INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AND LIBRARY 2.0 AS A GATEWAY TO INFORMATION ACCESS AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN PROF. FESTUS AGHAGBO NWAKO LIBRARY

ABSTRACT

This study examines the influence of social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools as gateways to information access and knowledge sharing in Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. Academic libraries increasingly combine physical collections with digital discovery, online communication, and participatory services. Social networking sites may help libraries publicize resources, communicate opening hours and events, answer users’ questions, and create opportunities for peer-to-peer exchange. Library 2.0 extends this approach by emphasizing interaction, user participation, feedback, and continuous improvement of library services.

The proposed study will use a descriptive survey design. Data may be collected from eligible library users and, where the approved scope permits, relevant library staff through a structured questionnaire. The instrument is designed to examine awareness and use of social networking platforms, perceived usefulness for finding information, knowledge-sharing practices, service responsiveness, and barriers such as unstable connectivity, data costs, digital skills, privacy concerns, and the reliability of online information. Descriptive statistics will summarize the responses; suitable inferential tests may be used if they match the research questions and the data collected.

The final abstract must be revised after fieldwork to state the actual population, sample, response rate, methods, principal findings, conclusion, and recommendations. No empirical result is claimed in this provisional version.

Keywords: social networking sites, Library 2.0, information access, knowledge sharing, academic libraries, digital library services.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the study on the influence of social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools on information access and knowledge sharing in Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. It explains the background to the study and the problem the research intends to examine. The chapter also provides the basis for stating the aim, objectives, research questions, scope, significance, limitations, and definitions of key terms in the complete project.

Social networking sites and other online tools can help libraries communicate with users and direct them to information. However, their presence does not automatically improve library services. Their usefulness may depend on the quality of information shared, how often platforms are updated, staff skills, users’ access to internet services, and whether posts connect users to reliable library resources (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007; Tella & Soluoku, 2016). This study therefore examines how these tools are used and how users experience them, rather than assuming that they are always effective.

1.1 Background to the Study

Universities support teaching, learning, research, and community development. Academic libraries contribute to these activities by organizing information resources, providing access to books and journals, helping users search for information, and teaching them how to identify reliable sources. As digital technology develops, many library services now extend beyond the physical library building and its opening hours.

Library users may look for information through library websites, online catalogues, electronic databases, mobile devices, and social networking platforms. These digital channels do not replace traditional library services. Instead, they can work alongside printed collections, face-to-face assistance, and formal research databases. The library’s role is to help users move from an online message or question to information that is relevant, trustworthy, and useful.

Social networking sites allow individuals and organizations to create profiles, publish content, communicate with others, and share information. In academic libraries, these platforms may be used to announce new resources, publicity workshops, explain library procedures, answer basic questions, and direct users to catalogues or digital repositories. They can also give users a way to ask questions and provide feedback. A study of academic libraries in Kwara State, Nigeria, found that librarians used Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 tools for activities such as sharing information, delivering documents, and professional networking. The study also identified access, technical knowledge, and unstable electricity supply as challenges (Tella & Soluoku, 2016). These findings show that online tools may support library work, but their effectiveness can be affected by practical conditions.

A library may provide services through both physical and digital channels. Such a library is often described as a hybrid library because it combines traditional resources and services with electronic resources and online access. The supplied study content identifies Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, as a hybrid library with physical and digital services. Before submission, details about its current services and online facilities should be checked against the library’s official website or confirmed directly with the library.

Using digital tools effectively requires more than creating an account on a social networking platform. The library needs accurate and updated information, staff who can manage online inquiries, clear procedures for responding to users, and working links to official resources. Users also need to know that the platforms exist and be able to access them. Library services should therefore be assessed by how well they meet users’ information needs, not simply by the number of platforms available.

Library 2.0 refers to a user-focused approach to library services that encourages participation, interaction, feedback, and ongoing improvement. It is associated with using interactive web tools to make library services more responsive to the needs of users (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007). Examples may include blogs, wikis, online discussion groups, social networking pages, user comments, and online help services. The main idea is not just to publish information but also to listen to users and involve them in improving services.

Social networking sites and Library 2.0 are related, but they are not exactly the same. A social networking site is a platform that people use to communicate and share content. Library 2.0 is a wider approach to delivering library services through participation and interaction. For example, a library page that only posts notices offers limited interaction. A page that answers questions, responds to feedback, directs users to reliable resources, and uses feedback to improve services shows a more participatory approach (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007; Kwanya et al., 2012).

