twitter use in libraries: an exploratory analysis

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 31 July 2014, At: 13:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Web LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

Twitter Use in Libraries: An ExploratoryAnalysisNoa Aharony aa Department of Information Science , Bar-Ilan University , RamatGan, IsraelPublished online: 03 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Noa Aharony (2010) Twitter Use in Libraries: An Exploratory Analysis, Journal ofWeb Librarianship, 4:4, 333-350, DOI: 10.1080/19322909.2010.487766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2010.487766

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19322909.2010.487766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2010.487766

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Web Librarianship, 4:333–350, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1932-2909 print / 1932-2917 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19322909.2010.487766

Twitter Use in Libraries:An Exploratory Analysis

NOA AHARONYDepartment of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Microblogging is a relatively new phenomenon in online socialnetworking that has become increasingly prevalent in the last fewyears. This study explores the use of Twitter in public and aca-demic libraries to understand microblogging patterns. Analysis ofthe tweets was conducted in two phases: (1) statistical descrip-tive analysis and (2) content analysis. The research findings showthere are some differences between public and academic libraries,including the number of tweets, linguistic differences, and con-tent. However, it seems that using Twitter in libraries enables bothkinds of libraries to broadcast and share information about theiractivities, opinions, status, and professional interests. The researchfindings are relevant for librarians and information scientists whowish to better understand and explore the phenomenon of librarytweets.

KEYWORDS Twitter, public libraries, academic libraries, mi-croblogging, social networking, content analysis, descriptive anal-ysis

Microblogging, a recent phenomenon in the online social networks, hasbecome widespread in the last few years. A social network, according to thestandard definition, embodies the idea of people with whom one shares asocial relationship (Huberman, Romero, and Wu 2008). Facebook, LinkedIn,and MySpace are some examples of online social networks that containmillions of members following the lives of their friends, acquaintances, andfamilies.

Received 11 January 2010; accepted 12 February 2010.Address correspondence to Noa Aharony, Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan

University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

334 N. Aharony

Microblogging is the latest version of blogging, where messages (calledtweets) are posted instantly and are usually no longer than 140 characters(Reinhardt et al. 2009). Microblogging is a new form of communication (Zhaoand Rosson 2009); it is about posting updates, ideas, or quick notifications.Paul McFedries (2007) asserted that the goal of microblogging is to establishand enhance one’s cyberspace presence. Microblogging is a platform whereusers can describe their current status in short posts distributed by instantmessages, mobile phones, e-mail, or the Web (Java et al. 2007).

Comparing the phenomenon of Weblogs to that of microblogging showsregular Weblogs are mainly used for writing short essays, knowledge shar-ing, and discourse, while microblogging is mainly used for fast exchanges ofthoughts, ideas, and information sharing. Thus, microblogs provide a muchmore flexible platform for communication (Ebner and Schiefner 2008). In ad-dition, several studies assert that in contrast to blogs, microblogging enablesa faster channel of communication, and its use of short posts lowers users’requirement of time and thought to content generation. Moreover, bloggersusually update their blogs every few days, while microbloggers may postseveral updates in a single day (Java et al. 2007).

Various studies have recently researched Twitter. Several delved into theunique phenomenon of Twitter. For example, Akshay Java, Xiaodan Song,Tim Finin, and Belle Tseng (2007) attempted to understand the users’ inten-tions and community structure in Twitter. They presented a brief taxonomyof users’ intentions:

1. Daily chatter: the largest and most common use of Twitter, which includestweets about daily routine and people’s current activities.

2. Conversations: because there is no direct way to comment or reply to theirfriends’ posts, users began using the @ symbol followed by a usernamefor replies, and thus, conversations were established.

3. Sharing information: researchers found that about 13 percent of all theposts contain some URL within.

4. Reporting news: many users report news or comments about currentevents on Twitter.

Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero, and Wu Fang (2009) studiedthe social interactions within Twitter, and Edward Mischaud (2007) investi-gated the extent to which users of Twitter respond to the question “Whatare you doing?”

Other studies tried to concentrate on Twitter’s impact on other issues.For example, Ruthann Weaver Lariscya, and colleagues (2009) explored therole of online social media (e.g., YouTube and Twitter) in journalists’ work.Wolfgang Reinhardt, Martin Ebner, Gunter Beham, and Christina Costa (2009)examined how Twitter can be used during conferences, and Dejin Zhao andMary Beth Rosson (2009) wanted to understand why people use Twitter at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

Twitter Use in Libraries: An Exploratory Analysis 335

work. They found that people use Twitter for a variety of social purposes,such as keeping in touch with friends and colleagues, raising visibility toone’s social networks, gathering useful personal and professional informa-tion, seeking help and/or opinions, and releasing emotional stress.

Twitter, the most popular microblogging service, was launched on July13, 2006 (Jansen and Zhang 2009), and has seen much growth since itslaunch (Bausch and McGiboney 2008; Java et al. 2007). According to thePew Internet Report (February 2009), as of December 2008, 11 percent ofonline American adults used Twitter or a similar service, allowing them toshare updates about themselves or to see updates of others. A few weeksearlier, in November 2008, only 9 percent of Internet users used Twitter orupdated their status online, and in May 2008, only 6 percent of Internet usersresponded “Yes” to a quite similar question. Furthermore, according to thePew Internet Report (February 2009), the median age of a Twitter user is31.

