1 EVALUATION OF ACCESS AND UTILIZATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS AND SOCIALNETWORKING SITES IN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IN KENYA: CASE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI –JOMO KENYATTA MEMORIAL LIBRARY (JKML ) BY KUTIALO JOSEPH MWANZO i AResearch project submitted to the School of Information Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements of the award of Degree of Bachelors of Science in Information Sciences Moi University MAY 2014

2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION viDECLARATION vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii DEDICATION ix LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF ACRONYMS xi TECHNICAL TERMS USED........................................................................................................... xii-xiv ABSTRACT xv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1DEDICATION LIST OF TABLESLIST OF ACRONYMS TECHNICAL TERMS USED........................................................................................................... ABSTRACTCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.Introduction 1Introduction 1 1.About University of Nairobi 2About University of Nairobi 2 2.Academics 2Academics 2 2.3 University of Nairobi management 43 University of Nairobi management 4 4.University of Nairobi library system 4University of Nairobi library system 4 1.University of Nairobi library system organization structure 6University of Nairobi library system organization structure 6 2.Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) 7Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) 7 3.Functions of Vubis Smart Library Integrated Management Modules 10Functions of Vubis Smart Library Integrated Management Modules 10 2.Statement of the problem 12Statement of the problem 12 3.Aim of the study 13Aim of the study 13 4.Objectives of the study 13Objectives of the study 13 5.Research Questions 14Research Questions 14 6.Significance of the study 14Significance of the study 14 7.Assumptions of the study 15Assumptions of the study 15 8.The scope and Limitation of the study 15The scope and Limitation of the study 15 8..1 Scope 15.1 Scope 15 9.Limitation of the study 15Limitation of the study 15 10.Conclusion 16Conclusion 16 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 17 2.1 Introduction 17

3 3 2.Definition of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites 17Definition of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites 17 3.Types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites used in Libraries 18Types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites used in Libraries 18 4.The current global status on the use of Social Networking tools in Libraries 18The current global status on the use of Social Networking tools in Libraries 18 5.Adoption of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Library Profesionals Globally 19Adoption of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Library Profesionals Globally 19 6.Goals of Web 2.0 tools / Social Networking Sites in University Libraries 20Goals of Web 2.0 tools / Social Networking Sites in University Libraries 20 7.Values of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Libraries 20Values of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Libraries 20 2.7.1 The transformation of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site technology to Library 2.0....................................................................................................................................................... 21 2. 7. 2 The Library /Librarian 2.0 concept in Academic Library Environment 21 2.7. 3 Transition from Library 1.0 to Library 2.0 22 7..4 Global State of Access of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University libraries 22.4 Global State of Access of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Universitylibraries 22 8.Utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Students. 23Utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Students. 23 9..1 The role of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in enhancement of the growth of an Information Society 24.1 The role of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in enhancement of the growth of an Information Society 24 2.Application of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Provision of online University Library information services 25Application of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Provision of online University Library information services 25 3.Use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Supporting open, distance and 25 E-learning 25Use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Supporting open, distance and 25 E-learning 25 4.Effect of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Promoting of online Networking for University Libraries 26Effect of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Promoting of online Networkingfor University Libraries 26 5.Impact of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Marketing of Library information services 26Impact of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Marketing of Library information services 26 10.Challenges and Strategies of Integrating Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites into Academic Library Services 27Challenges and Strategies of Integrating Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites into Academic Library Services 27 1.Constraints incurred in utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site in University Libraries 28Constraints incurred in utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site inUniversity Libraries 28 2.Ethical and Legal aspects in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Library 28Ethical and Legal aspects in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and SocialNetworking Sites in University Library 28 2.10. 3 Intellectual Property Right 29

4 4 2.11 Conclusion 30 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31 1.Introduction 31Introduction 31 2.Population 31Population 31 3.Sampling Design 31Sampling Design 31 4.Sample of the study 32Sample of the study 32 5.Data collection Instruments Used 32Data collection Instruments Used 32 6.Validity and Reliability 33Validity and Reliability 33 7.Procedure of Administration of data collection instruments 33Procedure of Administration of data collection instruments 33 7.Data Analysis 34Data Analysis 34 8.Conclusion 35Conclusion 35 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 36 4.1 Introduction 36 2.Respondents Demographics 36Respondents Demographics 36 1.Gender of Respondents 36Gender of Respondents 36 2.Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender 37Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender 37 3.Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group 38Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group 38 4.Library staff Designation; Section and Qualification 39Library staff Designation; Section and Qualification 39 5.Students School and Level of study 41Students School and Level of study 41 3.Library staff Perception on the use of Web 2.0 /SNS Tools at JKML 41Library staff Perception on the use of Web 2.0 /SNS Tools at JKML 41 4.Induction and Purpose for Which Students access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website 42Induction and Purpose for Which Students access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website 42 5.Extent at Which Students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/ SNS tools on JKML website 43Extent at Which Students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/ SNS tools on JKML website 43 6.Challenges which Library Staff face in facilitating the use of Web 2.0/SNS tools and their Solutions 43Challenges which Library Staff face in facilitating the use of Web 2.0/SNS tools and their Solutions 43 7.Recommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0/SNS that University Libraries can Use inRecommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0/SNS that University Libraries can Use in providing information and services online 44

5 5 4.8 Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 448 Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sitesat Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 44 9.The extent at which Library Staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website. 48The extent at which Library Staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website. 48 10.Challenges encountered by the Library Staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website 49Challenges encountered by the Library Staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website 49 11.Library Staff suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 /SNS tools on JKMLLibrary Staff suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 /SNS tools on JKML website 52 12.Students Awareness of what Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites 52Students Awareness of what Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites 52 13.Students Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 53Students Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 53 1.Students who do not know the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 53Students who do not know the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 53 2.Students who indicated E-journals and E-books as Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites tools linked to JKML website 54Students who indicated E-journals and E-books as Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites toolslinked to JKML website 54 14.Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools 54Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools 54 4. 15. Extent of accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Linked to JKML website 56 4.16 Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and Suggestion by Students 56 4.17. Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0/SNS tools and Suggestion by Students 57 4.18 Conclusion 58 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS, FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 60 1.Introduction 60Introduction 60 2.Summary 60Summary 60 3.Discussion 61Discussion 61

6 6 5.3.1 Respondents demographics 61 5. 3.2 The Perception of the Interviewee on the Purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website 62 3.Web 2.0 Tools recommended by the interviewee and their Use 64Web 2.0 Tools recommended by the interviewee and their Use 64 4.Social Networking Sites 64Social Networking Sites 64 4.General responds on perceptions and purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sites according to the System Librarian (Digital Content); Senior Library Assistant (Digital Content) ; 3 Library Assistants(Africanna; Circulation and Cataloguing) 65General responds on perceptions and purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sitesaccording to the System Librarian (Digital Content); Senior Library Assistant (Digital Content) ;3 Library Assistants(Africanna; Circulation and Cataloguing) 65 1.Perceptions and Purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sites according to the Students who participated in the Study 67Perceptions and Purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sites according to the Students who participated in the Study 67 2.Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Website 67Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Website 67 5.4.3 Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools 694.3 Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools 69 5.General Findings of the study 70General Findings of the study 70 6.Conclusion 71Conclusion 71 5. 7 Recommendations 72 5.8 Limitations and further studies 74 REFERENCES 75 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE QUESTIONS FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING.................................................................................................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX II: LIBRARY STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER 84 APPENDIX II: LIBRARY STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER 84 APPENDIX II: LIBRARY STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE 85 APPENDIX III: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER 89 APPENDIX III: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 90 APPENDIX IV: DATA COLLECTION LETTER REJECTED BY STRATHMORE UNIVERSITY.................................................................................................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX V: DATA COLLECTION LETTER REJECTED BY KENYATTA UNIVERSITY... 97 APPENDIX VI: DATA COLLECTION LETTER ACCEPTED BY UNVERSITY OF NAIROBI. 99 APPENDIX VI: UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI LETTER OF PERMISSION 10 0

7 DECLARATION I declare that this research project is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any University. No part of this research project may be reproduced without the prior written permission of the author and/or Moi University. Signed…………………………………………… KUTIALO JOSEPH MWANZO IS/1116/10 Date …10-5-2014 ………………………………………………………………………………. This research project has been presented for examination with my approval as the University Supervisor Mr Patrick Wanyama Lecturer School of Information Sciences vii

8 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge my Supervisor Mr Patrick Wanyama for his guidance in the process of writing this research project. I also thank all my family members for their financial, emotional and spiritual support that facilitated the accomplishment of my studies, may God bless you all.

9 DEDICATION This research work is dedicated to my late Dad Shadrack Kutialo Mwanzo who never lived to celebrate this success with me, may lord rest his soul in eternal peace. 9

10 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Gender of Respondents 37Table 1. Gender of Respondents 37 Table 2. Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender 38 Table 3. Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group 39 Table 4. Library staff Designation ; Section and Qualification 40 Table 5. Students School;Level of study 41 Table 6. Recommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0/SNS tools that University Libraries can use in dessiminating Library information and services online 44 Table 7. Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0/SNS tools at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 45 Table 8. Purpose of using a blog in University Libraries 46 Table 9. Accessed and utilized Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKMLwebsite 47 Table 10. Purpose for accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website 47 Table 11. Extent at which respondents access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML websiteTable 2. Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender 38Table 3. Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group 39Table 4. Library staff Designation ; Section and Qualification 40Table 5. Students School;Level of study 41Table 6. Recommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0/SNS tools that UniversityLibraries can use in dessiminating Library information and services online 44Table 7. Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0/SNS tools at JomoKenyatta Memorial Library 45Table 9. Accessed and utilized Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKMLwebsite 47Table 10. Purpose for accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKMLwebsite 47Table 11. Extent at which respondents access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website....................................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 12. Challenges encountered in Access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKMLwebsite 49Table 12. Challenges encountered in Access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKMLwebsite 49 Table 13. Solution to the Challenges encountered are tabulated below 51Table 13. Solution to the Challenges encountered are tabulated below 51 Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Percentage of Students Awareness of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site.. 52 Percentage of Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools.. 54 How Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites Helped the Respondents who accessed Them 55 Table 17. Extent of accessing and utilizing Web 2.0/Social Networking Linked to JKML website 56 Table 18. Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and Suggestion by Students 57

11 11 LIST OF ACRONYMS BPS: Board of Postgraduate Studies Chivpr: Centre for HIV Prevention and Research Codl: Centre for Open and Distance Learning DVC: Deputy Vice Chancellor IM: Instant Messaging JKML: Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library KLA: Kenya Library Association OPAC: Online Public Access Catalogue RSS: Really Simple Syndication SCECSAL: Standing Conference of Eastern and Southern Africa Librarians SNS: Social Networking Site UK: United Kingdom UNES: University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services UNESCO: United Nation Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization UNITID: Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases UON: University of Nairobi USA: United States of America

12 xii TECHNICAL TERMS USED Annotate: The definition of annotate means to create explanatory notes for a text. An example of annotate is to include definitions for archaic terms in the Bible. Asynchronous:Communication that does not require people to be online at the same time e.g making a call on landline. Blogs: A type of a website, usually maintained by an individual, that, contains regular entries of commentary, description of events or other materials such as videos. Bookmark: In the context of the World Wide Web, a bookmark is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is stored for later retrieval in any of various storage formats. Facebook: Is an online Social Networking Service. Its name comes from a colloquialism for the directory given to American University Students. Face book was founded in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow Harvard University Students Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. FeedBlitz Library Web : Is an RSS, email marketing, and Social media solution, that has been adopted by thousands of bloggers over the last few years, Library uses it to build an online library collection. Using FeedBlitz library users can be updated and emailed their relevant information through short message sending. Flickr /Flicker: Is the online photo management and sharing application provided by yahoo and helps to publish photos and videos on the web. Google+: Is a Social Networking and identity service that is owned and operated by Google Inc. Library 2.0: Is a loosely defined model for a modernized form of library service that reflects a transition within the library world in the way that services are delivered to users. The focus is on user-centered change and participation in the creation of content and community. LinkedIn: Is a Social Networking website for people in professional occupations. Founded in December 2002 and launched on May 5, 2003, it is mainly used for professional Networking. Mashap-Ups: Is a web page, or web application, that uses content from more than one source to create a single new service displayed in a single graphical interface. For example, you could combine the addresses and photographs of your library branches with a Google map to create a map mashup. The term implies easy, fast integration, frequently using open application programming interfaces (API) and data sources to produce enriched results that were not necessarily the original reason for producing the raw source data.

13 13 MySpace: Is a Social Networking service with a strong music emphasis owned by Specific Media LLC and pop music singer and actor Justin Timberlake. Photo-sharing: is the publishing or transfer of a user's digital photos online, thus enabling the user to share them with others (publicly or privately). This function is provided through both websites and applications that facilitate the upload and display of images. The term can also be loosely applied to the use of online photo galleries that are set up and managed by individual users, including photo blogs. Plagiarism: An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author. Podcast: It is a digital medium consisting of an episodic series of audio, video, PDF, or ePub files subscribed to and downloaded through web syndication or streamed online to a computer or mobile device. Really Simple Syndication (RSS): Is a family of web formats used to publish information about frequently updated works such as blog entries, news feeds, live radio and video in the standard format. Slideshare: Is a Web 2.0 tools based slide hosting service. Users can upload files privately or publicly in the following file formats: PowerPoint, PDF, and Keynote or OpenDocument presentations. Slide decks can then be viewed on the site itself, on hand held devices or embedded on other sites. Social bookmarking:This is a centralized online service which enables users to add, annotate, edit, and share bookmarks of web documents. Social Tagging: The practice of generating electronic tags or keywords by users rather than specialists as a way to classify and describe online content. Syndication:This is the supply of material for reuse and integration with other material, often through a paid service subscription. Synchronous:Communication that takes place when people are connected at the same time (real time communication) e.g chatting on facebook.

14 14 Tag/Tagging:Is a non-hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as an Internet bookmark, digital image, or computer file). This kind of metadata helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are generally chosen informally and personally by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system. Tech-nophobia: The unknown fear of in-ability, being negative, and lack of passion to learn and embrace the adoption and use of technology in daily life situations. Twitter:Is an online Social Networking and microblogging service that enables users to send and read "tweets", which are text messages limited to 140 characters. Registered users can read and post tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. Users access Twitter through the website interface, SMS, or mobile device Web 2.0 tools: A web based platform which allows users to gain access, contribute, describe, harvest, tag, annotate and bookmark web mediated content in various formats such as text, video, audio, pictures and graphs. Web 2.0 tools are combined with the internet to create an interactive Network commonly known as Social Networking Sites like: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Wikis: A Web site that allows anyone to add, delete, or revise content by using a web browser. Wifi(Wireless fidelity): Is a type of wireless networking protocol that allows devices to communicate without cords or cables. You Tube: Is a video-sharing website, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005 and owned by Google since late 2006, on which users can upload, view and share videos.

15 15 ABSTRACT The study was conducted to evaluate access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University libraries in Kenya. University of Nairobi main Library also known as Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) was selected as the case study. Descriptive methodology approach of questionnaire was used to collect data from 47 respondents including Library staff and Students. Among the respondents there were: Seven (7) Library staff including 3 male and 4 female. The researcher interviewed the Deputy Director in charge of planning at JKML to establish the perception of Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library management on whether Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites can be utilized to bridge information gap at JKML. Forty (40) students including 20 male and 20 female were issued with questionnaires. According to the findings of the study it emerged that the Library staff were more familiar with Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites, like: Youtube; Facebook and Twitter. However the researcher established that out of the 35 students who returned their questionnaires, only six students knows the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites such as: You tube; Google+ and Facebook with Twitter which are linked to JKML website.These findings demonstrated that there was need for Library staff to market the use of these Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in order to enhance their access and utilization by the students. In terms of utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites that are linked to JKML website, the researcher established that Facebook was widely used at the rate of 80%.The Study found out that the library staff uses Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites to provide: information literacy; publish library events; create online visibility and connect with the students. The challenges encountered by students and staff in access and utilization of these Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at JKML included: Lack of adequate computers; stable internet access and time. These research findings are useful to all University Libraries that are planning to adopt and use Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites. The value of the study is based on Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites accessed and utilized by Library staff and students in University libraries in Kenya and attempted to provide vital information that illustrated how Library staff and students can access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries.

