The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0033-0337.htm
PROG
48,1
2 Department of Library and Information Studies, Islamic Azad University,
Received 14 February 2012
Revised 27 April 2012
13 September 2012
25 December 2012
18 April 2013
Accepted 13 June 2013
Program: electronic library and
information systems
Vol. 48 No. 1, 2014
pp. 2-15
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0033-0337
DOI 10.1108/PROG-02-2012-0005
Factors affecting Web 2.0
adoption: a case study
Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam and Mansoureh Hosseini-Shoar
Hamedan Branch, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to identify factors affecting the adoption of Web 2.0
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,
Special thanks to the participants whose help in doing the research is not forgettable. It is the
authors’ pleasure to extend their deep gratitude and thanks to the respected reviewers of the
article for their helpful and constructive comments. They would heartily like to appreciate Dr
Miguel-Angel Sicilia who kindly gave them an opportunity to revise the present work and
publish it through Program: electronic library and information systems.
libraries should merge new technologies including Web 2.0 in their services. The term Web 2.0 adoption
Web 2.0 was first coined and conceptualized in 2004 by Dale Dougherty, a
vice-president of O’Reilly Media Inc. (the company famous for its technology-related
conferences and high quality books (Anderson, 2007, p. 197; Aharony, 2009, p. 227;
Beer, 2008; Davis, 2009; Hwang et al., 2009). Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) or the social web
has introduced new concepts and tools that are able to operationalize a more
social-centric vision. Online social networking systems, such as Facebook, allow people 3
to manage their interaction with others on a massive scale. Blogs and instant
messaging (IM) tools have provided new communication tools to interact more
effectively with others in opened communities. Or Wikis (Wikipedia) this perspective
has appeared so relevant and so promising that many specialists consider this
approach to be the future of knowledge management (Razmerita et al., 2009, p. 1022). In
this line, Virkus (2008) declares that Web 2.0 is about blogs, wikis, really simple
syndication (RSS) and social networking sites, such as Facebook, with hundreds of
millions of users which allow subscribers to create web spaces where they can share
their thoughts, music, videos and pictures, and Flickr’s photo collecting.
In relation to the adoption and application of Web 2.0 in libraries, Kim and Abbas
(2010, p. 211) say “with the advent of Web 2.0, the relationship between the library and
users has dramatically changed. The capabilities of Web 2.0 enable users to engage the
library in two-way communication and knowledge exchanges. Instead of users
physically coming to the library, the library delivers services to users via the university
library website”. Ramos and Abrigo (2012) also highlight that when Web 2.0 comes to
reference services in academic libraries, students and faculty members have chosen to go
online: Ask-a-Librarian, web forms, e-mail and Facebook. For instance, a library that
uses Web 2.0 can provide users with services such as chat-based reference, facilitate their
participation in virtual discussions, and help them interact with other reference
librarians. As a result of Web 2.0 facilities, Web 2.0 related technologies in libraries have
gained increasing popularity globally (Han and Liu, 2010). This led to the emergence of
term Library 2.0 which was first coined by Michael Casey on his blog 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-Moghaddam and Bayat, 2008,
p. 852) emphasizes the importance of people (staff) to organizational success and also
argues that, as part of people-centered strategies, it is important for managers to realize
that all work is knowledge work, even if it appears to be routine. Part of taking all staff
seriously is to recognize the opportunities to leverage knowledge and build capability
and skill in all jobs, in all organizations, the authors believe that the entrance of Web 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 other hand,
optimal application of Web 2.0 tools by librarians requires the identification of factors
affecting the adoption of its tools by librarians. This is what has been stressed by
Merčun and Žumer (2011), that is, past experiences have shown that applying Web 2.0
features did not always bring out the desired effect, mainly because creators did not put
into consideration the necessary 2.0 requirements, the context of use, or what they even
wanted to accomplish. So, through identifying and analyzing such factors in the context
of academic libraries located in Hamedan (Iran), this study will help managers and
directors to understand librarians’ needs about Web 2.0 in order to adopt Web 2.0
applications to their job.
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;
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;
4 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 et al. (2011), seeking to provide an insight into the implementation of some of
the innovative Web 2.0 applications at Jaypee University of Information Technology
( JUIT) with the aim of exploring the expectations of the users and their awareness and
usage of such applications, realized that the users of the JUIT library still lack
awareness about various Web 2.0 applications necessary for teaching and learning.
Si et al. (2011), with the aim of providing an overall picture of the application of Web
2.0 technologies in Chinese university libraries, and identifying what types of Web 2.0
technologies were applied in such libraries as well as their function and user interface, Web 2.0 adoption
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 reliability

Category Number %

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

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

2 Motivation
3 Working conditions
4 Saving time
5 Organizational
resources
6 Changeability
7 Competitiveness
8 Qualitative and
quantitative growth of
university disciplines
9 Skills
10 Users’ comfort
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
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
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
Saving time of librarians and users; User satisfaction; Acquiring new
and update information
Library budget; Flexibility of manager in the purchasing and
providing Web 2.0 facilities for librarians; Increased salary of
librarians; Library management system
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
Other libraries’ usage from the Web 2.0; The use of Web 2.0 tools as a
competitive advantage
The existence of different fields of study in high levels in the
university; Importance of learning Web 2.0 and offering library
services through Web 2.0
Librarians’ skill in English language; Importance of familiarity with
Table II.
information technology to apply Web 2.0 in libraries
Ten broad factors
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 SDd Min Max
48,1
1 Working conditions
Low 3 6.4 17.53 3.79 3 25
High 44 93.6
Total 47 100
8 2 Changeability 11.87 2.58 5 15
Low 5 10.6
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 Total 47 100
of each factor on the
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?
9
As shown in Table IV, the suggestions most noted by the librarians are related to
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
Merčun and Žumer, 2011, p. 16) as well as Burhanna et al. (2009) (quoted by Merčun
and Žumer, 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

Suggestions Fb Pa

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
Attracting LIS professionals to the field of Web 2.0 12 11.1
Others (e.g. buying needed software and hardware equipment, and addressing the Table IV.
importance of adopting and using Web 2.0 tools for academic and library managers) 3 2.8 Distribution of
Total 108c 100 suggestions for
developing the adoption
Notes: aPercentage; 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.
Also, Aharony (2009) considers three affecting factors including motivation,
10 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
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.
 In a word, declared by Maness (2006), in this perpetual beta, any stability other than Web 2.0 adoption
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 services and the need to ensure 11
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
student perceptions of Web 2.0 and the academic library”, Journal of Academic
48,1 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 Web 2.0 adoption
network”, Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1040-1057.
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
No. 7, pp. 489-497. 13
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).
Merčun, T. and Žumer, 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: ali.isfandyari@gmail.com
Appendix. The questionnaire used Web 2.0 adoption

15

Figure A1.