a social media presence among academic libraries; and c) to understand the obstacles
to social media participation among academic librarians. Data were gathered via three focus study groups with
22 librarians from three research-intensive universities in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The results indicated that at
least four types of social media are deployed in libraries to reach out to the users: blogs, multimedia sharing
sites, social bookmarking and social networking sites (SNS). Facebook, Blog, Delicious, YouTube and Twitter
are the tools mainly adopted by these libraries. The motives for librarians to use social media were to promote
library services, manage organizational knowledge and receiving instant feedback from users. Workflow obsta-
cles, technology obstacles, organizational obstacles and personal obstacles deter librarians from participating in
social media. This study provides experiential evidence that Malaysian academic librarians are not very serious
in engaging themselves with social media. Library managements need to provide support to mobilize librarians
into a more active and participatory role in creating social media presence.

Keywords
academic librarians, social media presence, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, social networking tools, Malaysia

Librarians need to understand how to best harness social media technologies to enhance
library service.

Introduction into six types: collaborative projects (e.g. Wikipedia),

Blogs, wikis and online social networking sites (SNS) blogs and microblogs (e.g. Twitter), content commu-
such as Facebook and Twitter, services known as nities (e.g. YouTube, Flicker), SNS (e.g. Facebook),
social media, have become increasingly popular and virtual game worlds (e.g. high school library game
widely-used in the library and information services and the librarian free online game) and virtual social
setting. Librarians have responded accordingly by worlds (e.g. Second Life). Such technologies have
applying some of these tools in varying degrees to been penetrating libraries since 2006, as reported by
provide library services. Kaplan and Haenlein
(2010: 61) defined social media as ‘‘a group of
Corresponding author:
Internet-based applications that build on the ideologi-
Niusha Zohoorian-Fooladi, Department of Library and Informa-
cal and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and tion Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information
that allow the creation and exchange of user- Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
generated content’’. They categorized social media Email: [email protected]
160 Information Development 30(2)

Maness (2006), who found that librarians are only phase which highlighted how libraries used the social
beginning to acknowledge and write about social media tools; and the late phase, when researchers
media, primarily in the form of weblogs. Later began to focus on the issues and challenges of using
researchers mostly wrote about the application of these tools in libraries.
Web 2.0 in libraries and described the potential use The first phase began in 2005 when Paul Miller
of these technologies in library services (Boeninger, described what Web 2.0 and social media are and how
2006; Fichter, 2006; Bradley, 2007). Although Miller these tools could be used in the library environment.
(2006) argued that many web tools are ‘‘disruptive’’ Miller (2005) clarified that Web 2.0 or Library 2.0
and fall outside the parameters of library and informa- offers libraries the opportunity to serve users better
tion services, recently, the use of social media in uni- by reaching out beyond their walls and websites with
versity libraries has become widespread (Linh, 2008; choices to view online, borrow locally, request from
Kim and Abbas, 2010; Si et al., 2011; Jahan and afar, buy or sell as appropriate to their needs and cir-
Ahmed, 2012). Research shows that some academic cumstances. One year later, Maness (2006) described
librarians believe that the digital spaces created by the four conceptual underpinnings to Library 2.0,
social media should be fully exploited (Liu, 2008; which were: a) user-centered; b) multi-media experi-
Harinarayana and Raju, 2010). A few researchers ence; c) socially rich; and d) communally innovative.
have looked at the challenges and hindrances to He also explained how Web 2.0 technologies such
applying social media in academic libraries (Arif and as synchronous messaging, blogs, wikis, social
Mahmood, 2012; Chu and Du, 2012). networks, tagging, RSS feeds, and mash-ups might
In Malaysia, as library social media emerged in revolutionize library services. By using Instant
2008 (Edzan, 2010), many early-adopters began to Messaging (IM), for instance, librarians and users
experiment with technologies such as RSS feeds, could communicate synchronously in chat reference
wikis, chat tools, podcasting, video-sharing and book- services. Blogs could help the library in collection
marking (Abdul Aziz et al., 2011). Since then, short development, and wikis could be a new form of group
surveys have been conducted in jurisdictions that study room. SNS could help libraries not only to inter-
describe how these tools are used in academic act with users, but also to share and exchange
libraries (Mansor and Idris, 2010; Ayu and Abrizah resources dynamically. RSS could help users to have
2011). Academic librarians regularly report on their one library page that syndicates all the library content
use of social media at association meetings, seminal and their research interest. Habib (2006) proposed a
works and in library newsletters, but no empirical methodological framework for employing Web 2.0
study has yet been conducted that relates to librarian’s tools in academic libraries to interact with library
motivations and deterrents in creating social media users. Instead of focusing on an exact physical task,
presence in Malaysia. There is a need to establish this model looks at interactions from a broader
an overall view of innovative uses of social media perspective.
in Malaysian academic libraries for capturing best The second phase of literature focused on the usage
practices and to apply that information to develop of different social media applications in different
library services using social media frameworks. Such library contexts. Foley (2002) examined the potential
services would be intended to reach out to faculty, usage of Instant Messaging (IM) as a digital reference
staff and students. Given the newness of social media service in academic libraries, through which the
applications in Malaysia, this study is focused on library could reach remote users across the campus
investigating and addressing the knowledge gap. and around the world. After 2005, there have been
many empirical studies; Boeninger (2006) and
Fichter (2006) in particular, discussed the applica-
Literature review tions of Wikis in libraries as a searchable and well-
There has been a considerable amount of literature organized library resource that needs librarians’
written in recent years about social media and their contributions for creating the content. Barsky and
application in different organizations. A review of Purdon (2006) discussed the use of SNS in libraries
literature on the usage of social media in library and with exemplary notes on a few SNS. They believed
information services is confined to three phases: the that libraries could reach their users beyond library
early phase when researchers reported on the type of walls by sharing knowledge in the form of discussion
social media tools used in libraries; the intermediary groups and communities in SNS. Xu (2007) surveyed
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 161