16 16

17 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The Internet and Web 2.0 tools have been combined to create a powerful interactive network known as Social Networking Sites. Web 2.0 tools constitute a set of economic, Social, and technological trends that collectively form a second generation of the internet which is a distinctive medium of communication characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects (O‘Reilly, 2006).Web 2.0 tools includes blogs, podcast, wikis, photo- sharing, Social bookmarking, collaborative document tools, instant messaging, mash-ups, and Really Simple Syndication (RSS) (Lemley & Burnham, 2008). Initially the internet was introduced to provide people with information, but Web 2.0 tools are taking information to people. Social Networking Sites, constitute web based services that allows individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,(2) articulate a list of other users within the same connection and (3) to view, and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).Examples of Social Networking Sites are: Face book, Twitter and LinkedIn. For the purposes of this research project the terms Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites have been treated as synonymous to be a combination of technologies and behaviours that enable people and organisations to efficiently and effectively; connect with other people and institutions; collaborate with those other people and organisations; create and share content; find, use, organize and reuse content. In this digital era, Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites are so popular that they now dominate everyday personal and professional life, their popularity has affected the way information centre’s like Libraries, Museums, Archives and other cultural heritage organisations operates.Research Findings have shown that Social Networking Sites were second to Google as the most visited website in the UK(Hitwise report, 2008). Face book, Twitter and Web 2.0 tools like Social tagging and bookmarking are now used by: individuals and scholars beside academic and commercial organizations for information sharing and exchange. In Kenya University libraries have links of Social Networking Sites like Facebook and Twitter with Web 2.0 tools including RSS feed and Slide share, however most of them remain dormant on their Websites

18 2 (Mutula, 2006). This research project evaluated the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries in Kenya: case study of University of Nairobi- Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. 1.About University of Nairobi The inception of the University of Nairobi is traced back to 1956, with the establishment of the Royal Technical College which admitted its first lot of A-level graduates for technical courses in April the same year. The Royal Technical College was transformed into the second University College in East Africa on 25 June 1961 under the name Royal College Nairobi. The college was entitled to a special relation with the University of London whereupon it started preparing students in the faculties of arts, science, and engineering for degrees awarded by the University of London. On 20 th, May 1964, the Royal College Nairobi was renamed University College Nairobi as a constituent college of the inter-territorial Federal University of East Africa, and henceforth the enrolled students were to study for degrees of the University of East Africa rather than the University of London. In 1970, the University College Nairobi transformed into the first national University in Kenya and was renamed the University of Nairobi. 2.Academics The University of Nairobi offers Bachelor's Degrees, Master's Degrees, and Doctoral Degree by decentralization of the administration through the creation of six campus colleges headed by principals namely:College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences (Upper Kabete Campus);College of Architecture and Engineering (Main Campus);College of Biological and Physical Sciences (Chiromo Campus);College of Education and External Studies (Kikuyu Campus and Kenya science campus);College of Health Sciences (Kenyatta National Hospital);College of Humanities and Social Sciences (Main Campus) and School of Business (Lower kabete campus).

19 3 The University of Nairobi constitutes the following Faculties and Schools: Board of Post Graduate Studies ; Center for International Programmes;Centre for Biotechnology & Bio informatics;Centre for HIV Prevention and Research (Uon-Chivpr);Centre for Open and Distance Learning (Codl); Faculty of Agriculture; Faculty of Arts; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine; Institute for Development Studies; Institute of Anthropology, Gender & African Studies; Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies; Institute of Nuclear Science & Technology; Institute of Tropical & Infectious Diseases (Unitid);Kenya Science Campus;Population Studies and Research Institute;School of Biological Sciences;School of Business 1.1.2.1 Programmes Certificates programmes Certificate Programmes in Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences;Certificate Programmes in Architecture and Engineering; Certificates Programmes in Biological and Physical Sciences; Certificate Programmes in College of Education and External Studies; Certificate Programmes in Health Sciences ;Certificate Programmes in Humanities and Social Sciences Diploma programmes Diploma Programmes in Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences;Diploma Programmes in College of Architecture and Engineering;Diploma Programmes in Biological and Physical Sciences; Diploma Programmes in College of Education and External Studies; Diploma Programmes in Health Sciences ; Diploma Programmes in Humanities and Social Sciences. Undergraduate programmes Bachelor Programmes in Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences;Bachelor Programmes in Biological and Physical Sciences; Bachelor Programmes in College of Architecture and Engineering;Bachelor Programmes in College of Education and External Studies Bachelor Programmes in Health Sciences; Bachelor Programmes in Humanities and Social Sciences.

20 4 Masters programmes Masters Programmes in Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences;Masters Programmes in Biological and Physical Sciences;Masters Programmes in College of Architecture and Engineering;Masters Programmes in College of Education and External Studies;Masters Programmes in Health Sciences;Masters Programmes in Humanities and Social Sciences Ph.D programmes Ph.D Programmes in Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences;Ph.D Programmes in Biological and Physical Sciences;Ph.D Programmes in College of Architecture and Engineering; Ph.D Programmes in College of Education and External Studies; Ph.D Programmes in Health Sciences; Ph.D Programmes in Humanities and Social Sciences Source: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/uon_programmes_type:Accessed on 19/2/2014 1.1. 3 University of Nairobi management The admistration and management of University of Nairobi includes the following: The Chancellor; The University Council; Chairman of Council; The Senate The Vice-Chancellor;The University Management Board ;The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration and Finance) ;The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Student Affairs) ;The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Production and Extension) ;University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services (UNES) Legal Office ;University of Nairobi Colleges; University of Nairobi Campuses Board of Postgraduate Studies (BPS). 1.1.4 University of Nairobi library system The University of Nairobi Library System functions and objectives are enlisted in the University of Nairobi Act 1985 and involve carrying out basic functions of acquiring, organizing and disseminating information in support of the University mission. More specifically it is to provide reading, reference, research materials and other library services to the students, academic staff, and non-academic staff and to a limited number of qualified outsiders.The University of Nairobi Library system encompasses: the main campus Library popularly known as Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library and fourteen branch libraries including:College of Agriculture and Veterinary-

21 5 Sciences, Kabete Campus;College of Architecture and Engineering, Main Campus;College of Biological and Physical Sciences,Chiromo Campus;College of Health Sciences at Kenyatta National Hospital;College of Education and External Studies, Kikuyu Campus and Extra Mural Resource Centres;Institute of Development Studies Library, Main Campus;Institute of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies Library, Museum Hill;Population Studies and Research Institute Library, Main Campus;School of Business Library, Lower Kabete Campus; School of Law Library, Parklands Campus; Kenya Science Campus Library on Ngong Road Mombasa Campus Library and Kisumu Campus Library respectively.

22 1.1.4.1 University of Nairobi library system organization structure Source: (Deputy Director in charge of planning Mrs Agatha Kabugu illustration, 18/2/ 2014) The top management includes: The Director in charge of the entire University of Nairobi library system; three Deputy Directors in charge of: Planning, Admistration and Technical services respectively).The middle management encompasses: College Librarians; Technical management level includes: Accountant; Senior Librarians and Librarians, while lowest cadre in the operational level constitutes the Senior Library Assistants and Library Assistants. 6

23 7 1.1.4.2 Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) The JKML caters for College of Humanities and Social Sciences and College of Architecture and Engineering students in the Main Campus. Services offered Dissemination of Information: The Library System plays an active role in the dissemination of information to the University Community and beyond. The JKML library offeres wide range of facilities in support of both traditional services and modern ICT applications in research. The services include lending, inter-lending (with other institutions), and accessing electronic resources. Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library constitutes the following sections which provide diverse Library information and services respectively: Bindery The Library has a modern Bindery which handles all libraries and University requirements including binding of academic theses and dissertations. There are also other facilities for Conservations and preservation of information materials. Photocopying The Library offers reprographic service subject to observation of copyright laws. Electronic resources (i) UON- digital repository The digital repository captures, preserves and disseminates the Research & intellectual output of the University. It manages academic / research materials created by the University community and enhances the visibility of UON research output, current holdings exceed 60,000 entries. (ii)E-Journals: The Library has access to over 76,000 peer reviewed full text electronic journals in all disciplines to facilitate the teaching and research activities of the University. In addition there is a document delivery service. The electronic databases and journals can be accessed at: URL:http//uonlibray.uonbi.ace.ke within JKML and its environs, there is wireless internet connection.

24 8 (iii)E-Books: The Library has subscribed to over 163,000 e-books. More are accessible via open access. Online electronic database include:  African Journals Online(AJOL)  AGORA(for Agricultural Information)  Blackwell-Synergy  Cambridge University Press  EBSCO Host Research Databases  Emerald  Gale Cengage Learning  Geological Society  Google Scholar.  Hinari  JSTOR  Kenya Law Reports(KLR)  Oxford University Press  Nature Publishing Group Ebooks  Ebrary  Project MUSE  Springer E-books  Taylor& Francis  Oxford English Dictionary  Encyclopedia Britannica Library stock The system has a stock of approximately 760,000 volumes, inclusive of books and bound periodicals. The stock includes general lending and reference materials, as well as specialized research materials materials. These are accessed via the web based OPAC (Source: Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 2014 brochure).

25 9 Special collections The Library system has rich and unique information resources in forms of special collections. These include. East Africana The collection stocks materials on East Africana in general and Kenya in particular. The collection is enriched by the higher degree thesis and dissertations of the University of Nairobi as well as relevant ones submitted elsewhere. UN Collection The University of Nairobi is a Depository Library of United Nations Publications, and holds publications of selected bodies such as General Assembly, FAO, WHO, ILO and IAEA. Archives and audio-visual collection This collection includes archives of the University of Nairobi and other institutions as well as historical figures. It also stocks audio-visual materials. The collection also includes rare information materials which are unique, priceless and of historical interest. Graduate Research Library Located on the ground floor of JKML, serves Graduate students and Lectures. Offers a conducive environment for research. All branch libraries in the system have established Graduate Research Library’s to serve the postgraduate students and lecturers. Teaching Programme The Library offers Msc in Information Sciences and diploma Course in Library and Information Sciences. It also participates in teaching information skills and information Literacy University of Nairobi Library Management System (Vubis Smart) The University of Nairobi Library systems is automated by Vubis Smart an integrated Library Management System. Vubis Smart uses a database system pre-eminently suited to the management of very large quantities of information of all kinds, and using library defined record formats. Vubis Smart provides an outstanding web based search interface on wide area Network, which made it possible to automate the University of Nairobi Library system encompassing the main Library: Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library and the fourteen campus libraries.

26 10 1.1.4.3 Functions of Vubis Smart Library Integrated Management Modules Acquisition module The Acquisitions module of Vubis Smart provides extensive facilities for the management of order processing and controlling financial information. Naturally acquisitions are fully integrated with the rest of the Vubis Smart system. Catalogue module The Vubis Smart Catalogue module supports management of multiple databases, with the option of local management of bibliographical records. Opac module Vubis Smart’s Web OPAC is designed to put the user at the centre of the library’s services. Completely configurable, Vubis Smart’s web OPAC allows the library to tailor the search methods offered, the indexes to be used, and the appearance and functionality of the Web interface itself, right down to individual user level. Circulation module Vubis Smart boasts a sophisticated Circulation module. Of course it supports all the usual functions issue, discharge, renewal, reservations etc. but in addition the Circulation module also provides a report generator, a statistical module, inventory maintenance, and an extensive financial system, including a cashpoint Report Module The Reporting module or SSP (Select, Sort and Publish) is the integrated report generator module for Vubis Smart, which provides extensive access to the information within the application, standard reports and flexible output options. Serial module The Serials module in Vubis Smart consists of two basic parts: subscription maintenance and serials circulation. In addition, this module contains extensive reporting tools and the option to cross charge subscriptions. By using Vubis Smart Swets-link, a site can easily upload the current contents' service of Swets & Zeitlinger into their system.

27 11 Management module The module manages, individual borrowers, institutions,control process, assign roles and right of access to individuals for identification purposes. Each member belongs to a category, the member category defines the minimum and maximum ages for members of the category and the cost of placing a reservation on an item.

28 12 1.2 Statement of the problem The Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites have transformed the medium of disseminating information for business and academic discourse. Students, Professionals, and friends are able to interact online, participate in discussions on topical issues, Socialize, exchange professional information, upload and post video and audio files. The upsurge in use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by Students and researchers to access information online, pose a challenge to University libraries which are glued to their traditional four walled library. Current generation of University Students and researchers will prefer to watch online YouTube video on how to solve matrices problem than going to the library shelf to retrieve books on matrices. In addition library clients are blogging and tweeting, majority of the readers like consulting information sources that provide information in real time irrespective of their location. In a study of examining the impact of Web 2.0 tools on teaching information literacy,the findings concluded that student learning increases due to personal engagement, use of preferred learning styles, and application to daily life (Brown & Bussert, 2007). In view of the emerging power of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites as new medium of communication, University libraries need to enrich their modes of disseminating information services by using Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites to compliment their traditional ways of disseminating information. The analog culture of techno-phobia of resisting to adopt the emerging Information Communication Technologies like Web 2.0 tools, may reduce the number of user’s visting the University Library, this is because they can access their information needs using Web 2.0 tools such as bookmarks, blogs and Social Networking Sites including: LinkedIn and Facebook. The researcher evaluated the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) to determine how they are used by the Library Staff and Students.

29 13 3.Aim of the study The aim of the study was to evaluate the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in dissemination of research information at the University of Nairobi-Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. 4.Objectives of the study The objectives of the study was to: i.Establish the perception of University of Nairobi-Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library professionals in the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in the library. ii.Determine the extent of use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University of Nairobi-Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Staff. iii. Conduct a usage analysis of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library by University of Nairobi Students. iv.Examine purposes for use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Staff. v.Determine the challenges faced by by students and Library Staff in using Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. vi.Suggest ways in which the usage of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library can be improved to disseminate research information to its clients.

30 14 1.5Research Questions In order to achieve the above stated objectives, this study answered the following research questions: i.What is the perception of Library Staff in the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? ii.What Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites are used by Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Staff? What purpose are the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites used for at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? iv.How does University of Nairobi Students use Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website? v.Which Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites are useful in accessing research information by University of Nairobi Students at JKML? vi.How often does University of Nairobi Students and staff utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites for research information? What constraints are faced in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by Library Staff and Students at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? What are the solutions to the challenges incurred by Library staff and students in accessing and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? ix.Which roles can Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites play in dissemination of research information at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? iii. vii. viii. 1.6 Significance of the study The Library Staff will use the research findings of the study to improve on the dissemination of information to the clients. The findings of the study will be useful in attainment of vision 2030 by integrating information communication technology in education. Also the results of the survey will add new knowledge on what has been discovered on the subject of study, hence serve policy makers with information on policy making process. Overly the Students and researchers will benefit from the research findings through online access and retrieval of information.

