Research Article
Doing More with a DM: A Survey on
Library Social Media Engagement
Jason Wardell
Health & Life Sciences
Librarian
University Libraries
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: jwardell1@udayton.edu
Katy Kelly
Coordinator of Marketing and
Engagement
University Libraries
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio, United States
of America
Email: kkelly2@udayton.edu
Received: 4 Apr. 2022 Accepted: 20 July 2022
2022 Wardell and Kelly. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30141
Abstract
Objectives
– This study sought to determine the role social
media plays in shaping library services and spaces, and how queries are
received, responded to, and tracked differently by different types of
libraries.
Methods
– In April and May of 2021, researchers conducted a
nine-question survey (Appendix A) targeted to social media managers across
various types of libraries in the United States, soliciting a mix of
quantitative and qualitative results on prevalence of social media
interactions, perceived changes to services and spaces as a result of those
interactions, and how social media messaging fits within the library’s question
reporting or tracking workflow. The researchers then extracted a set of
thematic codes from the qualitative data to perform further statistical
analysis.
Results
– The survey received 805 responses in total, with
response rates varying from question to question. Of these, 362reported
receiving a question or suggestion via social media at least once per month,
with 247 reporting a frequency of less than once per month. Respondents
expressed a wide range of changes to their library services or spaces as a
result, including themes of clarification, marketing, reach, restriction,
collections, access, service, policy, and collaboration. Responses were
garnered from all types of libraries, with public and academic libraries
representing the majority.
Conclusion – While there remains a disparity in how different types of libraries
utilize social media for soliciting questions and suggestions on library
services and spaces, those libraries that participate in the social media
conversation are using it as a resource to learn more from their patrons and
communities and ultimately are better situated to serve their population.
Introduction
Social media use
by libraries as institutions is a well-established research topic. Existing
published research tends to focus on content strategies at a practical level,
such as case studies and how-tos. In contrast, this
study intends to fill a gap within the literature about current practices of
social media management and the direct engagement happening between libraries
and the communities they serve. The literature review will focus on social
media and libraries in terms of the current landscape, user engagement, and
managers’ perspectives.
Literature Review
Current Landscape
As a free
communication tool, social media increases the capacity for companies,
institutions and groups to promote themselves, view what people are saying
about them, and converse with customers. According to Edison Research (2021),
82% of the total U.S. population over the age of 12 use social media, an
increase from 79% in 2019 and 80% in 2020 (p. 20). The Pew Research Center
(2021, April 7) reports usage as around 72% and that Facebook and YouTube are
the most used platforms, also stating that those companies’ “user base is
broadly representative of the population as a whole.” Institutions can use
social media surveys like these to inform their strategy, depending on their
intended audience and the content they produce.
Accordingly,
libraries in the U.S. that manage social media accounts use Facebook more than
any other social platform while “Twitter is the next most popular platform,
used by 67% of libraries, followed by Instagram, used by 56% of libraries”
(OCLC WebJunction, 2018, February 13). These
platforms provide opportunities to share content widely and communicate
one-on-one with people. Most libraries use their social media to share upcoming
events and event photos, while some choose to engage directly with their
communities by offering reader’s advisory or research help (OCLC WebJunction, 2018, February 13). The American Library
Association (ALA, 2018) approved a set of social media guidelines for
libraries, including creating a social media policy, staffing and managing the
platforms, and making strategic decisions about intended audience and one-way
or two-way communication. The guidelines conclude with the potential positive
outcomes of libraries using social media, such as presenting the opportunity
for “libraries to engage with users and to make significant contributions to
shared knowledge. This robust civic engagement leads to an informed citizenry
and a healthy society, while also demonstrating the great value of our
institutions” (ALA, 2018). The ALA’s guidelines offer both encouragement and
caution, striking a balance of outlining opportunities as well as consequences
libraries could face.
User Engagement
The literature also weighs the opportunities,
positives, and negatives of using social media to engage with users as
individual institutions. Researchers conduct content analyses of social media
accounts to arrive at conclusions about trends and strategies. A study by Kushniryk and Orlov (2021) analyzes the Twitter posts and
interactions of 12 large public libraries in North America and concludes with
suggestions of how libraries have opportunities to better leverage Twitter by
engaging in dialogic communication. They suggest building better relationships
by “replying to inquiries, providing feedback, commenting, and retweeting
messages” (p. 6). Practitioners and researchers emphasize the importance of
continuously developing a communication strategy, or keeping social media
social, with practices such as such as surveying your intended audiences’
social media habits and preferences (Howard, Huber, Carter and Moore, 2018) and
moving beyond simply broadcasting messages and towards building connections and
having conversations to “develop relationships, improve real-world services and
resources, affect policy, and meet target goals (Trucks, 2019, p. 12).
