The impact of Facebook onlibraries and librarians: a reviewof the literatureEvgenia VassilakakiDepartment of Library Science and Information Systems,Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece, andEmmanouel GaroufallouDepartment of Library Science and Information Systems,Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki,Thessaloniki, GreeceAbstractPurpose– Social networking sites are becoming more and more popular triggering an increase inpublished research and impacting different aspects of daily life. One such aspect concerns libraries andlibrarians and the way they have adopted social networking sites. The purpose of this paper is topresent a selective review on libraries’ adoption and use of a specific social networking site such asFacebook in order to promote their services.Design/methodology/approach– The method of selective review is employed to identify, documentand present the relevant literature in a structured and annotated way. More specifically, all types ofdocuments published between 2006 and 2012 are considered. In addition, the papers are assigned basedon their expressed aim/s to emerged themes and sub-themes.Findings– It was found that the main body of the reported literature focused on reportingexperiences, problems and lessons learned from building a presence on Facebook. A few studies aimedto explore users’ and librarians’ perspectives towards social networking sites whereas there is a strongneed for specific guidelines to assist libraries and librarians in adopting Facebook.Research limitations/implications– This systematic literature review consists of articles publishedbetween 2006 and 2012.Originality/value– This paper contributes to identifying, collecting and presenting researchregarding the use of Facebook in the field of library science. In addition, it identifies and summarisesthe main problems and challenges libraries and librarians are faced with when employing Facebook.KeywordsWeb 2.0, Literature review, Social networking sites, Facebook, Social media,Libraries and librariansPaper typeLiterature review1. IntroductionSocial networking sites, right from their emergence have rapidly become an integralpart of everyday life. Numerous social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace,Flickr are now instantly available to the average internet user. Boyd and Ellison (2008)defined social networking sites as “web-based services” that aim to allow users tocreate a profile, link with their acquaintances and be able to view and interact withtheir friends’ connections.Facebook, one of the most widespread used social networking sites, was firstlaunched in 2004 and was exclusively addressed to Harvard University students.Along the years, Facebook granted access to a wider audience, first to students fromother universities, as well as high school students and professionals and in the end, toeveryone who had an e-mail account and internet connection (Boyd and Ellison, 2008).The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0033-0337.htmReceived 7 March 2013Revised 4 October 2013Accepted 16 October 2013Program: electronic library andinformation systemsVol. 48 No. 3, 2014pp. 226-245rEmerald Group Publishing Limited0033-0337DOI 10.1108/PROG-03-2013-0011226PROG48,3

The impact of social networking sites was so great on peoples’ daily routine thatalmost instantly was followed by a boom in scholar literature from a wide variety ofdisciplines (Boyd and Ellison, 2008). The phenomenon of social networking siteswas investigated largely in the context of: impression management and friendshipperformance (see Marwick and Boyd, 2011); networks and network structure (seeLampeet al., 2008); online/offline connections (see Ellisonet al., 2007; Lenhartet al.,2011; Boyd, 2008); health sector (see Chirp and Keckley, 2010; Kindet al., 2010;MacDonaldet al., 2010; Skeelset al., 2010; Newmanet al., 2011; Morriset al., 2011; Fox,2011); education and students (see Arrington, 2005; Robert and Boogart, 2006; Bugeja,2006; Selwyn, 2007; Pempeket al., 2009; Valenzuelaet al., 2009; Kirschner andKarpinski, 2010; Roblyeret al., 2010); and privacy issues (see Acquisti and Gross,2006; OCLC, 2007; Boyd, 2008; Grimmelmann, 2008; Debatinet al., 2009; MacDonaldet al., 2010).As it was indicated above, literature on social networking sites covers a largevariety of disciplines and continues to grow in fast pace. The goal of this research is toprovide a systematic review of the literature on the adoption of Facebook by librariesand librarians. In particular, it aims to identify all relevant literature, assess its quality,interpret and present the findings in an unbiased way. Hemingway and Brereton (2009)defined a systematic review as the “attempt to bring the same level of rigour toreviewing research evidence as should be used in producing that research evidence inthe first place”. The construction of a systematic review follows a specific protocol,a process that entails five specific steps (Hemingway and Brereton, 2009): definingthe objectives of review; collecting the relevant literature; assessing individual studies;combing the results and placing the findings in context.The first publications regarding the use of Facebook by libraries and librariansappeared in 2006 (Grahamet al., 2009). There are two studies that attempted to reviewthe literature in library science. In particular, Secker (2008) provided an overviewof libraries usage of all social networking sites and investigated libraries in the UK andthe USA. This review covered the years 2006-2008. In addition, Dickson and Holley(2010) aimed to explore the use of the “major” social networking sites by Americanacademic libraries and covered the years from 2006 to 2010. As a result, there is noliterature on Facebook that explored other types of libraries in any other country.This research comes to fill in this gap. Specifically, this paper contributes to identifyingall the relevant literature, reports on the research undertaken and summarises thepossible problems and/or challenges libraries and librarians face when using Facebook.This in turn, will help promote research in addressing these issues.This paper is structured as follows. Initially, the methodological approachundertaken for conducting the systematic review is outlined. The identified themes ofthe library literature are then described. Finally, conclusions are presented accompaniedby recommendations regarding directions research takes in terms of libraries andlibrarians employing Facebook.2. MethodologyThe literature review has followed the rules of systematic review (Hemingway andBrereton, 2009). Keywords such as “social networking sites and libraries”, “socialnetworking sites and librarians”, “Facebook and libraries” and “Facebook and librarians”were run on ACM Digital Library, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts(LISTA), Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Citeseer, Google Scholar,e-prints in Library & Information Science (e-LiS) and Digital Library of Information227Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