31 15 7.Assumptions of the study The internet and Web 2.0 tools such as Really Simple Syndication (RSS) and Social Networking Sites like Twitter have enabled people to get updated on breaking news in real time through their mobile phones, Tablet, Laptops and desktop computers. Business on stock market is being transacted online; industries globally are advertising and selling their products and services online. Current University Students spent much of their time chatting; tweeting and blogging than visting the library. The researcher assumed that University libraries cannot overlook the impact of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites, when it comes to access and utilization of research information. University librarians are expected to tweet about their new information sources, upload audio and video files on how to use electronic resources, bookmark web links of relevant database online and post them on the University library official Face book page. 8.The scope and Limitation of the study 8..1 Scope The study evaluated access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by the Library Staff, Postgraduate, Undergraduate and Diploma Students respectively at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. 9.Limitation of the study The research topic would have gathered comprehensive data by comparing access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in various Universities libraries in Kenya, but because of financial constraints and time it was not possible. The researcher incurred challenges in accessing permission to collect data in two reputable Universities including:public and private respectively, before being allowed by the University of Nairobi Administration to use Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library as a case study. Due to limited time allocated for the research, the researcher used Students and Library Staff as respondents. The other challenge is that some students and staff did not return their questionnaire on time, even after being reminded through phone call to fill the questionnaire and return it back, until the time of collecting the questionnaire one Library staff and five female students had not returned their questionnaire.

32 16 1.10 Conclusion This chapter presented background information about Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites as emerging technology that has transformed access and dessimination of information in the world. Having highlighted the influence of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in communication, the researcher evaluated their access and utilization by Library Staff and Students at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. The statement of the problem pointed out how Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites are used in transacting business online and provision of real time information. According to the researcher, Students information seeking habits have been influenced by Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites; hence if University libraries do not embrace the new communication technologies they will remain irrelevant. Due to the influence of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on dissemination of information, the study focused on evaluating access and utilization of this emerging technology at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. In conclusion objectives of the study discussed in this chapter constituted: Establishing perception of Library Staff on the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites ; Extent of use and purpose; how Students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites; Establishing challenges incurred in access with utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library with solutions to these challenges and last but not least, the study highlighted the roles of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries globally.

33 17 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter reviewed relevant literature pertaining to the study, with a hope of ascertaining the missing link of the study. The issues covered included; definition and types of Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites respectively; Access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University libraries. The researcher evaluated literature on the uses of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites; perception of Library Staff on utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries; concept of Web 2.0 transition in relation to Library 2.0. Also University students usage analysis; challenges incurred in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in University libraries and roles of Web tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries were discussed. The review was conducted to provide a clear understanding about the existing knowledge on the problem of the statement. The researcher accessed and reviewed literature from books; published Thesis with Scholarly electronic Journals and the Internet. 2.2 Definition of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites Wikis, blogs, chat rooms, instant mesagging and Social bookmarking are Web 2.0 tools applications used to facilitate members’ interaction, thus to an extent they can also be referred to as Social Networking tools (Jones & Conceicao, 2008).In library environment the term web 2.0 is reffered to us Library 2.0 which is defined as the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections (Miller, 2005). Social Networking Sites (SNS) are systems that allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi- public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections with those made by others within the system (Boyd & Ellison 2007). SNS vary in terms of features and membership; some allow photo/video sharing, while others allow blogging and private messaging. To some extent, blogs have also been regarded as a form of Social Networking sites because blogs support the formation of social connections, Social Networks Sites have been described to possess three functions: (1) allow socialization among individuals, (2) generate participation opportunities, and (3) facilitate decisions (Passy, 2003).

34 18 3.Types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites used in Libraries Information communication technologist have asserted that even though sites such as YouTube and Flickr allow users to construct profiles and share connections, they have been identified to be primarily for sharing videos and images, rather than for Social Networking, thus they can be categorized as Web 2.0 tools (Hoffman, 2009). Social Networking Sites are used for sharing, learning, conversations and exchanging (Burkhardt, 2010). Web 2.0 tools are used primarily for content sharing with limited Social Networking potentials. (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Burkhardt, 2010; Hoffman, 2009) they encompass Flickr ; YouTube; Blogs ; Wikis ; Podcast; Really Simple Syndication(RSS); Slide share and Bookmarks. Social Networking Sites allows individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi- public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system; they include: Facebook; LinkedIn; Twitter; Myspace etc. (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). 4.The current global status on the use of Social Networking tools in Libraries A study conducted in mid 2000s indicated that most of the library directors and the general public from the United States did not think that libraries had a role in Social Networking (De Rosa et al., 2007). The emphasis of libraries on learning was perceived to be un- suitable with the nature of Social Networking, and concerns on inadequate time and resources spent on Social Networking tools were raised. However the potential of using Social Networking in libraries has been demonstrated through the use of Facebook and MySpace (Chu & Nalani- Meulemans, 2008). By displaying their status (whether they are online or not), available librarians are easily identified by users to address their enquiries. Librarians also found it advantageous when they wished to communicate with colleagues to answer users’ enquiries, thus providing answers to users’ enquiries more efficiently. Furthermore, Facebook and MySpace have been established to be helpful in enhancing libraries Social visibility through profiles that showed a uniform identity.

35 19 It was also found that MySpace allowed different librarians to contribute knowledge and information, maintain a profile together and promote new library collections. A number of librarians have suggested that Facebook could be a feasible way to deliver library services and communicate with users (Charnigo &Barnett-Ellis, 2007). 2.5 Adoption of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Library Profesionals Globally Web 2.0 tools including Wikis and Blogs with Social Networking Sites such as Twitter and Facebook have been used as source of real time information; this has forced University Libraries to link Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on their Website. In the case of Kimbel Library of the Coastal Carolina University, Facebook has been used to provide reference assistance and library tours, and promoting services (Graham, Faix, & Hartman 2009). Moreover, this library found out that Facebook unexpectedly helped colleagues become closer and to personally know each other better. In a study on how librarians use Facebook, the findings indicated two trends. One, that the librarians who were most enthusiastic about Facebook would recommend that it be incorporated and used in promotion of library materials and events, Another trend indicated that the majority of librarians feel Facebook is outside the purview of professional librarianship (Charnigo, & Barnett-Ellis, 2007). However it has been globally appreciated that Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites encampasing RSS feeds and Twitter consecutively are useful in updating patrons about the new digital content uploaded in the University Library Digital repository. RSS feed have been found to have immense potential to improve web-based visibility in providing updates on library events to the patrons and keeping them informed with the latest information available for use (Tripathi &Kumar, 2010; Chua & Goh, 2010). African University Libraries are adopting the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites to engage their patrons online; this is exhibited by the inclusion of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on many University library websites, currently the University of Pretoria uses Web 2.0 tools applications like RSS feed from the catalogue book covers sourced from Amazon.com and integrated with the catalog, where through email notification via FeedBlitz library’s web page is updated. Blogs and wikis are used as communication tools, and a list of web 2.0 tools on the library’s web page as a reference for users (Munatsi, 2010).

36 20 6.Goals of Web 2.0 tools / Social Networking Sites in University Libraries The goals of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites also known as Library 2.0 in the University library have been underscored in global studies. In a survey of 1,241 European librarians conducted by Harnesk (2010), the participants opined about the goals of using Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites sites in University libraries as: i.Maximize library exposure (78 percent); ii.Modernize the library image and e-reputation (59 percent); iii.Promote specific content offers (53 percent); iv.Build discussion groups and collaborative work (53 percent); v.Reach a new audience of potential users (40 percent); vi.Publish library news and press releases (38 percent). 7.Values of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Libraries The findings of Chinese librarians from a research on Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites conducted in their libraries highlighted the following values to their libraries and their services (Cao, 2009): i.Increased library’s relevancy to users; ii.Improved library’s image; iii.Allowed rich, interactive, timely, convenient services so as to improve service level and quality, and broaden range of services; iv.Increased users’ participation, and increased interactions and communication with users; v.Broadened librarians’ perspective, and facilitated obtaining users’ feedback and following readers’ interest trends; vi.Drew on collective knowledge to better serve users; vii.Improved librarians’ inter-departmental communication and expedited information dissemination to the users; Facilitated instant problem solving with the benefit of traceable services; Improved knowledge sharing and collaboration. The most common Web 2.0 tools used in libraries were blogs, RSS and wikis. viii. ix.

37 21 2.7.1 The transformation of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site technology to Library 2.0 The theory for Library 2.0 is understood to have four essential elements that include the following (Habib, 2006): It is user-centered. Users participate in the creation of the content and services they view within the library's web-presence, OPAC, etc. The consumption and creation of content is dynamic, and thus the roles of librarian and user are not always clear. It provides a multi-media experience. Both the collections and services of Library 2.0 contain video and audio components. While this is not often cited as a function of Library 2.0, it is here suggested that it should be. It is socially rich. The library's web-presence includes users' presence. There are both synchronous (e.g. IM) and asynchronous (e.g. wikis) ways for users to communicate with one another and with Librarians. It is communally innovative. This is perhaps the single most important aspect of Library 2.0. It rests on the foundation of libraries as a community service but understands that as communities change, libraries must not only change with them, but allow users to change the library. It seeks to continually change its services, to find new ways to allow communities, not just individuals to seek, find, and utilize information. 2. 7. 2 The Library /Librarian 2.0 concept in Academic Library Environment Library 2.0 is a user-centered virtual community. It is a socially rich, often egalitarian electronic space. While Librarian 2.0 might act as a facilitator and provide support, he or she is not necessarily primarily responsible for the creation of the content. Users interact with and create resources with one another and with librarians. In some ways, it is a virtual reality for libraries, a Web manifestation of the library as place (Peltier-Davis.C,2009). A library's presence on the Web in Library 2.0 includes the presence of that library's constituency and utilizes the same applications and technologies as its community, a concept Peltier- Davis.C(2009) recognizes in a very useful model for Library 2.0 in regards to academic libraries. Library 2.0 demands libraries to focus less on secured inventory systems and more on collaborative discovery systems. There is a great link between librarianship and Web 2.0, but viewed holistically, Library 2.0 aims at revolutionizing the Librarianship profession.

38 22 Rather than creating systems and services for patrons, Librarians will enable users to create them for themselves. A profession steeped in decades of a culture of control and predictability will need to continue moving toward embracing facilitation and ambiguity. Library 2.0 is not about searching, but finding; not about access, but sharing. Library 2.0 recognizes that human beings do not seek and utilize information as individuals, but as communities (O'Reilly, 2005). 2.7. 3 Transition from Library 1.0 to Library 2.0 The transition of Library 1.0 to Library 2.0 is characterized by: Email reference/Q&A pages to Chat reference ;Text-based tutorials to Streaming media tutorials with interactive databases;Email mailing lists, webmasters to Blogs, wikis, RSS feeds ; Controlled classification schemes to Tagging coupled with controlled schemes; OPAC to Personalized social network interface ; Catalog of largely reliable print and electronic holdings to Catalog of reliable and suspect holdings, web-pages, blogs, wikis, etc.(Habib,2006). It is necessary for information professionals to consider that the Web will continue to change rapidly for some time. Web 2.0 is an early one of many. Libraries must adapt to it, much as they did to the Web 1.0 originally, and must continually adapt for the foreseeable, any stability other than the acceptance of instability is insufficient future (O'Reilly, 2005). 2.7.4 Global State of Access of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University libraries In order for information to be of optimal use, it must have the following qualities: relevance, accuracy, timeliness, currency, completeness, clarity and cost effectiveness (O’Brien (1996) & Dadzie (2007). In the USA, academic libraries have leveraged the power of Web 2.0 tools systems to provide better and more relevant services to the patrons, thus the implementation of web based services have huge implication on the present and future information environments. University libraries need to connect with the user community by adopting and integrating use of Web 2.0 tools in delivery and support of information services (McManus, 2009). Various researches have been done on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Africa, in South Africa, University of Pretoria, University of Johannesburg, University of Western Cape, Witswatersrand and University of South Africa have made frantic efforts to use Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites (Munatsi, 2010).

39 23 In Kenya Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites are visible on University library websites. The most popular Social Networking site and Web 2.0 tools in Kenya’s University libraries is Facebook followed by Twitter, RSS, SlideShare, YouTube, Flicker, and blogs in that order; this trend seems to follow the general adoption of these tools for information use, while some University libraries have Social Networking Sites on their accounts, some remain dormant on the website (Mutula, 2006). A survey done by Oyieke (2012) in Kenya to analyse the University libraries’ application and usage of Twitter and Facebook established that a total of 10 (37%) Universities libraries in Kenya have a link to Twitter while 14 (52%) have a link to Facebook pages as part of their services to users. However only 5 (19%) of the University libraries denote active usage of Facebook and Twitter pages.The same study found out that five University libraries in Kenya are using their Twitter and Facebook accounts for marketing and creating awareness of library services to their users (Oyieke, 2012). 2.8 Utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by University Students. Librarians can no longer meet the information needs of faculty and Students through the traditional avenue of simply adding to their collections (Hawkins & Battin, 1998). Instead of being defined by collections or the services of University libraries that support them, University libraries can become a diffusing agent within the scholarly community, through incorporation of distributed technologies and more open models and become more involved at all stages, and in all contexts, of knowledge creation, dissemination, and use (Lougee, 2002). In the UK a project on University of Leicester Students demonstrated how valuable Twitter can be, the study discovered that Twitter was a useful tool for developing peer support, with activity rising prior to assessment deadlines or exam revision; creating personal learning networks, often in situations when they were physically isolated from peers; and arranging Social meetings.In their conclusion the researchers found Twitter to be attractive as data collection tool for recording the student experience and assessment using free online analysis tools (Buckley, 2009).Therefore University Librarians must get outside their four walled traditional library and work more directly with technologists, faculty, and Students. It means they will not merely be the custodians of information but they will act as knowledge managers who will work with users

40 24 in collecting, analyzing tactical intelligence and act as trainers and consultants by transferring knowledge within the University. 2.9.1 The role of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in enhancement of the growth of an Information Society During this Information Communication Technology era, Information has emerged as the basic and primary asset necessary for societal needs and demands. Information is the commodity that has a market value that determines the success and failure of a society. Bridging the information gap in university libraries implies putting in place effective systems to provide quality services to the patrons. Library 2.0 and web 2.0 systems provide seamless services to the patrons through media-rich systems such as blog, wiki and social network. Web 2.0 systems also help to increase reliance on access and use of information or knowledge essential in achieving the millennium development goals (Makori,2011).Web 2.0 increases the amount of information available, increases the speed with which information is growing, and provides the ability to capture more human knowledge by enabling user-generated content and browser based software that facilitates online collaboration, communication and sharing of information (Allard, 2009). Web 2.0 tools have the capability to address generational perspectives because they allow users to have different experiences based on personal skills and values. This implies that University libraries should proactively provide and support information work and activities through content creation, organization and management of knowledge and intellectual records.The challenge is for the University libraries to effectively apply web 2.0 systems in achieving the educational and academic goals not only in the Universities, but also the society at large(Makori,2011). Social Networking Sites allows sharing of content through collaboration and communication, and creation of online communities.Web 2.0 tools makes the contribution of content and interacting with other people faster, easier and information is made more accessible to a wider population, a valuable resource that is required to inform decision making process that determines the destiny of a society (Munatsi, 2010).