Some have compared traditional services to what’s now
possible with social media. In the introduction to their study of academic
librarians’ perspectives, Ahenkorah-Marfo and Akussah (2017) write “[reference librarians] employed
face-to-face conversations with users. Of late, however, the service
environment increasingly demands digital reference service, more especially,
synchronous service” (p. 1). On the other hand, researchers express caution
concerning the negative outcomes of using social media to engage with patrons. Katopol (2017) warns that it enables greedy behavior
because a library’s social media presence needs constant attention and requires
staff to be available 24/7 through cell phone and email (p. 3). Kliewer (2018) calls attention to privacy concerns and the
problematic practices of social media companies. Social media engagement
tactics can run counter to longstanding library ethics and principles.
Managers’ Perspectives
Some research, including this study, seeks out social
media managers in libraries to ask about their practices and perspectives. One
of the earliest surveys was presented by Rogers (2009, May 22) and reveals
library use of blogs, social networking, and instant messaging to market and
promote library services. The excitement and potential for reaching more people
and meeting them online, where they were increasingly spending time, is a major
theme of survey respondents (p. 6). Another theme is respondents’ perceiving
the lack of staff time as a major barrier to participating in these tools
(pp.6-7). In 2014, Taylor & Francis Group published a white paper about
libraries’ practices and future opportunities with social media. Their survey
results show that promoting events, services, and resources were all top
priorities, followed by more engagement-centered objectives such as connecting
with new students, engaging with the academic and local community, and as a
customer service tool (p. 8). Social media tracking and assessment varied, some
citing the fact that they don’t have a significant number of users to warrant
writing a report, like other libraries choose to do (p. 21).
Other manager-specific perspectives are discussed in a
study that surveyed art librarians; 71% agreed or strongly agreed that social
media can increase visitors and collection use in their library (Sulkow et al., 2019, pp. 308-309) and in their case study,
a manager cites that “content creation, regular engagement, image editing, and
other time-consuming activities are forms of labor that are often hidden from
coworkers and administration” (p. 315). Unlike the study presented below, these
do not focus on direct messaging or engagement with social media users. The
themes in this literature review, such as staff time, reporting, and providing
services, are relevant to the survey results.
Aims
This study’s aim was to determine the role social
media messaging plays in shaping library services and spaces across all types
of libraries. The authors sought to explore how and how often libraries of
different types directly engage with their patrons on social media and how
queries are managed.
Methods
To better
understand the current use of social media by libraries to solicit and respond
to questions and feedback, the researchers wrote an online survey intended for
managers of social media within all types of libraries in the United States.
For this research, “managers of social media” was defined as any individual who
is responsible for monitoring or posting on social media on a library’s behalf.
All library social media managers were encouraged to respond; there was no
limit per library.
Following IRB
approval, the 9-question online survey (see appendix A) launched in April 2021.
Each question was optional. Between April 28 and May 14, the researchers and
their colleagues shared the invitation to participate, focusing the project’s
initial communication on Ohio library workers through Ohio-specific electronic
mailing lists. Between May 18 and June 4, the invitation was shared to a
national audience by the researchers and their colleagues using the American
Library Association’s discussion boards, library marketing-specific Facebook
groups, and various professional association electronic mailing lists. The
survey was intentionally distributed to professional organizations for multiple
types of libraries to ensure data collection and representation from public,
academic, school, government, and special libraries. Appendix B includes a
timeline of the invitation sharing to each communication channel and their
approximate reach.
Between April 28
and June 4, 2021, 805 people responded to the survey. The researchers
independently analyzed and coded responses to the survey’s two open-ended
questions using Qualtrics XM software for qualitative and quantitative
analysis, identifying 12 themes within Q7 responses and 6 in Q8 after comparing
findings and reconciling discrepancies.
Results
Survey results revealed experiences and practices of
social media managers in libraries. The first two questions filtered out
respondents who were ineligible to participate. All 100% affirmed they were
willing to take the survey. Of these, 23 respondents said they were not social
media managers in response to question 3 and the survey ended for them. The
remaining 763 participants, self-identified social media managers, continued
the survey. Since the individual questions were optional, the total number of
responses varied from question to question.
The subsequent questions inquired about the person’s
own engagement experiences while using their library’s social media account(s).