The next section presents Twitter in detail and describes its main char-acteristics and different usages.

TWITTER

Twitter’s short posts, called tweets, focus on small things happening in users’daily lives and work activities, thus enabling users to update their daily lifeactivities and share them with friends, families, and co-workers (McFedries2007). Each user has a Twitter page where all his or her updates are ag-gregated into a single list. As posted, the brief message cannot be edited,and only the author can delete it. The tweets are not only presented onthe user’s page but can be delivered to followers by instant messaging (IM),short message service (SMS), really simple syndication (RSS), e-mail, or othersocial networking platforms.

On Twitter, a “user” is a person or a system that posts a tweet or amessage on Twitter and is usually identified by a unique user name. Whenthe user chooses to “follow” another user, a friend–follower relationship isestablished. In other words, if user A agrees to receive all tweets from userB, then B is considered a friend of A. Conversely, when A added B as afriend, from B’s point of view, A becomes a follower of B. All tweets postedby B are now received by A, while the converse need not be true for A, as Amight not be a friend of B. This analysis shows that there is an asymmetricalrelationship between friends and followers among Twitter users. In addition,Twitter imposes a limit of 2,000 friends per user, but there is no limit to thenumber of followers a user can have.

Twitter also has its own abbreviations, such as RT (retweet), whichmeans that a past tweet is being sent once again by a user, and DM, whichis a direct message from one user to another. Tweets are generally directed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

336 N. Aharony

toward a general audience, but if the user wants to direct his tweet toanother user or send it as a response to another earlier tweet, he appliesthe @ symbol to the intended user name. Another interesting characteristic isthe hash symbol (#), which is referred to as a hashtag. When a user assignsa hashtag in a tweet—for example, #twitter—he or she means the tweet isrelated to a certain topic (Sankaranarayanan et al. 2009).

The use of Twitter is broad and encompasses various scopes. GregNotess (2008) claims that reports from conferences, evaluations of software,and requests for help all occur on Twitter. Java and colleagues (2007) foundpeople use microblogging to talk about their daily activities and to seekor share information. Focusing on daily activities, Gabriela Grosseck andCarmen Holotescu (2008) asserted that people use Twitter to communicate;to ask questions; to ask for directions, support, and advice; and to validateopen-ended interpretations of ideas by discussing these with the others.

Balachander Krishnamurthy, Phillipa Gill, and Martin Arlitt (2008) re-ported how Twitter is used in large-scale fire emergencies and in live trafficupdates to track community delays. In the political arena, we saw Americanpresidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama integrating Twitterin their campaigns for the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2008.Both used the platform to keep their Twitter followers abreast of their up-coming appearances (Diaz 2007). Twitter is also used by news organizations,such as the BBC and CNN, to share breaking stories. In the business arena,different corporations, such as Banco Santander and JetBlue Airways, useTwitter to promote their services. Bernard J. Jansen and Mimi Zhang (2009)suggested that corporations that are interested in customer behavior and ser-vice and in consumer opinions use Twitter. Furthermore, Twitter is also usedby businesses and organizations to disseminate information to stakeholders.Twitter is considered an educational tool (Ebner 2009; Hend 2008; Grosseckand Holotescu 2008; Thames 2009) and an important channel for libraries(Milstein 2009).

PROBLEM STATEMENT

As microblogging becomes widespread in our information world, and moreand more people use it for various purposes and reasons, it is interesting toexamine this phenomenon in different kinds of libraries. The current studyexplores the use of Twitter in public and academic libraries. Although thereare a few studies focusing on Twitter and its impact on different sectors inour society, no academic research has so far been conducted focusing on itsuse in libraries. The aim of this study is to describe and classify a sample ofthe tweets from public and academic libraries in America with the purposeof understanding microblogging patterns.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


The three primary research questions are:

1. Do public libraries produce more or less tweets than academic libraries?2. Is there a linguistic difference between tweets produced by public libraries

and those produced by academic libraries?3. Is the content of the tweets produced by public libraries different from

that of tweets produced by academic libraries?

RESEARCH DESIGN

This article analyzes tweets produced by 30 libraries between August andOctober 2009. The tweets were examined and the analysis was conductedin two phases: (1) statistical descriptive analysis and (2) content analysis.For both phases, all of the tweets that appeared during the examined periodwere scrutinized.

DATA COLLECTION

The first phase of the investigation involved choosing libraries using Twitterto be included in the sample. Those libraries were located by browsingthe term “twitter” in “Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki” (http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=Twitter). After reviewing 130 libraries that useTwitter, fifteen public libraries and fifteen academic libraries were selected(see Table 1) based on the following criteria:

1. The library’s Twitter account had to be active during the entire examina-tion period (August–October 2009).

2. Only American libraries were included in the sample.3. Libraries with a small number of tweets (20 or less) were excluded from

the sample.