Information access means being able to find, obtain, understand, and use information needed for a particular purpose. Access is not achieved simply because a document appears online. A user may lack internet connectivity, data, a suitable device, database access, or the skills needed to search effectively. Users may also need help deciding whether a source is accurate and appropriate for academic work. For this reason, the study considers awareness of library resources, ease of finding information, clarity of online guidance, response time, affordability, and users’ views of how successfully they obtain information.

University students and staff need different types of information. Students may search for course materials, books, journal articles, and information for assignments. Postgraduate students and researchers may need theses, specialist databases, research articles, and support with literature searches. Academic staff may need materials for teaching and publication. Social networking sites can support these needs when they provide useful guidance and direct users to dependable sources. However, information shared online should be checked against the original source before it is used in academic work.

Knowledge sharing is the exchange of information, ideas, experience, and explanations among people. In a university, it can happen in classrooms, seminars, research groups, consultations, reading groups, online forums, and informal discussions. Digital platforms may support knowledge sharing by allowing users to exchange links to academic resources, ask questions, share research experiences, and discuss publications. Nevertheless, not all content shared online is accurate or complete. Users need to check the source, date, and reliability of information and acknowledge the original author where appropriate.

This study examines knowledge sharing by considering whether users exchange useful information, ask or answer questions, receive guidance, and believe that online interaction supports their learning or research. It also recognizes that users may have different preferences. Some may feel comfortable asking questions online, while others may prefer face-to-face assistance or private communication.

Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library is located at Nnamdi Azikiwe University in Awka, Anambra State. Its university setting makes it important to understand how students, postgraduate researchers, academic staff, and library staff discover information and communicate about library resources. These groups may have different information needs, schedules, devices, internet access, and levels of digital skill.

A study focused on this library is useful because findings from other institutions may not fully reflect the experiences of its own users or the library’s available services. Research should establish which social networking and Library 2.0 tools are available and active during the study period, how often respondents use them, and whether they help users access information and share knowledge. The findings can then support recommendations based on evidence from the library’s users and staff.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Social networking sites provide ways for people to communicate and share information. Academic libraries may use them to public resources, announce services, answer questions, and communicate with users. However, having an online account does not necessarily mean that users can find reliable information, receive timely assistance, or share knowledge effectively. The value of these tools depends on how they are managed and how well they connect users to the library’s resources.

Possible challenges include low awareness of official library platforms, infrequent updates, limited staff time, poor internet connectivity, high data costs, limited digital skills, weak links to library resources, misleading information, and concerns about privacy. Research in academic libraries in Kwara State identified accessibility, technical knowledge, and unstable electricity supply as challenges to using Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 tools (Tella & Soluoku, 2016). However, these findings should not be assumed to apply directly to Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library without collecting local evidence.

The problem addressed by this study is the need to understand how social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools are used as channels for information access and knowledge sharing in Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library. Without evidence from the library’s users and staff, it is difficult to know which tools are useful, what barriers users face, and what improvements are needed. The study will therefore investigate awareness and use of these tools, users’ views of their benefits, the challenges they experience, and ways the library could improve its online services.

1.3 Aim and objectives of the study

The aim of the study is to examine the influence of social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools as gateways to information access and knowledge sharing in Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka.

The specific objectives are to:

(1) identify the social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools known to or used by the library’s users;

(2) determine the purposes and frequency of their use for library-related information;

(3) assess users’ perceptions of their contribution to information discovery and access;

(4) examine their role in knowledge sharing and interaction among users and library personnel;

 (5) identify technical, organisational, informational, and user-related challenges; and

(6) propose practical measures for improving inclusive and reliable digital library engagement.

Each objective should be translated into measurable questionnaire items. For example, platform awareness can be measured by asking respondents which official channels they recognise; usage can be measured by frequency and purpose; perceived access can be assessed through agreement statements; and barriers can be recorded using a multiple-response checklist. The final analysis should map each result back to one or more objectives.

1.4 Research questions

The study is guided by questions that connect directly to its objectives. The first question concerns which social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools users know about and which ones they actually use for library-related purposes. This distinction is important because awareness does not necessarily lead to use, and use for entertainment does not necessarily indicate use for academic information.

The second and third questions ask how frequently users access library-related content through these channels and how they perceive their contribution to finding information. The fourth question considers whether the platforms facilitate exchange of resources, advice, questions, and research-related knowledge between users and library staff. The fifth question identifies the barriers that users experience.