Of those who answered question 4 (n=615), nearly 92% reported receiving
questions or suggestions; 8% have not. For the respondents of question 5
(n=614), nearly 97% reported that they respond to questions or suggestions.
There were 29 people who answered Q5 affirmatively, but either skipped or said
no to Q4.
The next section of the survey asked participants to
report the frequency of engagement and practices related to questions or
suggestions received on social media. It includes the survey’s two open-ended
questions that the researchers coded and analyzed.
Most commonly, respondents reported receiving
questions or suggestions less than once a month (n=249). The next highest
number of respondents (n=187) said they received questions or suggestions
weekly. The remaining options presented in the survey were monthly (n=134),
daily (n=33), and more than once a day (n=9). See Figure 1.
Figure 1
Q6:
“Approximately how often do you receive questions on your library’s social
media?”
Question 7 asked survey respondents “what has changed
in your library services or spaces as a direct result of questions or
suggestions received via social media?” The 12 themes that emerged from the
researchers’ qualitative coding process on changes to library services or
spaces are listed in the next section. Each individual response was given one
or more of these codes, describing how the library’s services or spaces changed
or didn’t change.
Description of Codes, With Representative Samples
Samples have
been abbreviated for clarity. The anonymized data set of responses is available
upon request.
Clarification (n=143): A response to a question via social media. This includes quick, ready
reference questions in addition to access-related questions. This is considered
a change to services, as it represents a new platform by which to communicate
with patrons.
●
Public library in New York: “People want to verify
services and hours of operations as well as ask questions about programs”
●
Government library in Kentucky: “[The] majority of
questions we receive are how to research, and we direct them to the appropriate
page on our website.”
●
Academic library in Pennsylvania: “[Questions] are
generally just basic ones like "Is the library open today?"”
Marketing (n=49): An
adjustment to messaging off social media. This includes changes to physical
signage, website content, or advertising. This is considered a change to
spaces, either physical or digital.
●
Academic library in Ohio: “Mostly it has been people DMing questions or letting us know about noise
complaints…We did increase signage as a result.”
●
Public library in Pennsylvania: “It helped me identify
where we can improve communication with the public such as where and what we
include on flyers and brochures”
●
Public library in Massachusetts: “We became aware of
people with autism preferring the term "Autism Acceptance," and
changed our signs and SM accordingly.”
Reach (n=103): An increase in
usage of social media on the part of the library social media manager. This
includes consciously increasing the content, maintenance, or monitoring of a
library’s social media. This is considered a change to services.
●
Government library in Mississippi: “[Social] media is
an easy way for people to contact us. It helps us to be available to all of our
patrons, not just those who can make it into the building or call us on the
phone.”
●
Public library in California: “Social media gives us a
bit of a thermometer on what people know, want to know, and don't know about
our services.”
Restriction (n=5): A
decrease in usage of social media. This includes automatic responses saying the
library does not check social media messages, messaging redirecting users to
traditional service points, or anything to dissuade users from contacting the
library over social media. This is considered a change to services.
●
Public library in Massachusetts: “We have more
explicit autoresponders on social media telling people we don't monitor in realtime [sic], and alerting them to [phone, email,] chat
options instead.”
●
Public library in Massachusetts: “[We] had an
autoresponder asking folks to email us…especially so the more detailed requests
that involve different people could have everything altogether instead of
spread out through a chat. Also because messages sent
to the page were easy to accidentally miss and often sent at odd times when no
one was online.”
Collections (n=33): An
addition to the library collection instigated by communications using social
media. This includes physical and digital purchases and subscriptions as well
as coordination for donations. This is considered a change to services.
●
Public library in Pennsylvania: “We have purchased a
couple books based off of some suggestions on social media.”
●
Public library in Pennsylvania: “Sometimes patrons'
messages help us with collection development, as they message us through
Facebook to ask us if a certain title is available or if we can purchase a
certain title.”
Access (n=33): A change to
the ways in which a patron might interact with the physical library space. This
includes changes to hours, reconfiguration of seating, improved WiFi. This is considered a change to services or spaces.
●
Public library in New York: “It's hard to measure
exactly, but we speeded up our timeline for reopening our doors to the public
because of "suggestions" -- more like annoyed comments! -- from
patrons.”
Service (n=76): A change to or
addition of patron-facing programming. This includes in-person events, online
versions of previously offered services, or the creation of new platforms for
patron interaction. This is considered a change to services.
