The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0033-0337.htm

PROG
48,1 Factors affecting Web 2.0
adoption: a case study
Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam and Mansoureh Hosseini-Shoar
2 Department of Library and Information Studies, Islamic Azad University,
Hamedan Branch, Iran
Received 14 February 2012
Revised 27 April 2012
13 September 2012 Abstract
25 December 2012
18 April 2013 Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to identify factors affecting the adoption of Web 2.0
Accepted 13 June 2013 tools by librarians of academic libraries located in Hamedan, Iran.
Design/methodology/approach – Methodologically, this survey is applied using a descriptive
approach. The statistical population of the survey was 47 librarians of academic and college libraries
located in Hamedan (Iran). The tool used for data gathering is a questionnaire made based on the
relevant literature as well as authors’ standpoint. It consists of 39 questions under ten broad factors.
The collected data were analyzed with SPSS (version 16).
Findings – Totally, ten broad factors affecting the adoption of Web 2.0 tools by the librarians were
identified. The most effective factors are job conditions, changeability, skills, competitiveness, and
saving time.
Practical implications – To positively and effectively affect the adoption of Web 2.0 tools by
librarians especially Hamedan academic librarians, holding training courses and related workshops,
the inclusion of lessons regarding Web 2.0 tools and their application in the academic courses
planned and run by LIS departments, implementing open and distance learning (ODL),
attracting LIS professionals to the field of Web 2.0, buying needed software and hardware
equipment, and addressing the importance of adopting and using Web 2.0 tools for academic and
library managers should not be neglected.
Originality/value – This study may contribute to the field in terms of better understanding of
factors affecting the adoption of Web 2.0 tools and thus better usage of these and other emerging
technologies in academic libraries and information centers.
Keywords Web 2.0, Academic
libraries
Paper type Research paper

Introduction and background

In Toffler’s (1984) Third Wave, information and communication technology (ICT)
with
its transformative power has fired “Digital Revolution” within which digital
technologies are transforming a variety of fields (Kalantzis-Cope, 2011, p. 3)
including Library and Information Science (LIS) and related areas. Since the
emergence of the web, LIS scholarship has been remodeling the future for libraries.
Scholars are
recognizing that future libraries may not own their collection of resources (Lancaster,
1997; quoted in Scale, 2008, p. 540). Accordingly, if libraries want to maintain their
roles as the guardians of knowledge, they have to be part of users’ social life. In fact,

Program: electronic library and

information systems Special thanks to the participants whose help in doing the research is not forgettable. It is the
Vol. 48 No. 1, authors’ pleasure to extend their deep gratitude and thanks to the respected reviewers of the
2014 pp. 2-15
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
article for their helpful and constructive comments. They would heartily like to appreciate Dr
0033-0337 Miguel-Angel Sicilia who kindly gave them an opportunity to revise the present work and
DOI 10.1108/PROG-02-2012-0005 publish it through Program: electronic library and information systems.
libraries should merge new technologies including Web 2.0 in their services. The term features did not
Web 2.0 was first coined and conceptualized in 2004 by Dale Dougherty, a always bring out the
vice-president of O’Reilly Media Inc. (the company famous for its technology-related desired effect, mainly
conferences and high quality books (Anderson, 2007, p. 197; Aharony, 2009, p. because creators did
227; Beer, 2008; Davis, 2009; Hwang et al., 2009). Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) or the social not put into
web has introduced new concepts and tools that are able to operationalize a consideration the
more social-centric vision. Online social networking systems, such as Facebook, allow necessary 2.0
people to manage their interaction with others on a massive scale. Blogs and requirements, the
instant messaging (IM) tools have provided new communication tools to interact context of use, or what
more effectively with others in opened communities. Or Wikis (Wikipedia) this they even
perspective has appeared so relevant and so promising that many specialists wanted to accomplish.
consider this approach to be the future of knowledge management (Razmerita et al., So, through
2009, p. 1022). In this line, Virkus (2008) declares that Web 2.0 is about blogs, identifying and
wikis, really simple syndication (RSS) and social networking sites, such as analyzing such factors
Facebook, with hundreds of millions of users which allow subscribers to create web in the context
spaces where they can share their thoughts, music, videos and pictures, and Flickr’s of academic libraries
photo collecting. located in Hamedan
In relation to the adoption and application of Web 2.0 in libraries, Kim and (Iran), this study will
Abbas help managers and
(2010, p. 211) say “with the advent of Web 2.0, the relationship between the library directors to
and users has dramatically changed. The capabilities of Web 2.0 enable users to understand librarians’
engage the needs about Web 2.0
library in two-way communication and knowledge exchanges. Instead of in order to adopt
users Web 2.0
physically coming to the library, the library delivers services to users via the a
university library website”. Ramos and Abrigo (2012) also highlight that when Web p
2.0 comes to p
reference services in academic libraries, students and faculty members have chosen to l
go online: Ask-a-Librarian, web forms, e-mail and Facebook. For instance, a library i
that uses Web 2.0 can provide users with services such as chat-based reference, c
facilitate their a
participation in virtual discussions, and help them interact with other reference t
librarians. As a result of Web 2.0 facilities, Web 2.0 related technologies in libraries i
have gained increasing popularity globally (Han and Liu, 2010). This led to the o
emergence of n
term Library 2.0 which was first coined by Michael Casey on his blog s
Librarycrunch (Harinarayana and Raju, 2010, p. 70). It is the integration of Web 2.0
features in library web-based services. As Pfeffer (1998; quoted in Isfandyari- t
Moghaddam and Bayat, 2008, p. 852) emphasizes the importance of people (staff) to o
organizational success and also
argues that, as part of people-centered strategies, it is important for managers to t
realize that all work is knowledge work, even if it appears to be routine. Part of taking h
all staff seriously is to recognize the opportunities to leverage knowledge and build e
capability i
and skill in all jobs, in all organizations, the authors believe that the entrance of Web r
2.0 features to libraries is important but their adoption and making use of them by
librarians for providing effective information services is more important. On the j
other hand, o
optimal application of Web 2.0 tools by librarians requires the identification of b
factors affecting the adoption of its tools by librarians. This is what has been .
stressed by
Mercˇun and Zˇ umer (2011), that is, past experiences have shown that applying Web
2.0
Web 2.0 adoption