41 25 2.Application of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Provision of online University Library information services Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites have assisted University libraries to provide, expand, promote, support and post information services to the patrons. Currently Blogs that are managed and maintained by University libraries provide regular entries of information, knowledge and communication services to the patrons. In addition, blogs are used to communicate library events, publicize information resources, train staff, and offer subject-related reference services (Han& Liu, 2010):Today University Library websites are being utilized as platform of disseminating information services to the patrons, also they act as a library promotional mechanism( Makori, 2011).Comments suggest that blogs are the best informal communication channel to extract latent feedback information from the users to enhance the quality of library services (Harinarayana & Raju, 2010).Weblog and RSS are resourceful in gathering and collecting content from different information sources (Bradley, 2007). University libraries can also promote and extent information services to the patrons through use of podcast or other systems. Libraries of Imperial College London,Johns Hopkins University and Cornell University have used podcasts for providing information about library tours, library updates and news (Harinarayana &Raju,2010). “By combining RSS feed readers and podcasts, libraries can access and deliver audio commentary and instructions to patrons wherever they are located” (King & Brown, 2009). The podcasts have given the user community the opportunity to listen to recorded intellectual outputs online without any additional software and to download for later use (Makori, 2011). Therefore this Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites have proved to be useful in expanding, promoting and posting digital and web based information services to the patrons. 3.Use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Supporting open, distance and E- learning Worlwide, University libraries have made efforts to utilize Web 2.0 tools applications in order to address the information needs, demands, desires and wisdom of Students in open, distance and

42 26 e-learning programmes, at the University of South Africa Web 2.0 tools systems like Wikis are used by students to collaborate in content generation and ultimately developing an enduring knowledge base or repository on a given discipline (Munatsi, 2010). Instant Messaging (IM) services are widely used to provide virtual reference services in academic libraries (Foley, 2002). Wiki application provides the platform for information professionals and patrons to access, share and exchange information and knowledge. Wiki also allows users to collaborate in content generation and ultimately develop an enduring knowledge base or repository on a given discipline (Munatsi, 2010). 4.Effect of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Promoting of online Networking for University Libraries Globally both Instant Messaging and Social Networking Sites are popular in Universities for online collaboration,communication and sharing among users. IM is widely used in academic libraries especially in reference services. IM provides not only text messages, but also multimedia resources such as photos and videos among others (Harinarayana &Raju, 2010). The technology provides the preferred method for online collaboration, communication and sharing among librarians and patrons as exemplified at George Washington University library. This allows patrons remote access to the librarians while conducting information research (McManus, 2009). IM helps the patrons to easily and quickly get in touch with the librarian for possible assistance, in turn, the librarian provides feedback to the patrons via the IM system. Instant messaging provides faster access to information in most cases, allows both parties to see the reference related questions, and having this service available to patrons gives an academic library’s reference services the ability to have a constant presence on their website and within their patron’s chat software, if the patron chooses to add the reference services to their address book (Bradley, 2007). 5.Impact of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in Marketing of Library information services University libraries today are competing with other information Centres that have adopted Social Networking Sites and Web 2.0 tools to engage the user, determine their information needs and disseminate required information in real time irrespective of their location. Web 2.0 and Social

43 fans or followers. However, there is no conclusive evidence showing academic libraries how to 27 Netwotrking Sites have become popular and trendy marketing concepts (Harinarayana & Raju, 2010). Use of web 2.0 tools like IM, RSS and SNS such as Facebook helps University libraries to market and promote information services to the patrons. This implies the process of taking information services to where the patrons are vis-a`-vis patrons coming to the libraries. Chinese top University libraries utilize RSS for various purposes, First and basic one is the notification of information of interest to patrons that are initiated by libraries such as library news and events, new books available, or database information mainly for publicizing library events, accessing library resources, providing reference services and sharing photos; The second and most demanding function is the athentification of personal information produced by patrons in utilization of library services such as the circulation record; The third purpose is the syndication of subject related information for easy and timely access by the patrons, fourth and the most popular is the publicizing of library events(Han & Liu, 2010). 2.10 Challenges and Strategies of Integrating Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites into Academic Library Services Individuals and organizations have increasingly collaborated and communicated using Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites. These information communication emerging technologies have become catalysts in academic libraries for marketing services and resources to users. However, academic libraries have faced the following challenges when using these Technologies (Collins &Haase, 2012): Many academic libraries are adopting Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites but may not have a clear vision of how to integrate these tools into their overall goals. Some studies examining Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites usage in academic libraries have primarily focused on aspects of technology, funding and staffing. Technical barriers includes: Limited access to wireless services, technological infrastructure and other technologies. Due to lack of funding or interest or skills among staff members, Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites have been abandoned or no longer updated in some libraries. Researchers perceive barriers to integration of Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites for academic libraries; many libraries are experimenting with different Social Networking Sites services such as Twitter or Facebook to interact and connect with their patrons, to grow their Social Network presence and gain moreTwitterFacebook

44 28 do this effectively. Concerns about privacy and the inability to measure effectiveness are on the list of concerns regarding Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites in academic Library environment. 1.Constraints incurred in utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site in University Libraries For academic purposes, students have been shown to be not particularly eager to communicate with professors on Facebook or MySpace (Chu & Nalani-Meulemans, 2008) and they preferred email because it is perceived to be more reliable. Students have reported that they felt more comfortable and interested in using Social Networking tools to communicate with people whom they regarded as friends, which would not likely include librarians. Some University students have also shown negative feelings about the librarians using Facebook and MySpace as outreach tools since it may infringe on their sense of personal privacy (Connell, 2009). According to Connell’s survey results, if a librarian would want to use Web 2.0 tools and Social network Sites effectively, Librarians have to be cautious in establishing communications and relationships with their student and friends by avoiding “mass friending”. It appears that the uptake of Social Networking Sites as tools for University libraries needs to be understood further to pave the way for harnessing its potential benefits. A wider perspective in examining Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites for librarians is useful (Hoffman, 2009). 2.Ethical and Legal aspects in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Library. A study conducted to examine the views of Librarians on the issue of privacy in the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Netwoking Sites in Libraries, suggested that only 19% of Libraries surveyed expressed concern over privacy issues related to Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites). Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites environment reveals several gaps that leave room for infringement on user’s legitimate rights as a result of service providers in-action, technology inefficient, predatory behaviours, lack of government policy and interaction, exclusive rights of providers with users criminal behaviour(Charnigo& Barnette-Ellis,2007). The ethical requirement in the access and utilization of these technologies dictates that the best scenario is when more information can be used and shared without provoking user

45 29 dissatisfaction, After all; it is the unprecedented ability to share personal information that attracts many Social Network users (Lyons, 2008). Promoting ethical aspects and principles that espouse creative multilingual content and universal access to information and communication should be encouraged among users and service providers (UNESCO, 2008). Though Web 2.0 is a challenging matter which crosses over so many ethical and compliance issues, however like any other ethics and compliance issue, these challenges can and must be proactively be managed (Lundsay, 2010).Librarians should ask themselves how they can provide the best and fairer balance between Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites access and protection.There is need for them to know information of users individual profiles and how they would ensure that they get need information quickly and accurately. In order to manage these challenging matters in Web 2.0 environment, a sound policy is needed to protect and disseminate information, share it ethically using Web 2.0 tools(Mutula, 2011). If not properly managed Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites can destroy the image of the University library when the interactions forums are not controlled (Lundsay, 2010). 2.10. 3 Intellectual Property Right The most current and profound legal issue facing libraries in this category is plagiarism, Promotion of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites and freedom of information access only serve to accelerate the ethical dilemma of libraries in managing the fair distribution and use of electronic information. Fair use rule is not explicit on the exact amount of reproduction that is granted (Mutula, 2011). Control of Patrons use patterns of Social Networking Sites information is a toll order for libraries, whereby the vagueness in regulations regarding permitted usage and poor enforcement of regulations makes it almost impossible for libraries to provide adherence of fair use in Web 2.0 tools; however Librarians should work through the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sitesprocess of solving problems and making decisions with the objective of helping all library users develop their sense of ethics and then to translate this reflection into action (Mutula, 2011).

46 30 2.11 Conclusion This chapter reviewed documented literature constituting books in print, electronic books, Journals and Scholarly papers regarding: The definition and types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites. In addition the extent of access and utilization of Social Networking Sites and Web 2.0 tools in University Libraries was highlighted. Literature reviewed focused on perception of Library Staff in University Libraries regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites, extent of use, Student usage analysis, and challenges faced in using this technology and a review of global roles of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries. Studies done globally indicated that most Universities have included at least two of the Web 2.0 tools such as Bookmark, RSS and Social Networking Sites like Facebook and Twitter on their University Library Website, also University Students have embraced Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites by engaging the Library Staff on how to access and retrieve electronic Journals with books and get updated in real time about what has been uploaded in the University Digital repository.In Kenya despite opening an account and linking of these Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites to University libraries, most of these sites are dormant they are never updated on the University Library website (Mutula,2006). The commonly used Social Networking Sites in Kenyan Universities are Face book and Twitter (Oyieke, 2012). The documented information on challenges faced in utilizing Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites includes: ethical and legal issues in using these technologies and management of the services; however these challenges can be managed with policy guidelines in place (Lundsay, 2010). In conclusion reviewed literature suggested that Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites have been used to create an information society by taking information to the people online, provide the information needs of online and distance learning Students and last but not least to market University library information resources respectively if managed by good Web 2.0 policy guideline.

47 31 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1.Introduction This research methodology illustrated the procedure that was used in conducting the study and the logic behind, with an aim of providing essential information that enables a reader to understand how the data was collected and analyzed. According to Kothari (2004) research Methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problems. The research methodology employed by the researcher was divided into the following subsections; research design, target population, sampling/ procedure, research instruments- validity and reliability, data collection procedures and data analysis techniques. 2.Population The study targeted the main campus student who accessed and utilized Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library; these students were drawn from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences; with Architecture and Engineering. Library staff working in the Main Campus Library were selected to represent the staff. 3.Sampling Design The researcher used stratified sampling where by University library staff were picked according to their positions in the library.The Deputy Diretor planning at JKML; System Librarian; User service Librarian; Senior Library Assistant and three Library Assistants represented the staff.The researcher selected the sample of students according to gender parity and level of study constituting, Diploma, Undergraduate, Masters and PhD offered at the main campus respectively. The majority of students who participated in the study were undergraduates while, Diploma; Masters and Phd students were not easily accessible only a few participated in the study.

48 32 4.Sample of the study The sample of the study included 47 respondents encompassing: Forty (40) students selected based on gender parity and seven(7) Library staff picked according to their designation specifically from management to the operational level. This sample was guided by the rule of thumb for determining the size of the sample, which recommends a sample size more than 30 and less than 500 is appropriate for most research hence 47 respondents are within the set limit (Roscoe, 1975). 5.Data collection Instruments Used The forty (40) sampled students were issued with the questionnaire which was filled and collected after two weeks. The researcher interviewed the Deputy Director in charge of planning (representing the management level); while the System Librarian; User service Librarian; Senior Library Assistant and three Library Assistants respectively filled a similar questionnaire, that was collected after two weeks.Questionnaire, interviews and documentary records from the website were used to collect data on the background information of University of Nairobi; Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library and data on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library by Library staff and Students respectively. This design was based on the objectives and research questions of the study and previous instruments used in related studies. The questionnaire for Library staff was divided into section A-F. There were five questions each with subsection. Section A –Instructions; B- Demographics; C- Library Staff Perception on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites and its purpose; D- Extent at which Library staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites ; E- Challenges encountered by Library staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites and F- Library Staff suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries. The interview questions for the Deputy director planning were divided into the following Sections A- F: A-Directors perception and purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; B-The extent at which library staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website ; C-Extent at which students access and utilize Web 2.0

49 33 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; Purpose for which students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; E-Challenges encountered by Library staff / students in accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website and last but not least section-F:Directors suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries. The students questionnaire was divided into section A-G.The questionnaire had five questions each with subsection. Section A –Instructions; B- Demography; C- Student usage analysis of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites ; D- Purpose for which Students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites ; E- Extents at which Students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites ; F- Challenges encountered by Students in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites and G- Students suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. All questionnaires and interview method included closed ended items of Yes and No response format and some open ended supply type format. The researcher used the University of Nairobi Library website to identify the types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites being used by the staff with Students and the purpose for using these technologies. 6.Validity and Reliability After designing the questionnaires they were given to two experts in Information communication technology to guide on the use of terms such as Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites. Using suggestions, comments and observations of the experts, the questionnaires were refined. This exercise authenticated the content and face validity of the questionnaire. 7.Procedure of Administration of data collection instruments After the validation of the questionnaire the researcher visited Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library between February and March 2014 and administered the questionnaire to 46 respondents including: 6 library staff and 40 students. A period of two weeks was given to the respondents to respond to the questionnaire.At the expiration of the period allocated for answering the questionnaire, a total of 40 questionnaires encampassing: 35 questionnaires from students

50 34 including: Twenty male and fifteen female students, with five questionnaires from library staff constituting: Two male and three female Library staff consecutively were properly completed and returned for data analysis and discussion. The Deputy Director planning was interviewed and she provided vital data about JKML management perception on the subject of study. 3.7 Data Analysis The data collected was quantitive and qualitative in nature, this data was filtered for completeness and consistency; it was coded; tabulated and summarized using distribution method.Tables facilitated the presentation of the findings.

51 35 3.8 Conclusion This chapter presented the methodology applied by the researcher to collect data which encompassed; Population; Sampling design; Sample of the study; Data collection instruments ; validity with reliability and procedure of administering data collection exercise. The study targeted students and Library staff based at the University of Nairobi main campus library; the students were selected according to their level of study to obtain the sample which constituted ; Diploma; Undergraduate Degree; Masters and Phd students conscutively.Library staff were selected based on their designation.The Deputy Director Planning represented the top management on behalf of the Director while the Other Library staff respectively formed the operation level of management. The Deputy Director planning was interviewed while the System Librarian; User Service Librarian; Senior Library Assistant (digital content) ; Library Assistant Africanna; Cataloguing and Circulation with students consecutively were issued with a questionnaires that were collected after two weeks.The interview questions and questionnaires gatherered relevant data on: perception and purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; The extent at which library staff and students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; Purpose for which Library staff and students access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website; Challenges encountered by Library staff / students in accessing and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website and last but not least suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in University Libraries.n

52 36 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4.1 Introduction This chapter highlighted the approaches applied in analyzing the data and findings.The data collected was summarized through descriptive statistics. Further the findings was presented according to: Library staff profile like: designation and education level including the section covering: perceptions; purpose and extent of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tool and Social Networking Sites.In addition the challenges incurred by library staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tool/ Social Networking Sites beside; solutions to the problem was considered in presenting the findings. The other profile focused on students including sections covering: Students usage analysis; Purpose; and Extent of use of Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites consecutively; challenges incured in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networkings and solution to the problems formed the sections used to present the findings. 4.2. Respondents Demographics Forty six questionnaires were administered to six Library staff and forty students.The researcher interviewed the Deputy Director planning. The Library staff profile encampassed: Gender; Designation; Section; Age ; and Education qualification. The students Profile included: Gender; Age ; School and Level of study. 4.2.1 Gender of Respondents Among the forty seven (47) respondents who were sampled Seven 7(14.9%) are Library staff and forty 40(85.2%) are students respectively. Three 3(6.4%) Library staff are Male and four 4(8.5%) are Female consecutively. The forty students sampled includes: Twenty 20(43%) Male, while another Twenty 20(43%) were Female respectively. Among the Female library staff One 1(2.1%) was interviewed while Three 3(6.4%) filled the questionnaire. See Table 1 for detailed information.