●
Academic library in California: “We notice trends,
when there is a preponderance of questions, it means that [we] have to address
the topic, either on our social media or with addressing changes itself on our
library space. For example, our campus has many parents, and since we received
many questions about children in the library, we created a children's space.”
●
Public library in Pennsylvania: “We are able to handle
more online reference questions and online programs due to social media”
Policy (n=16): An internal
change to how the library—in whole or in part—responds to certain situations.
This includes policies on social media, mindfulness and continuity in
messaging, and procedures when it comes to recording social media messages as
reference transactions. This is considered a change to services.
●
Public library in Pennsylvania: “We have formed a team
of public service staff responsible for monitoring and answering questions on
social media. Previously this task was the responsibility of marketing.”
●
Public library in New York: “We had many questions
that we realized staff had different answers to. It made us rethink, rewrite,
or write new procedures that made clarifications for both staff and patrons.”
Collaboration (n=8): A new connection between
departments within the library or between the library and external partners,
either instigated by or founded on social media communication.
·
Academic library in Ohio: “Lots of partnerships with
other departments on campus. The questions are in the forms of tagging us in an
event or initiative to share with our audience. But we have had comments
questioning our intent when posting about race. We took immediate internal
action by meeting and consulting with the university social media contact.”
In addition, three “no-change” codes were identified:
Nothing (n=124): The respondent states that
there has been no change to library spaces or services as a result of social
media interaction.
·
Public library in Maine: “Not much. Because I am
technically not a member of our patrons services team,
I let people know what is being said but not much changes.”
·
Public library in Florida: “Very little. I report the
suggestions and questions but it's rare department heads or administrators
actually act on the feedback, unfortunately.”
N/A (n=19): The respondent claims that the question is not
applicable to their library, and no further clarification is given. The authors
considered this to be different from a “Nothing” response, in that it suggests
there has been no opportunity for change, whereas “Nothing” suggests the
opportunity existed, but no change was made.
Unclear (n=9): The wording of the response is ambiguous or
uninterpretable.
·
Academic library in Florida: “Unsure, information
doesn't usually reach back to me.”
A total of 618 respondents elaborated on their
experiences in response to this question. Overall, the top three themes across
all libraries were Clarification, Nothing, and Reach.
Question 8 inquired “how are these questions and
suggestions reported and/or tracked?” The six themes that emerged were:
·
Not (n=289): They are not reported or tracked.
·
Included (n=100): They are included in the library’s
overall reporting or tracking mechanism.
·
Referral (n=69): They are referred to the appropriate
person or department.
·
Separate (n=37): They are tracked separately as social
media engagement.
·
Yes, other (n=16): They are reported and tracked but
in other ways.
·
Unknown (n=2): The respondent does not know.
There were 513 responses to this question. The
majority of participants (56%) stated that questions or suggestions are not
reported and/or tracked. The other top themes showed that social media
engagements are included in overall library counts (19%) or that questions and
suggestions are referred to someone else by the social media manager (13%).
The final survey questions investigated the
demographics of respondents. Question 9 asked “what type of library do you work
for?” 612 participants answered this question; every type of library was
represented by at least one respondent. The majority represented public
libraries (61.60%) while workers in academic libraries (26.63%) represented the
second largest group of participants.
Question 10 asked respondents to report the state where
their library is located. Social media managers in Pennsylvania represented
26.6% of the respondents while libraries in Ohio and Texas had high
representation as well.
Figure 2
Q4: “Have you
received questions or suggestions…” by library type.
The researchers also compared results across library
types to explore any differences or similarities between them. Out of all types
of libraries, public libraries were the most likely to receive messages over
social media, and K-12 school libraries were the least likely. Figure 1 shows
whether libraries receive questions or suggestions over social media, by
library type. Apart from government libraries, for whom all of those who
responded to the survey reported responding to social media questions or suggestions,
public libraries were also the most likely to respond to these inquiries, as
seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Q5: “Do you
respond to questions or suggestions…” by library type.
In addition to receiving a greater percentage of
messages over social media, public libraries also receive much more frequent
communication, the most common response stating they receive messages weekly,
whereas all other types of libraries predominantly reported receiving messages
less than once a month. Figure 4 shows frequency by library type.
Figure 4
Q6: Social media
contact frequency, by library type.
Types of libraries also differed in how they saw
social media messaging as affecting change and how they reported or tracked
questions or suggestions received over social media. Public libraries, for
instance, ranked Clarification (n=98) and Reach (n=69) as their two most
frequent changes, while academic libraries’ most frequent change was Nothing
(n=43). See Table 1 for the theme frequency according to library type.