DATA ANALYSIS

The second phase of the investigation was a statistical descriptive analysis,which is used in order to describe the basic features of the data in a study.It provides a simple summary about the sample and the measures. This kindof analysis simply describes what the data shows. In many studies, it is afirst step, preceding more complex inferential analysis.

The third phase was a content analysis, which was divided into twothemes and created a categorization of the tweets’ language and content. Asa method, content analysis was initially applied to examine newspapers or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

TA

BLE

1B

reak

dow

nofTw

eets

Acc

ord

ing

toThei

rLi

bra

ries T

ota

lnum

ber

Tota

lnum

ber

Aca

dem

iclib

raries

oftw

eets

Public

libra

ries

oftw

eets

1.B

ingh

amto

nU

niv

ersi

tyLi

bra

ries

811.

Ala

ska

Stat

eLi

bra

ry63

2.La

wre

nce

Tec

hnolo

gica

lU

niv

ersi

tyLi

bra

ry11

22.

Alle

ghen

yCounty

Libra

ries

613.

LTU

Lib

310

3.Cita

Den

nis

Hubbel

lB

ranch

Libra

ry97

4.M

cNee

seSt

ate

Univ

ersi

tyLi

bra

ry’s

Gove

rnm

entD

ocu

men

tsD

epar

tmen

t78

4.A

rlin

gton

Hei

ghts

Mem

orial

Libra

ry54

5.M

ichig

anSt

ate

Univ

ersi

tyLi

bra

ries

895.

Birm

ingh

amPublic

Libra

ry44

26.

Pen

nSt

ate

Univ

ersi

tyLi

bra

ries

626.

Cap

italA

rea

Dis

tric

tLi

bra

ry12

07.

Par

kLi

bra

ry,Sc

hoolofJo

urn

alis

man

dM

ass

Com

munic

atio

n40

17.

Lest

erPublic

Libra

ry90

8.U

CB

erke

ley

Doe/

Moffi

ttTec

hnolo

gyTra

inin

g58

8.Eas

tB

aton

Rouge

Par

ish

Libra

ry30

99.

Univ

ersi

tyat

Buffal

oLi

bra

ries

659.

Pro

viden

cePublic

Libra

ry98

10.M

iam

iD

ade

Colle

geK

endal

lCam

pus

Libra

ry66

10.Sa

nta

FePublic

Libra

ry67

11.U

niv

ersi

tyofTex

asH

ealth

Scie

nce

Cen

ter

San

Anto

nio

120

11.W

ashin

gton-C

ente

rvill

ePublic

Libra

ry25

0

12.W

ashin

gton

Stat

eU

niv

ersi

tyLi

bra

ries

5912

.Cle

vela

nd

Public

Libra

ry25

13.Y

ale

Scie

nce

Libra

ries

143

13.H

enry

Country

Libra

ry43

14.D

uke

Univ

ersi

tyRef

eren

ceD

epar

tmen

t65

14.B

rist

olPublic

Libra

ry11

515

.Coat

esLi

bra

ry,Trinity

Univ

ersi

ty10

715

.G

rand

Rap

ids

Public

Libra

ry26

9

Tota

lnum

ber

oftw

eets

1,81

22,

103

Ave

rage

num

ber

oftw

eets

for

thre

em

onth

s12

1.06

140.

2A

vera

genum

ber

oftw

eets

for

one

month

40.3

546

.67

Ave

rage

num

ber

oftw

eets

for

one

day

1.34

1.55

338

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


other written documents to understand their content and to make inferencesfrom the data about their context (Krippendorff 1980). Content analysis isbased on grounded theory, which is inductively derived from the study ofthe phenomenon it represents. One does not begin with a theory and thenprove it; rather, one begins with an area of study, and what is relevant to thatarea is allowed to emerge (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Categories and theoriesare built from the data extracted using the constant comparative method, bywhich predefined units of information (i.e., words, phrases, sentences, orwhole paragraphs) are compared until categories are built and saturated(Miles and Huberman 1994). This method has already been used in previousstudies (Aharony 2009; Aharony and Bronstein 2008).

In the present study, there were no a priori assumptions regarding themajor issues presented in the tweets. Therefore, an inductive/clustering ap-proach was used, devising new categories whenever a main topic did notmatch any previous category. After creating six major categories (within pub-lic libraries) and five major categories (within academic libraries), new sub-categories were generated according to the tweets’ contents. Each categorywas assessed by a single classifier, then cross-checked and organized intobroader categories by a second classifier. The final percentage of agreementfor all coding decisions was 91 percent, suggesting the coding classificationused was reliable. For the tweets’ language categorization, the coder dividedthe tweets between two categories: formal and informal language. For bothcategorizations, 50 tweets from each library were chosen (the first seventeentweets, seventeen tweets that appeared in the middle, and the last sixteentweets). Two public libraries provided fewer than 50 tweets (Cleveland Pub-lic Library: 25, Henry Country Library: 43).

RESULTS

The first part of the findings addresses the number of tweets assigned bythe libraries. Table 1 presents the breakdown of tweets according to theirlibraries during August–October 2009. (A more detailed table, which includesthe breakdown by month, appears in Appendix A.)