53 37 Table 1. Gender of Respondents 4.2.2 Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender Five Library staff 5(83%) and Thirty five students 35(87.5%) returned their questionnaire respectively. Five female students 5(12.5%) and One male library staff 1(16.7%) did not return their questionnaires at the time of collecting even after being reminded.This means: Two male library staff 2(33%) and Three female library staff 3(50%) filled and returned the questionnaire. Twenty male students 20(50%) and Fifteen female students 15(37.5%) consecutively returned their questionnaire. The comprehensive data of returned and non- returned questionnaire has been tabulated in Table 2. All respondents (47) per gender Gender Library staff/Students FrequencyPercentage Male Library staff36.4% Female Library Staff48.5 % Total714.9% STUDENTS Male Students2043% Female Students2043.% Total4086 Grand Total47100%

54 38 Table 2. Respondents who returned questionnaire according to Gender 4.2.3 Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group Among the six (6) Libary staff who returned the questionnaire their percentage age group was as follows: Between Twenty and twenty nine years old constituted One library staff 1(20%) ; Forty and forty nine years old constituted three library staff 3(60%) and last but not least one library staff 1(20%) was aged between Fifty and fiftynine years old. Note that the Deputy Director in charge of planning Mrs Agatha Kabugu was interviewed, although she has been included in the Libarry staff population, her age was not included, in addition one library staff did not return his questionnaire at the time of collection, thus his age was not tabulated. The age group among the 35 students who participated in the study was as follows:Age group of fifteen and nineteen (15-19)years old had Twenty five students 25(71.43%); Twenty and Twenty nine(20-29)years old with Seven students 7(20%); Between Third and Thirty nine(30-39)years old constituted Two students 2(5.71%). Forty and forty nine (40-49) years old had one student,1 (2.86%). Students aged between fifty and fifty nine (50-59) years did not participate in the study. In conclusion Female Library staff were more than male counterpart, while the majority of the students who participated in the study were aged between Fifteen and nineteen (15-19)years old, and amounted to Twenty five students 25(71.43%); followed by Twenty and twenty nine(20-29) years old with Seven students 7(20%) ; Thirty and Thirty nine (30-39) years old had Two students 2(5.71%) and last but not least Forty and fortynine (40-49) years old with One student 1(2.86%) respectively. This data is tabulated in Table 3 below. RespondentsReturned QuestionnareNon Returned Questionnare GenderFrequencyFrequencyPercentageFrequencyFrequency Male Library staff233%116.7% Female Library staff350%00% Total583%116.7% Male Students2050%00% Female Students1537.5%512.5% Total3587.5%512.5%

55 39 Table 3. Library Staff and Students Respondents according to Age Group 4.2.4 Library staff Designation; Section and Qualification The percentage of Library staff according to the Designation; Section and qualification was as follows: Deputy Director planning Management (Masters degree Holder) One1 (16.7%); System Librarian -digital content (Masters degree Holder) One 1(16.7%); Senior Library Assistant -digital content (Diploma Holder) One 1(16.7%); Library Assistant- Africana with (Masters degree Holder); One1 (16.7%); Library Assistant-Cataloguing ;( Undergraduate degree Holder) One 1 (16.7%). Last but not least Library Assistant on circulation desk had a Diploma1 (16.7%). The variation in designation in relation to qualification is attributed to the fact that some staff with Diploma rose from library assistant position to Senior Library assistant due to the number of years they have served. While others advanced their education from Diploma; undergraduate to Postgraduate, they have not been promoted e.g the Library assistants in Cataloguing and Africanna section Age GroupFrequencyPercentage Library staff 20-29120% 30-3900% 40-49360% 50-59120% 60 and above00% 5100% Students 15-192571.43% 20-29720% 30-3925.71% 40-4912.86% 50-5900% 60 and above00% 35100%

56 40 respectively. Note that the User service librarian did not return his questionnaire; hence the researcher was unable to capture his profile. This data is well tabulated in Table 4 Library staff Designation; Section and qualification. Table. 4 Library staff Designation; Section and Qualification Designation for Library staffSectionQualificationFrequencyPercentage Deputy Director(Interviewed)Management Masters degree Holder 116.7% System Librarian(Questionnare)Digital Content Unit Masters degree Holder 116.7% Senior Library Assistant(Questionnaire) Digital content Unit Diploma Holder 116.7% Library Assistant (Questionnaire)Africanna Masters degree Holder 116.7% Library Assistant(Questionnaire)Cataloguing Undergraduate Degree Holder 116.7% Library Assistant(Questionnaire)Circulation Diploma Holder 116.7% 6100%

57 41 4.2.5 Students School and Level of study The respondents were drawn from various schools as follows: Arts13 (37.14%); Business studies 9(25.71%); Built Environment1 (2.86%); Computing informatics1 (2.86%); Economics 7(20%); Engineering 3(8.57%) and International studies1 (2.86%). Table 5 Students School; Level of study 4.3 Library staff Perception on the use of Web 2.0 /SNS Tools at JKML The researcher conducted an interview with the Deputy Director in charge of planning Mrs. Agatha Kabugu, to obtain the perception of Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library management as to whether Web 2.0 tools /SNS tools can bridge information gap in the Library. According to the interviewee Web 2.0/Social Networking Site can bridge information gap in the Library. Mrs Kabugu highlighted that JKML is using these technologies to: Create visibility of the Library online; updating students on Library activities; providing community outreach programmes as one of the JKML corporate responsibility; Promotion of Library services such as E-resources and digital content in their repository and last but not least Schoolfor students (Questionnaire) Level of study and FrequencyFrequencyPercentage Dip%Degr%Mast%Phd% Arts001028.5725.7112.85 7 1337.14 Business studies00514.28525.712 925.71 Built Environment 0012.857000012.86 Computing informatics 12.857000012.86 Economics0072000007 Engineering0038.5700003 International studies 012.857000012.86 Grand Total12.8572777.14411.4238.5735100%

58 42 creating awareness programme on Library information and services that can assist Students and the entire university of Nairobi Community in accessing and utilization of the Library services exhaustively. Another question required the interviewee to confirm whether JKML has officially adopted the use of Web 2.0/ SNS tools beside indicating the specific tools that have been linked to the Library Website.Her responds was that JKML library has appreciated the role of Web 2.0/SNS tools in linking the Library with their patrons online. She stated that currently there is no documented policy in place on access and utilization of Web 2.0/SNS tools, but the JKML ICT department has initiated a process of developing a policy framework to facilitate access and utilization of Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website.Mrs Agatha Kabugu indicated that Facebook; Twitter and You tube are official Web 2.0 /SNS tools that the University is using to network with the Patrons online. The third question seeked to find out how the Library staff at JKML are using the Web 2.0/SNS tools. The interviewee responded by saying that the Library staff uses these tools to promote Library services; to collaborate within the library; Network with other information professional globally; socializing and for leisure. The other question required Mrs Kabugu to state whether JKML has appointed specific Staff to facilitate access and utilization of the Web 2.0/SNS tools and the skills that a Library staff requires to moderate the use of these technologies. Her respond was that the ICT Technician and System Librarian have been assigned the responsibility of managing access and utilization of these tools. She asserted that information professionals are expected to be passionate and develop an interest in the use of Web 2.0/ SNS tools in their work, in order to adopt and facilitate access and utilization of these emerging technologies online. 4.4 Induction and Purpose for Which Students access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website The interviewee was asked,whether students are inducted to acess and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on the library website and secondly whether the students are using these tools and the purpose for which students access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools.The responds was that students are inducted during orientation programme in their first year.She confirmed that students are accessing and utilizing these tools to:ask questions;inquire about library services; make

59 43 comments request new services that are being offered by other University Libraries; suggest improvement in other library services and last but not least like the page and congratulate the staff. 5.Extent at Which Students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/ SNS tools on JKML website The researcher asked the interviewee how often the students accessed and utilized the Web 2.0/SNS tools for the purpose highlighted above.The respondent mentioned that students accessed and utilized the Web 2.0/SNS tools on daily basis. 6.Challenges which Library Staff face in facilitating the use of Web 2.0/SNS tools and their Solutions The Deputy Director in charge of Planning at JKML Mrs Agatha Kabugu highlighted that Libarry Staff face personal challenges like techno-phobia; Time Constraints; Lack of interest and guidelines repectively on the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools /SNS at JKML. In providing solutions to these challenges she suggested that Library staff should be encouraged regularly on utilization of Web 2.0 tools /SNS sites to dessiminate Library services using programmes like:Training;Talks and above all through development of policy document to guide the process of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites.

60 44 4.7 Recommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0/SNS that University Libraries can Use in providing information and services online The Seventh question required the interviewee to recommend which Web 2.0 tools/SNS should be used and adopted by the University Libraries in disseminating Library services online. The interviewee recommended the following Web 2.0 tools/SNS, citing their functions in University libraries as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Recommendation of the interviewee about Web 2.0 tools/SNS that University Libraries can use in dessiminating Library information and services online 4. 8 Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library The researcher used a similar questionnaire to obtain vital data from the Library staff in various Library operation areas namely: Digital Content; Circulation; Africanna and Cataloguing. The staff who participated in the study included the System Librarian (Digital content); Senior Library Assistant (Digital Content) and Library Assistant in Circulation; Africana and Cataloguing sections respectively. The first question aimed at evaluating the Library Staff perception on use and purpose of Web 2.0 tools /SNS on JKML website.The respondents were Web 2.0 ToolsUse RSS FeedProviding updates on New Library resources PodcastProviding information literacy online Slide shareOnline presentation You tube Providing Tutorials on E-resources and digital content access BlogsProfessional publishing Social Networking Sites(SNS) Face book Marketing Library services and engaging with the Patrons by chatting TwitterEvaluation of Library service LinkedInProfessional networking and discussions

61 45 asked to Agree by indicating Yes(Y) and disagree by indicating No (N) as to whether Web 2.0 tools like RSS feed, Google+,Blogs, Wikis; Podcasts and Social Networking Sites including:Facebook;Twitter, Linkedin and Myspace are relevant to JKML Library Information Services. The response is tabulated in Table 7: Table 7Library staff perception on the use and Purpose of Web 2.0/SNS Kenyatta Memorial Library tools at Jomo The responds shows that all JKML Library Staff appreciate that Web 2.0 tools /SNS on JKML website are relevant to the Library tasks. All 5(100%) JKML Staff who participated in the study returned the Yes answer. Part b of question one required the staff to indicate whether a blog can be used to :provide information literacy ; Marketing the Library ; Publishing Library events and updating students on new library materials by indicating Agree; Strongly Agree ;Disagree and last but not least Strongly Disagree.Below is the tabulation of their responds in Table 8. No.Designation Responds- option(Y) YES Responds Option-(N) No 1System Librarian (Digital content)Y 2Senior Assistant Librarian Digital ContentY 3Library Assistant AfricannaY 4Library Assistant CataloguingY 5Library Assistant CirculationY

62 46 Table.8 Purpose of using a blog in University Libraries According to the responds about using a blog to provide information literacy among the 5 Library staff who participated in the study: Two library staff (Agree); One library staff(Strongly Agree); Two library staff(Disagree ). Pertaining the use of blog to market the Library : Three library staff(Agree) ; One library staff(Strongly Agree); One library staff(Strongly Disagree).On using a blog to publish Library Events: Two library staff(Agree); One library staff(Strongly Agree)Two library staff(Disagree ); One library staff (Strongly Disagree). Last and not least the responds on using a blog to update students: Two library staff (Agree); Two library staff (Strongly Agree); One library staff (Strongly Disagree).These responds shows that the perception of the Library staff varies according to the use of blogs in Library.Indeed a blog can be used to perfom all the Library task 1-3 because a blog is an online journal; but updates on new library materials can be done well by (RSS feed) and Instant Messaging Services. The fact that Two library staff disagreed with the use of blogs to provide information literacy and Publishing Library events while other Two library staff Agreed indicates disaparity in Awareness on use of Web 2.0 tools in University Libraries.One Library staff was right to Strongly disagree that a blog can be used for updates of new materials.Two of the library staff were wrong by Agreeing that blogs can be used for updates; this is because RSS feed and Instant Messaging are used globally to provides news update hence they can be applied in the Library to update students on new library materials available in library repository and shelves instead of blogs.Training and Awareness for Library staff at JKML is needed to equip the staff with NO.LIBRARY TASKS AGREESTRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGL Y DISAGREE 1Providing Information literacy2(40%)1(20%)2(40%)0 2Marketing the Library3(60%)1(20%)0 3Publishing Library events2(40%)1(20%)1(40%)1(20%) 4 Updatingstudentsonnew books 2(40%) 01(20%)

63 47 knowledge on various types of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites and their roles in Libraries. The second question asked the respondents to state if they have accessed and utilized the Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website and indicate the Purpose for accessing and utilizing them.Those who participated in the study responded by providing the responds in Table 9. Table 9 Accessed and utilized Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKMLwebsite The responds indicated that all the Library Staff have accessed and used Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website.Five (5) Staff from the different sections who participated in the study returned the Yes answer. Part b of the question required the respondents to indicate among the tabulated purpose which one made them to access and utilize the Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website.Table 10 present their feedback. Table.10 Purpose for accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website No.Designation Responds- option(Y) YES Responds Option-(N) No 1System LibrarianY Senior Assistant Librarian Digital ContentY Library Assistant AfricannaY Library Assistant ComputerY Libarry staff CirculationY NO.Library Tasks AgreeStrongly Agree Disagree Strongly disagree 1Publishing Library events4(80%)1(20%)00 2 Offering Information literacy on E-books and Journalas 4(80%)1(20%)00 3 Updating students on Library digital content 2(40%)3(60%)00

64 48 The Library staff who participated in the study returned the following responds on the purpose of accessing and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website. Publishing Library events: Four library staff (Agree); One library staff (Strongly Agree). Offering Information literacy on E-books and Journals: Four library staff (Agree); One library staff (Strongly Agree). Updating students on digital content: Two library staff (Agree); Three library staff (Strongly Agree).These responds indicate that majority of the staff appreciate the significance of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in their library work. 4.9 The extent at which Library Staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website The third question aimed at establishing how often the Library Staff accessed and utilized the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites for the purpose indicated in Table 10.They provided the following responds in Table 11. Table 11. Extent at which respondents access and utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website NoExtent of useAgreeStrongly Agree DisagreeStrongly disagree 1Daily1(20%)2(40%)1(20%)0 2Weekly3(60%)000 3 Onceaftera couple of weeks 0001(20%) Monthly0001(20%)

65 49 The above responds can be interpreted as follows: One 1(20%) of respondents in the study Agree that they accessed and utilized daily Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for purpose in Table 10. Two 2(40%) of respondents in the study Strongly Agree that they accessed and utilized daily, Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for the purpose in Table 10 One 1(20%) of respondents in the study Strongly disagree that they accessed and utilized daily, Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website for the purpose in Table 4.10 Three 3(60%) respondents in the study Agree that they accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for the purpose in Table 4.10 Weekly. One 1(20%) of respondents in the study Strongly disagree that they accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for the purpose in Table 10 once after a couple of weeks and Monthly respectively. 4.10 Challenges encountered by the Library Staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website The fourth question asked the respondents to indicate the challenges encountered when accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for the purpose mentioned in Table 10. The feedback is tabulated in Table 12: Table. 12 Challenges encountered in Access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKMLwebsite The interpretation of the data in Table 12 is that: ChallengesAgreeDisagree Indequate time4(80%)1(20%) Lack of skills05(100%) Lack of facilities(Computer/Internet)05(100%) Poor connectivity1 (20%)0 Power outage3 (60%)2 (40%)

66 50 The challenge of time is faced by Four(80%) of the respondents who participated in the study while 1(20%) do not face time as a challenge in accessing and using the Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website for the purpose in Table.10 Lack of skills is not a challenge to all the Five (100%) respondents, they all have skills required in using the Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website for the purpose in Table.10. Lack of facilities (Computer/Internet) is not a challenge to all the Five (100%) respondents in accessing and utilization of the Web 2.0 tools /SNS on JKML website for the purpose in Table.10. The challenge of poor connectivity is faced by One (20%) of the 5(100%) respondents who participated in the study, while the challenge of power outage is encountered by Three library staff (60%) among five respondents who participated in the survey. Three (60%) of the respondents don’t think power outage is a challenge in accessing and utilizing the Web 2.0/SNS tools on JKML website for the purpose in Table.10 The feedback from the respondents, illustrated that all those who participated in the study have pre-requisite computers skills needed to use Web 2.0 tools/SNS, in addition the Library management has provided enough computers for the Library staff. However 80% of the Library staff didn’t have adequate time for accessing and using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website.Twenty percent 20% think time is not a challenge in using these tools. Twenty percent (20%) of the Library staff encountered poor connectivity challenge in using these Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in the Library. Power outage challenge is encountered by 60% of the Library staff. While 40% felt that there was enough power supply at JKML. Library staff suggested the following solutions in managing the above mentioned problems.See Table 13.

