1

Brittany Kolonay  

Academic Law Library Use of Web 2.0 Tools  

Introduction  

Since the start of the Internet, libraries have attempted to keep up with changing technologies and concepts to reach out to their patrons.1  Academic law libraries are certainly no different.  The newest incarnation of change has been the introduction of “Web 2.0” in the mid‐2000’s.  A significant amount of literature in library and information science has been dedicated to describing Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and the related tools and websites that librarians can implement to increase patron awareness of library resources and services.  Law library literature has encouraged the use Web 2.0 tools for several years as a way of supporting the library and its patrons in a variety of ways.  Furthermore, in August 2008, members of the Computer Services Special Interest Section (CS‐SIS) of AALL launched a 5‐week program, Web 2.0 Challenge, that attempted to introduce law librarians to core Web 2.0 tools.  So strong is the perceived benefit of Web 2.0 tools that the authors of an article about this challenge stated that “[l]aw libraries need Web 2.0.”2 

 Academic law libraries have been responsive to information about 

these tools and many have implemented them, particularly blogs, RSS feeds, and social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter.3  However, other types of libraries have begun to analyze use of these tools by libraries and student perception of these tools.  Review of these articles generated several questions about academic law libraries and Web 2.0 tools.  First, which tools are libraries using to reach their patrons and is the use of these tools consistent with Library 2.0 and marketing principles.  Second, how do academic law librarians perceive the tools their libraries are using and are use of these tools being encouraged by law library administration.  Finally, what are law students’ perception of these tools in their everyday life and what is their perception of the use of tools by academic law libraries.  

 Part I of this paper will examine the history of the concepts of Web 2.0 

and Library 2.0, and the tools that accompany these concepts.  Part II will review the literature examining the use of Web 2.0 tools in other libraries.  Part III will describe the methodology used to study academic law library’s use of Web 2.0 tools and discuss the results of two surveys and a review of 

                                                        1 LEWIS-GUODO LIU, INTRODUCTION INTHE ROLE AND IMPACT OF THE INTERNET ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES ix (Lewis-Guodo Liu ed., 2001). 2 Deborah Ginsberg et al., Inspiring Innovation: Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating the Web 2.0 Challenge, 101 L. LIBR. J. 355, 355 (2009).  3 See infra Part I 

  2

academic law libraries’ Web 2.0 tools.  Finally Part IV will discuss the future use of these tools by academic law libraries.  

 Part I– Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 

 Web 2.0 and Web 2.0 tools  

The phrase “Web 2.0” was initially developed to describe the technology and concepts that had survived the dot‐com collapse of the late 1990s and early 2000s.4    Though co‐founder of the term, Tim O’Reilly, made several attempts to define the phrase5, it has come to be applied to everything from AJAX (autonomous Javascript and XML) based websites to any new website that generates buzz.6   

 Regardless of the definition chosen by a person to describe Web 2.0 as 

a phenomenon, certain features generally must be associated with a website or internet software in order for it to dubbed Web 2.0 technology.7 First, the website or system revolves around users and their profile pages.8  Within the profile, pages users can provide demographic information and where the user and other users of the network can post comments.9  Second, the user needs to be able to make connections with other users and groups directly or via subscriptions.10  Third, the users must be able to post some content to the website, regardless of that content’s form (tags, photos, etc.).11 Fourth, technological features allow third parties to create “enhancements and ‘mashups.’”12  Finally, the site allows users to instant message or email other users within the website.13 While not all Web 2.0 tools have all these features, those that feature most of these are generally considered to be Web 2.0 tools.14    

Several tools have commonly been recognized as Web 2.0 tools: blogs, RSS (Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary15) feeds, social 

                                                        4 Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0: Designing Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software (2005), http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. 5 See id.  6 Graham Cormode & Balachander Krishnamurthy, Key Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, 13 FIRST MONDAY (2008), available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125/1972  7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id.  12 Id. 13 Id. This paper considers RSS feeds to be an indicator of Web 2.0 tools, rather than an individual Web 2.0 like many library science articles.  14 Id. 15 Christine Neilson, Current Awareness on a Shoe String: RSS at the HQC, 13 INTERNET REFERENCE SERVICES Q., 57, 58 (2008).  

  3

networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, RSS feeds, 16 wikis, and Flickr, and social bookmarking sites such as Delicious and Library Thing.17  Due to the findings of this paper regarding academic law libraries’ use of these tools and the literature regarding other academic libraries use of Web 2.0 tools, paper will primarily focus on four of the above tools: blogs, RSS feeds, Facebook, and Twitter. 18  Library 2.0 

As with Web 2.0, Library 2.0 has suffered a definition crisis.  Initially, Library 2.0 was defined as “ [a] model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services.”19  However, so many others have attempted to define “Library 2.0” that only one year after the concept had been introduced there were already 7 definitions of the concept. 20  The number has only grown since then.21  

 However, as even the authors of the initial definitions admits, Library 

2.0 is based heavily on the same tenant that has driven library services for years.22 Library 2.0 stands for user‐centered and continually evaluated change and Web 2.0 tools, while not a necessary part of Library 2.0 are certainly an important part of that process. 23      

                                                        16 As noted above, some authors consider RSS feeds to be indicative of Web 2.0 tools rather than a Web 2.0 tool itself. Cormode & Krishnamurthy, supra note 6. However, others have recognized RSS feeds as a standalone tool that is part of both the Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 revolution. See Diane Murley, What is all the Fuss about Library 2.0, 100 LAW LIBR. J. 197, 197 (2008); Cheryl Peltier-Davis, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative Services for Sustainable Libraries, 29 COMPUTERS IN LIBR. 16, 18 (2009). For the purposes of this article this RSS feeds will be considered a standalone Web 2.0 tool.  17 ELIZABETH L. BLACK, WEB 2.0 AND LIBRARY 2.0: WHAT LIBRARIANS NEED TO KNOW IN LIBRARY 2.0 AND BEYOND 6 (Nancy Courtney ed., 2007). Other tools are sometimes included in a list of Web 2.0 tools, however, there are limitations on these tools and I have chosen to focus primarily on tools used in the Web 2.0 Challenge. Ginsberg et al., supra note 2, at 357. 18 Librarians indicated they would be using them more in the Web 2.0 Challenge survey, however I found only one, and 2 survey responses indicating use of them. See infra Parts II and III. 19 Michael Casey & Laura Savastinuk, Library 2.0, 131 LIBR. J. 40, 40 (2006).  20 Walt Crawford, Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”, CITES & INSIGHTS, Midwinter 2006, at 5, available at citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf. 21 See Cheryl Peltier-Davis, supra note 16, at 18. (“a library modeled on Web 2.0 technologies.”), Kim Holmberg et al., What is Library 2.0?, 65 J. DOCUMENTATION 668, 670-71 (2008).(Collection of several additional definitions of Web 2.0). 22 Michael Casey & Laura Savastinuk, We Know What Library Is and Is Not, Oct. 31, 2007, http://www.librarycrunch.com/2007/10/we_know_what_library_20_is_and.html 23 Id.  