3
PROG Literature review in brief
48,1 Theoretically, the meaning, applications, impact, and importance of Web 2.0 in
offering information services have been considered since its emergence (e.g. Chad
and Miller,
2005; Frumkin, 2005; Long, 2006; Holvoet, 2006; Birdsall, 2007; Curran et al.,
2007;
4 Rafferty and Rob, 2007; Kesselman, 2008; Serantes, 2009; Fernandez, 2009; Joint,
2009; Kelly and Paul, 2009; and Levy, 2009). But, few studies (e.g. Angus et al., 2008;
Cox, 2008; Linh, 2008; Scale, 2008; Virkus, 2008; Devlin et al., 2008; Aharony, 2009;
Chew, 2009;
Preston, 2009; Allard, 2009; Razmerita et al., 2009; Chen, 2009; Dworak and Keven,
2009; Xia, 2009; Graham et al., 2009; Chan and Dianne, 2009; Pera and Ng, 2009;
Titangos and Mason, 2009; Grace, 2009; Hwang et al., 2009; Harinarayana and Raju,
2010; Han and Liu,
2010; Rudman, 2010; Luo, 2010; Mahmood and Richardson, 2011; Arif and
Mahmood,
2012) have been performed on Web 2.0 and its tools because of its short and
new background. In line with the objective of the study, some of them are discussed as
below.
Grace (2009) studied only one of the Web 2.0 tools, the Wiki. The research shows
that some benefits which move organizations towards the usage of wikis include its
ease of use, ability to track and edit, its influence on the building of a trusting culture
and as a central repository of information. One significant and tangible benefit from
the use of wikis is its ability to save time and therefore, money. Issues to be addressed
include security, control as well as technical issues such as data migration.
Luo (2010) did an investigation concerning Web 2.0 integration in information
literacy
instruction. The findings demonstrate that the librarians’ adoption of Web 2.0 tools
is manifested in a three-level hierarchy. At the first level, librarians (n ¼ 50, 4 percent)
only
use Web 2.0 tools for their own purposes without engaging students. At the second
level,
librarians (n ¼ 50, 84 percent) use Web 2.0 tools to facilitate the delivery of content
to students. They either use the tools to publish content for students to access and
interact with, or involve students in using the tools to complete coursework
collaboratively or
enhance interaction. At the third level, librarians (n ¼ 50, 38 percent) draw upon
certain features of the Web 2.0 technology to better illustrate information literacy
concepts apparently, the second level of Web 2.0 use was most popular among
librarians.
Mahmood and Richardson (2011) surveyed the websites of 100 member academic
libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (USA) regarding the adoption of
Web
2.0 technologies. According to the results, all libraries were found to be using various
tools of Web 2.0. Blogs, microblogs, RSS, instant messaging, social networking sites,
mashups, podcasts, and vodcasts were widely adopted, while wikis, photo sharing,
presentation sharing, virtual worlds, customized webpage and vertical search engines
were used less. Libraries were using these tools for sharing news, marketing their
services, providing information literacy instruction, providing information about print
and digital resources, and soliciting feedback of users. In fact, their study presented
an optimistic picture of academic libraries as they are keeping pace with the rapidly
changing technological environment.
 Ram lack awareness about various Web 2.0 applications necessary for teaching and
et al. learning.
(2011), Si et al. (2011), with the aim of providing an overall picture of the application of
seeking Web
to 2.0 technologies in Chinese university libraries, and identifying what types of Web 2.0
provide
an
insight
into the
implem
entation
of some
of the
innovati
ve Web
2.0
applicati
ons at
Jaypee
Universi
ty of
Informat
ion
Technol
ogy (
JUIT)
with the
aim of
explorin
g the
expectat
ions of
the
users
and
their
awarene
ss and
usage
of such
applicati
ons,
realized
that the
users of
the
JUIT
library
still
technologies were applied in such libraries as well as their function and user Web 2.0 adoption
interface, examined Chinese university libraries and found two-thirds of them
deployed one or more Web 2.0 technologies. Only one-tenth of libraries adopted more
than four Web 2.0 technologies. RSS was the most widely applied, while Wiki
was the least. The application of Web 2.0 technologies among Chinese
university libraries was not extensive and profound enough.
In a more similar work, Arif and Mahmood (2012) conducted a study about the 5
adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by Pakistani librarians. The frequency of use
revealed that Pakistani librarians were generally less inclined toward adoption of Web
2.0 technologies. Lack of computer literacy, low availability of computers and internet
facilities were the big hindrances toward adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by
librarians. Training programs could enable a librarian to cope with the Web 2.0
technologies.
Garoufallou and Charitopoulou (2012), to find out what the Greek Library and
Information Science students want from their studies concerning the use of Web 2.0 in
education, carried out a research and finally, revealed that most of the students are
aware of the majority of Web 2.0 tools. Thus, they are willing to attend training
concerning Web 2.0 because they believe this will enrich their knowledge on the
subject. Blogs and wikis are the first choices of the tools they would like to learn
about.
Students believe that computer scientists are more qualified to teach Web 2.0 tools,
while some respond that cooperation between librarians and computer scientists will
be to the benefit of the profession. As advantages of using Web 2.0 they name
acquiring new knowledge and facilitation with the assignments.
Sawant (2012) investigated LIS instructors’ familiarity with Web 2.0 concepts, tools
and services, and applications related to LIS education. It was found that LIS
instructors, in some Indian universities, have a low level of familiarity regarding the
use of Web 2.0. And the main problem in use of Web 2.0 in teaching was the lack of
training programs organized by universities and other institutions for instruction in
the use/teaching of Web 2.0 tools.
In a similar Iranian work but in a different context, Karimi and Asadi (2006)
identified factors affecting the use of information technology by Agriculture Science
students. Finally, they indicated four effective factors including the level of
information
technology, students’ attitude toward using information technology, conditions and
facilities, and the educators’ mastery in English language.
The review of the related literature shows that most of previously done studies
deal with the application of and familiarity with Web 2.0 tools. Yet, building this
research
based on aforementioned studies, we try to identify and analyze factors affecting the
application of Web 2.0 tools by librarians of academic libraries located in Hamedan,
Iran. Hopefully, the identification of such factors can lead to realizing increased as
well
as qualified utilization of Web 2.0 tools in libraries particularly academic ones.

