Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln



Adibi, Awele and okocha, foluke, "Adoption of Web 2.0 Applications for Education by Students in Nigeria" (2019).Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2507.

Allen, B., & David, R. (1990).Content analysis in library and information science research.Library & Information Science Research, 12(3), 251–262.

Baro, E. E., Joyce Ebiagbe, E., &Zaccheaus Godfrey, V. (2013). Web 2.0 tools usage: a comparative study of librarians in university libraries in Nigeria and South Africa. Library Hi Tech News, 30(5), 10–20.

Boateng, F., &Quan Liu, Y. (2014). Web 2.0 applications’ usage and trends in top US academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32(1), 120–138.

CuongLinh, N. (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries.Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 630–653.

Han, Z., &Quan Liu, Y. (2010). Web 2.0 applications in top Chinese university libraries. Library Hi Tech, 28(1), 41–62.

Idiegbeyan-ose, Jerome; Okocha, Foluke; Aregbesola, Ayooluwa; Owolabi, Sola; Eyiolorunshe, Toluwani; and Yusuf, Felicia, "Application of Web 2.0 Technology in Library and Information Centres in Developing Countries: Challenges and Way Forward" (2019). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2387.

Kannikaparameshwari, G., &Nikam, K. (2009).Evaluation of Web 2.0 Technologies Application in Selected Indian Libraries.Presented at the National Seminar on Management of Digital Information Sources, Bangalore: Department of Library and Information Center, RNS Institution of Technology. Retrieved from

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (3rd ed). Los Angeles ; London: SAGE.

Linh, N. C. (2008). A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries.Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 630–653. doi:10.1108/07378830810920950

Liu, S. (2008).Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Web Sites.College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 6–27

Mahmood, K., & Richardson, J. V. (2011). Adoption of Web 2.0 in US academic libraries: a survey of ARL library websites. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 45(4), 365–375. doi:10.1108/00330331111182085

Patel, Sandip and Poluru, Lalitha. (2013). How Far or Near to 24 X 7 Libraries? Analysis of Application of Web 2.0 Tools in University Libraries of Gujarat.In Rejuvenated Libraries for Empowered Users (Dr. TAV Murthy Festschrift Volume, 2012–13). UK: Digital Information Research Ltd.

PEW Research Centre. (2017, January 12). Social Media Fact Sheet. Retrieved August 26, 2017, from

Salinas, R. (2006). A content analysis of Latina Web content.Library & Information Science Research, 28(2), 297–324.

Si, L., Shi, R., & Chen, B. (2011).An investigation and analysis of the application of Web 2.0 in Chinese university libraries.The Electronic Library, 29(5), 651–668. doi:10.1108/02640471111177080

Tripathi, M., & Kumar, S. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international landscape. The International Information & Library Review, 42(3), 195–207. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.07.005

Xu, C., Ouyang, F., & Chu, H. (2009). The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0: Applications and Implications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 324–331. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.003


This research study aims to focus towards the application or evaluation of Web 2.0 tools in State University Libraries of India. The present study deals with the extent usage of Web 2.0 in State University Libraries of India.This research used content analysis based on quantitative and qualitative data which is collected by website observation and questionnaire method. Out of 348 Indian State University Libraries 69% of libraries are having official website and 31% of libraries are lacking any dedicated library webpage. It is found that 9.77% of the Indian State University Libraries were using Web 2.0 technologies to provide services to their users. It is found that the highest Web 2.0 application index is in state of Kerala. OPAC 2.0, Mashups, RSS, Social Bookmarking & Tagging, Social Networking Services, Vodcast and Blog are the most widely applied technology and YouTube, Google Docs, Instant Messaging, Wikis are the least used technology amongst respondent libraries.

appendix 1.pdf (54 kB)
Appendix 1

Appendix 2.pdf (130 kB)
Appendix 2

appendix 3.pdf (37 kB)



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.