435038

2012
LIS44410.1177/0961000611435038Calvert and NeoJournal of Librarianship and Information Science

Article

Journal of Librarianship and

Facebook and the diffusion of innovation Information Science

44(4) 227237
The Author(s) 2012
in New Zealand public libraries Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0961000611435038
lis.sagepub.com

Emily Neo
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, New Zealand

Philip J Calvert
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
The decision by public libraries in New Zealand to implement Facebook has been uneven. Using Rogers Diffusion of Innovations
theory, a survey of nine public libraries investigated the process of its adoption or non-adoption. The motivating factors for the
adoption of Facebook were identified. The surveyed libraries all met the four prior conditions for its adoption. In the innovation-
decision process libraries fulfilled the knowledge stage to differing degrees. In the persuasion stage the attributes of relative advantage,
compatibility and complexity were the most important factors to explain adoption. Other factors favouring adoption, such as the
importance of change agents, were also discovered.

Keywords
Diffusion of innovations, Facebook, New Zealand, public libraries, technology adoption

Introduction
Librarians are becoming interested in the potential benefits
of using social networking software to communicate, col-
laborate and converse with their customers (Macaskill and
Owen, 2006). One of the most successful online social net-
working tools is Facebook. Founded in 2004 by Mark
Zuckerberg at Harvard University, Facebook had 500 mil-
lion members worldwide in July 2010 (Wauters, 2010). The
original concept of Facebook as an online student directory
for college students has become a global resource for locat-
ing and linking with people.
Businesses have recognised the benefits of Facebook
and have used it as an innovative marketing tool for build-
ing relationships with their customers. Given the maturity
of Facebook in the business environment, it seems timely
for public libraries to consider adopting it, yet familiarity
with public libraries will soon reveal that there is little con-
sistency among library professionals in adopting social net-
working tools. While some libraries will adopt a new
technology such as Facebook quickly, others will imple-
ment it after some time has elapsed, with the remainder
only willing to adopt it once it is very well established.
Little is understood as to how and why public librarians
make the choice to adopt or not to adopt Facebook, and
what factors might affect their readiness to accept new
technologies. This research investigates aspects of Facebook
adoption among public libraries in New Zealand and exam-
ines how they evaluate Facebook as a potential networking
tool. The results of this research will lead to a better under-
standing of the motivation for the adoption and non-adop-
tion of new technologies by public libraries.
The theoretical framework used in this research draws
on Everett M. Rogers Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) the-
ory. This theory is useful because it leads to a deeper
understanding of the process of adoption of technological
innovations such as Facebook by public libraries. DOI the-
ory posits that the characteristics of innovations, as per-
ceived by individuals, will help to explain the different
rates at which they are adopted (Rogers, 2003:15). Rogers
theory is relevant to this research because it explains not
only the rates of adoption but the whole decision-making
process pertaining to the adoption of Facebook among pub-
lic libraries.
Corresponding author:
Philip J Calvert, School of Information Management, Pipitea Campus,
Victoria University of Wellington, Room 514, Rutherford House,
23 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Email: philip.calvert@vuw.ac.nz
228 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 44(4)
Few public libraries in New Zealand use the potential of
social networking tools to support their services. The ques-
tions asked by this research were:
1. How have New Zealand public librarians assessed
and evaluated Facebook?
2. What are the motivating factors that cause New
Zealand public libraries to adopt or not to adopt
Facebook?
The potential benefits of this project are that public
librarians can consider how they and their libraries match
the profiles of the nine public libraries reported on here,
with a view to gaining a better understanding of how inno-
vations are adopted or rejected by organisations.
Facebook and libraries
According to Aleman and Wartman (2009), Facebook
was originally an online social networking site for uni-
versity students, but its use has spread to businesses and
various other demographic groups. Facebooks growth
rate was 181% among users aged 25 to 34, whereas it was
only 149% among university students. Heussner (2009)
reported that Facebooks fastest growing demographic are
users around 35 years old and that people who are 55
years or older are adopting Facebook at a faster rate than
younger users (often attributed to their desire to keep in
touch with family). Given the current demographic of
Facebook users, libraries need to decide whether they
wish to adopt Facebook, and if so, to identify their
intended audience for it and determine appropriate con-
tent for this audience.
Holzner (2009) conducted a survey of Facebook users
and examined how marketers use social marketing to
advertise their products. Some library literature has looked
at the potential of Facebook for library marketing (Jia and
Nesta, 2006). One study found that Facebook activity in
two American research universities is conducive to library
marketing and can be used to publicise library services
(Xia, 2009).
Librarians need to understand their customers before
they can cater to their needs. For example, the Net
Generation (those born after the early 1980s) grew up with
technology and therefore Facebook can be a marketing tool
to reach out to them. Maxymuk (2007) expressed concern
about a potential disconnection between libraries and the
Net-Gen. It is crucial for libraries to investigate using social
networking tools to reach out to this generation (Abram,
2007; Maxymuk, 2010), for this way librarians can ensure
customer focused services (Abram, 2007; Jia and Nesta,
2006). Marketing, after all, is not simply promotion; it has
to reflect a service improvement and it has to add value
(Kotler, 1979: 38).
Facebook is a valuable tool for teaching, communicat-
ing with customers and building community. Empirical
studies in the Pennsylvania State University Library
demonstrated that Facebook is a very popular and effec-
tive communication tool because it allows librarians to
interact with students. After this experience with Facebook
some librarians agreed that it encouraged social and
group work and is an excellent teaching tool (Mack et al.,
2007).
However, Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis (2007) inter-
viewed 126 academic librarians at the Houston Cole
Academic Library and found the majority thought Facebook
falls outside the scope of professional librarianship. Thus,
there seems to be some inconsistency among librarians as
to the benefits or otherwise of Facebook. A significant
report found college students and the general public have
little interest in participating in the social networking sites
of libraries (OCLC, 2007). Connell (2009) surveyed 366
Valparaiso University freshmen and although the majority
responded that they would accept library contact through
Facebook, a minority reacted negatively due to a perceived
personal privacy issue.
Some overseas public libraries have implemented
Facebook. Examples are Cacak Public Library, Serbia;
Yarra Plenty Regional Library Service, Melbourne;
Manchester Library and Information Service; and Toronto
Public Library (Sokoloff, 2009). They use Facebook for
promoting their events and programmes, to respond to
enquiries, and to provide access to their catalogue. The
Edmonton Public Library in Canada claims our users are
on Facebook; therefore we want to be on Facebook (Hall,
2007). These libraries found that using Facebook was a
progressive move and its implementation was timely.
Rogers Diffusion of Innovations theory
Rogers DOI theory has often been used as a theoretical
framework to analyse the adoption of information and com-
munication technologies in the library environment (for
example, see: Minishi-Majanja and Kiplangat, 2005;
Rutherford, 2008; White, 2001). This research has used DOI
theory primarily to explore the factors that influence public
librarians when considering whether to adopt Facebook.
The following key concepts from this theory have been
selected to suit the purpose of this research: innovation,
technology cluster, diffusion and the rate of adoption.
Innovation is defined as an idea, practice, or object that
is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adop-
tion (Rogers, 2003: 12). In this study, innovation refers
to Facebook. The definition of technology cluster includes
social software which is one or more distinguishable ele-
ments of technology that are perceived as being interre-
lated (Rogers, 2003: 14). Diffusion is defined as the
process by which an innovation is communicated through
Calvert and Neo 229
certain channels over time among the members of a social
system (Rogers, 2003: 11). The rate of adoption is defined
as the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted
by members of a social system (Rogers, 2003: 15). The
social system in this research is the public library. This
research focuses on the evaluation process that leads to a
decision whether to adopt or not adopt Facebook, which is
used here as an example of an innovation.
A relevant aspect of DOI theory is the innovation-deci-
sion process. It is defined as:
the process through which an individual (or decision-making
unit) passes from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation,
to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to making a
decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea,
and to confirmation of this decision. (Rogers, 2003: 168)
This concept was used to understand the process through
which public librarians evaluate Facebook. There are four
prior conditions in DOI theory that can help predict the rate
of adoption of an innovation: previous practice, felt needs/
problems, innovativeness and the norms of the social sys-
tems. Within the evaluation process itself, DOI theory has
five stages of information seeking and gathering, though
here the research looks only at the first two: the knowledge
stage and the persuasion stage. The later stages of decision,
implementation and confirmation, have not been used in
this research because of their individualistic nature. Though
important to every organisation considering the adoption of
an innovation, these stages lack generalisability and so
were omitted. Within the persuasion stage DOI theory iden-
tifies five attributes of innovations that affect the rate of
adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 2003: 1516). These
five major attributes are:
1. relative advantage, the degree to which an inno-
vation is perceived as better than the idea it
supersedes;
2. compatibility, the degree to which an innovation
is perceived as being consistent with the existing
values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters;
3. complexity, the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as difficult to understand and use;
4. trialability, the degree to which an innovation may
be experimented with on a limited basis; and
5. observability, the degree to which the results of an
innovation are visible to others.
Rogers (2003) also stated that members of a social system
could be categorised on the basis of innovativeness, and his
five adopter categories, i.e. innovators, early adopters,
early majority, late majority and laggards, were used to help
understand the relative speed of adoption of Facebook by
New Zealand public libraries.
Methodologies and procedures
Interviews were used to gather data because they are suita-
ble for exploring participants beliefs, experiences, opin-
ions or knowledge structures. The interview is also useful
when exploring a new topic not previously researched
(Beck and Manuel, 2008). Though Facebook is a mature
Web technology, it is a relatively new concept in many pub-
lic libraries and no research has been conducted into its use
in New Zealand.
To ensure a variety of perspectives, a range of small to
large libraries was chosen. Five of the libraries had adopted
Facebook to support their library services, and four of the
libraries had not adopted Facebook. The participants in
this research were key staff responsible for implementing
and maintaining the social media used by their libraries.
The positions of these nine participants were library
manager, digital access manager, digital library services
manager, information services team leader, electronic ser-
vices coordinator, head of information services, informa-
tion services librarian, technical services librarian and
service delivery manager. The population sample has been
coded as PL1 to PL9. When direct quotes are used for pre-
senting findings, participants are assigned the number of
the library they represented.
The interview schedule consisted of three sections.
Section A collected organisational profiles of the surveyed
libraries. Section B included seven questions on the over-
all use and adoption of social networking software.
Section C had two parts containing questions about the
process of adoption decision and attributes and factors
associated with the adoption or non-adoption of Facebook
(see Appendix 1).