Research objectives
Building this research based on aforementioned studies, we try to identify factors
affecting the adoption of Web 2.0 tools by librarians of academic libraries located in
Hamedan, Iran. Identifying the most effective factors affecting the adoption of Web
2.0
tools and suggesting some programs to promote the level of adopting Web 2.0 tools
in the Hamedan academic libraries are other aims of the research.
PROG Research questions
48,1 (1) Which factors do affect the adoption of Web 2.0 by librarians of academic
libraries in Hamedan?
(2) What suggestions have been posed by the librarians to promote the level of
adopting Web 2.0 tools in the Hamedan academic libraries?
6
Methodology
Methodologically, this survey is applied using a descriptive approach. The statistical
population of the survey was 47 librarians of academic and college libraries located
in Hamedan. Hamedan is the capital of Hamadan Province located in the western
region
of Iran. It is believed to be among the oldest Iranian cities and one of the oldest in the
globe. Hamadan, from scientific perspective, is recognized as one of the academic
poles in Iran where there are 27 main and large academic centers. Demographic
information of research sample can be seen in Table I. As shown, the majority of the
respondents were female and youthful with LIS B.A. educational level.
The tool used for data gathering is a questionnaire which is made based on
relevant literature (e.g. Karimi and Asadi, 2006: “skills” and “working conditions”;
Groot and Branch, 2009: “feeling of need”; and Aharony, 2009: “motivation” and
“changeability”) as well as authors’ standpoint (Appendix). It consists of 37 questions
under ten broad
factors (refer to Table II). It is notable that the questions of the questionnaire were
formulated using one open and 36 closed questions including 33 ones – according to
five-point Likert scale with a choice of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat
agree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree) rating items – related to broad factors plus 3
cases for demographic information. The questionnaire was reviewed by ten experts
for its validity in terms of structure and content. By conducting a pilot study, its
reliability was examined. As a result, Cronbach’s alpha was equal to 0.89 and thus the
Category
reliability Number