67 51 Table.13 Solution to the Challenges encountered are tabulated below According to the tabulated data 4(80%) of the staff felt that time was a challenge in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools /SNS on JKML website and thus the following solutions was suggested:  Establish a customer care unit to market the Library through Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites.  Increase staff capacity to reduce workload so that the available staff can have more time for providing online Library service using Web 2.0/SNS tools.  Library management should Support Library staff networking using Web 2.0/SNS tools platform. Twenty percent (20%) of the staff suggested that poor connectivity in Library to be managed by increasing bandwidth and buying high speed computers.To eradicate power outage challenge 60% percent of the Library staff recommended that high capacity standby generator to be purchased. ChallengesSolutionsFrequencyPercentage In-dequate time Establish a customer care unit to market the Library through Web 2.0/SNS tools. Increase staff capacity to reduce workload so that the available staff can have more time to provide online Library services using Web 2.0/SNS tools. Support Library staff networking through Web 2.0/SNS tools. 480% Poor connectivity Increase Bandwidth/Buy computer with high speed. 120% Power outageInstall high capacity standby generator.360%

68 52 4.11 Library Staff suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 /SNS tools on JKML website. The respondents were asked to provide their suggestion on access and utilization of Web 2.0/SNS tools in University Library and these was their feedback: University Libraries should take advantage of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in order to:  Connect with their patrons online.  To get feedback from the patrons pertaining the Library services because most of them have embraced these emerging technology and are using them to access and utilize scholarly information online.  Engage the students to get their ideas on how to meet their needs.  Market electronic resources and digital repository content.  Updating staff on the latest Library events.  To network Professionally and Socially.  Use Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to create online visibility in this digital Era. 4.12 Students Awareness of what Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites The first questionnaire was purposively designed to test students knowledge about Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites.The questionnaire simply asked the students whether they use Web 2.0 tools like(blogs;Wikis;Podcast; RSS feeds, Google maps; Photosharing; tools and Flickr) and Social Networking Sites like(Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn and Myspace). 35 (87.5%))respondents including Male students 20(50%) and Female 15(37.5%) demonstrated awareness of what Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking site are, See tabulation of the findings on percentage of students awareness on Web 2.0 tools/SNS in Table 14. Table.14 Percentage of Students Awareness of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Site StudentsFrequency Those who useWeb 2.0 tools/SNS Percentage of Awareness Male20 50% Female15 37.5% 35 87.5%

69 53 4.13Students Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library When asked if the students knew the Web 2.0 tools/ SNS linked to JKML website; Among the 35 respondents who participated in the study only 3 (8.57%) Male students and 3(8.57%) Female students respectively knows the Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to JKML Website. Among the 3(8.57%) Male students, 1(2.86%) student mentioned Facebook and Youtube; One 1(2.86%) Male student mentioned Facebook and another 1(2.86%) student mentioned Youtube respectively; Male students were in the age bracket of 15-19 years old and doing undergraduate degree course. When it comes to female students only three 3(8.57%) of them knows the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website.One 1(2.86%) female student mentioned Googlemaps; 2(5.71%) identified Facebook and Twitter. Among these students the one who indicated Google maps was aged between 20- 29yrs old and was pursuing Phd degree course, the other two who mentioned Facebook with Twitter were undertaking undergraduate degree course and they were aged between 15-19 years old.These findings shows that many students have not accessed Web 2.0 tools/SNS linked to JKML website, due to lack of awareness programmes from the Library staff. 4.13.1 Students who do not know the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library From the 35(87.5%) respondents constituting: 20(50%) Male and 15(37.5%) Female students respectively: Fifteen 15(42.9%) Male students, do not know any of the Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to JKML website. Fourteen 14(40%) of these students were aged between 15- 19yrs old and doing undergraduate degree course, while 1(2.86%) was in the age bracket of 20- 29yrs old and he was undertaking undergraduate degree course. Eleven 11(31. 42%) of female students were not able to identify any Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to JKML website. Among these female students 3(8.57%) were aged between 15-19yrs old and were doing undergraduate degree course; Two 2(5.71%) were pursuing Phd degree course;1(2.86%) was aged between 40-49yrs old.The other One 1(2.86%) was aged between 30-39yrs old; Another 3(8.57%) were Masters degree students aged between 20-29 years old and 1(2.86%) was aged between 30-39yrs old.This percentage of awareness is not influenced by age or gender.

70 54 4.13.2 Students who indicated E-journals and E-books as Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites tools linked to JKML website Among the 35(87.5%) students who participated in the study; 2(5.71%) Male students indicated E-resources as Web 2.0/SNS tools linked to JKML website, 1(2.86%) was aged between 15-19 years old and was doing undergraduate degree course, while 1(2.86%) was in the age bracket of 20-29yrs old and he was pursuing undergraduate degree course. One 1(2.86%) Female student aged between 15-19 years old and pursuing undergraduate degree course also mentioned E-resoures as Web 2.0 tools /SNS attached to JKML website. The students responds does not indicate they don’t understand what Web 2.0 tools/SNS are; because feedback on awareness in Table 3 illustrated precisely that all 35(87.5%) respondents use Facebook; Twitter and Youtube among other Web 2.0/SNS tools.These findings demonstrated that University of Nairobi Library staff have not created awareness programme for students on the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites even after including them on their website. 4.14 Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools The students with knowledge about Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website were asked about the purpose for utilizing and accessing these tools; the Table 15 shows their responds. Table.15 Percentage of Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools Among the 35(87.5%) students sampled, those who accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to the JKML website. Three 3(8.57%) Agree to have used the tools for PurposeAgreeStrongly AgreeDisagree Strongly disagree Library related3(8.57%)1(2.86%)0% Research Based2(5.71%)3(8.57%)0% Communication withtheLibrary staff 1(2.86%) 0%

71 55 Library related purpose; 1(2.86%) strongly Agree that the purpose for accessing and utilizing the Web 2.0 tools /SNS was library related purpose. Those who used the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website for Research purpose were as follows:2(5.71%) Agree; 3(8.57%) Strongly Agree to have used the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites respectively for Research purpose. Those who accessed and utilized the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites for communication with the Library staff are as follows:1(2.86%) Agree; 1(2.86%) Strongly Agree and last but not least 1(2.86%) Disagree. Table.16 How Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites Helped the Respondents who accessed Them The indication of feedback in Table. 16 The students who accessed and utilized the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website were asked how it helped them to access library services, the following is their responds:Those who Agree it helped them to discover new books were 2(5.71%); Those who Strongly Agree they were able to discover new books was 1(2.86%). Library Services Accessed AgreeStrongly AgreeDisagree Strongly Disagree Discovernewlibrary books for your course 2(5.71%)1(2.86%)0% Understandhowto access E-resources. 2(5.71%)3(8.57%)0% Update on research papers in University Library Digital repository. 2(5.71%)1(2.86%) 0% Chat with the Library staff online. 1(2.86%)0%1(2.86%)0%

72 56 The responds of students on whether Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites helped them to understand how to access E-resources were as follows: 2(5.71%) Agree; 3(8.57%) Strongly Agree. Another question asked students if the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites updated the students on research papers in the digital repository: The response was as follows: 2(5.71%) Agree; 1(2.86%) Strongly Agree and last but not least: 1(2.86%) Disagreed. The final question asked students whether they accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to chat with the Library staff :1(2.86%) Agree they chatted with the Library through these tools while 1(2.86%) Disgreed 4. 15. Extent of accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Linked to JKML website The response of the students who accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website is tabulated in Table 17. Table. 17 Extent of accessing and utilizing Web 2.0/Social Networking Linked to JKML website Among the students who accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website, when asked about how often they used the tools this is their responds. Two students 2(5.71%) used them daily. Two students 2(5.71% ) used them weekly. One students 1(2.86%) used them once in a couple of weeks. 4.16 Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and Suggestion by Students When asked which challenges were incurred in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites; the responds were as follows and most of it was raised even with the students who indicated E-resources as Web 2.0/SNS tools linked to JKML website see Table.18 Extent of UseFrequencyFrequencyPercentage DailyDaily25.71% Weekly25.71% Once in a couple of Weeks12.86% Monthly

73 57 Table.18 Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and Suggestion by Students Among the 35(87.5%) respondents who participated in the study they provided the following challenges that are incurred in acess and utilization of Web 2.0 tools /SNS linked to JKML and E-resources: Slow net was experienced by Ten students 10(28.57%); Limited computers problem encountered by Ten students 10(28.57%); Unstable Wifi connectivity is a challenge to five students 5(14.29%); Limited assistance from Library staff was a challenge to raised by Five students 5(14.29%); Difficulty in searching E-resources is challenge to Ten students 10(28.57%) and last but not least Six students 6(17.14%) indicated that the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites are never updated on time. 4.17. Challenges encountered in accessing and Utilizing Web 2.0/SNS tools and Suggestion by Students The majority of the students provided the following Suggestions to manage the above mentioned Challenges: Increase bandwidth; more PCS needed; stabilize Wifi connectivity; increase staff capacity to facilitate the use of Web 2.0 tools /SNS by engaging students online to establish their changing information needs. ChallengesFrequencyFrequencyPercentage Slow Net1028.57% Limited computers1028.57% Unstable Wifi connectivity514.29% Limited assistance from Library staff514.29% Difficulty in searching E-resources through advanced search1028.57% Slow update of these Web 2.0/SNS tools617.14%

74 58 4.18 Conclusion This chapter analysed and interpreted the data using frequency and percentage.The data was evaluated according to the elements in the data collection instruments applied by the researcher which included interview and questionnaire.The analysis was done by presenting and interpreting findings according to the respondents including: Library staff and students demography namely ;Gender; designation; Section; Age and education qualification for Library staff beside; students demography constituting :Age; School and level of study and various sections in the data collection instruments. From the population sampled 47 respondents were selected constituting: 7 library staff drawn from Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Consisting of of the Deputy Director planning (Masters degree Holder) representing management). System Librarian (Masters degree holder) and Senior Library Assistant (Diploma Holder) consecutively from digital content section; Library assistant (Masters degree Holder) in Africana section; Library Assistant (Undergraduate Degree Holder) in Cataloguing section and last but not least Library Asssitant (Diploma Holder) from Circulation section. One library staff 1(20%) was aged between ( 20-29yrs); Three library staff 3(60%) were between age bracket of (40-49yrs) and One library staff 1(20%) was aged between (50-59yrs). The students sampled were 40 comprising 20 Male and 20 Female students respectively.Thirty five(35) students who returned the questionnaire were drawn from the following schools: Arts Thirteen (13) students ; Business studies had Nine (9)students; Built environment included One student(1) Computer and informatics had One student(1); Economics had Seven (7) students ; Engineering with Three(3)students and last but not least International relation was represented by One student(1).Between Fiffteen and Ninteen (15-19) years old included Twenty five students (25) in number ; (20 -29years old) had Seven students ;Thirty and Thirty nine years age bracket(30-39yrs) had Two students finally Forty and Fortynine years age bracket (40-49yrs ) comprised one student (1) respectively. Among these students One was doing a diploma course; Twenty seven students (27) were undertaking a undergraduate degree course ; Four(4) pursued Masters degree course and Three (3) were doing Phd degree course conscutively; Certificate students did not participate in the study.

75 59 Pertaining to the sections in the data collection instruments for Library staff and students the following information has been analysed in this chapter namely:Perception; Purpose ; Extent ; challenges and suggestions in form of solution affecting access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites by Library staff at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library(JKML). According to the findings on perceptions, Library staff recognizes the significance of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at JKML, where by the Library staff have adopted these emerging technologies and are using them to create visibility of the Library online.Though there is no policy to guide the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at JKML, ICT technician and System librarian are in charge of enhancing the use of these technologies by the Library staff and students. Using the responds of respondents the researcher illustrated the challenges incurred by the library staff in the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites that encampassed:Time constraints; Poor net connectivity;power outage and lack of interest in embracing use of these tools by some staff. Suggestions proposed to manage these challenges included:development of policy guideline to support access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and also internet bandwidth to be increased beside purchase of standby generator. The researcher established that students have embraced the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites. In terms of usage the findings shows that only six students among the Thirty five who participated in the study have accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website. According to the findings University of Nairobi Library staff have not created awareness on availability of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on the Library website. Students suggested that Wifi connectivity should be stabilized, in addition Library staff should facilitate the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites; and market their availability and benefits to the students.

76 60 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS, FINDINGS CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 1.Introduction This chapter presented the Summary; discussions, findings, conclusion, recommendation and limitation of the study as per the research objectives. 2.Summary The results of this study demonstrated that Library staff at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial have recognized the relevants of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in bridging information gap in the Library.From their responds it was established that Web 2.0 tool/Social Networking Sites can enhance the visibility of the Library online and connect the Patrons with the Library Staff. According to the perceptions of the Library staff Web 2.0 tools /SNS can be used to publish Library events, provide information literacy on the use of Electronic books, journals and updating students on new library materials in digital repository and shelf respectively. The survey illustrated that though the library staff have embraced the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites, they have not exhaustively accessed and utilized these emerging technologies to dessiminate Library information online due to the following challenges namely : In-adequate time ; Large workload ; poor internet connectivity; regular power outage and lack of documented policy to guide the process of using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website. To manage these constraints the Library staff suggested the following solutions: Establish a customer care unit to market the Library through Web 2.0 tools/SNS ; Increase staff capacity to reduce workload so that the available staff can have more time for providing online Library service using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites ; Support Library staff networking through Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites; Increase bandwidth; Buy more computer with high speed; Install high capacity standby generator and last but not least document a policy to guide the process of accessing and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites in the Library. On the side of students only six among the Thirty five who participated in the study have accessed and used Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website.Students indicated that internet connectivity is unstable; Computers in the Library are limited.

77 The age group among the 35 students who participated in the study was as follows: 61 The following suggestions were proposed by students to enhance the use of Web 2.0 tools/SNS in the Library:Increase bandwidth; More Library staff needed to guide students in using E-resources and last but not least information on Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites should be updated promptly to provide current Library information online. 5.3 Discussion 5.3.1 Respondents demographics. The respondents were selected from the Library staff who works at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (JKML) and students who access and utilize the main campus Library popularly known as Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. Forty seven respondents (47) participated in the study where by 7(14.9%) were Library staff and 40(85.2%) students. 3(6.4%) Library staff were Male and 4(8.5%) were Female consecutively. Twenty students 20(43%) were Male while Twenty 20(43%) were Female respectively. Among the Female library staff, 1(2.1%) was interviewed while 3(6.4%) filled the questionnaire. The figure of 47 respondents represent the total number of respondents who were issued with the questionnaire and the one who was interviewed. Thirty five students 35(87.5%) and Six Library staff 6(85.7%) returned their questionnaire respectively. Five female students 5(12.5%) and One male library staff 1(14.3%) did not return their questionnaire at collection time. This means that: Two male library staff 2(28.6%) and Four female library staff (57.1%) respectively filled and returned their questionnaire. Twenty male students 20(50%) and Fifteen female students 15(37.5%) consecutively returned their questionnaire. The demography indicated that Female Library staff were more than their male counterpart while the number of students who participated in the study was evenly distributed based on gender parity. The percentage age group of five library staff who returned their questionnaire comprised: Between Twenty and Twentynine years age bracket (20-29yrs) had One library staff 1(20%) ; Forty and Fortynine years(40-49yrs) age bracket constituted three library staff 3(60%),While :Fifty and Fiftynine years(50-59yrs) age bracket included One library staff 1(20%). The age of the respondent who was interviewed was not captured.