  4

 Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 tools  

In the case of academic libraries, including law libraries, use of Web 2.0 tools are essential to applying Library 2.0 principles.  First, use of these tools are prolific in the public in general. As of 2008 there were 133 million “blog records” indexed by Technorati.24  Facebook has more than 400 million users who log into their account at least once ever 30 days.25 50 million tweets are sent daily.26 Furthermore, students, the academic law library’s primary patrons, are in the prime demographic to use these tools.  71% of young adults (18‐29) use social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Linked In.27 And while blog use by young adults has decreased by 9 %, young adults lead the way in use of Twitter ‐ one third of young adults use Twitter or another status updating site.28  However, mere use of Web 2.0 tools is not enough to merit as making Library 2.0 changes.  As enumerated by Michael Stevens, tools need to be easy to use and allow for content creation, content sharing, user participation, and social interaction.29  

 Part II – Literature Review 

   As noted by the Part I, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter are all in heavy use by young adults30 but as also indicated by Part I, they are hardly the only Web 2.0 tools in use by libraries.  Given the limitations of this article, the author reviewed library research that has focused primarily on the above tools and RSS feeds. Several articles, blogs and books have enumerated the potential benefits of use of these tools in libraries.31  However, now that libraries have begun implementing these tools, the study of which tools 

                                                        24Technorati.com, State of the Blogosphere, http://technorati.com/blogging/article/state-of-the-blogosphere-introduction/ last accessed 4/11/2010 25 Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/#!/press/info.php?statistics - last accessed 4/11/2010. Facebook Fact Sheet, http://www.facebook.com/#!/press/info.php?factsheet - last accessed 4/12/2010.  26 http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html - last accessed 4/11/2010 27 AMANDA LENHART ET AL., PEW RESEARCH CENTER, SOCIAL MEDIA & MOBILE INTERNET USE AMONG TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS, 19 (2010). available at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social‐Media‐and‐Young‐Adults.aspx.  28 Id. at 3. In another report, Pew reports it wanted to also capture status updating on sites like Yammer or Gmail Chat. Pew Internet, Twitter and Status Updating, Fall 2009 http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/17-Twitter-and-Status-Updating-Fall-2009.aspx.  29 H. Kumar, Percy Jayasuriay & Frances M. Brillantine, Student Services in the 21st Century Evolution and Innovation in Discovering Student Needs, Teaching Information Literacy, and Designing Library 2.0-Based Student Services, 26 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 135, 151 30 LENHART supra note 27, at 31See Ginsberg et al., supra note 2, Marshall Breeding, Librarians Face Online Social Networks, 27 COMPUTERS IN LIBR., 30 (2007), Murley, supra note 16, Diane Murley, The Power of RSS Feeds, 101 L. LIBR. J. 127 (2009), Connie Crosby, The Tao of Law Librarianship – Keeping up with Social Networking Tools, (June 25, 2007), http://www.llrx.com/columns/tao12.htm. 

  5

libraries are using and the effective use of these tools has become a priority in information and library sciences studies.  Blogs   Blogs were one of the first Web 2.0 tools employed by libraries.  A simple definition of a blog is a chronological online journal.32 Like RSS feeds, blogs are not limited to any one particular website – blogs can be found on numerous websites including individual websites and websites that allow individuals and organizations to build weblogs from form pages and participate in blogging communities such as Blogger and Wordpress.33  Blogs generally allow commenting on posts, linking to other posts and sometimes the uploading of photos and other content. They also have generally come to use RSS to feed headlines and other content to those who have subscribed to a blog.34   

 In 2006, a survey was sent through academic library listservs to 

assess how libraries were using and marketing their blogs, who the libraries were targeting with their blogs, the amount of traffic these blogs received and how often librarians were updating.35  The authors of the survey found that while academic libraries were using blogs, some were definitely using them more effectively than others.36  The most popular blogs were being used to communicate news and events, to market the library and to communicate internally.37  Furthermore, success in marketing the library through a blog also required some kind of marketing of the blog itself and those who were the most successful (as counted by the amount of traffic received by blogs) used some kind of marketing of their blog .38 Finally, bloggers who post the most frequently also received the most responses from students.39      In a study of Web 2.0 tools, the authors noted that blogs were the most common and “where information literacy is best supported.”40  However, there is less interaction between writer and reader with blogs than 

                                                        32 dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blog  33 https://www.blogger.com/start, and http://wordpress.com/. 34 Diane Murley, The Power of RSS Feeds, 101 L. LIBR. J. 127, 128 (2009). 35 Lani Draper & Marthea Turnage, Blogmania: Blog Use in Academic Libraries, 13 INTERNET REFERENCE SERVICES Q., 15, 19 (2008).  36 Id. at 22. 37 Id.  38 Id. 39 Id.  40 Jenny Pacheco et al., Librarians Use of Web 2.0 in UK Medical Schools: Outcomes of a National Survey, 16 NEW REV. OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 75, 80 (2010).  

  6

there may be with other Web 2.0 tools.41  However, students were more enthusiastic about commenting when incentives to do so were offered.42     RSS 

The acronym RSS may stand for many things, but the technology quite simply allows users to subscribe to a website that uses the technology and then employ some kind of aggregator or reader to bring all feeds in to a one stop shopping site.43 While RSS feeds do not need to be associated with any particular Web 2.0 tool, their use has mostly been studied in relation to their use with blogs.44 In a 2008 study of the use of Web 2.0 tool use in Australasian academic libraries, RSS feeds were the most commonly used Web 2.0 tools.45  In a 2006 case study of use RSS feeds, the Health Quality Council found RSS feeds, in combination with email digests, to be highly effective in communicating current awareness information to agency staff.46  Use of RSS feeds were also important to the marketing of libraries in the study mentioned in the blog section: the two libraries that reported the greatest jump in traffic both used RSS feeds, and links to those feeds, as part of the marketing of their blog.47  

 Facebook   Facebook was initially implemented as a social networking site for university students and it is now recognized as the social networking tool, especially for that audience.48  Furthermore, at a 71% usage rate, it is the most used social networking site by young adults.49  As early as 2008, at least one academic law library had identified that over 80% of its students were on Facebook.50  Because of its high use, it has been of great interest to academic law libraries and librarians and some were trying to use it long before Facebook allowed organizations to create pages on its website.51     In a study of United Kingdom medical schools’ use of Web 2.0 tools, libraries were using their Facebook pages as a way of supplementing a                                                         41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Neilson, supra note 15.  44 BLACK, supra note 17, at 7.  45 Nguyen Cuong Linh, A Survey for the Application of Web 2.0 in Australasian University Libraries, 26 LIBR. HI TECH 630 (2008). 46 Neilson, supra note 15. 47 Lani Draper & Marthea Turnage, Blogmania: Blog Use in Academic Libraries, 13 INTERNET REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 15 (2008). 48 Jennifer L. Behrens, About Facebook: Change at the Social-Networking Juggernaut Creates new Opportunites for Law Library Outreach, AM. ASSOC. LAW LIB. SPECTRUM April 2008 at 14, 15.  49 LENHART, supra note 27. 50 Behrens, supra note 48, at 15. 51 Id.  