Science & Technology (DLIST). At the same time, when a relevant study was identified,its references were also examined to identify further relevant documents. The searchesfor identifying relevant literature were conducted between August and September 2012.In this context, the identified relevant literature covered papers published between 2006and 2012. In particular, the current research reviewed 50 papers in total (see Appendix,Table AI). Due to language restrictions, only literature in English was considered.Once all relevant papers were identified, a thorough reading was required to assesseach ones’ importance, relevance and quality. Each paper’s aim and objectives werehighlighted and a list with all publication dates, titles and aims was created. From theanalysis of the aims six themes emerged (see Appendix, Table AII). Each paper wasthen assigned to the relevant theme (see Appendix, Table AII). It is worth mentioningthat some papers had more than one aim and as such fell in more than one theme.Additional categorisation was also provided according to type of publication (seeAppendix, Table AIII). In particular, a variety of materials was identified such as blogentries, journal articles, proceedings papers, newspaper articles, presentations, bookseries and handbooks. The majority of papers (38 in total) were articles published inscientific journals in the field of library science. However, no preference was identifiedin a particular scientific journal. On the contrary, the relevant literature seemed to bepublished in a variety of different journals (see Appendix, Table AIII). Moreover,the identified types of publications and their relevant sources were assigned to eachemerged theme (see Appendix, Table AIV). Once more no preference was identified ineither a specific type or source of publication for any of the six emerged themes.Finally, no conclusive remarks could be made regarding the methods employed inthe relevant literature mainly because: many of the identified papers fall in the type ofblog entry (see Appendix, Table AIII) and only a few papers reported findings, thusemploying research methods based on surveys they conducted (see Appendix, TableAIV). The presentation and discussion of the relevant literature falls into the emergedthemes aforementioned.3. Categorisation3.1 Library use of FacebookFacebook is a social networking site built for social interaction and sharing. It wasexactly this characteristic, which made libraries and librarians reluctant to the idea ofemploying it. Seven papers attempted to introduce the concept of social networkingsites to librarians and highlighted the possible uses and benefits of Facebook forlibraries. In particular, Breeding (2007) provided a thorough introduction to the use andcharacteristics of social networking sites using Facebook as an example of what maybe of interest to libraries. In addition, Farkas (2006) presented her personal views onwhether libraries should embrace social networking sites and what their assigned roleshould be. She discussed the benefits and drawbacks from adopting such a technologyand what are the challenges that need to be considered. In the same context, Roncaglia(2009) discussed the possible uses and benefits for school libraries. Specifically, hestressed the educational experience from creating a library profile on Facebook insteadof just employing Facebook for exchanging information. Rothman (2012) extendedthe discussion even further by suggesting the development of a Facebook socialnetworking site intended for just libraries and librarians, a brave suggestion, aiming toensure trustworthiness and reliability to patrons.Finally, Farkas (2007) argued library’s adoption of Facebook to promote libraryservices to students and presented some real life paradigms so as to strengthen her228PROG48,3

argument. Sharing the same views with Farkas, Alford (2009) outlined the policybehind the successful marketing of e-resources. In particular, he discussed the need forlibrarians and libraries to comprehend the entailing aspects of such an undertaking, bysuggesting different methods and the way social network sites such as Facebook andMySpace could be employed to promote marketing services. Finally, Jennings andPrice (2008) focused on the use of social networking sites and especially Facebook inlibrary environments.3.2 Creating profiles on FacebookAt the same time, libraries started taking their first tentative steps in embracingFacebook. In particular, 13 papers were identified in the literature for both libraries,and librarians attempting to present in detail, their efforts to create, promote andmaintain a profile on Facebook.3.2.1 Libraries’ profiles on Facebook. The profiles of Morrisville Libraries (Drew,2007), Schurz Library (Kwong, 2007), Swinburne Library (McKay and Morgan, 2008),Mississippi State University Library (Powerset al., 2008) and Rutgers UniversityLibrary (Glazer, 2009) on Facebook, plus a librarians group of Kimbel Library (Grahamet al., 2009) were presented. The aforementioned studies (seven in total) focused onoutlining the specific steps undertaken in developing and maintaining a LibraryFacebook profile. Particular interest is raised regarding the reasons identified forcreating a Library Facebook profile. Drew (2007) argued the need for libraries to bepresent wherever their users are. In addition, he expressed the need for libraries toovertake access barriers; have users interact and leave comments; use up-to-datesoftware; be user centered; adopt a human perception for library and its users. Grahamet al.(2009) identified it as an alternative way for students to create and develop bondsto their selected university community even before arriving on campus. In the samecontext, McKay and Morgan (2008) attempted to enhance the user experience both inorganisational and local levels by employing a user experience consultant and usingchat as a means of reaching students to their online environments. Kwong (2007) andLandis (2007) aimed to reach students and promote the libraries services. Powerset al.(2008) tried to provide more “tools” for dealing with the constantly changing needs ofstudents. Finally, Glazer (2009) argued the need to share news and promotecommunication with students on an alternative platform.3.2.2 Librarians profiles on Facebook. As already mentioned, six studies describedlibrarians’ efforts to create their personal profiles on Facebook. For example Mathews(2006), Lawson (2007), Secker (2008) and Miller and Jensen (2007) described their ownexperiences and lessons learned from using Facebook as a potential marketing,networking and/or reference tool. Specifically, Miller and Jensen (2007) outlined thesteps undertaken and problems encountered while creating, sharing and maintaining apersonal profile as librarians of small liberal arts colleges. Therefore, they provideddetails on the way different features of Facebook were used.In addition, Mathews (2006) described the way he employed his personal profile onFacebook to proactively interact with students at Georgia Institute of Technology.As such, he sent out 1,500 Facebook e-mails to both graduate and undergraduatestudents of School of Mechanical Engineering. Although the response rate was verylow (48 return messages were received), the researcher was pleased about the outcomeof his experiment, mainly due to the fact that students became friends with him onFacebook as well being recognised throughout the campus. Sharing Mathews (2006)views, Lawson (2007) compiled and sent messages to East Asian studies majors at229Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