82 academic libraries of New York State and Long appropriately was another concern. Privacy and secu-
Island in the USA. Her study found that blogs, IM and rity issues, as well as staff development, were also
RSS were the main social media applications which highlighted as hindrances (Secker, 2008). A study
have been used extensively compared to social book- by Chawner (2008) in New Zealand found that educa-
marking, SNS and podcasts. Liu (2008) proposed a tional level and employment status have influenced
conceptual model of a Web 2.0 academic library. The the application of social media and Web 2.0 technol-
study found that IM has been employed in almost all ogy among librarians. Arif and Mahmood explored
111 web sites of the Association of Research Libraries the reasons that hinder the use of social media tools
(ARL). On the other hand, blogs were accepted among Pakistani librarians. The results showed that
among school library web sites according to the lack of computer literacy and of computers and Inter-
results from a study undertaken by Valenza (2007). net facilities were the major obstacles to social media
Han (2009) explored the condition of Web 2.0 tech- application (Arif and Mahmood, 2012). Chu and Du
nology employed in Chinese university libraries. He (2012) explored the factors that influence the applica-
found that more than two-thirds of the top 38 Chinese tion of SNS in 140 Asian, North American and
university libraries applied one or more social media Europe libraries, and reported that Twitter and Face-
tools through the basic functions of their web sites. book were the most commonly adopted tools and that
Among six social media tools, catalog 2.0 and RSS library staff have a positive attitude towards the appli-
were the most common, while IM, blogs, SNS and cation of SNS. Conversely, the uncertainty of staff
wikis were less frequent. Another empirical study and the limited participation of users were obstacles
conducted by Linh (2008) showed that at least two- to using these tools. Another recent study (Tyagi,
thirds of Australasian university libraries deployed 2012) was conducted among librarians and library
one or more Web 2.0 technologies. This survey professionals in Western Uttar Pradesh and showed
reported that RSS was the most widely applied that librarians’ skills in Internet usage influence the
technology and IM the least used. A recent study by adoption of social media. The researcher also empha-
Harinarayana and Raju (2010) explored the latest sized the need for a comprehensive study to find out
trends in the application of Web 2.0 and library 2.0 the factors which affect social media participation
as exemplified through the web sites of 100 top uni- among librarians.
versities around the world. They determined that 35
university libraries use RSS feeds for the dissemina-
tion of library news, events and announcements and Objectives and methods
12 libraries use RSS for alerts about the arrival of new The objectives of this study are as follows:
titles. Fifteen university libraries provided blog space
for users as a promotional library mechanism. a) to identify which social media tools are pre-
Recent literature reported on how libraries benefit ferred among academic libraries in Malaysia
from social media and using these tools in their ser- b) to examine the reasons of creating a social
vices. Papers that emerged between 2008 and 2012 media presence among academic libraries
explored the attitudes and perceptions of social media c) to understand the obstacles to social media
users (Ram and Kataria, 2011; Jahan and Ahmed, participation among academic librarians.
2012). These perceptions were mostly gathered from
librarians’ or library users’ points of view. Librarians The following research questions formally operatio-
also mentioned the obstacles or motivations to the use nalize the research objectives:
of social media. In 2008, Secker explored the use of a) Which social media tools are used in Malay-
Facebook as a tool for libraries and librarians and sian academic libraries?
indicated that librarians are joining social media for b) Why do academic librarians create social
purely social reasons. However, its use could overlap media presence using these tools?
into the library profession. He found that unfamiliar- c) What are the conditions that deter the academic
ity with using social media applications in libraries librarians from participating in social media?
was the main reason which deterred librarians from
joining Facebook. The other concern of librarians in In order to understand why librarians in three research
the early days was that of considering Facebook as intensive universities in Malaysia use social media in
only a fun and topical tool. How to use Facebook library services and the obstacles that prevent them
162 Information Development 30(2)