Table 1 shows the total number of tweets in public libraries (2,103)was larger than the total number of tweets in academic libraries (1,812).The average number of tweets for three months was 140 per public library,while the average number of tweets for three months was 121 in academiclibraries. Furthermore, the average number of tweets for one month in publiclibraries was 46; in academic libraries, it was 40.

Tweets’ language was classified as formal or informal and percentagesfor both public and academic libraries are presented in Table 2. Examplesof informal and formal language are given in Table 3. (Tweets’ language

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

340 N. Aharony

TABLE 2 Tweets’ Classification into Formal and Informal Language

Academic libraries Public libraries

Percentages of Percentages of Percentages of Percentages offormal language informal language formal language informal language

Library (%) (%) Library (%) (%)

1. 94 6 1. 68 322. 88 12 2. 30 703. 72 28 3. 44 564. 72 28 4. 54 465. 86 14 5. 52 486. 94 6 6. 46 547. 84 16 7. 76 248. 70 30 8. 28 729. 74 26 9. 62 38

10. 60 40 10. 88 1211. 40 60 11. 36 6412. 70 30 12. 86 1413. 56 44 13. 66 3414. 56 44 14. 50 5015. 88 12 15. 66 34

was considered to be formal or informal only if the percentages of formal orinformal language were higher than 70.)

Findings show most of the tweets posted by academic libraries usedformal language (11 of 15). In contrast, only three public libraries used formallanguage. Moreover, two public libraries’ tweets used informal language,while academic libraries did not use informal language at all.

The second part of the findings refers to the content of the tweets.The first part of the content analysis focused on public libraries. The totalnumber of tweets examined for this purpose was 718. About 50 percent of thetweets were associated with the library in general and were divided into sub-categories: library events (40 percent), book recommendations (27 percent),the library collection (12 percent), library services (9 percent), references

TABLE 3 Examples of Formal and Informal Language

Examples of formal language include:• The 2009 Annual Book Sale continues this weekend http://bit.ly/4BOHqr 9:17 AM Oct

21st• President Obama proclaims October as National Information Literacy Awareness Month

http://bit.ly/KBgtM 10:42 AM Oct 2nd.Examples of informal language include:

• A state budget - hooray! Please, please CALL your legislator to make sure libraryfunding is not drastically cut. 10:20 AM Sep 22nd from web.

• Think you know what a librarian is like? Hmmm . . . http://tinyurl.com/mubmd5 - froma larger overview of the future of libraries on cnn.com 6:45 AM Sep 8th from web.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


TABLE 4 Examples of Public Library Tweets in the “Library in General” Category, by Sub-Category

Library events:• Check out these fun Halloween events happening today at CLP branches!

http://bit.ly/hm5Bu 6:11 AM Oct 29th from webBook recommendations:

• Top Titles for August 2009: Adult Fiction Captain’s. http://bit.ly/7ruGi 2:07 PM Sep 14thfrom twitterfeed

Library collection:• SearchSavvy: iClick, iListen!: Our Digital Collection now offers downloadable e-books

and e-audios. . . http://bit.ly/hWEtI 1:14 PM Aug 9th from twitterfeedLibrary services:

• The catalog is down! Our catalog is unavailable to users outside of the library buildingdue to a service outage. http://bit.ly/2h7LX0 7:25 AM Oct 8th from twitterfeed

References:• SearchSavvy: Best Free Reference Web Sites: Here is an index of the Web sites included

in the. http://bit.ly/AcHoB 1:24 PM Oct 22nd from twitterfeedLibrary in general:

• RT: @zappos According to Guinness Book of World Records, the book most often stolenfrom libraries is the Guinness Book of World Records. 1:56 PM Aug 10th from web

(recommendations; 7 percent), and the library in general (6 percent). Table 4shows examples for each sub-category.

Tweets in the next category, “information about,” mentioned blogs, lec-tures, events, classes, movies, shows, contests, conferences, exhibitions, tests,tours, grants, music, comics, sales, museums, and games and accounted for33 percent of public library tweets. The “information about” category wasdivided into the following sub-categories: blogs (33 percent), lectures (22percent), different events (10 percent), classes (9 percent), and movies (5percent). Further sub-categories with percentages lower than 5 percent ap-pear in Appendix B. Table 5 provides examples for each sub-category.

The other two categories of public library tweets were general recom-mendations, such as “Wondering what the G20 is all about? Check out theirwebsite to learn more about it! http://bit.ly/GAFwj 9:40 AM Sep 23rd fromweb,” and technology, such as “RT @AtYourLibrary How to Use Twitter toHelp Your Job Hunt http://bit.ly/WbP0A First step—the public library! 10:23AM Sep 15th from web.”

The next section of the content analysis dealt with academic libraries.The total number of tweets examined for this purpose was 750. Thirty-sevenpercent of the tweets were associated with the library and were dividedinto the following sub-categories: the library collection (28 percent), libraryservices (24 percent), library events (18 percent), the library in general (12percent), book recommendations (10 percent), and references (recommen-dations; 9 percent). Table 6 provides examples for each sub-category.