The content analysis consisted of two main parts. The
first part involved dividing the interview data collected into
different conceptual categories, for this helps develop pat-
terns that assist in the explanation of the phenomena
(Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The data analysis procedure
used in this research was based on Teschs (1990) frame-
work, a clear process for organising unstructured data
(Beck and Manuel, 2008). The transcribed data was divided
and analysed, question by question, to highlight trends and
patterns in the different answers to the same question
according to the theoretical framework. Finally, all the ana-
lysed information was used to help with understanding the
factors influencing public librarians decision to adopt
Facebook in New Zealand public libraries.
Findings
This section summarises the research findings. The first
section provides general information on the use of social
networking tools in the surveyed libraries. The second and
third sections answer the first research question of this pro-
ject while the fourth and fifth sections are aimed at answer-
ing the second research question.
230 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 44(4)
Overall use and adoption of social
networking tools
The surveyed public libraries have websites and use vari-
ous social networking tools for communicating with cus-
tomers and for marketing and promotion. Of the nine
libraries studied, only three libraries, PL1, PL6 and PL7,
have implemented a Facebook profile with a link on their
websites. Meanwhile, PL2 and PL3 at the time of data
gathering had placed Facebook on trial to test whether it
was suitable for their libraries. PL4 rejected Facebook,
saying it was not suitable for its needs. The other libraries,
PL5, PL8 and PL9, have other social networking tools
such as Twitter, Blogs, Flickr, YouTube, MySpace and
Delicious on their websites.
Participants from all the libraries were aware of
Facebook, mainly through friends and family members,
and have used Facebook personally. Six out of the nine
participants agreed that Facebook was a new innovation
within the library sector. They had, however, different per-
spectives of the notion new innovation. For example,
PL6 and PL7 mentioned that Facebook is a fairly new con-
cept used in New Zealand organisations but not for over-
seas organisations, whereas PL9 said that Facebook is not
new in terms of individual personal use in New Zealand
but it is a new social networking tool in New Zealand
organisations. PL1 and PL8 both disagreed that Facebook
is a new innovation as they were aware that Facebook has
been around since 2004.
Evaluation process overview
Only PL1 applied a formal process for assessing and evalu-
ating Facebook prior to its implementation. The library
formed a project group to assess and evaluate Facebook;
staff from different business units (including an expert in
information technology) were involved in the project. The
group conducted a literature review on general social
media, followed by a focused environmental scan, a cus-
tomer survey on social media and an evaluation of
Facebook. The team then presented its recommendation to
senior management.
PL2 undertook a similar process to PL1 but involved all
staff in the evaluation of Facebook through a general staff
wiki and staff meetings. The library staff of PL6 and PL7,
both which adopted Facebook, recommended to senior
management that Facebook be implemented without going
through a formal process. PL4 simply looked at what other
libraries were doing and, after a short trial period, decided
not to adopt Facebook, believing it did not provide any
added value.
PL3 adopted Facebook in some branch libraries, but only
on the recommendation of individual branch staff. PL5 is
still considering whether it wants to explore Facebook as a
social networking tool. PL9 is more interested in Kete, a
customised library intranet which is quite similar to
Facebook in terms of interaction and participation for cus-
tomers. PL8 did not have an evaluation process for Facebook
as its Facebook I love [PL8] was driven by their customers
instead of PL8 staff.
Decision-making process
For eight public libraries, the exception being PL8, the
decision whether or not to use Facebook was dealt with
internally by staff with the consent of senior management.
Their councils (the local government authorities that fund
public libraries) provided them a free rein to make a deci-
sion to use Facebook. PL8, however, reported that its coun-
cil did not allow any use of social networking tools due to
concerns about them affecting the security of their intranet.
Importantly, all the interviewees appear to enjoy trying
out new technologies and have used Facebook and other
Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter and Weblogs. When asked
about whether their library often adopts new technologies,
the staff from PL1, PL3, PL4 and PL9 responded that their
libraries would not blindly follow others in adopting tech-
nologies. The libraries that only occasionally adopt new
technology seem to be partially restricted by their councils.
The others reported that they understand the importance of
social media. PL7 said that they try to encourage and keep
up to new technologies.
All surveyed public libraries said Facebook is a com-
munication tool that enables them to understand their cus-
tomers needs through feedback and comments. PL2 stated
that a website is essential to give basic information but
what you also need is Facebook which is about the conver-
sation and engaging with your customers. PL2 also felt
Facebook provided an alternative way for them to com-
municate with existing customers and to build an online
community: I dont think we serve our online community
very well or discover/build our online community yet. For
PL6, Facebook has opened up another channel of commu-
nication for the library. All the nine public libraries felt that
most library services only focus on primary library func-
tions and that Facebook is an extra function on top of the
normal library functions whose potential to perform has
not been tested.
Motivation for Facebook adoption
and non-adoption
Adoption
In terms of DOI labels, PL6 classified itself as an innovator,
PL4 classified itself as an early adopter, whereas PL1 and
PL2 considered themselves to be early majority and PL7
and PL3 identified themselves as late majority. None of the
libraries identified themselves as laggards. PL5, PL8 and
PL9 are non-adopters and therefore do not easily fall into
Calvert and Neo 231
any of the adopter categories as determined by Rogers
2003 model, but could be considered to be laggards.