NYU so as to introduce himself and the library and encourage them to contact him oruse library services.Moreover, Kealey (2007) focused on “group” feature of Facebook and outlined how alibrarian created a group on Facebook, invited students to join and how each featurewas used to promote library services raising student interest and awareness. Finally,Farb (2006) explained the way in which a newly hired librarian used technologyand Facebook in order to communicate with Washington University students. Sheemphasised on the benefits of hiring a librarian with relevant knowledge, experienceand skills to handle such a task.3.3 Guidelines for librariesThe discussion and exchange of views through literature over the possible benefits anduses of Facebook for libraries and librarians highlighted the need for guidelines. A setof rules which aimed to aid librarians and libraries in their efforts to create, maintaina profile and fulfil their purposes. In particular, nine papers attempted to provide a setof guidelines for libraries and librarians. The Maryland University Libraries (2007)provided a “how to” guide with detailed steps regarding the setting up of a profile andcustomising features for libraries. Building on that, Miller and Jensen (2007) tried,through their trials and errors to provide some guidelines as to what should be avoidedand what should be embraced when creating a personal profile on Facebook. In thiscontext, Solomon (2012) in her webinar listed the “do’s and don’ts” that libraries shouldtake under consideration when managing their profiles on Facebook so as to attractmore “friends”. Fernandez (2009) focused on the decision-making aspect of librariesand proposed five points to guide librarians through the use of Facebook. In particular,he discussed issues such as the content used on Facebook, users as co-developers, useof Facebook features, library applications and profile maintenance and highlighted theneed for these issues to be considered along with the decisions taken. Landis (2007)focused on Facebook and provided some answers to questions referring to technologyuse, the way in which it was employed by users, the Facebook features and theirpossible usage by libraries to reach users and promote their services.Guidelines also included rules of how the librarians could achieve their desiredgoals. Mathews (2008) proposed different ways for reference librarians to reach out tousers regardless of their physical location by employing social networking sitessuch as MySpace, Facebook, Blogs and Second Life. In the same context, YALSA (2011)provided a “toolkit” for librarians and library workers on how social networkingsites could be employed to promote learning in schools and libraries. In addition, itdiscussed and illustrated ways by providing real life examples, and promoting thebenefits of social networking sites for both community and teenagers. Murphy andMoulaison (2006) extended this argument by discussing the skills that librarians oughtto posses so as to promote library services and information within social networkingsites. They proposed skills such as creating content, evaluating information, ethicaland legal use and application of information, searching and navigating, interactiveteaching, flexibility in service provision, and the way these skills could be appliedin the social networking sites. Drew (2007) emphasised the importance of hiring alibrarian exclusively for handling new technology such as Facebook, as means ofpromoting library with different ways and interacting with students in their ownenvironment. Finally, West (2008) proposed a series of steps, that governmentinformation specialist could take, in order to achieve their goal. Initially, she providedsome background on the user workflow and the implications that this poses for230PROG48,3

government information specialist. Finally, she discussed ways in which governmentinformation could be aligned with user behaviour.3.4 Librarians personal experience on FacebookSix papers in the literature written with the view to record librarians’ personalexperiences and lessons learned in using Facebook. In particular, these papers tried torecord personal problems, difficulties, drawbacks or decisions taken when creating aprofile either personal or for their libraries rather than providing guidelines or step bystep description of the process. Most importantly, these papers were often written aspersonal narratives. Specifically, Glazer (2009) outlined his personal experience andinsights from exploring Facebook, creating a profile and assessing its usefulness.He discussed the benefits gained for Rutgers University Libraries, and identifiedvaluable elements, such as the employment of success measurement and the futureimplications of such an initiative. King (2011) described the steps that undertook to setup an account for his library as well as the decisions he made regarding thecustomisation of the library’s profile. Furthermore, he explained how he used variousFacebook features in order to promote the library and attract new users. WhereasMiller and Jensen (2007) reviewed the way in which their libraries employed individualFacebook features to market services. Bugeja (2006) discussed ethical concernsregarding use of Facebook from a library director’s point of view, commented on theuse or not of social networking sites as part of the education system, recommendedthat proper use of technology should be instilled in students and that studentsshould be provided with the right tools so as to decide whether use of technology maybe appropriate or not.3.5 Exploring perspectivesIn all, 17 papers aimed to investigate the perspectives of particular groups of peopleregarding Facebook use in libraries. In particular, six papers focused on exploringlibrarians’ views on adopting Facebook for professional purposes. The majority ofpapers (11 in total) explored users’ comments regarding librarians and librariesadoption of Facebook as an alternative mean to delivery information to its users.3.5.1 Exploring librarians’ perspectives. Six papers focused on exploring librarians’views regarding Facebook and its use. Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007) were the firstto explore academic librarians’ perspectives towards Facebook. They surveyed 126academic libraries and concluded that the majority of respondents thought Facebookwas outside the purview of professional librarianship while the rest were excitedregarding the possibilities that this new tool could offer them. Thus, Grahamet al.(2009) found that from a sample of 100 academic libraries, 52 were using Facebookmainly for promoting and advertising library events whereas individual librarianprofiles, groups and events were the most used features. 16 per cent reported that theirlibraries will not be using Facebook in the near future. Hendrixet al.(2009) surveyedmainly academic health sciences libraries. They found that from the 72 librarians, 85per cent were negative to the idea of creating a Facebook profile for their library,mainly due to lack of time and their belief that Facebook had little information value inan academic environment. In addition, a 12.5 per cent of respondents indicatedas the main reasons for using Facebook: the need to market the library, circulateannouncements, upload photos and provide reference services through chat.The Hendrixet al.(2009) survey confirmed Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007)initial results.231Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