from using these tools, data were gathered via focus Table 1 presents the demographic information of
group discussions. Participants in a focus group the participants in each group. It should be noted that
would have enough space to share their experiences the names chosen are not the real names of partici-
and present their opinions on the topics discussed pants and the demographic information could not be
(Stringer, 2007). This discussion would give research- used to identify individuals. However, these names
ers the chance to end up with more convincing were chosen to reflect the gender of the participants.
accounts of what the study participants think (Bry-
man, 2012). Therefore, a formal invitation was sent
to each of the participants by e-mail, informing them Findings and discussion
of the basic principles of the study, i.e. Three research questions were posed in order to meet
the research objectives (see Table 2 for summary):
a) the aim of the focus group is not to measure the
knowledge of the participants Research Question 1: Which social media tools are
b) the information of the participants is regarded used in Malaysian academic libraries?
as confidential
c) there are stipends (in the form of thumb drives) The types of social media and how they are used in the
and refreshments during and at the end of the sampled academic libraries do not differ greatly.
focus group sessions Results indicate that there are at least three types of
d) the insights and ideas of the participants are social media applications used by the librarians,
regarded as important. namely, blogs and microblogging, content commu-
nities, and SNS. Social networks remained the most
The focus group discussions were conducted from July popular – Facebook is utilized by all the academic
to October 2012 by recruiting 22 librarians in three libraries. Most of the librarians sampled believe that
groups from three research-intensive universities in Facebook could be a very good portal for social inter-
the Klang Valley, Kuala Lumpur. To ensure appropri- action with library users. While there was a growth in
ate precautions to protect the confidentiality of the the employment of Facebook among the librarians,
research participants, the names of these universities interest in Twitter and YouTube was low, as only one
from which identities could be inferred are kept anon- library is currently using these tools. It is clear from
ymous. These universities were chosen because they the findings that libraries neglect one type of social
all aim to be regional leaders in research and academic media in favor of other tools that better suited their
excellence. They are among the top universities in aims and needs. The libraries are not using photo-
Malaysia and top 200 universities in Asia. The three sharing tools and virtual worlds. None of them opts
focus groups consisted of 5 to 10 librarians each. For to modify customizable social media applications to
each group this number was considered enough to provide greater access to existing web-based library
reach theoretical saturation (Krueger, 1990). Partici- resources, such as their OPACs and digital libraries.
pants were from different library departments and were
purposively sampled based on the following criteria: Research Question 2: Why do academic librarians
create social media presence using these tools?
a) they sat in the committee of their respective
library website For this question, the librarians were asked why they
b) they were either heads of departments or use social media in their actual library work. Drawing
librarians in charge of creating content and from the discussion there is a fact that social media
updating social media applications in the tools have become extremely popular; academic
sampled libraries librarians have started to explore how this technology
c) they considered themselves to be active users can be used in providing library services. Participants
in at least one social media tool provided various reasons and the most commonly
d) they expressed a willingness to take part in the cited was ‘‘to promote library services’’ (8 responses)
study. and ‘‘to interact synchronously’’ (5 responses).
While analyzing their responses, it was clear that
Each focus group lasted approximately two hours, what motivated them is ‘‘what’’ they are doing in
during which all discussions were tape (audio) social media, but not ‘‘why’’ they are using it. The
recorded. only reason ‘‘why’’ was provided by Zahra who
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 163

Table 1. Demographic information of the participants.

Participants Library Department Academic Background Age

Focus group A (10 participants) – 30 July 2012 (11.00 –13:15 p.m.)

Harold System and Information Technology MLIS 34
Lina Information Service MLIS 42
Mike Acquisition BSc information studies 23
Zahra Arabic and Islamic civilization MLIS 28
Matthew Cataloging BSc information studies 26
Harry Archive and special collection Master in archives and records 29
Jimmy Acquisition BSc information studies 30
Rose Media collection BSc information studies 36
Ayla Customer service MLIS 31
Andy Law Library BSc information studies 31
Focus group B (5 participants) – 12 September 2012 (11 .00 – 12:30 p.m.)
Sofi System and information Technology BSc information studies 34
Nadia System and Information Technology BSc information studies 25
Shawn System and Information Technology MLIS 38
Sammy Acquisition BSc information studies 28
Helena Cataloging BSc information studies 26
Focus group C (7 participants) – 2 October 2012 (14:30–16:30 p.m.)
Alec Medical library BSc information studies 33
Natasha Client service department MLIS 31
Romina Medical library BSc information studies 26
Hania Information skill MLIS 27
Sharon Information skill BSc information studies 37
Helsa Academic service MLIS 32
Fred Information system MLIS 27

remarked ‘‘[we need] to be nearer to students because media user experience, as highlighted by the partici-
that is the trend now’’. According to Zahra, being pants: Presence, Synchronousity, Information Needs,
aware of and following the trend in using social media Groups, Conversations, Relationship, and Current
could fulfil her need to know ‘‘which [library] collec- Awareness.
tions and services that are successful and useful and The framework building block Presence represents
why’’. Bradley (2007) also wrote that librarians are the extent to which librarians ‘be where the users are’
really concerned about following the trend and apply- in a social media setting. It includes knowing if
ing the latest technology to cater to users’ needs. library users are available and accessible. The
Table 3 presents the participants’ responses on what Relationships block represents the extent to which
they are doing in social media (when asked the rea- librarians reach out to and establish relationships with
sons why) and examples of narrative statements to the users. The Conversation block of the framework
illustrate their social media activities. symbolizes the extent to which librarians communi-
The responses obtained (from Table 3) are illu- cate with users in a social media setting. The Group
strated in Figure 1 in the form of a honeycomb frame- block defines the extent to which librarians are orga-
work of seven social media building blocks. The nized or form communication among themselves in
origin of this framework can be attributed to the work social media platforms. Another block labelled ‘Infor-
of Kietzmann et al. (2011), that defines social media mation Needs’ shows the extent to which librarians
by using seven functional building blocks: Identity, addressed and fulfilled users’ information needs,
Conversations, Sharing, Presence, Relationships, while the Synchronousity block corresponds to the
Reputation, and Groups. The honeycomb framework extent to which librarians interact in real time with
of seven functional building blocks created in this their users. The last block in this honeycomb frame-
study comprises the following reasons for social work is Current Awareness, which represents the
media use that reflect a specific facet of the social extent to which librarians educate users and market
164 Information Development 30(2)

Table 2.