Staff in PL1, PL2, PL3, PL5, PL6 and PL7 agreed that
Facebook is a good marketing and promotional vehicle for
library events and activities. PL1 and PL6 said that
Facebook enables the library to reach a market segment not
well serviced by traditional channels, so it could reach
potential new customers in the wider community.
PL1, PL2, PL3, PL6 and PL9 felt that Facebook is com-
patible with the traditional library culture and values of
open information sharing, provision of good customer ser-
vice without end-user charges if possible, and empowering
customers with knowledge. Most public librarians around
the world would recognise the philosophy and values these
New Zealand libraries wish to promote. PL2 added that
Facebook reflects their library culture as being casual and
personal.
PL6 and PL7 said it is helpful that existing staff are
already using Facebook. PL6 and PL9 stated that manage-
ment and staff support is a crucial factor in the adoption of
Facebook. PL2 felt that an important motivating factor was
that the library wanted to keep up to date with technologies.
PL1 and PL9 believed that Facebooks personalised,
interactive quality gives the library a friendly, approachable
and modern image. Moreover, PL2 felt that Facebook ena-
bles the library to engage with customers in a meaningful
way as it is not just about the library providing information
to customers but providing customers with the opportunity
to contribute content.
Non-adoption
The main issue that hinders the adoption of Facebook is a
lack of staff resources to manage and maintain it. To PL5
and PL9 Facebook is another system to manage that
requires staff time, and it will be a challenge to add
Facebook responsibility on to current staff workload.
Among the adopters PL1, PL4 and PL7 said that much time
and effort are required to interact with customers and sus-
tain their interest in Facebook once it has been adopted as a
networking tool. Further, PL3 said that it is important for
staff to embrace the decision to use Facebook, for they
would be responsible for keeping the Facebook site active
and vibrant.
PL2, PL6 and PL9 are concerned that the time, effort
and cost invested in the use of Facebook are greater than its
potential value. They mentioned the possibility of losing
council support if the Facebook initiative failed. PL3 and
PL4 found it hard to choose the right technology as there
are many to choose from, especially when existing tech-
nologies can be replaced so easily by new ones. PL3 was
unsure whether Facebook would attract more people to the
library, though it did agree that Facebook has potential for
the library to engage with the community and thus reach
new audiences.
All except PL4 and PL5 felt that there is the risk of cus-
tomers posting inappropriate comments that will mar the
reputation of their libraries. PL8 said it is difficult to control
the type of people joining Facebook and that undesirable
members could pose a risk to both public libraries and
councils reputations through the posting of negative
remarks. PL8 referred to it as running the risk of getting
toxic people on board who can easily mess it up badly.
PL5 felt the risk actually lies in the implementation of
Facebook, for if it is not implemented properly it can be a
liability and hence affect the reputation of the library. Kane
et al. (2009) said that a dedicated social media team is nec-
essary to deal with potential threats such as negative posts.
Prior conditions of evaluation process
Before going into in-depth discussion of Rogers innova-
tion-decision process, it is crucial to discuss and analyse the
prior conditions of the nine surveyed public libraries.
Rogers outlines four prior conditions which could help pre-
dict the rate of Facebook adoption.
Previous practice
All the nine surveyed public libraries already have skills
developed from their own websites and have used social
media such as blogs, Flickr and MySpace as customer ser-
vice tools. Moreover, most library staff personally use
Facebook. Most of the staff members responsible for
investigating the adoption of Facebook have technological
skills. Having library staff who are personal users of
Facebook is an advantage for the libraries, as it makes
implementation easier.
Felt needs/problems
Staff surveyed in the public libraries felt that there is a need
for a social networking tool which enables communication
with customers while marketing and promoting library ser-
vices and providing good customer service. For example,
PL2, PL3 and PL6 agreed that the library website gives
basic information but social media is about conversation
and engagement with customers. Moreover, these libraries
also felt that Facebook enables the library to serve their
online customers. For example, PL6 said: I dont think we
have served our online community very well or have dis-
covered or built our online community yet.
Innovativeness
All the library staff enjoyed trying new technologies and
have used Facebook and other Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter
and blogs. Innovation in these libraries depends on staff as
well as managements and the councils vision for technol-
ogy use within the organisations. Most of the public libraries
232 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 44(4)
want to be seen as adopting the new, but there are still some
restrictions on the technology that they can use, because nei-
ther library management nor council want to be associated
with technology that could negatively impact the librarys or
councils image.
As a consequence, some libraries have to work with
tight restrictions on the use of new technology. A case in
point is PL8, whose main barrier to the adoption of
Facebook was the council restriction on the use of social
media on its computers. On the other hand, PL2s decision
to trial Facebook followed the library strategic plan to
do more creative technology work. Another crucial point
to emerge from the research is that larger public libraries
such as PL1, PL2, PL4 and PL6 have more resources for
innovation and they have a tendency to move quickly in
adopting new technology, unlike the smaller libraries such
as PL7 or PL9.
Norms of the social system
Libraries around the world are using social networking
tools to communicate with their customers (for examples
see Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Farkas, 2007; Kroski,
2008; Spiteri, 2007). Public libraries want to stay current
and engaged with technology. It is clear that customers
spend more of their social lives online, so for public librar-
ies, having a presence in some social networking sites is an
opportunity to reach these customers. PL1 said, We want
to be where our customers are.
In conclusion, the nine surveyed public libraries meet
Rogers prior conditions previous practice, felt needs/
problems, innovativeness, norms of the social systems
despite the different library sizes, which means that these
libraries have a good chance of adopting Facebook.