Sadeh (2007) explored how libraries and vendors could collaborate in order to copewith the changes regarding the expectations and the information seeking behaviour ofresearchers. Among others, Sadeh (2007) proposed that libraries should consider theintegration of social networking sites such as del.icio.us, Connotea and Facebook in theresearch process so as to enhance user experience. Generating awareness amonglibrary and information science professionals of University Libraries at UP was exploredby Parveen (2011). He reported that the majority of respondents used Facebook to keepabreast of latest news followed by their need to interact professionally. The majority alsoconfirmed the usefulness of Facebook in promoting awareness and stated satisfied fromits use. In an attempt to promote usability studies in digital library environments,Paterson and Low (2010) set out to explore user experience in 2.0 environments. Inparticular, they reported that digital libraries embrace social network sites in theirattempt to enhance user experience. Two strategies were identified: redirecting to socialnetworks or creating a profile on social networks.3.5.2 Exploring users’ perspectives. In sum, 11 papers reported on users’ thoughtsand perspectives regarding Facebook use by libraries and librarians. Macket al.(2007)compared different means of communication such as e-mail, phone, instant messaging,in-person questions and Facebook that students could employ in order to place anenquiry to a librarian. They found that the majority of students felt communicatingthrough Facebook was a most convenient and useful way. Building on this notion, Chuand Meulemans (2008) found that the 76 per cent of MySpace/Facebook users discussissues regarding their studies, courses, assignments as well as exchange commentsabout their professors online and identified as the main reason for using it, the need tocommunicate issues to others, regarding school, professors or courses. Chu andMeulemans (2008) concluded by proposing some interesting ways on how librariescould take advantage of these findings and reach students.User opinions regarding use of social networking sites, as well as librarians’ viewsof Facebook, were explored by Epperson and Leffler (2009) and Al-Daihani (2010).In particular, Epperson and Leffler (2009) surveyed college students of two campusesat Colorado in USA and discovered that although the majority of respondents usedsocial networking sites, they seemed rather indifferent to the idea of interactingwith libraries on social networking sites. Al-Daihani (2010) focused on postgraduatestudents of library and information science (MLIS) at Kuwait University and theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The majority of students were aware of the socialnetworking sites and were mainly using blogs, video sharing, collaborative authoring,communication and social networking sites. In terms of employing social networkingsites in education, students had a moderate agreement for their use. Differences werefound between the perceptions of the students of the two universities. The KuwaitUniversity students were more positive in using social networking sites for promotinginteraction between students and professors than the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee students. In terms of technology employed, Rowlandset al.(2008) stressedthe need for libraries to adjust to the new reality and compete with the characteristicsof new technology such as the “likes” on Facebook. They also emphasised the hiddendangers that libraries could be faced with when creating a Facebook profile, as itsinappropriate use could easily make students feel like that their personal online spacewas “invaded”.Furthermore, Connell (2009) focused on student feelings regarding librarians’ use ofFacebook and MySpace as outreach tools. In total, 366 Valparaiso University freshmenwere surveyed and the majority responded positively in owning an online social232PROG48,3

network profile. Most of the respondents confirmed the acceptance of library contactthrough MySpace and Facebook but there was still a percentage which was against theidea. Connell (2009), building on Rowlandset al.(2008) findings, suggested librariansshould be very careful when using social networking sites so as not to seem thatthey are preying on students’ privacy.Xia (2009) examined Library Facebook groups of two research universities focusingon their discussion transcripts and history. He tried to assess whether creation of thesegroups was good practice for library marketing policies. He concluded that Facebookgroups can be a successful tool when they are active, involve engaging conversationson more general topics and participation involves students, faculty members andlibrary staff. Boyer assessed libraries’ applications on Facebook. In particular, he foundthat application usage was low based on the monthly active users metrics of Facebookand suggested that if libraries focused more on trying to connect people with eachother rather than creating another access point to their resources, it might be a moresuccessful outreach venture.In addition, Scale (2008) discussed the possible use of Facebook as an online searchtool and the implications for libraries. He conducted a social search experiment whichentailed the design of two queries based on real information needs and the adoption ofobservation, personal experience and experiment. He concluded that social searchon Facebook was “disappointing” as Facebook features and search abilities are notdesigned to retrieve discovering specific information. In the same context, Chiu (2010)found that students were using Library Facebook profile for searching friends whereassome students were using profiles to assess effectiveness of library operation.They also confirmed that intellectual students have become more attached to libraryservices, regardless of its operating environment. Finally, Ismail (2010) explored thepreferences of undergraduate students at Marywood University when seekinginformation at the library. In particular, Ismail (2010) found that Facebook andMySpace were the least favoured tools, in requesting help from a librarian, wherease-mail was indicated as the most preferred medium.3.6 Exploring profile usageFive papers focused on assessing the actual usage of Library Facebook profiles basedon measurement of profile activity and number of subscribers. In particular, Jacobson(2011) set out to identify discrepancies between intended and actual use of Facebook inlibraries based on the reported and actual use. It was found that events posted onlibraries profile had no relationship with how many fans this profile had, whereas apositive correlation was found between number of fans and number of posts. As aresult, Jacobson (2011) recommended that libraries should be committed in updatingtheir Facebook profiles and that Facebook is more suitable for “active libraries” whichhost events, exhibits and social events.In addition, Aharony (2012) explored the possible usage patterns among Americanpublic and academic libraries profiles on Facebook. Aharony (2012) found that bothtypes of libraries use information section and wall in the same way, whereas for theremaining features there were noticeable differences as well as low use. Both typesof libraries employed Facebook, as a way to outreach users rather than provideanother venue for engaging discussion. Furthermore, Garcia-Milianet al.(2012) set outto explore the popularity of libraries Facebook profiles. In particular, they ventured toevaluate the relation between the posted content, and the number of subscribers.Positive correlations were discovered between number of subscribers and number of233Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