Gender
Male 12
%
Female 35
Total 47
Age 25.5
20-25 7 74.5
26-35 23 100
36-45 12
45 þ 5 15
Total 47 49
25
Educational level
Diploma 2 11
100
LIS Diploma þ (paraprofessional) 8
LIS B.A. 24
Table I. MLIS (LIS M.A.) 11 4.3
Descriptive information PhD 2 17
about respondents Total 47 51
23.4
4.3
100
 Web 2.0 adoption
Row Factors Sub-factors

1 Feeling of need Feeling of satisfaction with providing better services to users;

Readiness for learning new topics related to Web 2.0; Participation
in seminars and conferences; Importance of information about Web
2.0 tools for librarians
2 Motivation Rapid developments; Faster and easier access to information; 7
Provision of services to users; Job satisfaction of librarians;
Recruitment of specialists; Readiness to allocate more time for
learning the principles of Web 2.0
3 Working conditions Experience in use of Web 2.0 tools; Effective technology skills;
Lack of fatigue when working with Web 2.0 tools; Library Science
degree or related one; Personal interest in learning and using new
technologies; Feeling of safety
4 Saving time Saving time of librarians and users; User satisfaction; Acquiring
new and update information
5 Organizational
resources Library budget; Flexibility of manager in the purchasing and
providing Web 2.0 facilities for librarians; Increased salary of
librarians; Library management system
6 Changeability Tendency to have a change; Need for short-term or long-term
planning to create Library 2.0 and make use of Web 2.0 tools;
Taking a step towards change and making new policy by library
manager to replace with current one
7 Competitiveness Other libraries’ usage from the Web 2.0; The use of Web 2.0 tools as
a competitive advantage
8 Qualitative and
quantitative growth of The existence of different fields of study in high levels in the
university disciplines university; Importance of learning Web 2.0 and offering library
services through Web 2.0
9 Skills Librarians’ skill in English language; Importance of familiarity with
Table II.
information technology to apply Web 2.0 in libraries
Ten broad factors
10 Users’ comfort Feeling of comfort by users when meeting their information needs affecting the adoption of
through Web 2.0; Easily solving users’ information needs using Web Web 2.0 tools by the
2.0 tools librarians

of the questionnaire was confirmed. Finally, it was remotely filled via e-mail. The
collected data were analyzed with SPSS (version 16).

Findings
Q1. Which factors do affect the adoption of Web 2.0 by librarians of academic
libraries in Hamedan?
As can be seen in Table II, a total of ten broad factors affecting the adoption of Web
2.0 tools by librarians were identified and so determined for further analysis in the
present research (refer to Table III).
Table III shows the impact as well as ranking of each factor on the adoption of Web
2.0 tools based on librarians’ viewpoints.
PROG
Ranking Factors Na Pb Mc SD d Min
48,1 1
Max Working conditions
Low 3 6.4 17.53 3.79 3 25
High 44 93.6
Total 47 100
2 Changeability 11.87 2.58 5 15
Low 5 10.6
8 High 42 89.4
Total 47 100
2 Skills 7.91 1.64 2 10
Low 5 10.6
High 42 89.4
Total 47 100
3 Competitiveness 7.91 1.49 2 10
Low 6 12.8
High 41 87.2
Total 47 100
3 Saving time 10.81 2.39 3 15
Low 6 12.8
High 41 87.2
Total 47 100
4 Qualitative and quantitative
growth of university disciplines 7.80 1.71 2 10
Low 7 15.2
High 39 84.8
Total 47 100
5 Feeling of need 15.51 2.97 3 20
Low 8 17
High 39 83
Total 47 100
6 Organizational resources 14.68 3.09 6 20
Low 10 21.3
High 37 78.7
Total 47 100
7 Motivation 21.94 5.21 6 30
Low 11 23.4
High 36 76.6
Total 47 100
8 Users’ comfort 2.47 1.10 1 5
Low 42 89.4
Table III.
High 5 10.6
The impact and ranking
of each factor on the Total 47 100
adoption of Web 2.0 tools Notes: aNumber; bPercentage; cMean; dStandard deviation