Table 1
Q7: “What Has Changed
in Your Library Services or Spaces…” by Library Type
|
Code |
Public |
School (K-12) |
Academic |
Government |
Special |
Other |
Total |
|
Clarification |
98 |
2 |
31 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
143 |
|
Nothing |
67 |
1 |
43 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
124 |
|
Reach |
69 |
2 |
18 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
103 |
|
Service |
57 |
1 |
13 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
76 |
|
Marketing |
30 |
0 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
49 |
|
Collections |
26 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
33 |
|
Access |
19 |
1 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
33 |
|
N/A |
10 |
0 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
Policy |
9 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
Unclear |
5 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
|
Collaboration |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
Restriction |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
Though more respondents from public libraries
identified some manner of change resulting from social media messaging, they
were less likely to report or track these messages in any formal way. Whereas
around 45% of academic, government, and special libraries each report not
tracking social media messages, 66% of public libraries neither track nor refer
incoming questions or suggestions received on social media. Figure 5 shows
percentages of how each type of library tracks or reports questions or
suggestions received on social media.
Figure 5
Q8: Message
tracking or reporting, by library type.
Table 2
Q8: Message Tracking
or Reporting, by Library Type
|
Q8 |
Public |
|
School |
|
Acad. |
|
Gov. |
|
Special |
|
Other |
|
|
Not |
63.29% |
200 |
85.71% |
6 |
44.14% |
64 |
45.45% |
10 |
45.45% |
5 |
33.33% |
4 |
|
Referral |
14.24% |
45 |
0.00% |
0 |
13.79% |
20 |
13.64% |
3 |
9.09% |
1 |
0.00% |
0 |
|
Included |
11.39% |
36 |
0.00% |
0 |
33.79% |
49 |
27.27% |
6 |
18.18% |
2 |
58.33% |
7 |
|
Separate |
6.96% |
22 |
0.00% |
0 |
6.90% |
10 |
13.64% |
3 |
9.09% |
1 |
8.33% |
1 |
|
Yes, Other |
3.80% |
12 |
14.29% |
1 |
1.38% |
2 |
0.00% |
0 |
9.09% |
1 |
0.00% |
0 |
|
Unknown |
0.32% |
1 |
0.00% |
0 |
0.00% |
0 |
0.00% |
0 |
9.09% |
1 |
0.00% |
0 |
|
Total |
|
316 |
|
7 |
|
145 |
|
22 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
Discussion
Survey
results show that a library's social media presence provides a valuable patron
interaction point beyond being a platform for simply sharing content and
soliciting feedback. For many libraries, social media has joined other methods
of interaction—such as phone, email, face-to-face, etc.—as an integral service
point. Those libraries that provide even a modicum of interaction on a social
media platform are better at reaching their patrons where they are, and the
most engaged among them report connecting with their users in ways that might
not happen otherwise. While nearly 92% of respondents of Q4 acknowledge
receiving some manner of question or suggestion from a patron on social media,
nearly 97% of them report using their social media to address questions or
suggestions. More respondents reported responding than receiving, which may
suggest the use of social media to address questions or suggestions received
elsewhere, or it may be a result of multiple individuals on a social media team
having responsibility for receiving, reporting, and responding to messages.
This uncertainty is discussed further in this study’s limitations and
opportunities for future research.
Engaging With Questions and Suggestions
Across
all libraries, 59% receive at least one question or suggestion via social media
per month, and 37% receive at least one per week. For public libraries,
communication over social media is more frequent, with nearly 51% receiving at
least one question or suggestion per week. Other library types primarily report
receiving fewer than one per month, though with the exception of K-12 school
libraries, at least 25% report receiving one or more per month. Those libraries
that engage in proactive methods to garner social media communications have a more
positive experience in receiving and utilizing social media feedback. Among
libraries the authors identified as increasing social media reach in response
to messages received—a group including all types of libraries—the frequency of
received messages is greater, with 72% receiving at least one message per month
and 50% receiving at least one per week.
This study does not assess patron communication
tendencies, but rather the libraries’ response to social media interaction. In
response to Q7, 20% of survey respondents claimed that nothing changed, but
then went on to describe how social media has become a platform to receive and
respond to ready reference questions. The act of responding to these questions
constitutes a change in service: a new platform by which to communicate with a
patron base that may not have reached out via other methods. This change is
subtler than something collections or service-related, where a patron
explicitly asks for something not previously offered, and as a result the
library changes its offerings. Instead, the act of reaching out over social
media is the implicit ask—“Will you respond?”—and as
reported in the survey, the answer is not always “Yes.”