Reasons of using social media in libraries Why do you use social media in your actual library work?

1 Presence: ‘‘[we need it] to be nearer to the students because that is the
Librarians show their existence in social media to be in a trend now (Zahra, Arabic and Islamic civilization)’’
platform where their users are.
2 Synchronousity : ‘‘Our chief librarian doesn’t like to see any inquiry left without
Librarians have real-time interactions with users in social answer for a long time so if we don’t answer it there and then,
media; it allows a more dynamic experience than the she will answer it fast’’ (Romina, Medical Library)’’
fundamentally static webpage.
3 Information needs: ‘‘We also have our lecturers [the academics] as friends so we
Librarians find out what information their users need, can find out what they need through Facebook. (Helena,
this may take over the traditional user surveys. Cataloging Dept.)’’
4 Groups: ‘‘We can gather ideas about our job from other librarians in
Librarians brainstorm; solve problems, share social media, it can be used in our cataloging department to
information and thinking loud among themselves. discuss and solve cataloging issues (Harry, Archive and
Special Collections)
5 Conversation: ‘‘Our clients, the users.. can easily express what they feel about
Librarians enhance communication among individuals our services; I mean social media can be used as unofficial
and groups; librarians interact with users by the method or platform to communicate with us.. express their
application of different social media tools. feelings, their needs (Mike, Acquisition.)’’
6 Relationships: ‘‘Social media is very effective [tool] to reach out to users, also to
Librarians reach out to library users and establish target users, such as to our alumni or anyone out there who
relationship with potential users. want to do serious reading and need to use university library,
that is why we [the library Facebook page] have more library
fans than other libraries (Fred, Information Skills)
7 Current awareness: I do historical research in my spare time, I have a blog. I browse
Librarians promote their services to keep the user journals, I search OPAC on what kind of information we have
aware of the library, provide them with knowledge to support this research, and for articles I provide the title
about its physical features, resources and services and with the call number [in the blog]. In this way, I promote our
also educate users about new technologies. collections and make users know about them (Harry, Archive
and Special Collections)

new services by using social media. The intensity of creating enough presence in their library social
each block illustrates the number of responses from media. This was the result of two focus groups (A
participants. For example, Current Awareness, which and B). They said that there is a ‘‘lack of participa-
is shaded the darkest, is frequently cited by the tion among library users’’ (Lina, Information Ser-
sampled librarians as the motivation for their library vices Dept.)’’. Both Helena and Sofi agreed on the
to create social media presence. However, Presence, need for ‘‘more contribution among librarians’’. This
Information Needs and Conversation, which are much was also found in a recent study by Chu and Du
less cited by the librarians, are lightly shaded in the (2012), who emphasized that since social media is all
honeycomb framework. about participation and sharing, the engagement of
librarians and users is an important factor for suc-
cessful implementation. On the other hand, librar-
Research Question 3: What are the conditions that ians in Group C, who had the most participation in
deter academic librarians from participating in social social media compared to the other two groups, men-
media? tioned that the level of authority is a considerable
To discover the reasons that deter librarians from deterrent in maximizing library social media pres-
using social media in their actual library work, the ence. They mentioned that only the authorized or
participants were asked the following questions more senior librarians could decide what messages
‘‘Why do you think librarians are not participating to post and they believed that these librarians are
in social media? What may prevent them from using more knowledgeable to better handle students’
these tools?’’ A total of six participants admitted not inquires.
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 165

Table 3. Academic librarians’ responses on what they are doing in social media.

This study has identified four main themes regard- to dedicate one person or department to be responsible
ing the issues in creating a social media presence for keeping the library social media up-to-date. Har-
among librarians, namely: workflow obstacles, tech- old (System and Information Technology) empha-
nology obstacles, organizational obstacles and per- sized the importance of having ‘‘one person to keep
sonal obstacles. the library social media updated, because it is not
easy, need someone who is committed to update it’’.
‘‘Keeping these tools updated is a tiring task’’ lamen-
Workflow obstacles: Time, level of authority and job ted Shawn (System and Information Technology).
function Rose and Sofi reported that dedicating time for social
Participants in this study are from different library media is an issue, as they have to maintain the other
departments and updating social media is not their systems too. ‘‘We have pages for our department to
core function. As such it was apparent that one of the promote our services but the main problem for me
reasons not to use these tools was that they have lim- is, I don’t have enough time to keep it updated’’
ited time to do so. Librarians reported not having the (Rose, Media Collection Dept.). ‘‘I am the one who
time to learn, plan, create and maintain their library maintains Twitter but I have to maintain other sys-
social media. For example Rose (Media Collection) tems too, therefore, it is really, really difficult for
openly confessed that ‘‘the main problem is that I me to keep Twitter updated’’ (Sofi, System and Infor-
don’t have enough time to keep it [Facebook] mation Technology). Librarians in this study seemed
updated.’’ Shawn (System and Information Technol- to regard their professional and library functions as
ogy) echoed this by indicating that he does not have separate from social media and this is the main reason
enough time to ‘‘look at social media’’. Both Sofi and why they are not serious in updating their social
Jimmy agreed that ‘‘using social media needs time media presence.
and effort because once you start using it, you will Participants in focus group C, whose library is
need see it again’’. Jimmy remarked further that using different kinds of social media tools, reported
‘‘even while you eat, you will be busy with your iPad, that the level of authority and active participation of
laptop or cellphone checking your Facebook’’. their chief librarian and senior library managers in
Time is a constant issue in maintaining library social media tend to be a barrier for other librarians
social media. Three librarians in group C indicated to participate. Fred (Information Systems) indicated
this obstacle. Natasha (Client and Service) expressed that he posted messages on social media only when
her view that initiating library social media presence ‘‘there is a problem with our library database or Inter-
is not an issue but ‘‘the main problem is keeping the net connection’’, and left answering questions that are
information updated, I need to commit more time’’. not related to his job to the ‘‘KP [chief librarian] to do
The participants in general agreed that there is a need [sic] or my manager’s directive asking me to do it’’.
166 Information Development 30(2)