As Table III demonstrates, of among 47 librarians, the 44 persons (93.6 percent) have
rated the factor “working conditions” which includes five items namely experience in
use of Web 2.0 tools, effective technology skills, lack of fatigue when working with
Web 2.0 tools, Library Science degree or related one, and personal interest in
learning and using new technologies, as the most effective factors affecting the
adoption of Web
2.0 tools by them. After that, factors “changeability” and “skills” placed at the second
 ranking as the most effective factors by 42 librarians (89.4 percent). Moreover, factors Web 2.0 adoption
like “competitiveness”, “saving time”, “qualitative and quantitative growth of
university disciplines”, “feeling of need”, “organizational resources”, “motivation”, and
“users’ comfort” placed at other ranks, respectively:
Q2. What suggestions have been posed by the librarians to promote the level of
adopting Web 2.0 tools in the Hamedan academic libraries?
As shown in Table IV, the suggestions most noted by the librarians are related to
9
educational programs, i.e. holding training courses (n ¼ 28, 26 percent) and related
workshops (n ¼ 27, 25 percent), and the inclusion of lessons regarding Web 2.0 tools
and their application in the academic courses planned and run by LIS departments
(n ¼ 25, 23.1 percent). Moreover, other suggestions like implementing open and
distance learning (ODL) (n ¼ 13, 12 percent), attracting LIS professionals to the field
of Web 2.0 (n ¼ 12, 11.1 percent), buying needed software and hardware equipment,
and addressing the importance of adopting and using Web 2.0 tools for academic
and library managers were indicated.

Discussion and conclusions

It is hoped that through meeting the research objectives, the present study can
contribute to the filed in theory and practice. Morris and Allen (2008) (quoted by
Mercˇ un and Zˇ umer, 2011, p. 16) as well as Burhanna et al. (2009) (quoted by
Mercˇ un
and Zˇ umer, 2011, p. 16) report that even if 2.0 technologies would be implemented
at
their university libraries, it would be unlikely that many of them were used by
students. As they add that while students seem to be most interested in social
networks
within 2.0 world, they would not necessarily like it or appreciate it if their library
started using it, it is hoped that this research can also contribute to the literature
especially in terms of stimulating the adoption and use of Web 2.0 tools in libraries
including academic ones as a platform for further utilization of Web 2.0 facilities by
students and professors.
Arif and Mahmood (2012) considers three factors including lack of computer
literacy, lack of training programs and low availability of computers and internet
facilities that
have impact on the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by librarians. Similarly,
factor
“skills” (librarians’ skill in English language, and the importance of familiarity
with information technology to apply Web 2.0 in libraries) was one of the main
factors

