UK ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
ON TWITTER:
WHAT ARE THEY DOING
AND DOES IT WORK?
Michael O’Hagan
Overview

Research warrant: why study Twitter?

Research questions.

Overview of research approach.

Discussion of results.

Conclusions and implications for libraries using Twitter.
Disclaimer!

Limitations of this type of study:




Purely a content and statistical analysis of available data.
Only measuring visible interaction ignores other kinds of value.
Differences in institutional characteristics, student populations, etc.
Your library’s (positive!) experience is what really matters…
…though some extra thoughts and ideas never hurt.
Why study Twitter?

An abundance of literature on using Twitter for organisational
benefit in for-profit and not-for-profit sectors…
…extols the virtues of Twitter as a marketing and stakeholder
engagement tool.
Why study Twitter?

Libraries are getting stuck in as well…
Why study Twitter?

Existing studies:




In particular, no studies:



Anecdotal reports of success.
Generally focus on a single institution.
Little in-depth quantitative/qualitative analysis.
Examine specifically UK academic libraries.
Provide an analysis of follower interaction with content.
And:


Concerns about privacy and forced use (JISC report, 2009).
“I’m honestly kinda creeped out.” – response of a US student to being retweeted.
Why study Twitter?

There’s a dissertation in this ...
Controversial
viewpoints
+
Few in-depth
studies

Research questions

For what purposes do UK academic libraries use Twitter?
…how do the trends observed relate to the ideas in the literature?

How, and to what extent, is Twitter used as a conversation
tool between libraries and their followers?
…and are they happy about it?

What trends exist in follower retweeting dynamics and how
is this affected by use of the tools available on Twitter?
…can any suggestions for good practice be made?
Research approach

Content analysis coupled with statistical analysis…

Sampling:
 Stratified sample of UK higher education institutions.
 2 x one-week periods of activity selected.

Harvest:
 440 tweets from 23 academic libraries.
 Tweet content.
 Associated statistics (retweets, pictures, links, etc.)
Research approach

Content analysis coupled with statistical analysis...

Coding:
 Developed schemes using a combination of existing literature and
induction.
 Schemes to code content of the tweets and accounts interacting with
them.

Analysis:
 Excel Pivot Tables.
 Statistical tests where appropriate.
RQ1 – Purpose
Use of Twitter by UK academic libraries
Personal/casual aside, 8, 2%
Attempt to elicit a response
1%
Talk directly to another user,
85, 19%
Provide news or information,
254, 58%
Retweet another user's content,
90, 20%
RQ1 – Purpose
News or information tweets
Internal
organisation
related, 5, 2%
Other/unknown,
3, 1%
External news,
32, 13%
News about the library
Library related,
214, 84%

Collections
74
Services
62
Events
52
General/other
26
Scope for increased focus on other academic-related
information for users:


Would demonstrate the library is in touch with wider issues.
Marketing/branding value of retweets by related organisations.
RQ1 – Purpose
Retweet another user’s content
Casual aside,
8, 9%
Praise of the
library, 3,
3%
Origin of library-related retweets
Library
related, 18,
20%
Internal organisation
5
Internal librarian
4
External account
9
Non-library
related, 61,
68%

Why are parent organisations and academic staff not
tweeting about their libraries?

Or are libraries just not retweeting this content?
RQ2 – Conversation
Who are libraries talking
to on Twitter?
Other /
unknown, 35,
39%
Tweets prompting libraries to mention
a follower directly
Other, 27, 31%
Library-related
questions, 26,
30%
Library users,
46, 52%
Non libraryrelated
questions, 4, 5%
Librarians, 6,
7%
Internal
organisations,
2, 2%

Non-direct
mentions, 10,
12%
Complaints
about library
services, 19,
22%
Users are actively engaging with the library presence on
twitter to ask questions or moan!


Opportunities to deliver information literacy advice, market resources.
Respond to issues that matter.
RQ2 – Conversation
Direct mentions received and replied to per 100 followers
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Can this be explained…


By marketing strategy?
By resourcing of the service?
RQ2 – Conversation

“Listening in” to followers…

Only 10 directed tweets found not prompted by a direct mention:
Not prompted by direct mention

Answer question
1
Respond to complaint
5
Other
4
Need to:


Adopt a better “who-to-follow” strategy.
Develop techniques to discover relevant tweets.
RQ3 – Retweeting

Securing retweets is identified as beneficial throughout the
literature:



Shows you’ve been read.
Increases the audience of tweets across social networks.
Acts as an endorsement of content or service.
RQ3 – Retweeting
Accounts retweeting library content
Retweet likelihood
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other/
unknown, 29,
21%
Library users,
17, 13%
No RT
One RT
External
accounts, 27,
20%
Internal
librarians, 9,
7%

Promising evidence that content is valued by users.

Good to see internal organisations retweeting library content.
Internal
organisations,
53, 39%
RQ3 – Retweeting

Effect of a range of Twitter features on retweet propensity:
100%
90%
80%
11
70%
60%
29
246
264
145
130
No retweets
50%
Retweet(s)
40%
30%
8
20%
10%
6
69
67
54
21
0%
Hashtag

No hashtag
Picture
Include more pictures and links!
No picture
Link
No link
Conclusions and implications

Demonstrable success in the following areas:

Providing library-related information.

Opportunity for library and users to engage in dialogue:
 Evidence: 46 tweets (approx. 1 in 10) represent conversations with
library users.

Opportunity for parent organisation to demonstrate the relevance and
importance of the library:
 Evidence: 39% retweets from internal organisations.
Conclusions and implications

But to improve...

Increased focus required on information relevant to users other than
library-related:
 Evidence: only 2% of tweets about institutional (non-library) news.

Better techniques to “listen in” to Twitter are needed:
 Evidence: only ten non direct-mention tweets were replied to by
libraries.

Strategies should be developed to better encourage organisations and
faculties to engage with the library on Twitter:
 Evidence: few tweets from internal organisations and none from
faculty members retweeted.
Thank you for your attention

Acknowledgements

Dr Robert Stephens

Alena Ptak-Danchak
Music Faculty Library staff


Questions?