photos, events and wall posts. Their findings complement Jacobson’s (2011) study.Finally, profiles which were offering videos had more subscribers than the otherlibrary’ profiles.In terms of measuring user interaction, Gerolimos (2011) examined 20 Americanacademic Library Facebook profiles. He found that 91 per cent of the posts received nocomments, over 82 per cent of user interaction with the “library wall” was expressedthrough “likes” and most comments were written by library personnel rather thanstudents. Thus, Zoricaet al.(2012) analysed the wall activity of 91 Croatian libraries,and found that the majority of library profiles are not very active. Libraries employedFacebook, for marketing purposes and for posting announcements of potential interestto subscribers.4. Conclusion, recommendations and future researchLibraries and librarians started only recently considering adopting Facebook and othersocial networking sites. As such, the identified relevant literature is limited andfocused on specific areas of interest. In particular, the need to introduce and persuadelibraries and librarians about the benefits and possible uses of social networking sitesgenerated a series of papers. This literature identified as the main uses of Facebook thepromotion and marketing of libraries services, as well as the marketing of e-resources(Breeding, 2007; Farkas, 2006, 2007; Alford, 2009).More and more libraries and librarians are building a presence in social networkingsites and more specifically in Facebook. The experience gained through embracingFacebook and creating a profile either for library or for librarians was shared by adetailed analysis of the steps undertaken. This analysis focused on the problemsencountered and the lessons learned from such an endeavour (Grahamet al., 2009;Miller and Jensen, 2007; Mathews, 2006). Moreover, it built on the benefits of embracingFacebook by stressing the need for libraries and librarians to be present where everusers are, enhance their interactive role and raise any access barriers (Grahamet al.,2009; Miller and Jensen, 2007; Mathews, 2006).Although the recording of problems proved important, it was not long until the needfor specific guidelines for the interested libraries and librarians was stronglyexpressed. A few individuals (Fernandez, 2009; Landis, 2007; Mathews, 2008) tried toprovide a series of guidelines for either developing or managing a Facebook profile.Unfortunately, these attempts are in very early stages and more research is neededtowards formulating a text of proposed policies or best practices for both libraries andlibrarians. These policies are expected to assist libraries and librarians to manageFacebook profiles in a similar way and more importantly to guide through this processeven the most novices with either technology or Facebook.Moreover, research is needed exploring both users’ and librarians’ perspectives,thoughts, understanding, feelings and uses of social networking sites and in particularFacebook, as well as library’s and librarians Facebook profile usage. The studiesreported till so far (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Hendrixet al., 2009; Chu andMeulemans, 2008; Epperson and Leffler, 2009; Al-Daihani, 2010; Aharony, 2012;Gerolimos, 2011) were limited due to the libraries and librarians’ low interest in socialnetworking sites. In addition, the adoption of social networking sites by libraries andlibrarians was new as a concept and as such it was expected that the interest would below. In this context, comparative studies are also needed to record any changes inlibraries, librarians or users’ perspectives towards social networking sites. In terms ofmethods employed, the majority of the relevant papers did not adopt any method,234PROG48,3

stressing the need for more scientifically driven research. Only the reportedsurveys adopted methods but these again employed mainly a questionnaire to exploreusers’ and librarians’ perspectives of Facebook. It is recommended that qualitativemethods should also be used so as to shed light to the reasons behind the expressedbehaviours, as well as a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative methods wouldbe preferred.This research is currently focusing on extending the themes and sub-themesidentified in the relevant literature. In particular, a content analysis of these papers isunder its way in an attempt to formulate a concept map shedding lights to the maintheme under investigation of “Facebook’s impact on libraries”. This process isconsidered by the authors important to enabling the final formulation of guidelinesfor libraries and librarians in building and managing a presence in Facebook.ReferencesAcquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006), “Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, andprivacy on the Facebook”, in Danezis, G. and Golle, P. (Eds),Privacy EnhancingTechnologies (Vol. 4258), Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 36-58, doi:10.1007/11957454_3.Aharony, N. (2012), “Facebook use in libraries: an exploratory analysis”,Aslib Proceedings,Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 358-372.Al-Daihani, S. (2010), “Exploring the use of social software by master of library and informationscience students”,Library Review, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp 117-131.Alford, E. (2009), “Promoting and marketing e-resources”,The Serials Librarian, Vol. 57 No. 3,pp. 272-277.Arrington, M. (2005), “85% of college students use Facebook”, available at: http://techcrunch.com/2005/09/07/85-of-college-students-use-facebook/ (accessed 28 September 2013).Boyd, D. (2008), “Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: exposure, invasion, and social convergence”,Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 14No. 1, pp. 13-20.Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008), “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship”,Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.Boyer, J. and Ryan, J. (2009), “Considering Facebook in the library”,DLF Spring Forum 2009,Raleigh, North Carolina, 4-6 May, available at: old.diglib.org/forums/spring2009/presentations/Boyer.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Breeding, M. (2007), “Librarians face online social networks”,Computers in Libraries, Vol. 27No. 8, pp. 30-33, available at: www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC¼12735(accessed 28 September 2013).Bugeja, M.S. (2006), “Heads up: facing the Facebook”,Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 52No. 21, pp 1-4, available at: http://vpss.ku.edu/pdf/PSDC Facing the Facebook.pdf(accessed 28 September 2013).Charnigo, L. and Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007), “Checking out Facebook.com: the impact of a digitaltrend on academic libraries”,Information technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 23-34,available at: www.ala.org/lita/ital/sites/ala.org.lita.ital/files/y/26/y/charnigo.pdf(accessed 28 September 2013).Chirp, A. and Keckley, P.H. (2010), “Social networks in health care”, available at: www.deloitte.com/y/US_CHS_2010SocialNetworks_070710.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Chiu, M.H. (2010), “Making sense of library 2.0 through technological frames”,Proceedings of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-2.235Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