b a
Suggestions F P

Holding related workshops 27 25

Implementation of ODL 13 12
Holding training courses 28 26
Including lessons regarding Web 2.0 tools and their application in the academic
courses 25 23.1
Table IV.
Attracting LIS professionals to the field of Web 2.0 12 11.1
Distribution of
Others (e.g. buying needed software and hardware equipment, and addressing the
importance of adopting and using Web 2.0 tools for academic and library managers) 3 2.8 suggestions for
developing the adoption
Total a 108c 100
Notes: Percentage; bFrequency; cEach respondent was allowed to tick multiple suggestions of Web 2.0 tools
PROG affecting the use of Web 2.0 tools. Moreover, as they identified low availability of
48,1 computers and internet facilities as affecting factors, we realized that factor
“organizational resources” (library budget, flexibility of manager in the
purchasing and providing Web 2.0 facilities for librarians, increased salary of
librarians, and library management system) may affect the adoption of Web 2.0 tools
by librarians.
10 Also, Aharony (2009) considers three affecting factors including motivation,
learning facilitators and personality characteristics in the use of Web 2.0 tools by
students, while the present study showed that the most effective factors affecting the
adoption of Web 2.0 tools by librarians are working conditions, changeability, skills,
competitiveness, and saving time, and factor motivation placed at seventh rank
according to the librarians’ view.
Grace (2009) found that one significant and tangible benefit from the use of wikis
is its ability to save time and therefore, money. This factor, saving time, has been
also
indicated as an influential one by the participants of the present research.
Luo’s (2010) investigation in which 4 percent of librarians only use Web 2.0 tools
for their own purposes without engaging students, 84 percent use Web 2.0 tools
to
facilitate the delivery of content to students, and 38 percent draw upon certain
features
of the Web 2.0 technology to better illustrate information literacy concepts apparently
is in fact correspondent to three factors included in the study – feeling of need,
motivation, and users’ comfort. Unlike our finding that only 10.6 percent of
participants supposed users’ comfort as a determinant factor affecting the adoption of
Web 2.0 tools, Luo found users’ factor as a high effective factor (84
percent).
As Foster (2008) mentioned, the shifting role of information services within the
organizations including academic libraries is increasingly felt. One of the ways to
harness such a shifting and changing role and thus providing quality services to users
in the libraries is adopting and using new technologies like Web 2.0 tools. It should be
reminded that although Web 2.0 innovations have had a massive impact on the larger
worldwide web, the practical impact on library service delivery has been limited to
date ( Joint, 2010). This is maybe due to what Constantinides and Fountain (2008)
indicate: past experience shows that 2.0 features are unlikely to be adopted by users or
by librarians without some management intervention. As a management intervention,
identifying and considering incentives and deterrent factors in the use of Web 2.0 can
be of value.
In this respect, there are incentives and deterrent factors in the adoption of Web
2.0 tools deserving to be identified, coped with, and managed. The most important
factors
identified in this research are working conditions, changeability, skills,
competitiveness, and saving time. We believe that by identifying these factors,
academic libraries generally, and Hamedan academic libraries, especially, can take
helpful steps to eliminate difficulties and barriers hindering using Web 2.0 in which
may result in better use of Web 2.0 tools to provide better services for users, and also
what Foster (2008) believes: information sharing, internally and or externally. In this
line, it is emphasized that the librarians’ suggestions including holding training
courses and related workshops, the inclusion of lessons regarding Web 2.0 tools and
their application in the academic courses planned and run by LIS departments,
implementing ODL, attracting LIS professionals to the field of Web 2.0, buying
needed
softwar
e and
hardwar
e
equipm
ent, and
addressi
ng the
importa
nce of
adoptin
g and
using
Web
2.0
tools for
academi
c and
library
manage
rs
should
not be
neglecte
d.
 In a word, declared by Maness (2006), in this perpetual beta, any stability other Web 2.0 adoption
than the acceptance of instability is insufficient. To cope with any instability, in
addition to emphasizing taking these findings into consideration, a couple of
projects including “doing a similar research based on the ability of students of
Library and Information Science in using Web 2.0 tools” and “studying the quality of
Web 2.0-based services in academic libraries” are recommended. As Kelly and Paul
(2009) underline both the need to raise staff awareness of the potential of Web 2.0 11
services and the need to ensure that the services succeed in enhancing the services
provided to the user community, carrying out a research focusing on meeting such
needs is also needed.
On the other hand, as Mahmood and Richardson (2011, p. 372) declared that the
applications of Web 2.0 have opened new avenues for libraries as they allowed them
to involve users in their activities and solicit their feedback for improvement in
services, all libraries have understood the importance of adopting and using various
tools of Web 2.0. The trend shows that all libraries will adopt user-participated Web
2.0 tools for enhancing the quality of their services. Yet, because academic
libraries have
adopted these technologies to varying degrees, doing a research that investigates
factors affecting Web 2.0 adoption by such libraries – from their managers’
perspective – seems to be needed. The impact of adoption and use of Web 2.0 tools
on providing just-in-time and just-in-demand information services from the end-
users’ viewpoint is another suggested study. The identification of the hindrances for
the low uptake of Web 2.0 services should be an agenda for the future studies.
Additionally, to realize increased social inclusion, and faster adoption of Web 2.0
tools, some other broad categories should be identified and included in the clustering
of factors affecting Web 2.0 adoption. Through doing such studies, it is hoped
that the ground for developing generally-accepted standards, guidelines, factors
(both positive and
negative) or adoption criteria concerning emerging technologies like Web 2.0 tools
will be paved.