  7

library’s homepage.52  Furthermore, while librarians were hesitant to entwine a student’s social and school life, students seem to have been more accepting of it.53 However, at least two studies have downplayed the usefulness of Facebook for the library.  When students at the University of Marywood were asked how they would prefer to seek help, use of Facebook or Myspace was considered the least useful.54  Students preferred email, IM or a course page over Facebook.55  In a focus group study of “digital natives” – the group of students entering college who have grown up with computers – students were asked about their perceptions of libraries being on Facebook.56  Students expressed discomfort at the idea of the library being part of their social network.57  Furthermore, students again expressed preference for the library to integrate information with pre‐existing educational sites.58  One student went so far as to state that the site currently used by the libraries was “more professional.”59     Review of the literature reveals that while many authors have been pushing for the use of these tools, not all libraries are using them effectively.  Furthermore, students, one of the primary patron groups to use academic libraries, are hesitant about libraries becoming a part of their social networks.   Methodology   Given the wide range of questions this paper seeks to address, the author opted to study academic law library use of Web 2.0 tools in three ways.  As academic law libraries were the focus of the study, first the author reviewed 197 of the 200 ABA approved law schools libraries’ web pages.60  Second, the author conducted a survey of academic law librarians about their library’s use of Web 2.0 tools. Finally, the author surveyed University of Washington law students about their use of Web 2.0 tools.  The methodology for each will be discussed below.    

                                                        52 Jenny Pacheco et al., Librarians use of Web 2.0 in UK Medical Schools: Outcomes of a National Survey, 16 NEW REV. OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 75, 81 (2010).  53 Id. at 82-83.  54 Lizah Ismail, What Net Generation Students Really Want: Determining Library Help-seeking Preferences of Undergraduates, 38 REFERENCE SERVICES REV. 10, 19 (2010).  55 Id. 56 Kenneth J. Burhanna, et al., No Natives Here: A Focus group Study of Student Perceptions of Web 2.0 and the Academic Library, 35 J. ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 523, 523, 527 (2009). 57 Id., at 527. 58 Id.  59 Id.  60 Inter-American, Pontifical Catholic of Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico’s law libraries’ websites were not reviewed as the author does not speak Spanish.  

  8

 Review of ABA Law Library Websites and Tools   Beginning in April 2010 and ending in May 2010, the author used the online list of ABA approved law schools61 to access each academic law library’s website.  This was done in order to ascertain how many academic law libraries were using Web 2.0 tools, which tools they were using, and to assess participation of others with the libraries’ Web 2.0 tools. First, the author examined the homepage to determine whether the law library was using any Web 2.0 tool.  The author then searched Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Myspace, for “law library” to find any academic law library’s tools that may have been missed.  Finally, the author compared her list of schools to lists created by other law librarians62 to ascertain if any were missed.    From there, each Web 2.0 tool was viewed by the author to determine  when law libraries began using the tool (generally this was counted as of the day of the first post), the number of posts the library had made to the page, the number of comments and posts other users had made to the page and when determinable, the number of replies made by the law library.  Finally, the posts were skimmed in part to ascertain any links the library had made to other Web 2.0 tools.  This served as a final check to make sure as many Web 2.0 tools as possible were caught by the search.  Academic Law Librarian Survey   The author then submitted a survey to the Academic Law Libraries‐Special Interest Section (ALL‐SIS) listserv of the AALL.  The survey was created in WebQ, a University of Washington Catalyst Tool developed for creation of surveys and quizzes.  The survey included multiple answer‐multiple choice questions, multiple choice questions, and short answer questions.  The purpose of the survey was to ascertain: 

• Which Web 2.0 tools academic law libraries were using as compared to which tools the librarians thought their libraries should be using, 

• The number of personnel and the amount of time being spent on Web 2.0 tools as compared to the amount of time librarians believed they should be spending on these tools, 

• The law library’s patrons and the patrons to whom they were aiming their Web 2.0 tools, 

                                                        61 American Bar Association, Alphabetical School List, http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/alpha.html, last accessed May 13, 2010.  62 Joe Hodnicki, Law School and Law Library Twitter Feeds, Law Librarian Blog, (Mar. 17, 2009), http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2009/03/law-school-and.html (last accessed May 13, 2010); Bonnie Shucha and Michal Robak, Law Library Blogs, AALL CS-SIS Wiki, http://aallcssis.pbworks.com/Law-Library-Blogs (last accessed May 13, 2010); Jennifer L. Brehens, Law Libraries on Facebook, http://lawlibraries.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2096787%3ABlogPost%3A1829, (last accessed May 13, 2010). 

  9

• How libraries were informing patrons of their Web 2.0 tools, • Whether librarians were receiving inquiries about their Web 2.0 tools 

from the patrons and how those inquiries were they being received by libraries, and 

• The librarian’s perceived benefits of their Web 2.0 tools to patrons and any other benefits librarians believe they could receive by using these tools. 

