Abstract
A debate has emerged in library literature concerning the advantages and disadvantages of adopting social media applications in academic libraries. This research examines the ubiquity of social media through a longitudinal study of the adoption rates and usage patterns of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr at academic libraries in the Canadian province of Ontario from April 2010 to April 2012. The findings from this study indicate that large discrepancies exist in adoption rates across libraries, with two-thirds of Ontario academic libraries maintaining at least one social media application during the period of examination. Unexpectedly, Twitter and Facebook were equally popular social media tools during the study period. Despite its low adoption rate and usage, YouTube was by far the most effective means of reaching patrons. We conclude by examining the implications of engaging with patrons via social media in ways that are effective, engaging, and meaningful.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada Insight Grant given to A. Quan-Haase (No. R3603A13). A previous version of this article was presented as a poster at the 2012 Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T). We would like to thank Andrew Nevin, two anonymous reviewers, and Jody Condit Fagan (Editor, Journal of Web Librarianship) for their insightful comments and expert feedback.
© Gary Collins and Anabel Quan-Haase
Notes
1. The concept of technological determinism has received considerable attention in the literature on science and technology, as it questions general assumptions about how technology and society are interrelated. For further reading, see Andrew Feenberg (Citation1999).
2. The method of locating links or searching through the library Web site to find official materials has been previously used by Chua and Goh (Citation2010) and Linh (Citation2008). Due to the nature of social media as an outreach tool, this approach was expanded to include links to social media channels located on existing social media.
3. No retweets were collected in 2010; therefore, these data are missing.
4. The number of views was not collected in the first data collection period and is therefore missing from the chart.