The second category of academic library tweets, “information about,” ac-counted for 22.4 percent of tweets. The “information about” category was di-vided into the following sub-categories: lectures (22 percent), classes/courses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

342 N. Aharony

TABLE 5 Examples of Public Library Tweets in the “Information About” Category, by Sub-Category

Blogs:• New blog post: Tales of sisters and wives and husbands and lovers.

http://www.grpl.org/blog/?p. . . 9:08 AM Sep 21st from Twitter ToolsLectures:

• Wrapping up this lecture “The Caribbean in the Political Art of Cartoons, 1898”.Interesting. 4:21 PM Aug 26th from web

Different events:• Support Adult Literacy—A Family Friendly Evening of Live Music & Salsa Dancing (Sun,

Oct 25): 5:00 PM-8:00 PM. http://bit.ly/3FYw5T 3:05 PM Oct 21st from twitterfeedClasses:

• Free Genealogy Classes at 2:30 PM:Movies:

• Afterschool Movies: Come enjoy a relaxing afternoon of movies!Loc..Miscellaneous tweets, general information tweets, general recommendations tweets, andtechnology tweets made up the remainder with 4.39%, 4.20 %, 3.78% and 2.81%respectively.

The miscellaneous tweets category includes sub-categories such as: tips, thanks,congratulations, personal, health, general sayings and local news. Following areexamples for each sub-category.

Tips:• PC Tips & Tricks at 9:30 AM: A Windows class focusing on shortcuts.

Thanks:• MyCityLibrary Thanks for the parade of Wiki-hits!

Congratulations:• WCPLTeens: YouTube Commercial Winners: Congratulations to the winners of the

YouTube Library Commerci.. http://bit.ly/A8QpU 11:24 AM Oct 22nd from twitterfeedPersonal:

• Why we love this area! RT @HolidayInnBVA Autumn in Bristol caught on film by BenCollins. Amazing pics! http://bit.ly/2vHSGP 6:11 AM Oct 29th from web

Health:• H1N1 Vaccine Information: Wondering when and where the H1N1 vaccine will be

available? The Library’s comm.. http://bit.ly/x4xrn 1:32 PM Oct 28th from twitterfeedGeneral sayings:

• This little piece of gum is a three-course dinner.” Willy Wonka: Chocolate is sweet butfree chocolate is sweeter. http://bit.ly/7911u 6:40 AM Sep 30th from twitterfeed

Local news:• RT @LoriCogan: Happy about this! Northeast Tennessee tourism growth outpaces other

state regions. http://ow.ly/vynf 1:27 PM Oct 22nd from web The next sub-category isthat of general information. An example for this sub-category appears below:

• Mental Health Awareness Week - http://www.flickr.com/photo . . . 6:37 AM Oct 8th fromweb

(16 percent), conferences (14 percent), contests (8 percent), exhibitions (8percent), and movies (7 percent). Further sub-categories with percentageslower than 5 percent appear in Appendix B. Table 7 provides examples foreach sub-category.

Miscellaneous tweets accounted for 16 percent of academic librarytweets, just ahead of technology tweets (15 percent). General informationtweets made up the remainder with 9 percent. The miscellaneous category in-cludes the following sub-categories: tips/guides (33 percent), miscellaneous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


TABLE 6 Examples of Academic Library Tweets in the “Library in General” Category, bySub-Category

Library collection:• New book in the Kendall Campus Library: “Philosophy Looks at Chess” by Benjamin

Hale. For more new books, see: http://bit.ly/2CHdJE 12:35 PM Sep 24th from webLibrary services:

• ∗ScienceDirect will be unavailable due to maintenance from approx. 2:30 pm to 10:00pm. on Saturday, August 29 12:22 PM Aug 28th from Facebook

Library events:• library news: Two Events To Attend this Week http://bit.ly/PT210 6:25 AM Oct 5th

from twitterfeedLibrary in general:

• Banned Books Week poster showing books you can’t believe were ever “banned”http://flic.kr/p/72acoL 10:53 AM Sep 24th from Flickr

Book recommendations:• Browse the latest list of the Kendall Campus Library’s new books and DVDs:

http://bit.ly/4dWuMR. 6:33 AM Oct 20th from webReferences:

• RT @CanisiusLibrary: Information for Nobel Prize since 1901 biographies lecturesinterviews photos articles video

http://nobelprize.org/ 8:57 AM Oct 7th from Seesmic

(17 percent), personal (16 percent), health (14 percent), congratulations (7percent), how to write references (6 percent), thanks (6 percent), and generalsayings (5 percent). Examples of the sub-categories are presented in Table 8.The technology category was divided into the following sub-categories: gen-eral technology (43 percent), Web 2.0 (43 percent), and technological ap-plications (9 percent). Examples for these sub-categories are presented inTable 9.