 University of Washington Law Student Survey   The author also submitted a survey to University of Washington law school students via the law school’s listserv for law students.  Again, the survey was created in the University of Washington Catalyst Tool WebQ.  The survey consisted of multiple‐answer multiple choice, multiple choice, and short answer questions.  The students were asked to identify which websites or tools they use, the primary reasons for their use of those sites, and their perceptions of library use of Web 2.0 tools.   Review of ABA Law Library Results   Of the 197 libraries reviewed, 62% (123) had made use of at least one Web 2.0 tool. However, only 46% of schools had links to at least one tool on their homepage.  Therefore, if patrons were going to find and make use of these tools they would either have to be informed of the availability of the tool elsewhere or search for these tools of their own accord.  11 libraries made use of one tool multiple times.  For instance, Boston College’s law library has one Facebook page for the main library and another for the Rare Book Room.63  Libraries more commonly featured more than one blog.  Multiple blogs resulted from libraries publishing or co‐publishing a substantive law blog and then a general library blog, or the library would publish various blogs for different aspects of the library.  Yale is the most proflic example of this as they have four blogs: a foreign law blog, a rare books blog, a reference blog and a library news blog.64     From this review the author found that academic law libraries are using the following tools: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, RSS Feeds, YouTube, Flickr, Delicious, LibraryThing, FourSquare, wikis, podcasts, and the iTunes University store to distribute information about the library and resources to its patrons.  RSS feeds were the most common tool used with 110 schools                                                         63 Boston College Law Library Facebook Page, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Newton-MA/Boston-College-Law-Library/13803164549#!/pages/Newton-MA/Boston-College-Law-Library/13803164549?v=wall. Boston College Law Library Daniel R. Coquillette Rare Book Room Facebook Page, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Newton-MA/Daniel-R-Coquillette-Rare-Book-Room-Boston-College-Law-Library/28716347945?ref=search&sid=12933249.912475427..1#!/pages/Newton-MA/Daniel-R-Coquillette-Rare-Book-Room-Boston-College-Law-Library/28716347945?v=wall&ref=search 64 Yale Law Library Rare Book Blog, http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/rarebooks/ 

  10

using the tool.  However, only 15 libraries use RSS feeds as a standalone tool, the rest were embedded in some other tool, generally a blog, the wall of a Facebook page or a Twitter feed. Law libraries have created 89 blogs and 76 Facebook pages. However, there is a very slight difference in the number of law schools using these two tools: 76 law libraries have published at least 1 blog and 75 libraries have published a Facebook page.  Only 41 law libraries had Twitter accounts, however, the author expects this number will rise as librarians become more familiar tool. The only other Web 2.0 to have more than one law library using it was LibraryThing.  Both the University of Tulsa and the University of Washington have created a box for this tool that is embedded in their Facebook page.      The earliest blogs that the author could locate were published in 2004, while the most recent had only been started in February and March of 2010.  On average libraries have made 285 posts over the lifetime of their blogs, receiving an average of 26 comments and making just one reply to those comments.  Several factors complicate these numbers though.  First, of the 89 individual blogs, 29 had disabled comments and for several others the author was unable to read the comments, making it impossible to identify replies. Second, several of the blogs with the highest number of comments also had a significant amount of spam commenting.   Third, the average number of posts is greatly affected by the outliers.  For instance, Howard’s blog was started in June 2009 and has only 4 posts, the last of which was made in September 2009.  Furthermore, 5 libraries have not posted to their blogs since 2009, 2 have not posted since 2008, and 5 schools have an average of less than 1 post a month.      The earliest academic law library Facebook page was posted to in 2007, though this date is complicated by the fact it is only around this time that Facebook began to allow corporations and businesses to create a “Page.”  Before that librarians would have had to try to create posts through an individual account, which was often subject to deletion by Facebook.65  On average 179 individuals “like” or have subscribed to the law library Facebook page and law libraries have averaged 68 posts on its wall.  Furthermore, law library Facebook walls averaged 5 comments, 3 posts by someone other than the law library and 1.5 replies by the library.  Despite the popularity of Facebook amongst students, 15 law libraries had posted to their wall fewer than 1 time a month, 3 libraries had only one post and 2 libraries had none at all.   It was also clear from the review of the Facebook walls that those with the highest number of comments and likes were those who used their Facebook pages to run contests or promotions.     As with the blog, there is at least one factor that complicates the numbers.  It was not always possible to ascertain when someone who had                                                         65 Behrens, supra note 48, at 15. 

  11

commented or liked a post or created their own post on the “wall” was a member of library.  Therefore, these numbers may not reflect those who we might call patrons of the library.   

One of the best features of Facebook, as compared to a blog ,is the availability of applications that one can use within Facebook.  2 of the most common applicationss used by libraries are the library’s catalog, WorldCat, or both.  Another common application was Bookshare, which displayed the cover jackets of library owned books.  

   Currently, 41 academic law libraries have created a Twitter account, though at least four have yet to make their first post.  The earliest tweets were published by law libraries in 2008, though the majority of current Twitter accounts first posted in 2009.  On average law libraries have 251 followers of their Twitter page and have posted and average of 224 tweets. Of the tools mentioned above, this tool has been the hardest to calculate statistics as it is more difficult to track commenting and retweeting by others.  However, despite its relative newness to the Web 2.0 scene, there are no law libraries who are posting less than one tweet a month.  However, this may due to the large number of libraries that are feeding their blog and/or Facebook feeds into Twitter.  Librarian Survey Results   Overall, 92 people responded to the survey sent to the ALL‐SIS listserv, approximately 6% of the total available respondents.  The only demographic metric taken by this survey was number of years the respondent had been a law librarian.  35 of the 92 respondents had been a law librarian 0‐5 years, 19 had been a law librarian 5‐10 years, 11 had been a law librarian 10‐15 years, 8, 20‐25 years, 1, 30‐35 years and 1, 35‐40 years (Figure 1).    

In order to set a baseline for discussion going forward in the survey, respondents were first asked to select all of the tools that their library was using.  According to the survey, blogs were the most frequently used (64%), followed closely by RSS feeds (56%), Facebook (49%) and Twitter (35%).  16 % of respondents indicated that their library used no Web 2.0 tools and 14% (13 respondents) used some other Web 2.0 tool (Figure 2). Surprisingly, one respondent selected Myspace though my search of law library websites and tools revealed no academic law libraries on that site.          

  12

Figure 1. 

  

  Figure 2.   

Web 2.0 Tool  Frequency  Percentage Twitter  32  34.78% MySpace  1  1.09% RSS Feeds  52  56.52% YouTube  10  10.87% Facebook  45  48.91% Blog(s)  59  64.13% None  15  16.3% 

Other:     Camtasia  1  1.09% Delicious  1  1.09% Guides 

(Libguides/Campus Guides) 

2  2.18% 

Videocasts  1  1.09% Meebo  1  1.09% Wikis  2  2.18% 

QR Codes  1  1.09% Podcasts  1  1.09% 

Chat Reference  1  1.09% Flickr  1  1.09% 

   

  13

Respondents were then asked to select all the tools that they believed their library should be using.  Again blogs received the highest percentage of selection at 77%, closely followed by RSS Feeds (69%), Facebook (51%) and Twitter (40%) Of those who answered none to the previous question, blogs were their favorite choice (5), followed by RSS feeds (3), Facebook and YouTube (2 each), and then Twitter and None (1 each).  Respondents who selected “Other” to this question provided a wide variety of additional tools, the most popular of which included wikis (4 responses), Social Bookmarking/Delicious (3 responses), and podcasts (3 responses)66  However, it is difficult to draw a full conclusion of librarian preference from this set of data because some respondents indicated only tools their library did not use as response to this question, some only indicated the tools they currently used, and some indicated a combination of the two.      