Figure 1.

Sharon (Information Skills) expressed her opinion in Department, was once an active administrator of his
this way: ‘‘the person who gives this kind of answer library’s Facebook Page. He explained: ‘‘Now that I
must be a person who is really authorized, if our KP am posted at the Medical Library, I am no longer the
is not around maybe our TKP [deputy] should answer, administrator, I don’t post messages, not anymore.’’
when a question relates to rules and regulations there (Alec, Medical Library). Hania (Information Skills)
should be one person of higher rank [position] to who was very enthusiastic about social media when
answer’’. Natasha (Client Service) agreed and said she was attached to the Information Systems Depart-
‘‘Yes, they [chief librarian and the deputy] know all ment said ‘‘[now], I am not an admin of social media
the answers because they are familiar with all policies because I moved to other department. I haven’t
and they are active [in social media]’’. Hania (Infor- checked ours [social media tools] for a long time’’.
mation Skills) appreciated when her chief librarian Similar results were also found by Chawner (2008)
also took the responsibility for social media mainte- who highlighted institutional barriers as a main factor
nance and reported ‘‘currently [the use of] our why librarians in New Zealand did not make enough
Facebook page is very encouraging, thanks to our presence in social media. The librarians in Chawner’s
KP, she is very active and she has interest in social study expressed that they were not using Web 2.0
media’’. technology tools as much as they wanted because they
This study also found that librarians’ participation do not have the opportunity to explore and experiment
in social media is influenced by their job function and with it in their workplace even though they know
is departmentally-based. For example, Alec, who these technologies bring new opportunities to enhance
previously worked in the Information Systems library services.
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 167

Technology obstacles: Familiarity with new and tools in library services. ‘‘Student [sic] still communi-
existing technology cate with us through e-mails, they rarely post their
request for books in social media.’’ (Helena, Catalo-
Technology obstacles faced by the librarians that
ging). Likewise, Natasha addressed the difference
participated in this study are not associated with tech-
between the types of enquiries they obtained from
nical infrastructure, lack of technical knowledge or
social media and the existing library technology.
technical support. Librarians believed that in order
‘‘Through Pendeta OPAC [the online library catalog],
to use social media in their daily jobs, they need to
students asked us about their library account but in
be familiar and acquainted with the technology first.
Facebook they will ask us about things like library
Harold (System and Information Technology)
opening hours and so on (Natasha, Client Service)’’.
acknowledged that most of his colleagues are in the
However, Jimmy and Mike (both from Acquisition)
stage of experimenting with these tools. Zahra (Ara-
opined that social media is an alternative technology
bic and Islamic Civilization) and Ayla (Customer Ser-
for their current online services. They expressed it in
vice) wanted to self-explore these tools before they
this way: ‘‘Social media is an option, we communicate
apply them for library services. ‘‘I think using social
heavily via e-mail and other online forms’’. Nadia
media is related to our understanding and knowledge,
(System and Information Technology) supported her
personally I would like to self-explore these tools
colleagues’ opinion in this way: ‘‘Facebook is only a
first’’ (Zahra). ‘‘I am not very familiar about these
substitute, we have our website so maybe in the near
tools that is why I could not apply them in my daily
future it can become the core technology to provide our
job’’ (Ayla). Jimmy (Acquisition) hesitated to use
library services’’.
social media before familiarizing himself with the
technology, stating, ‘‘We have to promote these tools
but before that there is a need to explore them and be Organizational obstacles: Social media policy and
familiar with the application’’. Secker (2008) found personnel
that unfamiliarity with social media was a reason for The librarians in this study felt that their organizational
librarians to not adopt the technology. He suggested rules and procedures are a deterrent in creating a social
that librarians themselves self-explore or be trained media presence. Librarians talked about restrictions in
to use social media. Helena’s (Cataloging) remarks the use of social media as a part of the policies of their
seemed to validate the importance of familiarity with organization. Sofi (System and Information Technol-
new technology for a successful implementation: ‘‘I ogy) said ‘‘I think it is not the priority of our university
attend [sic] one course when I was studying corporate to use social media. Facebook is blocked from 8.00 to
commercial and from that class I became familiar 11.00 am; we can only use it after 2 pm.’’ Harold, who
with social media and after that I start [sic] using it is from the same department, also noticed ‘‘We want to
widely to communicate’’. use Facebook during office hours, but it depends on the
As technology gets more advanced, libraries have top management of the university, some universities
more choices of systems and applications to be used regard Facebook and other social media as something
to enhance their services and there should be strategies against the rules and regulations, they even block it.’’
for librarians to stay up-to-date and current. However, Helena believed that the issue of prohibiting social
for the librarians in this study, changing to and adopt- media during working hours relates to the technical
ing new technologies is not very easy. Those who cur- problem and Internet speed at her institution. ‘‘The
rently have specific library applications in place bandwidth of Internet in the morning cannot bear the
indicated the non-relevance of social media for their high use of social media therefore they ban it in the
job functions. ‘‘We have other form of online services, morning I think (Helena, Cataloging).
for example the reader advisor system’’ (Lina, Infor- Another organizational obstacle expressed by the
mation Services). Mike (Acquisition) who consistently librarians is the absence of a policy on library social
said ‘‘we have our own system’’, expressed his prefer- media personnel. Fred said, ‘‘There is a need to have
ence to receive students’ inquiries for new books [sic] written policy for using social media that details
through a system developed in-house. who should update and know about our [i.e. the librar-
On the other hand, Helena felt that the users’ famil- ians] limits of posting and sharing information’’ (Fred,
iarity with the library’s existing technology was the Information Systems). Moreover, a consistent response
reason for the library not to fully apply social media from the participants is that the library social media
168 Information Development 30(2)