In a minority of cases, older, more traditional
methods of communication such as email or phone are preferred, and library
social media services have been restricted to direct patrons to reach out
through those official channels. A Wisconsin public library anticipated this
tendency, writing, “We also offer direct links to our website/events/registration
instead of just saying "go to our website.””
Some respondents also identified the tendency to
attract bad-faith interactions with “trolls” or individuals using the anonymity
of the internet to justify mean-spirited or hurtful criticism. Opening the door
to interaction on social media also invites these individuals to participate.
Across the board, survey respondents who identified this sort of behavior also
report ignoring or blocking the offenders.
In some cases, social media served as an impetus to
increase messaging mindfulness. Some survey respondents noted requests to
change certain phrasing to more acceptable terminology, both in functional
library tools—"feedback has influenced naming practices in our catalog”
from a Texas academic library—and on public-facing media platforms—“We became aware of...the term “Autism Acceptance” and
changed our signs and SM accordingly” from a Massachusetts public library.
Others said their social media interactions led to including depictions of a wider
variety of individuals when posting images.
The
quick feedback afforded to and expected by users of social media often make it
a good venue for suggestions, provided the library is open to receiving
feedback in this way. Several libraries identified an improvement in their
communication style after receiving social media feedback. “It helped me
identify where we can improve communication…what we include on flyers and
brochures [and] information we make available through social media.” Others
identify changing “where and when we post announcements,” with a goal of making
services “more customer friendly.”
Tracking and Reporting Practices
When it comes to incorporating social media comments
and suggestions into a tracking or reporting workflow, there are some notable
differences in how libraries handle this task. While public libraries report
receiving the most frequent communication via social media, they also report
having the least codified tracking structure for any questions or suggestions
received in that way.
One Washington academic library notes, “So far they
are few and far between, so not tracking currently.” This is a recurring theme
throughout the responses: many libraries share that the volume of social media
questions and suggestions is too low to warrant tracking. However, this
suggests that should the number of social media interactions increase, it might
be worth recording. As one Texas academic library responds: “I am in the
process of developing a social media engagement reporting schedule to help
track social media engagement in general. Since our engagement is typically
very low, there is not much to report or track, which is why this hasn't been
done in the past.”
Smaller libraries, too, identify less of a need to
track or report social media interactions. One Minnesota public library
responds: “If I received questions/suggestions, I would not track them. I might
report them to the city administrator. I am the ONLY librarian in the library.”
Similarly, from a Michigan public library, “We are small, so I report to our
Interim Manager.” In these cases, where incorporating social media comments
into reported reference statistics is perhaps unnecessary, they still see value
in referring the social media feedback up to an administrator.
There is a trend of directly informing others about social
media feedback but not incorporating it into existing structures. Several
libraries refer social media suggestions directly to administration, with 17
responses sharing any feedback directly with their director, dean, or senior
management. This may suggest that social media feedback carries more importance
than feedback received through traditional channels since it is afforded a
direct route to library administration.
One
of the study’s goals was to find out how social media interactions are managed,
including opportunities to track, report, and refer. Findings show that most
social media managers do not track questions received through social media
channels, such as through existing workflows like reference question reporting
or referring to other departments. Without this information, how could library
social media managers best support their continued use of these tools? Perhaps
new parameters such as measuring the quantity and quality of engagements and
changes to services or collections could be new, evidence-based parameters for
success. This data would help showcase the impact and intentionality of a
library’s social media presence, more so than other available analytics such as
number of followers, likes, or views.
Timeliness
Responses to this survey were clearly impacted by its
timing, distributed as it was in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
During this worldwide event with major ramifications for the safety and
practicality of in-person library services, many libraries either added or
expanded their online presence, and social media communications became an
extension of this. One Pennsylvania public library remarked that social media
"helped us innovate pandemic services and work toward keeping popular ones
in a modified fashion." While this is one of 34 responses to Q7 or Q8
directly mentioning either COVID or the pandemic, any change to clarification,
reach, or virtual services would be a benefit to a patron base that was
incapable of visiting the library in person. Thus, we can assume that many more
of the suggestions and comments received by librarians were a direct result of
COVID-related communication needs.
As
libraries have reopened (and while some never closed), COVID-19 also led to
changes to physical spaces. One Minnesota K-12 school library received social
media feedback from students who "commented that they liked the reduced
seating in the learning commons" for COVID-related physical distancing
requirements, which had the unintended effect of "[allowing] them a more quiet area to work." Other libraries variously
reported boosting WiFi signals, adjusting hours of
operation, incorporating pop-up outdoor events, and other demonstrations of
flexibility in reaction to pandemic demands. What remains to be seen is how
these services and communication channels will change in a post-pandemic world.