Overall, respondents reported that their libraries’ patron groups included everyone from law students and faculty (both at 99%) to public patrons (76%) (Figure 3).  All other possible patron groups ranged between the two numbers, except for judges. Judges are the least likely to be considered a patron group of the respondent’s libraries (64%).  Interestingly though, when asked to select all the patron groups the respondent’s library intends to serve with its Web 2.0 tools the numbers for law students and law professors remained highly selected  (89% and 79 % respectively) but all other patron groups dropped sharply.     Figure 3.  

                                                            66 Other responses – FourSquare (1), Vodcasts (1), LibraryThing (1), Google Apps (1), Linked In (1), QR Codes (1), Integrated Content (1), Live Chat (1), Other (?) (1), IM (1), SMS (1), Chat Reference (1), “Most Useful to the Patron” (1), Flickr (1). 

  14

Respondents were then asked two questions relating to time spent on Web 2.0 tools by their libraries.  First, respondents were asked how many hours of staff time a week was spent updating their tools.  They were then asked if they thought the library should be spending more time, less time, or were spending the right amount.  The results are displayed below (Figure 4). 

 The amount of time the respondent had been a law librarian was 

checked against those who answered that the library should be spending less time to see if an indication of bias could be found. Specifically, did experience, or lack their of, lead to a preference for less time being used on these tools. 3 of the respondents had been law librarians for 5 years or less, 1 had been a law librarian for 10‐15 years, and the other years from 20‐25 years.  These figures do not appear to indicate a bias.  Figure 4. # of Hours/wk staff time 

Library should be spending more time 

Library is spending right amount of time 

Library should be spending less time 

0‐1  18 (20%)  8 (9%)  2 (2%) 1‐3  12 (13%)  17 (18%)  0 3‐5  5 (5%)  9 (10%)  1 (1%) 5‐10  3 (3%)  7 (8%)  2 (2%) 10‐15  1 (1%)  2 (2%)  0 15+  0  3 (3%)  0 

No response  2 (2%)  0  0       In order to receive some information about administrative support for  libraries’ use of Web 2.0 tools, respondents were asked whether someone in the library’s administration had made updating these tools a priority or whether they made sure updating occurred.  37 respondents answered “Yes” (41%), 53 (59%) answered “No.”     Respondents were asked to select all of the information that their library posts on Web 2.0 tools (Figure 5).  Only 83 of the respondents replied to this answer, but of those that did, unsurprisingly, “information about the library” was the top choice at 85%.  Only 12 indicated that their library posted “responses to questions or commentary posted on the tools.” 10 respondents selected “Other” in response to this question.  Of those, five of the responses indicated that their library did not use Web 2.0 tools and 2 responses indicated that that their use of tools did not fit the question (“just the feeds” and “chat ref, YouTube used in class”).  Of the remaining 2, “library displays and resources used” may have fit into either “Information about the library” or “Information about legal resources” if I had been more fully able to express the categories.  The final response indicated something truly outside the possible responses “promotional giveaways.” 

  15

 Figure 5. 

   One question was asked of respondents to ascertain how their 

patrons were informed of the existence of Web 2.0 tools (Figure 6).  Again, they were asked to select all pertinent choices.  The most popular way was by posting a link on the library’s homepage, 66 responses (80%).  Interestingly, when the library homepage was not one of the responses given, patrons were primarily notified via email or listserv (5 responses).67  Other responses included orientation presentations, links on other pages of the library’s website, law school class presentations, classes or other events held in library, signs or other media posted in the law school, and that the tools were “not currently promoted” (Figure 6.)  

Two questions were asked of librarians to find out if they were getting feedback or questions about the information they had posted on Web 2.0 tools and if general responses to the library’s use of the tools had been positive, negative, or neutral.   75 respondents indicated all of the ways in which they were receiving the comments or questions about information on the tools via.  Of these email was the most popular response (64%), followed by questions or comments on the tools (59%), In person (40%), phone (32%), and “Other” (13%). Of the “Other” responses, 5 responses indicated the tools were not being used, 4 responses indicated other methods (Meebo, Chat References, library survey), 3 responses indicated no questions or 

                                                        67 5 responses were a selection of “Other” indicating that the library did not have any Web 2.0 tools.  

  16

comments had yet been received and 1 did not understand the question.  Of 83 respondents, 45 indicated that patrons had responded neutrally to use of Web 2.0 tools, 37 (44%) indicated that their patrons had responded positively to their Web 2.0 tools, and 1 indicated that patrons had responded negatively to use of the tools.   

Finally, librarians were asked about their perceptions as to the benefits of the use of these tools.  72 (78%) believed that their current use of these tools benefited their patrons.  If they answered no to that question they were asked if they though use of these tools could benefit their patrons.  29 librarians responded (despite only 20 answering no on the questions above) of these only 4 did not believe use of these tools could benefit their patrons. Of 83 respondents, 53 believed that these tools could benefit their library in other ways.  Of those 53, 49 gave a brief description of how.  The appendix will include the complete list, however, generally librarians responded in one of several ways to this question.  First, they saw these tools as a way to raise the profile/rank/fundraising opportunities of the library.  Second, they see these tools as being able to help them keep informed of what other libraries are doing and vice‐versa.  Third, some of them just didn’t know because they hadn’t considered the issue before or because their use of the tools lacked direction. Some saw this as an opportunity to reach out to students in a way that was meaningful to them and increase their participation.  Another saw this as a way to “increase connectivity within the library.” A related response indicated it was a way to keep the library focused on keeping patrons informed.   Figure 6. 

  

  

  17

Law Student Survey Results 102 University of Washington Law School students (approximately 

13% of the student body) responded to a survey sent to them inquiring about their use of Web 2.0 tools.  Students were asked for their age and gender (Figures 7 & 8).  Of 99 respondents, 67% were female, 33% male.  Out of 101 responses, 8% were 18‐23, 73% were 24‐30, 12% were 30‐35, and 7% were 35‐45.   

 Figure 7.                 Figure 8. 