Evaluation process
Rogers (2003) states that the decision to adopt an innova-
tion has to go through five stages. These are, collectively,
called the innovation-decision process. It is essentially
an information-seeking and information-processing activ-
ity which can lead to either adoption or rejection of the
innovation (Rogers, 2003: 172). The five stages are:
knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and con-
firmation. Basically the evaluations were done in just two
phases, at the knowledge stage and at the persuasion stage.
This fits with Rogers (2003) that evaluation is essential
prior to trial or adoption of the innovation.
In general, the majority of the libraries fitted into Rogers
(2003) definition that an individual seeks innovation-eval-
uation information in order to reduce uncertainty about an
innovation, and the uncertainty associated with this new-
ness. As an example, PL1 commented that: It is no use
wasting time on something that is not going to work or its
not the right place to be.
Knowledge stage
According to Rogers (2003), the knowledge stage consists
of three types of knowledge: awareness-knowledge, how-to
knowledge and principles-knowledge. All the libraries in
the study have evaluated Facebook based on one or more of
Rogers three types of knowledge.
All the participants interviewed have awareness-
knowledge of Facebook through friends and families, and
have used it personally. Staff involved in the initial evalu-
ation process were mainly technology experts made
responsible for bringing the potential value of Facebook
to the attention of staff and management. For example,
PL6 proposed to senior management to use Facebook as
a strategy of engagement and promotion of library activi-
ties. PL7 proposed to the district manager to adopt
Facebook after considerations, and PL4 brought the idea
to the notice of the director.
After obtaining theoretical knowledge, some libraries
went one step further to acquire the how-to knowledge.
PL2 gauged what type of information was being posted,
level of fan base and level of interactions. PL7 looked at
each Facebook site in order to understand what was
involved in implementation. As PL7 pointed out: You see
a lot of papers and conferences, journals all saying how
great social media is so you get convinced by all these.
Then you go and find out the practical side of it whether it
suits you.
However, there is no evidence to show that the libraries
have evaluated Facebook up to Stage 3, which involves
gaining information in order to deal with the function prin-
ciples underlying how an innovation works. PL4 found
Facebook was not useful, and rejected it after trialling it for
six months. The reason could be that the library evaluated
Facebook merely by looking at other library pages and
therefore did not fully understand the functionality (poten-
tial benefits) of the technology enough to be able to make it
work for the library.
Persuasion stage
According to Rogers (2003), there are five attributes that
make up the persuasion stage in his innovation-decision
process. They are, namely: relative advantage, compatibil-
ity, trialability, observability and complexity. Rogers (2003:
16) further explains that: innovations that are perceived by
individuals as having greater relative advantage, compati-
bility, trialability and observability and less complexity will
be adopted more rapidly than other innovations.
Relative advantage
Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as better than the idea it supersedes (Rogers,
2003: 15). Much of the literature emphasises the idea of
Calvert and Neo 233
social software as new technology (Web 2.0) that will
replace older technology (Web 1.0). The research found
that the concept of Facebook replacing an older library ser-
vice was not relevant to its use in public libraries. All the
surveyed public libraries had come to the conclusion that
Facebook serves a different function in comparison to core
library services. For instance, PL2 stated that:
The OPAC and Website are about giving information to
customers whereas Facebook is about a conversation with
customers so you get to understand them. Website is essential
to give basic information but what you also need is social
media which is about the conversation and engaging with your
customers and getting content from them rather than throwing
content at them.
Some of the libraries believed Facebook was a good
virtual vehicle to promote library services, and also for
social interaction. Furthermore, it provides an interactive
communication channel that enables them to understand
their customers needs through feedback and comments.
For example, PL5 stated that Facebook adds a read/write
component to our Web. PL2 said that the website needed
to be supplemented by social media like Facebook to pro-
vide a facility to be interactive with customers, adding: I
dont think we serve our online community very well or
discover/build our online community yet. This finding
supports Kroskis (2008) studies that libraries are becoming
interested in using social media to communicate with their
customers reflecting the increasing use of online informa-
tion seeking and the building of an online community.
Compatibility
Compatibility is defined by Rogers (2003: 15) as the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as being con-
sistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs
of potential adopters. Compatibility proved to be a useful
concept in understanding the reason why some of the sur-
veyed public libraries chose to adopt Facebook. Some
libraries said they found the attributes of Facebook to be
highly compatible and consistent with their own mission
and objectives. An example is PL5 who stated that: it is
compatible in terms of availability of information. If
Facebook allows information to be made available to all, it
fits with the librarys role as an information provider. PL4,
however, had used Facebook and subsequently removed it,
saying that Facebook was incompatible with the librarys
culture and values. PL4 said it was not useful after trialling
it. This shows there is a difference in opinion between the
surveyed public libraries.
Trialability
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be
experimented with on a limited basis (Rogers, 2003: 16). If
an innovations user has difficulty trying it out, this indi-
vidual will be less likely to adopt it. All the nine surveyed
public libraries said that it was inexpensive and easy to
implement Facebook. The data suggest that this window of
opportunity (i.e. to be able to trial Facebook without fuss)
will quicken the pace of the decision making process.