Follow-up research is warranted to further explore the effects of COVID-19 on
libraries' social media use.
Limitations and Future Research
First, while the authors were elated at the number and
range of survey responses and the trends derived from commonalities in the
qualitative portions, the low number of responses from school (K-12),
government, special, and other libraries besides public and academic makes it
difficult to draw generalized conclusions from those library types. Any future
studies interested in one or more of those populations should target them
directly via their professional organizations, mailing lists, and interest
groups rather than large, generic organizations.
Also
in relation to survey responses, study limitations arose since the researchers
invited all who identified as library social media managers to participate;
there was no limit per library. Survey respondents’ self-identification as a
social media manager presented the possibility of a wide range of job duties
and expertise represented across all participants. In addition, multiple
responses from the same library could have affected the sample size, and add an
uncertainty about whether individuals responded according to their own
experience or assumed they were answering on behalf of their library.
Lastly,
the broad and exploratory nature of the qualitative portion of this survey led
to some confusion among the respondents. Both Q7 and Q8 were written in an ambiguous
way, so while some responses covered services, spaces, questions, and
suggestions, many more addressed just one or two of those aspects.
Additionally, there was room for interpretation when it came to our definitions
of "what has changed" in library services or spaces and how social
media interactions might be "tracked." Utilizing the coding data
generated in this study, future exploration into this topic might limit the amount of open-ended questions and instead provide a list of
options for both how things have changed and how social media interaction is
reported, with limited space to write in explanations or examples.
The
survey results and analysis reveal opportunities for deeper research regarding
library social media management. Future research questions might include:
●
The
authors noted a theme of social media messages having a faster path directly to
library administration. Do questions or suggestions from people using social
media get higher priority over those received through traditional reference
channels? A survey of library administrators as to their impression of social
media effectiveness may reveal additional insight.
●
There
was little agreement among libraries as to how to best track and report on
social media interaction. Further, there was great disparity between those
libraries claiming to get a lot out of social media interaction and those
claiming to get none. Are there trainings or competencies on library social
media best practices that should be developed for library social media
managers?
Conclusion
This
study shows a variety of practices related to communicating and social media,
including sharing, listening, tracking, and making changes. Although social
media is usually part of an overall communication strategy, it can become just
another mechanism to just share news and updates. Many libraries, however, are
using it as a resource to learn more from their patrons and communities to
better serve their population. This increases a library’s approachability and
reach.
Author Contributions
Jason
Wardell: Conceptualization (equal),
Data curation (equal), Formal analysis (equal), Investigation (equal),
Visualization (lead), Writing – original draft (equal), Writing – review &
editing (equal) Katy Kelly:
Conceptualization (equal), Data curation (equal), Formal analysis (equal),
Investigation (equal), Visualization (supporting), Writing – original draft
(equal), Writing – review & editing (equal)
References
Ahenkorah-Marfo, M., & Akussah, H. (2017). Information on
the go: Perspective of academic librarians on use of social media in reference
services. International Information &
Library Review, 49(2), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1278190
American Library Association. (2018, June). Social media guidelines for public and academic libraries. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/socialmediaguidelines
Edison Research. (2021). The
Infinite Dial 2021. http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2021.pdf
Howard, H. A., Huber, S., Carter, L. V., & Moore, E. A. (2018).
Academic libraries on social media: finding the students and the information
they want. Information Technology and
Libraries, 37(1), 8-18. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v37i1.10160
Katopol,
P. (2017). The library as a greedy institution. Library Leadership & Management, 31(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5860/llm.v31i2.7251
Kliewer,
C. (2018). Library social media needs to be evaluated ethically. Public Services Quarterly, 14(2),
170–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2018.1447418
Kushniryk,
A., & Orlov, S. (2021). ‘Follow us on Twitter’: How public libraries use
dialogic communication to engage their publics. Library & Information Science Research, 43(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101087
OCLC WebJunction. (2018, February 13). Social media and libraries survey summary.
https://www.webjunction.org/news/webjunction/social-media-libraries-survey.html
Pew Research Center. (2021, April 7). Social media fact sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
Rogers, C. (2009, May 22). Social media, libraries, and Web 2.0: How
American libraries are using new tools for public relations and to attract new
users. Presented at the German Library Association Annual Conference: Deutscher Bibliothekartag 2009 in
Erfurt. https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/6738/SCSL_Social_Media_Libraries_2009-5.pdf?sequence=1
Sulkow,
C., Ferretti, J. A., Blueher, W., & Simon, A.