    

Students were first asked to identify all following websites or tools they used or checked at least twice a week.  Of 94 responding students, 85% indicated they used Facebook, 52% used blogs, 37% checked YouTube, 20% checked RSS feeds, and 16% checked Twitter.  0 indicated that they checked or used Myspace more than twice a week.   When students were then asked to identify their favorite website or tool from the same list, unsurprisingly Facebook was top answer with 59 out of 99 responding students selecting it.  YouTube and blogs both received 17 responses, and RSS feeds received 12.  Again MySpace received 0.     

In order to understand their motivations for using tools like those listed above, students were first asked to select all the reasons they used the above tools and then to select their primary reason.  When students could select all reasons “Entertainment” and “To Communicate with friends or family” received the highest number of selections – 82% of 100 students selected both of them (Figure 9).  However, when asked to select the primary reason the above tools were used, “To Communicate with Friends and Family” received 46 of 100 responses, “Entertainment” received 31, and “News/Current Awareness” received 20 (Figure 10).        

  18

 Figure 9. 

   Figure 10. 

    Because law libraries are an organization rather than a person and do not generally fit into either the category of communicating with family or 

  19

friends or entertainment, students were asked about whether they followed business or organizations through the above mentioned websites.  If they answered yes, they were asked to briefly describe why.68   39 of 100 respondents answered that they did use these tools for that purpose.  32 students then went on to provide brief answers.  The brief responses are  included in the Appendix, however, students indicated they generally followed organizations for the following reasons.  First, students chose to follow organizations they had a tie to (working/friendship‐based) in order to continue to follow the organization’s work. Second, students want to follow these in order to be kept aware of deals and prizes.  Third, at least one student said they simply appreciated what the tools can do for businesses and organizations.  Fourth, students followed organizations for professional development.  Finally, students enjoyed the convenience of having the information brought to them.      Students were asked a series of questions about academic law library use of these tools.  When asked to select all of the tools that students thought law libraries should use, 47 out of 96 (49%) believed that law libraries should use blogs, followed closely by Facebook at 44%, RSS feeds (26%), None (20%), Twitter (13%), YouTube (8%), Other (3%)(University or library’s own website, “don’t have the one’s libraries would use, I don’t know why a library would use YouTube,” Official library website), MySpace (1%) (Figure 11).  Those who selected “None” to this question were asked to briefly describe why they selected that answer.  Again, the answers will be provided in the Appendix to this paper. However, generally students thought the following about the law library’s use of these tools.  First, these tools represent entertainment or social networking to them, and they don’t see the library fitting in either of those realms.  Second, they see these websites as faddish, overused, or otherwise unprofessional and outside the scope of the library’s purpose.  Third, they want to keep their work/social life separate (as one law student put it “I would prefer that the law library stay as far away from my personal life as possible.  I spend enough time there already.”).  Fourth, there are privacy concerns.  Fifth, students either have a preference for email or would see this as an attempt to launch even more information at them that they do not want.        

                                                        68 The question as written asks students, “If you answered yes to Question 4…” It should have read Question 5. Two students addressed the issue in their reply, but as other answers appear to be for the correct question I will not completely throw out the responses. I will not, however, rely on student responses to this question in the Discussion section of this Part. 

  20

Figure 11. 

    

Finally, students were asked to select all of the information they believe law libraries should relay to patrons using those websites or tools.  These are the same classes of information as were presented to academic law librarians in the above survey.  The top three answers chosen by 87 students were: information about the library (89%), information about legal resources or materials (84%), information about law school classes or class‐related materials or events (62%) (Figure 12).  6 students (7%) responded “Other” to this question; 3 responses were “None,” one response indicated a preference for new acquisitions, and response said libraries should include “new accessions and status of checked out materials.” The final response in “Other” stated, “Put [library information, law school class information, information about legal resources and materials, and legal news and events] in one great website and you do not need to advertise on Friendster.”  Figure 12. 

  

  21

 Part IV - Discussion

   The research conducted for this article is subject to several limitations. First, the small sample sizes of the surveys limit the ability to draw firm conclusions about the results.  Furthermore, as the surveys were designed to touch briefly on a wide range of topics rather than to narrowly focus on any one particular issue, further study of individual issues (for instance administrative oversight of Web 2.0 tool updating and development) may result in clearer answers. In order to keep the survey to law students short and avoid possible confusion, Web 2.0 tools and principles were not described to law students, as was done in the focus study of undergraduates mentioned above. Doing so would have allowed for greater exploration of the websites that law students use and may have been able to generate a greater understanding of why law libraries would seek to use these tools.  Finally, the author was unable at this time to do a detailed study of the material actually being posted to law library websites.  Such a study would allow for stronger conclusions to be drawn about the directions that academic law libraries need to take in order to achieve greater participation and success with these tools.   

However, the literature review and the 3 studies do indicate some results. One of the more interesting findings of the law librarian survey was that several librarians did not know who their Web 2.0 tools were designed to reach or what the library’s goals with their use was, or at least what benefits they expected for their patrons and for their library.  When this result is combined with the surprisingly large number of law libraries that did not link to their Web 2.0 tools on the home page of their website it indicates that law libraries are not effectively marketing their Web 2.0 tools and thereby are not effectively marketing the law library. 

 Second, academic law libraries have not sweepingly embraced the 

Web 2.0 phenomenon, however, law libraries are moving toward a greater use of these tools.  Like the medical schools of the United Kingdom, when law libraries have employed these tools, they used them only in a supplementary manner; they have not replaced the law library webpage.  Second, academic law libraries use of Web 2.0 tools has not yet reached the full participatory potential of these tools.  Blogs and Twitter feeds especially retain a unidirectional nature of information flow.  The Facebook pages with highest commenting and “liking” are generally due to contests being held by the library rather than the generation of discussion. However, in the survey, law students specifically indicated that they believed blogs would be the best Web 2.0 tool for law libraries to use, followed closely by Facebook.  Therefore, law libraries need to continue to seek ways to interact with their patrons on these tools. 

 

  22

However, this does not necessarily mean that academic law libraries are failing to achieve principles of Library 2.0.  The survey of law students found that that law students, like their undergraduate counterparts, are hesitant to embrace the potential of academic law library use of Web 2.0 tools.  If user‐centered change is the guiding principle of Library 2.0, then we should be willing to recognize that making sweeping changes with these tools may be too radical for our users at the moment.  However, their hesitancy does not mean though that we should cease to make progress.  As noted in Part II Library 2.0 does not just mean implementing technology.  Instead it means listening to our users  

  

Conclusion  Introducing technology because it is simply new is not effective 

anywhere.  Neither is ignoring useful technology because of a name we dislike a name or a dislike of new technology.  Academic law libraries should continue to move toward Library 2.0 principles, keeping an eye on both our users desires and their actual behavior to motivate the adoption of new technology in our libraries.                             