Chu, M. and Meulemans, Y.N. (2008), “The problems and potential of Myspace and Facebookusage in academic libraries”,Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 69-85.Connell, R.S. (2009), “Academic libraries, Facebook and Myspace, and student outreach:a survey of student opinion”,Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 91 No. 1,pp. 25-36.Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.K. and Hughes, B.N. (2009), “Facebook and online privacy:attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences”,Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-108.Dickson, A. and Holley, R.P. (2010), “Social networking in academic libraries: the possibilities andthe concerns”,New Library World, Vol. 111 Nos 11/12, pp. 468-479.Drew, B. (2007), “Academic librariesand library 2.0: an update”, available at: http://billthelibrarian.com/2007/03/academic-libraries-and-library-2-0-an-update/ (accessed 28 September 2013).Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), “The benefits of Facebook ‘friends:’social capitaland college students’ use of online social network sites”,Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1143-1168.Epperson, A. and Leffler, J.J. (2009), “Social software programs: student preferences of librarianuse”,New Library World, Vol. 110 Nos 7/8, pp. 366-372.Farb, B. (2006), “Students can “check out” new librarian on the Facebook”,Student Life, pp. 1-2,available at: www.studlife.com/archives/News/2006/02/27/StudentscancheckoutnewlibrarianontheFacebook/ (accessed 28 September 2013).Farkas, M. (2006), “Libraries in social networking software”, available at: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2006/05/10/libraries-in-social-networking-software/(accessed 28 September 2013).Farkas, M. (2007), “Going where patrons are: outreach in Myspace and Facebook”,AmericanLibraries, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1-27, available at: www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-162512580/going-patrons-outreach-myspace.html (accessed 28 September 2013).Fernandez, P. (2009), “Balancing outreach and privacy in Facebook: five guiding decisionspoints”,Library Publications and Other Works, pp. 1-11 available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1010&context¼utk_libfpubs (accessed 17 June 2014).Fox, S. (2011), “The social life of health information”, available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social?Life?of?Health?Info.aspx (accessed 28 September 2013).Garcia-Milian, R., Norton, H.F. and Tennant, M.R. (2012), “The presence of academic healthsciences libraries on Facebook: the relationship between content and library popularity”,Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 171-187.Gerolimos, M. (2011), “Academic libraries on Facebook: an analysis of users’ comments”,D-LibMagazine, Vol. 17 Nos 11/12, pp. 1-13, available at: 10.1045/november2011-gerolimos(accessed 28 September 2013).Glazer, H. (2009), “Clever outreach or costly diversion?: An academic library evaluates its Facebookexperience”,College & Research Library News, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 11-15, available at: http://crlnews.highwire.org/content/70/1/11.full.pdfþhtml (accessed 28 September 2013).Graham, J.M., Faix, A. and Hartman, L. (2009), “Crashing the Facebook party: one library’sexperiences in the students’ domain”,Library Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 228-236.Grimmelmann, J. (2008), “Facebook and the social dynamics of privacy”,Iowa Law Review, Vol. 95No. 4, pp. 1-52.Hemingway, P. and Brereton, N. (2009), “What is a systematic review?”,Evidence-based medicine,April, pp. 1-8, available at: www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf (accessed 17 June 2014).236PROG48,3

Hendrix, D., Chiarella, D., Hasman, L., Murphy, S. and Zafron, M.L. (2009), “Use of Facebook inacademic health sciences libraries”,Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 97No. 1, pp. 44-47.Ismail, L. (2010), “What net generation students really want: determining libraryhelp-seeking preferences of undergraduates”,Reference Services Review, Vol. 38 No. 1,pp. 10-27.Jacobson, T.B. (2011), “Facebook as a library tool: perceived vs. actual use”,College & ResearchLibraries, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 79-90, available at: http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/79.full.pdf(accessed 28 September 2013).Jennings, S. and Price, J. (2008), “Be my friend’: using Facebook in libraries”,Tenessee Libraries,Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 1-3, available at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Jennings_Susan_2008_Be_my_friend.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Kealey, S. (2007), “Fishing in a Barrel Facebook as an outreach and marketing tool for academiclibraries”, available at: www.powershow.com/view1/22069d-MGE3Z/Fishing_in_a_Barrel_Facebook_as_an_Outreach_and_Marketing_Tool_for_Academic_Libraries_powerpoint_ppt_presentation (accessed 28 September 2013).Kind, T., Genrich, G., Sodhi, A. and Chretien, K.C. (2010), “Social media policies at US medicalschools”,Medical Education Online, Vol. 15, pp. 1-8, doi:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5324.King, D.L. (2011), “Facebook for libraries: an article in American libraries”, available at:www.davidleeking.com/2011/05/31/facebook-for-libraries-an-article-in-american-libraries/#.UIKabBgbjC8 (accessed 28 September 2013).Kirschner, P.A. and Karpinski, A.C. (2010), “Facebook and academic performance”,Computers inHuman Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1237-1245.Kwong, V. (2007), “Reach out to your students using MySpace and Facebook”,Indiana Libraries,Vol. 26 No. 3, pp 53-57, available at: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/1576/Reach Out to Your Students Using Myspace and Facebook.pdf?sequence¼1(accessed 28 September 2013).Lampe, C., Ellison, N.B. and Steinfield, C. (2008), “Changes in use and perception of Facebook”,in Begole, B. and McDonald, D. W. (Eds),Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conferenceon Computer Supported Cooperative Work – CSCW ‘08, ACM Press, New York, NY,pp. 721-730 doi:10.1145/1460563.1460675.Landis, C. (2007), “Social networking sites: getting friendly with our users”,College &ResearchLibrary News, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 709-712, available at: http://crln.acrl.org/content/68/11/709.full.pdfþhtml (accessed 28 September 2013).Lawson, D. (2007), “Taking the library to users: experimenting with Facebook as an outreachtool”,Library2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries, pp. 145-155.Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K. and Rainie, L. (2011), “Teens,kindness and cruelty on social network sites: how American teens navigate the new worldof ‘digital citizenship’ ”, available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media.aspx (accessed 28 September 2013).McKay, D. and Morgan, T. (2008), “User experience in an Australian academic library”,EDUCAUSE, Australasia Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 03-06 May 2009,available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/52242 (accessed 17 June 2014).MacDonald, J., Sohn, S. and Ellis, P. (2010), “Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemmafor young doctors”,Medical education, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 805-813.Mack, D., Behler, A., Roberts, B. and Rimland, E. (2007), “Reaching students with Facebook:data and best practices”,Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship,Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-8, available at: http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/mack_d01.html (accessed 28 September 2013).237Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