The questions are:

 (1) Which social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools are known to users of the library?

(2) For what purposes and how frequently are these tools used to obtain library information? (3) How do users perceive their influence on access to library resources and services?

 (4) To what extent do they support knowledge sharing and interaction?

 (5) What challenges affect effective use?

(6) What strategies could improve their contribution to library services?

1.5 Research hypotheses

Some departments require hypotheses when a project intends to test relationships between measurable variables. If the department accepts a descriptive survey without inferential testing, hypotheses may be unnecessary. The researcher should follow the supervisor’s approved design rather than include statistical tests merely to make the project appear more advanced.

If hypotheses are required, they must be aligned with the data collected and the planned analysis. A possible null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant relationship between frequency of library-related social networking use and respondents’ perceived ease of information access. Another possible null hypothesis is that perceived usefulness does not differ significantly across relevant respondent groups, such as undergraduate and postgraduate users. These are proposed examples and should be retained only if justified by the final instrument and sample.

The choice of test depends on measurement level, sample size, distribution, and the assumptions of the test. Correlation may be suitable for appropriately measured ordinal or scale variables; chi-square may be suitable for associations between categorical variables; and group comparisons may be used only when the design and data support them. Report effect sizes and limitations, not only p-values.

1.6 Significance of the study

The study may benefit library management by providing evidence about users’ awareness of digital channels, their expectations for responses, and the kinds of information they seek online. Findings can inform decisions about staffing, content schedules, training, platform selection, accessibility, and the integration of social channels with official library services.

Librarians and information professionals may use the results to plan communication that is accurate, consistent, and responsive. For example, a content plan could distinguish urgent service notices, resource guides, research support, information-literacy tips, and event updates. Evidence about user preferences can help staff prioritise content rather than maintain accounts without clear objectives.

Students, lecturers, and researchers may benefit from more discoverable resources, clearer instructions, and better signposting to reliable sources. The study may also contribute to library and information science literature by adding a context-specific account of social networking and participatory services in a Nigerian university library. These benefits remain potential until recommendations are grounded in the final data.

1.7 Scope and delimitations

The geographical scope is Prof. Festus Aghagbo Nwako Library at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State. The topical scope covers social networking sites and Library 2.0 tools as channels for information access and knowledge sharing. It does not attempt to evaluate every aspect of library management, all institutional information systems, or the academic performance of individual students.

The study may include eligible library users and library staff if access is approved and if the research questions require both perspectives. The researcher must define the study population precisely, such as registered users who have used the library during a specified period, or users present during data collection. The population and sampling frame should be verified with the library or the relevant institutional unit rather than estimated without evidence.

The time scope should be stated after the fieldwork dates are confirmed. The researcher should also specify which platforms count as social networking sites and which tools count as Library 2.0. A practical approach is to list the platforms identified during preliminary observation and then ask respondents about awareness and use without assuming every platform is an official library channel.

1.8 Limitations of the study

Possible limitations include reliance on self-reported behaviour, non-response, difficulty reaching users who rarely visit the library, changes in platform functionality, and the fact that online usage patterns may vary during examination periods or academic breaks. Respondents may also overestimate or underestimate how often they use a service.

A cross-sectional survey captures experiences during a defined period and cannot by itself establish that a social platform caused an improvement in information access. If users who already value library services are more likely to follow official accounts, a simple association between following and perceived usefulness may reflect prior interest as well as the platform’s effect.

The researcher can reduce, but not eliminate, these limitations by using clear questions, piloting the questionnaire, ensuring anonymity, reporting the response rate, and interpreting results cautiously. If feasible and approved, a brief review of public library posts or a short interview with staff can provide context, but these additional methods should be described transparently.

1.9 Operational definition of terms

Social networking sites: online platforms that enable users or organisations to create content, connect with others, and interact through posts, messages, groups, comments, or multimedia. In this study, only platforms relevant to library communication and user information needs are considered.

Library 2.0: a participatory approach to library service delivery that uses interactive digital tools, user feedback, collaboration, and continuous improvement. It is not limited to any one application. Information access: the ability to discover, obtain, evaluate, and use information relevant to a user’s academic or research task.

Knowledge sharing: the exchange of information, resource links, experience, explanations, and research-related advice among library users and personnel. Gateway: a channel that directs users toward a service, resource, person, or knowledge community. Perceived influence: respondents’ reported assessment of how a tool contributes to access or sharing; it should not be interpreted as proof of causation.