TABLE 7 Examples of Academic Library Tweets in the “Information About” Category, bySub-Category

Lectures:• Free Lecture! Behind the swoosh: Sweatshops and social justice http://flic.kr/p/75j2HD

9:30 AM Oct 6th from FlickrClasses/courses:

• 100 Incredible Open Courses for the Ultimate Tech Geek - Online Courseshttp://j.mp/4CIOTg 2:00 PM Oct 30th from bit.ly

Conferences:• The Smithsonian is offering a free online education conference on Climate

Change Sept. 29 - Oct. 1 http://bit.ly/5lDi1 9:37 AM Sep 23rd from bit.lyContests:

• Today at Duke: Graffiti Contest http://www.duke.edu/web/wit. . . 4:46 AM Oct 30thfrom web

Exhibitions:• library news: New Exhibit - 60th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China

http://bit.ly/4lCC0M 8:25 AM Oct 1st from twitterfeedMovies:

• NYT article about Astaire & Rogers: http://bit.ly/CKKpU Come to WSU Libraries tocheck out their wonderful movies! http://bit.ly/CIKbt 8:35 AM Aug 17th from Echofon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

344 N. Aharony

TABLE 8 Examples of Academic Library Tweets in the “Miscellaneous” Category, by Sub-Category

Tips/guides:• ALA, ARL release guidance on digital delivery of content to classrooms

http://bit.ly/bWIoW 10:57 AM Sep 17th from bit.lyMiscellaneous:

• RT @Somers Library: Benefits of reading to your baby: http://bit.ly/Quwni 10:28 AMOct 23rd from web

Personal:• I posted 19 photos on Facebook in the album “Student Resources Orientation Fall 2009”:

http://bit.ly/IkERD 8:06 AM Aug 31st from FacebookHealth:

• Sleeze: to sneeze properly (into one’s sleeve). Johns Hopkins offers a humorous viewon H1N1 http://is.gd/3BIo3 12:56 PM Sep 23rd from web

Congratulations:• Congratulations, Dean Tuttle, on 20 years of service to Trinity! (via @Trinity U) (via

@mellis87) 7:19 PM Oct 7th from TweetieHow to write references:

• RWCOSJason: Questions about APA 6th ed. style? Check out the APA Style bloghttp://ow.ly/q0Kq (via @mselibrary & @BSULibrary) 10:30 AM Sep 18th

Thanks:• Thanks for mentioning our book sale. 5:19 PM Oct 21st from Seesmic General sayings:• If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in

it at all.”—Noam Chomsky 4:44 PM Sep 27th from web

DISCUSSION

This study presents an extensive analysis of the Twitter phenomenon inlibraries. Referring to the first research question, which deals with the generalnumber of tweets produced by the libraries, it seems that there is not asignificant difference between the two kinds of libraries. Although publiclibraries produce more tweets than academic ones (2,103 vs. 1,812), theaverage difference between the two is tiny (1.55 vs. 1.34 tweets per day).It appears that both types of libraries understand the power of Twitter as

TABLE 9 Examples of Academic Library Tweets in the “General Technology” Category, bySub-Category

General technology:• College technology ’catching up’ with students - USATODAY.com http://j.mp/2g3Ay6

12:45 PM Oct 7th from bit.lyWeb 2.0:

• HOW TO: Use Facebook for Professional Networking http://bit.ly/hErRQ 10:58 AM Aug17th from bit.ly

Technological applications:• RT @mashable: Back to School: 10 Must-Have Firefox Extensions for Students -

http://bit.ly/imuqx 9:46 AM Sep 10th from SeesmicGeneral Information:

• T @JessieNYC: Need to balance attention + info-overload? Watch this:http://vlog.rheingold.com Via @hrheingold 2:22 PM Oct 31st from Seesmic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


a practical channel of communication with library patrons and attempt toproduce at least one tweet every day.

Regarding the second research question, there is a difference betweenthe content produced by the two kinds of libraries. Public libraries use moreinformal language in their tweets, perhaps to reach and attract differentpotential patrons. In contrast, academic libraries hardly ever use informallanguage; they are part of an educational, respectable environment, and it isneither appropriate nor adequate to use informal language in their tweets.

The content of the tweets assigned by the two kinds of libraries re-flects some differences. The first is the number of categories. The contentanalysis reveals public libraries’ tweets are divided into six categories: li-brary, information about, miscellaneous, general information, general rec-ommendations, and technology. Academic libraries’ tweet content is dividedinto five: library, information about, miscellaneous, technology, and generalinformation.

The largest category in both kinds of library is the “library” category.This category includes announcements about library events, collections, ser-vices, reference questions, and general library questions, and it is muchlarger in the public sector (52 percent) than the academic (37 percent). Pub-lic libraries seem more concerned with library issues in their tweets thanacademic ones are. The inner classification of the sub-categories is also dif-ferent: examining the library category within the public library context showstheir major concern is library events (40 percent), followed by book recom-mendations (27 percent), the library collection (12 percent), library services(9 percent), references (7 percent), and the library in general (69 percent). Itappears that public libraries use this technological platform mainly to informtheir patrons about different events taking place at the library and to offerbook recommendations.