Marwick, A. and Boyd, D. (2011), “To see and be seen: celebrity practice on twitter”,Convergence:The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 139-158.Mathews, B. (2008), “Moving beyond the reference desk: being where users need us”,TheReference Librarian, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 9-13.Mathews, B.S. (2006), “Do you Facebook?: networking with students online”,College & ResearchLibrary News, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 306-307.Miller, S.E. and Jensen, L.A. (2007), “Connecting and communicating with students on Facebook”,Computers in Libraries, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 18-22, available at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1000&context¼sarahmiller (accessed 28 September 2013).Morris, M.E., Consolvo, S., Munson, S.A., Kramer, A.D.I., Patrick, K. and Tsai, J. (2011),“Facebook for health: opportunities and challenges for driving behavior change”,in Tan, D., Begole, B. and Kellogg, W.A. (Eds),CHI Conference Proceedings/Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, Springer Verlag, Vancouver, BC, pp. 443-446.Murphy, J. and Moulaison, H. (2006), “Social networking literacy competencies for librarians:exploring considerations and engaging participation”,14th Annual ACRL Conference,Seattle, WA, 12-15 March, available at: http://codabox.org/4/1/Social_Networking_Literacies_for_Librarians.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Newman, M.W., Lauterbach, D., Munson, S.A., Resnick, P. and Morris, M.E. (2011), “It’s not that Idon’t have problems, I’m just not putting them on Facebook’: challenges and opportunitiesin using online social networks for health”,CSCW ’11 Proceedings of the ACM 2011Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 341-350, doi:10.1145/1958824.1958876 (accessed 28 September 2013).OCLC (2007), “Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world”, available at: www.oclc.org/asiapacific/zhcn/services/brochures/213100usf_privacy_trust_report.pdf (accessed 28September 2013).Parveen, N. (2011), “Use of social networking site (Facebook) in making awareness among the libraryand information science professionals of university libraries of UP: a case study”,InternationalJournal of Digital Library Services, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-17, available at: www.ijodls.in/uploads/3/6/0/3/3603729/vol1_issue1.pdf#page¼12 (accessed 28 September 2013).Paterson, L. and Low, B. (2010), “Usability inspection of digital libraries”, ARIADNE, Vol. 63,pp.1-9, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue63/paterson-low (accessed 28 September 2013).Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A. and Calvert, S.L. (2009), “College students’ social networkingexperiences on Facebook”,Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 227-238.Powers, A.C., Schmidt, J. and Hill, C. (2008), “Why can’t we be friends?: The MSU libraries findfriends on Facebook”,Mississippi Libraries, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 3-6, available at: http://s506researchproject.googlecode.com/files/Why can%27t we be friends-The MSU LibrariesFind Friends On Facebook.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Robert, M. and Boogart, V. (2006), “Uncovering the social impacts of Facebook on a collegecampus”, available at: http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/181/MatthewVandenBoogart2006.pdf?sequence¼4 (accessed 28 September 2013).Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. and Witty, J.V. (2010), “Findings on Facebookin higher education: a comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions ofsocial networking sites”,The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 134-140.Roncaglia, G. (2009), “School libraries and social networks”,Proceedings of the 38th AnnualConference of the International Association of School Librarianship, incorporating the 13thInternational Forum on School Librarianship. Abano Terme – Padova, 2-4 September2009, Springer, pp. 1-9, available at: http://dspace.unitus.it/handle/2067/1275 (accessed 17June 2014).238PROG48,3