78 management on the purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0/Social Networking Sites at 62 The age bracket of 15-19 years, had Twenty five students 25(71.43%); 20-29 years age bracket had Seven students7(20%); Thirty and Thirty nine years age bracket (30-39yrs) constituted two students 2(5.71%); Forty and Fortynine years (40-49yrs) age bracket had One student 1(2.86%). Students who were were aged between Fifty and Fiftynine (50-59) years old did not participate in the study.Thus majority of students who participated in the study were aged between 15-19 years old 5(71.43%); followed by students aged between 20-29 years old 7(20%) ; 30-39years old 2(5.71%) and last but not least 40-49 years old age group had one student 1(2.86%) conscutively. The percentage of Library staff according to the Designation ; Section and qualification was as follows: The Deputy director planning1(16.7%) representing management-(Masters Degree Holder); ;System Librarian in digital content 1(16.7%)-(Masters Degree Holder); Senior Library Asssitant in digital content section1(16.7%)-(Diploma Holder ); In Africanna section 1(16.7%) Library Assistant -(Masters Degree Holder ). Another Library Assistant1 (16.7%) in Cataloguing section was (Undergraduate Degree Holder) and last but not least 1(16.7%) Library Assistant in circulation section had a dipoma certificate respectively. Three female library staff had the highest qualification of a Masters Degree, while one male and female library staff among the respondents who participated in the study respectively had the lowest qualification of a Diploma certificate. According to the findings of the study, the level of the qualification of a staff had no influence on how library staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools/SNS. The percentage of students respondents who participated in the study according to school was as follows: Arts 13(37.14%), Business studies 9(25.71%), Built Environment1(2.86%), Computing Informatics1(2.86%), Economics7(20%),Engineering3(8.57%)and International studies1(2.86%).Majority of the students who participated in the study were from the school of Arts followed by Businness; Economics; Engineering; International relationship with computing informatics respectively. 5. 3.2 The Perception of the Interviewee on the Purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website An interview method was applied to obtain the perception of Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library

79 63 JKML. According to the Deputy Director Planning at JKML Mrs Agatha Kabugu the University of Nairobi Library management has recognized the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites to bridge an information gap at JKML.She illustrated that the Library is using these emerging technologies to create online visibility ; updates the patrons on the new library materials ; publish Library events; conduct community outreach programmes as one of the corporate Social responsibility Library services ; Promote Library services and last but not least create wareness on using electronic resources. The Deputy Director confirmed that the Library is using :YouTube, Facebook and Twitter as the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites respectively to provide the online Library services.She indicted that 80% of the online Library interaction is done on Facebook followed by Twitter.This confirms the findings of the study undertaken on the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking in university Libraries in Kenya, which established that the most popular Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in Kenyan University libraries are: Facebook followed by Twitter, RSS, SlideShare, YouTube, Flicker, and blogs in that order; this trend seems to follow the general adoption of these tools for information use while others remain dormant on the University Library website (Mutula, 2006). According to the interviewee the University of Nairobi Library ICT technician and System Librarian are in charge of facilitating the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at JKML. Mrs Agatha Kabugu highlighted that the Library staff should be passionate and develop an interest in using Web 2.0 tools/SNS to connect with library patrons and provide Library information online. Mrs Kabugu confirmed that students normally access and utilizes Facebook daily to: ask questions, inquire about library services, request for new service offered by other University Libraries; Like the page and congratulate the Library Staff for their services. In terms of challenges faced in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website, the interviewee indicated the following:Person challenges of fearing to embrace change; Time constraints was identified by 4(80%) of the staff who filled the questionnaire.There was also lack of interest and documented policy to guide the use of these technologies.

80 64 The Deputy Director suggested that to manage these challenges, Library staff should be encouraged to communicate and collaborate with other information professionals and their patrons using Web 2.0 tools/SNS; through: talks on Library 2.0; training approaches and above all policy guidelines. The Interviewee recommended the following Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites to be accessed and utilized in University Libraries: See 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. 3.Web 2.0 Tools recommended by the interviewee and their Use RSS Feed (Providing updates on New Library resources). Podcast (Providing online information literacy). Slide share (Online presentation). You tube (Providing Tutorials on E-resources and digital content access). Blogs (Professional publishing). 4.Social Networking Sites Face book: Marketing Library services and engaging with the Patrons by chatting. Twitter: Evaluation of Library service. LinkedIn: Professional networking and discussions. The findings gathered from the interview was that University of Nairobi Library management has recognized the significance of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and are utilizing the technologies to create online visibility; promotion of its services; engaging the students to determine their needs and also networking with other information professionals globally.

81 65 4.General responds on perceptions and purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sites according to the System Librarian (Digital Content); Senior Library Assistant (Digital Content) ; 3 Library Assistants(Africanna; Circulation and Cataloguing) The System Librarian (Digital Content); Senior Library Assistant (Digital Content) and three Library Assistants in Africanna; circulation and cataloguing section consecutively, highlighted that Web 2.0 tools and Social networking tools are relevant to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library. From the responds of the Library staff at JKML, the study established that the benefits and advantages associated with access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites in University Libraries are numerous. As anticipated in relation to the knowledge in the literature review these emerging online communication technologies were reported to facilitate information and knowledge sharing, service enhancement and promoting interaction with students. The Library staff provided the following responds on the purpose of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website: 1.Publishing Library events: Four library staff 4 (80%) Agree; One library staff 1(20%) Strongly Agree; 2.Offering Information literacy on E-books and Journals:Four library staff 4( 80%)Agree; One library staff 1(20%)Strongly Agree; 3.Updating students on digital content: Two library staff 2(40%) Agree; Three library staff 3(60%) Strongly Agree. These responds indicated that majority of the staff appreciated the significance of Web 2.0 tools/SNS in their library work. The study findings illustrated that University Libraries can use Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking Sites to: Connect Library staff with their patrons online; Provision of an avenue of getting feedback from the patrons pertaining the Library services; marketing electronic resources and digital repository content; updating staff and students on the latest Library events; enabling the Library staff to network with other information professionals. As regard to the challenges incurred in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites the Library Staff provided the following responds: The challenge of time is faced by four 4(80%) of the five respondents who participated in the study while One library staff 1(20%) does not face time as a challenge in accessing and using

82 66 the Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website for the purpose in Table 10;Lack of skills is not a challenge to all the five respondents who participated in the study, they all have pre- requisite skills required in using Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website for the purpose in Table 10. Also lack of facilities (Computer/Internet) is not a challenge to all the five respondents in access and utilization of the Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website for the purpose in Table 10. The challenge of poor connectivity is faced by 1(20%) of the five respondents who participated in the study, while the challenge of power outage is encountered by 3(60%) of the five respondents who participated in the survey. Two 2(40%) of the respondents don’t think power outage is a challenge in accessing and utilization of these emerging technologies for the purpose in Table.10. The findings of the study showed that all the respondents who participated in the study have competence in computers skills and JKML has provided enough computers to the Library staff. However 4(80%) of the Library staff don’t have adequate time for accessing and using Web 2.0 tools/SNS linked on JKML website; One of the library staff 1(20%) think time is not a challenge in using these tools.One of the library staff 1(20%) encountered poor connectivity challenge in using these Web 2.0 tools/ SNS in the Library. Power outage challenge is encountered by 3(60%) of the Library staff who participated in the study. Two library staff 2(40%) felt that there is enough power supply at JKML. According to the findings of the study, four 4(80%) of the staff felt that time is a challenge when it comes to access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/SNS on JKML website and thus the following solutions were suggested :Establish a customer care unit to market the Library through Web 2.0 tools /SNS;Increase staff capacity to reduce workload so that the available staff can have more time for providing online Library service using Web 2.0 tools/SNS;Library staff should use Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to network; 1(20%) of the staff suggested that poor connectivity in Library to be managed by increasing bandwidth and buying high speed computers. To eradicate power outage challenge 3(60%) of the Library staff recommended that high capacity standby generator be purchased.

83 67 These findings on challenges of using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites : illustrated that Four 4(80%) of the Library staff did not have time to use Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to provide Library services online. University Library management must support the Library staff in access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to dessiminate Library information online by developing policy guideline which will enhance utilization of these emerging technologies. All Universities Libraries should integrate and use Web 2.0 tools/SNS in the Library to; create online visibility in this digital era and enhance staff capacity through training on Library emerging trends like Library 2.0. 5.4.1 Perceptions and Purpose of Web 2.0 /Social Networking Sites according to the Students who participated in the Study. The first questionnaire was purposively designed to test students knowledge about Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites.The questionnaire simply asked the students whether they use Web 2.0 tools like(blogs;Wikis;Podcast; RSS feeds, Google maps; Photosharing; tools and Flickr) and Social Networking Sites like(Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn and Myspace). Thirty five respondents 35(87.5%) including Male students 20(50%) and Female 15(37.5%) indicated awareness of what Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking site is.Thus the findings showed that students are a aware of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and they are using them to communicate online, hence University Libraries must adopt the new digital dispensation and integrate Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in the University Library system. 5.4.2 Knowledge of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Website Among the 35 respondents who participated in the study only 3 (8.57%) Male students and 3(8.57%) Female students knows the various types of Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to the University Library Website. Among the 3(8.57%) Male students who knows web 2.0 tool/SNS on the JKML website, 1(2.86%) student mentioned Facebook and You tube; Another 1(2.86%) Male student mentioned Facebook and the third one mentioned YouTube respectively.These male students were in the age bracket of 15-19 years and were pursuing undergraduate degree course.

84 68 Regarding Female students: 3(8.57%) Female students only, knows the Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to JKML website.One 1(2.86%) mentioned Google maps; 2(5.7%) identified Facebook and Twitter. Among these students the one who indicated Google maps was aged between 20-29 years old and was doing Phd degree course, the other two who mentioned Facebook and Twitter were undertaking undergraduate degree course, they were aged between 15-19 years old. The findings of the study illustrated that only 6(17%) a mong the 35(100%) students who participated in the study by filling and returning their questionnaire are aware of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites being used by JKML and have accessed and utilized them. From the 35(87.5%) respondents constituting: 20(50%) Male and 15 (37.5%), Fifteen15(42.9%) Male students do not know any of the Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to JKML website, 14(40%) of these students were aged between 15-19yrs old and doing undergraduate degree course,while 1(2.86%)was in the age bracket of 20-29yrs old and was undertaking undergraduate degree course respectively. Among the female students: Eleven 11 (31.42% ) female students were not able to identify any Web 2.0 tools and SNS linked to JKML website. Among these female students 3(8.57%) were aged between 15-19yrs old and doing undergraduate degree course;Two 2(5.71%) were pursuing Phd course;One1(2.86%) was aged between 40-49yrs old and another one 1(2.86%) was aged between 30-39yrs old; Three 3(8.57%) were Masters students aged between 20-29 years and last but not least One 1(2.86%) was in the age bracket of 30-39yrs respectively. Another category of students who participated in the study, Two 2(5.71%) Male students indicated E-resources as Web 2.0 tools /SNS linked to JKML website, One 1(2.86%) was aged between 15-19 years old and doing undergraduate degree course,while One 1(2.86%) was in the age bracket of 20-29 years old, he was pursuing undergraduate degree course.One 1 (2.86%) Female student aged between 15-19 years old was pursuing undergraduate degree course, She also mentioned E-resoures as Web 2.0 tools/SNS attached to JKML website.The students responds in Table 9, 10 and 11 respectively did not indicate that they don’t understand what Web 2.0 tools /SNS are, because feedback on awareness in Tabe 8 illustrated precisely that all 35(87.5%) respondents used Facebook; Twitter and Youtube among other Web 2.0tools/SNS to communicate online.This study demonstrated that there is no correlation between age and study level in relation to awareness of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website.

85 69 The findings of the survey illustrated that University of Nairobi Library staff have not created awareness programme for students on the use of Web 2.0 tools/SNS even after including them on their website. These findings are useful to JKML management and other global University Library management because they demonstrated that, linking Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on the Library website without promoting and creating awareness about them is a waste of time, since Library users cannot access and utilize them without knowing their availability and relevance to their University Library information needs. 5. 4.3 Purpose for which students Access and Utilize Web 2.0/SNS tools According to the findings gathered from the students who knows the Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites on JKML website, it was established that the purpose for accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites was to obtain: information;communicate with the Library staff and find out how to information in the Library. Majority of the students accessed Web 2.0 Library related retrieve research tools and Social Networking sites daily. These students faced the following challenges when accessing and utilizing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites on JKML website: slow net; limited computers; unstable Wifi connectivity; limited assistance from Library staff and slow update of information on these Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites respectively. Those who mentioned that electronic resources like books and journals are among the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on Jomo Kenyatta memorial Library also incurred the above challenges when accessing and utilizing E-resources,in addition they also stated that they are not able to access Electronic-resources through advanced search, it is very challenging without guidance of the Library staff.Students suggested the following measures to be undertaken by the JKML management in managing the above mentioned challenges: Increase bandwidth; buy more computers; stabilize Wifi connectivity; Increase staff to facilitate access/utilization of Web 2.0 tools/SNS and E-resources; establish guides on access/utilization of the E-resources, last but not least they proposed that Web 2.0/SNS tools on the Library website should be updated and marketed to students. These findings highlighted that Web 2.0 tools /SNS can be used by students to access and utilize Library related information; communicate with the Library staff by making inquiries and

86 79 requests on how to access and retrieve University Library information such as E-resources and digital Content.The findings of this survey are resourceful to the University of Nairobi Library management. The most pertinent finding of the study is that after adopting Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites namely: Youtube with Facebook and integrated them into the Library system, It is imperative to market and promote them to the Patrons in order to enhance their access and utilization for library related online information and services. 5.5 General Findings of the study The general findings of the study indicated that University of Nairobi Library staff, have embraced Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites, this habit has become a global trend, in the Information Profession. Furthermore the researcher established that Jomo Kenyatta Memorial library has adopted the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to compliment its traditional information and services like OPAC, thus transforming its channels of disseminating information services to web 2.0 technologies which synchronizes online interaction with the digital patron. The results of this study can be attributed to the fact that globally, academic libraries have realized the impact of the emerging technologies on the current student; researcher and Library clients whose information seeking habits have been greatly influenced by the emerging information technologies such as Facebook; Twitter; Blogs; RSS feeds among others. As highlighted by Mrs Agatha Kabugu it is evident that while time may be a challenge to Library staff in making use of Web 2.0 tools, it is possible for information professionals to use these emerging technologies by embracing them, being passionate about them, beside avoiding techno- phobia habits and utilize Web 2.0 tools/SNS to create content and disseminate it online, instead of remaining in their old cocoon of the four walled Library. The findings from the students who have have accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools /SNS on JKML website demonstrated that students have embraced these Web 2.0 tools and are using them daily to communicate, thus University Library staff need to make use of these emerging technologies to create online visibility and connect with the students to identify their changing needs; dessiminate them online in order to remain relevant in the new digital dispensation.