Observability
Observability is the degree to which the result of an inno-
vation is visible to others (Rogers, 2003: 16). A highly vis-
ible innovation will drive communication in peer and
personal networks and will in turn create either positive or
negative reactions. The surveyed public libraries experi-
menting with Facebook currently have a fairly high level
of visibility due to the volume of information exchange
through peers, personal networks, and conferences. It is dif-
ficult, however, to determine the number of active contrib-
uting customers using the Facebook site of other public
libraries, so most observations are based solely on the num-
ber of people using their own librarys Facebook site.
Observability, therefore, was one aspect of the DOI theory
that was difficult to apply to this evaluation.
Complexity
Complexity was a useful concept in the current study. The
complexity of an innovation is a significant factor in
whether or not it is adopted, for if the innovation is too dif-
ficult to be used it is unlikely to be adopted. Most of the
surveyed public libraries agreed that Facebook is easy to
use as tool to communicate with friends and families.
Conversely, these libraries also mentioned that some
Facebook functions cannot be used to meet all their specific
requirements. A case in point is PL2 who said: Its difficult
to make Facebook do what you want to do. You have to suit
the platform. Similarly, PL7 said Facebook was simple to
set up and put things up but not simple to develop and
maintain, and create new things onto [it] that will be
working for you. Despite this, both libraries have been
using Facebook.
Summary of persuasion stage
When applying these categories to the innovation of
Facebook adoption in New Zealand public libraries, this
research found that all five characteristics were important
in explaining the decision to adopt Facebook. This study
found that relative advantage, compatibility and complex-
ity were the most important factors to explain adoption.
The above attributes have important implications for the
rate of adoption as well as being motivating factors in the
adoption/non-adoption of Facebook. Trialability and
observability were less important factors in the decision to
adopt Facebook.
234 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 44(4)
Other motivating factors for Facebook
adoption or non-adoption
Relative advantage/disadvantage
Rogers (2003) said that relative advantage is the ratio of
the expected benefits and costs of the adoption of an inno-
vation. PL2, PL3 and PL9 are concerned about the sustain-
ability and value of Facebook if the time, effort and cost
invested in its use are high when compared to the value
drawn from Facebook. PL2 is also concerned that the coun-
cil might lose interest in Facebook. These libraries believe
Facebook may become a waste of staff time, and it could be
difficult to sustain staff interest in Facebook as part of their
work responsibilities. Therefore if libraries find Facebook
to be of little value compared to the effort needed to sustain
it, especially the use of staff resources, they will not be
motivated to adopt it.
Response from customers and staff
Positive feedback from customers and staff is an indicator
of the successful trial/adoption of Facebook, and thus can
be a motivator. Most of the public libraries agreed that
Facebook is about communicating with customers, there-
fore they used Facebook to survey opinion. PL6 was happy
with the positive feedback it received: They are happy
tell us what they like and dislike regarding our library
services via posts to Facebook wall and via staff at the
counter. The library is also happy with metrics on the use
of its Facebook site. PL3 said it was: really good to see a
community presence. PL2 was delighted to share his eval-
uation that the customer fan base was growing and feed-
back from staff was mainly positive fantastic as they
love social media.
Conversely, poor responses from customers can discour-
age Facebook adoption. PL7 did not have feedback from
either customers or staff but said: I think Facebook is actu-
ally difficult to make connections our people are already
on Facebook but are only interested in being in family
groups. In the same light, PL9 mentioned that: Customers
use Facebook for social interaction with their friends .
[They] wouldnt be interested in [social interaction with]
the library. PL4 trialled Facebook for six months and
decided to reject it after evaluation due to no customer
feedback and staff did not find it useful.
Library culture
The library culture, which here is used to describe the com-
bination of a library philosophy valuing open information
access and personalised customer service with organisa-
tional cultures that favour innovation, plays an important
role in the adoption of Facebook. Organisational support is
crucial to the successful adoption of an innovation. PL2
said that there was a lot of interest from their council in
using technology creatively and that was a motivation in
adopting Facebook.
Another motivating factor is the presence of an innova-
tion champion who will contribute to the success of the
innovation in the organisation (Rogers, 2003). This is evi-
dent in PL4, PL6 and PL7. In each of these libraries the
champion/driver was the technology person: the Electronic
Services Coordinator, the Technical Services Librarian
and the Digital Manager. Because larger public libraries
have bigger budgets and more resources than smaller
ones, they can be more innovative, so Rogers (2003)
belief that large organisations will be more innovative
becomes applicable.
Level of innovativeness
The surveyed public libraries classified themselves accord-
ing to the adopter categories, but their self-identified cate-
gories are not appropriate for some of them. For example,
PL2 classified itself as early majority, but it should be an
innovator or early adopter because it implemented Facebook
in 2005 before it had become popular. PL6 considered itself
as an innovator but it is really an early adopter, because this
library adopted Facebook in 2008 by which time it was
already well established. This library, however, did such a
good job that other public libraries look to it for advice
about using Facebook. Therefore PL6 is an opinion leader,
a characteristic of early adopters. Moreover, PL6 decreased
the uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it. PL6 is also
a local missionary, helping speed up the diffusion process
(Rogers, 2003: 283).
PL1, PL4, PL3 and PL7 are early majority because they
deliberately delayed the adoption of Facebook for some
time. The motto of the early adopter is: Be not the first by
which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside
(Rogers, 2003: 284). The early majoritys innovation-deci-
sion period is relatively longer than that of the innovators
and the early adopters.