(2019). #artlibraries: Taking the pulse of social
media in art library environments. Art
Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 38(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/706630
Taylor & Francis Group (2014). Use
of social media by the library: Current practices and future opportunities [White
paper]. Taylor & Francis Group.
Trucks, E. (2019). Making social media more social: a literature review
of academic libraries’ engagement and connections through social media
platforms. In J. Joe & E. Knight (Eds.), Social media for communication and instruction in academic libraries. (pp.
1-16). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8097-3.ch001
Appendix A
Survey
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Surveys and Interviews
Research Project Title: Library Social Media Management
and Engagement
You have been asked to participate in a research
project conducted by (researchers) from (institution). We are looking for
managers of social media at all types of libraries in the United States to
answer a 5-minute survey with mostly yes or no questions. For the purposes of
this survey, we are defining “managers of social media” as any individual who
is responsible for monitoring or posting on social media on a library’s behalf.
All library social media managers are encouraged to respond; there is no limit
per library.
The purpose of this project is to better understand
the current use of social media by libraries to solicit and respond to
questions and feedback.
●
You should read
the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether or not to participate.
●
Your
participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right not to answer
any question and to stop participating at any time for any reason. Answering
the questions will take about 5 minutes.
●
You will not be
compensated for your participation.
●
All of the
information you tell us will be confidential.
●
If this is a
recorded interview, only the researcher and faculty advisor will have access to
the recording and it will be kept in a secure place.
●
If this is a
written or online survey, only the researcher and faculty advisor will have
access to your responses. If you are participating in an online survey: We will
not collect identifying information, but we cannot guarantee the security of
the computer you use or the security of data transfer between that computer and
our data collection point. We urge you to consider this carefully when
responding to these questions.
●
I understand
that I am ONLY eligible to participate if I am over the age of 18.
Please contact the following investigator with any
questions or concerns:
(Researcher and contact information)
If you feel you have been treated unfairly, or you
have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please email (email
address) or call (phone).
2. Do you agree to participate in this survey?
●
Yes
●
No
3. Are you a manager of a library's social media
account(s)?
(Note: for the purposes of this survey, a
"manager" is anyone responsible for monitoring or posting on social media
on the library's behalf.)
●
Yes
●
No
4. Have you received questions or suggestions on your
library's social media?
●
Yes
●
No
5. Do you respond to questions or suggestions on your
library social media?
●
Yes
●
No
6. Approximately how often do you receive questions or
suggestions on your library's social media?
●
More than once a
day
●
Daily
●
Weekly
●
Monthly
●
Less than once a
month
7. What has changed in your library services or spaces
as a direct result of questions or suggestions received via social media?
8. How are these questions and suggestions reported
and/or tracked?
9. What type of library do you work for?
●
Public
●
School (K-12)
●
Academic
●
Government
●
Special
●
Other
10. In which state is your library located?
●
Included all 50
states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico
Appendix B
Timeline of the Survey Invitation Sharing to Each Communication Channel and Their
Approximate Reach
|
Invitation Date, 2021 |
Channel |
Members at Invitation Date, approx., if known |
|
April 28 |
Academic Library Association of Ohio (ALAO) listserv |
645 |
|
April 28 |
Ohio Library Council (OLC) Marketing and PR Division |
|
|
April 28 |
Ohio Library Support Staff Institute (OLSSI) |
|
|
April 28 |
Society of Ohio Archivists |
376 |
|
April 29 |
Academic Library Association of Ohio (ALAO)
Programming, Outreach, and Marketing Interest Group (PROMIG) listserv |
39 |
|
May 3 |
Ohio Educational Library Media Association (OELMA) |
|
|
May 3, May 10 |
OhioLINK May weekly updates |
|
|
May 6 |
OhioNET May newsletter |
|
|
May 18 |
Facebook Group: Association of College and Research
Libraries (ACRL) Library Marketing and Outreach Interest Group |
5,400 |
|
May 18 |
Facebook Group: Libraries & Social
Media |
13,400 |
|
May 18 |
American Library Association (ALA) Connect: ALA All
Members |
45,000 |
|
May 18 |
ALA Connect: ACRL Library Marketing and Outreach
Interest Group |
1,400 |
|
May 19 |
Medical Library Association |
|
|
May 19 |
Society of American Archivists |
6,369 |