needs a committed person who is always online and Scholarly content seems to be another personal
keeps the users as well as colleagues updated. The obstacle to actively participating in library social media
librarians in this study felt the need to have dedicated faced by the librarians in this study. Most of the librar-
library staff officially appointed to perform this task. ians in group A considered social media content very
Since new ideas are always ‘‘top-down’’ in his library seriously, they felt that it should carry digital content
setting, the appointment of the social media librarian worthy of scholarly activities. Librarians felt that not
should be made by the library management, as having valuable pieces of information to communicate
remarked by Andy: ‘‘We need to have a group of to the library users may hold them back from posting
people appointed to update the social media’’. Harold, messages as they opined that information posted in
who agreed with Andy’s statement said, ‘‘Yes, we have social media platforms should be meaningful in order
the committee but the committee did not appoint a per- to increase participation of library users. ‘‘I think when
son for social media’’. The need to dedicate a person to we want to use social media we need to give something
take care of the library social media was also echoed in [information] which is very valuable for our users, fol-
the next theme of social media obstacles. lowers or friends’’ (Zay, Arabic and Islamic Civiliza-
tion). ‘‘We need to have information which attracts
our users, something valuable for them to know’’ (Har-
Personal obstacles: language, scholarly content and old, System and Information Technology). Hania
commitment (Information Skills) recounted that she would post a
Research revealed that personality characteristics as message or status in social media only when she found
well as computer expertise, motivation, importance it appropriate and of value for all users: ‘‘I would pick
and capacity towards studying and integrating and choose what to post and it is not easy you know
different applications of social media in the future because we want to make sure that other people benefit
influences librarians’ use of Web 2.0 and social media from what we know.’’ Fred (System and Information
(Chu and Meulemans, 2008; Arif and Mahmood, Technology) added ‘‘posting in a formal way is difficult
2012; Chu and Du, 2012). This study identified that and there is a need to be aware about many things and be
personal obstacles faced by the librarians in creating able to write nicely about it.’’ Sharon continued ‘‘you
social media presence could be divided into three see, the content comes from a library as an organization,
subthemes: language, scholarship and commitment. the answers you present to the users must be valid, scho-
Language may be a personal obstacle in social larly kind of information because it represents your
media participation as observed by a few participants. library’’ (Sharon, Information Skills).
Helena indicated that posting in two languages is a Participants also expressed their personal differ-
chore, ‘‘I tried to post one status in English and one ences in creating a social media presence. Commitment
in Malay [the national language] so the one in Malay, to social media presence is a major issue expressed by
students respond in Malay but international students many librarians in this study. Sammy (Acquisition),
will comment in English, so you know, I have to write who seemed to be less comfortable with social media,
in both languages, it takes your time (Helena, Catalo- felt that it is not a priority for his library since ‘‘the mis-
ging). Both Sofi (Information System) and Romina sion of the library organization is not to attract more
(Medical Library) expressed that communicating in users, and we will still have our users even when social
both languages may be an issue as they should trans- media is not used, we are not committed to use it’’.
late statements into English before they post some sta- Shawn (System and Information Technology) felt that
tus or attend to students’ enquiries. ‘‘When I want to social media in Malaysian culture is considered as a
post in English I have to think first and put the words ‘‘personal thing and not professional’’.‘‘ I don’t know
nicely, accurate and correct form of English’’. why but we don’t use any blog or Twitter we are more
Romina (Medical Library). Sofi (Information System) interested in FB [Facebook] because it become more
said ‘‘one more thing is that [when] we use English popular in Malaysia’’. However he also emphasized
language, we get less response from Malay students that libraries can take the social media ideas that fit into
because they have to think first before they write their existing culture and strategy. His thoughts are
something but once we use Malay language there consistent with those librarians in Secker’s (2008)
would be more responses’’ As a result, this study finds study who indicated that social media is purely used for
that the language barrier has been remarked as deter- social reasons, however its use could overlap into the
rent to the use of social media in library projects. library profession.
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 169