Rothman, D.H. (2012), “Should libraries start their own, more trustworthy Facebook?”,LLRX,available at: http://librarycity.org/?p¼5108 (accessed 28 September 2013).Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R.,Jamali, H.R., Dobrowolski, T. and Tenopir, C. (2008), “The Google generation: theinformation behaviour of the researcher of the future”,Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 60 No. 4,pp. 290-310.Sadeh, T. (2007), “Time for a change: new approaches for a new generation of library users”,New Library World, Vol. 108 Nos 7/8, pp. 307-316.Scale, M.S. (2008), “Facebook as a social search engine and the implications for libraries in thetwenty-first century”,Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 540-556.Secker, J. (2008), “Case study 5: libraries and Facebook”, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.174.617&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf (accessed 28 September2013).Selwyn, N. (2007), “Screw Blackboardydo it on Facebook!’: an investigation of students’educational use of Facebook”,Poke 1.0 – Facebook Social Research Symposium,Universityof London, London, 15 November 2007, available at: http://startrekdigitalliteracy.pbworks.com/f/2g19b89ezl6ursp6e749.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Skeels, M.M., Unruh, K.T., Powell, C. and Pratt, W. (2010), “Catalyzing social support for breastcancer patients”,CHIyconference proceedings/Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems. CHI Conference in Atlanta, GA, 10-15 April, doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753353.Solomon, L. (2012), “Fine-tuning Facebook for libraries”, available at: http://infopeople.org/training/fine-tuning-facebook-libraries (accessed 28 September 2013).University of Maryland (2007), “Social networking 101: reaching library patrons with Facebook”,available at: www.lib.umd.edu/profiles/thackman/FacebookManual.pdf (accessed 28September 2013).Valenzuela, S., Park, N. and Kee, K.F. (2009), “Is there social capital in a social network site?:Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation”,Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 875-901.West, A. (2008), “Coming soon to a location near you”,Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25No. 1, pp. 61-65.Xia, Z.D. (2009), “Marketing library services through Facebook groups”,Library Management,Vol. 30 Nos 6/7, pp. 469-478.YALSA (2011), “Teens & social networking in school & public libraries: a toolkit for librarians &library workers”, available at: www.ala.org/yalsa/sites/ala.org.yalsa/files/content/professionaltools/sn_toolkit11.pdf (accessed 28 September 2013).Zorica, M.B., Ivanjko, T. and Bencec, M. (2012), “Croatian libraries on Facebook”,MIPRO, 2012Proceedings of the 35th International Convention, Opatija,21-25 May, available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp;jsessionid¼bHFSQlJPdyCY1hgFpCKhChLT1KtFqqJWgL1NsRtbhthf8hyhjCjy!1271855879arnumber¼6240813&contentType¼ConferenceþPublications (accessed 28 September 2013).Corresponding authorDr Emmanouel Garoufallou can be contacted at: mgarou@libd.teithe.gr239Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians

AppendixYearNo. Papers Papers20065Bugeja (2006), Farb (2006), Farkas (2006), Mathews (2006), Murphy and Moulaison, (2006)200713Breeding (2007), Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007), Drew (2007), Farkas (2007), Kealey (2007), Kwong (2007), Landis (2007),Lawson (2007),Macket al. (2007), Miller and Jensen (2007), Roncaglia (2009), Sadeh (2007), University of Maryland (2007);200810Chu and Meulemans (2008), Connell (2009), Jennings and Price (2008), Mathews (2008), McKay and Morgan (2008),Powerset al.(2008), Rowlandset al.(2008), Scale (2008), Secker (2008), West (2008)200910Alford (2009), Boyer and Ryan (2009), Epperson and Leffler, (2009), Fernandez (2009), Glazer (2009), Grahamet al.(2009),Hendrixet al.(2009), Jacobson (2011), Xia (2009), YALSA (2011)20104Al-Daihani (2010), Chiu (2010), Ismail (2010), Paterson and Low (2010)20113Gerolimos (2011), King (2011), Parveen (2011)20125Aharony (2012), Garcia-Milianet al.(2012), Rothman (2012), Solomon (2012), Zoricaet al.(2012)Notes:The identified relevant literature was divided based on year of publication (e.g. 2006). As such, for each year authors’ names in the form ofcitation (e.g. Farkas, 2006) as well as the total number of the papers assigned were presented (e.g. six for 2006). It can be seen that the majority of theidentified papers were published between 2007 and 2009. Furthermore, one can see that there is a constant flow of publications till todayTable AI.Number of identifiedrelevant papers per year240PROG48,3

A/A ThemesNo. Papers Papers1Library use of Facebook7Farkas (2006, 2007), Breeding, (2007), Roncaglia (2009), Jennings and Price (2008), Alford (2009),Rothman (2012)2Creating profiles on Facebook2.1 Libraries7Drew (2007), Kwong (2007), Landis (2007), McKay and Morgan (2008), Powerset al.(2008), Glazer(2009), Grahamet al.(2009)2.2 Librarians6Farb (2006), Mathews (2006), Kealey (2007), Lawson (2008), Miller and Jensen (2007),Secker (2008)3Guidelines forlibraries9Murphy and Moulaison (2006), Drew (2007), Miller and Jensen (2007), University of Maryland (2007),Mathews (2008), West (2008), Fernandez (2009), YALSA (2011), Solomon (2012)4Librarians personalexperience onFacebook6Bugeja (2006), Farkas (2006), Lawson (2007), Miller and Jensen (2007), Glazer (2009), King (2011)5Exploringperspectives5.1 Librarians6Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007), Sadeh (2007), Grahamet al.(2009), Hendrixet al(2009), Paterson and Low (2010), Parveen (2011)5.2 Users11Macket al.(2007), Chu and Meulemans (2008), Connell, (2009), Rowlandset al.(2008), Scale (2008),Boyer and Ryan (2009), Epperson and Leffler (2009), Xia (2009), Al-Daihani (2010),Chiu (2010), Ismail (2010)6Exploring profileusage5Jacobson (2011), Gerolimos (2011), Aharony (2012), Garcia-Milianet al.(2012), Zorica, Ivanjko andBencec (2012)Notes:The emerged themes (e.g. surveys) and subthemes (e.g. librarians perspectives) from the identified relevant literature are illustrated. In particular, foreach theme and subtheme the assigned papers again in the form of citation as well as the total number or papers are presentedTable AII.Emerged themes andassigned papers241Impact ofFacebook onlibraries andlibrarians