Focusing on the library category within the academic sector showstheir major concern is the library collection (28 percent), followed by li-brary services (24 percent), library events (18 percent), libraries in general(12 percent), book recommendations (10 percent), and references (9 per-cent). Academic libraries display their collections and aim to present andmarket their collections, services, and events. The inner classification of thelibrary category is different, as each kind of library emphasizes and depictsits most relevant issues in the tweets. The library category may also be as-sociated with the “reporting news” category of Java et al. (2007), containingnews or comments about current events. In this study, the library categoryincludes news or comments about the library itself.

The second largest category in both sectors is the “information about”category. Again, this category is larger in public libraries (33 percent) thanin academic libraries (22 percent). The information about category maybe associated with Java et al.’s (2007) category of “sharing information,”as libraries supply and share information to and with their patrons. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

346 N. Aharony

information about category within public libraries deals with blogs (33 per-cent), lectures (22 percent), general events (taking place outside the library;10 percent), classes/courses (9 percent), and movies (5 percent). For aca-demic libraries, the category deals with lectures (22 percent), classes/courses(16 percent), conferences (14 percent), contests (8 percent), exhibitions(8 percent), and movies (7 percent). Again, the inner classification in bothsectors is different, with each sector stressing its most relevant issues. Inboth cases, this category supplies further information to patrons and directstheir attention to applications and events occurring outside the library. Thesetwo first findings can be associated with Sarah Milstein’s 2009 study, whichclaimed that different libraries have different focuses when using Twitter.Milstein proposed that public libraries highlight everything from exhibitionannouncements to teen events, while academic libraries inform studentsabout workshops on library resources, provide links to online archives, andprovide tips on sending text messages to librarians. The notion that publiclibraries’ tweets are more comprehensive in scope is also illustrated in thegeneral classification into categories in both kinds of libraries. The publiclibraries’ classification includes a sub-category that does not appear in theacademic libraries’ classification: general recommendations.

The third category in both public and academic libraries is “miscella-neous.” This category includes announcements about tips/guides (17 per-cent), personal information, health, congratulations, how to write refer-ences, thanks, and general sayings. Here the academic category is larger(16 percent) than the public (4 percent). The miscellaneous category withinacademic libraries concentrates on tips/guides (33 percent), miscellaneous(17 percent), personal (16 percent), health (14 percent), congratulations (7percent), writing references (6 percent), thanks (6 percent), and generalsayings (5 percent). The miscellaneous category within public libraries con-centrates on tips, thanks, congratulations, personal, health, general sayings,and local news. This category can be linked to Java et al.’s (2007) categoryof “daily chatter,” which includes tweets about daily routine. In contrast toJava and colleagues, who found this to be as the largest category, this studyfound this category to be the third largest. But one should bear in mindthat those researchers examined tweets of individuals while this researchanalyzes those of organizations (libraries).

The fourth category in academic libraries is “technology” (15 per-cent), which is quite similar in size to the miscellaneous category(16 percent). The technology category focuses on general technology(43 percent), Web 2.0 (43 percent), and technological applications (9 per-cent). This category is much larger than the technology category within pub-lic libraries (3 percent) and reflects the importance and significance of thistopic within academic libraries. In other words, academic libraries deal withvarious issues of technology and inform their patrons about it. The follow-ing categories within public and academic libraries are very small: general

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


information, general recommendations and technology within the publicsector, and general information within the academic sector.

In conclusion, although there are some differences in using Twitterin public and academic libraries (amount of tweets, linguistic differences,and content), it appears that using Twitter enables both kinds of librariesto broadcast and share information about their activities, opinions, status,and professional interests. The use of Twitter in libraries can be associatedwith Zhao and Rosson’s (2009) findings, proclaiming that Twitter serves asa channel that keeps the libraries in touch with various patrons and enablesthem to provide their patrons with useful professional or personal informa-tion. Both public and academic libraries should encourage their patrons tointeract via Twitter with the library: to ask questions, share links, and getrecommendations.

These findings can help librarians and information scientists better un-derstand and explore the phenomenon of library tweets. The limitation ofthis study is that although 50 tweets were chosen for each library, two publiclibraries that took part in the sample provided less than 50 tweets (25 and43). It is recommended that further research on library tweets be conducted,focusing on other aspects such as the significance of symbols such as @, #,RT, and DM. It would also be interesting to further explore and comparethe use of Twitter within different organizations in order to gain a morethorough understanding of the Twitter phenomenon.

REFERENCES

Aharony, Noa. 2009. Librarians and information scientists in the blogosphere: Anexploratory analysis. Library & Information Science Research 31 (3): 174–181.

Aharony, Noa, and Jenny Bronstein. 2008. The educational technology blogosphere:An exploratory analysis. Paper presented at ASMI Conference, January 9, 2009in Haifa, Israel.

Bausch, Suzy, and Michelle McGiboney. 2008. Nielsen Online provides fastest growingsocial networks for September 2008. New York: Nielsen Company.

Diaz, Sam. 2007. Life, in little chirps: Introducing Twitter, a Web experience in themass appeal of mundane details. The Washington Post, June 9. http://www.lexisnexis.com (accessed July 15, 2007).