Decision, implementation and confirmation
According to Rogers (2003: 117), the decision stage takes
place when an individual (or other decision-making unit)
engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject
an innovation. He points out one way to determine the use-
fulness of an innovation is to trial it. In general, the sur-
veyed libraries trialled Facebook before deciding whether
to adopt or reject it. PL1 and PL6 decided to adopt Facebook
after trialling it and PL2 was running a Facebook trial when
the library staff member was interviewed for this research.
However, PL4 decided to reject Facebook after the trial.
PL7 adopted Facebook without trialling it as the library
found that it was not useful to trial Facebook because it
might create a negative impression and people dont want
to contribute [to this].
Calvert and Neo 235
Conclusion
The main motivating factors for the adoption of Facebook
are that: it displays benefits as a marketing and promotional
tool; it is compatible with library culture and values; it is use-
ful for developing staff interest and management support; it
aids the upgrade of staff IT skills; and its personalised, inter-
active quality gives the library a better public image. By con-
trast, factors for the non-adoption of Facebook are that: it
places a strain on staff resources; there has been poor cus-
tomer response so far; and there are many risks involved.
This study used Rogers innovation-decision process
theoretical framework to analyse how New Zealand public
libraries proceeded through the decision-making process to
adopt or reject Facebook. The nine surveyed public librar-
ies meet all of Rogers four prior conditions, though only
PL1 and PL2 were comprehensive in their search for infor-
mation on Facebook. As all nine public libraries met the
four prior conditions, it is possible that most public libraries
in New Zealand, and possibly in similar countries, will also
meet them, though not all will meet the innovativeness
criterion and some may not have the same felt needs as the
surveyed libraries.
All nine libraries then went through the first two impor-
tant stages of the decision-making process: knowledge and
persuasion. Within the persuasion stage this study found
that relative advantage, compatibility and complexity were
the most important factors to explain adoption. Public
libraries sought information regarding the viability of
Facebook adoption to reduce the use of staff time and other
resources. In conjunction, innovations must make unique
contributions to the librarys culture; experimentation must
be easy; librarians want tools that are simple to learn and
use, and which make it easy to track customers informa-
tion exchange online. Again, public librarians in New
Zealand and similar countries could look at these results to
see how well they match them, and use them when evaluat-
ing other innovations, especially for relative advantage,
compatibility and complexity.
At the third stage of decision making the public libraries
had to decide whether or not to trial Facebook before adopt-
ing the innovation. Only PL1, PL2, PL3 and PL6 trialled
Facebook; in these libraries staff in charge of technological
innovation were enthusiastic. The involvement of a change
agent within the organisation is critical to smooth progress
in the decision stage. This, too, can be useful for public
libraries evaluating new technologies for adoption. The
DOI theory proved to be a very appropriate method for
evaluating the adoption of Facebook by public libraries in
New Zealand, with almost all aspects matching the process
used by the library and council staff. Only the later stages
of the evaluation process are not so useful because they are
very individual in their application.
The study was exploratory in nature, and discussion is
limited to the innovation-decision process. Therefore, fur-
ther research is required into:
customers perceptions of Facebook as a communi-
cation tool for public libraries;
whether or not Facebook actually meets public
libraries goals and objectives.
All the surveyed public libraries used one or more social
networking tools to communicate with their customers to
promote library services and events. They all used a form of
evaluation before making a decision to adopt Facebook or
reject it. They matched the innovation-decision process
closely and other librarians might discover that this can be
informative in the evaluation of any new innovations,
including Facebook.
Appendix 1
The specific qualitative data consisted of answers to 21 in-
depth interview questions. The questions posed were as
follows:
Section A: Organisational profile
Name of Library, Number of Staff, Position in Library
Section B: Overall use and adoption of social
networking software
1. Does the library have its own online website?
2. Does the library use social networking tools/
software?
3. What are the types of social software the library
uses?
4. Where did you get to know Facebook from?
5. Do you agree that Facebook is a new innovation
within the librarys sector?
6. What is your librarys status regards to Facebook
adoption?
7. When did the library start to use Facebook?
Section C:
Part I. Process of adoption decision
1. Why did your library decide to adopt/not adopt
Facebook?
2a. Who were involved in and what were their roles in
the decision making process with regard to the
adoption or non-adoption of Facebook in this
library?
2b. Was it (a) individual/group decision; (b) senior/
junior level management decision; (c) bottom to
top/top to bottom management decision?
2c. What was your involvement in the decision to
adopt or decline the use of Facebook?
236 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 44(4)
3a. Prior to the decision to adopt or reject Facebooks
use in the library, did the library carry out any
studies/research?
3b. Who conducted those studies/research? Internal or
external group of researchers?
3c. What were the methods that those researchers used
to assess and evaluate Facebook before deciding to
adopt/not-adopt in the library?
3d. Were customers involved in pre-implementation
test?
3e. What has been the feedback from your customers
and staff about Facebook? How did you receive
the feedback?
4. What do you think are the differences between
Facebook and other library services (i.e., Twitter,
OPAC)?
5a. What are the main steps/stages involved in the
decision making process of the adoption of
Facebook in this library? (For those libraries who
adopted Facebook)
5b. What are the main steps/stages that the decision
committee have gone through before deciding to
reject the adoption of Facebook in this library?
(For those libraries who reject the adoption of
Facebook)
6. What difficulties did you face in the process of
deciding to implement Facebook in your library?