  23

Appendix  

  Academic Law Librarians Web 2.0 Tools survey Page 1 of 1  

Study of Academic Law Libraries Use of Web 2.0 Tools You are being invited to participate in a research study about academic law libraries’ use of Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and Twitter. This study is being conducted by Brittany Kolonay, a M.L.I.S. candidate in the Law Librarianship Program from the iSchool at the University of Washington. This study is being conducted as part of a graduate student project. There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study. There are no costs to you for participating in the study. The information you provide will be used to better understand how academic law libraries can use Web 2.0 tools. The survey will take about 25 minutes to complete. The information collected may not benefit you directly, but the information learned in this study should provide more general benefits. This survey is administered through the WebQ, a University of Washington Catalyst Web Tool. Your answers will be anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether or not you participated in the study. Do not write your name or any other personally identifying information in any part of the survey. Should the data be published, no individual information will be disclosed. Your participation in this study is voluntary. By completing and submitting this survey you are voluntarily agreeing to participate. You are free to decline to answer any question you do not wish to answer for any reason. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Brittany Kolonay at bneber@u.washington.edu or 502-599-7487.    Question 1. Please select all of the following Web 2.0 tools your library uses:   

Myspace  Facebook  YouTube  Twitter  RSS Feeds  Blog(s)  None 

Other:    Question 2. Please select all of the Web 2.0 tools that, in your opinion, your library should use:   

None 

  24

Twitter  RSS Feeds  YouTube  Facebook  Blog(s)  Myspace 

Other:    Question 3. Please select all of the patron groups that your library serves:   

Law Professors or Faculty  Judges  University staff  University Students  Law school staff  University Professors or Faculty Public  Lawyers  Law Students 

 Question 4. Please select all of the patron groups that your library intends to serve with its Web 2.0 tools:   

Public  Law Professors or Faculty  Judges  Lawyers  University Professors or Faculty University Staff  I don't know  Law Students  University Students 

 Question 5. How many people update your library's Web 2.0 tools?   

1  2  3 

  25

4 or more Everyone No one 

 Question 6. Does someone in your library's administration make sure that updating of Web 2.0 tools occurs or have they made use of Web 2.0 tools a priority?   

Yes No 

 Question 7. Approximately how many hours of staff time are spent updating information on the tools a week?   

0‐1  1‐3  3‐5  5‐10  10‐15  More than 15

 Question 8. Which of the following do you believe is true?   

My library should be spending more time on these tools.  My library should be spending less time on these tools.  My library is spending the right amount of time on these tools. 

 Question 9. Please select all of the following types of information your library posts on its Web 2.0 tools:   

Information about the library (hours, events in the library, library staff achievements, etc.)  Information about law school classes or class‐related materials or events Information about the law school or law school faculty (events, awards, faculty papers, etc.)  Information about the University (events, awards, etc.)  Information about legal resources or materials (training, new resources or materials, CLE, etc.)  Information about non‐legal resources or materials  Legal news and events 

  26

Other news and events  Responses to questions or commentary posted on the tools 

Other:     Question 10. Please select all of the ways your patrons are informed of the library's Web 2.0 tools.   

Links on the library's homepage  Links on other pages of the library's website  Law school class presentations  Orientation presentations  Classes or other events held in the library  Emails or listservs  Signs or other media posted in the law school 

Other:    Question 11. Please select all of the ways your library recieves questions or comments about information posted through your Web 2.0 tools:   

Questions or comments are posted on the tools  In person  Via the phone  Via email 

Other:    Question 12. Do you believe your library's patrons have responded positively, negatively or neutrally to the library's Web 2.0 tools?   

Positively  Negatively Neutrally 

 Question 13. Do you believe your library's current use of these tools benefits your patrons?   

   

  27

Question 14. If no, do you believe use of these tools could benefit your patrons?   

Yes No 

 Question 15. Do you believe these tools could benefit your library in other ways?   

Yes No 

 Question 16. If you answered yes to the above question, please describe how.   

   Question 17. How long have you been a law librarian?   

0‐5 years  5‐10 years  10‐15 years 15‐20 years 20‐25 years 25‐30 years 30‐35 years 35‐40 years 40‐45 years 45‐50 years 50+ years

   Law Librarian Brief Description Answers  

If you answered yes to the above question, please describe how.

Using Web 2.0 gives us a higher public profile, increasing our expose to the legal community and enhancing the reputation of the Library and, ultimately, the Law School itself. Since reputation is a major part of the USN&WR rankings schema our use of Web 2.0 tools may actually raise our ranking. Other libraries see what we are doing raise profile/usefulness of library, help fend off budget cuts

  28

More awareness of library resources, legal tools By sharing information how students want to receive it -- most of them use FB and never read email Increase profile of library as a go-to place for information We have just started Facebook/blog so need are still conosidering Better visibility If we use the tools more effectively and consistently, and market the tools to patrons, we might provide additional information portals for our intended audience. more awareness of library services & hours We don't have clearly defined objectives so I'm not sure why we're doing this except because we can. Web 2.0 tools serve as a great public relations/marketing tool more teaching/training opportunities Marketing of resources and services, which, up until now, we haven't done a very good job of doing. p.r. Service to the community, projection of the library keep colleagues at other libraries informed Increased responsiveness to patrons' needs. Increased connectivity within the library. marketing reference and research materials Keep us focused on keeping patrons informed. Demonstrating a willingness and ability to make effective use of emerging technology could help communicate both a seriousnesss of purpose and freshness of spirit and in so doing help with recruitment of quality law students and faculty, an expanded patron base generally, and potentially financial supporters. General perception that we are using new technologies fundraising, staff visibility Better public relations Recognition by applying students ??? informs other librarians of what is going on in our library In advertising the law library, & in showing patrons that libraries use the same communication tools they use which helps associate a place for law libraries in the 21 Century National reputation any web 2.0 would be helpful We could make patrons aware of more resources not sure, need to explore this idea increase student participation in library resources not sure yet Making it more visible in the law school and the university when it comes time for budgeting, etc. to increase contact with patron base Improve communication between the library and its customers, build relationships between the library and its customers

  29

PR We could have internal 2.0 tools Using the tools more. better marketing of library services Twitter and blogs help us keep informed about what other libraries are doing. We should be able to provide much more info and services to our patrons via 2.0 tools. However we are constrained by our IT and Communications department from using these tools. Students rarely use the catalog and don't seem to be aware of the resources we offer. Students check Facebook all day. Items we place to post, new books/resources, etc, will emphasize the importance of the library (I hope). there is currently not enough awareness of our 2.0 tools for them to be as useful as they could be. Publicity tendency here is to set things up, but not keep tools updated exposure; reaching those who rely on these tools All about getting info out to our patrons where they are in a format they can use. We have a lot to share - these tools help us do so.   