References
Aharony, N. (2009), “The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their
perceptions towards Web 2.0 use”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 227-242.
Allard, S. (2009), “Library managers and information in World 2.0”, Library Management, Vol.
30
Nos 1/2, pp. 57-68.
Anderson, P. (2007), “What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education”,
available at: www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf (accessed 10 April
2013).
Angus, E., Thelwall, M. and Stuart, D. (2008), “General patterns of tag usage among university
groups in Flickr”, Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 89-101.
Arif, M. and Mahmood, K. (2012), “The changing role of librarians in the digital world: adoption
of Web 2.0 technologies by Pakistani librarians”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 469-479.
Beer, D. (2008), “Making friends with Jarvis Cocker: music culture in the context of Web 2.0”,
Cultural Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 222-241.
Birdsall, W.F. (2007), “Web 2.0 as a social movement”, Webology, Vol. 4 No. 2, article 40, available
at: www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html (accessed 10 April 2013).
PROG Burhanna, K.J., Seeholzer, J. and Salem, J. Jr (2009), “No natives here: a focus group study of
48,1 student perceptions of Web 2.0 and the academic library”, Journal of Academic
Librarianship, Vol. 35 No. 6, p. 523-532.
Chad, K. and Miller, P. (2005), “Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0”, available at: www.
talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf (accessed 10 April 2013).
Chan, C. and Dianne, C. (2009), “Blogging toward information literacy: engaging students and
12 facilitating peer learning”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 395-407.
Chen, H.L. (2009), “The use and sharing of information from Wikipedia by high-tech
professionals for work purposes”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 893-904.
Chew, I. (2009), “Librarians 2.0: sowing padi in (the) SEA”, Program: electronic library and
information systems, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 275-287.
Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S.J. (2008), “Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketing
issues”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 231-244.
Cox, A.M. (2008), “Flickr: a case study of Web 2.0”, Aslib Proceedings: New Information
Perspectives, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 493-516.
Curran, K., Murray, M. and Christian, M. (2007), “Taking the information to the public through
Library 2.0”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 288-297.
Davis, P.C. (2009), “Web 2.0, library 2.0, library user 2.0, librarian 2.0: innovative services
for sustainable libraries”, Computers in Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 16-21.
Devlin, F., Currie, L. and Stratton, J. (2008), “Successful approaches to teaching through chat”,
New Library World, Vol. 109 Nos 5/6, pp. 223-234.
Dworak, E. and Keven, J. (2009), “Wiki to the rescue: creating a more dynamic intranet”,
Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 403-410.
Fernandez, P. (2009), “Balancing outreach and privacy in Facebook: five guiding decision
points”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 10-12.
Foster, A. (2008), “Business information survey”, Business Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 13-31.
Frumkin, J. (2005), “The Wiki and the digital library”, OCLC Systems & Services: International
Digital Library Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 18-22.
Garoufallou, E. and Charitopoulou, V. (2012), “Web 2.0 in library and information science
education: the Greek case”, New Library World, Vol. 113 Nos 3/4, pp. 202-217.
Grace, T.P.L. (2009), “Wikis as a knowledge management tool”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 64-74.
Graham, J.M., Faix, A. and Hartman, L. (2009), “Crashing the Facebook party: one library’s
experiences in the students’ domain”, Library Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 228-236.
Groot, J.D. and Branch, J.L. (2009), “Learning to speak Web 2.0: teacher-librarians playing with
21st century technologies”, in Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education
& Practice, available at: http://a-liep.kc.tsukuba.ac.jp/proceedings/Papers/a6.pdf (accessed
10 November 2011).
Han, Z. and Liu, Y.Q. (2010), “Web 2.0 applications in top Chinese university libraries”, Library Hi
Tech, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
Harinarayana, N.S. and Raju, N.V. (2010), “Web 2.0 features in university library web sites”,
The Electronic Library, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Holvoet, K. (2006), “What is RSS and how can libraries use it to improve patron service?”,
Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 32-33.
Hwang, J., Altmann, J. and Kim, K. (2009), “The structural evolution of the Web 2.0 service
network”, Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1040-1057.
Web 2.0 adoption
Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. and Bayat, B. (2008), “Digital libraries in the mirror of the literature:
issues and considerations”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 844-862.
Joint, N. (2009), “The Web 2.0 challenge to libraries”, Library Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 167-
175. Joint, N. (2010), “Web 2.0 and the library: a transformational technology?”, Library Review,
Vol. 59 13
No. 7, pp. 489-497.
Kalantzis-Cope, P. (2011), “Properties of technology”, in Kalantzis-Cope, V. and Gherab-Martin,