Four librarians in group C (Fred, Romina, Hania themselves facing obstacles in social media uptake,
and Alec) agreed that having high commitment is and among the deterrents which prevent them from
important to ensure a successful social media pres- social media participation are: having other forms of
ence among librarians. They believed that librarians technology, organizational workflow of the library,
who do not have strong commitment and passion absence of social media policy and dedicated person-
could not continuously and successfully create a nel, language barriers and non-commitment of library
social media presence even at the personal level. staff. These results were also found by Chu and Due
‘‘You think because we have an account on Facebook in 2010 when they explored the challenges and possi-
or Twitter, and having many users [who are] friends bilities of social media application in top universities.
[with] us, that is enough to bring social media success. Other studies in social media application in libraries
We don’t have a committed person to populate and also found similar results (Barsky and Purdon, 2006;
maintain our presence with content’’. (Helsa, Aca- Harinarayana and Raju, 2010). The main challenges
demic Service). These findings clearly indicated that and difficulties for librarians in using these tools – lack
some librarians regard non-commitment as an obsta- of participation, limited time and unfamiliarity – were
cle to creating social media presence. affirmed in the results of previous studies (Secker,
2008; Creighton, 2010; Chu and Du, 2012).
However, the overall conclusion from the results is
Conclusions clear that while librarians in this study were overwhel-
Social media, which has been used interchangeably mingly aware of social media tools in library services,
with the term Web 2.0, has brought along with it an they seemed to be not very serious in social media
important phenomenon in library and information ser- uptake. This study highlighted that the underlying
vices. Literature as well as findings from this study problem for librarians to use social media is the lack
highlight that librarians need to embrace it to remain of a practice framework or good practices in the con-
relevant in the information age. This study presented text of library and information services. In all focus
an overview of social media presence in Malaysian groups, it was also clear that the librarians’ gratifica-
academic libraries in three research-intensive univer- tion from using social media tools was related to their
sities probed by focus groups discussing the ‘‘social obligation and their duty, not personal satisfaction. Per-
media tools preferred among academic libraries, the sonal initiative and desire could positively influence
reasons librarians use social media in library services librarians’ uptake of social media to get library jobs
and, the obstacles librarians face from maximum done. In the absence of supporting theories and strate-
exploitation of these tools’’. The results of this study gic planning for library social media presence, it is
showed that librarians in Malaysia have positive per- unlikely that academic librarians will ever be able to
ceptions on the usefulness of social media in library obtain the type of support they need to integrate social
services. They are also aware of the advantages and media effectively. Given the hype around social media
potentials of applying social media tools in academic and Web 2.0 technologies, and the speed of change in
libraries and they confessed that there is a need to use the area, it can be confusing for academic librarians to
these technologies in their profession aggressively. decide how to apply social media in library services to
Librarians also believed that social media tools are address information challenges and problems.
suitable not only to communicate with users but also Although this study was based on purposive
to facilitate the interaction of librarians with sampling and small sample size, it has been able to illu-
each other by creating librarian groups. The results minate the questions of interest in creating social media
on the motivations for social media adoption in presence in academic libraries, and help identify theo-
libraries are presented in a form of a honeycomb retically provocative issues in social media uptake that
framework of seven functional building blocks namely: merit further exploration. A further study will make
Synchronousity, Information Needs, Groups, Conver- progress towards understanding why and how social
sations, Relationship and Current Awareness. media can be used to enhance university library ser-
The study further concludes that the use of social vices by examining the links between social media fea-
media is challenged by workflow obstacles, technology tures and variables that might influence librarians’
obstacles, organizational obstacles and personal obsta- motivation to use them. It is becoming a known fact
cles, which if properly addressed will improve the use that university students are among the most
of social media in library services. Librarians find computer-savvy and ‘connected’ users of social media
170 Information Development 30(2)