7.  How do you promote Facebook to staff and
customers?
8. If your library has already implemented Facebook,
how have you evaluated it?
9. How will you know if your implementation of
Facebook is a success?
10. Do you think there is any risk for the library in
implementing Facebook?
11a. Does your library often adopt new technologies?
11b. Do you enjoy trying out new technologies?
11c. Do you have your own Facebook page?
11d. Do you use other web 2.0 tools such as Twitter?
Part II. Major attributes and factors associated with the adop-
tion of Facebook
12. With respect to Rogers five adopter categories
(i.e., innovators, early adopters, early majority,
late majority and laggards), which category do
you believe best describes your library as regards
Facebook? Why do you think so?
i. Relative advantage:
13. What do you think are the advantages of this tech-
nology?
14. What do you think are the disadvantages of this
technology?
ii. Compatibility:
15. How can Facebook meet the needs of your library
staff and customers?
16. To what extent do you see Facebook usage as
being consistent with your librarys culture and
values?
iii. Complexity:
17. What are the difficulties you face in implementing
or managing Facebook in your library?
18. Facebook is easy to use. What are your views on
this statement?
iv. Trialability:
19. Did you experiment with it on a limited basis
before implementing it? If so, how did you trial it?
v. Observability:
20. Were you able to observe the effective use of
Facebook in libraries and other cultural institu-
tions, such as galleries and museums? If yes, what
were you able to observe? If not, why not?
21. In your opinion, what other factors that we have
not discussed about would motivate the library in
the adoption of Facebook? And likewise, are there
other factors that would de-motivate the library?
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Abram S (2007) Millennials: Deal with them! Part II. School
Library Media Activities Monthly 24(2): 5558.
Aleman AM and Wartman KL (2009) Online Social Networking
on Campus: Understanding What Matters in Student Culture.
New York: Routledge.
Beck SE and Manuel K (2008) Practical Research Methods
for Librarians and Information Professionals. New York:
Neal-Schuman.
Charnigo L and Barnett-Ellis P (2007) Checking out Facebook.
com: The impact of a digital trend on academic libraries.
Information Technology and Libraries 26(1): 2334.
Connell RS (2009) Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace,
and student outreach: A survey of student opinion. portal:
Libraries and the Academy 9(1): 2536.
Corbin J and Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.
3rd edn. London: Sage.
Farkas M (2007) Going where patrons are. American Libraries
38(4): 27.
Hall J (2007) Public library sets up Facebook page: We Want to
be Where our Users Are. Edmonton Journal, 25 August, 5.
Heussner KM (2009) Is Facebook aging gracefully? Available at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/Story?
id=8044711&;page=1 (accessed January 2011).
Holzner S (2009) Facebook Marketing: Leverage Social Media to
Grow Your Business. Indianapolis, IN: Que.
Jia M and Nesta F (2006) Marketing library services to the net
generation. Library Management 27(6/7): 411422.
Calvert and Neo 237
Kane GC, Fichman RG, Gallaugher J et al. (2009) Community
relations 2.0. Harvard Business Review 87(11): 4550.
Kotler P (1979) Strategies for introducing marketing into non-
profit organizations. Journal of Marketing 43(1): 3744.
Kroski E (2008) All a Twitter. School Library Journal 54(7):
3135.
Macaskill W and Owen D (2006) Web 2.0 to go. Available at:
http://www.lianza.org.nz/library/files/store_013/Web2To
Go_WMacaskill.pdf (accessed November 2010).
Mack D, Behler A, Roberts B et al. (2007) Reaching students
with Facebook: Data and best practices. Electronic Journal of
Academic and Special Librarianship 8(2). Available at: http://
southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/mack_d01.
html (accessed December 2010).
Maxymuk J (2007) Whose space? The Bottom Line: Managing
Library Finances 20(2): 97100.
Maxymuk J (2010) Library as a place in space. The Bottom Line:
Managing Library Finances 23(3): 128131.
Minishi-Majanja MK and Kiplangat J (2005) The Diffusion
of Innovations theory as a theoretical framework in library
and information science research. South African Journal of
Library and Information Science 71(3): 211224.
OCLC (2007) Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World:
A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC.
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York:
Free Press.
Rutherford L (2008) Implementing social software in pub-
lic libraries: An exploration of the issue confronting public
library adopters of social software. Library Hi Tech 26(2):
184200.
Sokoloff J (2009) International libraries on Facebook. Journal of
Web Librarianship 3(1): 7580.
Spiteri L (2007) The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The
road to the public library catalog. Information Technology and
Libraries 26(3): 1325.
Tesch R (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Soft-
ware Tools. New York: Falmer.
Wauters R (2010) Zuckerberg makes it official: Facebook
hits 500 million members. Available at: http://techcrunch.
com/2010/07/21/facebook-500-million/ (accessed December
2010).
White MD (2001) Diffusion of an innovation: Digital reference
service in Carnegie Foundation Masters (Comprehensive)
Academic Institution Libraries. Journal of Academic Librari-
anship 27(3): 173187.
Xia ZD (2009) Marketing library services through Facebook
groups. Library Management 30(6/7): 469478.
Author biographies
Emily Neo is originally from Singapore. Having worked previ-
ously in academic and national libraries, she is currently at the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as an Advisor,
Contract and Records Management in Wellington, New
Zealand.
Philip J Calvert is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Information
Management of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
His research areas include public library management.