87 71 This study also established that Library staff and students encountered various challenges when it comes to access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools which encampassed: Poor internet connectivity; Power outage and Time constraints. According to Mrs Agatha Kabugu University of Nairobi Library does not have a policy document to guide the access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools; She indicated that plans are underway to develop a specific policy to facilitate the use of these Web 2.0 tools/ SNS site at JMKL.It was noted by the researcher that the Library staff at JKML did not mention constraints related to ethical and legal issues indicated in the literature review that are part of the global challenges which have always been overlooked by most information professionals when facilitating the use of internet information resources, where by no clear interpretation has been defined by international copyright convention on what is fair use and an infringement against copyright law(Mutula, 2011). The findings of this survey confirmed that Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites are relevant to University Libraries; However even though the University of Nairobi Library has embraced the use of these emerging technologies by linking Facebook; Twitter and Youtube to JKML website, majority of students have not accessed and utilized them. There was need for University Libraries to promote these tools by creating awareness programmes and having policy document in place, which will guide maximum; effective; professional; ethical and legal use of these Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at JKML. 5.6 Conclusion The findings of this study indicated that Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites have been adopted and are being used by the University of Nairobi Library staff and students. It was also established that majority of the students have not accessed and utilized Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites on Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library website. According to the findings of this study and documented knowledge in the literature reviewed, the benefits of using Web 2.0 tools by University Libraries are numerous. Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites have been perceived to be helpful in promoting University library services and connecting with students online. Moreover, the tools were also reported to be helpful for internal staff communication (Makori, 2011). However, the implementation of these tools by the University of Nairobi Library staff was found to be challenged by limited time and perceived inadequacy of the staff to keep

88 72 pace with the development of technology. There was need to address these challenges by University libraries that intend to adopt Web 2.0 tools /Social Networking platforms effectively. The students who have not accessed and utilized these tools indicatedthat awareness programmes about access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to connect withthe Library Staff at Nairobi University should be conducted by the University Library management.The findings of this study offered insights on University library Kenyan experience in using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites, which provided useful basis for library staff and professionals who are considering the possibility of embracing Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites as part of their system. The phenomena of Web 2.0 tools/ Social Networking Sites is still undergoing metamorphosis, As this occurs, University libraries constitute the group that may benefit from accessing and utilization of these tools in a progressive manner. Findings of this study suggest that factors related to time pressure for the staff and awareness on Library related benefits of using Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites by University students need to be addressed in order to maximize the advantage of benefits offered by these web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites. 5. 7 Recommendations In the Era of digital dispensation University libraries need to realize that patrons information needs and searching habits are changing due to the influence of emerging technologies like Web 2.0 tools/Social networking sites on communication. Therefore to remain relevant, University Libraries need to seize the opportunity created by Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites to complement their traditional library services like reference querry services, with interactive services like tweeting in order to attract, embrace and satisfy the information needs of the online Library Patrons. This study has demonstrated that Library Professionals at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library have realized the relevance of integrating Web 2.0 tools such as You tube and Social Networking Sites including Facebook and Twitter in their Library system. The responds from the staff illustrated that Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites can be used by the university library to create online visibility; provide outreach community programmes on library services; promoting and marketing the library services ; enhance collaboration among library staff and connect with students online to establish their information

89 73 needs.The University students have embraced the use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites and are utilizing them everyday to communicate online, however in terms of awareness only six students among the thirtyfive students who participated in the study knows the type of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites used by JKML staff.These findings confirmed that the University of Nairobi Library staff have not marketed these tools. Even though the Library staff at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library understand the importance of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in the Library, they haven’t utilized them comprehensively due to various challenges.The Library staff stated that time constraints due to the workload available, does not allow them to access and utilize these emerging technologies in their work. Poor internet connectivity and power outage was also a challenge in facilitating the use of these tools by both staff and students. The researcher recommended that: First the University of Nairobi Library management must develop a policy document to guide access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites by Library staff and students.Secondly all staff should be trained on Library 2.0 skills in order to equip them with professional skills on:Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites such as Blogs, RSS feed, Podcast, Bookmarks, Instant Messaging services, You tube, Facebook, Twitter; LinkedIn with MySpace respectively. Last but not least skills on ethical and legal issues including :Copright laws and privacy laws associated with use of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites must be provided to staff using internal training approach. Through user education students should be informed about the use of these tools to connect with the Library staff and the Library management must improve internet connectivity and power back up, to enhance access and usage of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites linked to the University Library website. Furthermore the University of Nairobi Library should establish Web 2.0 public relation office equipped with all the electronic equipments and personnel in form of Ask Librarian to moderate access and utilization of these tools by updating the information online and providing feedback to inquries from the Library patrons. Finally the researcher recommended that University Libraries and any other Information Centres planning to adopt the use of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites, should only do so if they intend to use them regulary by posting current information on these sites and promptly providing feedback to inquiries made by the Patrons, there is no need of including Youtube on the library website without utilizing it.

90 74 5.8 Limitations and further studies While the results of this study offered resourceful findings on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library, the researcher acknowledged that limited generalization might have been made due to the relatively small sample size. This study aimed to provide a broad perspective by evaluating access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites by University Libraries in Kenya, but an alternative approach might reveal a deeper understanding of access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites in University libraries in Kenya by involving more Library staff and students from a few selected public and private Universities libraries in Kenya. Further studies should consider involving more students in order to have a grasp of comprehensive perceptions and needs of the user groups. This study focused on University libraries in Kenya, and it would be interesting to explore if similar experiences on Web 2.0 tools/Social Networking Sites might have occurred in libraries of non-academic nature.

91 75 REFERENCES Allard, S. (2009). “Library managers and information in world 2.0”, Library Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-68.Available at: http://www.oclc.org/reports/sharing/ accessed on 14/3/2014.http://www.oclc.org/reports/sharing/ Boyd, D. M. and N. B. Ellison(2007).Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (1). Bradley, P. (2007). How to use Web 2.0 tools in Your Library. London; Facet Publishers Ltd. Brown, N.E., Bussert, K.(2007).Information literacy 2.0: Empowering Students through personal engagement [Internet]. Seventh International Educational Technology (IETC): -Conference; Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; 3–5 May 2007. Buckley.R (2009).Socialnetworking can cause problems in workplace but there are solutions- Haymarket media live. Burkhardt, A.(2010). Social media: A guide for college and university libraries. College & Research Libraries News 71 (1):10-24. C a o, D. ( 2 0 0 9 ). “ C h i n e s e L i b r a r y 2. 0 : s t a t u s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t ”, Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal, Vol. 27, available at: www.iclc.us/cliej/cl27cao.htm:Accessed on 14/3/2014. Charnigo. L. & Barnet-Ellis, P. (2007).” Checking out Facebook.com: the impact of digital trend on academic Libraries Information Technology and Libraries Vol.26 No.1, pp.23-34. Chu, M. &Y. Nalani-Meulemans(2008).The Problems and Potential of MySpace and Facebook Usage in Academic Libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 13 (1):69-85.

92 76 Collins G, Haase AQ,(2012).Social media use by Ontario University libraries: Challenges and ethical considerations.Conference Proceedings of the Canadian Association of Information Science..Social media use by Ontario University libraries: Challenges and ethical considerations Connell, R.S.( 2009). Academic Libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and Student Outreach: A Survey of Student Opinion. portal: Libraries & the Academy 9 (1):25-36. Dadzie, Perpetua S. (2007). Information Literacy: assessing the readiness of Ghanaian Universities, Information Development; vol 23, No. 4, pp 265-277. De Rosa, et al(2007).Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. Foley, M. (2002). Instant Messaging reference in an academic Library: a case study,” College and Research Libraries, Vol. 63, pp.36-45. Graham, J.M., A. Faix, & L. Hartman(2009).Crashing the Facebook party:One library's experiences in the students' domain. Library Review 58 (3):228-236. Habib, M.(2006).Conceptual model for academic library 2.0. Michael Habib's weblog on library and information science. from http://mchabib.blogspot.com/2006/06/conceptual-model-for- academic-library.html.Accessed on 20/3/2014.from http://mchabib.blogspot.com/2006/06/conceptual-model-for- Han Z, & Liu, Y (2010).” Web 2.0 tools application in top Chinese University Libraries? Library Hi Tech, Vol. 28 No.1, pp.41-62. Harinarayana, N. & Raju.N. (2010). “Web 2.0 tools features in University Library Websites,” The Electronic Library, Vol. 28 No.1.pp 69-88.

93 Harnesk, J.(2010).“Social media in libraries: European survey findings”, available at: www. slideshare.net/jhoussiere/social-media-usage-in-libraries-in-europe-survey-teaser:Accesed on 14/3/2014www. Hawkins, B.L., Battin, P. (1998). "The mirage of continuity: reconfiguring academic information resources for the 21st century", Council on Library and Information Resources & Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, Hitwise Intelligence Report (2008). Hoffman, E. S( 2009).Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning. In Technology, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html International Electronic Journal, Vol, 27,, available at: www.ICC. us/chej/c/27cao.htm.Accessed on 12/3/2014 http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html Jones, B.E. & S.C.O. Conceicao(2008).Can social networking tools foster informal learning?. In 24th Annual conference on distance teaching and learning. Madison, Wisconsin. King, D, & Brown, S (2009).’Emerging trends 2.0 and libraries ‘’ Serial librarian, 56(1-4), 32-43 Kothari,C.R(2004).Research methodology: methods and techniques,NewDelhi:New International Ltd. Lemley, T., & Burham, F. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in medical and nursing school curricula J Med Libr Assoc.97(1): 50–52 Library philosophy and practice, available at: http://unilib.unl.edulLPP/mahmood-pdf.Accessed on 14/12/2013. http://unilib.unl.edulLPP/mahmood-pdf.Accessed Lougee,W.P(2002).Diffuse Libraries: emergent Roles for the Research Library in the Digital- Age, Washington-Council on Library and Information Resources. Lundsay. J. (2010).Managing the workplace ethics of Social media,” available at:www.google.com/site Lundsay ‘mthompson/accessed on 12 December 2013. at:ww.google.com/si 77

94 78 Lyons, D.(2008).” Facebooks rear becomes a meow.”Newsweek, Vol.152.16.p.22 Macmanns, B. (2009). “The implications of Web 2.0 tools for academic Libraries,’ Electronic journal of Academic and special Librarianship Vol.10 No.3, pp.1-10. Makori, E.O (2011). Bridging information gap with the patrons in University Libraries in Africa: The case for Investment in Web 2.0 tools System. Accessed at www.emeraldinsight.com/0024- 2535htm,July 2011.ssed at www.emeraldinsight.com/0024- Miller, P. (2005).Do libraries matter?: The rise of library 2.0 (A Talis White Paper), Talis. :.Do libraries matter?: The rise of library 2.0 http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf:Accessed on 15/2/2014. Miranda, G., Gultier, F. & Coucia.P (2010).How the Web generation are changing Library and Information services,” medical reference services Quarterly, Vol.29 No.2 PP.132-145. Munatsi, R.(2010). Implementation of library 2.0 services in African academic and research Libraries: need for fundamental rethink, “ proceedings of the 19 th standing of conference of Eastern Central, Southern Africa Library and information Associations(SCESSAL) held at the University of Botswana, Gaborone, 6-9 December, 2010. Mutula, S.M &Braman S. (2011).Feedback from second information ethics conference, “presentation made at the Information ethics Research Workshop, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 4-5 July. Mutula, Stephen.M (2006).” RSS” Library Technology reports. Vol.42 No. 4.pp.36- 44.: Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1). O’Brien, J. (1996).Management information systems: managing information technology in the networked enterprise. O‘Reilly, T., & Musser, J (2006).Web 2.0 tools : Principles and best practices. O‘Reilly Media Inc.OCLC (2007). Sharing, privacy, and trust in our networked world.

95 79 O’Reilly, T.(2007).“What is Web 2.0 tools design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, “communication and strategies, Vol.65, pp.17-37. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? - http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web- 20.html#mememap:Accessed on 10/3/2014.. What is web 2.0? http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web- Oyieke, L.I (2012).Leveraging University Libraries through Web 2.0 tools : Implications for academic librarians and the scholarly Online Communities in Kenya: Paper Presented at SCECSAL XXth conference hosted by KLA on 4 th -8 th June 2012 Venue Laico Regency Hotel Nairobi Kenya. Passy, F.(2003).Social movements and networks. In Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by M. Diani and D. McAdam. New York: Oxford University Press. Peltier-Davis, C. (2009).“Web 2.0 tools, Library 2.0 User 2.0, Librarian 2.0: Innovative Services for sustainable Libraries,” computers in Libraries Vol.29.No.10.pp.16-21. Roscoe,J.T.,(1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences(2 nd ed.),NewYork:Holt, Rinehart and Winstone. Tripathi; M, and Kumar (2010).” Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: Reconnaissance of the International /Scape; The International Information and Library Review, Vol. 42. No.3pp.195-207. UNESCO (2008). Ethical issues of information society? Available at: www.unesco.org (web world/en (ethic –information society Accessed on 11 th Dec.2013.www.unesco.org University of Nairobi (2014).Library brochure. Nairobi.University of Nairobi Printing Press. University of Nairobi wikipedia: Accessed on 19/2/2014 at: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/d on 19/2/2014 at: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/ Vubis smart modules: htt://www.libraryextensity.com/page/infosheeteng-Lib,html. Accessed on://www.librryextensity.com/page/infosheeteng-Lib,html. 3/3/2014

96 80 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE QUESTIONS FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING SECTION A: Deputy Director Planning perceptions and purpose of access and utilization of Social Networking Sites with Web 2.0 tools at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library 1 (a) Can Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools be used to bridge information gap in Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? Yes [ ]No [ ] (b)Give reason for your answer in (a) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. (a) Have you officially adopted and linked Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? Yes [ ]No [] (b) If your answer in (a) is yes, which Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools have been adopted and linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site?............................................................................................................................................................

97 81 Section B- The extent at which library staff access and utilize Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial library 3.How are the adopted Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools used by the library staff at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? ………………………………………………………………………………………............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.(a) Have you appointed a specific Library Staff to facilitate access and utilization of Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools by staff and students at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? Yes [ ]No [ ] (b)Which library staffs are responsible for managing access and utilization of Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools by Library staff and Students at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? 1.………………………………… 2.………………………………… 3.…………………………………. 4.………………………………… (c)Which skills does a library staff require to facilitate access and utilization of Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? …………………………… …………………………….

98 82 Section C-Extent at which students access and utilizeWeb2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site. 5 (a). Have you established awareness programme for students on access and utilization of Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site? Yes [ ]No [ ] (b). Are the students accessing and utilizing Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site? Yes [ ]No [ ] (c) How often do the students access and utilize Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools at Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library? Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] others please specify ……………………………………… Section D-Purpose for which Students access and utilizeWeb2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site. (6 a).What purpose do students access and utilize Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Section E- Challenges encountered by library staff and students in accessing and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site and solutions 6. (a) Which challenges do the Library Staff and students encounter in accessing and utilization of Social Networking Sites/Web 2.0 tools linked to Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site? (b) How do you manage these challenges? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

99 83 Section F- JKML Director’s suggestions on access and utilization of Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools in University Libraries 7. Apart from the Web 2.0 tools and Social Networking Sites tools that have been adopted and linked to the Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library Web site, which other can you recommend for University Libraries and how can they be used? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

100 84 APPENDIX II: LIBRARY STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER JOSEPH KUTIALO MWANZO MOI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES P.O BOX 63056-00200 NAIROBI 21/2/2014 Dear Respondent RE: RESEARCH PROJECT STUDY Iam an undergraduate student pursuing Bachelor of Science degree course in Information sciences at Moi University-Nairobi Satellite Campus. As requirement of the award of the degree, in Bachelor of Science in Information Sciences; Iam undertaking a research project on: ‘’Evaluation of Access and utilization of Social networking sites and Web 2.0 tools in University libraries in Kenya: case study of University of Nairobi Library: Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library”. Attached please find the questionnaire. I promise that the information given will be treated confidentially and used for intended purpose. Thank You for Your Cooperation Joseph Kutialo Mwanzo Mobile Number: 0720432889/0733540449 Email:[email protected] Email:[email protected]