technologies, especially social networking tools (Chu Edzan NN (2010) Are you on Facebook? we are. In:
and Meulemans, 2008). Using these technologies has Emerging trends and technologies in libraries and infor-
become so pervasive in the lives of this young genera- mation services, June 3–5 2010, India.
tion that it has become a natural extension of them. Fichter D (2006) Using wikis to support online collabora-
These students will simply expect that technologies tion in libraries. Information Outlook 10: 30–1.
Foley M (2002) Instant messaging reference in an aca-
such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, wikis, and RSS will
demic library: a case study. College and Research
be an integral part of their learning and seeking infor- Libraries 63: 36–45.
mation. Therefore, it is important that librarians under- Habib M (2006) Toward academic library 2.0: Development
stand how to best harness these technologies to and application of a library 2.0 methodology. A Master’s
enhance library service practices with the critical, crea- thesis. North Carolina: University of North Carolina.
tive, collaborative, and communicative capabilities that Han Z and Liu YQ (2010) Web 2.0 applications in top
are required for their professions. Chinese university libraries. Library Hi Tech 28: 41–
62.
References Harinarayana N and Raju NV (2010) Web 2.0 features in
Abdul Aziz R, Arif Z, Ramly R, Abdullah CZ and Husaini university library web sites. Electronic Library 28:
H (2011) The implications of library 2.0 tools in Malay- 69–88.
sian academic libraries towards reference services / Jahan I and Ahmed SMZ (2012) Students’ perceptions of
Rafidah Abdul Aziz, Zuraidah Arif, Ruzita Ramly . . . academic use of social networking sites: a survey of uni-
[et.al]. In: Asia-Pacific Conference On Library & Infor- versity students in Bangladesh. Information Develop-
mation Education & Practice 2011(A-LIEP2011): ment 28: 235–247.
Issues, Challenges and Opportunities, 22–24 June Kaplan AM and Haenlein M (2010) Users of the world,
2011, Pullman Putrajaya Lakeside, Malaysia. unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.
Ayu A and Abrizah A (2011) Do you Facebook? Usage and Business Horizons 53(1): 59–68.
applications of Facebook page among academic Kietzmann JH, Hermkens K, McCarthy IP and Silvestre BS
libraries in Malaysia. International Information & (2011) Social media? Get serious! Understanding the
Library Review 43: 239–249. functional building blocks of social media. Business
Arif M and Mahmood K (2012) The changing role of librar- Horizons 54(3): 241–251.
ians in the digital world: Adoption of Web 2.0 technol- Kim YM and Abbas J (2010) Adoption of Library 2.0
ogies by Pakistani librarians. Electronic Library 30: functionalities by academic libraries and users: a knowl-
469–479. edge management perspective. Journal of Academic
Barsky E and Purdon M (2006) Introducing Web 2.0: social Librarianship 36: 211–218.
networking and social bookmarking for health Krueger RA and Casey MA (2009) Focus groups: A
librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries practical guide for applied research. Pine Forge Press.
Association 27: 65–67. Linh N (2008) A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in
Boeninger C (2006) Using a wiki as a research guide: a Australasian university libraries. Library Hi Tech 26:
year’s experience. Library Voice, July. Available at: 630–653.
http://libraryvoice.com/wikis/using-a-wiki-as-a- Liu S (2008) Engaging users: the future of academic
research-guide-a-years-experience. library web sites. College and Research Libraries 69:
Bradley P (2007) How to use Web 2.0 in your library. Facet 6–27.
Publishing. Maness J (2006) Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its impli-
Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. OUP, Oxford. cations for libraries. Webology 3(2).
pp.31–481. Mansor Y and Idris SRA (2010) Perceptions, awareness
Chawner B (2008) Spectators, not players: information and acceptance of library 2.0 applications among librar-
managers’ use of Web 2.0 in New Zealand. Electronic ians at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
Library 26: 630–649. Webology 7(2).
Chu SKW and Du HS (2012) Social networking tools for Miller P (2005) Web 2.0: building the new library.
academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Ariadne 45. Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/
Information Science 44(1): 1–12. issue45/miller
Chu M and Meulemans YN (2008) The problems and poten- Miller P (2006) Library 2.0: The challenge of disruptive
tial of MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. innovation. A Talis white paper. February.
Internet Reference Services Quarterly 13: 69–85. Ram S and Kataria S (2011) Responding to user’s expecta-
Creighton PM (2010) Perceptions of Web 2.0 tools as tion in the library: innovative Web 2.0 applications at
catalysts for teacher and librarian collaboration. A case JUIT Library: A case study. Program: electronic library
study. Walden University. and information systems 45(4): 452–469.
Zohoorian-Fooladi and Abrizah: Academic librarians and their social media presence 171

Secker J (2008) Case study 5: libraries and Facebook. LAS- [2003 - 2010]. she has diploma in information technology
SIE: Libraries and Social Software in Education, Centre (IT) from University of Applied Science and Technology and
for Distance Education, University of London, London. graduated with BSc in library and information science from
Si L, Shi R and Chen B (2011) An investigation and anal- Allameh Tabtabaee University , Tehran, Iran, 2002. She
ysis of the application of Web 2.0 in Chinese university obtained her MLIS degree in 2008 fromIslamic Azad Univer-
libraries. Electronic Library 29: 651–668.
sity and started her PhD in 2010. Contact: Department of
Stringer ET (2007) Action research (2nd. ed.) Thousand
Library and Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science
Oaks, CA: Sage.
and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala
Tyagi S.(2012) Use of Web 2.0 technology by library pro-
fessionals: study of selected engineering colleges in Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Email: [email protected]
Western Uttar Pradesh. DESIDOC Journal of Library
and Information Technology 32. 5. A. Abrizah is an Associate Professor teaching at the Depart-
Valenza JK (2007) Discovering a descriptive taxonomy of ment of Library & Information Science at the Faculty of
attributes of exemplary school library websites. PhD Computer Science and Information Technology, University
Thesis, Denton, TX :North Texas State University. of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. She graduated with a BSc in
Xu C, Ouyang F and Chu H (2009) The academic library
Environmental Engineering from Temple University, Phila-
meets Web 2.0: applications and implications. Journal
delphia in 1988, and obtained her MLIS degree in 1998 and
of Academic Librarianship 35: 324–331.
PhD in 2007 from the University of Malaya. Her research
interests are related to digital libraries, open access reposi-
About the authors tories, scholarly communication and bibliometrics. She is
Niusha Zohoorian-Fooladi is PhD student at the depart- the executive editor of the Malaysian Journal of Library &
ment of information science at the faculty of computer sci- Information Science. Contact: Department of Library and
ence and information technology, university of Malaya, Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. She was librarian for seven years Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lum-
in national library of Iran [2002 2003] and IPHRD Library pur, MALAYSIA. Email: [email protected]