K. (Eds), Emerging Digital Spaces in Contemporary Society: Properties of Technology,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 3-9.
Karimi, A. and Asadi, A. (2006), “Identification of factors affecting the use of information
technology by trainees in agriculture science”, Agriculture Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 45-
65.
Kelly, B. and Paul, B. (2009), “Library 2.0: balancing the risks and benefits to maximize the
dividends”, Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 311-327.
Kesselman, M. (2008), “Web 2.0 expo in New York: building online communities”, Library Hi
Tech News, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 5-6.
Kim, Y.M. and Abbas, J. (2010), “Adoption of library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and
users: a knowledge management perspective”, School of Library and Information Studies,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 211-218.
Lancaster, F.W. (1997), “Artificial intelligence and expert system technologies: prospects”,
in Raitt, D.I. (Ed.), Libraries for the New Millennium: Implications for Managers, Library
Association, London, pp. 19-38.
Levy, M. (2009), “Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 120-134.
Linh, N.C. (2008), “A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries”,
Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 630-653.
Long, S.A. (2006), “Exploring the Wiki world: the new face of collaboration”, New Library
World, Vol. 107 Nos 3/4, pp. 157-159.
Luo, L. (2010), “Web 2.0 integration in information literacy instruction: an overview”, The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Mahmood, K. and Richardson, J.V. (2011), “Adoption of Web 2.0 in US academic libraries:
a survey of ARL library websites”, Program: electronic library and information systems,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 365-375.
Maness, J. (2006), “Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries”, Webology, Vol.
3
No. 2, Article 25, available at: www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html (accessed 10 April
2013).
Mercˇun, T. and Zˇ umer, M. (2011), “Making Web 2.0 work for users and libraries”, in Gupta,
D.K. and Savard, R. (Eds), Marketing Libraries in a Web 2.0 World (IFLA Publications,
145), De Gruyter: Saur, Berlin, pp. 13-22.
Morris, A. and Allen, K. (2008), “Library 2.0 technologies in academic libraries: a case study
of student use and perceptions”, Online Information 2008 Proceedings, Incisive
Media, London, pp. 77-83.
O’Reilly, T. (2005), “What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software”, available at: www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/
30/what-is-web-20.html (accessed 10 April 2013).
PROG Pera, M.S. and Ng, Y.K. (2009), “Synthesizing correlated RSS news articles based on a fuzzy
equivalence relation”, International Journal of Web Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1,
48,1 pp. 77-109.
Preston, J.B. (2009), “Professional education, development and training in a Web 2.0 environment:
a case study of the UK”, New Library World, Vol. 110 Nos 5/6, pp. 265-279.
Rafferty, P. and Rob, H. (2007), “Flickr and democratic indexing: dialogic approaches to
14 indexing”, Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, Vol. 59 Nos 4/5, pp. 397-410.
Ram, S., Anbu, K.J. and Kataria, S. (2011), “Responding to user’s expectation in the library:
innovative Web 2.0 applications at JUIT Library: a case study”, Program: electronic
library and information systems, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 452-469.
Ramos, M. and Abrigo, C. (2012), “Reference 2.0 in action: an evaluation of the digital
reference services in selected Philippine academic libraries”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol.
29 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K. and Sudzina, F. (2009), “Personal knowledge management: the role
of Web 2.0 tools for managing knowledge at individual and organizational levels”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1021-1039.
Rudman, R.J. (2010), “Incremental risks in Web 2.0 applications”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 210-230.
Sawant, S. (2012), “The study of the use of Web 2.0 tools in LIS education in India”, Library Hi
Tech News, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 11-15.
Scale, M.S. (2008), “Facebook as a social search engine and the implications for libraries in the
twenty-first century”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 540-556.
Serantes, L.C. (2009), “Untangling the relationship between libraries, young adults and Web 2.0:
the necessity of a critical perspective”, Library Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 237-251.
Si, L., Shi, R. and Chen, B. (2011), “An investigation and analysis of the application of Web 2.0 in
Chinese university libraries”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 651-668.
Titangos, H.L.H. and Mason, G.L. (2009), “Learning library 2.0: 23 things @SCPL”, Library
Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 44-56.
Toffler, A. (1984), The Third Wave, Bantam, New York, NY.
Virkus, S. (2008), “Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences at Tallinn
University, Estonia”, Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 262-274.
Xia, Z.D. (2009), “Marketing library services through Facebook groups”, Library Management,
Vol. 30 Nos 6/7, pp. 469-478.

Corresponding author
Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam can be contacted at: [email protected]
Appendix. The questionnaire used
Web 2.0 adoption

15

Figure A1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.