Law Student Web 2.0 survey Page 1 of 1  

Study of Law Students Use of Web 2.0 Tools You are being invited to participate in a research study about law students' use of Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and Twitter, especially with regards to organizations and academic law libraries. This study is being conducted by Brittany Kolonay, a M.L.I.S. candidate in the Law Librarianship Program from the iSchool at the University of Washington. This study is being conducted as part of a graduate student project. There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study. There are no costs to you for participating in the study. The information you provide will be used to better understand how academic law libraries can use Web 2.0 tools. The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. The information collected may not benefit you directly, but the information learned in this study should provide more general benefits. This survey is administered through the WebQ, a University of Washington Catalyst Web Tool. Your answers will be anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether or not you participated in the study. Do not write your name or any other personally identifiable information in any part of the survey. Should the data be published, no individual information will be disclosed. Your participation in this study is voluntary. By completing and submitting this survey you are voluntarily agreeing to participate. You are free to decline to answer any question you do not wish to answer for any reason. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Brittany Kolonay at bneber@u.washington.edu or 502-599-7487.    

  30

Question 1. Please select all of the following tools or websites you use or check at least 2 times a week:   

Twitter  Facebook YouTube  Blogs  RSS feeds MySpace 

 Question 2. Please select which of the following is your favorite website or tool:   

Facebook  Twitter  YouTube  Myspace  Blogs  RSS Feeds 

 Question 3. Please select all of the following reasons you use the above websites or tools:   

Entertainment  News/Current Awareness  School‐related activities or assignments  Work‐related activities or assignments  To communicate with friends or family  To support or follow businesses or organizations  To participate in promotions or win prizes 

Other:    Question 4. Which of the following reasons is the primary reason you use the above tools or websites:   

Entertainment  News/Current Awareness  School‐related activities or assignments  Work‐related activities or assignments 

  31

To communicate with friends or family  To support or follow businesses or organizationsTo participate in promotions or win prizes 

 Question 5. Many organizations and businesses use the above websites or tools to relay information to consumers.  Do you subscribe to or follow organizations or businesses through the above websites or tools?   

Yes No 

 Question 6. If you answered yes to Question 4 please briefly describe why.   

   Question 7. Academic law libraries have begun to use many of the above websites or tools to relay information to patrons.  Please select all of the following you think law libraries should use:   

Facebook  Twitter  Blog  RSS Feed  MySpace  YouTube  None 

Other:    Question 8. If you selected none above, please briefly describe why do you think law libraries shouldn't use these websites or tools?   

   Question 9. Please select all of the the following types of information you think that libraries should relay to patrons using the above websites or tools:   

Information about the Library (hours, events in the library, library staff 

  32

achievements, etc.)  Information about law school classes or class‐related materials or events Information about the law school or law school faculty (events, awards, faculty papers, etc.)  Information about the University (events, awards, etc.)  Information about legal resources or materials (training, new resources or materials, CLE, etc.)  Legal news and events  Other news and events 

Other:     Question 10. Please select your age:   

18‐23 24‐30 30‐35 35‐45 45+ 

 Question 11. Please select your gender:   

Male  Female

  Law student Survey Brief Description Answers If you answered yes to Question 4 please briefly describe why. I have a marketing background and I appreciate the value that these tools can have for not only the business but also the consumer. because once it a while they offer something that interests me I think you mean question 5? I am a "fan" of one nonprofit, which I used to work for, and I enjoy seeing their updates about the continued great work they are doing. I am also a "fan" of my friend's pottery business, and I enjoy seeing her updates about progress on their new kiln etc. Only follow some local businesses that I support. Also news corporations on twitter. to support friends who work for the organizations Most have giveaways from time to time. Non-profits tell me about upcoming events and opportunities I particularly follow nonprofit organizations to keep abreast of what they are doing and to read their commentary on current events that are important to me. I'll assume you meant "Question 5": I go where I know there will be quality writing on topics that I might not have otherwise heard about.

  33

information on new products Because they don't have their own website. Usually just because they've friend requested me. to stay current on company deals or events I follow organizations that are professionally of interest to me (such as Immigration Equality and the American Immigration Lawyers Association) Convenience To receive info from community organizations. It was not a yes or no question. They have good prizes and offers. Keeping up to date on news/business/blogs etc is best done via RSS. its free Many businesses provide special promotions, discounts, etc. through Facebook; Facebook also makes it easy to keep up with what's going on, particularly at bars and restaurants (happy hours, specials, etc.) To find out about specials or sales This should have been "if you answered yes to question 5" - not question 4. More efficient. I like to keep as up to date as possible. It's information customized to my interests. (yes to question 5?) so the news comes to me, I don't have to go find it. To follow non-profits and politicians I support Convenience Convenience. there are organizations of interest that I don't have time to follow but if they can send out RSS feed updates then it makes following their activities easy. The blogs I visit are the blog of very small non-profits If you selected none above, please briefly describe why do you think law libraries shouldn't use these websites to me, they are social tools it eencourages their use and they are generally overused This social networking business is fadish, invasive, unprofessional; it may not go away, but it has been taken way too far. I would prefer that the law library stay as far away from my personal life as possible. I spend enough of my free time there already. they're not for serious things. it's like using wikipedia as a reference i only use the above websites or tools to keep in touch with friends. I primarily use the library for research resources and study space. I would not use any of these social networking mediums for eitehr of these purposes. personal preference, but i use those website for recreation/personal communications; dont' want business, school, etc. involved Usage of those websites is increasing, but it isn't for everyone. It's a danger to have information spread out on sites that all don't or can't access. I don't see the need. Perhaps sending out weekly emails with updates on what is going on is fine, but does the library really need to twitter? no. does anyone really need to twitter for that matter?

  34

Facebook is becoming a common networking device and accepted in the professional community Libraries are supposed to be there for your use when you need them. Not to be in your face, or to advertise, in my opinion. I check e-mail far more often. It is also odd to introduce a "middleman" when you already have a direct link to me. I never look at them really. I prefer e-mails. I don't see the benefit. Because I use those tools as entertainment away from law school. It seems like an attempt to be "hip" or "current", but law libraries wouldn't meet the purpose for which I use these tools. I use them for social networking. I prefer my educational opportunities to come through a more formal channel. Unnecessary it depends on what info are you intending to communicate 1) Rather than dilute focus across half a dozen trendy channels you could focus on perfecting an old-fashioned web site; 2) law students stagger under a blizzard of emails from every department as it is. Unnecessary. I don't think that many people would follow academic law libraries on these sites.