Ebner, Martin. 2009. Introducing live microblogging: How single presentations canbe enhanced by the mass. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 2 (1):91–100.

Ebner, Martin, and Mandy Schiefner. 2008. Microblogging—more than fun? In Pro-ceedings of the IADIS Mobile Learning Conference, eds. Inmaculada ArnedilloSanchez and Pedro Isaias, 155–159. Lisbon: IADIA.

Grosseck, Gabriela, and Carmen Holotescu. 2008. Can we use Twitter for educa-tional activities? Paper presented at the Fourth International Scientific Confer-ence eLearning and Software for Education, April 17–18, 2008 in Bucharest,Romania.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

348 N. Aharony

Hend, Al-Khalifa. 2008. Twitter in academia: A case study from Saudi Arabia.eLearn Magazine 9: 2. Available at: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=case studies&article=42–1.

Huberman, Bernardo A., Daniel M. Romero, and Fang Wu. 2008. Crowdsourcingattention and productivity. Paper submitted for the 2009 World Wide WebConference (Madrid); version at http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3030.

———. 2009. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Mon-day 14: 1–5.

Jansen, Bernard J., and Mimi Zhang. 2009. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic wordof mouth. Journal of the American Society for Science and Technology 60 (11):2169–2188.

Java, Akshay, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin, and Belle Tseng. 2007. Why we Twitter:Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of theninth WebKDD and first SNA-KDD 007 Workshop on Web Mining and SocialNetwork Analysis, eds. Haizheng Zhang, Bamshad Mobasher, Lee Giles, AndrewMcCallum, Olfa Nasraoui, Myra Spiliopoulou, Jaideep Srivastava, and John Yen,56–65. New York, NY: ACM Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Krishnamurthy, Balachander, Phillipa Gill, and Martin Arlitt. 2008. A few chirpsabout Twitter. http://www2.research.att.com/∼bala/papers/twit.pdf (accessedDecember 12, 2009).

Lariscya, Ruthann Weaver, Elizabeth Johnson Avery, Kaye D. Sweetser, and PaulineHowes. 2009. An examination of the role of online social media in journalists’source mix. Public Relations Review 35 (3): 314–316.

McFedries, Paul. 2007. Technically speaking: All a-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum 44 (10):84.

Miles, Matthew, and Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An ex-panded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Milstein, Sarah. 2009. Twitter for libraries (and librarians). Online 33 (2): 34.Mischaud, Edward. 2007. Twitter: Expressions of the whole self. M.A. thesis, London

School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/MScDissertationSeries/Mishaud Final.pdf (ac-cessed December 8, 2009).

Notess, Greg. 2008. Searching the Twitter realm. Online 32 (4): 43–45.Pew Internet Report. February 2009. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/

Reports/2009/Twitter-and-status-updating.aspxReinhardt, Wolfgang, Martin Ebner, Gunter Beham, and Cristina Costa. 2009. How

people are using Twitter during conferences. Proceedings of 5th EduMedia Con-ference. http://lamp.tugraz.ac.at/∼i203/ebner/publication/09 edumedia.pdf (ac-cessed December 5, 2009).

Sankaranarayanany, Jagan, Hanan Samety, Benjamin Teitlery, Michael Lieberman,and Jon Sperlingz. 2009. TwitterStand: News in tweets. http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hjs/pubs/twitter-gis2009.pdf (accessed October 10, 2009).

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Groundedtheory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Thames, Gina. 2009. Twitter as an educational tool. Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychiatric Nursing (22) 4: 235.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4


Zhao, Dejin, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2009. How and why people Twitter: The rolethat micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In Proceedingsof the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group work, 243–252.New York, NY: ACM.

APPENDIX A Detailed Breakdown of Tweets According to Their Libraries During August–October 2009 (Refer to Table 1 for Library Names)

Tweets Total Tweets TotalAcademic per number of Public per number oflibraries month tweets libraries month tweets

1. 81 1. 63August 30 August 34September 30 September 3October 21 October 26










(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

350 N. Aharony

APPENDIX A Detailed Breakdown of Tweets According to Their Libraries During August–October 2009 (Refer to Table 1 for Library Names) (Continued)

Tweets Total Tweets TotalAcademic per number of Public per number oflibraries month tweets libraries month tweets






Total number oftweets

1,812 2,100

Average number oftweets for threemonths

121.06 140

Average number oftweets for onemonth

40.35 46.66

APPENDIX B “Information About” Tweets for Sub-Categories with Percentages Lower than 5Percent

Academic libraries Public libraries

Sub-category Percent of tweets Sub-category Percent of tweets

Forums 4.57 Shows 3.68Seminars 3.26 Contests 3.22Homework 3.26 Conferences 2.76Programs 3.26 Exhibitions 2.76Museums 1.96 Tests 2.30Blogs 1.96 Tours 2.30Articles 1.96 Grants 1.38Tests 1.30 Music 0.92Tutorials 1.30 Comics 0.92Shows 1.30 Games 0.92Jobs 0.65 Book sales 0.46Grants 0.65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:06

31

July

201

4

twitter use in libraries: an exploratory analysis

Documents